edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Hobbs Marian: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Hobbs Marian: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:633;Page:5286] 
3.  
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Labour—Wellington Central) 
 to the  
Minister for Tertiary Education 
: What is the Government doing to support adult learners? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Acting Minister for Tertiary Education) 
: 
 In 2005 the Government supported over 400000 learners in adult and community education. Adult learning helps people to gain skills improve their confidence expand their knowledge and reach their potential. This week the Government celebrates Adult Learners’ Week which aims to raise the profile of adult learning recognise the efforts and achievements of learners and teachers alike and inform people of learning opportunities available in the community. This has been endorsed of course by the House. I thereby thank Judy Turner Dr Pita Sharples Metiria Turei and the Hon Bill English for their support of Adult Learners’ Week. 
Hon Marian Hobbs 
: What is the Government doing to support adult literacy? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Tomorrow the Government also celebrates International Literacy Day. One of the key priorities signalled in the Government’s newly released tertiary education strategy discussion document is to build strong foundations in literacy numeracy and language. Moving forward the Government will look to invest in increasing language skills in the workforce and raising foundation skills for parents to support their children’s learning. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister explain why he and his predecessor Steve Maharey have put in place policy that is as we speak destroying New Zealand’s traditional structure of adult and community education which used to be provided cheaply through schools and which will now be provided through a very expensive bureaucratic mechanism that will see most of the money end up in polytechs? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The intention is of course to continue to have schools to provide adult education. But I would point out the irony of a man who campaigned on the tightening up of rules that he put in place in the 1990s now complaining that these changes might be a little tighter. 
Tariana Turia 
: Tena koe Madam Speaker; tena tatou katoa. What support access and equitable funding are made available to attract Maori and Pacific adult learners to programmes that meet their aspirations and needs given the contrast between current record low levels of unemployment in the general population and the high levels of unemployment in Maori and Pasifika populations? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: One of the changes in the adult community education area is to set priorities that will of course be of use to Maori learners—that is targeting learners whose initial learning was not successful raising foundation skills encouraging lifelong learning strengthening communities by identifying community needs then meeting those needs and strengthening social cohesion. All of these areas will have some benefit to the learners the member is referring to.
Wilson Margaret: Points of Order — Minister’s Comments—Law and Order Committee 
Wilson Margaret: Points of Order — Minister’s Comments—Law and Order Committee 
[Volume:633;Page:5274] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: This is not a matter for the Speaker. This is a matter of debate.
Points of Order — Minister’s Comments—Law and Order Committee 
Points of Order — Minister’s Comments—Law and Order Committee 
[Volume:633;Page:5274] 
Points of Order 
Minister’s Comments—Law and Order Committee 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I seek some advice from you as to what remedies are available to members of the Law and Order Committee. Today a statement made by the Associate Minister of Health Damien O’Connor to an addictions conference in Wellington indicated that the minimum drinking age will not be put back up to 20. He told the conference that the political reality is that New Zealand is stuck with the drinking age of 18. This matter is still in consideration before the Law and Order Committee which has not yet reported back to the House. Further this is a member’s bill and a conscience issue. It was an extraordinarily pre-emptive statement for the Minister to make in a public forum and I ask your advice about what remedies are available to those of us and the public who have spent weeks and weeks on submissions and hearing evidence on this bill. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: It is quite in order for members to make public statements on matters that are before select committees. Obviously if they are members of those select committees there would be an issue. [ 
Interruption 
] I have clarified that it is a matter of debate for members. The Minister is not a member of a select committee as I understand it and he is entitled to make any statement he so wishes. It is a matter of debate as to what happens after that. 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The question remains as to whether the Minister was speaking in his capacity as Associate Minister of Health and this is now the Government position on this bill or whether it does in fact remain a conscience issue. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: This is not a matter for the Speaker. This is a matter of debate.
Power Simon: Points of Order — Minister’s Comments—Law and Order Committee 
Power Simon: Points of Order — Minister’s Comments—Law and Order Committee 
[Volume:633;Page:5274] 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The question remains as to whether the Minister was speaking in his capacity as Associate Minister of Health and this is now the Government position on this bill or whether it does in fact remain a conscience issue.
