Court SimonSIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you Mr Chair. Firstly I'd like to acknowledge that the member Rino Tirikatene who's brought this local bill to the House has done so on behalf of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu and Environment Canterbury. I want to acknowledge that the member does represent that iwi and that they no doubt have concerns—around the performance of local government and control over the way land and water is used in decision making—which they feel they need to have a voice on. I can understand why because for many many years local government local councils disrespected the values of communities—particularly Māori communities—all over New Zealand by building waste water treatment plants in front of their marae in places like Māngere in Auckland by dumping all the rubbish in landfills and estuaries where communities collected shellfish and exercised their customary rights. So it's quite understandable that Māori communities—whānau hapū and iwi—all around New Zealand have concerns about the performance of local government and the exercise of decision making over natural resources in particular.So we can understand why there is a desire to have some control or some say over decisions about resource consenting. But that's a problem that was solved by the Resource Management Act (RMA). Now it hasn't been solved particularly well because the Resource Management Act while it sets up controls and a framework to apply for consents for the things we still need like waste water treatment plants like roads—which also happened to favour Māori land rather than the farmers' land when land was taken under the Public Works Act; so I think it's important to acknowledge that as well. The Resource Management Act sets up the framework whereby concerns about how land is managed the effects on water quality and the effects on communities can be discussed can be negotiated and if necessary can be litigated through the Environment Court and appealed to higher courts.So what I would propose and what the ACT Party proposes is that in the absence of the concerns which potentially underlie the purpose of this piece of legislation being effectively articulated it's not clear what the purpose of this legislation is to achieve. It's quite clear the purpose says that it's to have two members of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu appointed to Environment Canterbury—to an otherwise elected body—but it doesn't say what the objective of that is. So I would ask the member: what's the objective? Why is this necessary? Is it because Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu are concerned that essentially decisions about natural resources—fresh water land use for example—are being made and they don't recognise their customary rights they don't recognise the cultural impacts? Because if that's the case Mr Tirikatene I would say look that's what the Resource Management Act is for.Now the ACT Party believes that the RMA should actually be dumped and improved. But that's not to say that the voices of iwi hapū and whānau would be ignored because of course when it comes to matters of fresh water and discharges into fresh water of nutrients and all these other things that are of great concern to communities around New Zealand there has to be a way of identifying what's the best outcome for communities. So the member hasn't articulated why this bill is necessary and that is the obligation on elected members—not to come to the House and say The House must vote for this bill because I say so; because some people down where I live told me to come here to the House and do it." Environment Canterbury themselves don't have a democratic mandate for this proposed legislation. They haven't gone back to the voters of Canterbury and asked for their support."