Volume 670 Week 68 - Wednesday 16 March 2011 
Volume 670 Week 68 - Wednesday 16 March 2011 
[Volume:670;Page:17249] 
Wednesday 16 March 2011 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Questions to Ministers 
Mineral Resources—Value and Government Plans for Development 
1. 
Hon RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
 to the  
Acting Minister of Energy and Resources 
: Does she accept her ministry’s advice that the value of New Zealand’s onshore minerals excluding hydrocarbons is $194 billion overall with $80 billion estimated in schedule 4 land; if so what plans does the Government have to allow their development? 
Hon HEKIA PARATA (Acting Minister of Energy and Resources) 
: 
 To the first part of the question I accept the Ministry of Economic Development’s advice that an estimate of the gross value of New Zealand’s in-ground onshore minerals excluding hydrocarbons is $194 billion. To the second part of the question the Government has made it clear that it does not intend to remove any land from schedule 4. However the Government is interested in seeing an increase in mineral activity on non - schedule 4 land in which there is considerable potential and it has taken a number of steps to encourage that. 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: Why is it that the Government thinks a simple hole in the ground is so damaging that the country should forgo $80 billion worth of wealth the jobs and the investment in growth and instead live from hand to mouth by borrowing $300 million a week? 
Hon HEKIA PARATA 
: The member will know that the Government recognises the need to balance economic opportunities with environmental responsibility. New Zealand has had a robust debate about mining on schedule 4 land. The Government listened to the debate and has ruled out removing land from schedule 4. However like the member the Government is keen to see New Zealand’s extensive mineral wealth utilised in a responsible way for the benefit of all New Zealanders and it is taking a number of steps to encourage that. 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: Can the Minister share with the House the number of jobs and lost opportunities that the decision to leave that $80 billion under the ground represents; or is it in fact the case that the Government does not know? 
Hon HEKIA PARATA 
: The Government has taken a number of steps to explore opportunities on non - schedule 4 land including undertaking a significant aeromagnetic survey in Northland and on the West Coast of the South Island to learn more about which areas have the highest concentrations of valuable minerals. 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think you could anticipate my point of order. The answer did not address what was a straightforward question about schedule 4 land not the other land. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I invite the member to repeat his question bearing in mind that he is addressing the question to the Acting Minister of Energy and Resources. 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: Can the Minister share with the House the trade-off in terms of jobs and lost opportunity that leaving the $80 billion of minerals under the schedule 4 land represents or does the Minister not know? 
Hon HEKIA PARATA 
: As I answered to the primary question the Government is focused on the $114 billion worth of mineral potential on non - schedule 4 land and that is what we are exploring. 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: A point of order has been called. 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: Again with the greatest of respect that was a perfectly fine answer to the first question but the third question was different. It was to the point. The Minister could have answered it quite simply but repeating the answer to the first question does not answer the third question which was straightforward. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I think unfortunately the member did give an alternative: whether the Government knew or did not know. I think the answer actually indicated— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I blame myself for having allowed that point of order which was not particularly helpful. I think on this occasion in fairness the member asked whether the Government had weighed up the opportunities or the cost and benefits of the opportunities against the costs of not taking action. The Minister’s reply was that the Government is focused on a certain portion of the mineral estate that was identified in the primary question. I believe that was an answer to the question. I did listen carefully and I think with this kind of question there is no particular answer to it. The Minister chose to answer it in that way and I believe that was not unreasonable. 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I tread warily but that was not my question. I did not ask about the trade-off or whether the Government had considered it. I specifically asked—twice—whether the Minister could share with the House the trade-off or whether the Government did not know. Talking about what the Government is focused on in the other land definitely does not address that question. The Minister could just say the Government does not know because it did not do the work but she cannot talk about— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think the member is being unreasonable. If he thinks about his question he will realise it was what I summarised in very loose terms. I do not pretend to be perfect in summarising a member’s question but the answer that the Minister gave was her reaction to that issue. She said on behalf of the Government that the Government is focused on a certain part of the land—that having weighed up the costs and benefits of the entire mineral estate the Government is focused on a certain part of it. In answering in that way I believe she did address the issue of trade-offs. But there is no specific answer to that question. That is why I am not being any harder on the Minister in trying to get a particular answer from her because there is no particular answer to that question. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Has she seen the reports valuing mineral resources and mining’s impact on tourism both by Terry Consultants which show that the actual value of the proposal outlined in the substantive question is nothing like $80 billion and more like $25 per person and that is before taking into account the tourism revenue that New Zealand would lose if the proposal proceeded? 
Hon HEKIA PARATA 
: No. 
Charles Chauvel 
: I seek leave to table for the Minister’s benefit the two reports to which I referred in my supplementary question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table those documents. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Documents by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Question No. 2 to Minister 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I know that the transfer of questions is fraught. I have had a discussion on this issue with your office not about the ability of Ministers to transfer questions but about what happens with the wording of the question when one has been transferred as this one has been. This question as you know was originally drafted to ask about the Prime Minister’s knowledge of a particular situation. We accept his right to choose not to answer the question and to transfer it. My question is whether when a question is transferred to another Minister we can get a better format in relation to the words when the question is about the actual advice especially from the Prime Minister’s office and his department which we are focusing on and which no other Minister can have responsibility for. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: My understanding is that when this question was transferred the wording was amended so that the question still focused on the advice that the Prime Minister the Government or Rugby New Zealand 2011 had been given. The focus of the question remains on what the Prime Minister knows about it. Obviously in transferring the question one would expect that the Minister for the Rugby World Cup would have knowledge of that or the question should not have been transferred. It is very simple: questions should not be transferred to avoid their being answered by the only person who might have knowledge of something. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is a relatively obvious one. The Minister for the Rugby World Cup cannot have responsibility for the advice that is given by agencies for which he is not responsible. Clearly for those agencies further down the line such as the Ministry of Economic Development and Rugby World Cup 2011 he does have responsibility but he cannot have responsibility for advice given—as it was in this case—by the Prime Minister’s office and the department because he is not part of that chain. I know this is a hard question but we have seen I think 17 public statements from the Prime Minister in the last day on this issue and it seems to me that even if the Prime Minister is not able to answer the question it would have been better to leave it to the Prime Minister— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The question of who answers questions is a matter totally for the Government. I repeat what I said a moment ago. If I as Speaker perceive that a question is being transferred from the only Minister who could possibly have the information that is the focus of the question I would become very concerned. If the question was being transferred to avoid its being answered by the only Minister who could possibly have responsibility for or knowledge of the matter that would be a serious matter. In the transfer of this question I would expect the Minister to have knowledge of what the Prime Minister has been advised. The question of whether he divulges that information to the House and whether it is in the public interest to do so is another matter. But if the question is being transferred I would expect that the Minister would have knowledge of the subject matter. 
Earthquake Christchurch—Rugby World Cup Matches 
2. 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Minister for the Rugby World Cup 
: What advice has he the Government or Rugby New Zealand 2011 been given on Christchurch’s ability to host Rugby World Cup matches later this year? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Transport) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister for the Rugby World Cup 
: In the early part of this week Vbase the Christchurch City Council company responsible for operating AMI Stadium received an assessment from engineers of the work required to restore the stadium to a standard capable of hosting test matches. At the same time reports were received by the Government on the current state of hotel accommodation in Christchurch and on the likely state of hotel accommodation in September of this year. Those reports are being discussed by the Minister for the Rugby World Cup officials from the International Rugby Board Vbase executives and New Zealand Rugby Union representatives in Christchurch this afternoon. It would serve the public interest to allow the Minister to complete his discussions with other stakeholders before providing more information on those reports. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: What recommendation has the Government or Rugby New Zealand 2011 made to the International Rugby Board about the ability of Christchurch to host these matches? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I do not know whether any recommendation has been made. All I know again is that the discussions are continuing currently and that it would best serve the public interest for those discussions to have the opportunity to be completed. I point out to the Leader of the Opposition that I think there has been an announcement that a news conference will be held around 3 o’clock this afternoon in Christchurch at which point no doubt the Minister will further update the media on the discussions. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: When the Prime Minister said earlier this week that it was the International Rugby Board’s call but in the end they look to the Government does he expect the International Rugby Board’s decision to reflect the view of the Government? Is the Prime Minister correct? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: The Prime Minister is always correct. The International Rugby Board is the owner of the tournament and of course it has been working alongside the Government and other stakeholders. As the member may be aware the International Rugby Board officials have flown overnight to arrive in Christchurch for the meeting that is occurring right now. Once again I think we should wait until the meeting has been completed. I understand there is a media briefing afterwards and at that point the Minister will no doubt update discussions. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Has the Prime Minister received any advice of the International Rugby Board’s likely decision; if so on what date did his office receive that advice? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: It is my understanding that the discussions are continuing right now and I presume that that is why the International Rugby Board officials have flown overnight to have those discussions this afternoon with the Minister Vbase the New Zealand Rugby Union and Rugby New Zealand 2011. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My question was very specific. It asked whether the Prime Minister had received advice on the International Rugby Board’s likely decision; if so on what date. I do not believe that the Minister actually answered that specific and very straightforward question. It is a yes or no answer. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister in his answer said the International Rugby Board officials have come here and are having discussions right now. Unless the Minister wishes to clarify that point any further it would seem that he has made it clear to the House that the officials are here now to discuss the matter so they can hardly have made up their mind yet. The Hon Steven Joyce may be able to assist. 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: That is exactly the point I was making. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Is he aware of the Prime Minister’s view of the preliminary decision of the International Rugby Board which is to be announced at 3 o’clock? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I think everybody on that side of the House is trying to get ahead of themselves. The point is that the discussions are currently taking place. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Mr Speaker—[ 
Interruption 
]  
Mr SPEAKER 
: Before I call the Leader of the Opposition I say to the shadow Leader of the House that he is very experienced and he knows that that kind of interjection is unacceptable. He will not make further such interjections. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Did the engineering reports that he received on the AMI Stadium indicate that the stadium would by the due date be able to hold those games? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I am not aware. I presume that the Minister has seen the assessment now because he is in Christchurch having meetings with Vbase. I understand that the assessment discussed the work required to restore the AMI Stadium and I assume that it would also include the timetable that it would take to do so. But again those discussions are continuing this afternoon and there will be a media briefing at 3 o’clock. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Has the Minister received advice that following the earthquake accommodation and other infrastructure in Christchurch is capable of meeting the needs of the thousands of rugby fans who would come to the city to watch those games? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: The advice received indicated a significant level of uncertainty as to the exact level of accommodation available at this time. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: If Christchurch is deemed unable to host the games will he be pressing for as many games as possible that were to be held at the AMI Stadium to be held within the Canterbury region and in the South Island? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I am not privy to the approach that is being taken or the discussions that are taking place at this point or indeed whether those issues will be addressed at 3 o’clock this afternoon when the media briefing takes place. I think we have to just wait and see. It is not a long time between now and 3 o’clock; it is currently 40 minutes and 30 seconds away. We should get some information then. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Do the discussions that are allegedly currently occurring in Christchurch involve the Prime Minister by way of phone conference? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I am not aware that they do. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I refer back to the earlier point of order by my colleague Trevor Mallard. The difficulty I have with the answers to those questions is that the acting Minister was unable to answer any one of them supposedly because he did not have any of the advice. Does that mean it is appropriate to transfer a question to another Minister who does not have the information? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: In all sincerity I say to the honourable member that if he reflects on the questions asked and the answers given it may just be that he is about an hour early in asking his questions. There may be no answer to them yet. That is what any I think reasonable person would take from the answers given. If members believe that some other plot is going on somewhere I cannot help with that as Speaker of the House. Questions were asked and I believe the answers under the circumstances were reasonable. To suggest otherwise is I think not being reasonable. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. With regard to the ruling that you have just made if you reflect on the questions that I have asked you will see that they are questions where the information is available because reports have been received. That is why I made the point that I did. It cannot possibly be correct that we do not know what is in the reports because those reports were received— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Now we are debating the substance of the issue which we are not going to do. Let me just point out to the member that he was asserting in his questions that the Prime Minister had had some pre-discussion advice from the International Rugby Board and that he would somehow know what the International Rugby Board was going to decide. That was the implication in the questions asked. The Minister pointed out that that was not his understanding of the situation and that is where the matter has to lie. Members were pursuing a certain line of questioning and the Minister answered the questions. Given the facts of the matter—as the Minister described to the House there will be a press conference shortly to advise on some of these matters—it does not seem unreasonable if there is a meeting going on right now. I do not intend to take the time of the House to litigate it further. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will hear the Hon Trevor Mallard briefly but it had better be a good point of order. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: It is a good point of order. I think there were two specific quotes from the Leader of the Opposition. One was from the Prime Minister which indicated that— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Can I first check with the member what issue of order he seeks to address. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: The issue of order goes to the answers given and whether they are likely to lead to disorder— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No that is not a valid point of order. It is not a valid point of order. The Speaker determines whether a question has been answered. It is my assessment that the questions were answered in a reasonable manner given the facts of the matter. That is the end of that. That is not an issue of order to be debated further by way of point of order. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will hear the member in case I have made a mistake. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I know this is getting dangerous. The problem we have is that we are aware that a decision has been made and the Minister— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: This is not a point of order. The member is treading on very dangerous ground. Any further deviation from the Standing Orders and the member will be leaving the House because that is not a point of order. It is irrelevant what members might understand or think they understand about what decisions may or may not have been made. It is absolutely irrelevant to the order of this House. The member has questioned the acting Minister and the Minister answered and that is the end of the matter for question time. 
Economy—Prospects After Christchurch’s Immediate Needs Met 
3. 
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What reports has he received on the economy’s prospects after New Zealand meets the immediate challenges of the Christchurch earthquake? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 Both Treasury and the Reserve Bank expect economic growth to be weaker in the first half of the year but to pick up strongly in 2012. The Reserve Bank forecasts GDP peaking at about 5 percent next year and unemployment falling below 5 percent. These forecasts recognise a number of favourable factors for the economy: high commodity prices both interest rates and inflation being expected to stay low the exchange rate with Australia being the most competitive in 20 years and households significantly lifting their savings rates. 
Chester Borrows 
: What are some of the likely costs the Government will face as a result of the earthquake? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Although the costs of the earthquake are likely to be significant and may delay growth in the economy we still agree with the Reserve Bank and Treasury views that next year we are likely to see significant economic growth. But the costs are likely to include about $3 billion of residential property claims to the Earthquake Commission significant contributions from the Government to the cost of roading water and sewerage systems in Christchurch some costs for land remediation and significant costs that are being incurred now for welfare assistance and temporary housing. They are significant costs but they will be manageable. 
Chester Borrows 
: What will the earthquake mean for the Government’s wider economic programme to build a faster-growing economy and higher incomes? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The earthquake has simply made it more important that the Government press on with its programme to build on savings exports and productive investment. The costs we are incurring now will mean that we have to take on more debt in the short term. But of course a stronger economy will mean that later on we have more capacity to repay that debt. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Why should New Zealanders have any more confidence in these forecasts of a rebound in 2012 than in those in Budgets 2009 and 2010 which had all been consistently revised downwards prior to the earthquake because of low growth high unemployment falling revenues and National’s deepening recession? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: It will be up to them of course. New Zealanders will make their own decisions about whether to invest more or spend more. Over the last couple of years they have wisely been careful with their spending and increased their savings. I expect that as their confidence picks up as the rebuild gets going they will be willing to invest more in the productive side of the economy. When they have their debt levels right—that is when they have got their debt down—they may start spending a bit more. 
Telecommunications (TSO Broadband and Other Matters) Amendment Bill—Report-back Date 
4. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
 to the  
Minister for Communications and Information Technology 
: Would he indicate his agreement to a further extension if it were required to the report back date for the Telecommunications (TSO Broadband and Other Matters) Amendment Bill? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Communications and Information Technology) 
: 
 No; I do not think such an extension is necessary. The first reading of this bill occurred on 9 December last year and the Finance and Expenditure Committee has until 16 May to complete its consideration which is a period of getting on towards 6 months. Supplementary Order Paper 204 in relation to Telecom’s potential structural separation was tabled on 16 January but I note that many of the issues—in fact most of the issues—in it were canvassed in a discussion document which was released in September of last year. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Does the Minister consider 10 minutes for the submission of a major corporate or industry body on this complex legislation to be sufficient or might he agree with the Chief Executive Officer of the Telecommunications Users Association of New Zealand Paul Brislen who said that the process for this bill has been “outrageous”; if not why not? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I note to the member that the deliberations of and hearing of submissions by the committee is one for the committee. I also note that one of the companies I think it was Vector was given 40 minutes in front of the committee—this morning I understand. The other point to make in terms of Mr Brislen is that he needs to decide which view he is taking because he congratulated us previously on the approach we were taking to the bill. He said: “There is plenty to get our teeth into and now we have the time to do just that.” 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Has he been involved in any way either directly or through his staff in communicating to Government members of the Finance and Expenditure Committee or their staff in relation to the process for oral hearings on the bill; if so on approximately what dates and to what end? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: No I have not. I cannot vouch for every member of everybody’s staff but I am not aware of anything occurring in that regard. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Does he agree with TelstraClear’s Chief Executive Officer Allan Freeth who claims that the hearing process for oral submissions on the telecommunications amendment bill is a “democratic farce” and that not enough time has been given to speakers to adequately articulate a position; if not why not? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I am aware of Mr Freeth’s views. I point out to the member that Mr Freeth has been opposed to the whole idea of the Ultra-fast Broadband Initiative since it was first announced in 2008. So I suppose the question for the member would be whether he is now siding with Mr Freeth in terms of his views on the Ultra-fast Broadband Initiative. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Does the Minister agree with Vector’s Group Chief Executive Officer Simon Mackenzie who warned the Finance and Expenditure Committee just today that the consequences of the Supplementary Order Paper and the truncated partisan process of the bill will increase regulatory risk and investor uncertainty and that that will be priced into up-front bid costs; and can the Minister then explain to the House why his process is costing the taxpayer potentially millions of extra dollars that could have been sent to Christchurch? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Before I call the Minister to answer I tell the member that of course the select committee process is not the Minister’s process. But in so far as the question can be answered by the Minister I call the Hon Steven Joyce. 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: Obviously I was not at the select committee to hear whatever it was Mr Mackenzie is said to have said. But I think taking it at face value the point that it is important to have bipartisan support on these matters is important because it ensures—to the extent that we can—that future Governments will take the same approach. Therefore I ask the member and his colleagues on the committee to deliberate carefully and if possible support the legislation. 
Fonterra—Trading Among Farmers Proposal 
5. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
 to the  
Minister of Agriculture 
: Is he concerned to learn that New Zealand’s first majority Maori-owned dairy company Miraka has reportedly stated that there is a serious risk that Fonterra’s proposed Trading Among Farmers exchange will be illiquid volatile and unstable; if so what assurances can he give Miraka and other dairy processors and industry groups that anti-competitive behaviour will not be tolerated? 
Hon DAVID CARTER (Minister of Agriculture) 
: 
 I am aware of the concerns that have been raised by Miraka and indeed I have agreed to meet the directors of Miraka next week. I take this opportunity to assure the member that for Trading Among Farmers to work the market will have to be deep liquid and stable. I have made that absolutely clear to Fonterra. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Is it the Government’s intention to introduce a dairy industry restructuring amendment bill to the House this year to facilitate Fonterra’s introduction of its Trading Among Farmers capital structure proposal; if so will he invite the Commerce Commission to thoroughly examine this proposal in order to avoid the risk of anti-competitive behaviour that would continue to drive up the price of milk for New Zealanders? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: The answer to the first question is that yes it is the Government’s intention to introduce legislation before the end of the year although final decisions will be made only when the consultation phase has concluded. The legislation will proceed only if there is confidence from other investors within the dairy industry and from general financial investors. I agree with the member that for Trading Among Farmers to work it is absolutely vital that there is a method by which the price of milk is set fairly. It is vital that there is some transparency around the setting of that price. The final point is in relation to the Commerce Commission I am aware the commission has already made a submission on the current proposal. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Is the Minister aware of concerns from Waikato’s Tatua dairy company about future raw milk pricing; if so is he prepared to establish an independent milk price panel with representatives from the Commerce Commission and the Securities Commission and with oversight by the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry to achieve enhanced milk price regulation? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: I am not specifically aware of Tatua’s concern but again it had the opportunity to make a submission. I expect that its concern is one that is shared generally by many in the dairy industry. The setting of the milk price is vital and as I said in answer to an earlier question for Trading Amongst Farmers to work satisfactorily it will be essential that there is some transparency around it. 
Hon Damien O’Connor 
: Does he support the statement in his own report on domestic milk pricing that prices in the domestic market are also influenced by the structure of retail and wholesale markets; if so can he explain the fact that although Australian farmers supply the same milk into the same international market Australian consumers are now paying $1 per litre for milk and New Zealand consumers are having to pay up to $2.75 per litre; and will he do anything about it? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: As the report the member referred to concludes the dairy legislation—and he was a vital part of it being passed by this House in 2001—does provide for competition for the domestic milk sector. It does not ensure competition and that is not a matter for me as the Minister of Agriculture but of course it is a matter for the Commerce Commission. On the point regarding the Australian retail milk price the member may be aware that milk is the subject of an intense price war between supermarket chains with the suggestion that it is a loss-leader for some of those supermarket chains in Australia. 
Economic Development Acting Minister—Duration of Appointment 
6. 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
 to the  
Acting Minister for Economic Development 
: Has he been advised by the Prime Minister whether his appointment as Acting Minister for Economic Development is temporary or expected to carry on to the election? 
Hon DAVID CARTER (Acting Minister for Economic Development) 
: 
 No. I serve at the pleasure of the Prime Minister. 
Hon David Parker 
: Given that it appears that his appointment is at least for the foreseeable future can he tell the House what new plans he has as Acting Minister for Economic Development to stop the slide in the New Zealand economy? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: I intend to follow the very strong focus of this Government on an economic growth agenda. We need to improve trade opportunities and we want to invest in innovation—Labour opposes that. We intend to reform a lot of poor regulations—Labour opposes that. We intend to improve skills—Labour opposes that. We intend to spend more money on infrastructure—Labour opposes that. We have already much improved the tax system—Labour opposed that. 
Hon David Parker 
: Why does his Government still not take responsibility for New Zealand’s slide when even business commentators are now saying: “If bombed-out economies such as the US and the UK are showing strong signs of investment-led recovery why aren’t we?” 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: The member who should take responsibility for the slide in New Zealand’s economic performance is that member and his Government who neglected the economy for 9 long years. 
Hon David Parker 
: Is the real reason for the economy not prospering that National’s steps to transform the economy have been timid and have merely tinkered around the edges when strong steps are needed to make new exports thrive? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: Absolutely no. 
Hon David Parker 
: Is the Minister saying that he is happy with the performance of the economy and the steps his Government has taken to date given that even business commentators are saying that “The new recession is the Government’s—it must own up.”? When will he own up? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: No I am not happy with the performance of the economy. But it is very evident to me that it takes a long long time to turn round an economy that was so dramatically neglected by the previous Labour administration. 
Question No. 4 to Minister—Amended Answer 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Communications and Information Technology) 
: 
 I seek leave to make a correction to an answer I gave to question No. 4 earlier. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for the Minister to make a correction to an answer. Is there any objection to that course of action? There is no objection. 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I transposed a date. Instead of 16 January I should have said 16 February. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thank the Minister. 
Earthquake Christchurch—Reopening of Schools and Early Childhood Education Centres 
7. 
JO GOODHEW (National—Rangitata) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: What progress has been made on reopening Christchurch schools and early childhood education centres since the 22 February earthquake? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 By the end of yesterday 77 percent of all schools had reopened and we currently expect that 94 percent of schools will be open by Monday of next week. In addition 237 early childhood centres—that is 70 percent—have opened in Christchurch and by Monday of next week 265 are expected to be open. 
Jo Goodhew 
: What initiatives have been put in place for those children whose school has not yet reopened? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: In addition to individual schools providing out-of-school learning initiatives the Ministry of Education has set up 10 learning hubs and more will be set up if they are needed. These hubs are available for children in years 1 to 8 and provide a supervised learning environment. They are proving popular with children and by 10 a.m. today 334 children had enrolled. 
Hospitals Public—Sales 
8. 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Does he favour the sale of any public hospitals in New Zealand; if so which one or ones? 
Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health) 
: 
 The Government is not interested in selling public hospitals as the Government is committed to growing and protecting the New Zealand public health services. However that does not prevent existing buildings from being sold if a hospital moves to a better facility—one that is better for patients. In Queenstown for example I am advised that the Southern District Health Board is looking at a number of options for improving services including co-location on the existing hospital site or co-location on a new site in Queenstown. 
Grant Robertson 
: Did he tell the Southern District Health Board chief executive Brian Rousseau that he supported the sale of Lakes District Hospital if a privately run medical centre was developed in its place in Queenstown? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: No. The Queenstown district is one of the fastest-growing parts of New Zealand and is expecting an increasing demand particularly from older people. Meeting this growing demand will require significant financial resources and the smart cooperation of the public and private services. As the Southern District Health Board works through the options I am sure there will continue to be more publicly provided hospital services in Queenstown in the future. 
Grant Robertson 
: Given that answer was Mr Rousseau not telling the truth when he told local councillors on 3 March that he had the Minister’s support for the sale of the hospital if a privately run medical centre was developed in Queenstown in its place? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: I cannot verify what Mr Rousseau actually said. But I can tell the member that the Government has made it very clear to the Southern District Health Board that we think there need to be improved services for the people of Queenstown. They have been talking about that for—it must be—almost 20 years and it is time the board got on with it. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: What additional public hospital buildings has this Government invested in over the past 2 years? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: The Government has approved more than a dozen hospital capital projects totalling more than $500 million in the last 2 years: the Waikato Hospital acute medical precinct at $30 million; Middlemore Hospital future growth at $200 million; Lakeview emergency care centre at North Shore at $48 million; Dunedin Hospital and Wakari Hospital upgrades at $24 million; Greenlane surgical centre at $24 million; Whakatane Hospital at $65 million; and on Friday $80 million for a new Taranaki Base Hospital was announced. 
Grant Robertson 
: What guarantee can he give to Queenstown residents that their health services will be affordable when the Queenstown Medical Centre is the driving force behind the privately run medical centre that is planned to replace the hospital and when that centre is responsible for some of the highest after-hours medical fees in the country including a $102 fee for a baby for an after-hours visit? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: That compares with some $200 when Labour was in office according to  
Hansard 
. The guarantee that I would give to the people of Queenstown is that the district health board is currently consulting on a number of options one of which is the co-location of services on the Queenstown hospital site. The other option is the co-location of services on a new modern facility yet to be determined. Co-location was not uncommon under Labour with private providers working alongside public services at Wairau Hospital Wanganui Hospital Hawera Hospital and Middlemore Hospital. Indeed at Wairarapa Hospital there is a private hospital working in the public hospital and the MidCentral District Health Board provides public health and mental health outpatient clinics out of a private hospital in Dannevirke. That was done under Labour. 
Grant Robertson 
: Will he follow through on his commitment that clinical leadership should be “from boardroom to bedside” and ask the Southern District Health Board to take notice of the recommendations of the overwhelming majority of the clinical advisory group on the Queenstown proposal who oppose the board’s plan to have a privately run centre? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: The Government’s commitment to clinical leadership speaks volumes in the results that we are delivering for the people of the Southern District Health Board with record levels of elective surgery faster cancer treatment and faster emergency departments. 
Earthquake Christchurch—Department of Building and Housing Advice 
9. 
SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) 
 to the  
Minister for Building and Construction 
: What advice has he received from the Department of Building and Housing regarding last month’s Christchurch earthquake? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (Minister for Building and Construction) 
: 
 The Department of Building and Housing has commenced an investigation into the performance of some key buildings in Christchurch in last month’s earthquake. The investigation will include the CTV building the Pyne Gould building the Forsyth Barr building and indeed the Hotel Grand Chancellor. The department will investigate why these buildings collapsed or suffered serious damage in last month’s quake by gathering information on the original design and construction of the buildings the impact of any alterations to those buildings and how they performed in the September fore-quake. The investigation will also consider how the current building code compares with overseas codes for earthquakes. The department’s investigation is separate from the royal commission of inquiry announced by the Prime Minister on Monday. However the technical information provided by the departmental investigation will inform and assist the royal commission of inquiry. The investigation will proceed as quickly as possible. However this is an important task and it is vital that we get it right. 
Simon Bridges 
: How can people contribute any information they have on these buildings to the Department of Building and Housing? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: The department wants to hear from people who have firsthand accounts from working in these buildings or who have photographs or video footage that will assist the inquiry. Anybody who has such information can contact the department on 0800 242 243 or email it to chchinvestigation@dbh.govt.nz. 
Minimum Wage Review—Factors Considered 
10. 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Labour 
: What factors did she consider in deciding to increase the minimum wage by 25c from 1 April in her latest review? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 I considered a range of factors as set out in the Cabinet paper which is available on the Department of Labour’s website. Some of the factors I considered were the impacts on unemployment job creation and low-paid workers. I concluded that in difficult economic times a cautious approach was required and that protecting jobs was paramount. 
Darien Fenton 
: Will the 100000 people on or near the minimum wage find it easier or harder to meet the rising cost of living after her 25c increase in the minimum wage given that the Department of Labour advised her that the increase does not constitute a real increase in the minimum wage? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: I think the important factor is that they will have a job. If Labour had its way they would not have a job and it would be even more difficult for them to meet the costs of living. 
Darien Fenton 
: Did she consider the Department of Labour’s advice that increasing the minimum wage to $13.50 which would put $76 million into the pockets of 100000 Kiwis would have a negligible effect on total employment and thus would not be likely to constrain the job market? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: I considered the advice but I was not willing to put at risk the between 480 and 640 jobs that might have been lost had we increased the minimum wage to $13.50. 
Darien Fenton 
: Why did she not increase the wage to at least $13.50 when it would have put an extra $76 million into the pockets of low-paid Kiwis and into the economy at a time when those Kiwis are struggling to meet rapidly rising food petrol childcare health and other costs? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: As I have said protecting jobs was a paramount consideration. We looked at what we considered was the most sustainable realistic and fair option and we did not want to risk the loss of 600 jobs. 
Darien Fenton 
: Is she concerned by the fact that the National Government’s increases to the minimum wage have consistently been lower than increases to the average wage meaning that the poorest Kiwis are falling further and further behind? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: I can say that since being elected into Government we have increased the minimum wage by $40 a week. At the end of the day it is a matter of finding a balance and getting the most sustainable realistic and fair option whilst protecting jobs. 
Question No. 8 to Minister 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 I omitted to do this earlier. I seek leave of the House to table a document prepared by the Wakatipu Health Trust. It is a question and answer document that includes the statement that the Southern District Health Board chief Brian Rousseau told the mayor that he had the Minister of Health’s support for the sale of Lakes District Hospital. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table this document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Roading Projects Hawke’s Bay—Progress 
11. 
CHRIS TREMAIN (National—Napier) 
 to the  
Minister of Transport 
: What progress has been made on roading projects in the Hawke’s Bay region? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 Heaps. I was privileged last Friday to open the first two roading projects completed thanks to the Government’s 2009 half-billion-dollar jobs and growth stimulus package. The first to open was over 12 months ahead of schedule—the Matahorua Gorge realignment on State Highway 2 between Napier and Gisborne. The 3-kilometre alignment removes the sharp twists of the old route eliminating closures and delays caused by adverse weather or crashes. This will have significant benefits for all road users. The project was completed on time and under budget due to the contractor’s innovative bridge design and construction. Over 140 workers were on site for the course of the construction and its completion is a tribute to all stakeholders. 
Stuart Nash 
: What reason did the Minister give to Alan Dick the then-chair of the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council when he summoned him to Wellington last year to tell him he was taking away the $71 million raised through Hawke’s Bay excise tax from the New Zealand Transport Agency fund for Hawke’s Bay to spend it on roading infrastructure in Hawke’s Bay? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: That question is wrong on so many levels. I point out to the member that the Government has invested substantially more in State highway construction than the previous Government was planning to spend—billions more over the next 10 years; $3 billion to $4 billion I think from memory—and it has not been taking funding away from Hawke’s Bay. It is investing very significantly right around the country much greater funding than the previous Government was intending to invest. 
Stuart Nash 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I want to clarify: is that what he told Alan Dick when— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order. 
Craig Foss 
: What improvements have been made to the Hawke’s Bay Expressway due to the Government’s transport stimulus project? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: More good news! The Hawke’s Bay Expressway southern extension was the second project opened last Friday following its acceleration by the Government’s half-billion-dollar jobs and growth package. The southern extension is the last piece of the expressway which has been on the book since the 1960s. Its completion better connects Hastings Napier and the airport and removes two busy intersections as well as a crash black spot. There were over 170 workers on site during the course of construction. The project provided local jobs and contributed to the economy during the economic downturn. The completion of these projects is great news for the locals but it is just part of a wider multimillion-dollar investment that the Government has made in new State highway construction in the Hawke’s Bay region under the current National Land Transport Programme. 
Economy—Oil Dependence 
12. 
GARETH HUGHES (Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What steps if any is he taking to reduce New Zealand’s economic vulnerability that stems from dependence on oil? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 The Government is moving to ensure that in the light of any number of potential international pressures or economic shocks we have a resilient economy where price changes flow through quickly and people have the opportunity to adapt to those price changes as they will if the price of oil continues to rise. 
Gareth Hughes 
: Is he aware of the UK Government’s recent carbon plan which sets out a number of Government actions that will reduce the UK’s economic dependence on oil and why does New Zealand not have such a plan? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: New Zealand had some kind of carbon plan that was put together by the last Government but the analysis I saw of it showed that it set out very expensive ways of reducing carbon. We actually favour the emissions trading system which I know the Greens favour as well. 
