Court SimonSIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you Madam Chair and thank you for the patience of my colleagues on this side of the House while I just seek clarification on a few more questions from the member responsible for the Canterbury Regional Council (Ngāi Tahu Representation) Bill Rino Tirikatene. Earlier in the evening I think I made a convincing case that there is no justification for the bill because the objectives that could be met through giving non-elected representatives of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu voting rights on Environment Canterbury could be fulfilled in other ways. But I just want to explore in terms of Part 2 if the member could give some explanation of what qualifications the people of Canterbury and the staff of Environment Canterbury could expect people appointed to a role on a governing body to have that would make them suitable for the role. I do know that Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu have a large amount of business and other corporate and community activity where they have directors with a lot of experience in managing businesses and managing people as a management role. But I'm wondering what qualifications the member might consider to be appropriate for people who are appointed to Environment Canterbury and what the expectations should be of staff at Environment Canterbury who are expected to provide what in other councils they might have called democracy services"—in other words staff who support the elected members in the same way as we have Parliamentary Service staff supporting the elected members in the House in Parliament. So I'm wondering firstly what are the qualifications that Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu might consider appropriate for people that they want to appoint to Environment Canterbury and that's so that if the member wants people watching the debate tonight or reading about it tomorrow in a broadsheet or potentially a tabloid newspaper or even on the internet to understand exactly what they might get if this bill actually passes through subsequent stages and receives the Royal assent—which at this stage it's still not clear whether that will happen. Just like the Rotorua representation bill of course which got to a certain point before it disappeared we can only assume into what I used to call file 13—the file under my desk. It was a circular-shaped file with an open top made of stainless steel where things I never wanted to see again went. We called it file 13 or the rubbish bin. So I'd ask the member to please clarify what are the qualifications for the Ngāi Tahu representatives. Do we expect them to be qualified as directors do we expect them to have had experience serving in governance roles and because there is no current possibility that they could be voted out in what way will they present their credentials that demonstrate they're qualified to act in a governance role having voting rights over the natural resources and the way that people use their land in Canterbury? So I want to understand a bit more about that. Just thinking about what conditions might occur where Environment Canterbury would want to say if a staff member or an elected member might find that the conduct of a representative of Ngāi Tahu—if in a highly unlikely situation that conduct was found to be unsatisfactory how do you see a process? Would it be a code of conduct process that councils currently operate or would these appointed members be subject to code of conduct proceedings that have sometimes been used to call to account elected members who have breached the standing orders of their council or who have otherwise behaved in a way that's considered egregious? So I'd like the member to describe firstly what are the qualifications he expects these appointees to have and on what basis can they be held to account through a code of conduct. Do you think they'll be subject to the same rules as other elected councillors? Thank you."