edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Street Maryan: Port Nicholson Block (Taranaki Whanui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika) Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee 
Street Maryan: Port Nicholson Block (Taranaki Whanui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika) Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:655;Page:5040] 
Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour) 
: 
 It gives me great pleasure to rise to speak to the Port Nicholson Block (Taranaki Whanui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika) Claims Settlement Bill; it has been a long time coming. It has gone through a fairly extraordinary process amongst the iwi concerned over a long period of time in its transition to this point. This legislation was introduced by Dr Michael Cullen who was the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations at the time. I want to echo my colleague’s comment earlier about the kind of speed that was applied to this negotiation by Dr Cullen in order to bring it out of its lethargic phase and into what we now have in front of us: a fine conclusion. 
This bill represents a number of iwi who are identified in clause 8 which states that Taranaki Whanui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika includes Te Atiawa Ngati Tama Taranaki Ngati Ruanui and other iwi from the Taranaki area such as Ngati Mutunga. I take some personal delight in speaking on this legislation because these are all iwi with whom I am familiar. I grew up in the Taranaki area so I know where the people of Ngati Mutunga come from and I have swum in the rivers and on the beaches in the areas where those iwi hail from. The fact that we are able to bring this legislation to its second reading has a great deal of personal resonance for me. 
I will make a couple of comments about the history of this legislation and a couple more about the potential that the previous speaker Tau Henare alluded to with his lovely reference to his own mokopuna. First of all I want to recognise that the grievances to which this settlement relate stem largely but not solely from the Crown’s role in the sale of land within the Port Nicholson Block going back to September 1839. If people are in any doubt about the importance of justly resolving historical grievances they need only read the Waitangi Tribunal’s report on those series of grievances. If such grievances are not resolved or adequately addressed then we risk the separation and antagonism between Maori and the Crown going on further and further down the generations and that is something that I take really seriously and that everyone across the Chamber is unified I am sure in wishing to avoid. So the resolution of these grievances becomes critically important. 
In the first reading of this bill the member who is now the Minister Christopher Finlayson having taken on the portfolio of Treaty negotiations referred to the injustices and the disgraceful conduct by the Crown. In Mr Finlayson’s speech in reply to Dr Cullen’s speech he referred to those injustices in very strong terms. I will not enumerate them now but I refer people to the Waitangi Tribunal’s report.
Henare Tau: Port Nicholson Block (Taranaki Whanui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika) Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee 
Henare Tau: Port Nicholson Block (Taranaki Whanui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika) Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:655;Page:5040] 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 The problem is that when people go off their nut like that there will always be somebody following. First of all I say that I will not stoop as low as some of the other members in this Chamber have stooped in terms of accusing former members of this Parliament and talking about whether they were good or bad. I ain’t going there. Where I am going— 
Hon Mita Ririnui 
: Of course you’re not! 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Well there are easy targets like Burton and Wilson but I will not go there. Instead I want to go to today and the process of this bill. 
The process of this bill has been a stop-start affair through no fault of the Crown negotiators the officials or—I tell my learned colleague Mita Ririnui the former “Minister of Whatever”—the select committee. Although the Maori Affairs Committee is very robust I add a note—not a warning or caution but a note—to Maori: when they come to the table to give effect to a deed of settlement I think it behoves Maori to step up to the plate and stop arguing about this that and the other and get on with it. This is about the future’s young people. It is not about who signs on the deed or who gets what; it is about the young people of tomorrow. There are only a number of hours in the day and a number of days in the week and if we do not hurry and get this stuff done then we will be here past 2014 2020 or 2040 still doing the same old same old. I do not want my moko who is 1 year old and is the most beautiful thing on the earth— 
Grant Robertson 
: She must take after her grandmother. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Yes she takes after both her grandmothers. I do not want her to be 25 and have to come back and work on Treaty settlements that should have been sorted done and dusted as soon as possible. This bill gives effect to that whole process. It gives effect to the deed of settlement where Taranaki Whanui ki Te Upoko i Te Ika and the associated members worked out a deal. 
I want to go on record as saying something not against Ngati Tama as an entity but against those who consider themselves to be the spokespeople for so many of the Ngati Tama organisations; there were three or four people. Again I do not want to cast aspersions on the good name of Ngati Tama; it could happen in Ngati Hine: a whole lot of people could stand up and say that they spoke on behalf of Ngati Hine. I think that the Crown and the Government have to be cognisant of who holds a certain mandate to be able to speak. 
