Mooney JosephJOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): Thank you Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of the National Party to speak on the Canterbury Regional Council (Ngāi Tahu Representation) Bill at its third reading. Before I begin I just want to acknowledge the members of Canterbury and Ngāi Tahu who are in the gallery and Tā Tipene O'Regan. I'll just touch on briefly the history. The National Party has had a proud history of developing its relationship with Māori developing its relationship with Ngāi Tahu. I think about the negotiations between the Treaty Minister Doug Graham who was the Treaty Minister in the National Government who negotiated with Tā Tipene O'Regan and Ngāi Tahu to have this settlement the Ngāi Tahu settlement which was signed in 1996. The National Party celebrates acknowledges and is proud for Ngāi Tahu and of Ngāi Tahu—the incredible efforts that Ngāi Tahu has made since then in developing their rohe developing their wellbeing and the wellbeing of their people. It's recognised throughout New Zealand and overseas the extraordinary efforts they have made since then to develop their people and their area and their business acumen is celebrated. The unfortunate thing is this bill has got it wrong. I've heard the Hon Willie Jackson make a number of interesting comments which I'll touch on which may indicate why there is some confusion that has led to where we are here. For example he talked about MMP and he said democracy changed. An interesting thing is that democracy changed in MMP when New Zealanders got a chance to vote on it in a referendum. When there is electoral change to the way that we operate and govern our country we have a constitutional convention of having a referendum so the people of New Zealand can make a decision about how they want to be represented and how they want to be governed. That has not happened here.We heard from the Hon Paul Goldsmith before who said that the regional council didn't even consult with their ratepayers. That is unfortunate. We have come to a place here where the regional council has sent a bill to Parliament and said to Parliament You sort it out." and we've just gone through a fairly truncated process and we are here now. This bill has a fundamental flaw in it from a constitutional perspective: it appoints two members to a body which is going to make the decisions for all of the people in its community. This undermines the constitutional convention of universal suffrage which has been a defining point of New Zealand for 129 years. New Zealand is one of the youngest countries in the world. We have one of the oldest democracies in the world. For 129 years we've had this convention that we have one person one vote. I heard Minister Willie Jackson again say "Oh it's not one person—it's one person two votes." Well the point is that everyone gets to make the vote for the electorate MP the person who represents them in the region and one vote for the party they want to represent them. Someone can for example think that their local member of Parliament who may belong to say the Labour Party is doing a good job for them but they think that the National Party by way of example would be better in terms of their values at a national level. So each person has a choice to make about the party and about the actual local representative for them. Everyone has that right.This bill undermines that principle of universal suffrage—that's everyone having one person one vote. Not only that but it actually undermines the principle of voting because these will be two members who are appointed to the regional council. Let's just be clear: this is local government. Local government is government and under our constitutional conventions we have this principle of universal suffrage. But it's not just a New Zealand principle. The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights was ratified in 1948 born out of the experiences of countries around the world with regimes that did not honour the principle of voting for people who govern them. There was an agreement to have this Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 21 made it very clear. It said "Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country directly or through freely chosen representatives"—not appointed representatives. It went on to say "The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall … be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures." So there is an international agreement that the will of the Government and the basis of the authority of the Government is expressed in genuine and free elections which are through universal suffrage. This bill undermines that principle.I would also note that the Attorney-General's opinion on this in my view has unfortunately not delved into this in any great detail. It's just said that "The Treaty of Waitangi settlement agreed between Ngāi Tahu and the Crown in November 1997 acknowledged the rangatiratanga and mana of Ngāi Tahu over their lands … and affirmed their 'special association' with the natural environment in a number of areas." It said "On the basis of this the Settlement awarded Ngāi Tahu positions of input into environmental management bodies throughout the South Island/Te Wai Pounamu. This included establishing a Ngāi Tahu statutory adviser position to the Department of Conservation and awarding dedicated seats to appointees of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu on the New Zealand Conservation Authority and on Conservation Boards within the Ngāi Tahu Claim Area." It goes on to say that it thinks that although this could ostensibly be seen as discriminating against others because they can't be appointed unless they're Ngāi Tahu they think because of the special relationship this bill is justified. It doesn't address that issue of universal suffrage. It does not address another key point. These bodies the New Zealand Conservation Authority the Department of Conservation are responsible to bodies which are politically accountable. That's an important point because people have a right to be governed by those over whom they have the right to have a say in whether they are appointed to their position of governance and a say in whether they are removed from their position of governance if they don't think they're doing a good job. This bill unfortunately undermines that key principle and undermines that fundamental democratic electoral accountability which has been key to balancing the different dynamics in our communities for 129 years. That is the point of democratic electoral accountability—that we have a lot of different opinions in our communities we have a lot of different views in our communities and we need to find ways to balance them; and that everyone has the view that they have at least had an opportunity to have an input into those decisions. This bill unfortunately undermines that. Let's just be clear. There wouldn't be too many people in New Zealand who don't think that the Treaty process has been a good one overall in terms of addressing historical grievances and in terms of making them right to a degree—certainly by no means perfect but making steps to acknowledge wrongs that've been done in the past and to make right those wrongs as far as has been possible through this democratic process. The important thing is that New Zealand has accepted that under our political system under a system in which each person has the right to participate in voting for those who make those decisions. That's a really key fundamental point.So I do unfortunately have to stand to oppose this bill and to say that it is unfortunate that we are undermining 129 years of universal suffrage in New Zealand. We are undermining the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. If I look at the Treaty of Waitangi we have article 1 which is kāwanatanga governorship and there's different views on this. There's article 2 which is rangatiratanga—rangatiratanga over taonga over lands and other treasures which Māori have and had at the time of signing the Treaty of Waitangi. Then there's article 3 which is equal rights of citizens of these lands. I do not see how this opinion from the Attorney-General has adequately connected those three critical principles in the Treaty of Waitangi with this bill. So it is with regret that I do have to rise to oppose this bill. I would stress that the National Party and myself are strong supporters of Ngāi Tahu and we wish their continued success into the future. But this bill is not a good one so I cannot commend this bill to the House."