Brownlee GerryHon GERRY BROWNLEE (National): Firstly this is not a reinstatement bill. That is a misleading position being proffered by the sponsor of this local bill. The reality is that when Ngāi Tahu were appointed to those two positions so was everybody else on the board appointed to their position. So it was not a case of saying that Ngāi Tahu had a particular preference; it was a recognition of the fact that in a broad community where there is going to be an appointed board put together by the Minister then it's only appropriate to go to the widest possible representation. But in a democracy that we live in when there is an elected body then everybody in the community has an equal opportunity to stand and ultimately become elected. I don't think the claims made by the member that there is such widespread support for this in Canterbury can do anything other than support my view that should there be Ngāi Tahu candidates seeking election to this board then they would be successful. And I think we've got to be very very careful that we don't get carried away by a small group of the community who currently have representatives on the council and who have decided that this is a good thing to do. So while I'm not opposed to the input that comes from Ngāi Tahu—indeed I'm a very strong supporter of it and I think the fact that as a Minister I was instrumental in making them statutory partners in the recovery of Christchurch and the Greater Christchurch area earlier in the last decade demonstrates this.There are some questions that I think the member needs to answer fairly quickly in order for us to progress a reasonable debate on this particular bill. The first is: was this bill discussed inside the Labour caucus much as the Rotorua bill was given that the two of them are extremely similar? Second question is: did the Attorney-General issue a New Zealand Bill of Rights Act statement that was consistent with the statement issued on the Rotorua bill? And the third point would be: what was the reference that the current Environment Canterbury council membership took from their constituencies to advance this bill? Because as a ratepayer in Canterbury I do not recall ever being asked by the current council what my view was. It probably would have been a very favourable one—along the lines of let's get the democracy making the choices that would see this type of representation on the board around the council table.But as it stands this structure would mean that those two Ngāi Tahu representatives virtually had a veto over council decisions. Think about the 14 members sitting around the table look at their current political representation and recognise that the majority of them could be overturned anytime by the Ngāi Tahu representation. And I have to say to this House that the current representation of that particular council is not at all along the lines that my political view would like to see there but I can see that it is not appropriate to have a veto power inserted into the council structure—inserted onto the council—that would be able to be exercised against the judgment of elected members. And I say again that given the member's claims that there is such widespread support in Canterbury for this then surely any candidate going into an election with the imprimatur from Ngāi Tahu would be successful in their quest.I'd like those questions answered so that we can progress this debate. Was it discussed by the Labour caucus in the context of the Rotorua bill that that caucus rejected and was there a New Zealand Bill of Rights Act statement consistent with the Rotorua bill from the Attorney-General?