Gareth Hughes 
: Is the Minister aware of the Dunedin City Council’s peak oil vulnerability analysis report which identifies local government actions to prepare for high oil prices? Why is the National Government not undertaking a similar analysis? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I have not been aware of that report but it is likely that it will not be particularly effective judging from the title of it and the fact that a local council has very little opportunity to actually influence the Western World’s vulnerability due to its use of oil. 
Gareth Hughes 
: Will the Minister act on the recommendations of the 2008 New Zealand Transport Agency report  
Managing transport challenges when oil prices rise 
 which advises the Government to cease all new motorway building until Government funding and regulations that increase our dependence on oil have been removed? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I expect that under this Government’s programme to upgrade our roading infrastructure people will have more choices—for instance to catch buses. I would be interested in discussing the issue with the Greens. A successful public transport system will certainly rely on buses as the main form of public transport. Buses need roads that are not totally congested otherwise they cannot provide a service to the public. 
Gareth Hughes 
: What percentage of commuter bus services does he expect to use the Waikato Expressway the Puhoi to Wellsford “Holiday Highway” or any of the other five planned motorway projects? Does he not agree that investment in buses and trains would make the existing road network more efficient than new motorways? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Waikato Expressway is a vital infrastructural artery for our export economy. Although commuters have interests and the Government needs to invest in transport infrastructure to meet their needs it is actually more important that we have an economy that can earn and be competitive in the world. That is why we focus on some infrastructure outside of the main cities. 
Gareth Hughes 
: How can New Zealanders respond to price signals and change their travel behaviour when his Government is prioritising $10 billion on expensive motorways over other essential public transport projects such as the Auckland central business district rail loop? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: A feature of the Government’s programme is that it has maintained a significant investment in public transport such as the Auckland rail network and the Wellington commuter rail network alongside a significant investment in roads. We believe the combination of the two will lift our productivity and increase the prospects of sustainable economic growth in the future. We accept of course that rising oil prices and rising petrol prices may well change behaviours. People are making those decisions one by one right now. We do not believe an overall bureaucratic plan will do a better job of adapting than individual New Zealanders can do. 
Gareth Hughes 
: Given that oil makes up 16 percent of our imports and 99 percent of our transport fuels why is the Government failing to act responsibly by developing a national strategy to reduce our oil dependency as many other countries and local councils are doing? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Because we do not see a strategy as a replacement for action. I know that that is a radical change in approach from a New Zealand Government. Every day New Zealanders are making decisions to change their behaviour based on changes in the oil price and we think that largely they are making pretty sensible decisions. 
Gareth Hughes 
: I seek leave to table two documents. The first is a letter revealed under the Official Information Act from the New Zealand Transport Agency that states there has been no modelling of high oil prices— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Gareth Hughes 
: The second document I seek leave to table is the research report 357 commissioned by the New Zealand Transport Agency entitled  
Managing transport challenges when oil prices rise 
 which recommends ceasing spending on the motorways. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Questions to Members 
Telecommunications (TSO Broadband and Other Matters) Amendment Bill—Submissions Received 
1. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
 to the  
Chairperson of the Finance and Expenditure Committee 
: How many submissions have been received so far on the Telecommunications (TSO Broadband and Other Matters) Amendment Bill? 
CRAIG FOSS (Chairperson of the Finance and Expenditure Committee) 
:  
Thirty-three submissions have been lodged. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: How many minutes has he allocated for the oral hearing of each submission that submitters wish to be heard? 
CRAIG FOSS 
: I do not allocate the minutes. That is a matter for the committee. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I took the liberty of taking the advice of the Clerk in relation to this supplementary question and under the Standing Orders it is the responsibility of the chairperson to set the agenda and the timetable for the committee. I understand that my supplementary question is in order. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: To respond to the point of order that has been raised I advise that the chairperson can set time limits for submissions. Of course likewise the committee can make those decisions. If the chair has made the decision the chair can answer it. If the committee has made the decision it is a matter for the committee. 
CRAIG FOSS 
: Just for clarification I say that an indicative 10 minutes was allocated to help our agenda through this week. As we know this morning we heard about five or six submissions the longest of which took 40 minutes. 
Telecommunications (TSO Broadband and Other Matters) Amendment Bill—Requests for Oral Submissions 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Question No. 2 the Hon David Cunliffe. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Because the Opposition fought for it. My question is to the Chairperson— 
Hon Members 
: Oh! 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I did not hear what the member said but obviously it caused disorder. I ask him to please just ask question No. 2.  
2. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
 to the  
Chairperson of the Finance and Expenditure Committee 
: How many submitters on the Telecommunications (TSO Broadband and Other Matters) Amendment Bill have requested an oral hearing? 
CRAIG FOSS (Chairperson of the Finance and Expenditure Committee) 
:  
Twenty-four submitters have requested an oral hearing. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Is the chairperson satisfied that the committee has provided sufficient time to hear and consider all those submissions before the report-back date of 16 May? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: What the committee does is not a matter the— 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have before me a  
Hansard 
 transcript of questions to members including a question to the chairperson of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee of 14 September 2010 when an almost identical question by my colleague Darien Fenton was allowed to be asked of the chairperson David Bennett. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If I erred on that occasion I apologise to the House but the chairperson is not responsible for decisions of the committee. 
Telecommunications (TSO Broadband and Other Matters) Amendment Bill—Times Allocated for Oral Submissions 
3. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
 to the  
Chairperson of the Finance and Expenditure Committee 
: Is he aware of any complaints about times allocated to submitters on the Telecommunications (TSO Broadband and Other Matters) Amendment Bill? 
CRAIG FOSS (Chairperson of the Finance and Expenditure Committee) 
:  
Yes I am. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Why is he attempting to ram through complex technical submissions on a huge and complex bill— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: —in only 1 week— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: What was it about my being on my feet that the member did not see? I ask the member to please not do that again. When I get to my feet members will resume their seat. That is one of the absolute rules I require. The member knows that that question was not in order. 
General Debate 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Police) 
: 
 I move  
That the House take note of miscellaneous business 
. I begin by acknowledging the tragedy in Japan in the last week. The fact that our friends in Japan have had an earthquake a tsunami and a nuclear threat is one of those tragedies that many of us thought was not even an option when we had our own tragedy on 22 February this year. Despite this terrible time we know that the thoughts of the people of New Zealand and the world are with the people of Japan as they go through this terrible situation. It was bad enough having the earthquake but then came the tsunami. We saw on various news reports images of houses and people who had been swept away by the tsunami—everything was just swept away in its path—but now they have this nuclear threat. 
When we had our own tragedy on 22 February Japan was one of the first countries to offer us assistance and I can remember on 24 February on the Thursday after the earthquake seeing the Japanese urban search and rescue team coming down to the CTV building to help go through the rubble to see whether they could find anybody alive. I spoke with one of the doctors who were with the urban search and rescue team from Japan. Extraordinarily professional people were in that team and they worked really hard and they have now had to go back to Japan to respond to their own tragedy. 
The aftershock on 22 February brought out the very best in our people and I think that is something that we can be very proud of. It has also brought out the very best in our Christchurch-based members of Parliament across the House who I note in the  
Press 
 today are still holding clinics and trying to do the best that they can to help their constituents. On a non-partisan basis I congratulate them on keeping on doing the job that they are paid to do and we expect them to do. 
I would also like to make a comment about the fund-raising in New Zealand. Never has an Aucklander seen so many pro-Canterbury people and really dyed-in-the-wool Cantabrians as we have over this matter. We have had fund-raising from one end of the country to the other. We have had fund-raising all over the world by people who have been sending us help. 
When I look at some of the very best of our people I think back to 24 February when I met a young constable. He had been with the New Zealand Police for 6 months and his job was to take me around some of the places where there were dead people and where all sorts of work was going on. He had 6 months’ experience and I asked him how his house was. He said it was destroyed. It had gone back to the swamp. The area had been drained but it had gone back to a swamp. His house was covered in liquefaction and debris. He had a wife and young baby and he said: “But we’re all right.” so I asked him why he was all right. He told me that his wife had made good friends at Plunket and one of them had taken his family in. Rather than being home or looking after his own property or his own family he was at work—where we would expect him to be because he is a professional and he is one of our finest. 
As we went around the central area of Christchurch in a marked police car we were stopped by various people. They came to ask him for help. Some people asked him for water so he popped the boot of the car and out came some water bottles for the people. We were asked for petrol and he let them know where he thought the next open petrol station was. When we were at the chambers in Christchurch where all the civil defence people were working he was approached by a young girl who wanted an asthma inhaler. Her asthma inhaler was on the fifth floor of an apartment building down the road and it was far too unsafe for her to go in there. He went off to look and then he went and let her know where to find an asthma inhaler. I looked at that young man—members know how it is; we get a bit older and all policemen start to look so young—and I realised that nobody was asking the people in suits; they were asking the police officers. I would like to congratulate them on the most excellent work they have done through this terrible time. I thank all of our emergency services our urban search and rescue people and everybody else. They have done a marvellous job. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
: 
 I begin by joining with the previous speaker the Minister of Police in acknowledging the suffering of the Japanese people following the 9.0 earthquake in Sendai the devastating tsunami and the current crisis with the nuclear facilities in Fukushima. A year ago today I was in Japan as a guest of Government in Tokyo and in the Yamaguchi prefecture where my father had served in J-force to assist post-war reconstruction. I must say I feel at a very personal level the suffering of the Japanese people today. New Zealanders know what Japan is going through; Japan was with us in our suffering in Christchurch. We commend the decision of the Government to dispatch an urban search and rescue team to Japan to assist in their struggle. 
All New Zealanders are still struggling with the aftermath of the Christchurch earthquake and Labour supports every effort to help them through that. We know that Government agencies on behalf of all Kiwis have played a remarkable and an honourable role in that relief effort. Beyond that we have seen the best of New Zealanders over the last 3 weeks: the man who pumped the water out of his well on to the street so his neighbours could quench their thirst neighbours helping neighbours people providing food and services free of charge relief centres and search and rescue personnel. All of it proves that New Zealanders have a quiet strength in adversity and are prepared to do the hard yards to rebuild our city and our country. 
Someone said to me that if we could only bottle that spirit of rebuilding Christchurch and use it to rebuild New Zealand we would be better off. I join with that person in expressing that hope. But that is where it becomes difficult unfortunately because the reality is that even before the earthquake New Zealand was going backwards. Growth in the third quarter of last year was negative. Treasury and the Reserve Bank say that growth in the fourth quarter was zero or negative. Unemployment is at recent record levels and apparently rising again. Meantime food prices and petrol prices are rising and people have not had wage rises or they got a puny 25c increase in the minimum wage. 
All around the country and not just in Christchurch New Zealand families are in crisis. It is a crisis because they do not know how they will make ends meet. It is a crisis because they cannot put petrol in the car or food on the table. They face the devil’s choice between taking their kids to the doctor and putting the budget together for the groceries. At the same time Government debt was blowing out and Government services were being compressed. 
Why is all of that happening? The bottom line is that this Government does not have a strong structural and sustainable plan for turning the economy round. This is no time for petty point-scoring; I am not trying to do that. But I ask on behalf of all New Zealanders whether it is not time that we had a recovery and rebuild plan for our whole economy as well as for the great city of Christchurch. If strong Government leadership is appropriate after a disaster surely strong Government leadership is appropriate when our country is in the biggest economic crisis it has faced in decades. 
The Government does not have a plan. Cutting more services from the Government simply puts more people out of work and undermines confidence. Failing to address the underlying imbalances in the property sector in the savings gap and in the investment gap simply means it takes longer to turn business round. When business lacks confidence because they do not know the plan they cannot hire and they are reluctant to invest. That means that people stay out of work and wages stay down. 
As Wilkinson and Pickett in  
The Spirit Level 
 pointed out we are all in this together. When we share the gains and share the pain we are all better off than if we have a society of haves and have-nots where a few at the top do better and better and most in the middle and the bottom do worse. It is not sufficient to rely on a relationship with a few well-placed mates—the Mark Weldons the Rob Fyfes the Fonterras the Telecoms and the MediaWorks of the world—to fill the gap because it does not make the difference. 
Hon KATE WILKINSON (Minister of Conservation) 
: 
 Firstly I add my voice to the voices of others in the House who have acknowledged the tragedy that has struck Japan—that they have potentially lost more then 10000 people in this disaster is absolutely horrific. It has been incredibly difficult to come to terms with the number of lives we have lost in Canterbury but we simply cannot comprehend the pain we would feel had we lost anywhere near the number of people that Japan has lost. Our thoughts and prayers are certainly with them as they go through a rebuilding stage as well. 
Whilst the eyes of the world are quite rightly focused on the volatile situation in Japan we continue to forge ahead with the recovery and rebuilding of Christchurch. I congratulate—with some disappointment I have to say—Auckland on getting the Canterbury Rugby World Cup 2011 games. It has just been announced. This will be a disappointment and an emotional blow for rugby-mad Cantabrians—and I am one of them—but at least now we can move on and look at the big and bigger picture of rebuilding Christchurch and Canterbury. 
No one is disputing that rebuilding Christchurch and indeed Canterbury will be a long road and a difficult task. It will be many months before the central business district will be safe and secure enough for construction to begin. At this point we simply do not know how long it will take to return the city to the buzzing vibrant metropolis that it was prior to the September and February quakes. I had an interesting walk— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am not sure whether one is meant to do this immediately or at the end of a speech so I thought I had better do it immediately in case I missed the chance. If the Minister was speaking from an official document when she spoke in respect of the Rugby World Cup I require that document to be tabled. If it is just her speech notes then of course I cannot. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: As I recollect the Standing Orders if the Minister is quoting from a document that is just referring to an issue there is no requirement at all. I will refer to the Minister to make sure that I am not getting this wrong. Was the Minister quoting from an official document? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: No I am referring to a  
3 News 
 breaking announcement. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is in order. That sorts the matter out. 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: As I was saying I had an interesting walk around the central business district on Sunday with the urban search and rescue engineer. Although the devastation is horrific there are some positives. It is interesting to see how the earthquake has affected ordinary lives. There are daily tasks that Cantabrians can no longer do. There are basic tasks that they cannot do but there are also other simple tasks and they are asking where the dentist is where the hairdresser is and where the shop where they used to do their shopping is. Those simple things will take a long time to heal. 
But there are some positives and I want to dwell a wee bit on the positives. Without doubt there were some buildings that as the engineer probably professionally said “misbehaved” but some others actually withstood the shakes and held up. I think we have to take some strength from the fact that some of those buildings had been earthquake-strengthened and it was pleasing to see that the strengthening did work. Some buildings look OK but they are not. Some buildings look bad but they are OK. What is also interesting is the random nature of the damage. It is I think very difficult to comprehend. What we do know is that there is not a single person in this country who is not behind the people of Canterbury and as a Cantabrian I thank the nation for that. People know that a thriving and successful Canterbury is crucial to New Zealand’s future. Cantabrians know it and they are determined to reclaim their lives and their city. 
Each day there is a constant reminder of how amazing our communities in New Zealand are how strong they are how resilient they are and how generous they are. There are simply not enough superlatives to describe how highly I regard the volunteers who worked tirelessly for days and weeks on end. Despite the overwhelming chaos they were faced with they just got on with it one step at a time and they have been truly remarkable. 
The Government has a mammoth task ahead of it to provide all the possible support it can to the Canterbury region. I believe that Friday’s memorial is an important event for the region. Huge numbers of people have not stopped even once to reflect on what has happened. They have not been able to not when they can see how much is still to be done. This is true not only for the general public but also for our policemen firefighters doctors nurses civil defence staff and many others. 
The focus of this year must be on planning the way forward for Christchurch and for Canterbury but Friday is about taking a step back and stopping to recognise the huge emotional impact the earthquake has had on all of us. It will be tough but I strongly believe it will help. I also commend the cooperation between the schools; their effort is superb. 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 I too join with other colleagues to express my thoughts and sympathies to the people of Japan who are facing the aftermath of the earthquake the tsunami and now the nuclear fallout from the explosions at the power plants and the resulting radiation. It is a time when people across the world are looking to provide support to the people of Japan as they deal with a crisis that I fear will be playing out for many many years. Obviously all members in the House will provide our support to whatever New Zealand can do. 
I will add also to other colleagues’ comments about our ongoing support for the people of Christchurch and Canterbury. It is indeed very sad to learn this afternoon that the Rugby World Cup games will not be played in Christchurch this year. Just to clarify some of Minister Wilkinson’s comments before I think the quarter-final games will be going to Auckland but the pool games that Christchurch was to host will be spread to other venues. I hope that venues in the South Island are considered for those pool games in terms of the overall economic benefit that will come from them. 
I note that it is a real shame that the Government which has quite clearly been aware of this decision for some time now has not been as upfront with the people of Canterbury as it may well have been. I think the performance we saw in the House today from Mr Joyce did not reflect well on the Government in terms of being upfront with the people of Canterbury who deserve given everything that they have been through for the Government to take that upfront approach with them. I think that stands as a shame in this House today. 
I refer today to a report undertaken by Regional Public Health in Wellington called  
Food Costs for Families 
. This report was produced just after the GST increase last year. Essentially the report goes through and talks about what percentage of a family’s income they need to spend to create a healthy diet for their family using the Otago University’s Food Cost Survey as the basis. Essentially the paper states that New Zealanders on average spend about 16 percent of their income on food. There is international research to say that if people are spending 25 percent or more of their disposable income on food they can be moving into food stress which is experienced by everybody who is spending more than 30 percent of their income on food. 
The survey shows that in Wellington a family with breadwinners on the minimum wage with two children will spend 34 percent of their income before rental payments or 50 percent of their income after rental payments on food. That puts them well above the international norms and well into the category of food stress. A beneficiary family with two children will be spending 52 percent of their income on food or 66 percent of their after-rent income in order to get a healthy diet. It goes up even more for a beneficiary family who is in private accommodation rather than in Housing New Zealand Corporation accommodation. 
Those are the pressures on families out there today. Rising food costs and the rising impact of the increase on the rate of GST mean that these people are spending a far greater percentage of their income to get a healthy diet than they possibly can afford. The consequences of families not being able to provide healthy food at an affordable price are long term. They are long term for the individuals and the families concerned in terms of issues like obesity and poor nutrition but they are also long term for the whole country. The economic and social costs of the outcomes for people with poor nutrition and poor health are enormous. 
That is why this Government is being irresponsible and out of touch if it does not accept that people are facing enormous increases in their cost of living. The Government is out of touch when the Prime Minister says that it is a lifestyle choice to go to a food bank—it is not. The cost of living in this country and the cost of putting healthy food on the table is getting out of hand. Beneficiary families and families on the minimum wage—working families—are struggling to make ends meet. This Government is out of touch if it thinks that that is a lifestyle choice for those people. The cost of living is impacting right across the board. If I look only in the health sector I see that general practitioner fees are up 6.5 percent and there are after-hours costs of over $100 for a child in Queenstown $129 for an older child and $139 for an adult. These kinds of costs are unacceptable. This Government is out of touch and it needs to realise that the cost of living is going up. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Speaker kia ora tatou katoa. Ko taku noa ake ko te whaiwhai haere i nga kaikorero i te ahiahi nei mo te aitua i tawahi i Hapanihi ka mutu ka whai i tera parekura nui i Otautahi ka mutu i Ahitereiria no reira koi nei te tangi o te ngakau mo te hunga kua ngaro atu i te tirohanga kanohi. Te ahua nei koi nei wa tatou mahi i te roanga o tenei tau he tangi ki wa tatou mate. No reira waiho ratou kia moe kia okioki. 
I nanahi nei hai te ra nei apopo pea ko te take nui e korerohia ana i roto i te Whare Paremata ko te pire takutai moana hou ana ko tera kua whakairia e te Ropu Nahinara me te Pati Maori ki mua i te aroaro o te motu. Kua tu ake ki te whakautu ki te whakahe ranei i etahi o nga korero i korerohia inapo na runga i te he ranei o etahi o nga korero i puta; me te kore marama ranei o nga korero. Ko ta te ropu e noho atu nei te Ropu ACT e ai ki tana tetahi o nga kaikorero i reira he tere rawa te akiakinga o tenei pire i te Whare ka mutu e ai ki ta ratou kua katia tenei te korero i roto i te Whare Paremata. Kai te kaha whakahe au i tera korero. Kua whitu tau tenei pire e korerohia ana me ki i hangaia kia eke ki tenei o nga taumata. 
[ 
Thank you Mr Speaker and greetings to us all. I join the speakers this afternoon to express my condolences in respect of the calamity overseas in Japan following that huge disaster in Christchurch and the one before that in Australia. So the heart grieves here for those who cannot be seen again. It seems that this is all we are doing as this year unfolds mourning our deaths. So leave them there to sleep and to rest.  
The most important thing that was debated yesterday in the House and is to continue today and tomorrow perhaps is the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill that National and the Maori Party have put before the nation. I rise to respond to or to rescind some of the comments that were made last night because some were either made incorrectly or lacked clarity. According to one of the speakers of the ACT Party seated just along the way this bill was rushed through the House. I strongly reject that assertion. This bill has been debated and in the making for 7 years to be where it is now. 
] 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is my understanding that this bill is the next order of business. I think this must be the classic case of anticipating a debate. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It is not fair to interrupt another member’s speech. The member knows that this is the general debate and members are at liberty to talk about almost anything they wish to. He is not anticipating a debate; he is choosing to speak in the general debate on a bill that is currently before the House. I am not aware that there is any Standing Order that forbids during the general debate any comments on other matters before the House. I stand corrected if I am wrong but it is not my understanding— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I think you might be giving a correction soon. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Well we will see. In the meantime I will allow Te Ururoa Flavell to continue. If I am incorrect—and I will seek advice—I will apologise to the member. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL 
: Tena koe Mr Speaker; whakahokia nga meneti nei whakahokia ki te timatanga. Hoi ano kai te pai kai te pai. Ka mutu kia hoki ra ano ki taku korero— 
[ 
Thank you Mr Speaker rewind those minutes—take it back to the beginning. Never mind it is fine it is OK. Now let me go all the way back once again to my speech 
— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Kao kao. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL 
: Kei te pai. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. As long as the debate is extended we have no problem with it. I apologise to the member. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I appreciate the member’s attempt to assist but the member who is speaking has 3 minutes and 14 seconds remaining. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL 
: Kia ora Mr Speaker. Penei taku e korero nei kua roa tenei take e korerohia ana. E 5975 nga whakatakotoranga a-tuhi i tae mai ki te Whare Paremata. I haere te komiti ki te mata o te whenua ki Kirikiriroa ki Tamaki-makau-rau ki Whangarei ki Poneke nei ki Otautahi tonu. E ai ki ta Te Reo Motuhake o Te Tai Tokerau 72 noa iho o taua kaute no te Ao Maori kotahi pai heneti o nga whakatakotoranga a-tuhi no te Ao Maori engari me penei rawa te whakamarama ake. E kaha ana te Pati Maori ki te haere ki te mata o te whenua kia toro atu te ringa ki te mata o te whenua ki tena hapori i tae atu ki nga huinga o te Kahui Rangatira o te Motu ka mutu ko tae atu ki nga hui e hia ke nei. No reira koia tera ehara i te mea no naia tonu nei tenei take i puta mai i te kapata kao. 
Ka mutu he aha nga tino painga o roto i te pire? Kai te korerohia a te ahiahi nei pea apopo engari ko tetahi mea kua puta ara ko tenei kua whai tenei te tikanga i roto i nga take a-ture. He mea nui tera ki a ngai Maori tonu. Ka mutu kua whai wahi ano ra te kupu whanau i roto i nga whiriwhiringa mo te pire ana kua whakawateahia mai tenei whakamarama mo te whanau mo te iwi mo te hapu i roto i te pire. Ko tenei mea mo te manaakitanga he take nui i roto i te Ao Maori. Kua eke tenei mea te manaakitanga ki roto i tenei o nga pire. Ae e tika ana. Ehara i te mea i eke o matou wawata ki nga taumata e tika ana. I kaha tohe matou kia whakahokia nga take nei ki roto i te Koti Whenua Maori mana tonu nga take whakatau ka mutu e ai ki ta matou kai reira nga matauranga hai wetewete i te hohonutanga o nga take a-takutai moana engari me te mea ano hoki he mama noa iho te utu. He ngawari ake te utu o te Koti Whenua Maori hoi ano tua atu o tera kare matou i tino toa i roto i tera whiriwhiringa engari kua whakaaetia mai e te Kawanatanga kua whakatahangia he putea hai awhina i te hunga e hiahia ana ki te whakatakoto i tetahi kereme ki mua i te aroaro o nga koti. 
He nui nga korero mo tenei mea te muru whenua. Ko ta matou ko te ki atu ka tino kokirihia tenei take i tenei pire kia whakahokia te whenua Maori ki roto i nga ringaringa o te iwi Maori. E ki ana etahi ko te “legalised confiscation” 
tetahi take e korerohia. Ae ko ta matou ki me ata titiro ki tera take. Ko ta matou ko te ki atu mena i murua te whenua i nga tau kua hipa ahakoa a-ture a-public works 
  
he aha ranei e kore tera e aukati i nga huarahi katoa kia hoki nga iwi ki te koti. 
Ka mutu me mihi ki a Te Aitanga-a-Hauiti kua tae mai tetahi korero ki te ki me anga whakamua kaua e tatari. Kia ora tatou. 
[ 
Thank you Mr Speaker. As I alluded to before this matter has been talked about for a long time. Five thousand nine hundred and seventy-five written submissions arrived at Parliament. The select committee travelled to Hamilton Auckland Whangarei Wellington and Christchurch. The independent voice of Te Tai Tokerau has suggested that only 72 of that number were from the Maori people—just over 1 percent of the written submissions received; but let me explain it this way. The Maori Party went hard out to visit the country to extend the hand to that community and that attended Iwi Leaders Forum conferences and many many meetings about the matter. So it is not as if this has just emerged from the cupboard—not at all.  
What benefits are there in this bill? Perhaps these will be mentioned this afternoon or tomorrow but one benefit is that Maori customary values and practices will permeate legislation—a matter of huge importance to all of Maoridom. The term “whanau” is incorporated throughout the bill as are “hapu” and “iwi”. “Manaakitanga” is an important concept in Maoridom. It has been introduced in this bill and rightly so. However we were not successful in everything we advocated for. We argued strongly for cases relating to the foreshore to be taken to the Maori Land Court arguing that the expertise to untangle complex and far-reaching issues is there. Moreover the expenses involved in pursuing a claim at the Maori Land Court are considerably less. We did not win that one but we did achieve confirmation that the Crown will provide funding for claimants.  
There is much rhetoric about confiscation. We say that this bill advocates the return of Maori land to their people. Some say the issue in question here is “legalised confiscation”. Yes we say that the issue must be addressed. To us if land was confiscated years ago under legislation be it for public works or whatever that should not impede tribes from going back to the courts. 
Finally I must acknowledge a message from Te Aitanga-a-Hauiti which has just come to hand saying: “Go forward—do not wait.” Greetings to us 
.] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Yes it relates to the point of order I had previously; notwithstanding the fact that I had worked it out about a minute later I thought it was probably appropriate and polite to let the member who was speaking finish. But I submit to you Mr Speaker that Standing Order 109 is absolutely clear and if that is not clear enough then pages 185 and 186 of  
McGee 
 make it very clear that unless you are of the judgment that a matter will not be got to then it cannot be anticipated in earlier debate. I know that I have been told off by previous Speakers for anticipating debate during a general debate. Although we know that a general debate is wide-ranging the fact that it is wide-ranging cannot overrule the Standing Orders which make it clear that a member may not anticipate discussion of any general business—or in this case an order of the day. The bill is Government order of the day No. 1 and unless you know something that I do not know Mr Speaker I am anticipating that we will get to that within the next hour. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Speaking to the point of order— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not think I need further assistance on the matter; I thank the honourable member. I accept the points the Hon Trevor Mallard is making—that specific debate around a matter on the Order Paper that is to come before the House later on should not be allowed. Indeed Standing Order 109 precludes that. But I ask the member to reflect back on what Te Ururoa Flavell actually said. He said that matters were raised in the debate yesterday and that he wished to comment on the issues that were talked about yesterday during debate in this House. That cannot be anticipating debate for today because he was specifically referring to issues raised yesterday. Had he specifically said that he wanted to talk about—if I recollect correctly the Committee was on Part 1—issues in “Part whatever” which was still to come up in front of the Committee of the whole House then I think the member’s point of order would have been valid. So there is nothing wrong with his point of order at all; it is just that it is my assessment that the member was talking about issues that had been raised in debate yesterday. That cannot be anticipating debate especially when the particular legislation the Committee is focused on is a part by part debate in the Committee of the whole House and the member did not say that he wanted to talk about parts that are still to come up in the debate. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Again this is without rancour and it is a “let us get the rules established” type of point of order. Still to come in the debate obviously is everything of substance other than Part 1 and we also have from my understanding a title clause and a commencement clause. I was listening to the member and relying on the translation but I could not identify anything he referred to that could not have been part of the bill. I accept that he was responding initially to the comments that Hone Harawira made yesterday but the points of substance he was making actually referred to details in the bill and the focus of the bill to which we have not yet got. I think this ruling is effectively a rule change. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I realise that the member wants to clarify the Standing Order in this area but I invite him to reflect on the whole development of the general debate and of the origins of this Standing Order. He being a longstanding member will reflect that the general debate is a relatively recent innovation and I think that around the general debate there is a lot of laxity if you like in terms of what members can address. But I think that the member speaking when he got to his feet said specifically that he wanted to cover issues address issues that had been raised in the debate yesterday and as Speaker I cannot determine which part of the legislation he is referring to. Some of these issues if they were covered yesterday one presumes may be related to the preamble and to Part 1 of that relevant legislation. Certainly nothing in Standing Order 109 prevents a member during this general debate from going over material that was covered yesterday. 
All I ask members is just to be mindful of the points that the Hon Trevor Mallard has made—that our Standing Orders do as a matter of principle preclude anticipating debate. Therefore were the member to have been focused particularly on issues still to come up in the Committee of the whole House then I would have had a serious concern about the matter. So I accept that the member’s point of order is well made and well founded but I think that under these particular circumstances it would have been unreasonable of me to rule Te Ururoa Flavell’s speech out of order when in his opinion he was specifically referring to issues that had been covered yesterday and therefore was not anticipating. Although I accept what the member is saying—that some of these issues may yet again come before the House during the third reading and the title and commencement debates etc.—I think it would be unreasonable for me to be too pedantic in that area. I think the general principle is important but I think that the member was reasonable in referring to issues covered yesterday. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Just one further point. I think you referred to the general debate as a relatively recent innovation. I think I can remember it being here since 1986. It might in the time of Parliament be something that is relatively recent but I think that in our experience it is probably not really. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have just been told by the Clerk of the House that it was 1984—forgive me; I obviously would rather think it was— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Oh so Parliament has been around for a long time so it is “relatively recently”. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I accept the honourable member’s correction there and I stand corrected. 
JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) 
: 
 I want to begin by extending my thoughts and best wishes to the people of Japan who are enduring the worst calamity possible with the major earthquake followed by a tsunami and now a developing nuclear crisis. 
In our own country the aftershock in Christchurch on 22 February brought fresh sadness to the people of Canterbury. We got away with only property damage in the September earthquake but the February earthquake was indeed a tragedy for the families and friends of those people who died in New Zealand and throughout the world including some folk from Japan. Also there was a sadness for all of the rest of us throughout New Zealand and further afield. 
I want to pay tribute today to the Prime Minister John Key and his Ministers for their swift decisive effective thoughtful and compassionate response to this tragedy of ours. The job now is rebuilding Christchurch. Mayor Bob Parker and the Minister of Civil Defence John Carter have been absolutely tireless in their efforts to restore essential services to the people of Christchurch because once we begin to deal with the shock the grief and the horror of what has happened to people we then have to get down to the more mundane aspects of this tragedy and start thinking about and acting on the challenges of the practicalities of providing essential services. 
A massive recovery operation is required and the declaration of the extension of the state of national emergency ensures that the maximum possible coordination and cooperation between central and local government and between central and local resources will be most effective in response to this disaster. Essential infrastructure throughout Christchurch was absolutely devastated. Power services reticulated water and sanitation ceased for many many people in Christchurch. 
Life changed immediately for the people of Christchurch who as well as being traumatised and fearful of what happened and of the aftershocks still to come were also coping maybe for the first time in their lives with having to deal with the very practical business of going about living drinking eating going to work and using essential services. So it is encouraging and it is to the credit of all those involved including those I have named that the services are well on the way to being restored. The job is not done obviously and a lot of work still needs to be done in the short medium and long term but there is a plan and many many gains have been made. 
Power has been restored to nearly 100 percent of customers and that has been done by the power companies working tirelessly 24 hours a day day and night on restoring that essential service to customers. 
Inside the central business district the area that has been absolutely devastated 50 percent of central business district customers have been reconnected. As we know those services are fragile and fluctuating and the system is still not secure. However it has certainly made many gains. Approximately 95 percent of households on a mains water supply have now been reconnected and I know that the lack of reticulated water—water still has to be boiled—has been of particular concern to people. They cannot cook they cannot bathe and they cannot wash their hands without water. I know that the connection of that service was the highest priority and 95 percent of that has been achieved. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 It is heartbreaking to see people in north-east Japan who are reeling from the devastation of the earthquake and the tsunami now living in fear of nuclear radiation. Japan the only country to be attacked with nuclear bombs with a huge loss of life is now in the midst of another nuclear disaster. It puts in question the whole future of the nuclear industry. It may be the death knell of nuclear power not only in Japan but worldwide. 
For the Greens this latest tragic accident reinforces what we have long said: nuclear power is inherently dangerous. Nuclear technology is outside the limits of human safeguards. In a nuclear power plant there can be no guarantee that radiation will not be released as a result of a natural disaster or through human error. The danger of radiation release or a meltdown can be minimised but it cannot be eliminated. When an accident occurs the consequences can be monumental. 
