Brownlee GerryHon GERRY BROWNLEE (National): In many ways the speech just given by the previous speaker Paul Eagle points to the ridiculous nature of this particular bill. He spoke about council-controlled organisations being stacked full of appointees. Well many of those appointees in actual fact are—all of them I would say—appointed because they have some degree of expertise. It's quite interesting that he points out CCL which is well chaired by Mr Barry Bragg who happens also to be Ngāi Tahu but is primarily appointed because he is a very capable individual. I'm sure that when that previous speaker advances his own intentions with regards to local government in the next few months he will equally be successful and nothing to do with the fact that he is Māori. So let me just straighten up a few things. We heard from Tāmati Coffey this glowing sort of condemnation of the National Party position because we apparently are backtracking on the previous position where there was one commissioner appointed to Environment Canterbury (ECan) at the time that ECan was sacked and replaced by commissioners. Now looking at that situation there had been 20 years where the ECan had failed totally to look after the water resource in Canterbury. Massively over-allocated. No real information about what its recharge capability was. It needed to have people with considerable expertise. As it happens Anake Goodall who was a Ngāi Tahu representative on that commission had that expertise quite brilliantly and he was chosen as a result of that. And I think given that the democracy had been taken away from people who would normally vote on that council it was only appropriate to have commissioners that represented the widest interests of the community possible. So that was the reason for the inclusion of Ngāi Tahu.I've got to say too that post the earthquakes in Christchurch Ngāi Tahu were a very very influential part of the recovery and included in all of that. But once again because that work was being done largely by a Government department it needed to have the sort of input that was required from the widest part of the community. How the widest part of the community is represented on a body like ECan is through the triannual elections. I don't see what the problem is for Ngāi Tahu to put up their own candidates openly saying that they're standing on that ticket. What would be wrong with that? Why is that so hard? Because I can tell you that the public view of Ngāi Tahu in Canterbury is very very positive—very positive. They are an organisation that contribute significantly to the wellbeing of the entire Te Wai Pounamu and particularly in the Ōtautahi community. I'm using those words almost with a degree of reluctance because I do remember being criticised very heavily by a recently appointed Knight of the Realm for using inappropriate vowels in a couple of sentences that I uttered at that time. You know I suppose through that I do understand to some extent the term grievance".But let me also look at for a moment the issues around what the Labour Party are calling co-governance—we would call co-management. So in the Ngāi Tahu Claims Settlement Bill there were a number of coastal areas that were set aside for exclusive use during different times of the year for Ngāi Tahu. There has never been an issue around any of that. There were a few skirmishes initially at a place called Kaiapoi which is Saltwater Creek but it settled very very quickly. And the recognition was of the customary rights that Ngāi Tahu had in that area and many others throughout the South Island. We also have post that period a number of tai-ā-pure that have been set up around the coastline and they are very much the local fishing interests the local community and Ngāi Tahu are involved in that as well and they have been enormously successful. We did have an arrangement around the Whanganui River and that has been successful. And then also in the Ureweras; very successful. And the reason for that is because it is a management of a specific location specific area with a very specific purpose. ECan has a very broad purpose a huge purpose and much of it affects commercial activity that takes place on the Canterbury Plains and into South Canterbury right up into North Canterbury as well up to the Alps. So a very very broad mandate that they have. And the question that sits in my head is: why would we say that this particular part of the community has a much greater interest in the environmental outcomes for that area? If it's just on the basis of principle which says "Well the Treaty demands it." then show us how that demand is being represented by this Government—because it's not. The Government has run a mile from this bill and allowed it to go through as a private bill. They'll go round and tell people quietly who aren't happy with it—and there were 1600 submitters who weren't happy with it—"Oh look we had no choice. It was what they wanted; we had to give it to them." They of course being ECan itself. So I think there's just bad process here as much as anything else. I have a huge respect for Ngāi Tahu for the engagement that I've had with them over a number of years. It's not day to day it's not week to week it's not month to month but it is certainly there—on a needs basis—and recognising they're an independent organisation that post their Treaty settlement have not relied on the Government for anything. I think in some ways this devalues their position in our community and I don't like that either. Over the weekend there was the announcement that Sir Tipene O'Regan was to be elevated to the Order of New Zealand. That is a most appropriate honour—one of the more appropriate honours that I've seen in my time in this House. I think—well he may well support this bill; I don't know what his views are. What he does support is a very independent a very strong and a very contributing Ngāi Tahu focused on the wellbeing of their people. I think this takes a little bit away from that. And I think the question I go back to the point I go back to is: why don't Ngāi Tahu sign up to a candidacy or more for ECan seats? I can't see what the problem is other than—just like everybody else in the community—Ngāi Tahu have different political views different political opinions and different political allegiances to any particular candidates who may or may not stand. And that I think further devalues the concept of saying "Well just the leadership of Ngāi Tahu can decide who these two new councillors are." So this is not in my opinion good legislation. If it was a Government bill then it would be the sort of thing that you would have the whole system of Government working on. There would be a consideration of the Tāmati Coffey position which is that this is precedent setting it's just the beginning and there's a whole lot more to come. The legislation that would flow from it would probably be schedule-based to enable such a thing. We probably wouldn't vote for that either. But the point is this Government won't do it either. So the question becomes should we support legislation that is almost hobby horse in its construction. Or should we take the appropriate ground as Paul Goldsmith so eloquently put it before and say "Look in a democracy"—and Paul Eagle made the same point in actual fact—"an elected body can make any appointments it wants." It can delegate certain responsibilities to those bodies. So in that case why would we start to weaken the supremacy of the elected body? And that is what this bill sets out to do and is the reason why we are not supporting it."