Tirikatene Rino; McKelvie IanRINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): Thank you Mr Chair. I acknowledge the contribution from the member opposite but I do disagree with many of the points he has raised. Before I move to address those specific questions I would just restate my position that this bill does reinstate Ngāi Tahu representatives two members appointed by Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu to Environment Canterbury. If I could direct the member back to the 2016 legislation it said Two of the members appointed … must be persons recommended by Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu." That's what the 2016 bill did and if I come back to this bill it does exactly the same thing: "[Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu] may appoint up to 2 members of the Council". This bill does reinstate the appointment of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu's right to put two members back on Environment Canterbury so that is completely wrong what the member was saying.In terms of addressing the questions that were raised whilst we do not divulge discussions that occur within caucus what I can say is that the Labour members of this House likewise the Greens and Te Paati Māori have supported this bill throughout. So my role as the member in charge of the bill is to reach out and to garner as much support as possible in this House to progress this local bill—and this is a local bill; this is a local bill. This is a bill which is specific to the locality of the environment Environment Canterbury and there's no point in terms of trying to make comparisons with another bill that is in this House because that is an entirely different premise. It's an entirely different purpose an entirely different region and there is no similarity at all between that other bill and this bill. So I would like this committee to come back to this bill and ensure that we can have a proper debate over its provisions. The other aspect in terms of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act assessment: yes there was an assessment which the Attorney-General did undertake on this bill and I'm pleased to say that this bill did get a pass from the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. Whilst it could be argued on the face of it that yes this bill could make a differentiation between citizens based on race the Attorney-General said that notwithstanding that the fact that this bill ensures that the status of the Treaty and the position of Ngāi Tahu and their association with their representation on the bill—the fact that they have that special association means that there is no other comparative group in the country. There's no other comparative group and therefore there is no discrimination because we are not comparing anything else.There is only one Ngāi Tahu there is only one mana whenua there is only one group that represents the iwi in the rohe in the takiwā of Environment Canterbury and so there's no question of discrimination. The Attorney-General acknowledged that and that's why this bill has the endorsement from the Attorney-General that it is in compliance with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. There may have been another question—I'm not too sure—from the member but I hope that that for now is sufficient to respond to the points that were raised.CHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): I'm going to call the Hon Gerry Brownlee again but before I do I'm going to remind members because I gave some latitude to the first two speakers that we are speaking about Part 1 here which are clauses 3 to 5A. Thank you."