There have been a series of nuclear accidents leakages and near misses in several countries since the big accidents at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. In 1999 in Japan two workers at the Tokaimura plant died from high radiation doses when a nuclear chain reaction began after safety regulations were violated. In 2004 five workers were killed in a steam explosion at Japan’s Mihama reactor. There has long been controversy over nuclear safety issues at Britain’s Sellafield nuclear plant. 
Safety problems exist not only in nuclear power plants but also in the transport and storage of nuclear waste which amounts to about a quarter of a million tonnes a year. There is simply no way to store such waste safely so that it will not affect future generations as it leaches into waterways the sea or the atmosphere as a result of earth movement or earthquakes. There is no guarantee that future generations will even know where the waste is stored. 
Then we have the danger of the products of the nuclear industry enriched uranium and plutonium being used to make nuclear weapons or the radioactive material itself being used to make what are known as “dirty bombs”. The end of the nuclear power industry would enhance the possibilities for nuclear disarmament. 
In some countries politicians argue that they need nuclear power plants to produce enough electricity. However the truth is that nuclear power is an expensive and short-term alternative to renewable sources of energy. There is nowhere in the world where nuclear power plants are not subsidised by Governments collectively to the tune of billions of dollars. Nuclear power is a short-term energy solution. As the International Energy Agency said in 2008 if all the planned new reactors come on stream the known reserves of uranium 5.5 million tonnes will be gone by 2050—in less than 40 years. 
Instead of subsidising nuclear power plants Governments should be investing in research on renewables and allowing for subsidies for renewable energy as well as encouraging energy saving. That would be cost-effective sustainable and safe for people and the environment. 
The latest nuclear disaster in Japan makes me so glad that our country is nuclear-free and I pay tribute to the many thousands of New Zealanders whose active campaigning from 1960 to 1985 made us so. I pay particular tribute to the Campaign Half Million petitioners in the 1970s who knocked on the head plans to have a nuclear power plant in New Zealand. 
However we should not sit back. Our Government should be taking our nuclear-free message to the world campaigning at the UN and elsewhere for a phase-out of nuclear power plants and for the promotion of renewable forms of energy. We should join hands with the antinuclear campaigners in Japan who are using this opportunity not only to help those who are currently in danger and potentially dying but also to push for a transition away from nuclear power. The Greens Japan have inspired an Asia-Pacific Green Network statement calling for all countries in our region to “suspend all operations constructions and plans for nuclear plants” pending a regional hearing on the safety social environmental and economic issues involved. We owe it to those now suffering from nuclear radiation in Japan to take such protective steps. 
ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tamaki) 
: 
 When New Zealanders have the chance to look back and reflect on the misfortune that struck Christchurch last month and think about the immediate event the rescue efforts the recovery efforts and now the beginning of the reconstruction they will take a lot of confidence and a lot of satisfaction from the way that their Government has responded—by that I mean government in the broadest possible sense. Obviously it has not been perfect in every instance; in a situation like that it never can be. But I think everybody will agree that it has been pretty jolly good and that large numbers of New Zealanders have got in behind the effort broken their backs and done everything they possibly can. That will continue. 
I want to devote the time I have in my short speech to talk about the education system in Christchurch its response and the challenges that lie before it. Right across the broad aspect of life people are having to adapt and it is no different for the children who go to school their parents and their teachers. But the way that everybody has moved to get the schooling system the education system generally back in operation has been impressive. I understand that by the end of this week 143 Christchurch schools will have been reopened which is 88 percent of schools and 234 early childhood education centres will have reopened which is 69 percent of all centres. Canterbury University is getting up and running. Imaginative exchange programmes have been put in place for students to study at five other New Zealand universities and some students have had the opportunity to go to Adelaide. Christchurch Polytechnic is getting under way as is Lincoln University and a large number of the private training establishments. 
Christchurch City in an education and schooling sense is getting under way and gradually getting back to normal. It will not be easy. One of the most impressive things happening is the sharing of school resources. That is going to be an interesting innovation. It may turn out to be quite an educational experiment from which we will learn a lot and it may have potential for other areas in New Zealand. I certainly will be watching the outcome of that sharing very very closely. There is the Papanui High School/Shirley Boys High School arrangement: Papanui High School operates in the morning; Shirley Boys High School operates in the afternoon. Shirley Boys High School of course was one of the most seriously damaged schools in the city and is a school that has a great record of service and of educating boys in that particular part of the town. 
I noted with interest a comment in the media this morning by the principal of Shirley Boys High School in which he said it would be unrealistic to expect most pupils would catch up on everything they had missed. I am not sure about that but I am confident every effort will be made to ensure the students in Christchurch schools who have lost education will be able to catch up. I am quite excited to hear some of the suggestions made about the possibilities of extra tutorials school during the holidays Saturday classes and bringing in volunteers and retired teachers to help. I have every confidence that where schools decide to go the extra mile for their youngsters whether it be Saturday classes evening classes or holiday classes teachers will step up and do the job because that is what schoolteachers do. As a former school principal and teacher myself I encourage Canterbury teachers to do that. Teachers belong to a profession with a long history of service and when needed—and Mr Davis opposite will concur I think with what I am saying—and when called upon they will step up. In anticipation of that I thank them for their effort. 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
: 
 I join with the House in expressing my sadness and condolences for the people of Japan who have faced a horrific earthquake an unbelievable tsunami and now a nuclear threat the likes of which we have not seen since 1986 with Chernobyl. It is just unbelievable horror. All we can do is try to pass on our support to the Japanese people send whatever help we can fundraise for those people and give the Japanese families in New Zealand whatever support we can provide. 
Of course we have our own ongoing disaster to contend with in Christchurch. I acknowledge that life has not returned to normal for most people and that there is a way to go. As we said in the House last week when we were debating the Canterbury Earthquake Commemoration Day Bill which gives a day off on Friday Labour will stand with the Government and the people of Christchurch to help them get through this. 
I note also that yesterday 220 workers lost their jobs at Canterbury Spinners. Sadly that is in addition to some job losses that have happened already. There will be more. There is a call out today for the Government to provide a clearer direction about what support redundant workers are entitled to and I ask the Minister of Labour to look at that— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: They’re employed by an international firm. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: They are employed by a national firm that is still operating so there is some lack of clarity about—[ 
Interruption 
] They are Australian owned—is that right? There is definitely a lack of clarity and the workers are very concerned about signing up for individual entitlement because they may have to pay it back if it is incorrectly allocated to them. 
Today I will talk about another group of people who are not doing so well in our country. Although it is important that we give our attention to Christchurch a large group of people in our country rely on the State to set their wages: workers on the minimum wage. They are the poorest paid workers in the country and they are struggling because the Government has put the interests of big business ahead of those people and their families. In a couple of weeks’ time on 1 April their pay will go up by 25c an hour. The Minister was told by her own department that a 25c an hour increase was not an increase in real terms. Under her miserly 25c an hour 53000 workers will get an increase of—actually—nothing. 
We want to see the minimum wage increase to $15 an hour at the earliest opportunity. If that had been the increase this year half a billion dollars could have been put into the economy this year. That has to be good for everyone. However we do not have high expectations for this Government because when it comes to minimum wage workers it is so out of touch with ordinary Kiwi families who are struggling to make ends meet. I do not think it knows how to consider their needs. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Are you going to pay for it? Who’s going to pay for it? Shane Jones? I don’t think so. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: There was an alternative that goes past the arguments that the Hon Tau Henare is yelling out across the House. The Minister could have opted for another 50c an hour taking the minimum wage to $13.50 an hour. Her own department’s advice was that this increase would put $76 million in the pockets of 108000 workers and would have had negligible impact on total employment. Her own department’s advice showed that increasing the minimum wage to $13.50 an hour would have a negligible impact on employment; in fact no jobs would be lost and there would be a marginal reduction in the number of newly available positions in the labour market. 
That $76 million would have been pumped into the economy because we all know that minimum wage workers and low-paid workers spend whatever they earn. That $76 million would have helped them cope with rising petrol costs and increases in rent and food prices. They would have had that money to take their kids to the general practitioner. That little bit of extra money might have helped them deal with the increasing costs in early childhood education. Maybe it would have been enough to cover the increases in car registration this year help pay the power bill or perhaps help pay the phone bill next month rather than just be cut off. These families would have had a little bit extra to cope with but the truth is that the increase to the weekly minimum wage will not pay for even a block of cheese or a litre of milk. 
LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupo) 
: 
 On Friday night I was listening to the news as I drove home and I heard the devastation in Japan unfolding. I must say that when I went to bed it was with dread as I wondered what on earth we would wake up to. The magnitude 9 earthquake off north-eastern Japan and the resulting tsunami and now the nuclear threat have caused widespread devastation with thousands of Japanese having lost their lives and many more thousands missing. Three Fridays ago I was in Auckland and met with some of the Japanese urban search and rescue team who had come to assist us in Christchurch. So it is hard to believe that by this Friday it will be our New Zealand urban search and rescue team that will be assisting Japan and returning their favour. 
But I want to focus just on Christchurch. It is fair to say that this crisis has united the nation. Rebuilding Christchurch will clearly be this Government’s main focus this year which it quite rightly should be. I am particularly proud of the leadership that John Key our Prime Minister has demonstrated in supporting those who are in such desperate need. It will be a long and complex task. It will not be a simple process. It will be about rebuilding Christchurch literally brick by brick. 
This is a Government that has responded very rapidly and very fully to the needs of those in Christchurch so I am somewhat staggered that an Opposition speaker took this opportunity to talk about the minimum wage when there are people in Christchurch who are desperate for housing and for social infrastructure. Those members are talking about $76 million. Where do they think it will come from? Does it grow on trees in their world? Well in Christchurch we are more interested in rebuilding and getting people’s lives back to basics. 
Let us look at this Government which is clearly in touch with what the people in Christchurch need and at the wraparound social assistance package we have provided. It has provided for both employees and employers—both sides of the puzzle. The Christchurch Earthquake Employment Support Package has paid out more than $72 million to businesses sole traders and employees. Earthquake support subsidy payments have been made to nearly 8000 employers covering over 41000 staff and over 9000 sole traders. Job loss cover has been provided to 4900 individuals. Then there is the $12 million that has been distributed through civil defence emergency payments to cover things like food clothing and housing. We have eight recovery assistance centres open and some of them are in the very hardest-hit suburbs. These centres provide a one-stop shop where people can sort out all sorts of emergency payments issues with housing get counselling or simply stop for a chat. There are also six mobile Work and Income vans supporting individuals who are in need in Christchurch. 
If we look at businesses we are pleased to see that some of them have already opted out of the Government’s earthquake support package. They received the desperate support they needed for a short time and now that they are back on their feet they are able to continue. We have provided employers with much-needed certainty during this very uncertain time by supporting them in paying their employees’ wages. There will be further support which will be announced shortly. 
It is fair to say that the Christchurch earthquake was this country’s darkest day but it was followed by some of our very finest moments. Every day heroes emerged whether they were the Student Volunteer Army the Farmy Army or people in our electorates up and down New Zealand. It will of course be a sombre day on Friday when the national memorial service is held in Christchurch but it will give the country an opportunity to mourn the great loss of life. In the words of Mahatma Gandhi: “Strength does not come from physical capacity. It comes from an indomitable will.” We have seen this indomitable will in Christchurch and in Japan. 
CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour) 
: 
 Like other members in this House my heart goes out to the people of Japan and also to our own people in Canterbury. I think that everybody in this House has done their bit to try to assist them and I particularly acknowledge the Christchurch MPs from all parties who have been working so hard. 
I do however find it somewhat distasteful that the last speaker thinks it is not OK for members of this House to comment on other important social matters that affect our country. We cannot have that. We are a House of Representatives. It does not mean that we do not care about those issues if we raise other issues of concern. 
I add my voice and say that I believe we are going backwards. New Zealand is becoming a more unfair society. Inequality is growing. It is becoming a worse place to bring up our children. That is not the New Zealand I want and I do not think it is the New Zealand that most New Zealanders want. The Government is out of touch with the reality facing most New Zealanders particularly low and middle income New Zealanders. That reality sees New Zealanders facing petrol price rises and rental increases. Especially in Auckland where I work the rental increases are just phenomenal. They are also facing power price increases increases in early childhood education fees significant increases in the cost of food increases in ACC levies—the list goes on and on. People are facing ever-rising costs and it is hurting them; it is hurting them very badly. I think members opposite are completely out of touch with that. They obviously are not talking to low and middle income New Zealanders who really are struggling. We can see it in people’s faces when they talk to us about what the latest petrol price rise means for them for example. The reality of the increasing cost of living is very serious. 
When we look at the other side of the ledger the income side we see that prices are rising far faster than wages. Real wages went backwards by 3.4 percent in the year to June 2010 and 100000 more people are now living on benefits which was not made as a lifestyle choice. The 25c per hour increase in the minimum wage is pathetic and insulting as my colleague Darien Fenton said. It will just not cut it for people who are reliant on the minimum wage. That is $10 gross per week for a worker who works 40 hours a week in terms of extra income. That is not enough to buy an extra litre of milk per day or a block of cheese per week for their families. For those who are interested the article by Michael Parker in today’s  
New Zealand Herald 
 headlined “Stop kowtowing to unfair prices” on the issue of milk prices is very interesting. 
But the issue is about more than figures; it is about people who are struggling. What we have seen in this country is more money for a very few people and a lot less money for many others. That puts pressure on families on women who are trying to balance the family budget and on children who are living in poverty in this country. For those members who have not bothered to read the Salvation Army report  
Stalled 
 one in five children in New Zealand is living in poverty. That is not the country I want to live in. Schools are having to provide lunches and they are having to provide breakfasts. More and more families low and middle income families have to seek food parcels. People do so with a sense of shame. They do not do it as a lifestyle choice like the Prime Minister suggested. By November 2010 the Salvation Army had encountered 19000 new households seeking help. In the Maungakiekie electorate that I work in my electorate office has seen an increasing number of cases where the cost of living is severely impacting on families and that is having a negative effect on children. This is an issue for the present and for the future. 
The significant issues are firstly the price of housing and secondly the constantly escalating food prices. I refer to the mother of three who lost her job and received no redundancy but she had a medium level of debt. She was reduced to seeking handouts of food in order to get by. She fed her children before she had anything to eat. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Before I call the next honourable member I take this opportunity to remind all members in the House that members can use certain descriptors but they cannot claim to be an electorate member when they are a list member. I alert members to that. It is becoming an increasing problem that I am having to deal with and I will have to deal with it. Members cannot refer to themselves as being a member for an electorate when they are not. 
MELISSA LEE (National) 
: 
 The first I heard about the Japanese earthquake was when I was sitting with a group of young professional Koreans at our monthly gathering in Auckland. As people do when we get together we were talking about everyday life and on that particular occasion we were discussing the experiences of some of the young people who had travelled to Christchurch and seen the devastation there. 
It was via the social network of Twitter that I heard there was an earthquake in Japan. I did not take much notice as I know that Japan has regular tremors. Then my son rang me to say that there was a disaster in Japan. He said he was recording it and there was slight panic in his voice. I had no idea of the enormity of the disaster. When I got home I sat in front of the television my eyes glued to the screen and mouth wide open in utter disbelief at the sheer force and speed of the magnitude 9 earthquake and subsequent tsunami that had struck Japan. The imagery of cars stuck on roofs and boats on top of houses and factories will remain with me for a long long time. My heart goes out to the people of Japan. I take this opportunity to pay my respects to the people the victims and the families in Japanese: Konkai no oujishin ya outsunami de kaimetsuteki na higai ni awareta nihon no katagata ni kokoro yori okuyami o moushiagetai tou omoimasu. Ka tangi ahau. 
The Japanese disaster does not in any way diminish the effects of our own earthquake in Christchurch. We have all been affected. Most of us have family or friends who have lost loved ones in Christchurch. I personally have friends on the missing list from the CTV site. I have a girlfriend who ran a Japanese restaurant in the middle of the Christchurch central business district who was trapped and had to be rescued. I also have friends whose house was as they said completely munted. It was days before we could get hold of them. It was frustrating not being able to call them. We did not know whether they were alive or dead whether they were hurt. That kind of grief and that kind of anxiety we all have felt. It is a devastating time for all but particularly for the people in Christchurch and the wider Canterbury area who have lived through the disaster and the rescue efforts and now are living through the recovery the clean-up and the rebuild of the Garden City. 
I was in Christchurch a week after the earthquake as our senior whip was cleaning up. I was very very impressed that he had driven his ute down to Christchurch to put his muscles to work. I too headed out to lend a hand in New Brighton and I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Christchurch Korean community headed by the president of its society Kevin Park for their hard work. On the day I was in New Brighton at least 50 to 60 Korean young men and women had rolled up their sleeves to go and help in the areas most affected. Their own homes were cracked were affected by the earthquake yet they were out there cleaning up the silt. Korean churches were providing lunches for these volunteers. I found out today that as Chris said in the area where he was working other Korean young men and women were volunteering their time and their energy to help people. It did not matter whether they were Koreans; they were out there helping others. 
One of the things I will most remember about this earthquake is that on the day I was using my very limited muscle strength to shovel silt I was going to help a Korean father who had lost two children a 24-year-old and a 21-year-old who had been studying at the CTV building. As I was walking out to the car park I saw an elderly gentleman probably in his 80s who was devastated and frustrated that someone had driven past his house at more than 5 kilometres an hour. He had made up a sign saying 5 kilometres; it was the only thing he could control in his life. All I could do was ask “Can I please give you a hug?” and he cried. I felt I had done something good. 
To all the workers who have done the job in Christchurch I pay my respects. I thank the Prime Minister for the leadership that he has shown throughout this disaster which has been one of the biggest this country has faced. 
CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour) 
: 
 I seek leave to make a personal explanation to correct my speech. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for the member to make a personal explanation. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
CAROL BEAUMONT 
: I said in my speech that I work in the Maungakiekie electorate. I then went on to refer to an electorate office. I should have said my out-of-Parliament office. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: With that personal explanation the matter must rest there. 
The debate having concluded the motion lapsed. 
Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill 
In Committee 
Debate resumed from 15 March. 
Part 2 Common marine and coastal area ( 
continued 
)  
DAVID SHEARER (Labour—Mt Albert) 
: 
 When the House rose last night I was speaking on clause 11 and clause 14. Clause 11 is the definition of the common marine and coastal area itself. It refers to that as a no man’s land in effect that belongs to nobody. Although it is largely managed and will be regulated by the Crown it is a political twilight zone the like of which we have never seen before. It is a political piece of legislation and is not in any way designed to make this as Mr Key said “a durable solution”. 
I then spoke on clause 14. Clause 14 as members will recall repeals the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004. I remind members of what was said about this Act by the regulatory impact statement of May 2010. It stated that “If it was not for the symbolic value of repeal and a desire to address the Crown ownership aspect of the Act then amendment could be an appropriate solution …”. In other words the extraordinary divisiveness this legislation has caused would have been unnecessary. 
HONE HARAWIRA (Independent—Te Tai Tokerau) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Chairman. Kia ora tatou katoa e te Whare. I think it is important for all Maori people who are listening to this debate all around the country and who are watching on Parliament TV to be very very clear in their understanding of where the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill is at and what it will take for it to become legislation. We are currently going through the Committee of the whole House which is one of the last chances to convince the Maori Party of the error of its ways. Then after that there will be the final reading after which this bill will become law. I want all Maori to know this because the votes in this Committee of the whole House make it glaringly obvious that if the Maori Party were to withdraw its support for this bill during this stage it would die the death it deserves. This bill is no longer about National; it is about the Maori Party. If Maoridom wants to see this bill end here then I urge them to contact the Maori Party MPs by email or by comment to the website at www.maoriparty.com. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I think this member has one of the loudest voices in Parliament excepting mine and Mr Quinn’s. But I am having trouble hearing him because of the interjections from Mr Henare and Mr Quinn. It is not as if there is healthy interaction happening; they are just yelling right over the top of him. Can I ask that you take some care of that so we can hear him? This is quite important. 
Paul Quinn 
: Speaking to the point of order Mr Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: No there is no need for the member to speak. I will monitor the matter. Members who have been here through this debate will know that I have kept a fairly cautionary eye on interjections. They should be rare and reasonable. 
Paul Quinn 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I have listened carefully to the first minute of this member’s speech. He is meant to be addressing Part 2. He has not mentioned Part 2 yet. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: That is not a point of order. 
HONE HARAWIRA 
: This bill is about the Maori Party. If Maoridom wants to see this bill end here during our discussion on Part 2 then I urge them to contact the Maori Party MPs by email or by comment to their website at www.maoriparty.com calling on them to withdraw their support and to let this bill lapse. 
In speaking to Part 2 of the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill I note that although the bill says it takes away Crown ownership and replaces it with a no-ownership regime called common space in fact it still leaves statutory authority with the Crown. Thus it continues the confiscation of Maori rights to the foreshore and seabed first established by the Foreshore and Seabed Act in 2004 by simply changing the title of the legislation in 2011 to the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill. As my whanaunga Shane Jones rightly pointed out it is nothing but a legal fiction a play on words to calm the fears of Maori people. But it is still a confiscation of Maori rights to the foreshore and seabed. 
The bill we are discussing tonight raises issues such as those in Part 2 as well as in every other part of the bill that less than 1 percent of Maoridom have seen leaving hundreds of thousands of Maori people to ask why Maori Party members have not bothered to come back to explain what is actually in the bill to thank me for opposing it and to ask why on earth Maori Party members are saying they are so proud to support it. Then after all the changes made in the Committee of the whole House including here where we are discussing Part 2 of the bill we will end up with a bill that less than 0.01 percent of Maoridom will have even seen before it comes back to the House for its third and final reading. This will happen not just because National wants it to be that way but because the Maori Party has given its full support to the final version of this bill being rammed through the House without Maori people being given any opportunity whatsoever to consider the consequences of a bill that will have long-lasting and probably devastating implications for Maori land rights. That is why Maori people are telling me how angry they are. They are desperately asking me why on earth Maori Party members are saying they are so proud to support this bill. It is a question I simply cannot answer. 
The bill ensures under Part 2 that the Government will always have the final say in determining what customary title will be which is not what we marched for in 2004. So of course Maori people are asking why on earth Maori Party members are saying they are so proud to support this bill and they are telling me how grateful they are that I am opposing it. Then after going through Part 1 Part 2 Part 3 Part 4 etc. when they finally get to see the bill— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. You ruled earlier on that relevancy was not a point of order. I suggest to you that under Standing Order 107 it is an issue of order. We have been told in this Chamber many a time that we need to concentrate on what is before us—clause part or whatever. This is a general debate speech. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: The point is a fair point and I probably did not explain myself particularly well. The member who raised the original point of order got up and made a statement and never asked a question regarding a point of order. With regard to relevancy it is an issue that is of importance but it is one I believe the Chair is monitoring at this stage. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Just to be of some further assistance I say that if members are bringing up points of order it would probably help if they referred to either the Standing Order or the issue. Mr Quinn did not refer to relevancy nor did he refer to a particular Standing Order. I am sure next time he will get it right. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I am not sure that was helpful. I know the member might have thought it was helpful but I am not sure it was. 
Hon David Parker 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. It is of course open to the Chair to determine when there is repetition or irrelevancy which is relevant to the Chair’s decision as to when he accepts a closure motion. I ask that the Chair observe that there are new matters being raised by the Opposition parties—Labour and some other parties—and that if one particular party is straying from the Standing Orders it does not mean that there are no relevant matters still being raised by Opposition parties. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I am almost offended that the member has to raise that matter with me. I take great care about closures. 
HONE HARAWIRA 
: Tena koe Mr Chair. Tena tatou katoa e te Whare. When they finally get to see the bill Maori will see that under Part 2 of the bill local authorities can apply for compensation at full market value for the loss of any foreshore and seabed they may have under their control. Of course Maori will be asking themselves how come local bodies will get compensation just by asking for it but Maori before they even get a look in will have to prove that they have held exclusive use and occupation of the area since 1840 without substantial interruption and that the area in question was held in accordance with tikanga. They will no doubt be asking again why on earth Maori Party members are saying they are so proud to support the bill and again they will be telling me how grateful they are that I am opposing it. Maori will know that their own iwi leadership has withdrawn their support for the bill including for Part 2 raising again the question of why on earth Maori Party members are saying they are so proud to support the bill and again Maori are telling me how grateful they are that I am opposing it. When Maori realise that of the 70 submissions on this bill—including those on Part 2—from whanau hapu iwi marae and Maori organisations only one supported this bill it is no wonder they are asking why on earth Maori Party members say they are so proud to support this bill when 95 percent of Maori submissions are in support of the position I have taken in opposing it. 
That is I why I need to also ask whether the Maori Party knows that under Part 2 of the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill roads owned by the Government or anyone else will still be owned by the Government or anyone else but not by Maori even if they win their claim. If Maori Party members know that why on earth are they telling everyone that it is their bill and that they are proud to be supporting it? Do Maori Party members know that under Part 2 of the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill any piece of the foreshore and seabed that Maori cannot afford to go to court to get back will no longer be common space nor will it be held for Maori but it will go back to the Crown? If Maori Party members do in fact know that why on earth are they telling everyone that it is their bill and that they are proud to be supporting it? Do Maori Party members know that under Part 2 of the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill the Minister of Conservation will be the manager of the common space and that the Minister of Maori Affairs will not have a role in that management activity at all? If Maori Party members do in fact know that why on earth are they telling everyone that it is their bill and that they are proud to be supporting it? 
Because of those issues I note too that Maori are asking some pretty basic questions right now such as whether this is what Maori people marched for in 2004. The answer is no. Is this what they voted for the Maori Party for in 2005? The answer is no. Is this what Maori wanted out of the coalition with National in 2008? The answer is also no. Is this what Maori expected out of new legislation in 2011? The answer to that is also no. 
Yet the Maori Party is saying that this is not National’s bill it is the Maori Party’s bill and that it is proud to be supporting it even though when Te Ururoa Flavell was asked who was running the timetable he said it was National when he was asked who wrote the bill he said it was National and when he was asked whose bill it was he said it was National’s—and even though Tariana Turia said that if we were negotiating on what was fair just and moral then we would have a very different outcome. This bill is not the Maori Party’s bill. Neither is this Part 2 of this particular bill. It is National’s Part 2 and it is National’s bill. It is not true to say that the Maori Party is proud to support this bill because it does not. The Maori Party caucus supports it—that is obvious—but the members do not. I know that because I received hundreds of emails texts Facebook messages voicemails and comments from Maori Party members telling me they were gutted by what their caucus was doing and they were leaving the party in droves over the Maori Party caucus’s betrayal of this cornerstone issue for the party. Thank you. Kia ora tatou katoa. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National—West Coast - Tasman) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Hon MITA RIRINUI (Labour) 
: 
 Before I talk about particular aspects of the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill and in particular clause 11 I want to acknowledge the comments made by the previous speaker Hone Harawira. A lot of what he said was true. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: A new coalition partner? 
Hon MITA RIRINUI 
: I do not have to be a coalition partner with anyone to recognise the truth I say to Mr Henare. It is interesting—I have a very long memory and Mr Harawira identified some of the issues that the Maori Party campaigned on in 2005. 
As I said I have a very long memory and part of my memory is a particular hui in Tauranga at which the Hon Georgina te Heuheu was present the Hon Nanaia Mahuta was present I was present and the candidate—now the member—for Waiariki was present. We talked a lot about the technical issues of the 2004 legislation. 
It is interesting that the very issues on which we were challenged as incumbent MPs are the very issues that are covered in clause 11. One of those issues was that of partnership. As incumbent Labour members at that time we had to admit that we were struggling for answers. There was an issue associated with partnership. People in our communities could not quite understand why we had accepted legislation that was not very clear about the partnership between Maori and the Crown. I have to say that this bill is even less clear because it transfers the relationship between Maori and the Crown established in the 2004 legislation to a relationship between Maori and an unidentified undefined group of people called the New Zealand public. 
My argument at this time supports that of Hone Harawira. When Maori signed the Treaty in 1840 it was directly with the Crown. Although it has taken some time for us to accept and understand the nature and extent of the relationship we have by and large developed a level of confidence and trust in it. For Maori the question is who we are dealing with now. Who are we dealing with when we sit down with Crown officials and representatives and Government Ministers to talk about our customary rights? We are not really sure. We might say that we are right back to where we were in February 1840—there is a lack of trust a lack of confidence and a lack of understanding. That is exactly what clause 11 achieves. 
At the Maori Affairs Committee it was clear that the vast majority of the submitters—most of them if not all of them—were totally opposed to the removal of the takutai moana from Crown ownership because it created an environment of uncertainty for Maori. I am wondering how the member for Waiariki can go out on the hustings to promote this particular bill—which contains the issue that was of concern to him and his colleagues including Hone Harawira in 2005—and take ownership of it. That is a very very unusual move and Maori particularly in the central North Island will not accept it. 
I am sure the Hon Georgina te Heuheu is aware of the meeting I mentioned because she was quite vocal at that meeting and she condemned particular parts of the 2004 legislation. That being what it is I have a long memory as a politician but others have very short memories. In fact they hate to be reminded of statements they made at any time during their political careers. 
Paul Quinn 
: The worm turns. 
Hon MITA RIRINUI 
: It is interesting that the two people who have interjected the most in this debate are the very two people who were not present at any of those meetings including the great hikoi that came down the country although they have a lot to say about it. I will forgive them for that. One of them just happens to be related to me. 
We can understand why the member from Te Tai Tokerau Hone Harawira has issues with his former colleagues from the Maori Party. I wonder whether the Minister in the chair the Attorney-General will take a call very soon and explain not only for the members of this Committee but also for the Maori community in general how this new relationship will work. We have parts of the takutai moana meaning the dry land which in Maori terms is part of the takutai moana. Where that is common it is in Crown ownership whereas the land that is below the high-water mark—in other words the wet areas of the takutai moana—is in public ownership. That is how the bill describes the situation to us. This part of the bill is for many Maori communities the area that really requires some clarification and I hope the Minister takes the opportunity to clarify those points. 
The other point that came up at the Maori Affairs Committee was the issue of the extinguishment of customary rights under the 2004 legislation. Given that many Maori were led to believe that customary rights in terms of their customary rights are abstract and did not exist in law prior to 2004—apart from the fisheries settlement which was pretty clear and defined—exactly which rights were extinguished? That was not very clear and it is not very clear in Part 2 what rights are being restored as a result of the repeal of the 2004 legislation. I invite the Minister to take the opportunity to clarify that because I am very interested. 
Part 1 discussed codification of customary rights but it also raised a whole lot of issues to do with the role of iwi in terms of applications to the High Court. Unfortunately when we go to that level of the judicial system everything else becomes codified in law. Tikanga becomes codified. Manaakitanga becomes codified—[ 
Interruption 
]. Yes it does I say to the Minister in the chair. When the High Court makes a decision on what tikanga and other customary practices are it codifies them in law and that is why Maori were determined that direct negotiations with the Crown were necessary because in rangatira ki te rangitira there is an understanding about what each other’s values mean. 
Unfortunately Maori see that codification through the High Court process will be a one-size-fits-all approach. If we codify something in law that is what it is. I give members an example. Te Arawa will have a different definition of tikanga from Mataatua and that is good; it is the diversity of the people we deal with and live with every day. Te Atiawa will have a different definition of what tikanga means to them from that of Ngati Toa even though they live in the same geographic area so that becomes a huge problem particularly when the High Court or any court makes a decision on what those terms mean. For Maori that locks us into an understanding of our own world that we are not comfortable with and I am sure the Minister will have thought about that. 
My whanaunga Paul Quinn will be aware that Ngati Awa are very very rigid in terms of their definitions and no law in the land will tell them any different. [ 
Interruption 
] If he supports this bill he will have to explain to them why he supported the codification of their practices for the sake of political expediency. That will be very difficult for him to explain to them. Tau Henare will have to do the same to his Ngati Hine Ngati Wai people. That is the difficulty we have here and that is the value as Apirana Mahuika would have said in direct negotiations with Crown Ministers over the customary interests of Ngati Porou on the East Coast. He sat down with Crown officials and Ministers and told them what it meant for Ngati Porou and that was accepted. There was no argument about it. The Crown however said: “This is our tikanga.” and Ngati Porou accepted that. By mutual agreement a deal was done and an outcome was achieved. It was signed off and the Minister in the chair the Hon Chris Finlayson was fortunate to have been able to sign it off. 
But the value of that relationship has now gone because we are talking about codification. Everything that Maori once believed in will be codified in law particularly where takutai moana is concerned. That in itself is an extinguishment of our practices. Kia ora. 
CHRIS TREMAIN (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato) 
: 
 I am pleased to speak to Part 2. Having listened to earlier contributions I think the member for Te Tai Tokerau got it just about right when he highlighted where Maori opinion is with regard to this takutai moana legislation. He wrapped it up in eight succinct words: “This isn’t what we marched for in 2004.” The then aspirants and candidates for the Maori Party went out across the country to promote exactly what was wrong with the 2004 legislation and did so in many forums. With regard to Part 2 and specifically clause 11(2) when the concept of public domain was initially raised by Labour Maori did not like it and National did not like it so it went out. When the issue of Crown ownership was raised Maori did not like it yet all of a sudden the Maori Party is going out and promoting common space as if for some great and glorious reason or miracle Maori have all of a sudden changed their minds. 
I think the member for Te Tai Tokerau had it right: Maori did not like it then they do not like it now yet the Maori Party has changed its stripes. One thing we can always say about the member for Te Tai Tokerau in terms of where the Maori Party is at on this issue is that the member is absolutely telling the truth. Those members are finding it difficult to promote a bill that in their heart of hearts they know Maori do not want. There are inherently wrong concepts in this legislation that people did not like then and do not like now. The Maori Party should vote against the bill if it is being true to its word of having the moral mandate to represent the opinion of Maori in this Chamber. Those members campaigned long and hard in 2004 on the principles that they are now changing their stripes on and that is inherently wrong. 