Very briefly before my time runs out I say that the Maori Affairs Committee is I believe one of the best select committees. Yes members of the committee do the party politics thing but at the end of the day the committee shows the House where the path is in terms of who we are there for. It is not for us; it is for the people.
Smith Lockwood: Urgent Debates Declined — Taskforce 2025—Establishment and Appointment of Dr Don Brash 
Smith Lockwood: Urgent Debates Declined — Taskforce 2025—Establishment and Appointment of Dr Don Brash 
[Volume:655;Page:5021] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from the Hon David Parker seeking to debate under Standing Order 380 the Government’s announcement of the establishment of the 2025 Taskforce and the appointment of Dr Don Brash to chair the task force. The establishment of the task force and the appointment of its chairperson is a case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility. But I am not persuaded that it requires the immediate attention of the House. The test is a high one. Not every ministerial announcement will give grounds for an urgent debate to be held. In fact the setting up of an inquiry rarely justifies an urgent debate. Where an inquiry is reported there may be exceptional circumstances that will justify a debate but even then that is not always the case; I refer members to Speaker’s ruling 177/1. In these circumstances I do not believe that the business of the House ought to be set aside today. The application is therefore declined.
Goodhew Jo: Sittings of the House 
Goodhew Jo: Sittings of the House 
[Volume:655;Page:5086] 
JO GOODHEW (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 Since we have made good progress this evening I seek leave for the House to rise early. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: Leave is sought for the House to rise early. Is anyone opposed to that course of action? There appears to be no opposition. Leave is granted.
Williamson Maurice: Building Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
Williamson Maurice: Building Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
[Volume:655;Page:5077] 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (Minister for Building and Construction) 
: 
 I intend to be terribly brief on my first call and then I will take any questions afterwards. This is quite a small bill but it does three very important things for the building sector. First of all it introduces a new regime called national multiple-use approvals which I think will be welcomed across the nation. It means that volume builders such as Versatile Buildings—I do not want to name companies but there are heaps of them—that build lots and lots of buildings of the same design will be able to apply for a national multiple-use approval certificate for each design. The consent will be attached to the design which means that builders will no longer need to get a consent every time they want to build that design on a property. In other words the design is consented for once only and the company can build it as many times as it likes. That is a fantastic step in the right direction towards reforming the building sector. 
The second major area is around minor variations. This bill differentiates between major and minor variations to consented building work. Every member will know of situations in which people have wanted to move a handbasin to the right and bring the shower to the left bring the toilet block a little further around or move a window slightly away from the shower. What people have found in the past is that because of the rules and regulations they have had to get a consent to get such work done. This bill defines what minor variations are and allows such changes to be made without needing a consent. 
The third and final thing that this bill does is to make it voluntary for an owner to obtain a project information memorandum from a building consent authority—that is the territorial authority. Important information that was previously contained in or attached to a project information memorandum such as the development contributions notice is now accessed through other mechanisms and the project information memorandum is not required. 
In a nutshell this bill does three things and I am pleased to note that there is wide-ranging support for it. I give credit again to Shane Jones who was the author of the bill. The bill allows for a national multiple-use approval so that a design can be consented for once and only once and then people can get on and build it; minor variations will be allowed without a consent; and the project information memorandum will be voluntary rather than mandatory.
Williamson Maurice: Building Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
Williamson Maurice: Building Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
[Volume:655;Page:5077] 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (Minister for Building and Construction) 
: 
 Given that this bill was originally initiated by Shane Jones the Labour member and that the National Government fully supports it and is taking it as a Government bill I seek leave to take the bill as one question. I know that Ms Dyson is shaking her head but there has been an agreement with the Labour whips that we can take the bill as one question and have a wide-ranging debate. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Leave is sought for that. Is there any objection? There being none the bill will be taken as a single question.
Huo Raymond: Insolvency Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Huo Raymond: Insolvency Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:655;Page:5076] 
RAYMOND HUO (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to take a call on Part 1. The bill aims to preserve the integrity of the new no-asset procedure or NAP by preventing the discharge of fraudulent debts and bankruptcy by restoring the official assignee’s ability to recover gifts made by a person prior to bankruptcy. It is however slightly disappointing because I think it would be better to prevent more insolvency in New Zealand not just to tidy up the small number of issues that have arisen since the Insolvency Act 2006. Asians are passionate about addressing cause and effect. This bill deals with effect. At this time of economic downturn it would be necessary and much more helpful for the Government to have a plan to deal with the cause—namely to have some solid economic plan to raise productivity and to prevent insolvency. 
