edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Vote: Building Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Building Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:645;Page:14758] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 48; Independent: Copeland. 
Clause 1 agreed to.
Vote: Building Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Building Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:645;Page:14758] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 48; Independent: Copeland. 
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clarkson Bob: Building Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Clarkson Bob: Building Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:645;Page:14757] 
BOB CLARKSON (National—Tauranga) 
: 
 What a mess the Building Amendment Bill is. The bill states that licensed building practitioners must carry out or supervise restricted building work. What a neat way to put up housing costs! Tradesmen and carpenters will now have to pay $2000 to become a licensed practitioner—not the $300 quoted by various bureaucrats. Where does the Minister think this $2000 will go? It will be added to the price of a house. Two thousand dollars might not be much but when one adds on hold-ups the costs of getting permits which are going up and much other bureaucratic rubbish one sees that the price of a house is getting out of the reach of the middle to low income New Zealander. 
We have seen some major problems in many areas in building. Councils are getting loaded up with bureaucratic demands from Wellington. We have to take the pressure off councils otherwise permit charges will keep rising. 
The Minister talked about leaky homes and what caused them. He has it all wrong. Tradesmen and carpenters did not cause leaky homes; the Building Industry Authority was the main party at fault. It is as simple as that. 
Tradesmen and carpenters do not need to be licensed; we need better inspectors and better approval for materials. I believe that at the moment there are only three approved materials used in the building of houses. I say to the Minister that he should wake up and work out what the problem is first and then he will be able to fix the problem. 
DIY builders have not been clearly dealt with in these amendments or in building legislation. What can they do? The Minister should not tell me that they cannot build a house. Norm Kirk—Labour’s friend—would turn in his grave. He built his own house of course. New Zealanders should be able to dream and achieve. They should be able to build their own house. If they build their own house then any inspections by good inspectors should pick up whether they are doing anything wrong. Some of the best houses I have seen were built by DIY people—and they did a damn good job. 
Again I say to the Government that it should wake up find the problem and bring out a policy that fixes the problem. The Government has now had four goes at changing this bill and it is still not fixed. I do not hold much hope of the Minister getting it right in the future. I say to Shane Jones that I would like to help him but he is in the wrong party. The Government should steer people and councils in New Zealand; they should not control people and councils. I say to New Zealanders that they should be patient; the National Party is coming. Subject closed.
Fairbrother Russell: Building Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Fairbrother Russell: Building Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:645;Page:14758] 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Vote: Building Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Building Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:645;Page:14758] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 48; Independent: Copeland. 
Motion agreed to.
Moroney Sue: Building Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Moroney Sue: Building Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:645;Page:14757] 
SUE MORONEY (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Smith Nick: Building Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Smith Nick: Building Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:645;Page:14752] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I seek leave to table the statement from the Wellington City Council that the forms required for a standard home under this Building Act have increased from three A3 plans to 12 and from 20 pages of documentation to 200 pages of documentation. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Leave has been sought for that course to be followed. Is there any objection? There is.
Smith Nick: Building Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Smith Nick: Building Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:645;Page:14752] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I seek leave to table the document from the Dunedin City Council announcing a 67 percent increase in the building consent fees in Dunedin City in response to the Government’s Building Act. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Leave is sought for that course to be followed. Is there any objection? There is.
Smith Nick: Building Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Smith Nick: Building Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:645;Page:14752] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I seek leave to table the statement from the Tasman District Council about increasing its building consent fees by 36 percent in response to the Government’s building legislation. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Leave has been sought for that course to be followed. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Smith Nick: Building Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Smith Nick: Building Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:645;Page:14752] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 In the Minister’s contribution he questioned the figures I had used in my speech and he used quite derogatory language to describe them. I seek leave to table the statement by the Nelson City Council dated 28 February which states that building consent fees in Nelson City would need to increase by 50 percent. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Leave is sought for that course to be followed. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Power Simon: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Power Simon: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:645;Page:14739] 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 I note the Minister of Police is not in the House this afternoon. I seek leave to have this question held over until she returns. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Fenton Darien: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Fenton Darien: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:645;Page:14739] 
6.  
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Women’s Affairs 
: What steps has the Government taken to improve the well-being and status of women in New Zealand? 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK (Minister of Women’s Affairs) 
: 
 The Government has taken lots of steps. Since 1999 we have improved the well-being and position of women by introducing 14 weeks’ paid parental leave 20 hours’ free early childhood education Working for Families and 4 weeks’ annual leave. This Saturday this Labour-led Government celebrated the successes with hundreds of women as we marked 100 years of International Working Women’s Day. 
Darien Fenton 
: What support has the Minister received for such initiatives? 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK 
: These initiatives have improved the lives of New Zealand families. One group though has steadfastly refused to support these initiatives. It has consistently opposed the well-being of women by voting against the introduction of paid parental leave now reaching over 100000 families; Working for Families which will benefit 360000 families; 4 weeks’ annual leave; and 70000 3 and 4-year-olds getting 20 hours’ free early childhood education. However these initiatives have been so popular that National has again been forced to flip-flop over them but women and families in New Zealand want to know what National’s position is. 