There are specific issues in clause 11 that we should be debating. Subclause (2) states: “Neither the Crown nor any other person owns or is capable of owning the common marine and coastal area as in existence from time to time after the commencement of this Part.” I ask the Minister in the chair the Attorney-General a question in relation to his negotiations with the Maori Party in that respect. I ask what he was able to convince them of that was so much better than Crown ownership because every submission and certainly in the brief that we have had from officials highlights— 
Paul Quinn 
: Nanaia where does Tainui stand? 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA 
: Tainui stands where it has always stood and it will preserve its interests on much of the coastal area through the Treaty claims settlement process. That was the case in 2004 and that is the case now. 
Paul Quinn 
: They support it. 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA 
: I will debate that at any time anywhere with that member in my electorate. 
Coming back to clause 11(2) I ask the Minister how he was able to convince the Maori Party that common space was so beneficial to the interests of Maori when they assert their customary title interests. My reading of Part 2—and I stand to be corrected if the Minister would take a call—is that any customary title is secondary to the interests represented in the common space. For example none of the submitters highlighted that they were comfortable with the idea of common title. They said that it is largely symbolic and the fact that the Crown retains much of its authority over that space clearly highlights that customary title will be secondary to the intention of this bill. I would be grateful if the Minister took a call because the submissions highlighted those matters. There was not enough time in the Maori Affairs Committee to go through these matters in some detail with officials. I think that is the height of arrogance when submissions raise matters that are not responded to in the fullness of time to ensure a full lengthy and thorough debate. 
Paul Quinn 
: We had plenty of time. Some of us actually read it Nanaia. 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA 
: The member may call across the Chamber to try to shout me down but that same member will not debate these issues in my electorate which I challenge him to do at any time any place anywhere. I ask him to be there because I will be. 
Moana Mackey 
: It’d help if he would do some work-outs in this place. 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA 
: It would. It certainly would but that is not going to happen. 
Having had my speech interrupted because of Mr Quinn I will now highlight some of the issues related to the points made by Local Government New Zealand. I will cut straight to the questions because I think they hit at the nub of undertakings on divestment in clause 11(3). I ask the Minister what guarantee he will give to local authorities that land in the takutai moana area that was acquired after 2004 will be compensated for. I also ask how that compensation level will be set because my understanding of subclause (5) is that the takutai moana area is not a rateable area. I ask how the level of compensation will be set. When we have an opportunity for the Minister to respond on this matter I certainly think that Local Government New Zealand and a couple of local councils will be quite interested in his response. 
I also ask the Minister what happens to unformed roads in the coastal marine area and whether they will be included in terms of the divestment provisions of clause 11. I would appreciate it if the Minister would take a call and provide some clarity on this issue. For a number of local authorities the way to treat unformed legal roads is a vexed issue. I would appreciate it if the Minister would take a call on this matter. I know that submitters raised it as an issue. It would be helpful to get that clarification to provide a level of certainty to Local Government New Zealand on the matters it highlighted in its submission on the bill. 
I continue to say that one of the things I find absolutely incredible is the Maori Party’s changing of its stripes on the issue of common space. It is the one key point that I want to make in my first contribution to this debate. At the time when the issue of public domain was raised initially the then aspirants to the Maori Party were absolutely opposed to that concept. They were also absolutely opposed to the concept of Crown ownership but somehow or other somebody has said something to persuade them to say that common space is of far greater benefit to Maori than anything else. 
Maori Party members should stand in the Chamber and explain their position to at least the members of the House. It is all well and good to hold hui outside this place and try to promote something while everybody is saying: “Hang on you have changed your stripes.” but they are unable to present to the House as a coalition partner to the Government the principled basis on which they now support the idea of common space as contained in clause 11(2) in Part 2. They will not explain it to members. They are treating members with disregard and disrespect. That is the height of arrogance on a bill so important to the nation of New Zealand and so important in terms of ensuring what we had hoped would be a common opportunity for members across the House to find some common ground. Clearly there is not that opportunity and the Government will continue to ram this bill through. 
The Minister has those questions on the record. I hope that in the course of this debate he is able to respond to those questions. I believe that it is also beholden on Maori Party members to respond. Having the moral weight of Maori opinion on their shoulders they should demonstrate that they are true to their word will walk their talk and will make good on the commitments that they say are being supported by a number of Maori throughout the country. Clearly the member for Te Tai Tokerau has got it just about right: everybody has been duped by the Maori Party. 
LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupo) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Labour) 
: 
 I am pleased to take a call— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. That member was sitting on his behind; he did not even call and you called him. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: The member called at the same time as the member who took the call. I did not look up but I registered him as a member who had not had a call at that point so I have given him the call. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: Thank you Mr Chairman; there is no one as angry as a former talkback radio host. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I apologise to my colleague for making him sit down. Given the ongoing flouting of your ruling by Tau Henare who was calling across the Chamber after my colleague was invited to speak and had started speaking which is when that member should have sat down I think it might be time for you to educate him on the rule that when the presiding officer is ruling a member does have to sit down. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Points of order will be heard in silence. I will manage the Committee. I am fully aware that there is quite a bit of passion over this bill. I am endeavouring to give a fair call for both sides. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: It is a pleasure to take a call on Part 2 of the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill. I have listened to the member opposite the former member of Parliament for Te Tai Tokerau interject wildly on all the members who are speaking in this debate. 
One of the questions he has put to members on this side of the Chamber is what the position was of certain members in 2004. We never need to ask what the position of Tau Henare was in 2004 because we know what it was. He was on talkback radio as a Newstalk ZB host praising Don Brash’s position on this legislation. If members opposite want to raise the question of his position I say that he was in favour of Don Brash’s position. Remember Don Brash’s position was that the existing Foreshore and Seabed Act gave Maori too many rights. The Maori Party’s position on the Foreshore and Seabed Act was that it gave Maori too few rights. This is the great reconciliation of the position on Part 2 today: trying to marry together the position of the old National Party—when Tau Henare was in talkback radio land making sure that the supporters who put him into Parliament on the National Party list were against the bill—and lining up the interests of the Maori Party on Part 2. 
Paul Quinn 
: What has radio got to do with Part 2? 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: I say to Paul Quinn that we are on Part 2 of the bill. The reason Paul Quinn will not know about Part 2 of the bill is that he has not made a single contribution to the debate. He is sitting here in Parliament with the other National MPs taking a pause from proceedings only to clear their BlackBerrys of the emails from their supporters opposing Part 2. The only time those members take a break from interjecting is when they are deleting like crazy the hundreds of emails they are getting from people—their own supporters—who think this is bad legislation and none of them has the gumption to get up on their pins to speak about why Part 2 is important. 
I will ask the Committee some questions about Part 2 particularly clauses 11 and 17. They are the parts I want to focus on this afternoon. I ask the Minister in the chair the Attorney-General— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Again I apologise. This member is not a quiet member but there appear to be two members opposite who can yell and stand but not do both at the same time. I ask you to keep them a bit quieter. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: The member raises a valid point of order in this respect. I have constantly asked the Committee that interjections be rare and reasonable and that there be no barraging. At the same time the member who raised the point of order should not say disparaging things about another member so I caution him on that as well. Remember that interjections should be rare and reasonable. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: I will take my time now to discuss clauses 11 and 17 in Part 2 particularly as they affect the mining sector. The departmental report which I know was not considered in any enormous detail by the Maori Affairs Committee sets up a lot of what the issues are in this part of the bill. I will go through what some of those issues are and seek a response from the Attorney-General to see whether the Committee of the whole House can get a sense of what direction the Government is heading in with them. We have heard from Maori Party speakers that this bill advances the position of Maori yet the departmental report raises a number of issues about ownership and the ability for minerals to be explored and extracted from the coastal and marine area. It is not entirely clear why New Zealand Steel and the New Zealand Minerals Industry Association have expressed such enormous concern for the ability of their industries to participate if these clauses are passed. I note that New Zealand Steel submitted that the bill would have “a significant dampening effect on investment in the minerals and mining sector because it insufficiently protects existing rights and consented activities and also thwarts future development.” 
I would like to know from the Minister in the chair the Attorney-General whether in regard to his bill—either the bill he has presented which has not been amended by the Maori Affairs Committee but certainly the bill and his I think 75-page Supplementary Order Paper of amendments—he is satisfied that the amendments he is pushing forward do answer those concerns about those clauses. If we go particularly to clauses 77 and 78 dealing with the protection of wahi tapu it is clear from the position of other speakers in the Committee that somehow these are enhanced for Maori interests or groups who are seeking customary and marine title yet when the departmental report gets to the commentary of the Government’s position it states that the Government’s intent is for the existing use rights to be protected until the end of their term. At the point when they come up for renewal I ask the Minister in the chair whether this part of the bill kicks in to provide for differing rights for iwi hapu and whanau groups who are seeking customary and marine title than would otherwise be the case if they did not need to use this vehicle or these clauses. I think that is a tension within the bill that— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: So what does Ngati Porou say? 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: Well Ngati Porou of course negotiated a deal under the existing Foreshore and Seabed Act. Ngati Porou did not need to have the coastal and marine bill as many of National’s supporters are saying to those members in their email. 
But I want to come back and not be interrupted or taken astride by those members opposite to say that Ngati Porou were able to use the existing legislation to do that. I am trying to get some indication from the Minister— 
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
HILARY CALVERT (ACT) 
: 
 In Part 2 of the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill I will speak about clauses 11 24 and 27. I will start with clause 11 which we have heard a bit about already as members have been talking about the special status of the common marine and coastal area. Clause 11(2) states: “Neither the Crown nor any other person owns or is capable of owning the common marine and coastal area”. My question—and I would like the Minister in the chair the Attorney-General to take a call as clearly we would like other questions to be answered tonight too—is whether if the Government does not own and is not even capable of owning an area that area is still part of New Zealand at that point. Although the bill seeks to clarify this issue by stating that this legislation does not affect the sovereignty of New Zealand it is certainly unclear how an area of some hundreds of thousands of square kilometres which has been owned by the Crown since the territorial waters limit has been 12 nautical miles can become an area that the Crown neither owns nor is capable of owning. 
Clause 24 talks about land in the common marine and coastal area and land above the line of mean high water springs. During the hearing of submissions in the Maori Affairs Committee much was made of the idea that 12243 private land titles exist in the foreshore and seabed. That figure is correct but it is quite misleading. It has been argued quite reasonably that if we are happy to give freehold titles to many other people in the foreshore and seabed then why should we not allow freehold title to go to Maori. ACT believes that it is for the courts to decide on the basis of common law property rights the extent of any property rights granted whether they be freehold title or otherwise. 
In dealing with this bill however it is important to understand that only 48 freehold titles have been issued in the foreshore and seabed. The rest of those 12243 titles have been created by legislation and the forces of nature. Freehold title abutting the edge of the foreshore has for many years been defined as ending on the seaward side at the mean high-tide mark. When a definition was made of the foreshore and seabed the landward edge was defined as the “mean high-water springs” which is a tad further away from the sea than the mean high-tide mark. As a result this definition captured a sliver of land in about 11000 titles and redefined those titles as part of the foreshore and seabed. Another thousand or so titles have become part of the foreshore and seabed as a result of erosion. The edge of the land in those freehold titles has been taken by the sea leaving a part of the title under the sea and therefore part of the foreshore and seabed. 
So apart from the titles that the Government has redefined into the foreshore and seabed and the titles that nature has taken into the sea there are only 48 titles that have been granted to the foreshore and seabed in the whole of New Zealand. Those titles cover a tiny 2.6 square kilometres of our hundreds of thousands of square kilometres of territorial seas. 
I come to clause 27. After ACT pushed the Government into accepting free access it was not guaranteed in the original draft of the bill. The Attorney-General’s proposed amendment guarantees free access only for the individual an expression that typically has a limited legal definition. When my colleague John Boscawen asked the Attorney-General whether this guaranteed everyone free access he true to form could not do so. Any member of the public would look at this clause and wonder why only the individual is protected. Why not insert the word “group”? Can we imagine a group going to the beach and being told that they must pay for access? I can because the people who threaten and cajole the public now will continue to do so once this bill is law. The Attorney-General has just made it a whole lot easier for them to do so. ACT has heard accounts of people who while having picnics taking wedding photos or just going for a walk have been threatened or told to pay up. Nothing in this clause will discourage that from happening in the future. ACT has put forward a Supplementary Order Paper that makes it clear that anyone and everyone should be able to enjoy our foreshore and seabed free of charge. 
The Hon David Parker made a comment yesterday about this clause as did the Minister. Part of the confusion that the Minister may have had seems to come from the unfortunate use of the word “access”. For most people the idea of access encompasses the idea of movement across something or to something. But this bill is not about providing access to the foreshore and seabed. The entire clause concerns what may be done by those who are on the foreshore and seabed. 
I come now to the ACT Party—and this is where the Hon David Parker was going yesterday when he asked us a question. He asked us why if we are the party that wants to support property rights we would deny the holder of a customary marine title the ability to charge. The ACT Party supports the right for anyone to go to court— 
Kelvin Davis 
: No he said “use”. He said: “use the foreshore.” 
HILARY CALVERT 
: Sorry I am corrected. The Hon David Parker said that we were against people charging to use the foreshore. We support the right of anyone to go to the High Court to have a determination of their common law rights. This bill takes away those rights. It allows for the possibility of a very different and novel sort of property right one that does not need to be tested by the courts. It takes away the right to go to court for the establishment of common law rights and it replaces that with the right to go to court in a limited and very different way. The novel sort of property right that the Minister seems determined to create is one that does not need to be tested by the courts and one that gives rights that override the resource management rights of others. 
We in the ACT Party support and defend the rights that the court provides including the right to charge and the right to deny access to others if the court so determines. We do not support the ability to go to the Maori Land Court which was mentioned earlier as being the appropriate place to go to. For the ACT Party the High Court is the right place. These rights are common to everybody; they are common law rights. They are not rights that are specifically to do with Maori in New Zealand. The property that we are discussing—the whole purpose of the bill—is the total property in New Zealand— 
Hon Georgina te Heuheu 
: What’s wrong with that? They’re still rights. They’re still legal rights. 
HILARY CALVERT 
: They are legal rights but they are not rights that are in some way only the interests of Maori. Those rights are the interests of everybody in New Zealand. They are appropriately transferred if the courts decide on that. The Treaty of Waitangi gave everyone in New Zealand the ability to go to the courts in the same way that British subjects could. The courts that we go to—the whole lot of British subjects in New Zealand—are the courts that the High Court system is part of. If we go only to the Maori courts for those rights then we are talking about a huge chunk of land that despite the fact that the Government has disowned it and for some reason does not feel comfortable about owning any longer New Zealanders still consider they have an interest in. That is not just Maori New Zealanders but all New Zealanders. It is a strange thing that the Government wants to— 
MELISSA LEE (National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 I think there is a bit of inconsistency in ACT’s position. Hilary Calvert said there is not really much private land in the foreshore and seabed; there is just a bit as a result of erosion. She talked about how to define the high-tide mark and about how 48 other grants of title amounted to not much land so we should not worry about it at all. Well why then in Part 2 of the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill exclude—and I think ACT probably supports this position—private title land from the application of the common marine and coastal area all the access provisions and all the rest of it? 
It is inconsistent that Maori customary title land should be subject to full access. The legislation states that every individual has the right “to pass and repass in on over and across the common marine and coastal area; and to engage in recreational activities” etc. yet for private foreshore and seabed land that right does not apply under clause 19. Surely if we are to be a fair society that inconsistency should be redressed and the private title should not be sacrosanct in terms of public access. 
Hilary Calvert says that that provision does not relate to general access to the area. In fact I think what Parliament should address and develop—and unfortunately this bill does not do so; attempts have been made with committees and all kinds of things but they really have got nowhere—greater access to the seashore for all New Zealanders. 
There have been some big fights over this issue. On Waiheke Island John Spencer prevented public access for people on Waiheke Island to the beaches his land surrounded. If one looks around the world one sees other examples—for instance in Britain. I was over in Britain a few years ago when my brother used to live there. He lives in Wellington now. We went for a walk. They had not only all sorts of alleyways that people could use everywhere in the countryside but also what was called a right to roam whereby one could— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Over private property? 
KEITH LOCKE 
: Yes over private property. The right to roam was well established and supported by the people of Great Britain. We should have something similar to that system in New Zealand so that all the pristine beaches we have are accessible instead of being shut off from ordinary people who cannot get to those beaches. Sometimes boaties can get to them; they are usually the richer section of the population. 
The right to roam relates to another project the great project by Geoff Chapple of Te Araroa “the long pathway” around New Zealand. A lot of that pathway is around the coast and having provisions for greater access to the coastal area would help with the continuity of those paths in order for people to be able to enjoy the scenery along the waterfront around this country. 
It is important that we try to redress this access issue in the Committee stage. Unfortunately clause 19 which excludes private property contrasts with clause 27 which gives all of the rights of access to every individual in relation to what could be Maori customary title and that just does not wash. The Green Party is very much against that contradiction and would like greater rights for New Zealand people as a whole and greater rights for Maori people—greater rights than exist under the bill. 
JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 62 
New Zealand National 57; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Noes 58 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Motion agreed to. 
The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 62 Noes 59. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The amendments in the name of Hilary Calvert to clause 11 as set out on Supplementary Order Paper 214 to substitute or reorder words that do not alter the meaning of the bill are ruled out of order. The amendments in the name of Hilary Calvert to clause 12(1) as set out on Supplementary Order Paper 214 to substitute words that do not alter the meaning of the bill are also ruled out of order. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 214 in the name of Hilary Calvert to clause 12(2) be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 5 
ACT New Zealand 5. 
Noes 115 
New Zealand National 57; New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; United Future 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 5 Noes 116. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 214 in the name of Hilary Calvert to clause 12(3) be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 5 
ACT New Zealand 5. 
Noes 115 
New Zealand National 57; New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; United Future 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 5 Noes 116. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The amendment in the name of Hilary Calvert to clause 12(4) as set out on Supplementary Order Paper 214 is ruled out of order. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 207 in the name of the Hon Christopher Finlayson to clause 13 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 62 
New Zealand National 57; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Noes 58 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 62 Noes 59. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I remind members that when votes are taken there needs to be silence. I ask members to respect that please. 
The amendment in the name of Hilary Calvert to clause 13 as set out on Supplementary Order Paper 214 is ruled out of order as being inconsistent with the previous decision to omit clause 13. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 207 in the name of the Hon Christopher Finlayson to clause 15 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 67 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Noes 53 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8; Progressive 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 67 Noes 54. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The amendment in the name of Hilary Calvert to clause 15 as set out on Supplementary Order Paper 214 is ruled out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision to omit clause 15. 
The typescript amendment in the name of the Hon David Parker to insert new clause 15A is ruled out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision to insert new clause 4B in Part 1. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 207 in the name of the Hon Christopher Finlayson to clause 16 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 62 
New Zealand National 57; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Noes 58 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 62 Noes 59. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The amendment in the name of Hilary Calvert to clause 16 as set out on Supplementary Order Paper 214 is ruled out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision to omit clause 16. 
The amendments in the name of Hilary Calvert to clauses 17(1) and 17(2) are ruled out of order as not being serious amendments because they do not alter the meaning of the bill. The amendment in the name of Hilary Calvert to clause 17(2) to omit “natural condition” and substitute “natural state” as set out on Supplementary Order Paper 214 is ruled out of order as not being a serious amendment because it does not alter the meaning of the bill. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 214 in the name of Hilary Calvert to clause 17(2) to omit “favour of the Crown” and substitute “favour of the Crown for the benefit of all New Zealanders” be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 5 
ACT New Zealand 5. 
Noes 115 
New Zealand National 57; New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; United Future 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 5 Noes 116. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The amendment in the name of Hilary Calvert to clause 17(4) as set out on Supplementary Order Paper 214 is out of order. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 214 in the name of Hilary Calvert to clause 18(1) be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 5 
ACT New Zealand 5. 
Noes 115 
New Zealand National 57; New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; United Future 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 5 Noes 116. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Kua rongo ake i te ahuatanga o te korero o te mema o Te Tai Tokerau. Ko tana korero kei te whakaae te whanau. Ko te whanau ano te whanau ko te mema Paremata ano te mema Paremata. Ko te tikanga ka riro mana tonu e poti mona ana. No reira koi nei te tikanga o taku korero hei wananga mau. 
[ 
I heard what the member for Te Tai Tokerau said. He said that the family agrees. “Whanau” is family and “mema Paremata” is member of Parliament. According to procedure he must cast his vote for himself alone as he is a member of Parliament. So that is the nub of my point of order for you to rule on 
.] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 Although I was not wearing the earpiece I was getting a translation of the speech which I think could well have been different from the interpreter’s translation that was coming through the earpiece to the Clerk. There is in my mind no doubt that not only that vote but at least one earlier vote was cast in a way that could only be considered irregular. I waited until the end because we know we are not allowed to interrupt during the declaring of votes but now that a point of order has been raised I think it is appropriate to agree with the member. I think that now we probably have to clarify the earlier votes of the member because as Mr Flavell has pretty clearly put it he has not voted Aye or No; he has basically said what his mother thinks. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I hear the member. Certainly the interpretation that came through to the Clerk was a vote against. In answer to the member’s question about whether someone casting a vote can do so in a manner that is not necessarily the way we normally do it I would say that if the intent is clear then the intent is the guiding factor—one can determine what the intent is. As to what the member’s view was in this matter I am seeking advice at this time because I do not— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Can I say something? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I invite the member to state a position. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I think I can understand the second time the member did it; it was I think slightly different from the first. What he effectively said in a rough translation was “This is the view of my family.” rather than indicating a specific vote in a particular direction. As to your comments Mr Chairman that as long as you know the intent then that is OK I think if you look at that you will find that it would not work very well. I could make a speech about how my friends—I am an old member of the engineers union and the Wainuiomata rugby club and I have friends on Facebook—all have a particular view on this legislation. But I do not think you would be any wiser about which way I was voting and I think that if members were making speeches instead of voting it would take a long time. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I hear the member. I have sought advice on this matter. Nothing in the Standing Orders or in Speakers’ rulings describes the way in which members should cast their votes. As I said if the intent is clear and the number is mentioned as being opposed—which it was—then that is acceptable to the Chair. The matter rests there. I take on board the point of order the member Te Ururoa Flavell raised but in the absence of any Standing Order or any Speaker’s ruling I have ruled that if the intent is clear and if one knows exactly what the member is saying in casting a vote the Chair will accept it. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 He take whakatau e te Heamana. Pai tera whakamarama. He ahua rere ke te korero a te Hon Trevor Mallard. Kare oku raruraru ki te korero o te mema o te Nota me tana ki mai kei te whakaae toku wairua kei te whakahe ranei toku wairua. Kare au i te whakahe i te korero kei te whakaae toku mana kei te whakahe ranei toku mana. Engari ko te rereketanga i tera poti ko te korero whanau. Ka ki mai te mema kare toku whanau i te tautoko. No reira ehara i te mea nona tera whakaaro no tona whanau ke. Koi na te tikanga o taku whakahe. 
[ 
I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. The point made by the Hon Trevor Mallard is slightly different. I do not have a problem when the member for Te Tai Tokerau says he is in favour spiritually or opposes it spiritually. Or if he says that his integrity is in favour or against it. But where that vote differs is when it refers to family. The member said to us “My family opposes it.” But that is not his point of view; it is actually theirs. And that is the reason for my point of order 
.] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
:I thank the member for those comments. We have not come across this situation before. I am saying that in the absence of any Standing Order or Speaker’s ruling if the intent is clear and we know the number of votes being cast then that is acceptable to the Chair and we will leave it at that at this point. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. The problem I have is that although the general direction is probably clear I do not think that it is absolute. Again I have colleagues translating for me on both sides and they are saying that effectively the member said that his family is opposed to this particular measure. Is that roughly it? Yes. Mr Flavell was offended by the inclusion of the word “family”; he brought up the issue on that basis. My view is that there are occasions on which I as a member of Parliament cast votes in ways that are different from what my family thinks on particular issues. I think it is important—in fact it is vital—that we get a clear indication from the member of what his view is. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I apologise to the Committee. There is in fact a Speaker’s ruling. I refer members to Speaker’s ruling 67/7: “On a party vote the Clerk names the party by its official name and the whip responsible for voting then gives the vote. No other comment at all is allowed.” That is the ruling. I trust that it satisfies the member who brought the matter to our attention. There is a Speaker’s ruling and I refer to it again: it is Speaker’s ruling 67/7. I ask the member that in casting future votes he complies with the Speaker’s ruling that I have outlined. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. It is a relatively short one. It is to seek an assurance through you Mr Chairperson that the member involved had his vote recorded in the way that he wished. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The translation is coming through very clear. I have no doubt— 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: But he did not hear the translation. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: No but we cast the votes here; we know what the votes were. I hear what you are saying. My position as I said earlier is that the intent was known and that is what I ruled on earlier. The member if he wishes has the opportunity to hear what the translation is; it is a matter of his discretion whether he wishes to avail himself of it. At this stage that is where the matter lies. Did the Hon John Boscawen have a point of order? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 Can I finish this one? You have indicated that the member has the ability to listen to the translation. It is in fact very hard to stand up with these earpieces in; the earpieces are set up so that people sitting down can hear them. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Right. I will ask the member to confirm that he was voting against with one vote. Is he confirming that? 
Hone Harawira 
: I do confirm. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: On both occasions? 
Hone Harawira 
: On all occasions. 
Hon JOHN BOSCAWEN (Whip—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I would like to raise two separate issues. Members may wish to speak on either one or both of the issues and you may need to rule on both of the issues. For the sake of convenience I will speak on both issues at the same time. My understanding from listening to the discussion of the last 10 minutes is that Mr Mallard stood up to say that he has been getting a literal translation presumably from Mr Parekura— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Come to the point of order. This is not a debate. I want to hear the point of order specifically not a debate. 
Hon JOHN BOSCAWEN 
: It seems to me that what has happened in this Chamber is that Mr Horomia has been providing a translation that is different from the official translation— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: That is not a point of order. We get an interpretation here. That is what the Clerks at the Table do. I have asked the member to confirm the vote he was given and he has confirmed it—end of story. We are moving on. 
Hon JOHN BOSCAWEN (Whip—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. With the deepest of respect you say you are getting a translation but is it a correct translation? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I have just asked the member to confirm the vote he cast. He confirmed it to the Committee—end of story. I put that question to him. It is all over. He said that what he cast was the correct vote and that is the interpretation we got. We are now moving on. I do not want to enter on any further discussion on this matter. 
Hon JOHN BOSCAWEN (Whip—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I am very sorry but it seems to me that Hone Harawira was using the word “family” or “whanau” but the official translation did not say that. How can we be satisfied that the official translation is actually correct? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Sit down! I have just quoted the Speaker’s ruling on what the member should do. I said earlier that if his intentions were known then from my point of view that was satisfactory. I asked the member to confirm quite clearly what his intent was and he said he voted against. That was very clear as far as I am concerned. 
But let me draw your attention to Speaker’s ruling 37/2 on the interpreter’s role: “The process of interpretation is not merely a matter of transliterating word for word from one language into another. Especially with languages as different in their origins as English and Maori this is not possible.” Speakers’ ruling 37/3 states: “The object of interpreting into English is to enable members listening to the member’s speech to have a reasonable but not necessarily total understanding of what is said. As all members have good facility in English it not necessary to interpret English into Maori. Interpretation is undertaken only when there is a practical need to do so.” I am very satisfied that the answer we got satisfies all—[ 
Interruption 
] We are not carrying on with this. I have made the points. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I think we have what could become a serious issue. That Speakers’ ruling is well known. I think it relates to interpretation of long passages. Hansard reporters are very kind and do some tidying up for us; they put down what we meant to say if there are minor errors in our speeches. I am nearly at the point. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Please come to the point of order. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: The point is that it appears that the interpreter is tidying up for and bringing within the Standing Orders the comments of a member who is clearly outside of the Standing Orders. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I asked the member in all good faith. The member’s word was taken that he voted against. I put that question to him and he said he voted against. I have taken the member at his word. That is the end of the matter. Let us move on. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 214 in the name of Hilary Calvert to clause 18(2) be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 5 
ACT New Zealand 5. 
Noes 115 
New Zealand National 57; New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; United Future 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 5 Noes 116. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 207 in the name of the Hon Christopher Finlayson to clause 18(3) be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 67 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Noes 53 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8; Progressive 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 67 Noes 54. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. On that occasion to test our system I voted with additional material. I just wanted to check whether the interpretation included that additional material. If it did it should have been corrected at the time. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The interpreter’s job is to tell us what the vote is. I got the vote and that is what was recorded. We have announced the votes. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: You are trifling with the Chair. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: No Mr Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: You are trifling with the Chair. I have already ruled. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: This is a new point of order. Are you indicating to the Committee that it is permissible to be out of order in Maori but not in English? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The interpreter’s role here is just to announce the result. We got the result: it was 42 votes opposed for Labour. That is what has been recorded and that is what was announced. We will now move on to Hilary Calvert’s amendment to clause 18(3) as set out on Supplementary Order Paper— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Point of order— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I am not entertaining any further— 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I move  
That the Speaker be recalled in order to make a considered ruling on whether it is the role of the interpreter to interpret or to give a vote 
. 
Motion agreed to. 
House resumed. 
Speaker Recalled 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The Speaker has been recalled and we will have some decorum in this House. This is disgraceful. 
Mr Speaker you have been recalled on a matter that relates to interpretation during the casting of a vote. The genesis of this matter goes back a little further. The honourable member from the Maori Party Te Ururoa Flavell challenged the vote cast by the Independent member Hone Harawira saying that he included in his vote reference to whanau—to the family as such. I ruled at that stage. Speaker’s ruling 67/7 states: “On a party vote the Clerk names the party by its official name and the whip responsible for voting then gives the vote. No other comment at all is allowed.” As a consequence I asked for a reassurance from the member who had cast the vote on whether he had voted against the amendment that we were considering. He gave an assurance to the Committee and I took him at his word that that was in fact correct. 
Subsequent to that when we moved to the next amendment to be voted on the Hon Trevor Mallard cast the vote in Maori and the interpretation that came back satisfied in my view the Clerk at the Table who told me that Labour had voted 42 votes against. 
The question arises whether the interpreter has a role in just announcing the result or whether he needs to interpret it further. My view is that when other parties cast their vote they cast it for or against and no other comment is made. That is what Speaker’s ruling 67/7 states. In my mind I was satisfied that the vote cast by Labour when translated by the interpreter to the Clerk beside me was correct. On that basis I was happy with that decision. Subsequently there has been a challenge to my ruling in that respect and you have been recalled Mr Speaker to adjudicate. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thank the Chair. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I thank the Chairman for his summary. What he has said as to what the issue is is absolutely correct. The Standing Orders are clear that when someone votes they give the number and the direction of the vote. We heard a series of votes from Hone Harawira that did not do that but they were interpreted by the interpreter in a way that corrected his breach of the Standing Orders. As a result the Clerk and the Chair were not aware of the fact that he breached the Standing Orders. 
I suppose it is a little naughty to plead guilty to deliberately breaching the Standing Orders but I wanted to test the system to see whether in fact the interpreter was correcting members to bring them within the Standing Orders when they were clearly outside. In my view it is not the role of the interpreter to do that. If someone is breaching the Standing Orders in Maori then the Chair should be made aware of that just as all of our Chairs would be aware of breaches of the Standing Orders if they were made in English. 
To use Hone Harawira’s example he cast a vote on behalf of his family. If I did that when you were in the Chair in the House Mr Speaker I think it is fair to say that I would get a pretty quick reaction from you. It is my view that it is not the role of the interpreter to tidy up after members who are breaching the Standing Orders. 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 I endorse what the Hon Trevor Mallard has said. I think this is an area of the Standing Orders that works very well and very simply. There is a long-established tradition that a whip or an individual voting on his or her own behalf says only the number of votes in favour or against; anything else is out of order. That should be so whether the comment is made in English or is made in Maori and then translated. It is out of order to add extraneous words. It is a very simply enforced part of the Standing Orders and I suggest that if it is not enforced we will be allowing the introduction of extraneous words in English as well as in Maori in respect of voting because of course the same rule would apply in both situations. 
Hon JOHN BOSCAWEN (Whip—ACT) 
: 
 I am speaking in support of Mr Mallard’s motion to call you back to the House Mr Speaker. In actual fact I first raised this issue. I challenged the Chair on whether the role of the interpreter was to interpret what was said or to give what the interpreter thought the Chair wanted to hear. I challenged the Chair on three occasions and on the third occasion I was forcefully asked by the Chair to sit down. I called you back to the House last night Mr Speaker and I realised that it is a pretty tall order to do that. I accepted finally on the third occasion and I sat down. But I was very pleased that Mr Mallard who is more experienced than me had the guts to recall you to the chair—something I did not do myself. 
Kelvin Davis 
: Speaking to the point of order— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not believe I need any further assistance on this matter; I have heard from three members. This is an important issue. The casting of votes in this House is a very very important issue. I am pleased to make a ruling on the matter. 
To me the issue is not so much interpretation; it is how members cast their votes. The Speaker’s ruling is very clear on how votes are to be cast. The Chair of the Committee of the whole House and the Hon Trevor Mallard have both referred to Speaker’s ruling 67/7 which points out that in the casting of a party vote “No other comment at all is allowed.” So to me it is not a matter of interpretation. The interpreters do their best to give us the meaning of what is said in Maori. The responsibility must be on members to comply with that Speaker’s ruling. 
