Court SimonSIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you very much for your patience Madam Chair and for the patience of those on this side of the Chamber who want to see this bill fully explored. So the member in the chair described candidates who are of a high calibre who are qualified in environmental disciplines potentially legal disciplines history archaeology and of course tikanga. Based on the personal experiences I've had in meeting representatives from Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu in their professional capacity I would concur that those people would be suitable representatives to act in a governance role on any kind of organisation. In fact the people that I know have such mana and appear so capable and competent it strikes me as bizarre that Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu in conjunction with Environment Canterbury would propose that they need to be appointed on to Environment Canterbury because those are just the kinds of individuals of whom were they to stand for election and to talk about the things that are important to their community and what they bring I have no doubt would stand a very good chance of being elected.So I just want to bring the member over to clause 13 Council may establish Māori constituencies" and just ask for a clarification. If these individuals of such great standing professional people competent people with a suitable track record to be in governance roles then wouldn't Environment Canterbury actually do more justice to the concept that they have representatives of the iwi's takiwā—Te Wai Pounamu the South Island—by actually saying we're going to set up Māori constituencies based on the Māori electoral role even? Or even whatever other electoral role they want to devise whether that's just Ngāi Tahu members—who knows what they might recommend.But it seems remarkable that if these individuals—who I know and who I think the member might be describing of such mana standing and competency. Wouldn't it be far better for their personal credibility for the credibility and integrity of Environment Canterbury and of course local government as a whole which has suffered terrible damage to its credibility over the past 18 months or so—particularly as some councils have taken the three waters bribe and others have said "We're not going to let out assets go". Wouldn't it be better for Ngāi Tahu and Environment Canterbury to say "Look how about we propose a Māori constituency and we hold an election where we put up some candidates we think are fine people and actually give that constituency an opportunity to give them a mandate."?Does the member think that that mandate having been elected would confer greater mana and respect on those people taking a seat at Environment Canterbury or is being appointed and having voting rights—does that indicate that they're in fact more suitable than if they were elected? It's quite confusing to understand even why these two elements are in the same bill: the opportunity to create a Māori constituency and of course the extended membership rights or special rights accorded to those members of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu. So I would like the member address that discrepancy. Why is it that these fantastic-sounding individuals couldn't put themselves up for election and be voted in on their own merits because it sounds like they'd make fantastic candidates just the kind of people we'd like to attract to local government. If that's the case wouldn't it be better for everybody in the long run if they sought a democratic mandate if Environment Canterbury dropped this proposal to appoint members with voting rights and went down the road of actually doing the hard work and establishing a Māori constituency? Thank you."