11. Question No. 11—JusticeHon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Minister of JusticeQuestion No. 11—Justice11. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Minister of Justice: How does she reconcile her statement to the House on 21 June that equal voting rights are critically fundamental to New Zealand's democracy" with her statement in relation to the Canterbury Regional Council (Ngāi Tahu Representation) Bill "we will be supporting that bill"?Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Minister of Justice): I'd reconcile it in the same way the previous National Government did during their tenure—specifically that I don't believe the statements to be contradictory.Hon Paul Goldsmith: Is she aware that the Canterbury Regional Council bill gives Ngāi Tahu the right to appoint two councillors after all eligible voters including Māori have had an equal vote for the other councillors thereby giving unequal voting rights to Ngāi Tahu members?Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: I'll get this House to cast our minds all the way back to the good old years of 2015-16 when the Rt Hon John Key was at the helm and you'll remember that it was that then National Government that stewarded through the Environment Canterbury (Transitional Governance Arrangements) Bill. That bill if this House will recall did exactly one of two things: first it ensured that there were democratic representatives elected to Environment Canterbury (ECan); secondly it ensured that Ngāi Tahu retained the right and the obligation to appoint two members to that entity. To quote actually a good friend of this House the Hon Scott Simpson: "I think that probably one of the great hallmarks of this time"—Hon Paul Goldsmith: Point of order.Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: —"under the guidance"—SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member cannot have a point of order at the moment.Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: I go back to one of the great quotes of this House from the Hon Scott Simpson as he was then. When commenting on the appointment of Ngāi Tahu representatives to ECan he said "the rebuilding of relationships in Canterbury not only with other local government authorities and territorial bodies but also particularly with Ngāi Tahu … I was delighted that we will be able to make the recommended changes which have been adopted in this bill to have Ngāi Tahu nominating two representatives." I could go on. The Hon Louise Upston—SPEAKER: No the member can't—the member can't.Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: No sir? OK.Hon Paul Goldsmith: Point of order Mr Speaker. I asked a question about a particular bill and she gave an answer about National Party history 10 years ago and didn't actually address the question that I answered.SPEAKER: Well I think she addressed the issue if not the bill. Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does she think that it is a good constitutional practice for a material change to the constitutional principle of equal voting rights to be carried through this House without public engagement and support for that change?Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: It's like all my Christmases have come at once this question time. Like previous Governments have in this House we absolutely believe in the fundamental constitutional presumption of representative democracy—as we have done—tailored in New Zealand's context. As the previous National Government—I'll quote my friend Louise Upston. The committee was making some amendments to the Environment Canterbury bill on the recommendation from Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu as it was in this case: "I support the recommendation [to add two additional roles] given the guardianship role and the strong partnership that has developed between Ngāi Tahu and Environment Canterbury". She goes on to say that it's appropriate to ensure that this partnership recognises Ngāi Tahu's "significant and unique interest in Canterbury's environment and the management of its natural resources". This side of the House continues to enable the growth of our unique constitutional arrangements.Rino Tirikatene: Is the Minister aware of the results of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act assessment of the Canterbury Regional Council (Ngāi Tahu Representation) Bill undertaken by the Ministry of Justice?Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: As the member knows determining the consistency of the legislation with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act is the responsibility of the Attorney-General supported by the Ministry of Justice. However I note that the publicly available assessment undertaken by the Ministry of Justice stated that "the Bill appears to be consistent with the rights and freedoms affirmed in the Bill of Rights Act" and that "The Bill is intended to reinstate"—reinstate on the basis of the amendments made in 2015-16 under the National Government—"Ngāi Tahu representation on Environment Canterbury which was previously provided for during 2016-2019 under the Environment Canterbury (Transitional Governance Arrangements) Act 2016."Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does the Minister not understand the difference between appointments made by a democratically elected Government which is accountable—[Interruption]SPEAKER: Order! Who was that? Hon Member: Nicola.SPEAKER: Who was making—well Nicola Grigg just lost one of Mr Goldsmith's supplementaries.Hon Paul Goldsmith: Can I start the question again Mr Speaker?SPEAKER: You can.Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does the Minister not understand the difference between appointments of commissioners by a democratically elected Government which is accountable at the ballot box and a permanent constitutional change made by a Government which moves away from the principle of equal voting rights?Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: Fortunately I do as can be reflected in the fact that I understood for example that the Environment Canterbury (Transitional Governance Arrangements) Bill was a composition of seven democratically elected members plus two additionally appointed members by Ngāi Tahu—so same-same.Hon Paul Goldsmith: Supplementary.SPEAKER: No the member lost it—well it was lost for him."