Prime Willow-JeanWILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour—Northland): E te Māngai o te Whare tēnā koe. Tuatahi māku e tautoko ana ahau i ngā mihi i tēnei ahiahi mai i tōku whanaunga tōku hoa mahi a Rino Tirikatene ki te Kaunihera ā-Rohe o Waitaha me te iwi whānui o Ngāi Tahu nā rāua i tono mai tēnei pire ki roto i tēnei Whare i tēnei ahiahi.Nō reira e tū ana ahau ki te mihi ki a rātou ka whakarahi ake waku kōrero e pā ana ki tērā āianei ake nei engari e mihi ana ki te kaunihera ki te iwi o Ngāi Tahu otirā e mihi ana hoki ki a koe e Rino ko koe te mema o Te Wai Pounamu i kawe mai i tēnei pire ki roto i Te Whare i tēnei ahiahi nō reira e mihi ana ki a koe.He mihi poto hoki e Te Māngai o Te Whare ki te Komiti Māori nā rātou i whakarongo ki ngā kōrero maha e pā ana ki tēnei pire me te whakapau kaha ki te whiriwhiri i ngā take e pā ana ki tēnei pire. Nō reira e mihi ana ki te heamana o tērā komiti arā ko Tāmati Coffey me ngā mema katoa i roto i tēnei Whare nō reira ka nui te mihi.E te Māngai o te Whare ka huri ahau ki tērā atu o ngā reo.[Greetings Madam Speaker. Firstly I support the acknowledgments made by my relative and colleague Rino Tirikatene to Environment Canterbury and the wider tribes of Ngāi Tahu who together requested that this bill be brought to the House this afternoon.Therefore I stand to acknowledge them and I will expand what I have to say about that very soon but for now I acknowledge the council and Ngāi Tahu and also you Rino who as the member for the South Island has carried this bill into the House this afternoon so thank you.A short acknowledgment too Madam Speaker to the Māori Affairs Committee who listened to the many submissions about this bill and who have given their all discussing the issues relating to this bill. And I acknowledge the chair of that committee Tāmati Coffey and all the members in this House; greetings.Madam Speaker I shall now turn to the other language.]I just wanted to take a short moment to make a few acknowledgments—firstly to the Canterbury Regional Council and to Ngāi Tahu for bringing forward a local proposal and a local solution that they think will benefit their region based on their experience and I will elaborate on that in my contribution. But I want to acknowledge them because this is not the first time that they have tried to do that.I also want to acknowledge the sponsor of this bill the local MP for Te Wai Pounamu Rino Tirikatene. I also just wanted to briefly acknowledge the Māori Affairs Committee. I am not a member of the Māori Affairs Committee although I think I did sit on some of the stages of this bill going through the select committee process. I however was not there for any submissions; it was more around officials' advice and the finalising of the report. So I do not profess to stand here this afternoon in the House and say that I have been intimately involved in the process of this bill going through the select committee process. But I have read the select committee's report and I have read the submissions of Environment Canterbury (ECan) and also of Ngāi Tahu and I will refer to those in my contributions this afternoon.For somebody who is therefore brand new to this issue it was helpful for me to understand the background. I am also not from Te Wai Pounamu from Ngāi Tahu or even that familiar with Canterbury. So it was helpful for me to understand the whakapapa of this issue. So when I was reading through the whakapapa of this bill I understood that circumstances arose in 2010 and there was a bill at the time that was intended to have direct representation of Ngāi Tahu on Environment Canterbury and that that would be done by the Minister for the Environment and the Minister of Local Government appointed commissioners who collectively had knowledge of and experience expertise and a number of matters including relevantly tikanga Māori as it applied in the Canterbury region. However that Act was repealed in 2016 and replaced with the Environment Canterbury (Transitional Governance Arrangements) Act 2016. Under section 12(2) of that Act two of the three members appointed by the responsible Ministers were appointed on the recommendations of Ngāi Tahu. And as it has been pointed out in the debates this afternoon in the House this legislation was brought into force by the previous National Government. So I do find it interesting that something that they once supported they now oppose. Now one of the things that I found interesting when I was reading the proposal from Environment Canterbury was that they had the benefit of more than nine years of that being in operation and they said that they saw that the practical benefits of having mana whenua representation in Canterbury were rapidly and widely recognised. This recognition remained during the nine years for which that special legislation was in place. Those benefits include greater efficiency in planning and consenting processes reduced costs for the council and consent applicants and improved enforcement decisions. So I can't understand why the other side of the House would be opposed to something that is providing once again greater efficiency in planning and consenting processes reduced costs for the council and consent applicants and improved enforcement decisions. Instead they are fixated on race-based arguments for why they oppose instead of looking at the benefits that this has brought through proven experience in the nine years that it operated.In 2018 Environment Waikato promoted a local bill to retain the right for Ngāi Tahu to appoint two members at the 2019 and subsequent local body elections. However unfortunately it was defeated but here we are today able to reconsider that. Since 2020 Environment Waikato has continued to have two Tumu Taeo appointed by the Ngāi Tahu papatipu rūnanga chairs of the Canterbury region to assist with council decision-making. They sit at the table and they make valuable contributions but they do not have voting rights. So it once was fine for them to have voting rights and then it wasn't fine but we'll still have their contribution because it's really valuable and we recognise that. But what I'm hearing from the other side is it's very valuable but we don't want to give you any voting rights. So I'm standing here saying that this is being promoted by the regional council by the mana whenua by the iwi together—both of them saying that this is something that works for their community and they would like this House to consider implementing it in legislation so they can continue that. I haven't heard any good reasons as to why we would go against something that has been promoted locally with the support locally for the solution.Now one of the things that has come up in the debate this afternoon is: well why not Māori constituencies? I think that that's been a really interesting issue to consider. I'm very proud of the work that this Government did to even the playing field to remove the discriminatory provisions that allowed for polls to overturn when councils and communities said that they wanted to have Māori representation through wards and constituencies which doesn't apply to any of the other seats on council. So we've made that available but the important distinction is many councils will be using it at these upcoming local body elections in October. Simon Court: Why not ECan?WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: Now why not ECan? That's a really good question. So they went through a representation review. They considered all of the options available to them and through that representation review they actually considered that this option suited them better. They had nine years of proven experience for it. They believe that they are able to accommodate for mana whenua. And as we heard explained by Tāmati Coffey and other members on the Māori Affairs Committee one of the issues with Māori wards and constituencies is that those that get to participate in the election of people into those seats are all Māori on the roll in that particular area. So that does not recognise the status of mana whenua—Simon Court: So half of them are disenfranchised; is that what you're saying?WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: —of Te Tiriti partners. I just encourage the member over there to understand the difference between mana whenua and Māori at large. Simon Court: I do.WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: And what this bill—do you? OK interesting; I look forward to your contribution on that and you informing me what your understanding is because if you did understand that then you would support the argument put forward by Environment Canterbury put forward by Ngāi Tahu. They're saying that that option is there if they would like to use it in the future but they actually believe that this one would provide better for them; they just need the legislation to be changed to allow them to do that. So that's what we are doing here this afternoon. I enjoyed reading that and listening to the discussion and the debate around how to accommodate for mana whenua interests in what are really important functions and roles within their rohe which is also recognised in their Treaty settlement. Do you also not support that as well? Because that is what the settlement said that they would like to achieve. They said how they would do that through the Department of Conservation. This is just a natural extension of that into local government which is responsible for the management of natural resources in their rohe. They are acknowledged as the only mana whenua there. So to me it is very straightforward. I am very proud to commend this bill to the House.