Wilson Margaret: Points of Order — Minister’s Comments—Law and Order Committee 
Wilson Margaret: Points of Order — Minister’s Comments—Law and Order Committee 
[Volume:633;Page:5274] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: It is quite in order for members to make public statements on matters that are before select committees. Obviously if they are members of those select committees there would be an issue. [ 
Interruption 
] I have clarified that it is a matter of debate for members. The Minister is not a member of a select committee as I understand it and he is entitled to make any statement he so wishes. It is a matter of debate as to what happens after that.
Power Simon: Points of Order — Minister’s Comments—Law and Order Committee 
Power Simon: Points of Order — Minister’s Comments—Law and Order Committee 
[Volume:633;Page:5274] 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I seek some advice from you as to what remedies are available to members of the Law and Order Committee. Today a statement made by the Associate Minister of Health Damien O’Connor to an addictions conference in Wellington indicated that the minimum drinking age will not be put back up to 20. He told the conference that the political reality is that New Zealand is stuck with the drinking age of 18. This matter is still in consideration before the Law and Order Committee which has not yet reported back to the House. Further this is a member’s bill and a conscience issue. It was an extraordinarily pre-emptive statement for the Minister to make in a public forum and I ask your advice about what remedies are available to those of us and the public who have spent weeks and weeks on submissions and hearing evidence on this bill.
Smith Lockwood: Amended answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 4 to Minister 6 September 
Smith Lockwood: Amended answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 4 to Minister 6 September 
[Volume:633;Page:5274] 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I wonder what mechanism is available to the House to make sure the Minister corrects his other false answers to the House because if that was incorrect yesterday answers previously given have been incorrect as well. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: As the member knows that is not a point of order.
Cunliffe David: Amended answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 4 to Minister 6 September 
Cunliffe David: Amended answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 4 to Minister 6 September 
[Volume:633;Page:5273] 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 I seek leave to correct an answer from yesterday. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: On reading my response to question No. 4 in  
Hansard  
yesterday I feel it is appropriate for me to correct for the House the following. In answering the first supplementary question I inadvertently confused two positions in the department. The director of the Pacific division is a “she” not a “he”. The group manager of service international to whom she reports is a “he”. It was the latter not the former who recalled attempting to pass the information on to the then Associate Minister’s private secretary on 9 June 2005 not 10 May 2005 as I therefore implied. Finally I also note that Dr Smith’s first supplementary question contained an apparent inaccuracy— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No that is not your statement.
Smith Lockwood: Amended answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 4 to Minister 6 September 
Smith Lockwood: Amended answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 4 to Minister 6 September 
[Volume:633;Page:5273] 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker.  
Hon David Cunliffe 
: If it may assist I am happy to put— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have called Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: If the Minister believes he gave the House false information yesterday that needs correcting then he should seek leave to correct an answer he gave the House yesterday. He should not try to fudge what he is seeking. I do not think he has made it clear and it is unfair to allow him to proceed if he has not made clear the leave he is seeking. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Happy to do so?
Wilson Margaret: Amended answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 4 to Minister 6 September 
Wilson Margaret: Amended answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 4 to Minister 6 September 
[Volume:633;Page:5273] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Yes. Leave was sought. I asked whether there was any objection. There was no objection. Then you took a point of order. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Gerry Brownlee 
: But we’ve got a point of order! 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No I am sorry. Then as I recall events a point of order was taken. I clarified that point of order. Then I was proceeding to ask the Minister to make his statement. If there is any other point of order I am pleased to hear it.
Cunliffe David: Amended answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 4 to Minister 6 September 
Cunliffe David: Amended answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 4 to Minister 6 September 
[Volume:633;Page:5273] 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 On reading my response to question No.— 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Point of order! 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Madam Speaker should I proceed?
English Bill: Amended answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 4 to Minister 6 September 
English Bill: Amended answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 4 to Minister 6 September 
[Volume:633;Page:5273] 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (National—Clutha-Southland) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. If the member is asking for leave to correct a wrong answer then that is what he should ask for and he might get it. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I heard him starting when I interrupted him. I am sorry. Would the Minister now please proceed.
Cunliffe David: Amended answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 4 to Minister 6 September 
Cunliffe David: Amended answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 4 to Minister 6 September 
[Volume:633;Page:5273] 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. On reading my response to question No. 4 in  
Hansard 
 yesterday I feel it is appropriate for me to clarify to the House the following. In answering— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: It is a point of order. You have to move. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Sorry I am moving that I make a clarification of a response to—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: You are seeking leave. Sorry. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I seek leave to make a clarifying statement. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The Minister is seeking leave. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: He’s trying to do what? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: He is seeking leave as he said to clarify an answer he gave.