I add to that Speaker’s ruling and make it very clear that if it is breached in the future then the vote will not be counted. I make that very clear. The responsibility is on members to comply with that Speaker’s ruling. If they make other comments in their vote then they have not complied with that Speaker’s ruling and it will not be a matter for the interpreter to decide what the members meant; their vote will not be counted. So the responsibility is on all members to comply correctly. Voting is too important to be fooled around with. With that I declare the House— 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Before you do that I think we are still left with a problem. The problem is that when a member voting in Maori does not comply at the moment the interpreter is not indicating that to the Chair and the Clerk. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member makes a further very good point. I ask the interpreters to make sure that they make clear when interpreting a vote what has been said so that the Chair is aware if the Speaker’s ruling has been breached. I realise I am taking a very strong position on this issue but I feel that votes in this House are too important to be played around with. The member is quite right that the Chair must be aware when the Speaker’s ruling is breached and if the Chair does not understand Maori sufficiently—and I certainly accept I do not—to judge that then I expect the interpreters to make it clear in their interpretation. This matter is too important to be played around with. I make it clear to members that if they breach that Speaker’s ruling then they cannot expect their vote to be counted. 
In Committee 
Debate resumed. 
Part 2 Common marine and coastal area ( 
continued 
)  
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Labour—Ikaroa-Rawhiti) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I want to bring your attention to something. I take umbrage at the assault on our character and how the member Tau Henare impinged on our good character as Maori when he was chastising us and abusing us across the Chamber. I think that is unbecoming for any member in this House. I feel deeply offended close to mortally wounded by that sort of onslaught. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: If the member feels that offence has been taken then I ask the member to withdraw those comments that were made earlier and that will end the matter. 
Chris Tremain 
: Point of order Mr Chair. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I have asked the member at whom this member has taken offence to withdraw and apologise. 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 I withdraw and apologise. I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I want to ask your advice. If a person deliberately mispronounces either my name or my language then I have every right to take umbrage. I know that some members cannot and some members can and that most of the Maori members can. The member can pronounce it properly because I have heard him before and that is what I take umbrage at. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I hear what you are saying. There has been some heat in this over the last half hour. The member took offence; the member has apologised. The point has been very well made. Everyone should know to respect other people’s rights in this House. This is a House of Representatives where everyone should be treated fairly and without prejudice in any way. I ask all members—I am not referring to any particular member—to take on board what has been said and respect people’s rights. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I do not want to enter into further discussion on this. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: And I want to say that at the time I was getting a rapid translation because my knowledge of Maori numbers does not go to 42. I apologise for the fact that I got it so badly wrong. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Hilary Calvert’s amendment to clause 18(3) as set out on Supplementary Order Paper 214 is ruled out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision to omit subclause (3). The next amendments in Hilary Calvert’s name to clauses 19 and 20 are ruled out of order. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 207 in the name of the Hon Christopher Finlayson to clause 21 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 62 
New Zealand National 57; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Noes 58 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 62 Noes 59. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The next amendment in the name of Hilary Calvert to clause 21 as set out on Supplementary Order Paper 214 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision. The next amendments in the name of Hilary Calvert to clauses 22 23 24 and 25 are out of order. The next amendments in the name of Hilary Calvert to clause 26(1) (2) (2)(a) and (b) are out of order. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 214 in the name of Hilary Calvert to clause 26(2)(b)(i) and (ii) be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 5 
ACT New Zealand 5. 
Noes 115 
New Zealand National 57; New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; United Future 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Amendments not agreed to. 
The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 5 Noes 116. 
METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I seek the leave of the House to make a correction to the Green Party votes on this part the correction being to change the number from nine votes opposed to eight votes opposed. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Referring to— 
METIRIA TUREI 
: All votes taken on Part 2. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: We will correct the vote accordingly. [ 
Interruption 
] Sorry I stand corrected. We need leave because you are changing the vote. Leave is sought to change the votes from nine to eight. Is there any objection to that course of action? There is no objection. 
The next amendment in the Minister’s name is to omit subclause (3) of clause 26 as set out on Supplementary Order Paper 207. The question is that the amendment be agreed to— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I seek some clarification. I see that it has now come to 6 o’clock. Are you proposing to put the question on all the votes because we have now started at that point? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Yes because we moved into this stage on a closure motion and on a closure motion the voting continues regardless of the time. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. That is absolutely my understanding of it so you are right to take that course of action. The difficulty is that a number of members will be out of the building over the dinner break so if whips cast votes we need to have certainty that that is correct. So it may be useful for you to draw this to the attention of party whips and advise their members not to leave the building. Without wishing in any way to cast aspersions if members in the complex have not been following proceedings and are leaving we cannot have confidence— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I thank the member. 
Chris Tremain 
: Thank you for that advice. I was well aware that this may be the process so 10 minutes ago we made it very clear to our members that we would be voting through. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I thank the member. I will take the whips’ word that the votes that they cast are accurate votes and we will leave it at that. I am sure that will satisfy everybody. [ 
Interruption 
] We are still voting. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 207 in the name of the Hon Christopher Finlayson to clause 26(3) be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 62 
New Zealand National 57; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 7; ACT New Zealand 4; Progressive 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The next amendment in the name of Hilary Calvert to clause 26(3) as set out on Supplementary Order Paper 214 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision. We now have more amendments in the name of Hilary Calvert to clause 26(4) and (5).These are ruled out of order. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 207 in the name of the Hon Christopher Finlayson to clause 27 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 62 
New Zealand National 57; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 7; ACT New Zealand 4; Progressive 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 216 in the name of Hilary Calvert to clause 27 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 4 
ACT New Zealand 4. 
Noes 114 
New Zealand National 57; New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 7; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; United Future 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 214 in the name of Hilary Calvert to clause 28(1)(a) be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 4 
ACT New Zealand 4. 
Noes 114 
New Zealand National 57; New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 7; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; United Future 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The next amendment in the name of Hilary Calvert to clause 28(1)(b) is out of order. The next amendment in the name of Hilary Calvert to clause 28(1)(c) is out of order. The next— 
Hon John Boscawen 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I have been following your rulings on amendments that are out of order and I can understand why some of these have been ruled out of order but I am rather surprised that the second of Hilary Calvert’s amendments to clause 28(1)(c) has been ruled out of order where she proposes that “and passengers” be omitted and substituted with “passengers and other goods or persons”. It seems to me that the addition or the words “goods or persons” changes the meaning of that— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: We are not on that one. I said we are on clause 28(1)(c) of Supplementary Order Paper 214. That is the one you are querying; we have not got to the one that you are mentioning. 
Hon John Boscawen 
: There are actually two amendments to clause 28(1)(c) and I am speaking to the second. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I have not put that one yet. In the format in front of us we are talking about Hilary Calvert’s amendment to clause 28(1)(c)—to omit “crew equipment” and substitute “equipment and crew” as set out on Supplementary Order Paper 214. That is out of order. The one you are referring to is the next one and we have not got to that one yet. 
Hon John Boscawen 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I absolutely understand that so I simply ask that when you rule amendments in or out you go on to refer to them in a bit more detail because you earlier ruled out Hilary Calvert’s amendment to clause 28(1)(b) and she actually had two of them. When you said the amendments to clause 28(1)(b) was being ruled out effectively you were ruling both of them out together. So when you rule out the amendment to clause 28(1)(c) we at this end of the Chamber do not know whether you are ruling out one or both. What I was seeking to clarify was that it seemed to me that the amendment to clause 28(1)(c) was perfectly reasonable which you have now agreed it is because you are prepared to put the question on it. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The previous amendment to clause 28(1)(c) is out of order and we now move to the one that you are referring to which is a further amendment to clause 28(1)(c). The question is that Hilary Calvert’s amendment to clause 28(1)(c) to omit “and passengers” and substitute “passengers and any other goods or persons” the amendment to subclause (1)(d) to omit “for a convenient time” and the amendment to subclause (1)(e) to omit “temporarily” as set out on Supplementary Order Paper 214 be agreed to. 
Hon John Boscawen 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Why are you taking the vote on each of those amendments as one question when previously you have taken the vote on those amendments clause by clause? I realise that the Minister can ask for his amendments to be put as one Supplementary Order Paper but Hilary Calvert is entitled to have her amendments treated individually. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: That is a good question. These are all related and they are grouped together and that is why it is being done this way. It is up to the discretion of the Chair and that is how we have done it. 
Hon John Boscawen 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. In drafting these amendments we originally put in separate Supplementary Order Papers for each amendment. The Clerk’s Office said to us that that consumed a lot of paper so we were asked whether we could submit the amendments together on the one Supplementary Order Paper which we have done. So there are several amendments on one Supplementary Order Paper and it seems to me that had we not done that you would have taken the votes separately. I ask that you take the votes separately on the amendments to clause 28(1)(c) (d) and (e). 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: It does not matter which Supplementary Order Paper the amendments are on. That is irrelevant. I will put the question which I have just outlined. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 214 in the name of Hilary Calvert to clause 28(1)(c) relating to passengers clause 28(1)(d) and 28(1)(e) to omit “temporarily” be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 4 
ACT New Zealand 4. 
Noes 114 
New Zealand National 57; New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 7; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; United Future 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Amendments not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The next amendment in the name of Hilary Calvert to clause 28(1)(e) to omit “wind or weather” and substitute “weather or winds” is out of order. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 214 in the name of Hilary Calvert to clause 28(2) be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 4 
ACT New Zealand 4. 
Noes 114 
New Zealand National 57; New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 7; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; United Future 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The next amendments in the name of Hilary Calvert to clause 28(3) to (5) are out of order. The next amendments to clause 29 on Supplementary Order Paper 214 are out of order. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 207 in the name of the Hon Christopher Finlayson to omit the heading above clause 30 and clauses 30 and 31 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 62 
New Zealand National 57; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 7; ACT New Zealand 4; Progressive 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The next amendments in the name of Hilary Calvert to clauses 30 and 31 as set out on Supplementary Order Paper 214 are out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the Committee. The amendments in the name of Hilary Calvert to clause 32(1) to the definitions of “dispose of” “freehold interest” “interest” and “lesser interest” are ruled out of order. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 214 in the name of Hilary Calvert to clause 32(1) to omit “of the Crown” from the definition of “Minister” and substitute “for Land Information” be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 4 
ACT New Zealand 4. 
Noes 114 
New Zealand National 57; New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 7; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; United Future 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The next amendments in the name of Hilary Calvert are to the definition of “Minister” in clause 32(1) as set out on Supplementary Order Paper 214. These are out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision. We have amendments in the name of Hilary Calvert to clause 32(1) to the definitions of “reclaimed land” and “reclaimed land subject to this subpart”. These are out of order. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 214 in the name of Hilary Calvert to clause 32(2) be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 4 
ACT New Zealand 4. 
Noes 114 
New Zealand National 57; New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 7; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; United Future 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The amendments in the name of Hilary Calvert to clauses 33 and 34 as set out on Supplementary Order Paper 214 are out of order. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 207 in the name of the Hon Christopher Finlayson to clause 35 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 62 
New Zealand National 57; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 7; ACT New Zealand 4; Progressive 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The next amendment in the name of Hilary Calvert to the heading to clause 35 as set out on Supplementary Order Paper 214 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision not to change to the Minister for Land Information. The next amendment in the name of Hilary Calvert to clause 35(1) as set out on Supplementary Order Paper 214 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision to omit subclause (1). The next amendment in the name of Hilary Calvert to clause 35(2)(a) is out of order. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 214 in the name of Hilary Calvert to clause 35(2)(b) be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 4 
ACT New Zealand 4. 
Noes 114 
New Zealand National 57; New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 7; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; United Future 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The next amendment in the name of Hilary Calvert to the heading to clause 36 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision not to change to the Minister for Land Information. The next amendments in the name of Hilary Calvert are to clause 36(1) and (2) to omit “Minister may” and substitute “Minister for Land Information may”. These are out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision not to change to the Minister for Land Information. The next amendments in the name of Hilary Calvert to clause 36(1) (2)(a) and (b) and (3) are out of order. The next amendment in the name of Hilary Calvert to clause 37(1) as set out on Supplementary Order Paper 214 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision not to change to the Minister for Land Information. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 214 in the name of Hilary Calvert to clause 37(2) be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 5 
ACT New Zealand 5. 
Noes 114 
New Zealand National 57; New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 7; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; United Future 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 4 Noes 114. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 214 in the name of Hilary Calvert to clause 38(3)(a) be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 5 
ACT New Zealand 5. 
Noes 114 
New Zealand National 57; New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 7; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; United Future 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The next amendments in the name of Hilary Calvert to clause 38(3)(b) and to clause 38(4) to omit “any person” and substitute “any person or group” are out of order. The amendments in the name of Hilary Calvert to clause 38(3)(c) and (4) to omit “the Minister” and substitute “Minister for Land Information” are out of order as being inconsistent with a decision not to change to the Minister for Land Information. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 214 in the name of Hilary Calvert to clause 38(5) (6) and (7) be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 5 
ACT New Zealand 5. 
Noes 114 
New Zealand National 57; New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 7; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; United Future 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Amendments not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The next amendment in the name of Hilary Calvert to the heading to clause 39 as set out on Supplementary Order Paper 214 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the Committee. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 214 in the name of Hilary Calvert to clause 39(1) (1)(a) and (b) be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 5 
ACT New Zealand 5. 
Noes 114 
New Zealand National 57; New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 7; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; United Future 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Amendments not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The next Hilary Calvert amendments are to clause 39(1)(c) (d) (e) (2) (2)(a) (b) (d) and (g) as set out on Supplementary Order Paper 214. These are out of order. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 214 in the name of Hilary Calvert to clause 39(2)(e) and (f) be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 5 
ACT New Zealand 5. 
Noes 114 
New Zealand National 57; New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 7; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; United Future 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Amendments not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 214 in the name of Hilary Calvert to clause 39(2)(h) (i) and (j) be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 5 
ACT New Zealand 5. 
Noes 116 
New Zealand National 57; New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; United Future 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Amendments not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 214 in the name of Hilary Calvert to clause 39(3) to omit “several eligible” and substitute “any number of” be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 5 
ACT New Zealand 5. 
Noes 114 
New Zealand National 57; New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 7; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; United Future 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 214 in the name of Hilary Calvert to clause 39(3) to omit “reclaimed land” and substitute “reclaimed land provided the Minister deems them eligible” be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 5 
ACT New Zealand 5. 
Noes 114 
New Zealand National 57; New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 7; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; United Future 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 207 in the name of the Hon Christopher Finlayson to clause 40 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 62 
New Zealand National 57; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 7; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The next amendments in the name of Hilary Calvert are to clause 40(1). These amendments are out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the Committee. The amendment in the name of Hilary Calvert to clause 40(1) to substitute “Minister for Land Information’s” as set out on Supplementary Order Paper 214 is out of order as it is inconsistent with a previous decision of the Committee. We now have Hilary Calvert’s remaining amendments to clause 40 to substitute or reorder words. These are out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision not to change to Minister for Land Information. The next amendment in the name of Hilary Calvert to the heading to clause 41 is out of order. The next amendment in the name of Hilary Calvert to clause 41(1) to substitute “Minister for Land Information” is out of order as it is inconsistent with a previous decision of the Committee. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 214 in the name of Hilary Calvert to clause 41(1) to omit “notify the applicant” and substitute “notify the applicant within ten working days” be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 5 
ACT New Zealand 5. 
Noes 114 
New Zealand National 57; New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 7; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; United Future 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 207 in the name of the Hon Christopher Finlayson to clause 41 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 62 
New Zealand National 57; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 7; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The remaining amendments to clause 41 in the name of Hilary Calvert are out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the Committee. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 207 in the name of the Hon Christopher Finlayson to clause 42 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 62 
New Zealand National 57; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 7; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: We have an amendment in the name of Hilary Calvert to the heading to clause 42. This is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the Committee. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 214 in the name of Hilary Calvert to clause 43(1) to omit “3 months” and substitute “4 months” be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 5 
ACT New Zealand 5. 
Noes 114 
New Zealand National 57; New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 7; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; United Future 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The remaining amendments to clause 43 in the name of Hilary Calvert are out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the Committee. We now have amendments in the name of Hilary Calvert to the heading of clause 44 and clause 44(1) to (3). These are out of order. The next amendment in the name of Hilary Calvert to clause 44(3) to substitute “Minister of Conservation” is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the Committee. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 214 in the name of Hilary Calvert to clause 44(5) be agreed to. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: We now have an amendment in the name of Hilary Calvert to clause 44(6) to substitute “Minister for Land Information”. This is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the Committee. The next amendment in the name of Hilary Calvert is to clause 45(2) to substitute “Minister for Land Information”. This amendment is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the Committee. Hilary Calvert’s amendments to clause 45(2) to substitute or reorder words that do not alter the meaning of the provision are also out of order. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 214 in the name of Hilary Calvert to clause 45(2) to omit “the Crown” and substitute “the Crown within 21 days of being incurred” be agreed to. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The next amendment in the name of Hilary Calvert to clause 45(3) is out of order. We have an amendment to clause 45(3) to substitute “the Minister of Conservation” in the name of Hilary Calvert. This is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the Committee. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 214 in the name of Hilary Calvert to omit clause 45(3)(b) be agreed to. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 207 in the name of the Hon Christopher Finlayson to clause 45 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 62 
New Zealand National 57; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 7; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: We now have amendments to clause 45(4). These are out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision to omit and substitute this subclause. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 214 in the name of Hilary Calvert to clause 45(5)(c) be agreed to. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The next amendments in the name of Hilary Calvert are to clause 45(5)(d) and (e). They are out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the Committee. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 214 in the name of Hilary Calvert to clause 45(6) be agreed to. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 207 in the name of the Hon Christopher Finlayson to omit clause 46(1) and (2) and substitute new clause 46(1) and (2) be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 62 
New Zealand National 57; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 7; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The next amendment in the name of Hilary Calvert to clause 46(1) and (2) is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the Committee. We have amendments in the name of Hilary Calvert to clause 46(3) to (5). These are out of order as they are inconsistent with a previous decision of the Committee. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 214 in the name of Hilary Calvert to clause 46(6) to omit “on” and substitute “as soon as practicable within 5 days of” be agreed to. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: We have amendments in the name of Hilary Calvert to clause 46(6). These are out of order. The next amendment in the name of Hilary Calvert is to the heading of clause 47. This is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the Committee. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 214 in the name of Hilary Calvert to the heading of clause 47 to omit “iwi or hapu or public” and substitute “hapu iwi and the public” be agreed to. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 214 in the name of Hilary Calvert to clause 47(1) to omit “notice” and substitute “notice within 20 days” be agreed to. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: We have the remaining amendments in the name of Hilary Calvert to clause 47(1). These are out of order. We now move to the amendment to clause 47(2) in the name of Hilary Calvert. This is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the Committee. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 207 in the name of the Hon Christopher Finlayson to clause 47(4) to (7) be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 62 
New Zealand National 57; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 7; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: We have an amendment in the name of Hilary Calvert to clause 47(4) to (7) as set out on Supplementary Order Paper 214. This is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the Committee. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon David Parker to insert new clauses 47A and 47B be agreed to: 
to insert the following new clauses after clause 47: 
47AMatters relating to common marine and coastal area 
(1)To avoid doubt the jurisdiction of the High Court to hear and determine any claim for a protected customary right or customary marine title that was removed by the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004 is restored. 
(2)This includes but is not limited to the restoration of the jurisdiction to determine the appropriate threshold for the establishment of a protected customary right or customary marine title. 
47BCustomary interest inalienable 
No person has the capacity to alienate any protected customary right or customary marine title or to dispose by will of any such interest. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 7; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1; Independent: Carter C. 
Noes 63 
New Zealand National 57; Maori Party 4; United Future 1; Independent: Harawira. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the remaining amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 207 in the name of the Hon Christopher Finlayson to Part 2 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 62 
New Zealand National 57; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 7; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Amendments agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 2 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 62 
New Zealand National 57; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 7; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Part 2 as amended agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Before we commence the debate on Part 3 two votes need to be amended because they were incorrectly announced. I will just run through those now. The vote on the question to amend the definition of “mana tuku iho” in clause 7 was announced as Ayes 47 and Noes 73. The correct result was Ayes 5 and Noes 115. The vote on the question to omit the words from the definition of “planning document” in clause 7 was announced as Ayes 47 and Noes 73. The correct result is Ayes 5 and Noes 115. The record in each case will be corrected. No outcome was changed. 
Part 3 Customary interests 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) 
: 
 Part 3 is a very important part of the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill. It sets up the legal rights and interests that give expression to the customary interests in the common marine and coastal area. It has three subparts. Subpart 1 provides for affected iwi and hapu to participate in certain conservation processes subpart 2 sets out the test for and rights associated with protected customary rights and subpart 3 sets out the test for and rights associated with customary marine title. I will be very interested in the debate on subpart 3 because those are very important questions. 
It seems to me that putting aside all the noise and sometimes the imbecility this legislation really boils down to a couple of key issues. The first—and I think we are all agreed—is whether the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004 should be repealed. The answer unanimously around this Chamber seems to be yes. The next issue is whether iwi hapu and whanau should have the right to go to court. The answer overwhelmingly is yes. So the debate really is all about whether the tests for determining customary title should be codified or should be simply left to the courts. With the greatest of respect to Mr Parker who I think has made a very positive substantive contribution to this debate and I mean that genuinely he and I are apart on that issue. I firmly believe as I think Dr Cullen did that statutory codification of the common law tests does need to be retained. I really think that to wait upon protracted legal arguments while we spend years in the courts determining these issues defeats the purpose of what many are seeking—namely certainty and equity. 
There are a couple of other points that Dr Cullen made in his excellent submission on behalf of the Labour Party to the Boast Durie and O’Regan panel. One point was that provisions should be made for the recognition of customary transfer for some period after 1840 and I think of iwi like Ngati Porou ki Hauraki. He also said—and this leads on to the next point—that some thought needs to be given to just what powers the possession of customary title would involve. He said in his submission that the current provisions relating to a foreshore and seabed reserve form a useful starting point but that consideration would need to be given to the relationship to other legislation such as the Resource Management Act and he then pointed everyone in the direction of the Ngati Porou agreement. 
So that is the second big issue that the Committee needs to determine tonight. Do we leave it to the courts to determine not only the tests for customary title but also what customary title involves or do we go with the formulation in the bill about the rights conferred by customary title? I am in the camp that says we need to set out what customary marine title involves. The Court of Appeal on the Ngati Apa case was not exactly sure. It said the burden could extend from usufructuary rights to exclusive ownership equivalent to fee simple. There is a big range there so the issue really becomes whether the rights that are set out in clause 64 are appropriate or whether there should be something more or something less. In spite of all the noise I think those are the key issues and I think it would be in the interests of everyone to have a good solid and focused debate on those points. 
Hon SHANE JONES (Labour) 
: 
 Now that we have returned from a break and had some kai and whakaki te kopu I imagine Mr Tau Henare will resume his more restful self. I want to take up the invitation of the Minister who was in the chair the Attorney-General and go straight to clause 64 and indeed the attendant explanatory clauses 65 to 91 in the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill. This debate was always going to turn on how one conceives the extent the character and the depth of any residual Maori proprietorial interest in the seabed and foreshore. 
This debate was rehearsed in the late 1980s because there used to be a similar provision in the Fisheries Act—section 88(2). It was a savings clause that came from earlier bouts of legislation that gave status to Maori fishing interests. The prevailing view of the Crown at that stage was that these interests to the extent that they subsisted into the 20th century were to be found in discrete areas—rocks and reefs. But the Waitangi Tribunal the High Court and inevitably our greatest jurist of all Lord Cooke found that these rights were dynamic and that as the circumstances of the people changed so the character of their rights changed. They were not to be locked or fossilised into the type of economy or the type of society that existed in 1840. Maori asked why it was reasonable for the Crown’s entitlements in the natural estate to be evolutionary and dynamic but the entitlements of Maori as the Treaty partner continued to exist as if it is still 1840. That has been one of the deep unresolved issues over the last 25 to 30 years of the Treaty-based renaissance. 
That is what the Maori Land Court was faced with in the papatipu investigations. In those investigations the Maori Land Court tried to determine firstly how powerful the rights were that a given community had in the landscape. It looked at such things as trapping occupation fishing harvesting of trees and issues to do with general reliance on that part of the economy. From there it framed what would be the nature and extent of largely speaking a Maori collective property right in their natural environment. This is in many respects what we are now asking the High Court to do. Last night I asked whether the High Court will have the necessary expertise in terms of additional resources and rules. I was assured by the Minister as I recall that that work is under way it has already happened etc. 
Hone Harawira made a very useful and accurate point about the extent to which the actual rights of the successful applicants will be far short when we consider that if there is a residual proprietorial interest in a given part of the takutai moana much of it has been hollowed out through accommodated activities and the override entitlement associated with accommodated activities. I think a lot of applicants will find that what they have is a very poor and dare I say it pale imitation of what they believe they are getting back because much has been carved out in order to satisfy other stakeholders. There lies a deep problem if we use exclusively a political process when people probably need to have these things teased out in court if they do not think the political process is the solution. The political process will be dominated from time to time by colleagues of ours from the ACT Party and in other times by far more reasonable characters who will inevitably come from this side of the Chamber. The meaning of “deemed accommodated activities” and accommodated associations etc. will crimp those solutions. 
The Minister is asking us whether the rights we are discussing are static or dynamic. If the society that modern Maori find themselves in has nothing to do with what subsisted in the 1840s or 1850s how do we give expression to those rights? What institutional forms should they take? Can a codified approach which in my view is really designed to prevent wild and unmanageable litigation give a better result than if we leave the issue ill-defined and invite the Waitangi Tribunal to be involved—no doubt having been unfortunately dragooned into action in some manner or form—or if we take it back to the courts? When we use the expression “the threshold test” that is really what we are talking about. 
The answer unfortunately has already been given in this bill. There may be a narrow range of minerals where there is perceived to be a prevailing Maori ownership interest but other minerals have been carved out. The difficulty and the irreconcilable tension is that we may give some tangata whenua group a right and a title and they may have the ability to block someone wanting to engage in economic development activities in their area but at the end of the day the Minister of Conservation will have the overarching yea or nay power. That is why the Maori Party although it agrees this bill is an improvement has overlooked the fact that only minor and modest authority is attached to those tangata whenua groups. At the end of the day the power to allocate to administer and indeed to even regulate the takutai moana titleholders will rest with the Minister of Conservation. Is that necessarily a bad thing? Well someone has to be in power and in control but to suggest that it will provide a basis to restore the rights that romantically exist in the minds of our friends from the Maori Party is wrong. It is also quite misleading to continue to leave our people with the impression that they will be satisfied by the passage of this legislation. 
I will go to clause 61. All of this will be a debate about what is justiciable: what factors a judge or Minister can take into account when we form the final shape depth and value of those rights. Applicants and statutory decision-makers will be able to take into account whether there has been a non-commercial fishing interest and I would caution anyone against reopening that debate and I hope this legislation goes nowhere near to doing that. A lot of the customary fishing rights depend on access and it will not so much be about whether applicant groups have enjoyed unfettered access to the land abutting the takutai moana but whether any of their members have also had that right. As day follows night we can rest assured that there is a vast difference between the applicant tangata whenua group and its members. Without a doubt a number of those members will have certain land rights but those organisations and members will not be congruent with the group that is making the application. Many of those groups will be political in character; they will not be specific or identifiable landowners. Indeed they will create—through I think unwise drafting—situations not unlike the current Maungatautari dispute which involves private individual Maori landowners and individuals in a hapu claimant group. The drafting is unwise—the Minister has gone now and we are unlikely to learn anything from the current Minister in the chair the Minister of Police. 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 I congratulate the prior speaker Shane Jones because I thought that was a very erudite contribution to the debate as to the difficulty Parliament faces in respect of these issues. I want to say why I think this Parliament is missing an opportunity to properly settle this issue. The Labour Party through the Hon Dr Michael Cullen made a submission to the ministerial review panel that said amongst other things that we should settle this issue and that an appropriate settlement could include codification of the common law tests. At the time a very good opinion piece by John Armstrong was published in the  
New Zealand Herald 
. He said this was a difficult issue for New Zealand and that Parliament had had one crack at it. At that time we had the National Party being I would say irresponsible rarking up race relations and making it an almost impossible issue to settle properly at the time. We also had some pretty intemperate comments at the other end of the spectrum. 
By the time of the ministerial review panel we had at least the major parties in Parliament trying to find a way forward that was fair to minority interests and that the country could live with. On that basis Labour said we supported statutory codification of the tests. At the time John Armstrong made the point that if we looked at the spectrum of opinion when the Foreshore and Seabed Act was passed we had the Maori Party or the precursors to the Maori Party saying the legislation was far too tough Labour closer to the Maori Party precursors than to the National in the middle and we had National at another extreme of the debate saying that the legislation was far too permissive in terms of its recognition of unextinguished customary rights. John Armstrong made the point that since that time National had moved very substantially. It had moved past its position at the time of the Foreshore and Seabed Act to say it wanted something that restored to Maori for example the right to go to court. National moved to that position and we moved to that point too and we were willing to move a bit further than National was willing to move. 
All that it would have taken to settle this issue was an agreement from the Maori Party to move from where it sat to where National had got to in respect of agreeing that the solution proposed by National was a fair settlement of the issue. If we had that it may well be that this Parliament would now be expressing unity on this issue and that would be good for our country. Unfortunately I have to say that the Maori Party and National have failed in their duty to the country. They said they would settle this issue. Rather than John Key ringing up the Maori Party and saying “Hey this is the deal can you live with it?” he has not done that. 
I do not want to be paternalistic or maternalistic towards the Maori Party but rather than the Maori Party offering up to say it accepted that this was a fair settlement of the issue the Maori Party said the opposite. It said this was a first step. It said that at the level of the Hon Tariana Turia and the Hon Dr Pita Sharples said the same thing. Those are the co-leaders of the Maori Party and their senior whip said exactly the same thing. He also said this bill was not a settlement. On that basis National asked us to accept the pretence that this was a settlement and that was where we bailed because we said we would not put up with that fiction—because it is a fiction for the reasons I have outlined. On that basis we got to the point where we said Parliament had had two cracks at fixing it and Parliament could not fix it. 
It is obvious Parliament cannot fix what is the appropriate threshold test to the satisfaction of the range of interests involved. As a consequence we say Part 3 which has the threshold test in it is wrong. We say we ought not to be pretending that this settles it and we ought to let these issues play out over time through the courts. I heard the Minister in charge of the bill the Hon Christopher Finlayson say that would be a bad thing because it would take time and it would create uncertainty. The first thing I would say is that presumes this legislation creates certainty. How can that be when the Maori Party and various other sectors in society for different reasons are saying it does not settle the issue? We are kidding ourselves if we think that by saying it is settled it will be. The reality is that it is not. So that is the first problem with the Attorney-General’s argument. 
The second problem with his arguments in favour of codification given where we have got to relates to the suggestion that somehow this will be better because it is simpler and therefore more cost-effective. This legislation enables agreements to be progressed through legislation in Parliament. According to the Parliamentary Library—I asked it to give me some advice on this—the average cost of a piece of legislation in 2010 including the full costs of running Parliament was $2.8 million per piece of legislation. 
Hon Member 
: Can you say that again. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: It was $2.8 million per piece of legislation. I am not saying that that is the full cost of every piece of legislation because the marginal cost of legislation is probably not $2.8 million but I tell members that it is a lot lot more than the cost of a court action. A court action for people to explore their customary interests and for the court to determine them does not cost millions of dollars; a piece of legislation does. So the idea that through this new process the Government is introducing we will have a more cost-effective approach is just wrong. It would be far more cost-effective for taxpayers to fund appropriate contributions to legal aid than it would be to proceed by way of Acts of Parliament in respect of these agreements that are going to come forward. 
The codification of these tests is highly problematic. A lot of people in New Zealand will be left dissatisfied. People such as Hone Harawira and the Maori Party say this codification of the test acts as a confiscation of rights. We can never win that argument in this Parliament because the people who believe that never had the ability to test that as we are removing from the jurisdiction of the court their ability to test it. Through codification we are putting the issue as to what should be the proper threshold test beyond the jurisdiction of the court and therefore the sense of injustice from some of the Maori Party’s supporters will always be there. Conversely the people at the other end of the debate who say the test is far too lax—and they might be right—are also prevented from having their day in court to argue what they think. 
Having had two attempts in this Parliament to settle this matter we have not achieved it and it is time to acknowledge that reality. There is an amendment in my name to that effect. Let us put this back to the courts. The Maori Party could vote for that amendment tonight and that would be the outcome. That is what they say they wanted originally. The Greens support that Progressive supports that the ACT Party supports that and I think that Hone Harawira would even support it going back to the courts. All it takes is for the Maori Party or indeed a few people in National—and they are under pressure—if they were not whipped to vote in favour of that amendment and we could have that solution in this Chamber tonight. 
We could have this issue settled fairly setting out a process for everyone to have their day in court. The framework would be settled taxpayers would be better off Maori interests would feel justly treated and other interests who feel aggrieved by this legislation would feel justly treated. We tested that at the Maori Affairs Committee across a wide range of submitters and although it is true that it was not universally accepted the vast majority of people thought it was the way forward. That is why Labour does not support this most crucial part of the bill Part 3 in its current form. That is why we have an amendment to that effect. 
CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green) 
: 
 Tena koutou te Whare. The Green Party has a strong interest in both the detail and the intent of the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill in all parts but especially in Part 3. We agree with a number of comments about the right to go to court although having spent a bit of time in some courts as a layperson I have a very unromantic view of a court where the tests are too difficult for people to pass. 
Of all the Green MPs Metiria Turei has lived the issue through the parliamentary process in depth and detail. However if we do not obsess over the detail but actually look at the intent of the bill we realise that all of us in this country have a contribution to make. People out there are emailing me and using Facebook all day saying: “What on earth are these people in Parliament talking about? Can you please make this comprehensible.” People do not understand why the debate has become so esoteric. I will attempt to be slightly less esoteric which should be quite easy for me as a non-lawyer. 