Darien Fenton 
: Has she received any recent reports on the future of the agency established to advocate for women the Ministry of Women’s Affairs? 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK 
: I have. I have received two reports and I am really not sure which one to take seriously. One states that the Ministry of Women’s Affairs needs to go altogether; it calls it “a sexist relic”. Another advocates for the complete opposite stating that the Ministry of Women’s Affairs could be doing so much more than at present. Those two statements come from the two Opposition spokespeople. Is National in favour of a voice for women or not?
Swain Paul: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Swain Paul: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:645;Page:14735] 
2.  
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Labour—Rimutaka) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What reports has he received on the impact of increasing Government debt? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I have seen various reports calling for an increase in gross Crown debt to 25 percent of GDP. These come from Mr John Key. Lifting Crown debt to 25 percent of GDP would cost an extra $700 million a year in finance costs alone. We would rather spend that money on health education and infrastructure than on debt servicing to largely overseas lenders. 
Hon Paul Swain 
: Has he received any alternative reports on appropriate levels of Government debt? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Yes. I saw a report in the Christchurch  
Press 
 on Saturday from Mr English which stated that lifting gross Crown debt to 25 percent of GDP “has never been one of our policies”. If raising debt has never been National policy then Mr English must ask Mr Key to stop promoting it or perhaps Mr English has simply learnt earlier than the rest of us to take little notice of Mr Key’s pronouncements. 
Hon Bill English 
: If the Minister of Finance is so sure of his record about Government debt then what does he make of the figures on page 57 of his half-year update that show gross sovereign issued debt excluding settlement cash increasing from $30.89 billion in 2007 to over $33 billion forecast for 2008; if he is increasing Government debt by $2.4 billion then what is he spending it on? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: That is still below 20 percent of GDP and as the member well knows that is gross and includes for example the cash held by the Reserve Bank. 
Hon Bill English 
: Is the Minister not aware that the half-year update changed the definition to exclude Reserve Bank settlement cash; and can he answer the original question which was if the Government debt is forecast to rise by $2.4 billion then is he spending that to fund the company tax cut the technology fund announced today or some spending increases that he has not told us about yet? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: What I would like the member to tell us is whether he opposes the Government tax cut or opposes the money going into the fund for primary sector research. What that member has to tell the House is whether $33 billion is less than 20 percent of GDP. Can he do the sums? And the answer is: “Yes it is.”
Henare Tau: Affiliate Te Arawa Iwi and Hapu Claims Settlement Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
Henare Tau: Affiliate Te Arawa Iwi and Hapu Claims Settlement Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
[Volume:650;Page:18937] 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 So by virtue of that does that mean we have a new ruling which will end up in  
Speakers’ Rulings  
somewhere so that in future people can refer to that ruling? That is just a question; I am not trying to hold things up. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: That is fine. I think what the Minister said was quite clear and there is also Speaker’s ruling 110/2: “An amendment that purports to amend an agreement reached between the Crown and other parties is out of order in a bill to give effect to that agreement.” This is a bill to give effect to an agreement. One of the parties—the Crown—does not agree with the amendments and that is about as far as we can take it. The Committee is constrained when dealing with settlement bills as I have explained before. Amendments that affect the terms of the deed have to be ruled out of order and I have done that. Thank you Mr Henare. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
Clause 2 agreed to. 
Bill reported with amendment. 
Report adopted.
Cullen Michael: Affiliate Te Arawa Iwi and Hapu Claims Settlement Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
Cullen Michael: Affiliate Te Arawa Iwi and Hapu Claims Settlement Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
[Volume:650;Page:18937] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 I think if one looks at clause 3(b) of the Affiliate Te Arawa Iwi and Hapu Claims Settlement Bill one to some extent finds the answer in there in that it states the purpose of the legislation is to give effect to certain provisions of the deed of settlement. Of course the Crown and the Te Arawa affiliate are the parties to that deed. The Crown certainly does not support the amendments. If the amendments are moved that would then render the bill inconsistent with the purpose clause which in fact has already been passed at this point since it was included in Part 1. So it seems to me that at this point apart from anything else the amendments would be ruled out as being inconsistent with the provisions the Committee has already agreed to.
Flavell Te Ururoa: Affiliate Te Arawa Iwi and Hapu Claims Settlement Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
Flavell Te Ururoa: Affiliate Te Arawa Iwi and Hapu Claims Settlement Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
[Volume:650;Page:18937] 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 The Hon Georgina te Heuheu has reminded me of one other thing and I place it before the Minister. As I understand it Ngati Wahiao is not registered with Te Pumautanga o Te Arawa; Tuhourangi has been registered with Te Pumautanga o Te Arawa; thus the importance I suppose of raising this issue. I just raise this because I understood that Ngati Wahiao has been separated out; it has not become an affiliate in its own right because of its desire to stand aside. That was a part of the court cases a couple of years ago. The information that I have received is that up until recently for all intents and purposes there was a desire to make sure that Ngati Wahiao’s interests were set aside and they have not been brought into the collective. 