Maharey Steve: Business Statement 
Maharey Steve: Business Statement 
[Volume:633;Page:5273] 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education) 
 on behalf of the 
 Leader of the House 
: Next week in the House priority will be given to the remaining stages of the Child Support Amendment Bill (No 4) the Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Bill the Standards and Conformance Bill and the Insolvency Law Reform Bill.
Business Statement 
Business Statement 
[Volume:633;Page:5273] 
Thursday 7 September 2006 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Business Statement 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education) 
 on behalf of the 
 Leader of the House 
: Next week in the House priority will be given to the remaining stages of the Child Support Amendment Bill (No 4) the Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Bill the Standards and Conformance Bill and the Insolvency Law Reform Bill.
Vote: Standards and Conformance Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Standards and Conformance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:634;Page:5405] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the report be adopted. 
Ayes 66 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 5; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 3. 
Report adopted.
Wagner Nicky: Standards and Conformance Bill — In Committee 
Wagner Nicky: Standards and Conformance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:634;Page:5404] 
NICKY WAGNER (National) 
: 
 It is very hard for ordinary people to get excited about this Standards and Conformance Bill. The world of standards and conformance is all long words acronyms and plenty of specification numbers. This bill is so convoluted that none of the many media people around Parliament has even taken the slightest interest in it. 
This bill is designed firstly to make sure that the Standards Council develops standards for goods and services and that the Testing Laboratory Registration Council makes sure these standards are being met and conform with international standards norms and practices. That means in lay speak that New Zealand can be trusted internationally to produce goods and services of a high and consistent quality. The average New Zealander may not be interested in the detail of this bill but he or she does expect and rightly so that goods purchased and services used are functionally effective. People also expect that the standards in force in New Zealand are in line with international practice. 
But take a simple small issue—noisy exhausts. New Zealanders are very unhappy about the current standards concerning noisy cars and the testing regime for noisy exhausts. New Zealand is out of step with the rest of the world in terms of noise standards. For most of us it is pretty irrelevant but not for someone whose home happens to be near a road that has been designated by boy racers as a drag strip—and there are plenty of those around the country. For someone whose hotel or business is in the centre of a city the situation is a disaster. Families lose sleep and patience businesses lose patronage and income and our country loses its reputation for being clean and green. 
Our legislation has become weaker and harder to enforce over the last few years while most other countries—those of Europe the UK and Australia—have tightened their standards. Australia has updated its requirements so that all new cars need to meet a drive-by test of 76 decibels but in New Zealand cars have to meet only an 81-decibel test. But the real problem is that we allow the modification of cars with no commitment to a regular testing regime to ensure that even our inadequate standards are met. Cheap Japanese cars with modified noisy exhausts have been a persistent and growing problem ever since Labour came to power. 
Progress to be reported presently. 
House resumed. 
The Chairperson reported progress on the Standards and Conformance Bill.
Simich Clem: Standards and Conformance Bill — In Committee 
Simich Clem: Standards and Conformance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:634;Page:5401] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: This part includes debate on the schedule.
Vote: Standards and Conformance Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Standards and Conformance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:634;Page:5401] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 66 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 5; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 3. 
Part 1 agreed to.
Vote: Standards and Conformance Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Standards and Conformance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:634;Page:5400] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 66 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 5; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 3. 
Motion agreed to.
Barnett Tim: Standards and Conformance Bill — In Committee 
Barnett Tim: Standards and Conformance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:634;Page:5400] 
TIM BARNETT (Labour—Christchurch Central) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Carter Chris: Standards and Conformance Bill — In Committee 
Carter Chris: Standards and Conformance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:634;Page:5399] 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Conservation) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Chadwick Steve: Standards and Conformance Bill — In Committee 
Chadwick Steve: Standards and Conformance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:634;Page:5398] 
STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Vote: Child Support Amendment Bill (No 4) — Third Reading 
Vote: Child Support Amendment Bill (No 4) — Third Reading 
[Volume:634;Page:5394] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Child Support Amendment Bill (No 4) be now read a third time. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Bill read a third time.
Vote: Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:634;Page:5380] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 2 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 1 (Turia); United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 47 
New Zealand National 47. 