Part 3 is focused on the rights and tests and of particular importance is the definition of “customary marine title”. This does not really sound like a tikanga-based definition but it definitely has a strong marine flavour and many fishhooks. One of the most fundamental issues is the test for a marine customary title. Clause 60(1)(b) requires tangata whenua to show that they have “exclusively used and occupied the specified area from 1840 to the present day without substantial interruption.” It is necessary to ask who benefits from the inclusion of that provision. In my limited experience a limited list of hapu—perhaps Te Tairawhiti—may be able to pass this test but I ask who else and where. And even within that rohe where I was privileged to live for 8 years I can think of numerous examples where mana whenua hapu simply could not pass that test as a result of colonisation. 
I want to cite two examples where the mana whenua hapu who live on the coast cannot have confidence in this test. Would the people of Rongomaiwahine and Opoutama who lost by various means their access to the foreshore to the local authority which then sold it to a camping ground that then sold it to a developer to make a wealthy subdivision right on the foreshore be able to claim unbroken title without substantial interruption? They probably would not. Nevertheless it is they who maintain passionate kaitiakitanga and responsibility for that part of the coast and welcome people to come as manuhiri and have holidays there. But it is they who were marginalised from the decision making continue to be marginalised and may not be able to pass the test. 
Then there is the interesting saga of Te Kuri o Paoa—Young Nicks Head—and the customary relationships of mana whenua to that piece of coast where tangata whenua first saw Young Nick on the bowsprit of the  
Endeavour 
. Ngai Tamanuhiri had uninterrupted access until the land was alienated and became a farm owned by a local family who then put the maunga on the market. The marine area around Te Kuri o Paoa was put at a price that the tangata whenua could not afford to buy back. So Te Kuri o Paoa was bought by an American stockbroker called John Griffin who offered the family a lot more money. The possibility of regaining land title to their sacred maunga and their customary marine coastal rights was lost. If the stockbroker is in the mood or chooses to invite them they may have access to their coastal and marine area. That is not a customary right and that is not an exercise in justice. That ancestral relationship is substantially interrupted and therefore I ask how they will pass the test. The right in both cases to be the decision maker is seriously undermined by clause 60(1)(b). 
It may be however that proving that a protected customary right exists is a lot simpler than that because for example gathering kai moana or launching waka are activities that can be maintained without substantial interruption despite colonisation. So some people in the coastal area can go and gather kai even though they have lost access but they cannot necessarily exercise any decision making over their ancestral whenua or over the foreshore and seabed in their area. 
It is the Green Party’s view that this test has been deliberately set up to create a failure even in places like Te Tai Rawhiti where some believe they will have no problem in proving their situation. The Green Party believes that the tests in the legislation have been chosen by the Government because they meet the Government’s political objective to make the process as difficult as possible for hapu and iwi. 
Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to speak to Part 3 of the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill and I recognise that I do not have the legal training that the Minister Chris Finlayson who is sponsoring the bill has. So I confess readily as a humble arts graduate that I need to go back to principles that simply make sense to me. I find Part 3 of this legislation quite challenging and I think that is because it is genuinely difficult. I do not think I am as illiterate as other members may class me as being but it seems to me that if we go back to what this legislation is about we get to the heart of it in Part 3. 
In Subpart 1 we have the participation and conservation processes in the common marine and coastal area in Subpart 2 we have protected customary rights and in Subpart 3 we have the customary marine title. I will go back to basics and say right from the start of the debate on this part that Labour’s basic position has been firstly to guarantee public access; secondly to recognise Maori customary rights; and thirdly to allow Maori to take all aspects of their claims to the court. Those three things are simple principles that I can understand and I can describe to other people. That is always the test for me—whether I can describe what the legislation means to other people. I have worked quite hard at this. 
I will start at perhaps the most contentious bit and that is the customary marine title in Subpart 3. Some of the earlier subparts of this section of the legislation are reasonably OK. For example there is now widespread agreement that rights of free public access to the foreshore and seabed and so on are not at legal risk and the prevention of the alienation of customary interest is widely supported. Therefore I will not traverse those things so much. But when we get to this bit in Subpart 3 then suddenly I begin to get suspicious because what we have here is the meaning of customary marine title and an attempt at codification of it to which the Minister referred in his opening remarks. 
My experience of codification in past lives has been that it is an extremely complex difficult and exhausting process. The codification of a right often requires a level of detail that is needed to address every issue that one can reasonably expect to arise where a right might be applied or might be sought to be applied. Codification is a very complicated process but this effort in Subpart 3 puzzles me most. Our position is that we are happy to lay out general principles and have the court determine on application how those principles might be applied in determining whether customary marine title exists. Two things are important in clause 60(1) in Subpart 3. It states: “Customary marine title exists in a particular part of the common marine and coastal area if the applicant group—(a) holds the specified area in accordance with tikanga; and (b) has exclusively used and occupied the specified area from 1840 to the present day without substantial interruption.” That is problematic for many iwi. It is extremely difficult for iwi to prove and it is extremely difficult for— 
Hon Dr Wayne Mapp 
: No it’s not difficult at all. It’s one of the easiest things to prove. 
Hon MARYAN STREET 
: Well the ones I have talked to who are represented by the Iwi Leadership Group which is most of them said that this threshold is unfair. 
The issue is that the Maori Party was founded on the basis of what it considered to be flawed legislation passed by our Government in the white heat of the racist opposition that the National Party had been drumming up over a number of years and Don Brash owns his part— 
Hon Members 
: Point of order— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I think I know what the point of order is and I have just been reflecting on the way in which the member used a certain word. The test is whether the Committee itself is offended by a word like this one. With regard to the context in which the member used it I know that she did not personalise it but it does bring offence to the Committee. I ask the member to desist. 
Hon MARYAN STREET 
: Thank you Mr Chairperson; I will desist. In the white heat that the National Party generated at the time of the passage of our legislation the Maori Party said we were taking away the right to go to court. The Labour Party has said since then—and I said it yesterday in this very debate—that we got that wrong and we have apologised for that. Now this codification part of this legislation is trying to do much the same thing. I go back to simple principles. The concern that we in the Labour Party have is that this provision appears opaque—it is not transparent. I would rather provide guidelines and principles in legislation in this House and have the courts—people whom the Minister in the chair the Hon Judith Collins trained with in her previous occupation and who are now judges—look at this and see how to apply it. Let us build up some case law and practice in this area. 
The independence of the judiciary is extremely important to our democracy and for the life of me I cannot understand why the Maori Party finds this bill fit to support when it continues the denial of access to the courts that provoked the establishment of that party. So this is a real puzzle to me: that the Maori Party on whose votes this legislation depends are violently opposed to a restriction of access to the courts in 2004 yet come 2011 when this Parliament is having a second go at addressing this issue in the interests of all New Zealanders it thinks it is now OK to have something codified in legislation and not able to be taken to the courts for testing. 
Hon JOHN BOSCAWEN (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I will just comment on what Maryan Street had to say. She summarised part of the basis of the ACT Party’s objection to the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill. We believe that iwi and hapu should have access to courts. We do not believe that the law should be codified in the way that it has been which denies the right of iwi and hapu to go to court and to fight for their common law rights. 
This is a debate on Part 3 of the bill. I will focus in particular on the clauses relating to customary title which have been identified by the Hon Christopher Finlayson: clauses 60 61 and 64. I will refer also to mana tuku iho. 
Before I do that I feel as though I need to respond to some of the comments that Hone Harawira made earlier this afternoon. I had hoped to make this contribution during the debate on the last part before the vote was taken but I was prevented from doing that. But the points I will make are still just as relevant. The ACT Party totally agrees with Hone Harawira that this bill needs to be opposed and opposed at every step. We will be fighting to the bitter end. 
One of the points we make is in respect of what Hone said this afternoon: that this was a confiscation of Maori rights. I think Hone and some of his supporters are of the view that iwi and hapu have customary title to have ownership of the entire seabed and foreshore out to the end of the territorial sea to the extent of the 12-mile limit. It is important to come back to the decision in the Ngati Apa case. Once again the Attorney-General quoted that case this afternoon. The view that Maori own the seabed and foreshore is a common view amongst some Maori. It is interesting that a hikoi is marching to Wellington as we speak. But I suggest that the reason the hikoi has been formed and is marching on this occasion is a lot different from what it was in 2004. In 2004 the hikoi was marching for access to the courts; it was acting for access to the courts and for justice. My colleague the Hon Rodney Hide joined that hikoi when it arrived in Wellington. 
I will comment on some of the observations made by Dame Sian Elias the Chief Justice. She said in the Ngati Apa case: “This appeal deals only with the initial question of whether the Maori Land Court can enter into the substantive inquiry.” The appeal dealt only with whether the issue could legally go before the Maori Land Court. It did not deal with whether iwi and hapu have customary title. She went on to say: “The significance of the determinations this Court is asked to make should not be exaggerated. The outcome of the appeal cannot establish that there is Maori customary land below the high water mark.” There you have it. She said that the outcome of the Ngati Apa case cannot be exaggerated. It did not establish that there was Maori customary land below the high-water mark. 
Ever since that judgment despite her observations that it did not determine whether there was Maori customary land below the high-water mark a group of New Zealanders has believed that is the case—that Maori own the seabed and foreshore. In this case we have seen the National Government take fright as the Labour Government took fright in 2004 with the passing of the Foreshore and Seabed Act. Both National and Labour have sought to restrict the rights of iwi and hapu to go to court to claim their customary title I guess under a belief that they would win large amounts of New Zealand. 
In this case they have set a codification—a series of tests—that the Attorney-General says will lead to certainty and to equity. I will explain in my call why that will do exactly the opposite why it will not lead to certainty and why it will not lead to equity. Interestingly Dame Sian Elias goes on to say: “Nor will the appeal resolve questions of the nature of any property interest in land (whether it approximates a fee simple interest or whether it is lesser property).” 
I will focus most of my remaining time on the issue of customary title but before doing so I will comment very briefly on the concept of mana tuku iho. Essentially mana tuku iho creates a universal right of consultation. Pita Sharples and Tariana Turia wrote in the  
New Zealand Herald  
last week: “The new bill acknowledges that ALL coastal iwi have connections to the coast. Their mana tuku iho (inherent authority) entitles them to protect their wahi tapu and to be consulted on conservation and resource-management issues.” One of the reasons this bill is a racist bill is that that right is given only to coastal iwi. What about other people living on the coast who are not iwi? What about non-Maori New Zealanders who also live on the coast whose families have lived on the coast for over 100 years? They do not have the same rights as provided for in this bill. If that is not a racist provision I do not know what is. 
The issue comes to the tests of marine title and the rights that derive from it. National has perpetuated the myth the fiction that only very small areas of New Zealand will be opened up to claims of customary title. Its members have said in their publications for example that “The test”—for customary title—“requires continuous exclusive use and occupation of an area since 1840. As you can imagine that is not an easy test to meet.” Well it is not an easy test to meet but that is not actually the test. One does not actually have to prove continuous and exclusive occupation; one has to prove exclusive and continuous occupation without substantial interruption. What is the effect of that proviso? We do not know Christopher Finlayson does not know and the Court of Appeal does not know. To suggest that this bill will lead to certainty is a load of hogwash. 
If when I look at the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper 207 I see the addition of new clause 61(2A) which states: “The use at any time by persons who are not members of an applicant group of a specified area of the common marine and coastal area for fishing or navigation does not of itself preclude the applicant group from establishing the existence of customary marine title.” So iwi can make a claim for customary title iwi can say they have occupied the land exclusively but the fact that other people come and fish boat and navigate through that land does not preclude iwi from making a claim it does not preclude the court from awarding iwi customary title and it does not preclude the Government from entering into an agreement to grant customary title. 
To perpetuate the fiction the myth and to mislead New Zealanders that the right to apply for customary title will apply to only a very small part of New Zealand is I think deceptive in the extreme. I think National is relying on the fact that New Zealanders are not taking an interest in this issue but I think in time that they will and they will take an interest in ever-bigger numbers. 
I turn to clause 64 and to the benefits that flow from being granted customary marine title. The first thing we know is that with a grant of customary marine title comes the ownership of minerals other than those deemed to be owned by the Crown under the Crown Minerals Act: basically all minerals and resources other than oil gold silver and natural resources. That right is granted specifically in this bill out to the 12-mile limit—out to the limits of the territorial sea. Well in 1840 the limit of the territorial sea was recognised as being 3 miles so in this bill we are setting ourselves up to transfer ownership of resources from all New Zealanders to a small select group of iwi who can meet these tests. The Government suggests that that is equity but how does that protect the rights of all New Zealanders? 
Let me go on. There is also the right to protect wahi tapu. I would be the first to recognise Maori custom; I would be the first to recognise sacred areas. But New Zealanders probably do not appreciate that when a claim is lodged for customary title areas can be designated as wahi tapu. They are designated as sacred and that gives iwi the right if customary title is subsequently granted to say that is a sacred area and they do not want other New Zealanders to enter. 
KELVIN DAVIS (Labour) 
: 
 I will start off by disagreeing with my colleague Nanaia Mahuta when she said the Maori Party had trouble in justifying the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill. That party does not have trouble in justifying this bill; it is absolutely proud of it. In the hikoi of 2004 people marched against the Foreshore and Seabed Bill. But they are not being led on a hikoi with this bill; they are being led down the garden path because the legislation that they have ended up with is little different from the 2004 Act. 
I take issue with what the Hon John Boscawen said—that in 1840 the territorial limit was 3 miles out to sea. Tau Henare for all of his bluster raised a good point in his interjection when he asked who had set that 3-mile limit. It certainly was not Maori. We are talking here about Maori customary rights and so on but the Hon John Boscawen is referring to a totally European concept and in 1840 Maori were in charge of the country. 
Moving on to the bill and to the definitions there of hapu I tell the Committee that the bill originally stated in clause 49(2) that “hapu means a hapu listed in the constitutional documents of an iwi or as advised to the Director-General by the iwi”. In the select committee process in the Maori Affairs Committee a number of hapu were concerned about that because their hapu were not necessarily listed in the constitutional documents of the iwi. The Mahurehure tribe in Waima in the Hokianga were a tribe who were concerned that they might be missed out. Instead the clause has now been changed on Supplementary Order Paper 207 in the name of the Hon Christopher Finlayson—and I believe rightly so. Clause 49(1) on that Supplementary Order Paper states: “In this section and sections 50 to 52 affected iwi hapu or whanau means iwi hapu or whanau that exercise kaitiakitanga in a part of the common marine and coastal area where a conservation process is being considered.” Mahurehure are an inland iwi but the Waima River goes right through to the Hokianga Harbour and I tell the Committee that they will be glad now that they will be included most definitely in this provision. 
Clause 53 describes the meaning of “protected customary rights” and we have heard already that under subclause (1) “A protected customary right is a right that—(a) has been exercised since 1840; and (b) continues to be exercised in a particular part of the common marine and coastal area in accordance with tikanga by the applicant group whether it continues to be exercised in exactly the same or a similar way or evolves over time;”. The bill does not actually give any examples of what a customary right may be other than the collection of hangi stones I believe and the launching of waka. From what I can read there is no real description of what such a right might be and I think that just tells us as Maori that we have the right to go and do what we have always done—for example gather pipis go diving for kinas pauas scallops or whatever else. To me this whole part about protected customary rights really just says Maori have the right to go and do what we have always done on the foreshore and seabed anyway. To me it is almost extraneous to the whole issue. 
Then we move on to clause 58 “Controls on exercise of protected customary rights”. Basically it says at the end of subclause (1) that “the Minister may impose controls including any terms conditions or restrictions that the Minister thinks fit on the exercise of the [customary] rights.” But from the way that I read that that means that tino rangatiratanga again ends up in the hands of the Minister. I wonder whether that is what the Maori Party set out to achieve with its support of this bill: that the Minister at the end of the day has the final say about the exercising of customary rights by Maori. I am pretty sure that when the members who are now Maori Party MPs led the hikoi back in 2004 that is not what they were marching for—not just to have the Minister at the end of the day have the final say on the exercise of those customary rights. 
There were submitters to the select committee who asked when it came down to customary marine title and the exclusivity side of it what will happen when they through their generosity as a hapu or an iwi have allowed people to go over their land to use the beach. Angeline Greensill who was a candidate for the Maori Party in Tainui said there was an area of land in Raglan that her tribe had opened up out of generosity. It had started out as a bit of a track and then I think the local council came along and made the road a bit tidier. Members of the community were able through the tribe’s generosity to cross over their tribal land to go and use the beach. But now this exclusivity clause means that because of their generosity that foreshore and seabed land was not exclusively used by Maori so they will be disadvantaged through their own generosity. 
In a similar vein in Blenheim the select committee heard a hapu and iwi there ask about what happens when the Crown has bulldozed a road across their land and through to an area that would otherwise be totally isolated. Through an act basically of confiscation by the Crown their foreshore and seabed has been opened up and all and sundry can go there and make use of it. So is it fair to them that through an act of the Crown—a confiscation for want of a better word—the seabed and foreshore has not been exclusively used by the hapu and tribe? They have been disadvantaged in that aspect. 
There is a whole concept about wahi tapu. There are wahi tapu areas and wahi tapu. I spoke last night about the  
Mataatua 
 waka which is our ancestral waka in Takou Bay. That site I consider is a wahi tapu but it is not necessarily in an area with customary marine title. 
Paul Quinn 
: Just give our waka back—is that what they say? 
KELVIN DAVIS 
: Yes—Tuhoe say they want their waka back and we say that if their karakia are strong enough to refloat the  
Mataatua 
 waka then they should come and get it. But the point of the matter is that the  
Mataatua 
 waka may not necessarily be resting in an area with customary marine title so does that mean that that waka could still be designated as a wahi tapu when it will not necessarily be in a customary marine title area? That is just a question I have about that. 
I turn now to clause 62 “Customary transfers”. Subclause (3) states that “customary transfer means a transfer of a customary interest in a specified part of the common marine and coastal area after 1840 if—(a) the transfer was—(i) between or among members of the applicant group;”. I am not sure of the purpose of that. I am not sure why an applicant group would then transfer their own customary title area amongst themselves. Let us say that was possible and let us say that Ngapuhi which spans from the east coast of Northland through to the west coast was an applicant group. Would that mean that a customary area on the east coast could actually be transferred to our whanaunga on the west coast? And how would that actually happen? The other question is whether those transfers can be made at a cost. Could a customary interest or customary rights actually be transferred at a cost? If so it would be like selling off the customary rights albeit to another group within one’s own applicant group. 
PAUL QUINN (National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Labour—Ikaroa-Rawhiti) 
: 
 I thought I would take up some cutting remarks made in relation to the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill. Certainly as Dr Cullen said and as I have heard the Minister in the chair the Attorney-General say earlier in the debate Labour did want to get to a better place and we can concede in all humility that maybe we could have done better in our time. But we have got to the stage now where we need to confront those issues that are relevant to taking this issue forward and Part 3 suggests a whole lot of matters and issues that need to be clarified. 
It has worried me at times that some people have let rip with extremes and have tested people’s minds and manners by making extreme statements. Some people say that this bill is about Alice-in-Wonderland practices that Maori do not know anything about customary rights and that they would have had to hold their noses underwater. They are the sorts of outrageous statements we can do without. 
I also get a bit perturbed. Sitting outside in front of the hikoi that day is etched on my mind especially as some of my whanau were on the other side. The challenges that were tossed at Labour in relation to our denying Maori access to court are now being fudged. The Maori Party members who at that time professed that Labour’s Foreshore and Seabed Bill was totally wrong because of that denial of access are now supporting the same sort of stance. I am really interested in the fact that they are saying this bill is not National’s bill but theirs and they are proud of it. I really wonder at the end of the day what there is to be proud about in relation to this bill in the sense of where it is at the moment. 
The Minister’s Supplementary Order Papers have been very interesting. He has been telling tales on me to my uncle Api on what I am saying and whatever else. He is a real nark at times and I take umbrage at that too. 
The purpose of Part 3 is to set out the full extent— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: But you support Te Ropu Ripa. Come on! You support Mallard. 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: What I did not support was the 500-page report being rushed through the Maori Affairs Committee by its chair allowing no legal advice or legal content or direction by members. That is what I object to. 
The purpose of Subpart 1 of Part 3 is in relation to participation in conservation processes. I say to the Minister that one of the issues in Part 3 that really does concern me is the mixture and the composition of the decision making. There seems to be an illogical matrix of points of decision. The Minister of Conservation the Minister for the Environment the Maoris sometimes the court authorities and some of the ideology of the Resource Management Act are crammed together. I hope that by the time we get to the end of the debate we can decipher some of that and that the bill is more specific than Part 3 is starting to be. 
There are a whole lot of issues. In relation to Subpart 2 “Protected customary rights” those rights are described in clause 53 as rights that have been exercised since 1840. I would like to know how we are going to exercise that definition. Is it about Maori kids running and jumping in the water like their ancestors did in 1840 and having continuously swum there dived underneath to see what is in the water and gathered food there? Is that enough? Clause 53(1)(b) states that a protected customary right is a right that “continues to be exercised in a particular part of the common marine and coastal area in accordance with tikanga by the applicant group” and clause 53(1)(c) states that it “is not extinguished as a matter of law.” All through the provisions including in Part 3 there is a real push about tikanga. It is interesting as we read the parts to see how tikanga is defined and who defines it. Some clauses of Part 3 suggest that tikanga can be defined by the applicant group by the hapu or the iwi involved or it can be determined by the sanction of the Director-General of Conservation and so on and so forth. 
To push that further if we look at clause 53(3) we see that it states that “An applicant group”—[ 
Interruption 
] Mr Chair! 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: You want another call? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: Yes thanks. Another two if you do not mind. Is that all right? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I will judge that. One at a time. 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: It states that “An applicant group does not need to have an interest in land in or abutting the specified part of the common marine and coastal area in order to establish protected customary rights.” What my learned colleague from Te Tai Tokerau Kelvin Davis said was interesting. There are learned members from Te Tai Tokerau here who know where their waka came from and have a sincere sense of belonging to Te Tai Tokerau. I mihi to him. [ 
Interruption 
] He is not like Paul Quinn sitting in that far-away land over there and he is not like Tau Henare over there who rushed the report through the Maori Affairs Committee. My mokopuna are from Te Tai Tokerau and I am thankful that there are decent members of this House from Te Tai Tokerau. Kelvin Davis knows where his waka came from; he is not inventing it like that member over there. 
If we look at clause 53(3) we see that it states that “An applicant group does not need to have an interest in land in or abutting”— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Can I just caution the member. The nature of the exchange that has gone on was such that the member was implying that some people in this Chamber are not decent. All members are honourable members. 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: I stand corrected Mr Chair. Thank you. I want to tell members about the waka  
Mataatua 
. The member with his fist raised in the air believes that the waka  
Mataatua 
 stayed in Tai Tokerau—that it lived there. The member on his left— 
Hon Simon Power 
: Where’s this in the bill? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: This is very important to Part 3 I say to Simon Power. I want him to listen to this. When we define tikanga and we define aspirations and we determine what is right or wrong in Maoridom we have to understand that there may be four or five different versions and they are all right. How will the court manage that? The bloke up there on the left would say that the  
Mataatua 
 waka rested in Tai Tokerau in the Hokianga and sits there. The bloke on his left would say that no it rests down by Whakatane or Opotiki. They are both right. How does one recognise that? 
I want to get on to this land business in the sense of supporting the test. The contiguousness that was a really strong reference in the 2004 legislation is I hope still important because there is some shifty shaking in this bill. It is saying that the customary right does not necessarily have to be where one is living by the seashore or thereabouts. It can be somewhere else. But one of the real key drivers in relation to recognising or simplifying people’s rights and tuku iho is the contiguousness of the dry land that they may have lived on or controlled over generations. What they have done on that land is a different issue. They have inherited it and they have inherited it for one reason: through their whakapapa or their genealogical tie. How is the court or anybody else going to test that? The strength to recognise a lot of that tuku iho or those rights is in that contiguousness if those people have had that whenua. 
Clause 53(1) states that a protected customary right is a right exercised in accordance with tikanga. I want to make the point that tikanga takes all sorts of forms and shapes and that there are alignments like the contiguousness of land to the right to the water that is trying to be defined here. So those iwi who have a lot of land there should be recognised for that. 
The other thing is that clause 54(3) states that a protected customary rights order or an agreement that applies to the customary rights group can be subject to a control imposed by the Minister of Conservation under section 59. Clause 54(4) states: “A protected customary rights group may do any of the following: (a) delegate the rights conferred by a protected customary rights order or an agreement in accordance with tikanga:”. I am not too sure what that means. Does it mean where the  
Mataatua  
waka might have gone or could be? And I say that with a whole lot of respect. Clause 54(4)(b) states: “transfer a protected customary rights order or an agreement in accordance with tikanga:”. Again I ask the Minister who is defining tikanga in relation to those limitations and how. Clause 56 “Limitations on exercise of protected customary rights” states: “(1) A protected customary right does not include any right or title over the part of the common marine and coastal area where the protected customary right is exercised”. So we have this no-people’s park which nobody owns but everybody reckons that is OK and then the bill is saying that nobody can define or determine— 
HONE HARAWIRA (Independent—Te Tai Tokerau) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Chairman. Tena koutou katoa e te Whare. As I turn to Part 3 of this Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill I cannot help but notice how much has been made of the Maori Party statement yesterday—and I quote Rahui Katene the speaker from the Maori Party—“This bill is in the House on our initiative. Make no bones about it this is a Maori Party bill. … and we are pleased to stand here in support …”. As I turn to aspects outlined in Part 3 I cannot help but focus Maori people’s attention on clauses that will impact dramatically and adversely on Maori rights to the foreshore and seabed and ask why on earth the Maori Party is saying now this is a Maori Party bill when just a few days ago Te Ururoa Flavell when asked who was running the timetable said National was. When he was asked who wrote the bill he said National did. When he was asked whose bill it was he said it was National’s. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. This afternoon I accommodated the member from the north’s wish to speak to the Chamber as he had limited opportunities or had not necessarily taken those opportunities. If you are listening to the discussion at the moment Mr Chairperson you will hear that it is centred very much on the discussion that has already been put out on the part prior to this one—namely Part 2. Similar statements have been made and there has been no discussion in respect of this particular part. I ask whether you could draw us back. Although we have had a reference to Part 3 the substance of the discussion has been nothing to do with Part 3. I ask whether you would take some care to listen out for that. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: In relation to relevance it is the prerogative of the Chair to rule. I have heard salient parts of this speech at least twice before. But the member has taken the call and whether he gets a second call will depend on his performance through his first call. 
HONE HARAWIRA 
: Thank you Mr Chair. As I highlight just some of the clauses in Part 3 of this bill and the Maori Party support for those clauses I want Maori people to be constantly asking themselves why on earth the Maori Party would say “Make no bones about it this is a Maori Party bill. … and we are pleased to stand here in support …”. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I am aware that there has been a change of delegation but a Chairperson is still here. I have just made a point of order in respect of the issue of relevance to this particular part of the bill. There has been no reference back to Part 3 other than to mention Part 3 with no reference to the substance. Mr Chair I am not sure how you will refer to this but the Chair who held the position previously said he would keep note of the relevance to this particular part and unfortunately the situation has not changed too much. Can I ask whether you can give some clarity around that please? 
Hon David Parker 
: I suggest that that complaint is hardly fair. The speaker Hone Harawira effectively has just repeated the sentence he was delivering before he was interrupted and he has not yet had the opportunity to make reference to a specific clause in the bill—which I have no doubt he will eventually do. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I tell members that I am delighted to hear the word “fairness” used in this Chamber; I am not sure that fairness has always been the rule. But I heard the point of order made by the previous Chair who said he was listening to the presentation with interest—as I am—and the Chair would make a judgment on whether the member got a second call based on the relevance of the first call. Therefore the sanction was clearly laid out to the member speaking and to all members in the debate that if members were not relevant to the section then they might get the blind stare from the Chair—in other words no further calls. In the interests of debate I think that the honourable member Hone Harawira is entitled to continue with his presentation and at the end of it we will make a judgment as to whether the member has been relevant. That will then determine whether a second call is given should the member wish to take one. 
HONE HARAWIRA 
: Does the Maori Party know that under Part 3 of this bill a protected customary right is a right that has been exercised since 1840 continues to be exercised in a particular part of the common marine and coastal area in accordance with tikanga and is not already extinguished as a matter of law? If the Maori Party does in fact know this is it because this clause was either included at that party’s request or perhaps even written by the party? Is that why the Maori Party is saying: “Make no bones about it this is a Maori Party bill. … and we are pleased to stand here in support …”? 
Does the Maori Party know that under Part 3 of this bill the scope effect and limitations of protected Maori customary rights are defined and overseen entirely by Government Government statutes and the courts and that whanau hapu and iwi have no role in that process? Is that what the Maori Party means when it talks about rangatiratanga? 
Does the Maori Party know that under Part 3 of this bill the Minister of Conservation has the right to impose controls including any terms conditions or restrictions that the Minister sees fit on the exercise of protected Maori customary rights? If the Maori Party does in fact know this is it because this clause was included at the party’s request or perhaps even written by the party and is that why the Maori Party is happy to say: “Make no bones about it this is a Maori Party bill. … and we are pleased to stand here in support …”? 
Does the Maori Party know that under Part 3 of this bill Maori must hold the specified area in accordance with tikanga and must have exclusively used and occupied the specified area from 1840 to the present day without substantial interruption? If the Maori Party does in fact know this is it because this clause was included at the party’s request or was perhaps even written by the party or did it simply transfer the clause from Labour’s hated 2004 Foreshore and Seabed Act across to this hated 2011 bill? 
Does the Maori Party know that under clause 49(2) in Part 3 of this bill supposedly “hapu means a hapu listed in the constitutional documents of an iwi …” and “iwi means an iwi listed in schedule 4 of the Maori Fisheries Act 2004.”? Is the granting of authority to the Crown to determine Maori entities what the Maori Party means when it talks about rangatiratanga? 
Does the Maori Party know that under Part 3 of this bill a protected customary right does not affect the granting of a coastal permit under the resource— 
Hon JOHN CARTER (Minister of Civil Defence) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Labour—Ikaroa-Rawhiti) 
: 
 There are some interesting things in Part 3. I have been trying to deduce why the Attorney-General has moved with some flourish from the sequencing of whanau hapu and iwi in clause 3. He has turned it round quietly on his Supplementary Order Paper 207 to iwi hapu and whanau. That is one thing Hone Harawira has said right tonight. He has deduced that the Minister is trying to set it up in a single area for it to be controlled and manifested in the sense of direction by the group he is comfortable with. 
I turn to clause 81 which is about newly found taonga tuturu. I wonder whether I can jog the Minister’s support by suggesting that this is quite a powerful part for Maoridom. I wonder how he defines and determines taonga tuturu which in my translation is the gift or sub-property that has been there for ever and ever. Clause 81(1) states: “Any taonga tuturu found in a customary marine title area on or after the effective date is prima facie the property of the relevant customary marine title group.” 
Paul Quinn 
: What’s wrong with that? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: It is very good. It is suggesting that all new-found minerals there belong to the title holders. I ask the Minister to make quite clear whether that is what it means. I suppose the other part is the controls. Clause 58(1) states that “If at any time the Minister of Conservation determines’’. We have talked about all these issues that are relevant and strong for Maori and will benefit them but then we come down to this quite cutting exact not too dissimilar legislation that defines— 
Hon Shane Jones 
: Dodgy. 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: It could be dodgy but it defines in that great litigious way that “If at any time the Minister of Conservation determines that the exercise of protected customary rights under a protected customary rights order or agreement has or is likely to have a significant adverse effect on the environment the Minister may impose controls including any terms conditions or restrictions that the Minister thinks fit on the exercise of the rights.” That is really fascinating. We are trying to push this up to include statements of freedom but what that provision really says is that bang all over the Minister decides. And where does everything else sit in the sense of sequencing? What are the Maori Party members thinking when they boast that this bill is their bill in relation to what could easily be put asunder by what some may perceive as general bureaucratic rhetoric but most think is at the end of the day a slippery slimy way of controlling things? 
Clause 58(2) states: “Any person may apply to the Minister of Conservation for controls to be imposed on the exercise of a protected customary right stating the reasons for the application.” I hope that in a late Supplementary Order Paper the Minister will withdraw “any person”. One thing that is becoming starkly evident is a return to the old practice of divide and rule with everybody setting to on everybody else as they did as Mr Jones would say in the summaries of the schedules for the fisheries allocation. That is something nobody wants and we tire of it. I hope that is not what the Maori Party is trying to ensure happens. At the end of the day it is something that Labour members would not support. 
I come back to the taonga tuturu. Clause 81(3) states: “Any person finding a taonga tuturu in a customary marine title area has a duty to notify the finding within 28 days”—and then it gets quite specific. Subclause (4) states: “The obligations of the chief executive”—whoever that may be—“under section 11(4) of the Protected Objects Act 1975 apply but with the following modifications:” which are listed in paragraphs (a) and (b). Are we talking about singular objects in the sense of art and craft? Are we talking about the paddle that fell off the waka or whatever else? Or are we talking about a collective group of taonga like minerals and whatever else? Hangi stones are minerals. They seem to be OK. What about something more minute—molecules or whatever we call them the clusters— 
HILARY CALVERT (ACT) 
: 
 I start by commending the honourable member on the other side of the Chamber who has spent much time this evening talking about tikanga and making it clear to all of us that tikanga is not something we all know means a particular thing; it has different meanings to different people and therefore should not be in our opinion a word defined in the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill. 
I will talk about special resource management rights which are not available to other landowners under this bill. We have an example of how muddled this whole issue is. National and the Maori Party have invented a whole new property right. They had available to them freehold title and they had available to them the courts to determine whether people had common law property rights and to grant freehold title. They could have done that but instead they chose to produce a whole new property right. On the one hand it is less than freehold; it does not allow owners to do a lot of things that owners of a freehold title are usually able to do and that somebody who owns something is usually able to do. On the other hand it gives customary titleholders a lot more than private landowners. 
