36 M Ä ORI REPRESENTATIO N IN LO CAL GOVE R N M E N T relation to money and resources, and said this was creating a feeling of anxiety within the community. She concluded that it was up to Mäori in Wairoa to advocate for Mäori seats within council. Councillor Cairns then asked Councillor Bennett if the dedicated EBOP seats had increased voting among Mäori in local elections. Councillor Bennett replied that the voting level in Mäori constituencies was at the same level as in the rural and general constituencies. She also pointed out there had been two elections to date, and that sitting councillors in the Mäori seats were not necessarily contested. Councillor Bennett then commented that the Mäori seats brought a different dynamic to participation; they brought a Mäori point of view to the table, which wouldn’t necessarily happen if Mäori were elected in general seats. Councillor Cairns observed that whether local authorities liked it or not, they "walked the talk" of the Crown (i.e. people saw them as the Crown, whether or not that was technically the case). She commented that if Mäori waited for "goodwill" on the part of local authorities to establish dedicated Mäori seats, they would be waiting a long time. Te Ururoa Flavell, MP for Waiariki The presentations were concluded with some reflections from Te Ururoa Flavell, MP for Waiariki, whose 2010 member’s bill proposing compulsory Mäori seats for local authorities was unsuccessful. Mr Flavell said that these issues came up time and time again, and that the attitudes of the local authorities (as reflected in the presentation on the results of the survey of local authorities) reflected more general views and the debate in Parliament on "the place of Mäori within New Zealand." He called for a bigger, ongoing debate on the issue of dedicated Mäori representation. Mr Flavell continues to think that making Mäori seats compulsory through legislation is a good idea, but noted this will depend on the relationship between the Mäori Party and one of the two major parties. He said there were two main ways to take the proposal forward: legislate, which would likely be unpopular, or keep working at it with individual councils, which would take much longer but may be more effective in the long run. Discussion After the presentations, the floor was opened for discussion. One of the main speakers was Donald Couch, who was appointed as an Environment Canterbury Commissioner in 2010. Mr Couch said he had been appointed to represent Ngäi Tahu. He thought there needed to be room for some flexibility with Mäori representation, and talked about his role representing Ngäi Tahu. He noted that in the legislation establishing Environment Canterbury’s Commission, there was a requirement that there be someone on the commission who was knowledgeable about the tikanga of the area. Another participant noted this was a result of central government intervention, advised by iwi, and that this role probably wouldn’t have been established under the Local Electoral Act 2001 in Canterbury otherwise. Mr Couch also noted that Environment Canterbury was principally responsible for water management, and that there are a range of committees to support this, each of which had tangata whenua representation. Uncertainty was noted as to whether dedicated Mäori representation would be retained when an elected Canterbury Regional Council is reestablished in 2013.