Williams ArenaARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Tēnā koe Madam Speaker. Thank you for the opportunity to speak on this bill the Canterbury Regional Council (Ngāi Tahu Representation) Bill. I think we've come to a part in the debate where the ideas have become very high level a little bit abstract and it might be useful for me as a member of the very excellent Māori Affairs Committee to share some of the work that the Māori Affairs Committee put into this local bill which has been advanced by Environment Canterbury and has been brought to this House as a local bill championed by my colleague Rino Tirikatene.So let me first start with a little bit about what Environment Canterbury does. It extends from the—Nicola Grigg: Not much.ARENA WILLIAMS: —north of Kaikōura to the Waitaki River and from Horomaka / Banks Peninsula to Aoraki / Mount Cook. I hear calls from the other side of the House that Environment Canterbury does not do much but I would say that all local government representation is very important and that on this side of the House we value the contribution that local government brings to all levels of representative democracy. I'll return to that later about why local democracy is important and why representation is important. But let me just tell you more about Environment Canterbury's role. So the kind of things that Environment Canterbury might do are around managing the effects of use of fresh water land air and coastal waters. These things are resource management - heavy; they are technical in nature. It's useful for people around the representative table to have expertise in these areas whether they are farmers whether they are business owners whether they are community members or whether they are iwi representatives with a kaitiaki relationship to the whenua that is being managed by the local councils. Things like developing regional policy statements and issuing consents—again it's really useful for the representatives around those tables to be able to interpret the advice that they receive informed by a diverse background. We want those people around the local government table to bring a broad range of expertise. Things like managing rivers mitigating soil erosion and flood control—on that particular issue it's really helpful for representatives to be able to bring their expertise to bear in that.So how does this bill enable local representatives around the table that we're talking about to do that? Well under the Environment Canterbury (Transitional Governance Arrangements) Act 2016 the Canterbury Regional Council had included two members appointed by Ministers on the recommendation of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu since then. The Act was repealed in 2019 but that was after the 2008 representation review undertaken by that body to decide how it should be formed from 2019 onwards. The reason why I talk about the functions of Environment Canterbury is that those inform the way that the representation review is considered. It's really important to look at the sorts of skills that you need around the table before you determine how that's going to be made up. During that representation review the Environment Canterbury (ECan) body stated that it had enjoyed the value and benefit of having two Ngāi Tahu representatives at the council table and they considered how they could support continued Māori representation. In the final proposal they decided against establishing Māori constituencies and instead agreed to work with Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu to find other ways to continue with the current Māori representation model that they had had. This proposal is directly from Environment Canterbury. It recognises those factors which they took into account when they undertook the representation review and it brings a model for legislation that my colleague Rino Tirikatene has extensively considered alongside representatives of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu and Environment Canterbury and deemed appropriate to bring to this House for further consideration. When we got to the Māori Affairs Committee we did consider that very carefully. Both submitters and officials gave us extensive advice on that. One of those pieces of advice which was particularly important to the committee and we had a lot of discussion on was the value that those Ngāi Tahu representatives could bring to the table by virtue of them being mana whenua. As you'll know and this House will know Ngāi Tahu holds rangatiratanga over 80 percent of Te Wai Pounamu which is the South Island and that was recognised in 1997 by the Crown. In fulfilling its Treaty obligations the Crown recognised Ngāi Tahu as tangata whenua and as holding rangatiratanga within the takiwā.That's important because when we think about the unique situation which has led to this local bill and not a Government response we have to consider not only the ECan arrangements that existed at the time and through the local government review since 2018 but also the unique arrangements around the iwi representative table. This is a Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu which represents a number of papatipu rūnanga in this area. They have mature governance systems and mature election systems which the committee discussed at length with submitters including Ngāi Tahu themselves. We discussed how and why it's important for Ngāi Tahu representatives to be chosen at large and to represent not only those members but also people within the takiwā who as mana whenua hold responsibility for representation around that table as kaitaki. That is an essential part of the tikanga of Ngāi Tahu to represent those guests in the area to represent their interests to also hold all of the interests of the community at heart but be representatives that speak truthfully to their whakapapa and to their association with the whenua that has gone on for hundreds of years. The committee also considered the point that my colleague Matt Doocey brought up around the remuneration and appropriate membership of the committee. This is a broadly technical point but if you'll indulge me let me take you through what the committee considered because we were—and I think the members from all political stripes around that table will know—open-minded about our inquiry into the membership and the remuneration question. We had an extensive back and forth with the Remuneration Authority and we sought further advice from officials on the remuneration question. The reason why the committee landed where we did on remuneration was because of the way that clause 6 operates and in relation to clause 12. So I'll take you through that because I'm getting some derisive laughs from the other side. Clause 6 would enable the membership of Environment Canterbury's governing body to be increased from 14 to 16 members and this would accommodate the two members appointed by Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu. I'm still getting some derisive laughs so I will really labour the technical details.This would accommodate the two members appointed by Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu and these members would have the same functions powers responsibilities rights indemnities and duties including voting rights as elected members of Environment Canterbury. It's important to note there that they would have the same voting rights. My colleague Tāmati Coffey the chair of the Māori Affairs Committee in a very impassioned speech talked about what happens when you have Māori representatives at the council table who do not have those voting rights. They do not have the same kind of remuneration and they are not treated in the same way that others are around the table. That was not something that the committee was interested in exploring further. We considered deleting clause 6 too so that the maximum membership of Environment Canterbury including the appointed members would remain at 14. So the effect of that would have been that the same number of members still sat around the ECan table but two of them would be appointed by Ngāi Tahu. But we chose to retain clause 6 on advice of the officials but proposed some drafting amendments because we thought that that gave effect to the policy intent that Environment Canterbury and Ngāi Tahu and a number of submitters were trying to achieve which was to add to the skills around the table and to maintain what has been there since National implemented the policy in 2016. Now on the remuneration point I've said that we went back and forth with our advisers and with the submitters on this and it was really helpful to really drill down into the effect of this. This is in the context of other councils around the country being able to set their remuneration within a band and also to have members around the table who may not represent the same number or have the same sorts of duties as other councils. We look at a particular area in Wairoa where the councillor from Wairoa—because of their geographic location that council has determined that they are a special community interest group and that they represent a special constituency which could not be represented by other members around the table but that they represent 70 percent fewer members of that community in comparison to the other councils around the table. These are arrangements which are put in place on a case by case basis and it's really important that local authorities are empowered to recognise particular constituencies in this area. So when we came to the remuneration point there was really a pretty clear and stark choice between allowing those two members of Ngāi Tahu to be remunerated at the same rate as others around the table or to create a situation where everyone was remunerated below the recommended rate for members by the Remuneration Authority. So that is why we chose an equitable outcome and I commend this bill as it is to the House.