The Resource Management Act denies those who have scrimped and saved to buy their own property the right to use their land as they wish. Meanwhile those with customary title—which it is clear may arise in the future as a political gift rather than by a process of law—are given special rights to do what they like and undue influence to veto much-needed economic development. Of course we expect that many developments could be allowed to go ahead at a price. Most submitters who expressed a view on these special rights believe that there is a strong likelihood that title holders will charge for the granting of these rights. This will make many possible commercial activities too expensive to undertake. When an otherwise economic activity becomes uneconomic everybody is worse off. All this is on land that title holders according to the Government do not own freehold. 
In short these clauses allow a customary title holder the right to give or withhold permission for activities that resource consent is required for on any grounds with no right of appeal or objection; to demand fees from any and all comers for permissions without limit; and to define wahi tapu areas to control not merely the use of a wahi tapu site but the possibility of the use of such areas by the payment of koha. 
Hon Shane Jones 
: Koha hoha? 
HILARY CALVERT 
: Excuse me—koha. These rights are not available to any other New Zealanders. We should not have special laws based on race in New Zealand. 
The bill still allows iwi to have special conservation permission rights that can be declined or given for special conservation activities. The Environmental Defence Society which came along to the submission process—in good faith I might add—did a very good job of summing up the argument against this. It like many objects to the gifting of far stronger rights than those of private landowners. There is also a huge conflict of interest for many iwi here. Those with financial interests in aquaculture and commercial fishing cannot be expected to make impartial or rational decisions on the extension of marine reserves. 
In Subpart 3 there is a right for customary marine title holders to prepare their own planning documents and the preparation of these planning documents is a serious issue. They can include all areas where the customary marine title holder— 
DAVID CLENDON (Green) 
: 
 Kia ora koutou katoa. I am pleased to take a call on the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill. It is the first call I have had the opportunity to take having been out of the House for the last several days doing work elsewhere. Although I have not had the opportunity to speak in the House I have had ample opportunity to speak outside of the House. As this bill is being debated here—in particular tonight the question of the test of proving customary right—so too is it being debated around this country. I have been around the country quite extensively in the last week or so. At every turn people have been focusing on this debate. This debate is being watched; it is being participated in. It is an important debate for that reason alone. 
I was asked yesterday whether there is anything good about this legislation. Could I find a positive thing to say about it? The best I could come up with was that this bill is likely to be the low point of this term of Parliament. It is unlikely that we will see a more offensive piece of legislation come into this House any time soon. It is a low point. It is an offensive piece of legislation. It manages to offend liberals. It manages to offend conservatives. It manages to offend Maori and non-Maori. At every point on the political spectrum there is opposition to this bill. The only difference about the debate within the House and the debate that is occurring outside of the House is that within the House it is still possible to find a few people who will stand and support the bill. In my experience that is almost impossible to find outside. 
Much of the debate revolves round this test this so-called test which actually is an exclusionary statement. It seeks to exclude Maori from proving customary right and therefore having their rights respected. At the time of the signing of the Treaty a number of our tupuna were persuaded to sign that document because it was put to them that signing the Treaty gave the shadow of the land to the Crown but the substance remained with nga iwi with the hapu and with the whanau. This bill very effectively reverses that. At best Maori will have the shadow of a right. They will have the reflection the memory of a right. They will not have the substance of that right. This legal fiction this nonsense of non-ownership puts ownership control—real control— firmly in the hands of the Crown and denies it to Maori. 
This bill joins a shameful list. It may be instructive for even members within this House and certainly for people outside to go to the Treaty Resource Centre website which has a very well-collated list of legislative transgressions of Te Tiriti. This bill most certainly will join that list if it is in fact passed into law. Since the early 1840s very shortly after the signing of the Treaty legislation has been passed that has transgressed the spirit the letter the principles and whatever of the Treaty and this bill will add to that list. 
The notion of exclusive undisturbed use and occupation is foreign to Maori in the sense that Maori are a generous people a hospitable people. Hospitality and the display of generosity is respected and adds mana to individuals to hapu and to iwi. The notion of exclusivity and the demand that exclusive use must be demonstrated is anathema to that notion of hospitality of generosity of sharing and indeed of cooperation Maori share resources routinely within and between hapu and iwi and share access to resources at given times of year— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Come on this is 2010 not 1845! 
DAVID CLENDON 
: This is indeed 2010 2011. The principle of reciprocity of generosity has not gone away at least for the Maori I know and respect. My whakapapa my interests and my preference take me to Tai Tokerau—take me to that place. From my discussions and my interactions in the north everywhere I go I hear opposition to this bill from Maori and non-Maori alike. Those who suggest Hone Harawira is representing his own view or the view of a small bunch of radical activists are 110 percent wrong. Everywhere and anywhere from the most moderate Maori through to the most radical non-Maori this bill is being opposed in Tai Tokerau. 
Hon SIMON POWER (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: No I will take some more calls because this is the most substantive part of the bill. 
Hon Simon Power 
: That’s what they said about Part 2 Mr Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I was not here for the debate on Part 2. I have had a look and it is quite a substantive part. People are on task and there has been no repetition. 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 It is notable that National has taken no calls this evening on the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill except for calls to call closures— 
Hon Simon Power 
: I just took a call. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Except to call closures. There has not been one substantive contribution from National nor from the Maori Party. They are just trying to put this through—no the Minister in the chair the Hon Christopher Finlayson made an initial contribution but there has been no contribution from any member on the opposite side of the Chamber except for the Minister in the chair. 
The last time I spoke I explained to the Committee why the Labour Party moved from preferring codification of the tests in legislation and I dealt I thought with the issue that the Attorney-General raised in his initial contribution. I want to now refer to two issues where there are problems with the statutory codification. The first is that I do not understand why in clause 60(2) as set out on Supplementary Order Paper 207 in the name of the Hon Christopher Finlayson—but in this respect it is not much different from the form that was in the original bill—there is no substantial interruption of the exclusive use and occupation of a specified area by virtue of the fact of a resource consent for an activity being granted between the commencement of the Act and the effective date. That is a strange thing for me because it almost implies that if there was a resource consent granted outside that period it does undermine exclusive use and occupation since 1840. So what is the case in respect of resource consents granted for example between the Ngati Apa decision and the date of this bill? That is one example of a situation where I think there will be a sense of injustice amongst Maoridom as to the effect of this legislation. 
Another one where we have problems is that the Government decided early on that it would stick with exclusive use and occupation and then it decided that it could envisage times when there could be more than one party with a customary right that could have co-existed back in 1840. It came up with the concept that more than one party could have exclusive use and control; in effect one could say that someone did it jointly. So the Government thought that it needed to accommodate that somehow. The Government has a mechanism in the bill that allows more than one party to come forward and to effectively have customary title rights that overlap each other. I have no problem with that. But what I have a problem with is that the Government then came out and said that if one person applies for recognition of rights someone else has to put up their hand at the same time. By the time it gets through the process in respect of that first right—and it might have the second party involved—anyone else who was ignorant of the process or who did not at that time have the resources to pursue recognition of their extant right loses their right if they do not put their hand up within that period. 
I cannot see how that is fair. I do not think a court would do that. I do not think a court would say: “Look I’m sorry. You may have had rights but because we’ve recognised somebody else’s rights we will not recognise yours.” We can have rights that coexist. Why are we codifying this legislation in a way that makes people lose their rights just because they did not take part in the process? The issue is made even worse given the fact that some of those processes will not be through court processes. I have great trust in the processes run by the courts to protect the various interests involved when there are competing private interests within those terms— 
Paul Quinn 
: Why didn’t you write that into the Foreshore and Seabed Act David? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Oh look. Here we go. We have National crowing again about why did we not do this and why did we not do that in the 2004 Act. We did that because people like the man who is sitting next to that member rarked up race relations— 
Hon Shane Jones 
: With Don Brash! 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
:—with Don Brash on talkback radio and brought out the racism in New Zealand that is oh so close to the surface whenever we scratch these itches. That is one of the reasons that we did not get that legislation perfect. 
I also say that although the 2004 Act was not perfect it was not nearly as bad as it has been characterised by its critics. We have said though there was an important impediment in the Act that we passed—we acknowledge that we got that wrong—and that is that a person should be able to get a court remedy. A person should be able to get a court remedy if they have an extant interest that had not been extinguished. 
METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 The Green Party has a number of amendments on the table to the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill. Just for those who maybe cannot hear what is going on in the Chamber Tau Henare is very grumpy because his party will not let him speak on the legislation because National and the Maori Party want it to proceed very quickly. So instead of speaking and taking the call like the mature responsible members of Parliament who want to debate the issue he is shouting at all of the members as they speak. It is a sad indictment on the way National and the Maori Party have whipped their members such that their people who are knowledgable about the issue such as Tau Henare who was on the select committee are not able to speak on it and it is a real shame. It leads to a great deal of shouting which I am sure members of the public can hear through their radios and televisions. 
However the Green Party has a number of amendments to the bill and we would like to discuss those in a rational mature way as opposed to shouting a lot. The amendments deal mostly with the test because this part of the legislation deals with the tests for customary marine title and for the protected customary rights. In Labour’s Act these were called territorial customary rights and customary rights I think. So they are effectively the same two sets of rights that Labour had but they just have a different name. The protected customary right is the right to engage in an activity on the land. The customary marine title is a greater set of rights based around the idea that the iwi might have had proper customary title determined by the court. So those are the two sets of rights in this part that Maori can access if they go to the courts and if they do their negotiations with the Government. 
The amendment the Green Party has put up is essentially to delete those tests. We do not believe that it is right for the Government to set the tests for how Maori should be able to claim or prove either their customary rights or their customary title. It is our view and has always been our view that the courts are the ones who should be setting those tests. The reason for that is that the Crown has an interest in keeping the bar for those tests very very high. It was certainly the case under the previous Labour Government and is under the National Government that Governments tend to look first at their economic interests in the retention of their political power before they look at issues such as justice and what is right. I think we have seen that over this issue with both kinds of Governments we have had. The economic interest of Government has been in keeping the ownership in control of the mineral resources of the marine and coastal area. We saw that last time when applications for mining came to a halt during the foreshore and seabed debate and deliberations and were then ramped up massively after the bill was passed when the Crown had acquired ownership of these areas for itself in legislation. Since then there have been a great number of applications for marine and coastal mining in this area and that continues. Again in this bill we have the Government doing the same thing—acquiring for itself using a legal fiction to make sure it retains control of those areas. 
That is one of the interests that has gone into the nature of these tests—how high the bar should be set for Maori to prove their customary title if it interferes then with the Government’s economic interests. On the other side are the political considerations as well. We do not believe that the Government should be setting those tests because they have an interest in keeping that land for themselves for political and economic reasons. It is actually fairer and more just for the courts to determine these tests in our view. The reason we considered that—and I know that my colleague Catherine Delahunty spoke about this earlier—is that the courts do not have those same political and economic interests. Courts do not do things perfectly either; we have seen lots of examples of problems. But their primary concern—at least structurally—is stability of justice making sure that justice is met. They will also have the ability to look wider than the Government is prepared to. One of those areas for example is looking at the history of colonisation in this country. The Waitangi Tribunal reports have set out year after year how land has been unlawfully taken by the Crown been utilised had structures built on it had things done to it and been kept out of Maori hands. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Chairman kia ora tatou e te Whare. Kua tu ake mo te wa poto kaua mo te wa roa. Na runga i te aha? Na runga i te mea he hiahia noku ki te whaiwhai haere i te korero o nga matua o nga tupuna whakatikahia te he ki te pono. Na runga i tera korero koi nei au i tu ake. Kua rongo ake i te ahuatanga o nga korero mo tenei wahanga me te ki atu a a nga tau kei mua i te aroaro ko nga korero ka korerohia i roto i te Whare nei a ka tuhia ki roto i te  
Hansard 
 mo ake ake ake tonu atu. No reira kua tu ake kei pohehe etahi kaore te mema o te nota i reira i te wa i whiriwhirihia enei take nui whakaharahara. 
Mo te roanga o te tau kua hipa ake i a matou o te Pati Maori me te Nahinara e titiro ana ki tenei wahanga te wahanga tuatoru; i a matou e titiro ana ki nga customary interests ki nga protected customary rights ki nga controls i tono mai te Minita i nga korero katoa ki roto i te Pati Maori ki reira wetewetengia ai. I a matou e korero ana mo te determination of customary marine title the rights under customary marine title accommodated activities i tae mai te Minita ia wiki ia wiki ki te whakamarama mai ki te kahui Maori ki te hohonutanga o era take me ta matou korero patai ki a ia. I a matou e titiro ana ki nga Resource Management Act permission rights ki nga conservation rights i reira te mema o te nota i roto i to matou kahui e whakarongo ana ki nga korero mo te hohonutanga o enei korero. Ka mutu i a matou e ata wetewete ana i nga protection purposes tenei wahanga o te mea nei i ahei tonu te mema ki te patai i te Minita ki te ata patai ki nga kaiawhina o te Pati Maori mo te hohonutanga o enei take tae atu ki nga taonga tuturu ki te status of minerals mo te ahuatanga o nga planning documents o roto i tenei wahanga ka mutu ko te katoa. I te watea matou katoa tae atu ki tera mema te patai i nga patai te whiu atu i te patai ki te tangata kia taea ai e matou te ruku ki roto i te hohonutanga o te take nei. 
Engari karekau he paku patai i puta karekau. Karekau he paku korero i puta kei pohehe a no matou anake tenei whiriwhiringa karekau kao. Matou katoa i titiro ki te hohonutanga o te protection purposes enei ahuatanga katoa. No reira ko taku noa ake ko te ki atu tae ra ano ki te po whakamutunga mo te wa ka tae mai tenei pire ki konei matou tokorima i reira. Matou tokorima i reira. I pa te ringa ki te pire nei tokorima nga ringa i pa ki te pire nei. No reira ko taku noa ake he whakamarama mo te pukapuka a nga tau kei mua i te aroaro. 
Ae ko te Pati Maori e noho nei i te taha o te Kawanatanga ki te ata whiriwhiri te whakatikatika i nga kupu katoa i nga korero katoa ki te whakahe i te mahi tukino a te Ropu Reipa i te wa i a ratou a ki te whakatikatika i te he i tau mai ki runga i te iwi Maori ki te whakatikatika i tera he. Koi nei te hua o ena korero. Okorima te hunga i wetewete i te take nei a tokowha i tona mutunga mai i whaiwhai haere ki tona mutunga. He whakamarama ake tenei ki te Whare mo ake nei. 
[ 
Thank you Mr Chairman and greetings to the House. I rise for a brief moment not a long one. And for what purpose? It is because I want to follow up advice of the elders and ancestors which is to correct a mistruth with the truth. So I rise. I have heard the contributions made to this part of the bill and remind members that what is stated in this House is recorded in the  
Hansard 
 for the future and for ever. Therefore I rise in case some members get the impression that the member from the far north was not present at the time when these very important matters were discussed and considered.  
For most of the past year we the Maori Party and National have examined this Part 3. As we looked at customary interests protected customary rights and various controls the Minister sent all the information to the Maori Party caucus for us to analyse. And while we discussed the determination of customary marine title the rights under customary marine title and accommodated activities the Minister came every week to explain the depth of those matters to the Maori Party. We questioned him then. While we were looking at the permission rights and conservation rights in the Resource Management Act the member from the far north was present in our caucus meetings listening to the details. And while we analysed the protection purposes in this part the member had the opportunity to ask questions of the Minister and to ask Maori Party staff about the complex nature of these issues. That included the status of minerals planning documents within this part everything. All of us including that member were able to ask questions so that we could delve into the complexity of this issue.  
However no questions were asked—none at all. Nothing was said then lest some assume that we made this decision on our own—no. We all looked into the deeper details about protection purposes all of these aspects. So I want to simply state that the five of us were present right up to the final night when this bill was to come before the House. All five of us were there. All five had a hand in this bill. I just want to make an explanation for the official record.  
Yes the Maori Party sits alongside the Government to carefully consider and amend any wording and statement in the bill and condemn the harmful actions of the Labour Party when it was in Government; to rectify the wrongdoing that befell the Maori people and put it right. What you have before you is the outcome. Five members analysed this matter but at the end of it four members are following it through to its conclusion. This is an explanation to the House for the record 
.] 
Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
KELVIN DAVIS (Labour) 
: 
 First of all I need to take issue with what the ACT Party keeps on saying about Maori being gifted or given special rights because that is not true. What we are talking about here with regard to the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill are the rights that Maori have always had. Maori have been here since way before 1840. Our way of life and what we have done has not changed; we are just pursuing the rights that we have always had. I really take issue with the misconception that Maori have been plonked here recently and given special rights. Maori are pursuing the rights that we have always believed we had. 
Having thrown that brickbat this is not a bouquet for the ACT Party but more of an acknowledgment of an issue that the Hon John Boscawen has raised about wahi tapu and the concern that we as Maori will claim every single square kilometre of the foreshore and seabed as a wahi tapu in order to exclude people. I think we need to be careful as Maori that we do not try to make out that every single area where we can launch a waka for example is some sort of sacred area. I could say that the boat ramp at Waitangi is a wahi tapu because I could tell my children that their tupuna launched his waka there when in fact I am just referring to their grandfather launching a 9-foot tinny. We have to be careful that we do not try to make areas tapu that are not tapu. In fact if something is being regularly and commonly used it is actually noa which is the opposite of tapu. 
That is a word of caution I believe to Maori that we do not fuel the arguments that the ACT Party is dishing out there stating that Maori will make every area of the takutai moana a wahi tapu because our tupuna might have walked there—our tupuna being our fathers say and our grandfathers. That is just a word of caution. 
I also think we need to acknowledge the Moriori contribution in the select committee stage on this bill in the Maori Affairs Committee. Moriori were not happy with the clause that states that the foreshore and seabed has to have been exclusively used and occupied since 1840 because in 1835 they were invaded and a lot of their rights were taken away 5 years before the date that we have written in here of 1840. Moriori believe that their rights will be denied if that provision regarding exclusive use and occupation since 1840 is put through. I think it is important that we acknowledge the contribution from the Moriori of the Chatham Islands / Rekohu. 
I also want to bring up a point about the wardens that are mentioned in clause 79. I really think it is important because hapu and iwi are able to appoint wardens that there is some way for those wardens to be identified if people come along to the beach and find there is a warden guarding a wahi tapu. Although I find it hard to believe that someone will be standing around in a wahi tapu just waiting to tell people to go away I think there needs to be some sort of mechanism for recognising wardens. We do not want to have a situation whereby a Maori person who is just a standing there enjoying the beach and minding their own business is accused of intimidating people. We do not want that to be used as an excuse by people to say wardens are there to scare people off. The whole issue of the wardens I think needs to be examined and thought through really carefully so that Maori are not mistaken for somebody whom they are not. Again I say there might be confusion between the definitions of “warden” in this bill and in the Maori Community Development Act. 
HONE HARAWIRA (Independent—Te Tai Tokerau) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Chairperson. I will not respond by talking about other people’s relationships with Ministers of the National Party or about the National Government at all. I will talk about the bill. 
Part 3 of the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill which includes a whole host of clauses that will do huge damage to the Maori world cause great pain to the Maori people set down some truly appalling benchmarks in respect of Maori rights and turn the clock backwards on Maori self-determination. Maori people for many generations to come will wonder how on earth the Maori Party which rode into power on a wave of discontent over the confiscation of Maori rights to the foreshore and seabed claimed the bill as its own when the only other party in this House that supports it is the party that gave us Don Brash tax breaks for the rich cuts in social spending an increase in GST and the “three-strikes” legislation. 
Although I have the energy to challenge this bill in the House given the shortness of time we have had to study it it is difficult to find the time the space or the capacity to properly detail all of the clauses in Part 3—and in all other parts of this bill—and to provide the in-depth examination that is properly required to show just how much this bill will hurt Maori. I stand against not only Part 3 of this bill— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. As part of a little exchange an extremely offensive comment was made to me about me by Tau Henare. I require that he apologises. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I am sorry. There was a bit of a din in the Chamber; I did not hear it. If the member made an offensive remark he will withdraw and apologise. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
HONE HARAWIRA 
: I stand against not only Part 3 and all of its clauses but every other part clause subclause and word in this bill. I do so because Maori people have declared their opposition to this bill every part of this bill through the submission process through the iwi leadership walking away from this bill through the hikoi on the road right now to oppose the bill and through the hundreds of emails texts Facebook messages voicemails and comments that I have received from Maori Party members telling me they are gutted by what their caucus is doing in supporting Part 3 and all other parts of this bill. They intend to leave the Maori Party over what they perceive to be the Maori Party caucus’ betrayal of the very birthright of the party. When the Maori Party caucus says that make no bones it is a Maori Party bill and they are pleased to stand here and support it I remind the Committee that it is not true to say the Maori Party is proud to support this bill. The caucus does but the membership does not. I urge all those Maori Party members who are watching the debate on Part 3 of this heinous bill on Parliament TV or are listening to it on the radio to contact the Maori Party MPs and beg them to wake up smell the shellfish and realise that supporting this bill is not what either the party or the people want. 
Tu te Ao Maori tu te rangatiratanga tu motuhake. Tena tatou katoa. 
[ 
Long live Maoridom sovereignty and independence. Greetings to us all 
.]  
METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I was speaking earlier about the Green Party’s amendments to Part 3 of the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill. Our amendments would omit the two sets of tests and I explained why that was the case. I talked about the Green Party’s belief that Maori should have the right to go to the courts and that that right should be restored in full not in the Clayton’s version that is set out in this bill. We say the right to go to the courts should be restored in full and the courts should determine the tests required to prove that Maori have customary title. The courts should work out what customary title might mean. 
The reason we think the courts are in a better position to do this than the Government is that the courts do not have the same political and economic interests that Governments do in setting the bar high. I say “Governments” because both the National Government and the previous Labour Government have exercised their choice to set the bar too high for Maori to be able to prove that they had customary title. Notwithstanding that the courts do not do everything perfectly they do not have the same political and economic interests as a Government has in the outcome. They have greater flexibility regarding the different tests that they could use. 
The 2004 legislation referred to I think “continuous ownership” or “continuous title” but I cannot even remember the language that was used. There was basically a requirement that Maori had to own the land that sat alongside the foreshore and seabed area and that would enable them to prove ownership. That was impossible for Maori practically everywhere because the colonisation process in this country has been such that that land has been taken from practically every Maori iwi hapu and whanau in the country. That land was taken by force it was taken unlawfully and it was taken in accordance with promises that were never met. Yet that would still be sufficient to extinguish Maori customary title under the 2004 legislation. 
This bill does not have quite the same test as that in the 2004 Act but it does require Maori to have exercised their customary rights or their rights to exclusive use and occupation in a manner that has been substantially uninterrupted since 1840. That is an impossible test. In a colonised country where the vast majority of what was Maori-owned land has been taken by the Crown by Governments there is no way that iwi can legitimately meet a test of exclusive use and occupation that has been substantially uninterrupted since 1840. It simply does not exist in the way that has been set out in this bill. So the bar has been set too high by the National Government and the Maori Party. I do not know why the Maori Party would set as high a test as this a test that by far and away iwi and hapu would not be able to meet. I do not know why the Maori Party would decide that it was OK to set a test as hard as that. The Maori Party readily understands that because this is a colonised country most of that land has been taken. 
Not only have we proposed an amendment on Supplementary Order Paper 206 in my name to remove the tests from the legislation but also if that is not what the Committee wants to do we have proposed an additional amendment to alter the test in the amended version of clause 61 as set out on Supplementary Order Paper 207 in the name of the Minister the Hon Chris Finlayson. Our amendment says a customary marine title will not be considered to be extinguished if somebody has been using the land for access and recreation if somebody who has been using it has placed a structure or some other thing on that land if someone has used it for an unlawful or unauthorised occupation or if someone in the exercise of that unlawful or unauthorised occupation has then placed a thing a structure or a building on that land. 
This amendment just opens up more space for iwi whanui and hapu to be able to meet the test. It means that if that area has been used as a recreational area or an access way by some people without recourse at all to the iwi and hapu who are claiming the customary title then that is not enough to extinguish it. 
Hon SHANE JONES (Labour) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Chairperson. I direct the attention of the Committee to clause 50 which is on pages 17 and 18 in the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper 207 to the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill. I have a modest and very helpful contribution in the form of an amendment to clause 50(3)(c)(i). As a reflection of the very shoddy process rushed drafting and deprived opportunity for people to have their democratic chance fully exploited I invite the Government of the day to support this small change. It may come to pass that I am the only Maori member who will effect a small change to this legislation. If that be the case I want  
Hansard 
 to note that I did not need to leave my party to enjoy this status. 
I want to tell Tau Henare and Paul Quinn the man who injudiciously and unwisely boasted that he read 500 pages that Mr Quinn did not spot that error in subclause (3)(c)(i) where the Crown seeks to weaken and further make the Maori position in the seabed and foreshore more marginal unknown to the member from Waiariki Te Ururoa. On that point I must say that the term “muru” means to plunder and thieve. “Muru roa” will be a name that will always—not Ururoa—be associated with this bill. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Kei te whakahe au i tera momo korero e whakaiti nei te ahuatanga o taku ingoa. Ko maua kei te mohio ki a maua. Kare au i pera rawa ki a ia. Kare au i hiahia kia pera rawa a ia ki toku ingoa toku whakapapa. Me tuku whakapaha tonu a ia ki a au otira ki oku tupuna. 
[ 
I object to that kind of talk which belittles my name. We know each other really well. I do not behave like that towards him. I do not want him to belittle my name and my genealogy. He must apologise to me and my ancestors forthwith 
.] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: The member makes a fair point. We should use each other’s names in this House respectfully. I invite the member to withdraw the comment he has made and continue. 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: Whakapaha ana au. I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. There is an equally well-known Maori saying—and indeed it is repeated in the Bible—“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”. That rhythm and pattern of behaviour started with that member in his description of one of my new-found colleagues Mr Harawira. However let me come back— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I entertained the member’s point of order not for him to make a further one. If the member who was offended at the time took offence then it was for that member to raise the point of order and seek a withdrawal. The fact that the member did not raise it does not leave it open to the Hon Shane Jones then to make the point on his behalf. The fact is that Te Ururoa Flavell has taken offence at the misuse of his name. It is a fair point and I have asked the member to withdraw the comment. 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: I withdraw and apologise. I direct our attention and the attention of the member from the Maori Party back to the contribution that I am making which whether or not he likes it he will be voting for. It involves the change of the word “of” for the word “by”. Mr Quinn has called out “Whereabouts?”. It is on page 18 of Supplementary Order Paper 207 which he has not read in new clause 50(3)(c)(i): “to inform iwi hapu”—[ 
Interruption 
] I want the House to note when we move from the word “of” which is probably a possessive particle—unlike Tau Henare not possessed by Beelzebub—to the word “by” the introduction of the word “by” enables the readers and the leaders of the hapu to understand that the obligations of the Crown will impact them. It will potentially have an inimical impact on them or it could be irrelevant. 
I am inviting Tau Henare Paul Quinn and Te Ururoa Flavell to support this simple modest very helpful and pro-democratic contribution this evening to bring lucidity to what in many respects is very dense and largely incomprehensible legislation which is not unlike the contributions blurted out from that member who lives in Te Atatu but who will never represent Te Atatu. 
I should go on. I do not want to overplay the importance of this amendment but I will bring it to the attention of the Attorney-General in the spirit of reasonableness. Not unlike a number of members on this side of the Chamber he is no stranger to the finer points of the English language. So not for us these coarse contributions not for us these banal outbursts; we leave that to that portion of the rump of National which is soon to disappear when the party vote declines. It will be rather sad but rough justice that the member who fled from Winston Peters will watch that portion of the vote for the National Party bring Winston Peters back in and him out. He will go like the takutai moana—the ebbing of the tide. 
I need to come back and be relevant. A tremendous level of importance is attached to ensuring that when notice is given to our Treaty partners the Maori Party ensures that it does not look as if the Maori Treaty partner is being possessed by the Crown in the way in which the Maori Party is now possessed by National. No this has to do with a likely impact. 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question that the question be now put. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: While the Clerk is doing the count let us start as we intend to continue. The kawa of this place is that votes are heard in silence. There are to be no interjections oohs ahs or grumbles. It is difficult enough for the Clerk; it is getting late at night and we do not want to have any mistakes. When the voting is being called members will be silent and give the Clerk a fair go. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 62 
New Zealand National 57; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Noes 59 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 215 in the name of the Hon Christopher Finlayson to omit the heading above clause 48 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 62 
New Zealand National 57; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Noes 59 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 207 in the name of the Hon Christopher Finlayson to the heading to clause 48 and clause 48 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 62 
New Zealand National 57; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Noes 59 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Amendments agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: The next is an amendment in the name of Hilary Calvert to clause 48 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 217. It is ruled out of order as it is inconsistent with the previous decision. The next amendments are in the name of Hilary Calvert to clause 49. They are set out on Supplementary Order Paper 217 and they are also ruled out of order by the Chair as not being serious amendments. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Shane Jones to the proposed amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 207 in the name of the Hon Christopher Finlayson to omit clauses 49 to 51 and substitute new clauses 49 to 51 be agreed to: 
to omit from new clause 50(3)(c)(i) “of” and substitute “by”. 
Amendment to the amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendments in the name of the Hon Christopher Finlayson to clause 52 be agreed to: 
to insert the following new subclause before subclause (1): 
(1AA)In this section  
marine mammal 
 has the same meaning as in section 2 of the Marine Mammals Protection Act 1978.; and 
to omit from subclause (2)(b) “iwi or hapu” and substitute “iwi hapu or whanau”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 62 
New Zealand National 57; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Noes 59 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Amendments agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: The next amendments are in the name of Hilary Calvert. They are amendments to clause 52 to insert new subclause (1A) and to amend clause 52(2)(b) and they are set out on Supplementary Order Paper 217. These are ruled out of order as they are inconsistent with the previous decision. The next amendment is Hilary Calvert’s amendment to clause 52(3)(a). This is set out on Supplementary Order Paper 217. The Chair is also ruling this out as not being a serious amendment. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 206 in the name of Metiria Turei to omit clause 53 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 59 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand National 57; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 217 in the name of Hilary Calvert to clause 53(1)(a) to omit “1840” and substitute “4 February 1840” be agreed to. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 217 in the name of Hilary Calvert to clause 53(1)(a) to omit “; and” and substitute “ without any interruption of longer than 366 consecutive days; and” and to clause 53(1)(b) be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 5 
ACT New Zealand 5. 
Noes 116 
New Zealand National 57; New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; United Future 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: The next amendment is in the name of Hilary Calvert. It is an amendment to clause 53(2)(b)(i). This is set out on Supplementary Order Paper 217. The Chair is ruling this one out of order as it is not a serious amendment. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 217 in the name of Hilary Calvert to omit clause 53(2)(d) be agreed to. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: The next question is in the name of Hilary Calvert. It is an amendment to clause 53(3). This is set out on Supplementary Order Paper 217. This is ruled out of order as being inconsistent with the principles and objectives of the bill. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 206 in the name of Metiria Turei to omit clause 54 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 59 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand National 57; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 217 in the name of Hilary Calvert to clause 54(1) be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 5 
ACT New Zealand 5. 
Noes 116 
New Zealand National 57; New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; United Future 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 207 in the name of the Hon Christopher Finlayson to clause 54(2) be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 62 
New Zealand National 57; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Noes 59 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: The next amendment is the name of Hilary Calvert. It is an amendment to omit clause 54(2). It is on Supplementary Order Paper 217. It is ruled out of order as being inconsistent with the previous decision. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 217 in the name of Hilary Calvert to omit clause 54(3) and (4) be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 5 
ACT New Zealand 5. 
Noes 116 
New Zealand National 57; New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; United Future 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Amendments not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 217 in the name of Hilary Calvert to clause 55(1) be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 5 
ACT New Zealand 5. 
Noes 116 
New Zealand National 57; New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; United Future 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 217 in the name of Hilary Calvert to omit clause 55(2) be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 5 
ACT New Zealand 5. 
Noes 116 
New Zealand National 57; New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; United Future 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 207 in the name of the Hon Christopher Finlayson to omit clause 55(3) and substitute new clause 55(3) be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 62 
New Zealand National 57; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Noes 59 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: The next amendment is in the name of Hilary Calvert. It is an amendment to omit clause 55(3). This is on Supplementary Order Paper 217. It is ruled is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 217 in the name of Hilary Calvert to clause 56 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 5 
ACT New Zealand 5. 
Noes 116 
New Zealand National 57; New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; United Future 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 207 in the name of the Hon Christopher Finlayson to clause 57 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 62 
New Zealand National 57; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Noes 59 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Amendments agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The next amendment in the name of Hilary Calvert to omit clause 57 as set out on Supplementary Order Paper 217 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the Committee. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 217 in the name of Hilary Calvert to clause 58(1) to omit “impose controls including any terms conditions or restrictions that the Minister thinks fit on the exercise of the rights.” and substitute “revoke the protected customary right” be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 5 
ACT New Zealand 5. 
Noes 116 
New Zealand National 57; New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; United Future 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The next amendment in the name of Hilary Calvert is to clause 58(1) to omit “the Minister” and substitute “the Minister of Conservation”. This is out of order. The following amendment in the name of Hilary Calvert is to clause 58(2) to omit “person” and substitute “person or group”. This is also out of order. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 217 in the name of Hilary Calvert to clause 58(2) to omit “right” and substitute “right or have a protected customary right revoked” be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 5 
ACT New Zealand 5. 
Noes 116 
New Zealand National 57; New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; United Future 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The next amendments in the name of Hilary Calvert are to clause 58(3). These are out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the Committee. The amendments in the name of Hilary Calvert to clause 58(4) to omit “Minister” and substitute “Minister of Conservation” and to omit “applicant” and substitute “applicant and protected customary rights group” are out of order. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 217 in the name of Hilary Calvert to clause 58(4) to omit “accordingly” and substitute “within five days of making a decision” be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 5 
ACT New Zealand 5. 