At the Commerce Committee we spent a considerable amount of time deliberating on issues relating to the no-asset procedure. The Privacy Commissioner in her written submission stated very firmly that her primary interest is to ensure that the bill strikes a reasonable and proportionate balance between privacy—the stated purpose of the no-asset procedure—and the changes to bankruptcy and the legitimate need of the public to be informed of those who are subject to insolvency proceedings. 
The no-asset procedure was first introduced in the Insolvency Act 2006 as an alternative to bankruptcy and it involves debts being written off. It has two main purposes: firstly to give individuals a fresh start and secondly to allow individuals to avoid the stigma of bankruptcy. Under the current law individuals are listed on the public register for 1 year. However clause 10(5) requires individuals to be registered for 4 years after their discharge from the no-asset procedure. This extends the period of time that an individual is listed on the public register from 1 year to 5 years. Listings from the register are regularly collected by credit-reporting agencies and included in credit reports. Credit providers prospective employers landlords and insurers underwriting loans can access credit reports. No doubt the longer the listing remains on the public register the longer-lasting the effects on the individual will be. 
It is the view of the Privacy Commissioner that a total of 3 years on the public register for a no-asset procedure debtor would be more consistent with the purposes of the procedure and more proportionate to the period for which individuals are publicly listed following bankruptcy. Otherwise the important distinction between the bankruptcy provisions and the no-asset procedure would be diluted. Labour members believe that there should be further consultation on this part before we proceed to make what are significant changes to the public register provisions. Thank you. 
Part 1 agreed to.
Hague Kevin: Insolvency Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Hague Kevin: Insolvency Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:655;Page:5075] 
KEVIN HAGUE (Green) 
: 
 This is an area of law that touches New Zealanders at a most vulnerable time in their lives. It would therefore have been a helpful development for us to be able to pass this bill with unanimity. It seems that there is just one clause—clause 10(5)—that is standing in the way of us doing that. I invite the Minister this evening to withdraw that clause so that this bill can pass with the unanimous support of all parties. 
I have spoken previously in the House on a couple of occasions about this clause. It seems to me that the intent of the no-asset procedure is one of producing a clean slate. It is an attempt to remediate and move forward in a positive way rather than have the punitive approach of bankruptcy. That approach is best supported by maintaining the 3-year provision 
I have advanced three main arguments for the withdrawal of this clause. The first is the disproportionate effect that the extension of time on the register will have on young people—I am mindful of Clare Curran’s comments tonight—because that is an effect that is punitive in nature. The second objection that the Green Party has raised to this provision is that it provides a perverse incentive in that the difference between the no-asset procedure and bankruptcy is blurred. This is a point that the Privacy Commissioner has drawn to Parliament’s attention. The consequence of that is that a person who is in financial trouble has less incentive to deal with his or her problems and to deal with his or her debt before those problems reach $40000. It means that those people who extend credit may experience a worse problem as a result of this extension of time on the register than they would have experienced otherwise. 
This is not simply a question of as the Minister has said balancing the interests of two parties: those extending credit and those who are in debt. In fact the issue is that by extending the register we compromise the interests of those extending credit. The third and most important point is that one of the consequences of this extended time on the register is that those people who because of that provision will be unable to access mainstream credit will be forced into the arms—or perhaps we should say into the teeth—of loan sharks and disreputable lenders. That leads to a further vicious cycle of undesirable consequences. 
I liked Jonathan Young’s analogy with dominoes. What we do by this apparently simple step of extending time on the register is create vicious cycles. We compound problems and we set the dominoes falling. The Green Party opposes this provision and will oppose this part of the bill.
Power Simon: Insolvency Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Power Simon: Insolvency Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:655;Page:5072] 
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 Part 1 of this bill amends the Insolvency Act in order to prevent the potential discharge of fraudulent debts under the no-asset procedure process. That is an important point to make from the outset and one that I noted that many people commented on during the second reading debate. Rewarding dishonest behaviour was never the intention of the Act and clearly contravenes the fundamental policy objectives of insolvency legislation. The changes proposed would prevent fraudulent debts and any penalties and interest that accrued from being written off and would apply retrospectively to debtors who were in the no-asset procedure process when the bill was introduced in the House. It is an unusual mechanism to apply retrospectively from the date a bill was introduced but in this case it is a necessary one. 
The bill also proposes to empower the official assignee to extend the period of discharge from the no-asset procedure by a maximum of 25 working days. This will allow more time for the official assignee to investigate any late information and creditors’ objections that are received in relation to a person’s entry into that process. 