Abstentions 2 
Maori Party 2 (Flavell Harawira). 
Clause 2 as amended agreed to. 
Bill reported with amendment. 
Report adopted.
Vote: Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:634;Page:5380] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to.  
Ayes 67 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 50 
New Zealand National 47; Maori Party 3. 
Amendment agreed to.
Vote: Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:634;Page:5380] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 1 (Turia); United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 47 
New Zealand National 47. 
Abstentions 2 
Maori Party 2 (Flavell Harawira). 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 56 in the name of the Hon Mark Burton to clause 2 be agreed to.
Burton Mark: Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Bill — In Committee 
Burton Mark: Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:634;Page:5379] 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 I will make just one final brief contribution to this debate. We have heard from a number of members including Mr Finlayson who quoted Isaiah. I would like to quote to him Ecclesiastes: “To every thing there is a time …” and it is time for this to be settled. It is time for this Parliament to recognise that despite the comment made in the course of this debate we have duly mandated negotiators. They are not self-appointed or self-opinionated negotiators but duly mandated human beings—who I am sure are not perfect any more than we are and who I am sure have not negotiated the perfect settlement any more than the Crown negotiators have but who have negotiated in good faith over years a settlement. And that is their right to do as the duly mandated negotiators. 
That is a mandate that Sir Douglas Graham recognised on behalf of the Crown and I acknowledge his fine work. Margaret Wilson who followed him continued to recognise that mandate. I recognise her fine work. I have continued on behalf of the Crown to recognise that mandate and I remind the Committee that so has the Waitangi Tribunal when that mandate has been challenged. I simply suggest to members that it is time this settlement was allowed to reach its conclusion. It may not be perfect but it is the result of the best endeavour of the negotiators from the Crown and the duly mandated negotiators from Te Arawa to negotiate together in good faith and to reach this settlement. This is their settlement; this is what they have arrived at. I simply urge members to allow it to progress and to allow the people to then move on from grievance to development.
Vote: Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:634;Page:5376] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 4 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 1 (Turia); United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 47 
New Zealand National 47. 
Abstentions 2 
Maori Party 2 (Flavell Harawira). 
Part 4 as amended agreed to.
Vote: Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:634;Page:5375] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 67 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 50 
New Zealand National 47; Maori Party 3. 
Amendment agreed to.
Vote: Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:634;Page:5375] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 3 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 1 (Turia); United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 47 
New Zealand National 47. 
Abstentions 2 
Maori Party 2 (Flavell Harawira). 
Part 3 as amended agreed to.
Vote: Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:634;Page:5375] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 67 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 50 
New Zealand National 47; Maori Party 3. 
Amendments agreed to.
Vote: Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:634;Page:5375] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 58 
New Zealand National 48; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 60 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 56 in the name of the Hon Mark Burton to Part 3 be agreed to.
Robertson H V Ross: Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Bill — In Committee 
Robertson H V Ross: Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:634;Page:5374] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The typescript amendment in the name of the honourable member Te Ururoa Flavell to insert a new heading and a new clause 48A is out of order because it is inconsistent with the principles and objectives of the bill. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 57 in the name of Te Ururoa Flavell to Part 3 be agreed to.
Hereora Dave: Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Bill — In Committee 
Hereora Dave: Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:634;Page:5374] 
DAVE HEREORA (Labour) 
: 
 I take a short call in this debate on Part 3. I raise in particular the function and procedures of the Rotorua Lakes Strategy Group which are to include the review amendment and revocation provisions contained in the 8 October 2004 agreement. At the moment Te Arawa is on the committee at the discretion of the local authorities so establishing the group by deed will ensure Te Arawa is on the group as of right and therefore will ensure we have a significant and ongoing role in the strategic management of the lakes. We have heard that the strategy group will be made up of the Te Arawa post-settlement governance entity the Bay of Plenty Regional Council and the Rotorua District Council and that it will lead to the provision of leadership to organisations within the community and the identification of significant and emerging lakes etc. 
In respect of a matter raised by the Maori Party member Mr Flavell in relation to three lakes standing outside the jurisdiction of the Bay of Plenty Regional Council I think that that strategy committee will set up in the first instance a platform for the community to have some administration and management of the lakes. In leading to that the committee will under the Resource Management Act invite Environment Waikato to participate as well as time progresses. So I think it is an opportunity to set in place a structure so that the management of the lakes can be shared within the community.