Noes 116 
New Zealand National 57; New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; United Future 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The next amendments in the name of Hilary Calvert are to clause 59(1) (2)(c) and (2)(e). These are out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the Committee. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 217 in the name of Hilary Calvert to clause 59(3)(b) be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 5 
ACT New Zealand 5. 
Noes 116 
New Zealand National 57; New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; United Future 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 217 in the name of Hilary Calvert to add new clause 59(3)(e) be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 5 
ACT New Zealand 5. 
Noes 116 
New Zealand National 57; New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; United Future 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The next amendment in the name of Hilary Calvert is to clause 59(5) as set out on Supplementary Order Paper 217. This is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the Committee. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 207 in the name of the Hon Christopher Finlayson to omit clause 60 and substitute new clause 60 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 62 
New Zealand National 57; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Noes 59 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The next amendment is in the name of Metiria Turei to omit clause 60 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 206. This is now out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the Committee. We have an amendment in the name of Hilary Calvert to clause 60(1)(b). This is out of order as also being inconsistent with a previous decision of the Committee. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 206 in the name of Metiria Turei to omit clause 61 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 54 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Progressive 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand National 57; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The next amendment in the name of Hilary Calvert is to clause 61(1) to omit “whether customary title exists” and substitute “determine existence of customary marine title” is out of order. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 217 in the name of Hilary Calvert to clause 61(1) to omit “may” and substitute “must” be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 5 
ACT New Zealand 5. 
Noes 116 
New Zealand National 57; New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; United Future 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 4 Noes 116. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The next amendment in the name of Hilary Calvert is to clause 61(1)(a)(i) to omit “substantial interruption” and substitute “interruption of 366 consecutive days or longer” as set out Supplementary Order Paper 217. This is now out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the Committee. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 217 in the name of Hilary Calvert to clause 61(1)(a)(i) to omit “1840” and substitute “6 February 1840” be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 5 
ACT New Zealand 5. 
Noes 116 
New Zealand National 57; New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; United Future 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 4 Noes 116. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Metiria Turei to the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 207 in the name of the Hon Christopher Finlayson to clause 61 be agreed to: 
to omit new subclause (2A) and substitute the following subclauses: 
(2A)The use at any time by persons who are not members of an applicant group of a specified area of the common marine and coastal area for access and recreation as described in section 27 navigation as described in section 28 and fishing as described in section 29 does not of itself preclude the applicant group from establishing the existence of customary marine title. 
(2B)The placement of any structure or other thing by any persons who are not members of the applicant group in connection with the use of the rights described in subsection (2A) does not of itself preclude the applicant group from establishing the existence of customary marine title. 
(2C)The unlawful or unauthorised use or occupation at any time or placement of any structure or thing in relation to that unlawful or unauthorised use or occupation at any time by persons who are not members of an applicant group of a specified area of the common marine and coastal area does not of itself preclude the applicant group from establishing the existence of customary marine title. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 207 in the name of the Hon Christopher Finlayson to omit clause 62 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 62 
New Zealand National 57; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Noes 59 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 62 Noes 58. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: We have amendments in the name of Hilary Calvert to clause 61(1)(a)(i) and (ii) to omit “1840” and substitute other dates. These are out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the Committee. A further amendment in the name of Hilary Calvert is to omit clause 62. This is also out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the Committee. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 217 in the name of Hilary Calvert to clause 63(2)(a) and (b) be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 5 
ACT New Zealand 5. 
Noes 116 
New Zealand National 57; New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; United Future 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Amendments not agreed to. 
The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 4 Noes 116. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 207 in the name of the Hon Christopher Finlayson to omit clause 63(2)(c) be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 62 
New Zealand National 57; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Noes 59 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The next amendment in the name of Hilary Calvert is to clause 63(2)(c). This is out of order because it is inconsistent with a previous decision of the Committee. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 207 in the name of the Hon Christopher Finlayson to insert new clause 63A be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 62 
New Zealand National 57; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Noes 59 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Amendment agreed to. 
Hon JOHN BOSCAWEN (Whip—ACT) 
: 
 I seek leave to amend the ACT Party vote from 4 votes to 5 votes for the last four votes that were taken the four different votes that were before the Committee of the whole House. I ask for them to be amended from 4 to 5. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection. The record will be corrected. 
The next amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 217 in the name of Hilary Calvert is to omit new clause 63A. This is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the Committee. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 217 in the name of Hilary Calvert to omit clause 64(1)(a) to (e) and (2) be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 5 
ACT New Zealand 5. 
Noes 116 
New Zealand National 57; New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; United Future 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Amendments not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 207 in the name of the Hon Christopher Finlayson to omit clause 64(3) and (4) and substitute new clause 64(3) be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 62 
New Zealand National 57; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Noes 59 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The next amendment in the name of Hilary Calvert is to clause 64(3). This is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the Committee. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 213 in the name of Metiria Turei to omit new clause 64C set out on Supplementary Order Paper 207 in the name of the Hon Christopher Finlayson be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 59 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand National 57; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 217 in the name of Hilary Calvert to omit clause 65(1) and (2) be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 5 
ACT New Zealand 5. 
Noes 115 
New Zealand National 57; New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; United Future 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 207 in the name of the Hon Christopher Finlayson to clause 65 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 62 
New Zealand National 57; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Noes 58 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Amendments agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The next amendment in the name of Hilary Calvert is to clause 65 to omit subclauses (3) and (4) as set out on Supplementary Order Paper 217. This is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the Committee. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 217 in the name of Hilary Calvert to omit clause 65(5) and (6) be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 5 
ACT New Zealand 5. 
Noes 115 
New Zealand National 57; New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; United Future 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon David Parker to clause 65 be agreed to: 
to insert the following new subclause after subclause (6): 
(6A)An RMA permission right does not apply to the grant or exercise of a resource consent for aquaculture activities as defined in section 2(1) of the Resource Management Act 1991. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 59 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira 
Noes 62 
New Zealand National 57; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 217 in the name of Hilary Calvert to clause 65(8) to omit “Conservation” and substitute “Justice” be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 6 
ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 114 
New Zealand National 57; New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8; Maori Party 4; United Future 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 217 in the name of Hilary Calvert to clause 65(8) to omit “the Environment” and substitute “Land Information” be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 5 
ACT New Zealand 5. 
Noes 115 
New Zealand National 57; New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; United Future 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 217 in the name of Hilary Calvert to clause 66(1) be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 5 
ACT New Zealand 5. 
Noes 115 
New Zealand National 57; New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; United Future 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 207 in the name of the Hon Christopher Finlayson to omit clause 66(2) and substitute new clause 66(2) be agreed to. 
A party vote  was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 62 
New Zealand National 57; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Noes 58 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The next amendment in the name of Hilary Calvert to clause 66(2) is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 217 in the name of Hilary Calvert to clause 66(3) to omit “40” and substitute “7” be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 5 
ACT New Zealand 5. 
Noes 115 
New Zealand National 57; New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; United Future 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 217 in the name of Hilary Calvert to clause 66(3) to omit “40” and substitute “20” be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 5 
ACT New Zealand 5. 
Noes 115 
New Zealand National 57; New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; United Future 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 217 in the name of Hilary Calvert to clause 66(5) be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 5 
ACT New Zealand 5. 
Noes 115 
New Zealand National 57; New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; United Future 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 217 in the name of Hilary Calvert to clause 67 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 5 
ACT New Zealand 5. 
Noes 115 
New Zealand National 57; New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; United Future 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Amendments not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The next amendment in the name of Hilary Calvert is to clause 68(1) to omit “is” and substitute “is not”. This is out of order as being inconsistent with the principles and objects of the bill. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 217 in the name of Hilary Calvert to clause 68(1) to omit “unless the relevant customary marine title group has given permission under section 65(2)” be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to 
Ayes 5 
ACT New Zealand 5. 
Noes 115 
New Zealand National 57; New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; United Future 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 217 in the name of Hilary Calvert to clause 68(2)(a) to omit “years” and substitute “days” be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 5 
ACT New Zealand 5. 
Noes 115 
New Zealand National 57; New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; United Future 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 217 in the name of Hilary Calvert to clause 68(2)(a) to omit “2” and substitute “1” be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 5 
ACT New Zealand 5. 
Noes 114 
New Zealand National 57; New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 7; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; United Future 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 217 in the name of Hilary Calvert to 68(2)(a) to omit “$300000” and substitute “50 cents” be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 5 
ACT New Zealand 5. 
Noes 114 
New Zealand National 57; New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 7; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; United Future 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The next amendment in the name of Hilary Calvert is to clause 68(2)(a) to omit $300000” and substitute “$50000”. This is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 217 in the name of Hilary Calvert to clause 68(2)(b) to omit “$600000” and substitute “$3.50” be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 5 
ACT New Zealand 5. 
Noes 114 
New Zealand National 57; New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 7; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; United Future 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The next amendment in Hilary Calvert’s name is to clause 68(2)(b) to omit “$600000” and substitute “$60000”. This is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 217 in the name of Hilary Calvert to clause 68(3) and (3)(a) (b) and (c) be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 5 
ACT New Zealand 5. 
Noes 114 
New Zealand National 57; New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 7; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; United Future 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Amendments not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 217 in the name of Hilary Calvert to clause 68(4)(a) to omit “10%” and substitute “90%” be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 5 
ACT New Zealand 5. 
Noes 114 
New Zealand National 57; New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 7; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; United Future 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The next amendments in the name of Hilary Calvert are to clause 68(4)(a) to omit “10%” and substitute “25%” and to omit “from the” and substitute “from half the” are out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 217 in the name of Hilary Calvert to clause 68(4)(b)(ii) be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 5 
ACT New Zealand 5. 
Noes 114 
New Zealand National 57; New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 7; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; United Future 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Amendments not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 207 in the name of the Hon Christopher Finlayson to omit clause 69 and substitute new clause 69 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 62 
New Zealand National 57; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 7; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1; Independents: Carter C; Harawira. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The next amendment in Hilary Calvert’s name to omit clause 69 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 207 in the name of the Hon Christopher Finlayson to omit clause 70(1) and substitute new clause 70(1) be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 62 
New Zealand National 57; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 7; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1; Independents: Carter C; Harawira. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The next amendments in Hilary Calvert’s name to clause 70(1) as set out on Supplementary Order Paper 217 are out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 217 in the name of Hilary Calvert to clause 70(2) to (6) be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 5 
ACT New Zealand 5. 
Noes 114 
New Zealand National 57; New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 7; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; United Future 1; Independents: Carter C; Harawira. 
Amendments not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The next amendment in the name of Hilary Calvert is to clause 71 as set out on Supplementary Order Paper 217. The question is that the amendment be agreed to. Those of that opinion will say Aye— 
Hon John Boscawen 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. You said “the amendment to clause 71”. There are a number of amendments to clause 71. Are you referring to all of the amendments proposed? Are you referring to just the first one? I could not understand from your call which amendment or amendments you were referring to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I am advised that there is only one amendment to clause 71 so that is what I am putting. 
Hon John Boscawen 
: I am looking at page 14 of Supplementary Order Paper 217. I can see under clause 71 “Subclause (1): to omit ‘of Conservation’ ” “Subclause (1)(a): to omit ‘ unless the person …’ ” “Subclause (1)(b): to omit ‘not’ ” “Subclause (1)(b): to omit ‘until the’ …”. There are a number of amendments at the bottom of page 14 of Supplementary Order Paper 217. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: As I have advised previously with other clauses there is only one question on clause 71 which covers all those subclauses that you have mentioned. That is how we have previously done it during the course of the votes. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 217 in the name of Hilary Calvert to clause 71 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 5 
ACT New Zealand 5. 
Noes 114 
New Zealand National 57; New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 7; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; United Future 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Amendments not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 217 in the name of Hilary Calvert to clause 72(1) to omit “40” and substitute “5” be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 5 
ACT New Zealand 5. 
Noes 114 
New Zealand National 57; New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 7; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; United Future 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The following amendment in Hilary Calvert’s name is to clause 72(1) to omit “40” and substitute “30” as set out on Supplementary Order Paper 217. This is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 217 in the name of Hilary Calvert to clause 72(1) to omit “working days” and substitute “hours” be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 5 
ACT New Zealand 5. 
Noes 112 
New Zealand National 57; New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 5; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; United Future 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The next amendment in the name of Hilary Calvert is to clause 72(1) to omit “working days” and substitute “minutes” set out on Supplementary Order Paper 217. It is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision. The next amendments in Hilary Calvert’s name to clause 72(1)(a) and (b) are out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 217 in the name of Hilary Calvert to omit clause 72(3)(a) and (b) and substitute new clause 72(3)(b) be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 5 
ACT New Zealand 5. 
Noes 112 
New Zealand National 57; New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 5; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; United Future 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Amendments not agreed to. 
Hon JOHN BOSCAWEN (Whip—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I realise that voting has to continue until we finish this part but the ACT Party would have no objection if the Committee wanted to rise early and come back and consider voting tomorrow afternoon. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: That is not anything that the member has said except an expression. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 217 in the name of Hilary Calvert to clause 73 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 5 
ACT New Zealand 5. 
Noes 112 
New Zealand National 57; New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 5; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; United Future 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Amendments not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 217 in the name of Hilary Calvert to the heading to clause 74 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 5 
ACT New Zealand 5. 
Noes 112 
New Zealand National 57; New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 5; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; United Future 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Hilary Calvert’s amendment to clause 74 to omit “of Conservation” and substitute “for Land Information” is out of order. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 217 in the name of Hilary Calvert to clause 74 to omit “have regard to” and substitute “be advised of” be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 5 
ACT New Zealand 5. 
Noes 112 
New Zealand National 57; New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 5; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; United Future 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 217 in the name of Hilary Calvert to clause 74(a) to omit “on” and substitute “and wider iwi whanau or hapu on” be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 5 
ACT New Zealand 5. 
Noes 112 
New Zealand National 57; New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 5; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; United Future 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Hilary Calvert’s amendments to clause 74(a) and (b) to omit “group” and substitute “customary marine title group and wider iwi whanau or hapu” are out of order. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 217 in the name of Hilary Calvert to clause 74(c) and (d) be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 5 
ACT New Zealand 5. 
Noes 112 
New Zealand National 57; New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 5; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; United Future 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Amendments not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 207 in the name of the Hon Christopher Finlayson to clause 75(1) be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 62 
New Zealand National 57; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Noes 55 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 5; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Hilary Calvert has an amendment to clause 75(1) to omit “grants” and substitute “or Minister for the Environment grants”. That is on Supplementary Order Paper 217. That is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision. 
The question was put that the following amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 217 in the name of Hilary Calvert to clause 75(1)(a)(ii) to omit “40” and substitute “5” be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 5 
ACT New Zealand 5. 
Noes 112 
New Zealand National 57; New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 5; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; United Future 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Hilary Calvert has an amendment to clause 75(1)(a)(ii) to omit “40” and substitute “30” set out on Supplementary Order Paper 217. That is now out of order. 
The question was put that the following amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 217 in the name of Hilary Calvert to clause 75(1)(a)(ii) to omit “working days” and substitute “hours” be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 5 
ACT New Zealand 5. 
Noes 112 
New Zealand National 57; New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 5; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; United Future 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Hilary Calvert’s amendment to clause 75(1)(a)(ii) to omit “working days” and substitute “minutes” is now out of order. 
The question was put that the remaining amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 217 in the name of Hilary Calvert to clause 75 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 5 
ACT New Zealand 5. 
Noes 112 
New Zealand National 57; New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 5; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; United Future 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Amendments not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 217 in the name of Hilary Calvert to clause 76 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 5 
ACT New Zealand 5. 
Noes 112 
New Zealand National 57; New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 5; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; United Future 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Amendments not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 218 in the name of Hilary Calvert to clause 77(1) be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 5 
ACT New Zealand 5. 
Noes 112 
New Zealand National 57; New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 5; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; United Future 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 218 in the name of Hilary Calvert to insert new clause 77(1A) and (1B) be agreed to. 
Amendments not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 218 in the name of Hilary Calvert to omit clause 77(2) and (3) be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 5 
ACT New Zealand 5. 
Noes 112 
New Zealand National 57; New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 5; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; United Future 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Amendments not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Hilary Calvert’s amendment to clause 77(4) to omit “responsible Minister” and substitute “Minister for Land Information” as set out on Supplementary Order Paper 218 is out of order. 
The question was put that the remaining amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 218 in the name of Hilary Calvert to clause 77(4) be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 5 
ACT New Zealand 5. 
Noes 112 
New Zealand National 57; New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 5; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; United Future 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Amendments not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 218 in the name of Hilary Calvert to 78(1) to omit “or an agreement” be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 5 
ACT New Zealand 5. 
Noes 112 
New Zealand National 57; New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 5; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; United Future 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 218 in the name of Hilary Calvert to omit clause 78(1) be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 5 
ACT New Zealand 5. 
Noes 112 
New Zealand National 57; New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 5; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; United Future 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 218 in the name of Hilary Calvert to clause 78(1)(a) to omit “boundaries” and substitute “boundaries and any significant features” be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 5 
ACT New Zealand 5. 
Noes 112 
New Zealand National 57; New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 5; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; United Future 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Hilary Calvert’s amendment to clause 78(1)(a) to omit “boundaries” and substitute “boundaries and any significant features” is a duplicate and out of order. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 218 in the name of Hilary Calvert to clause 78(1)(b) be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 5 
ACT New Zealand 5. 
Noes 112 
New Zealand National 57; New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 5; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; United Future 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Hilary Calvert’s amendment to clause 78(1)(c) to omit “individuals” and substitute “individuals and groups” as set out on Supplementary Order Paper 218 is out of order.  
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 218 in the name of Hilary Calvert to clause 78(1)(c) to omit “in relation to” and substitute “within the boundaries of” be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 5 
ACT New Zealand 5. 
Noes 112 
New Zealand National 57; New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 5; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; United Future 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 218 in the name of Hilary Calvert to clause 78(1)(c) to omit “exemption” and substitute “exemption for customary right holders wahi tapu groups and other iwi whanau and hapu” be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 5 
ACT New Zealand 5. 
Noes 112 
New Zealand National 57; New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 5; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; United Future 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 218 in the name of Hilary Calvert to clause 78(1)(c) to omit “exemption” and substitute “exemption for customary right holders and members of the public” be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 5 
ACT New Zealand 5. 
Noes 112 
New Zealand National 57; New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 5; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; United Future 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 218 in the name of Hilary Calvert to insert new clause 78(1A) be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 5 
ACT New Zealand 5. 
Noes 112 
New Zealand National 57; New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 5; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; United Future 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 207 in the name of the Hon Christopher Finlayson to omit clause 78(2) and substitute new clause 78(2) be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 62 
New Zealand National 57; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Noes 55 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 5; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Hilary Calvert’s amendment to clause 78(2) as set out in Supplementary Order Paper 218 is now inconsistent and out of order. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 218 in the name of Hilary Calvert to omit clause 78(3) and (4) be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 5 
ACT New Zealand 5. 
Noes 112 
New Zealand National 57; New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 5; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; United Future 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 218 in the name of Hilary Calvert to clause 79 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 5 
ACT New Zealand 5. 
Noes 113 
New Zealand National 57; New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; United Future 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Amendments not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 218 in the name of Hilary Calvert to clause 80(1) be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 5 
ACT New Zealand 5. 
Noes 113 
New Zealand National 57; New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; United Future 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Amendments not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 218 in the name of Hilary Calvert to clause 80(2) to omit “$5000” and substitute “$5.00” be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 5 
ACT New Zealand 5. 
Noes 113 
New Zealand National 57; New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; United Future 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Hilary Calvert’s next amendment to clause 80(2) to omit “$5000” and substitute “$2500” is inconsistent and is now out of order. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 218 in the name of Hilary Calvert to omit clause 80(2) and (3) be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 5 
ACT New Zealand 5. 
Noes 113 
New Zealand National 57; New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; United Future 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Amendments not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Hilary Calvert’s amendment to omit clauses 80(3)(a) and (b) is ruled out of order as being inconsistent and the amendment to clause 80(4) to omit “if—” was not presented in a proper form and is out of order. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 218 in the name of Hilary Calvert to clause 80(4)(a) and (b) be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 5 
ACT New Zealand 5. 
Noes 113 
New Zealand National 57; New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; United Future 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Amendments not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 218 in the name of Hilary Calvert to omit the heading to clause 81 and clause 81(1) and (2) be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 5 
ACT New Zealand 5. 
Noes 113 
New Zealand National 57; New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; United Future 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Amendments not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Hilary Calvert has an amendment to clause 81(3) to omit “person” and substitute “person or group”. This is now inconsistent with a previous decision and is out of order. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 218 in the name of Hilary Calvert to clause 81(3) to omit “area” and substitute “area or wahi tapu area” be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 5 
ACT New Zealand 5. 
Noes 113 
New Zealand National 57; New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; United Future 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 218 in the name of Hilary Calvert to clause 81(3) to omit “28” and substitute “10” be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 5 
ACT New Zealand 5. 
Noes 113 
New Zealand National 57; New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; United Future 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Hilary Calvert has an amendment to clause 81(3) to omit “28” and substitute “20”. That is now ruled out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision.  
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 218 in the name of Hilary Calvert to clause 81(3) to omit “days” and substitute “weeks” be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 5 
ACT New Zealand 5. 
Noes 113 
New Zealand National 57; New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; United Future 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Hilary Calvert’s next amendment to clause 81(3) to omit “days” and substitute “months” is now out of order as it is inconsistent with a previous decision. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 218 in the name of Hilary Calvert to omit clause 81(4) and (4)(a) be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 5 
ACT New Zealand 5. 
Noes 113 
New Zealand National 57; New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; United Future 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Amendments not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 218 in the name of Hilary Calvert to clause 81(4)(b) to omit “6” and substitute “7” be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 5 
ACT New Zealand 5. 
Noes 113 
New Zealand National 57; New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; United Future 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Hilary Calvert’s amendment to clause 81(4)(b) to omit “6” and substitute “10” is now out of order as it is inconsistent with a previous decision. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 218 in the name of Hilary Calvert to clause 81(4)(b) to omit “months” and substitute “weeks” be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 5 
ACT New Zealand 5. 
Noes 113 
New Zealand National 57; New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; United Future 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Hilary Calvert’s amendment to clause 81(4)(b) to omit “months” and substitute “years” is now out of order as it is inconsistent with a previous decision. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 218 in the name of Hilary Calvert to clause 81(4)(b) to omit “notice” and substitute “discovery” be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 5 
ACT New Zealand 5. 
Noes 113 
New Zealand National 57; New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; United Future 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 207 in the name of the Hon Christopher Finlayson to clause 81 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 62 
New Zealand National 57; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 6; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Hilary Calvert’s amendment to omit clause 81(5) set out on Supplementary Order Paper 218 is now out of order. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 218 in the name of Hilary Calvert to clause 81(6) to omit “6” and substitute “7” be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 5 
ACT New Zealand 5. 
Noes 113 
New Zealand National 57; New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; United Future 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Hilary Calvert’s amendment to clause 81(6) to omit “6” and substitute “10” is now out of order because it is inconsistent with the previous decision. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 218 in the name of Hilary Calvert to clause 81(6) to omit “months” and substitute “weeks” be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 5 
ACT New Zealand 5. 
Noes 113 
New Zealand National 57; New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; United Future 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Hilary Calvert’s amendment to clause 81(6) to omit “months” and substitute “years” set out on Supplementary Order Paper 218 is now inconsistent with the previous decision and out of order. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 218 in the name of Hilary Calvert to clause 81(7) to omit “the specified time” and substitute “6 months” be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 5 
ACT New Zealand 5. 
Noes 113 
New Zealand National 57; New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; United Future 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Hilary Calvert’s amendment to clause 81(7) to omit “the specified time” and substitute “12 months” is inconsistent with the previous decision and out of order. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 218 in the name of Hilary Calvert to omit clause 81(7)(a) and (b) and clause 81(8) be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 5 
ACT New Zealand 5. 
Noes 113 
New Zealand National 57; New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; United Future 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Amendments not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 218 in the name of Hilary Calvert to clause 81(9) be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 5 
ACT New Zealand 5. 
Noes 113 
New Zealand National 57; New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; United Future 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 218 in the name of Hilary Calvert to omit the heading to clause 82 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 5 
ACT New Zealand 5. 
Noes 113 
New Zealand National 57; New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; United Future 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 218 in the name of Hilary Calvert to clause 82(1) to omit “the effective date” and substitute “1 January 2015” be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 5 
ACT New Zealand 5. 
Noes 113 
New Zealand National 57; New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; United Future 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Hilary Calvert’s amendment to clause 82(1) to omit “the effective date” and substitute “31 December 2020” is now out of order as being inconsistent with the previous decision. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 218 in the name of Hilary Calvert to omit clause 82(2) to (4) be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 5 
ACT New Zealand 5. 
Noes 113 
New Zealand National 57; New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; United Future 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 207 in the name of the Hon Christopher Finlayson to omit clauses 83 and 84 and substitute new clauses 83 and 84 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 62 
New Zealand National 57; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 6; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Amendments agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Hilary Calvert’s amendments to omit clauses 83 and 84 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 218 are now out of order as being inconsistent with the previous decision. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 207 in the name of the Hon Christopher Finlayson to the heading to clause 85 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 62 
New Zealand National 57; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 6; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Hilary Calvert’s amendment to omit the heading to clause 85 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 218 is now out of order as being inconsistent. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 218 in the name of Hilary Calvert to omit clause 85(1) be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 5 
ACT New Zealand 5. 
Noes 113 
New Zealand National 57; New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; United Future 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 218 in the name of Hilary Calvert to clause 85(2) to omit “on the day” and substitute “one week” be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 5 
ACT New Zealand 5. 
Noes 113 
New Zealand National 57; New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; United Future 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Hilary Calvert’s amendment to clause 85(2) to omit “on the day” and substitute “48 hours” is now out of order as being inconsistent with the previous decision. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 207 in the name of the Hon Christopher Finlayson to omit clause 86 and substitute new clause 86 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 62 
New Zealand National 57; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 6; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Hilary Calvert’s amendment to omit clause 86 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 218 is now out of order. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 207 in the name of the Hon Christopher Finlayson to the heading to clause 87 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 62 
New Zealand National 57; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 6; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Hilary Calvert’s amendment to omit the heading to clause 87 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 218 is now out of order. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 218 in the name of Hilary Calvert to omit clause 87(1) be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 5 
ACT New Zealand 5. 
Noes 113 
New Zealand National 57; New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; United Future 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 207 in the name of the Hon Christopher Finlayson to omit clause 87(2) and substitute new clause 87(2) be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 62 
New Zealand National 57; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 6; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Hilary Calvert’s amendments to clause 87(2) set out on Supplementary Order Paper 218 are now out of order. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 207 in the name of the Hon Christopher Finlayson to the heading to clause 88 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 62 
New Zealand National 57; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 6; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Hilary Calvert’s amendment to omit the heading to clause 88 as set out on Supplementary Order Paper 218 is now out of order. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 218 in the name of Hilary Calvert to clause 88 to omit “group” and substitute “group or wahi tapu group” be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 5 
ACT New Zealand 5. 
Noes 113 
New Zealand National 57; New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; United Future 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 218 in the name of Hilary Calvert to clause 88(a) to omit “on and” and substitute “two weeks” be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 5 
ACT New Zealand 5. 
Noes 113 
New Zealand National 57; New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; United Future 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Hilary Calvert’s amendment to clause 88(a) to omit “on and” and substitute “two months” is now out of order. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 218 in the name of Hilary Calvert to clause 88(a) to omit “registered” and substitute “received” and to omit “must” and substitute “may” be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 5 
ACT New Zealand 5. 
Noes 113 
New Zealand National 57; New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; United Future 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Amendments not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Hilary Calvert’s amendment to clause 88(a) to omit “have particular regard to” and substitute “consider” as set out on Supplementary Order Paper 218 is now out of order. Hilary Calvert’s amendments to clause 88(a) to omit “area” and substitute “area or wahi tapu area” and to omit “group” and substitute “group or wahi tapu group” set out on Supplementary Order Paper 218 are now out of order. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 218 in the name of Hilary Calvert to omit clause 88(b) be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 5 
ACT New Zealand 5. 
Noes 113 
New Zealand National 57; New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; United Future 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 207 in the name of the Hon Christopher Finlayson to the heading to clause 89 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 62 
New Zealand National 57; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 6; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Hilary Calvert’s amendment to omit the heading to clause 89 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 218 is now out of order. Hilary Calvert’s amendment to clause 89(1) to omit “group and substitute “group or wahi tapu group” is now out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 218 in the name of Hilary Calvert to clause 89(1) to omit “must” and substitute “may” be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 5 
ACT New Zealand 5. 
Noes 113 
New Zealand National 57; New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; United Future 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 218 in the name of Hilary Calvert to 89(1) to omit “on and” and substitute “two weeks” be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 5 
ACT New Zealand 5. 
Noes 112 
New Zealand National 57; New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; Progressive 1; United Future 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Hilary Calvert’s amendment to clause 89(1) to omit “on and” and substitute “two months” is now out of order. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 218 in the name of Hilary Calvert to clause 89(1) to omit “registered” and substitute “received” be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 5 
ACT New Zealand 5. 
Noes 112 
New Zealand National 57; New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; Progressive 1; United Future 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Hilary Calvert’s amendment to clause 89(1) to omit “take into account” and substitute “consider” set out on Supplementary Order Paper 218 is now out of order. Hilary Calvert’s amendment to clause 89(1) to omit “area” and substitute “area or wahi tapu area” is now inconsistent and out of order. Hilary Calvert’s amendment to clause 89(1) to omit “group” and substitute “group or wahi tapu group” is now out of order. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 218 in the name of Hilary Calvert to omit subclause 89(2) be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 5 
ACT New Zealand 5. 
Noes 112 
New Zealand National 57; New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; Progressive 1; United Future 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 207 in the name of the Hon Christopher Finlayson to the heading to clause 90 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand National 57; Maori Party 3; United Future 1. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 6; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Hilary Calvert’s amendment to the heading to clause 90 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 218 is now out of order as being inconsistent. Hilary Calvert’s amendment to clause 90(1) to omit “group” and substitute “group or wahi tapu group” is now out of order for the same reason. Hilary Calvert’s amendment to clause 90(1) to omit “of Fisheries” and substitute “of Conservation” is also out of order for the same reason. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 218 in the name of Hilary Calvert to clause 90(1) to omit “must” and substitute “may” be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 5 
ACT New Zealand 5. 
Noes 112 
New Zealand National 57; New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; Progressive 1; United Future 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 218 in the name of Hilary Calvert to clause 90(1) to omit “on and” and substitute “two weeks” be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 5 
ACT New Zealand 5. 
Noes 111 
New Zealand National 57; New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; United Future 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Hilary Calvert’s amendment to clause 90(1) to omit “on and” and substitute “two months” set out on Supplementary Order Paper 218 is now out of order. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 218 in the name of Hilary Calvert to clause 90(1) to omit “registered” and substitute “received” be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 5 
ACT New Zealand 5. 
Noes 112 
New Zealand National 57; New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; Progressive 1; United Future 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Hilary Calvert’s amendment to clause 90(1) to omit “have regard to” and substitute “consider” set out on Supplementary Order Paper 218 is out of order. Hilary Calvert’s amendment to clause 90(1) to omit “area” and substitute “area or wahi tapu area” set out on Supplementary Order Paper 218 is now out of order. Hilary Calvert’s amendment to clause 90(1) to omit “group” and substitute “group or wahi tapu group” set out on Supplementary Order Paper 218 is now out of order as being inconsistent. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 207 in the name of the Hon Christopher Finlayson to omit clause 90(2) and substitute new clause 90(2) be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand National 57; Maori Party 3; United Future 1. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 6; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Hilary Calvert’s amendment to omit and substitute clause 90(2) is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 207 in the name of the Hon Christopher Finlayson to omit clause 91 and substitute new clauses 91AA and 91 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand National 57; Maori Party 3; United Future 1. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 6; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Hilary Calvert’s amendment to omit clause 91 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision. The Hon David Parker’s typescript amendment to omit clauses 48 to 91 is out of order as a direct negative. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 211 in the name of the Hon Christopher Finlayson to the proposed amendments to clauses 84 and 91(8) set out on Supplementary Order Paper 207 in his name be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments to the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand National 57; Maori Party 3; United Future 1. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 6; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Amendments to the amendments agreed to. 
The question was put that the remaining amendments as amended set out on Supplementary Order Paper 207 in the name of the Hon Christopher Finlayson be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand National 57; Maori Party 3; United Future 1. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 6; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Amendments as amended agreed to. 
Hon JOHN BOSCAWEN (Whip—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I had been waiting until the voting on the amendments had finished. I have a query relating to the first page of Supplementary Order Paper 218. You moved pretty quickly through the amendments but if I am not mistaken you put all four of Hilary Calvert’s amendments to clause 77(4) together. The second and third amendments are contradictory. The second amendment calls for the omission of “as soon as practicable after” and substituting “within 40 working days of”. The next amendment calls for it to be substituted with “within 20 working days of”. Those two amendments are totally contradictory to each other and I just wondered how we could vote on those amendments together. Surely they would have to be put separately because they are totally different concepts. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I am not sure I was in the Chair at the time. Advice had been sought in regard to these matters. I say to the member that at the start of each vote quite clearly what was happening has been called. It might have been mentioned quite rapidly but each amendment was quite clearly set out as to what was being voted on. The exact typescript of every single amendment or amendments was read out and it was at that time that the member should have objected. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 3 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand National 57; Maori Party 3; United Future 1. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 6; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Part 3 as amended agreed to. 
Progress reported. 
Report adopted. 
The House adjourned at 12.16 a.m. (Thursday)