The bill in Part 1 also proposes to restore the official assignee’s ability to recover gifts made by a bankrupt prior to his or her bankruptcy to avoid payments to creditors. Therein lies the issue of the rights of the creditor. I accept and freely acknowledge that the reason for a different arrangement is that the kind of broader second-chance provisions of this process would allow a debtor further opportunity to carry on business arrangements at some earlier point than bankruptcy would allow and without carrying the stigma of bankruptcy. 
In these economic times dealing with the balance of the interests between the creditor and the debtors is a difficult issue. That is the issue that the Hon Lianne Dalziel and my colleague Katrina Shanks have raised. However as the Commerce Committee itself suggested reliable information about the debtor’s history has to be critical to the creditor’s capacity to make decisions in a business environment with regard to those particular individuals. The ultimate length of time between bankruptcy and the no-asset procedure process will still have a distinction. That is important because the two processes represent two different approaches. But the reason for the increase was to acknowledge in these particular circumstances and economic times the fact that creditors are also entitled to rely on a certain amount of protection and reliability in the information that is available to them when making business decisions. As I say these points are not raised without debate but I think this balance is the right balance and we have erred on the side of caution for the creditors in this case.
Sepuloni Carmel: Disputes Tribunals Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Sepuloni Carmel: Disputes Tribunals Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:655;Page:5066] 
CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour) 
: 
 I am happy to speak on Part 1 of the Disputes Tribunals Amendment Bill. Given the success of the disputes tribunals in gaining the confidence of New Zealanders through the demonstration of their ability to resolve civil disputes it makes sense to enable them to resolve cases of a higher value. We on this side of the Chamber recognise that there is a gap between cases that can be heard in the disputes tribunals and those that are viable to be taken to the District Court. A number of cases were deemed as not worth taking to the District Court due to the increased costs associated with District Court proceedings or because people felt that they should not pursue their claim. The alternative was for claimants to reduce their claim so as to have it heard at a disputes tribunal. Hopefully the amendments to this bill will result in better access to justice particularly for individuals but also for small businesses. 
Clause 4 in Part 1 states that at present the tribunal generally has jurisdiction only if the maximum amount of the claim does not exceed $7500. The amendment increases that amount to $15000. The exception to the general rule in section 10 of the Disputes Tribunals Act 1988 is where the parties agree otherwise. Clause 5 amends section 13(2) of the principal Act which relates to the extension of the tribunals’ jurisdiction by agreement. At present where both parties consent the jurisdiction of the tribunals may be extended to deal with claims up to a maximum amount of $12000. The amendment increases that amount to $20000. 
By amending section 13 we are providing more effective access to justice and this can only be good. Hopefully it will close the gap between those cases that can be heard in the disputes tribunals and those that are viable to be taken to the District Court. The changes should result in fewer cases where claimants are faced with a choice of reducing their claim facing the increased costs associated with District Court proceedings or not pursuing the claim at all. The amendment will improve access to the disputes tribunals for individuals and small businesses and will reduce the costs that individuals and small businesses face when resolving civil disputes by enabling a larger number of cases to fall within the jurisdiction of the disputes tribunals. 
The increase to the maximum claim levels will enable an increased number of New Zealanders to resolve their civil disputes in a simple cheap fast and less formal forum. The tribunal will continue to operate on its current basis balancing the required protections for parties against the need to provide simple cheap and fast access to justice. 
The other additional benefit to this amendment is that it will hopefully take off some of the pressure that has been placed on our District Courts. Thank you Mr Chair. 
Part 1 agreed to.
Quinn Paul: Disputes Tribunals Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Quinn Paul: Disputes Tribunals Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:655;Page:5066] 
PAUL QUINN (National) 
: 
 I intend to take a very short call on Part 1 of the Disputes Tribunals Amendment Bill because I think the Committee is pretty much in agreement. Given the mirth of Opposition members last night when I followed the Minister of Justice after he moved the second reading and I said that this bill was based on National Party policy but when I was cried down because Opposition members said that it was not I have in my hand the National Party policy statement from last year dated 22 October 2008 which I will read: “To help relieve this pressure on district courts National will in turn allow more civil cases to be heard by the Disputes Tribunal.” In fact in a speech made by the Prime Minister earlier this year he confirmed that we would be progressing this legislation simply because it would remove another roadblock in that first it would free up the courts and also it would reduce costs. Up to 3600 cases a year will now be transferred out of the courts and into the much more friendly disputes tribunals. I think it is important that that be stated for the record. 
