Court SimonSIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you Madam Chair. Thank you to the member for agreeing that we can agree to disagree. That's wonderful because much of the debate around these matters can descend into vitriol and it's important that we all recognise that we come here representing our constituents and what we believe are their needs.So coming back to the purpose of the bill if the purpose of the bill is to recognise that mana whenua—Ngāi Tahu in the South Island—have a special status and that that special status is so special that they require to have two members appointed to have voting rights over all the people of Canterbury then it would be very difficult to not assume that that special status could be accorded to other iwi who could claim special status in other regions of New Zealand and seek to have the precedent—the special status precedent that the member describes—applied to other forms of local government whether that be in Auckland for example. It turns out that Auckland Council when it was established responded to the need to co-operate with and have an active engagement with mana whenua by having two members of mana whenua appointed to Auckland Council in just the role that the member describes Ngāi Tahu should have on Environment Canterbury. So there's actually a precedent already set—in fact it's been demonstrated to work very effectively—to give a voice on Auckland Council for all of the mana whenua groups who are represented in Tāmaki-makau-rau.Hon Willie Jackson: That's right; it's called co-governance.SIMON COURT: And the Minister here the member Mr Jackson said that's called co-governance. However he's completely wrong because in Auckland Council—not only is he completely wrong he's completely wrong again as my friend and colleague Chris Baillie points out—the mana whenua representatives do not vote. They do not vote. They are appointed to give advice on matters that are important to mana whenua. So co-governance indicates—and the member's brought it up and I'd like him to stand up and defend that. If he thinks that this bill is around co-governance he should get up and explain why that's good—Hon Willie Jackson: I'd like to do that.SIMON COURT: Well he should. In fact the member is offering to stand up and we await his contribution. In fact if the member wants to stand up and defend the purpose of the bill he'd be the only Labour MP apart from the member who would be prepared to stand up and defend it. But so far all we've heard is crickets from that side of the House apart from the valiant efforts of the member Rino Tirikatene. So let's come back to the purpose. So there are clear precedents for mana whenua like Ngāi Tahu which has a special status as having taken over most of the South Island and so that's their rohe—special status. Auckland Council has a way around that. They have mana whenua appointees to the council. In fact when an ACT member of Parliament proposed the Auckland super-city that was one of the things that ACT said was a good idea.So to be clear to the member and to be clear to Mr Jackson who thinks that ACT has a problem with Māori having their voice or representation we don't; we supported the inclusion of mana whenua representatives on Auckland Council because we think it's really important that people who represent mana whenua get to have their say on matters that have cultural significance. And in fact if you think about all the opportunities for cooperation all the opportunities to give effect to the purpose of this bill that don't require Ngāi Tahu to have non-elected members appointed to be able to potentially override decisions of a split vote on Environment Canterbury to form their own alliances with elected members and to therefore exert an undue influence on decision making—if the purpose of the bill is to address the needs of mana whenua Ngāi Tahu to be heard around resource consenting decisions about matters that affect them in terms of cultural impacts there are many other opportunities to do that.That's why the ACT Party says this bill is completely unnecessary and the purpose you've described actually doesn't fulfil objectives that can't be met with all types of other mechanisms. So with all due respect to the member yes we do disagree. I do not consider that you have made the case as to why this bill is necessary. And to the member here Chlöe Swarbrick who said that basically this is to address colonisation well I'm afraid Chlöe Swarbrick there was a Treaty of Waitangi signed between two willing parties where two people with their feet in the sand and their feet in the soil signed the Treaty that said in exchange for ceding sovereignty to Queen Victoria we all get equal rights before the law and our property must be protected and decision making over property is the important thing here. Thank you.