Brownlee GerryHon GERRY BROWNLEE (National): My contribution this afternoon is not going to be in its end any different to the commentary that has been offered by other National speakers today but I do want to start by acknowledging Ngāi Tahu and particularly Sir Tīpene O'Regan and the many other leaders who are here today.I was in the House at the time of the settlement back in 1997. And I don't resile from any of the commentary that was read out by Tāmati Coffey as he quoted from that apology. I was also here when there was the bill passed by our Government—or should I say by a Government in this House—protecting pounamu as being exclusive to Ngāi Tahu. And I was here too when there was the commissioners appointed into Environment Canterbury (ECan). And the rationale for that—and I was a strong arguer for it—was that we were taking away broad representation that might be achieved through a ballot box and deciding who it was who for a time would be placed with that responsibility to remedy some of the problems that ECan was beset with at the time; notwithstanding some of the attempts to write history again here today. I was also the recovery Minister in Christchurch and was very strongly of a view that Ngāi Tahu should be recorded as statutory partners in that recovery. Each of those though are separate things and separate incidents that needed to have a different approach taken to it.This bill is very bad process as my colleague Mr Doocey previously pointed out and I have in other stages of this bill. Why isn't it on the Order Paper as a Government bill so that it does become primary legislation? Perhaps a primary legislation with a schedule in it that makes the same offer to every other council without the need to come through what is essentially a backdoor process.I do want to acknowledge my parliamentary colleague Rino Tirikatene: a fine gentleman someone who I'd consider to be a friend although not a close one because of our political differences on other matters but a man who is undervalued in this Parliament in my view. And I think nothing in my view would do anything other than respect the fact that you have brought the bill on behalf of those who ask for it. The question is: what was the basis for their asking for it? Where was their representation respected in the question they might have asked about those who sent them to sit around that table? It's non-existent. And I think that is also a problem.I want to talk about some of the co-governance arrangements that were made by our Government and by previous Labour Governments. Those are arrangements that have endured that work that are totally appropriate. They are specific to circumstances in this country. They are geographic locations institutions whatever you might like to take as being almost separate to the primary purpose of either central or local government—totally appropriate. And I think we'll see a lot more of it in the years to come and that will be good. I am not Ngāi Tahu I'm not Māori but I recognise Ngāi Tahu as being mana whenua in the only place that I can call home. And like many others I have very close family who are Ngāi Tahu. So it's not an issue about Ngāi Tahu versus everybody else. It is an issue about the principles of how the law in this country is constructed and how it should be implemented.I am surprised by some of the claims today that this is an imperative Treaty issue. Well one of the imperatives of the Treaty was that it did respect the law. It was signed by many because there was a desire to have that law. And I just get a little bit annoyed by some of the unreasonable emotion that gets put on to it particularly the commentary before from a speaker who I won't name talking about the extra emotion and sort of hype and everything that goes around this. Well I haven't engaged in any of that but I do think that there is a proper process that we should be following.I don't need to take up the entire 10 minutes allocated on this particular topic because I do think that once it is passed—and I acknowledge that it is going to pass today—the real point will be where do we go from here? And I have deep personal regret that there seems to be an apparent breakdown between the relationship of my political party and Ngāi Tahu. And I think there is perhaps not a deep enough understanding on either part about where either party might be coming from.So can I finish just by saying that there has always been since 1840 conflict over all sorts of littleish aspects of life in this country that shouldn't exist. Some years ago I was the chairman of the Riccarton Bush Trust that administers a piece of land that I think is correctly named Pūtaringamotu. And when that remnant of native bush was being put into a management plan that we were very keen on—I remember that they used to mow underneath that bush so that you could see from one side to the other completely destroying the fauna and flora that was underneath it. So a management plan was being put in place and we consulted with Ngāi Tahu asked them if they wanted a representative on the trust etc. And the answer came back no" and that wasn't necessary. When the management plan was launched it was Rick Tau who came and was the representative for the occasion on which that document was launched. What I remember him saying is that when the English came to Canterbury both the Presbyterians who were in Riccarton and the Māori who were all over the rohe got done over. And I've got to say immediately that is not a Catholic having a go at the Anglicans and the Presbyterians it is simply an acknowledgment that there has been a long time where there have been dealings that aren't appropriate. But I don't think for one minute that you can rectify all of that history by setting aside some of the good aspects that were achieved through the agreement of the Treaty and use a process like this where there has not been the sort of public debate that there should be.As for the suggestion that there's been some sort of a massive effort to put out a whole lot of misinformation I want to make it very clear I've had no part in anything like that. It is simply a matter of there not being the following of a process that there should be and a real question about why the Government who have had speaker after speaker today stand up and say how wonderful this is not have it in primary legislation with a schedule enabling others to participate."