The other comment I am forced to make is in response to the previous speaker Charles Chauvel. If I heard him right he criticised Ms Adams for setting out the increased levels of the value of claims that can be dealt with on the basis that other jurisdictions to use his terminology have much lower levels in similar cases. It is ironic that in this case he is obviously promoting the concept of being a fast follower whereas in many other fields he takes great pride in trying to promote the fact that this Government should be a global leader. Now that we are in fact a global leader he does not like it. I find that ironic. Climate change comes to mind but there are other examples where a more cautious approach might be appropriate although the member does not seem to think so. 
With those few words I join others in commending the Committee to support this part.
Power Simon: Disputes Tribunals Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Power Simon: Disputes Tribunals Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:655;Page:5064] 
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 The discussion on Part 1 of the Disputes Tribunals Amendment Bill is likely to be the most extensive discussion in relation to the bill and I imagine that this is where the Committee will spend the bulk of its considerable time on this short bill. Part 1 is in effect the part that increases the maximum levels that are able to be claimed in the disputes tribunal from $7500 to $15000 or from $12000 to $20000 with the consent of both parties. This bill has had a speedy passage through the House and I am hopeful that the Committee of the whole House will see that speed continue. 
Amy Adams gave an overview of what Part 1 does and she did that pretty thoroughly. I will add only one or two points. The first is that this bill reflects a promise that the National Party made at election 2008 that we would increase the jurisdiction of the tribunal. Second the bill is a response to those matters to try to lift some of the heat of the recession off businesses that are keen to pursue disputes through this tribunal in a way that will keep costs as low as possible. I commend Parts 1 and 2 and all three questions to the Committee of the whole House.
Robertson Grant: Port Nicholson Block (Taranaki Whanui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika) Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee 
Robertson Grant: Port Nicholson Block (Taranaki Whanui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika) Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:655;Page:5061] 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 I want to make just a very brief contribution on the Port Nicholson Block (Taranaki Whanui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika) Claims Settlement Bill and perhaps to ask the Minister in the chair a question around the issue of the former town belt land that may be affected by this settlement package. 
The Maori Affairs Committee’s report back to the House notes that some submitters raised concerns about the inclusion of former town belt land in the bill and about how the right of first refusal mechanism on which my colleague Mr Quinn has just given a focused contribution— 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: About Whakatane. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: About Whakatane; that is correct. I want to clarify with the Minister whether the statement that the select committee has made in the commentary on the bill reflects his understanding of that matter. The committee has said its understanding is that “the bill provides for ‘Right of First Refusal for 100 years’ and that agencies owning land which is subject to the right of first refusal may offer the land to a local authority in accordance with section 50 of the Public Works Act 1981. Upon such a transfer the local authority for example”—and indeed it is the example—“the Wellington City Council would take on the right of first refusal obligation to Taranaki Whanui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika.” I want to clarify with the Minister that that fits with his understanding. 
There is an ongoing process which I talked about in my second reading speech in terms of the town belt land. A private bill is being worked on by the Wellington City Council and I am assisting it with that. The bill will clarify issues around the town belt how it is managed exactly what it is and how land is added to it or perhaps removed from it where necessary. Obviously there is a key role for Taranaki Whanui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika in that particular process and I am hopeful that they will be acknowledged in the bill itself in terms of that role and its importance. The Minister may choose to take a call just to confirm that the select committee’s understanding as articulated in the commentary on the bill is correct because I think that would provide some assurance. 
Whatever the case may be there will be ongoing dialogue between the Wellington City Council and Taranaki Whanui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika. I am also participating in and helping to facilitate that dialogue and I am sure that at the end of that process we will see an outcome that protects the town belt the green space that the people of Wellington so love but that also ensures that Taranaki Whanui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika will have a say in its ongoing protection.
Parata Hekia: Port Nicholson Block (Taranaki Whanui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika) Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee 
Parata Hekia: Port Nicholson Block (Taranaki Whanui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika) Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:655;Page:5060] 
HEKIA PARATA (National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Motion agreed to. 
Part 2 agreed to.
Henare Tau: Port Nicholson Block (Taranaki Whanui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika) Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee 
Henare Tau: Port Nicholson Block (Taranaki Whanui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika) Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:655;Page:5053] 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 I will speak for just a couple of minutes about clauses 21 22 23 24 and so on about the Department of Conservation and the fisheries protocols. I think it is absolutely necessary to focus on clauses 21 and 22 at least about some of the protocols that have to be put in place. I suppose it goes to the heart of how a Treaty settlement is more complex than Joe Public and Mrs Joe Public think it is. Throughout Part 2 members will see protocols for this protocols for that protocols for the Department of Conservation and protocols between the fisheries and the signatories who are the other half in the settlement. It raises one issue—for me anyway. With all the resources parked up on the Crown side it is quite easy for the Crown to figure out what protocols may or may not be in the bill and agreed with. But the other side does not have all those resources. It is not a complaint but it is an issue that I think is necessary to be raised when we are talking about Part 2. 