Burton Mark: Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Bill — In Committee 
Burton Mark: Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:634;Page:5374] 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 I was not going to take another call but I will quickly answer Mr Flavell’s two comments. I think I made the point earlier that responsibility for cleaning up the lakes in the end does not change as a result of the settlement. Ultimately the responsibility continues to sit with the local and central agencies where it resides now. 
The other matter the member raises has to do with the membership of the Rotorua Lakes Strategy Group and that is covered in his amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 57. I point out to the member that the agreement between the three parties is actually included in the schedule to the deed of settlement not in the bill. That is where the detail of that agreement is laid out. The proposed amendments would fundamentally alter what is effectively the negotiated agreement between the Rotorua District Council the Bay of Plenty Regional Council and the Te Arawa Lakes Trust. As I say that is included in the schedule to the settlement and that is where the functions of the group are prescribed. It would simply be inappropriate to try to override that through this mechanism.
Vote: Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:634;Page:5372] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 2 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 1 (Turia); United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 47 
New Zealand National 47. 
Abstentions 2 
Maori Party 2 (Flavell Harawira). 
Part 2 as amended agreed to.
Burton Mark: Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Bill — In Committee 
Burton Mark: Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:634;Page:5369] 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 I speak in brief response to one or two of the points members have made. First Mr Henare raised a question under clause 30(1) about the “moveable natural boundary” issue. I think the answer to his concern is contained in clause 30(2) and that is that “the boundary is governed by the applicable common law rules of accretion erosion and avulsion.” It was a fair concern but I think it is taken care of. 
Perhaps the more substantial issue that he raised—as did Paula Bennett—relates to the environmental degradation of the lakes. I think it is important to stress here that Treaty settlements are not intended to address environmental degradation and pollution. The environmental regulatory regime that exists at the local and national levels will continue to apply post-settlement. Therefore any obligations upon local and central government to clean up the Te Arawa lakes that exist before the settlement will continue to exist post-settlement. That point is actually explicit in the bill—that Te Arawa will not be liable for any contamination that exists. I think the Rotorua Lakes Strategy Group that is created herein will play a valuable role in and make an important contribution to improving the integrated and sustainable management of the lakes. Again it is really clear that the group is not charged with the responsibility for cleaning up the lakes; that responsibility lies with local and central government. 
To that end the Te Arawa lakes water quality problems are being dealt with through the Rotorua lakes protection and restoration programme developed by Environment Bay of Plenty Rotorua District Council and indeed Te Arawa Maori Trust Board. Under that programme I say to members action plans are in place to address water quality problems on several lakes. In addition the Ministry for the Environment has committed funding and is continuing to work with its partners Environment Bay of Plenty the Rotorua District Council and Te Arawa to clean up Lake Rotoiti.
Burton Mark: Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Bill — In Committee 
Burton Mark: Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:634;Page:5367] 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 Part 2 provides for the vesting of the Te Arawa lake beds and the rights and obligations of and limitations on ownership. It includes clauses relating to the protection of recreational activities—which is an important part of this settlement—public utilities existing structures and existing commercial activities and clauses relating to the consent process for new structures and commercial activities. 
In relation in particular to the issue of access—a matter that came up today and during the second reading—a number of members expressed concern that the settlement separates the lake beds from their waters. If I could perhaps explain the beds of the Te Arawa lakes are transferred to Te Arawa and the water column and airspace known collectively in this bill as the “Crown stratum” remain vested in the Crown. That was in large part done to protect the public interest as it enables the Crown to have an active role in determining what happens on and in the lakes that are subject to the settlement. In negotiating the ownership provisions of the settlement Te Arawa and the Crown agreed that the Crown retaining ownership of the water column and airspace above the lake beds was appropriate and enabled the interests of both the public as represented by the Crown and equally Te Arawa to be met.
Vote: Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:634;Page:5367] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 1 (Turia); United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 47 
New Zealand National 47. 
Abstentions 2 
Maori Party 2 (Flavell Harawira). 
Part 1 as amended agreed to.
Vote: Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:634;Page:5366] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 67 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 50 
New Zealand National 47; Maori Party 3. 
Amendments agreed to.
Vote: Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:634;Page:5366] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 47; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3. 
Noes 61 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to.
Vote: Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:634;Page:5366] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 47; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3. 
Noes 61 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 57 in the name of Te Ururoa Flavell to clause 5(5)(a) be agreed to.
