Doocey MattMATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): Thank you very much Mr Chair. I want to start with a quote and it talks to the clause around purpose because we're told that the purpose is about reinstatement. The quote here says There was never any justification for why Canterbury should be the only region that doesn't get to elect its regional council." The only region. And that's what will happen under this bill it won't get to elect its regional council. Is that statement from ACT? Is that a statement from National? That is a statement from Megan Woods in 2016. There was never any justification for why Canterbury should be the only region that doesn't get to elect its regional council. "I urge all parties in Parliament to support this bill and restore democracy to Canterbury." So you can't have it both ways Mr Tirikatene. Really is that what you say in Opposition but then you come to Government and then do something different? So under "purpose" are you really saying this is about reinstatement of something that you fought hard to disestablish in Opposition and now you are bringing in in Government?I want to return to the question that the Hon Gerry Brownlee asked around whether this local bill had been to the Labour Party caucus. Quite rightly Mr Tirikatene pointed out that conversations in caucus are for caucus I don't have an issue with that but what we have here is a local bill. In Part 1 we have clause 5 "Relationship between this Act and other legislation applicable to local authorities" so that's why I'm asking the questions on this part. It is important to understand why it is a local bill because even the Clerk's Office says that a local bill can't be about amending primary legislation. So that's why this bill doesn't amend primary legislation. So the question is why is this not a Government bill that would amend primary legislation? And it comes back to that point: is it because a local bill did not have to go and seek support of the Labour caucus? Because we're led to believe some Ministers in the Labour Cabinet said in response to Tāmati Coffey's bill being kicked out they didn't know how flawed it was because it hadn't gone to the Labour caucus.I was in an interview with Sarah Pallett on Newstalk ZB where she was directly asked by John MacDonald: did she see this bill go through the Labour caucus? She said she didn't know she wasn't aware if it had. So the question is: why is this a local bill? Because in fact it's a bill that has to be a workaround if it's a local bill. It can't amend primary legislation. So I think it is a very important question—why don't Labour MPs know whether this bill has gone to the caucus and why is it a local bill? We get told it's a local bill because the local people asked for it. That's what the Labour Government tells us. OK if that's true I'd like to hear from the Minister what assurance and what evidence he saw from Environment Canterbury that they consulted local people in the formation of this bill. I'll tell you what Environment Canterbury (ECan) were all through the media when this bill came in to Parliament and local people were very frustrated and ECan said "Don't worry you'll get your time to have your say in the select committee after the first reading." That was the first time people in Canterbury had heard about this bill.So some very clear questions. Can Rino Tirikatene tell us why his party advocated for one thing in Opposition and a different position in Government? Has this bill been through the caucus and is that why it is a local bill—because it hasn't? And finally we'd like to know what evidence he saw of local consultation."