There are issues about the statutory acknowledgments and issues about jurisdictions having regard to statutory acknowledgments so it is quite an involved part of the bill. I quietly say not in a rant and not in a rave that in future more recognition should go to the fact that the other side iwi does not have at its disposal all of the skills and tools—I hate to say “resources”—that the Crown has at its disposal. Just off the bat we have a couple of officials here in the Chamber today who are very very expert in what they do. But the other side has to call on whomever is around whomever is part of the negotiating team and whomever the other side may think has skills. Maybe in future there might be a better use of the Crown’s resources for the other side as well. 
This is not a litigation. This is not one side versus the other; this is really about the two sides trying to come to some agreement. I suggest that in future the working out of any protocols and any statutory acknowledgments be done in a more bipartisan way trying to get to a deal rather than one side trying to get the up on the other; I say that regardless of who is trying to get above the other. I just make that point for future reference.
Tisch Lindsay: Port Nicholson Block (Taranaki Whanui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika) Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee 
Tisch Lindsay: Port Nicholson Block (Taranaki Whanui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika) Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:655;Page:5053] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The debate on this part includes schedules 2 and 3.
Finlayson Christopher: Port Nicholson Block (Taranaki Whanui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika) Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee 
Finlayson Christopher: Port Nicholson Block (Taranaki Whanui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika) Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:655;Page:5038] 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 I take a preliminary call to address the report of the Maori Affairs Committee on the Port Nicholson Block (Taranaki Whanui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika) Claims Settlement Bill and to thank its members again for their work. In particular I will address the part of the report that is headed “Ngati Tama opt-out clause”. I particularly want to refer to clause 8(1) where there has been an amendment. Clause 8(1) states: “This section is subject to clause 8.2.3 of the deed of settlement as at the date of the deed of settlement.” 
Clause 8 of the bill defines Taranaki Whanui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika as a collective of iwi who descend from one or more ancestors from Te Atiawa Ngati Tama Taranaki Ngati Ruanui and other iwi from the Taranaki area for example Ngati Mutunga; who also descend from one of the signatories of the 1839 deed of purchase; or who are beneficiaries of the Wellington Tenths Trust. Importantly as can be seen from clause 8(1) the definition links the bill to clause 8.2.3 of the deed of settlement which provides that all persons who descend from a Ngati Tama tupuna fall within the definition of Taranaki Whanui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika unless they choose to have their historical claim settled by another group with a Crown-recognised mandate and that should a settlement negotiated by that other group with a Crown-recognised mandate become unconditional those persons will to the extent that they rely on descent from a Ngati Tama tupuna be excluded from this legislation. 
The committee expressed some concern about that clause. It described the clause as was referred to in the second reading last night as “an unhappy exception to the Crown’s practice of dealing with large natural groupings” and it did not recommend the use of such opt-out clauses in the future. I agree with that view. The clause is a very unusual measure and it is an exception to the Crown’s policy of settling with large natural groups. The inclusion of the clause was not a decision that was taken lightly and was made after numerous attempts at reconciliation. I am sure Mr Ririnui will be able to provide some of the background because he was Associate Minister in Charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations at the time and did a sterling job of trying to achieve that reconciliation. I have to say if asked whether I would agree to such an approach in future negotiations which I am responsible for the answer would have to be in the negative. 
I think the committee correctly addressed an important issue in the context of a reasonably innocent-looking clause 8. It is one that I am prepared to live with in this legislation but I hope we do not see anything like it again.
Borrows Chester: General Debate 
Borrows Chester: General Debate 
[Volume:655;Page:5032] 
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is in respect of the comments made by the previous speaker the Hon David Parker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It must be to do with order. Is it a matter of order? 
CHESTER BORROWS 
: It is to do with a matter of order I believe. I will stand corrected if that turns out not to be the case according to your ruling. It has been settled that the member is quite at liberty to call Don Brash a liar according to the rules of speech within this House. I ask for your ruling on this matter. I ask whether it is a matter of fairness that if anyone was to refer to the previous speaker the Hon David Parker and for instance his company return that he filed that incorrectly stated— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I urge the member to be very careful. He is introducing matter that is not a matter of order. I think I hear the gist of where the member is going with his point and I do not think that we should take this matter any further. I believe that when members risk disrespecting the freedom of speech we have in this House it can lead to disorder. That is something we should think very carefully about. But as I said I will uphold members’ rights within this House to say what they believe where they are speaking about members outside of the House. That is something that I will do but I ask members to think carefully.
