Court SimonSIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you Madam Speaker. Look ACT opposes this bill because it conflicts with the ACT principle that only democratically-elected representatives should vote in councils and in Parliament. I'll be clear: ACT opposes it because ACT believes that only democratically-elected representatives should vote in councils and in Parliament. Now this bill would give Ngāi Tahu two unelected members on Environment Canterbury and therefore would give those two members decision-making over many people whose livelihoods and businesses depend on access to fresh water and to building things on their land. Labour MPs and the member who sponsored the bill Rino Tirikatene claim this bill addresses Crown obligations to Ngāi Tahu under the Treaty of Waitangi. Well I say that's nonsense because the place for that is in the Waitangi Tribunal where any breaches of the Treaty are determined. Once a Treaty decision is published by the tribunal if that then requires legislation that legislation is brought to the House. This legislation does not come from a Waitangi Tribunal decision therefore your argument is nonsense. Secondly the New Zealand Parliament passed the Ngāi Tahu Claims Settlement Act in 1998; it recorded an apology from the Crown into settled claims made under the Treaty of Waitangi. Now there is a further claim by Ngāi Tahu relating to fresh water which is currently before the Waitangi Tribunal. It's still unresolved—it may well be that the tribunal finds in favour of Ngāi Tahu which grants them some rights over water or it may go against the applicant. But we don't know because it's still before the Waitangi Tribunal. But in the meantime if this bill passes unelected Ngāi Tahu representatives will have the decision making over how water is allocated to farmers and businesses and who is allowed to build what in Canterbury. Now that seems presumptive at best—pernicious and subversive at worst. But look I would assume having seen how this Labour Government operates in the last 18 months that attempting to drive this bill through is more likely simply another example of bullish incompetence. So what does Ngāi Tahu do? Who are they? They are a successful commercial organisation with a strong community focus and the people who I've met who represent Ngāi Tahu are some of the most competent professional and community-focused people that I've met in business in New Zealand. They've grown from a $170 million Treaty settlement in 1998 to a $600 million business today. They exist primarily for the benefit of around 25000 trustees of whom 18700 live in Canterbury. Their investments in property amount to about $550 million they own a seafood company they own a hundred thousand hectares of forestry they own the Shotover Jet and even the Huka jet at Lake Taupō in the North Island and of course Whale Watch Kaikoura and I could go on and on and on. They're a very very successful New Zealand organisation primarily focused on returning benefits to members in their community and that is laudable. But they're also an example of how to turn a Treaty settlement—an amount of money and some assets which the Crown gave to Ngāi Tahu in recognition of wrongs of a breach of contract under the Treaty of Waitangi. So they're actually an example about how good things could be if you take a positive attitude and you focus on your people and I think that's to be lauded. But none of their success to date has relied on co-governance or getting preferential treatment and I'm assuming that the leadership of an organisation as successful and having the mana of as Ngāi Tahu would bristle at the suggestion that their success is due to special treatment. I think they would reject that. I can't speak for them but I've met some of them and I think they would say We did it on our own based on our own efforts. We didn't need this kind of support." That's why it's so hard to understand the motivations of the member Rino Tirikatene and his Labour Party colleagues in bringing this bill to the House. It's another example of Labour MPs and the Labour Government failing to understand what good governance and democracy entails. That is being able to elect the people who have decision making over your property rights and over our collective national resources that we all have a common interest in—to be able to elect people who make decisions about those things. So look for context: a highly dysfunctional Environment Canterbury was disbanded and replaced under the Environment Canterbury (Transitional Governance Arrangements) Act in 2016 and at the time the ACT Party supported that two members of Ngāi Tahu would be appointed on their recommendation until full democracy could be restored. But democracy has been restored; in fact in 2019 the people of Canterbury were able to directly elect representatives to Environment Canterbury to the regional council. But that did not mean an end to the voice of Ngāi Tahu at the council table—in fact they currently have two mana whenua experts who advise council on matters which are important to mana whenua but those two people do not have the power to vote on council business. Now that does appear to be a better way to ensure that iwi Māori voices are heard without tinkering with or overriding basic democratic principles—that is one person one vote. And I can confirm that in my experience as an engineer working in local government I often presented to mana whenua forums to seek their feedback about engineering proposals about proposals to close and remediate old landfills and about things that were important to them as mana whenua and which they felt they should have a say in the design and implementation of engineering-based solutions. And that is absolutely fair enough. If we just come to the proportionality of suffrage—this is a really important point. We understand that about 18700 members of Ngāi Tahu live in Canterbury of the 36000 Māori New Zealanders which Stats New Zealand indicate live in Canterbury. So about half of the Māori New Zealanders who live in Canterbury are Ngāi Tahu and this piece of legislation would benefit only those 18700. However they have voting rights already—it's not required because they don't have voting rights. They can already vote in local government and general elections or potentially on the Māori roll in an election. Yet the 563000 people who live in Canterbury who this legislation doesn't cover they will have 14 representatives—about one per 40000—whereas the Ngāi Tahu representatives appointed they will represent about 9000 each. So the democratically-elected representatives will only have one-quarter of the representation of those that Ngāi Tahu represents. So look this is going to result in unelected members having much greater voting powers compared to democratically-elected members. It's a completely unacceptable act to Cantabrians and to most New Zealanders. So look why might they need representation—the regional council? The member Rino Tirikatene has stated there are great benefits to having people with a special relationship with the land making decisions about land and water use. He gives no examples about how Ngāi Tahu representatives have in fact contributed to better decision-making around land and water simply by virtue of their genealogy. That's frankly patronising and insulting to the tens of thousands of land and water and engineering and science professionals who make decisions for the benefit of our community about land and water every day. It's patronising and it's insulting to the farmers to the foresters to the engineers the miners and the scientists responsible for protecting and enhancing our environment. There is no one in my engineering class who could possibly have assumed that because of who their grandfather or their great-grandfather was they would know more or less about the environment. None of us would have assumed that because it's simply not true. Good environmental practitioners study science and engineering and they hold themselves and each other to high standards. Race and ethnicity do not come into it. Now New Zealanders who came here by waka by sailing or steamship or more recently by plane came here to get away from a futile and a caste-based system; from hierarchies based on birth whether it was the colour of your skin your race your religion or any other means other than a democratically-elected system of Government—one person one vote. The Treaty of Waitangi gave New Zealanders equal rights. It protected our property and if there was anyone who breached our rights we could go to court and have that resolved. That's available to all New Zealanders. The ACT Party believes that was the intention of Māori and representatives of the Crown. We reject the need for this bill and as part of a future Government ACT will repeal this legislation."