Vote: Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:634;Page:5365] 
A party vote was called for on the question Thatt 
he question be now put. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 2 (Sharples Turia); United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Abstentions 2 
Maori Party 2 (Flavell Harawira). 
Motion agreed to.
Brownlee Gerry: Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Bill — In Committee 
Brownlee Gerry: Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:634;Page:5364] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Due to the duties I have as deputy leader of our party and also as shadow Leader of the House I have not been able to be in the Chamber until this point. I am the Maori affairs spokesperson and the spokesperson on Treaty issues and I would appreciate the opportunity to make a short contribution on the Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Bill. [ 
Interruption 
] I know that our friend over here Chuck Chauvel wants to shut everybody out but I just implore you Mr Chairperson to perhaps think about it. I know that you have almost jumped the gun and got the vote under way but not quite. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is none.
Chauvel Charles: Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Bill — In Committee 
Chauvel Charles: Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:634;Page:5364] 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Hodgson Pete: Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Bill — In Committee 
Hodgson Pete: Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:634;Page:5363] 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Burton Mark: Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Bill — In Committee 
Burton Mark: Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:634;Page:5360] 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 I want just to pick up on a couple of points that have been raised. I want to give Mr Henare reassurance about his concern over liability of Te Arawa for persons having an accident. He did not quite explain what might cause the accident but in general terms an accident occurring in and around the lake would be subject to the normal principles of law. Of course thankfully we still have a Labour Government and therefore we still have accident compensation. So any accident or injury incurred would be well looked after by the accident compensation system. 
The serious matter that the member raised and I think the National member Mr Finlayson raised this during the second reading concerns questions around references to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. I think it is important to remind members that under the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 the tribunal is charged with making recommendations on claims relating to the practical application of the Treaty and determining whether certain matters are consistent with the principles of the Treaty. In the interests of finality this bill needs to refer to the principles of the Treaty to make clear that the Waitangi Tribunal and the courts will no longer have jurisdiction to consider relevant claims in the future. I remind members again that this is an approach that has been taken consistently. Members can go right back if they wish and reference the National Government’s Ngai Tahu Claims Settlement Act 1998 for a case in point.
Henare Tau: Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Bill — In Committee 
Henare Tau: Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:634;Page:5358] 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 I do not want to jump in and support the Greens too much but I do not believe for a minute that my colleague was either usurping or even insulting when she spoke in terms of wanting more for the people of Te Arawa. But hoi ano he take ano tera. [ 
that is another matter. 
] 
I want to ask members to look at clause 5(4)(c) relating to the rights and obligations attaching to ownership of Te Arawa lake beds. I ask the Minister whether there is an issue about liability—when the bill comes into force—if for example I am out on the lake one day and happen to have a wee bit of an accident. If that accident is not of my doing but of the owner’s doing—for example if something jumps out of the water— 
Pita Paraone 
: Taniwha. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: I did not say that! But who is liable? Does this mean that the new entity is liable because it is the owner of the lake bed? Is that an issue we should be concerned about? I think that it is something we should concern ourselves with in terms of liability I tell the Minister and I hope he can see his way through to have a yarn about that. 
As well in clause 8 “Text of apology in Maori:” it does not seem as though—and I could be wrong—there is any mention of whanau: “E tuku ana e Karauna i tenei kupu pouri ki a Te Arawa nui tonu ki o ratau tupuna ki nga whakatupuranga ki nga iwi me nga hapu hoki o Te Arawa.” I was always under the understanding that the Treaty of Waitangi mentioned whanau as well. Maybe we should have just a little peek at whether the word whanau is inserted in there. I know that the Minister has said that far be it from us to change any of the negotiated parts of this bill but I respectfully remind him that we too are elected; we too have a mandate; and we too have an obligation to raise issues that come out of the select committee process and out of our talks with various people around the island. 
That is more so at this point I suggest in relation to the member Te Ururoa Flavell because he is the elected member of that area and people have come to him as the elected member to raise concerns about either the process or what is actually in the bill. 
Those are my concerns I tell the Minister and I hope that he takes—now or later on—some time to mention those and see what the issues are about ownership liability and whanau. Sometimes when we use the Treaty of Waitangi we forget about the words that are used in it and we give today’s interpretation of what we think the Treaty is without actually going back and having a look to see what the words are. It is not so much about the meanings or the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi; it is about the words in the Treaty. I think we do ourselves no favours by not I suppose carrying on the words used in 1840 till now. I have no doubt that sometime in the future we will see this legislation before us again.