Henare Tau: General Debate 
Henare Tau: General Debate 
[Volume:655;Page:5031] 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 I seek leave under Standing Order 349 to make a personal explanation with regards to what the Hon Darren Hughes referred to in his point of order. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for the member to make a personal explanation. Is there any objection to that? There is none. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: I want to put on record the other bit of the story that the Hon Darren Hughes gave about Mr Reich. At that time there was great debate around the country about the pronunciation of Maori names— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: That’s not personal. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Hang on! That member has given leave. What bugged me no end was the continued mispronunciation of my name. I think that one needs to put my comments into that context in order to read the whole issue that the Hon Darren Hughes raised. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: When members seek leave to make personal explanations they have to be careful to make sure that they are personal. That was very much on the margins.
Cosgrove Clayton: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Cosgrove Clayton: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:655;Page:5019] 
11. Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
 to the  
Minister for State Owned Enterprises 
: Does he agree with NZX Chief Executive Mark Weldon that State-owned enterprises should act as if they face part-privatisation in 2 to 5 years? 
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister for State Owned Enterprises) 
: 
 No. This Government campaigned on a policy of not privatising State assets this term. If the member wants to accuse the Government of preparing State-owned enterprises for sale he should cast his mind back to 1 April 1987 when Labour corporatised nine State agencies in a single day. That was when the “fresh face of Labour” the Hon Phil Goff was in Cabinet and  
Miami Vice 
 was on TV.  
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Does the Minister really expect New Zealanders to believe that such comments from Mark Weldon the Minister’s own demands on State-owned enterprises to increase profits Treasury’s call for privatisation the Prime Minister’s admission that privatisation may well be on the agenda after the election and the appointment of Don Brash to head a productivity task force are all a coincidence or does the Minister agree that New Zealanders are smart enough to know that if it looks like privatisation sounds like privatisation and smells like privatisation then it probably is privatisation? 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: In answer to the first question yes because public ownership is not a reason to accept poor financial performance from our State-owned enterprises. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Will the Minister now categorically deny that State-owned enterprises like Meridian Energy are being prepared for privatisation should the National Party was to win a second term? 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: Firstly no State-owned enterprise is being prepared for privatisation. Secondly I am surprised the member is so quick to concede the next election. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Has he or any other shareholding Minister written to Crown research institutes or State-owned enterprises to ask them to explain why their functions could not be better performed by the private sector and to detail areas that could be contracted to the private sector? 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: I have no responsibility for Crown research institutes but I certainly do not recall penning a letter to State-owned enterprises along the lines that the member has outlined.
Wagner Nicky: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Wagner Nicky: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:655;Page:5014] 
6. NICKY WAGNER (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: What reports has he received concerning the delivery of cardiac services in New Zealand? 
Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health) 
: 
 I have seen several reports particularly one on cardiac surgery in New Zealand from 2002 to 2008 that was prepared for the previous Government. Over that 5-year period total cardiac operations in New Zealand fell by 9 percent despite population growth of around 6 percent. At the same time Auckland cardiac discharges fell by 14 percent despite population growth in Auckland of around 10 percent. These reports reveal how seriously inadequate the delivery of cardiac surgery had become delivering 25 to 45 percent fewer cardiac operations than other comparable countries. 
Nicky Wagner 
: What steps has the new Government taken to help turn round this decline in the number of patients who got heart surgery under Labour? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: The new Government has recently announced two decisions both of which will have positive impacts on cardiac surgery. Firstly it has been announced that around $5 million extra will be paid to the Auckland District Health Board to provide cardiac operations for over 100 heart patients who were waiting beyond the clinically safe time. Many of these patients have now received their surgery. Secondly we have announced the creation of our first clinical network the National Cardiac Clinical Network. We need better planning to improve the rates and availability of heart surgery in New Zealand and the best people to do that are the experts in this area: the cardiac surgeons and nurses and their teams. 
Nicky Wagner 
: What other reports has he seen in relation to addressing the fall in rates of cardiac surgery? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: Four weeks before last year’s election the then Minister of Health Mr Cunliffe announced a plan to put in an extra $50 million to lift cardiac performance in New Zealand over 4 years. The $50 million came from a range of cuts to other programmes in the health budget. Would members opposite when in Government cut money from cardiovascular disease programmes? Surely not! But over $3 million was cut. Would they cut the mobile surgical bus budget? Surely not! But $2 million was cut. And would they cut the funding pool for people with disabling chronic medical conditions? Surely not! But $10 million was cut.
