Doocey MattMATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): Thank you very much Madam Speaker. I just wanted to start by responding to that last member Tāmati Coffey who resumed his seat. I think he clearly missed out one point which we're still waiting for an answer on: why isn't this a Government bill? If these Government members are so cock-a-hoop that this is the right thing to do why is it not a Government bill? And also when he raises the very unique set of circumstances when the Environment Canterbury (ECan) councillors were sacked and appointees were put in place—that mechanism was done with a Government bill. So National did it with a Government bill knowing if the public didn't like it they would vote us out at the next election. So why would a Labour Government not do the same? Why are we not debating a Government bill today? And we still do not have the answer to that question.And like many people in this House tonight when we come back into the Chamber in the second reading to debate the select committee stage—normally there's a lot of questions that have been answered during the select committee stage. I would argue this bill comes back in with more questions than answers. I think what the reason for that is purely—because what we have here is a workaround. I raised it in the first reading and we still haven't had a response from the sponsoring member Rino Tirikatene. Why is this a local bill? Because when we asked the Clerk's Office why this can be a local bill—let's not forget the contribution of Paul Goldsmith raised a very valid point: this debate today is does the Treaty trump democracy? Now I'm open to that debate. I think many members of Parliament want to engage in that debate. But why is that debate not being driven by a Government bill?What we've got here is a local bill put in by ECan who did no consultation with their local community. Go to the submitters. What's interesting when you look at the number of submissions there were—1651 that the Māori Affairs Committee received 74 in favour 1571 opposed. And one of the common themes that came out was ECan did no consultation. So that's another question we're landed with in the second reading: why did ECan not do any local consultation? The reason it comes back in and is allowed to be a local bill—because of course a local bill can't change a primary statute. That's why this is a workaround bill—because the Government did not want to change primary legislation.Because of that—now well really Pandora's Box is potentially going to be open. Look at the submission from the Remuneration Authority which clearly said it undermined them as an independent entity. And let's be very clear because Tāmati Coffey said Well this is going to set to a precedent"—well it will set a precedent. Because in fact that's what the Remuneration Authority actually said. It said it's "inconsistent with the mandatory criteria" under national legislative frameworks for determining elected member remuneration. This would interfere with the authority's independence in setting remuneration for elected members. It would create an unfair advantage for the members of ECan over all other elected councillors in New Zealand. This Government that champions equity is not delivering equity very well—equity when it suits them.This is why we have a bill that comes before us that comes out of the select committee with more questions than answers. So we've got the question that wasn't really resolved by the select committee to do with the Remuneration Authority's submission. It's interesting because you can't—well they do want to have it both ways because ECan said in follow up discussions with the cap they're wondering whether they reduce salaries to take on board the two extra members. And ECan of course—because they're not going to vote for Christmas are they?—said a drop in councillor remuneration rates would have a significant detrimental effect on diversity of candidates. So this is why we've got actually a bill that should have come in as a Government bill. It comes in as a local bill and actually causes a lot more questions than answers. For Tāmati Coffey to get up today and talk about this bill when of course he was the sponsor of the Rotorua local bill—another local bill that actually had to be scrapped because the Attorney-General said it was discriminatory and would breach the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. And that's the problem with this approach. Then in his defence apparently the argument is now why the rest of caucus didn't know it was so flawed—apparently as a process in the Labour caucus they don't take local bills to get approved by their caucus. So that raises another question: has this bill been in front of the Labour caucus? Do they know actually what they are voting on for tonight? Because what we've got is a bill that in fact is going to increase the numbers. And I've been very clear from the first reading—this isn't about the appointment of Ngāi Tahu representatives into ECan because in fact they're already there. This bill will enact remuneration and voting rights. What we still don't have an answer to is: what will be the total numbers? And why is ECan still allowed to increase their number from 12 to 14 making it the largest regional council in New Zealand and also have Māori wards? Why are they able to do both of those?When you look at a range of submissions that were received there were a number of people who thought this bill should not proceed. One submitter said "adding appointed members in addition to those democratically elected is a move away from democracy towards oligarchy"—this is what they thought this was going to do. Because as our lead caller said the Hon Paul Goldsmith this is fundamentally going to change democracy in New Zealand. We are going to move away from equal suffrage—one vote and one person. And what we've heard previously in debates around this issue—and in fact I think it might have been Tāmati Coffey who mentioned it in the first reading—there's now a phrase Labour uses: these bills are just tweaking democracy. Well I think we just need to look around the world at what happens when you start tweaking democracy.So I come back to my original point—where what we are debating in this Chamber tonight is: does the Treaty trump democracy? Now I think every member of Parliament is up for that debate. That's a valid debate in New Zealand today. But why is it being shoehorned through in a local bill where ECan Environment Canterbury did no consultation with local Cantabrians? Then we have a bill that's pitched up in the House and we've been told now that local bills don't go through the approval process in the Labour caucus because of course they would have picked up Tāmati Coffey's very flawed Rotorua local bill—that's what they're claiming if it has.And then we have this bill that's now come out of select committee where there are very real questions posed about how they're going to address some of the flaws in this bill around remuneration; around the consultation; and in fact what is going to happen to the appointees where there is no accountability? And what is going to happen when Māori wards are enacted for ECan as well? These are very real questions and I do look forward to some of the Government members who decided that they didn't want this to be a Government bill they were happy for it to go through in a local bill—and we're very keen to hear some of their responses tonight. Thank you Madam Speaker."