Burton Mark: Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Bill — In Committee 
Burton Mark: Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:634;Page:5353] 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 Part 1 of the bill sets out the purpose and the background to the settlement. It includes acknowledgments of the apology given by the Crown to Te Arawa it records the intention of Parliament that the provisions of the bill are to be interpreted in a manner that best furthers the agreements expressed in the deed of settlement and it defines various terms. It also provides for the settlement of the Te Arawa lakes historical claims and the Te Arawa lakes remaining annuity issues and a range of other miscellaneous matters such as perpetuities. 
I will take this opportunity also to refer briefly to Supplementary Order Paper 56 in my name which deals with a number of minor technical matters. Some of these sit in Part 1 so I will take this opportunity to explain them all once then be done with it. 
The Protected Objects Amendment Act was passed by this House on Wednesday 2 August this year. That Act amends the Antiquities Act 1975. Amendments to clauses 2 11 and 57 of this bill and a new clause 101 are required as a consequence of changes in terminology enacted by the Protected Objects Amendment Act 2006. Those changes will take effect on 1 November this year and that is the reason this Supplementary Order Paper is necessary. The Protected Objects Amendment Act amends certain terms in the Antiquities Act. The old terms are used in all settlement deeds and legislation that include an antiquities protocol. The Protected Objects Amendment Act amends existing settlement legislation to reflect those changes which is fine in dealing with legislation that has already been enacted but does not however provide for changes to settlement bills such as the Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Bill that are currently before the House. It is expected that the Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Bill will be passed before 1 November; therefore it needs to contain both the pre - 1 November references to antiquities and the post - 1 November references to protected objects. That is the purpose of my Supplementary Order Paper.
Vote: Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:634;Page:5352] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the preamble be agreed to. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 2 (Sharples Turia); United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 47 
New Zealand National 47. 
Abstentions 2 
Maori Party 2 (Flavell Harawira). 
Preamble agreed to.
Vote: Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:634;Page:5352] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 2 (Sharples Turia); United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Abstentions 2 
Maori Party 2 (Flavell Harawira). 
Motion agreed to.
Fenton Darien: Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Bill — In Committee 
Fenton Darien: Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:634;Page:5352] 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Paraone Pita: Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Bill — In Committee 
Paraone Pita: Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:634;Page:5351] 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
: 
 Tena koe Madam Chairperson. I want to make a contribution to this part of the debate on behalf of New Zealand First. We in New Zealand First certainly had an issue about mandate but as part of the select committee process we have to accept that the members of Te Arawa particularly those who do not support this settlement had the opportunity to participate in this process. If people choose not to participate we cannot continually use the argument that the figures in terms of those who participate are not great enough to consider this settlement being advanced. Although we are disappointed at the figures and they could be higher at the end of the day we have to accept that those who have chosen to vote have made their intentions clear. 
Secondly in terms of recognition of the Te Arawa Maori Trust Board of course there will always be a dissenting voice. We have noted that in whatever settlements come before the House there has been dissension amongst iwi members. As those of us who have been involved in serving our people outside of this House well know 90 percent of the people whom we set out to serve are the ones who are our biggest critics. This bill is no exception. 
It has been commented that no complaint about the process of negotiation has been expressed by the mandated body. That has been clearly stated particularly before the Maori Affairs Committee. Someone has to make the decisions. In this case the Te Arawa Maori Trust Board is the mandated group that has made the decision to accept this settlement. I take on board some of the comments made by the previous speaker Christopher Finlayson in terms of how the negotiation processes may have taken place. As I hear more and more about the settlements particularly those that come before this House one has to be concerned about how that process is being conducted. However at the end of the day the mandated group accepted the final negotiation. 
I was very surprised that members of the mandated body have accepted the removal of jurisdiction. Although the Minister has given a good explanation as to why that clause is included I should say that a lot of responsibility rests on the advisers of the trust board to advise their client to accept that clause. I noticed that the advisers were rather young compared with a whole lot of other settlement groups and they will have to carry that responsibility on their shoulders should things go awry. 
As the member from the Maori Party commented people are happy about getting the site back but they are not so happy about the contamination and that issue will be addressed as we go through the bill. In response to the comment about references to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi being included in this bill I will certainly make comment on that on behalf of my party when we come to that part of the bill. Kia ora.