Garrett David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Garrett David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:655;Page:5007] 
1. DAVID GARRETT (ACT) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: What proportion of persons currently incarcerated are in prison for non-violent offences? 
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I am advised today that of the 6521 sentenced prisoners in custody today the most serious offence for 2633 or 40.4 percent of them was non-violent. In terms of that classification or categorisation all sexual offences have been classified as violent offences for the purpose of that answer. 
David Garrett 
: Does the Minister agree that for criminals guilty of serious violence the only appropriate and safe penalty is a term of imprisonment? 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: Prison is the only place for serious violent offenders and that is why we are making it harder for the worst repeat violent offenders to get parole. However violent offences can describe a very wide range of conduct from murder to common assault which may be as minor as a shove or the use of threatening language. I expect that judges will make the appropriate distinctions here. 
Rahui Katene 
: What progress has been achieved in implementing Ombudsman Mel Smith’s 2007 recommendation that a royal commission of inquiry was urgently required to undertake a comprehensive review of the criminal justice system? 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: This Government has already set itself an ambitious and comprehensive programme to reform the criminal justice system. We started by addressing public safety concerns and enhancing victims’ rights. We have then moved to a discussion and hopefully legislation by the end of this year in the area of simplification of the criminal justice system. We are reviewing legal aid. There is more to come. 
David Garrett 
: Does he agree that repeat violent offenders endlessly recycled by the Department of Corrections constitute an undue risk to the safety of society; if so will he be supporting ACT’s “three strikes” law which solely targets that type of offender? 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: All violent offenders pose a risk to society. As I have said to the member both in this House and privately we will continue to have those discussions in good faith as we have over recent weeks and months. 
Rahui Katene 
: What work is being advanced to address the fact that criminal justice data shows that Maori are overrepresented at every stage of the criminal justice process and that they are more likely to be apprehended prosecuted convicted and sentenced to imprisonment? 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: I would also add that Maori are overrepresented as victims of crime. The overrepresentation of Maori in the criminal justice system was a specific focus of the joint ministerial meeting on the drivers of crime and I intend to announce the first steps in addressing those drivers in the coming month or two.
Sittings of the House 
Sittings of the House 
[Volume:655;Page:5086] 
Sittings of the House 
JO GOODHEW (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 Since we have made good progress this evening I seek leave for the House to rise early. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: Leave is sought for the House to rise early. Is anyone opposed to that course of action? There appears to be no opposition. Leave is granted.
Urgent Debates Declined — Taskforce 2025—Establishment and Appointment of Dr Don Brash 
Urgent Debates Declined — Taskforce 2025—Establishment and Appointment of Dr Don Brash 
[Volume:655;Page:5021] 
Urgent Debates Declined 
Taskforce 2025—Establishment and Appointment of Dr Don Brash 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from the Hon David Parker seeking to debate under Standing Order 380 the Government’s announcement of the establishment of the 2025 Taskforce and the appointment of Dr Don Brash to chair the task force. The establishment of the task force and the appointment of its chairperson is a case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility. But I am not persuaded that it requires the immediate attention of the House. The test is a high one. Not every ministerial announcement will give grounds for an urgent debate to be held. In fact the setting up of an inquiry rarely justifies an urgent debate. Where an inquiry is reported there may be exceptional circumstances that will justify a debate but even then that is not always the case; I refer members to Speaker’s ruling 177/1. In these circumstances I do not believe that the business of the House ought to be set aside today. The application is therefore declined.
Guy Nathan: Sittings of the House 
Guy Nathan: Sittings of the House 
[Volume:652;Page:1469] 
NATHAN GUY (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 The House has made very good progress this afternoon and this evening and I seek leave for the House to rise a little bit earlier this evening. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Leave is sought for the House to rise. Is there any objection? There is no objection.
Urgency 
Urgency 
[Volume:652;Page:1419] 
Urgency 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That urgency be accorded the introduction and first reading of the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill and the Children Young Persons and Their Families (Youth Courts Jurisdiction and Orders) Amendment Bill.  
These two bills are important to the Government. They each have different effects. One of the bills should it be passed will enable the courts to put stronger parole conditions on those appearing before them particularly where violent offences are involved. The other bill will give the Youth Court a lot more flexibility in the way in which it may ask young people to engage in corrective activity. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That urgency be accorded. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 52 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9. 
Motion agreed to.