That position was emphasised in terms of the vote around the participation in the Whakarewarewa thermal village vesting bill where there were two votes: the first was for Tuhourangi which was affiliated and had a register and the second was for Ngati Wahiao which did it by attendance at the marae. That is my understanding of the issue but I seek clarification from the Minister. It certainly places this issue before the Committee together with the significance of the Supplementary Order Papers that I have tabled. It is easy enough to say that Ngati Wahiao can deal with it at some point in time but if on the face of it they are not a part of Te Pumautanga collective if you like except by coupling up in this particular way then for all intents and purposes I understood they had shall we say fought it all the way. I am hoping that the advice given by the officials might give me some clarity around that issue.
Henare Tau: Affiliate Te Arawa Iwi and Hapu Claims Settlement Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
Henare Tau: Affiliate Te Arawa Iwi and Hapu Claims Settlement Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
[Volume:650;Page:18937] 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I have a question about the ruling out of the amendments and I thought I would bring it up now. I have looked through the  
Speakers’ Rulings 
 and the Standing Orders and if you can point me in the direction of either a Speaker’s ruling or Standing Order that deals with that then that would help me a lot. I know there is ruling about a financial veto and that is fine—I know where to find that. But I cannot seem to find the Standing Order or Speaker’s ruling that rules out an amendment in a Treaty bill. If the Chairperson could help us out I would be much obliged.
Cullen Michael: Affiliate Te Arawa Iwi and Hapu Claims Settlement Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
Cullen Michael: Affiliate Te Arawa Iwi and Hapu Claims Settlement Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
[Volume:650;Page:18937] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 I am advised that Te Rununga o Ngati Whaoa has affiliated as a single trust to Te Pumautanga o Te Arawa. In fact there may be another body. That is not unusual in these matters as I am sure the member recognises.
Cullen Michael: Affiliate Te Arawa Iwi and Hapu Claims Settlement Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
Cullen Michael: Affiliate Te Arawa Iwi and Hapu Claims Settlement Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
[Volume:650;Page:18936] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 I will respond briefly to the point raised by the member. It is expected that the bulk of this bill—that is the parts relating to the great part of the settlement—comes into force on 2 July 2009. It may seem a long way away. The reason is that the Central North Island Forests Land Collective Settlement Act has to comes into force first on 1 July. The reason for that time-gap is to allow time for the necessary survey work to be done in relation to the Crown forest lands.
Paraone Pita: Affiliate Te Arawa Iwi and Hapu Claims Settlement Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
Paraone Pita: Affiliate Te Arawa Iwi and Hapu Claims Settlement Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
[Volume:650;Page:18936] 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
: 
 I am taking just a brief call in regard to the title and the commencement. I believe that the title is an apt one because it gives due regard to all those hapu and iwi who affiliate to this settlement irrespective of some of the concerns that some of us have expressed in regard to the names of the respective iwi and hapu who are part of this affiliate and some concerns expressed by submitters that the names should be separated to give separate identities to those respective iwi. As I have mentioned before in this debate I do not think it is the responsibility of this House to address an issue that clearly should rightly remain with the people who are affiliates of Te Arawa whether they be hapu or iwi. I feel very strongly about that notwithstanding that I do appreciate the concerns that submitters raised. 
But I think as we have addressed all the settlements and in particular this one we have given due recognition to and acknowledged the leadership that has been exercised by those who have led this process with the Crown. I believe that the issues we have been talking about in regard to separate identities of the separation or uncoupling—which is the word that is commonly used—of particular iwi are for the leadership of those respective iwi and hapu to deal with. 
To that end I would like to say on behalf of New Zealand First that we certainly support the title. It is an apt title. It recognises all those iwi and hapu who wish to affiliate to this settlement. Kia ora.
Henare Tau: Affiliate Te Arawa Iwi and Hapu Claims Settlement Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
Henare Tau: Affiliate Te Arawa Iwi and Hapu Claims Settlement Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
[Volume:650;Page:18934] 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 “The Parliament of New Zealand therefore enacts as follows: … This Act is the Affiliate Te Arawa Iwi and Hapu Claims Settlement Act 2008.” I again impress on people that I have huge difficulty with the coupling of what I think are two different entities—Tuhourangi and Ngati Wahaio. Either one is Te Arawa iwi or both are Te Arawa iwi or both are hapu. As far as I am concerned they are separate entities. Their whakapapa is separate they live in separate areas and just because an act of God led to one group moving to live somewhere else does not mean they are one and the same. Although National members did not support the amendments and I understand clearly the reasons that the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations moved them I think that what we are doing here is an injustice to Ngati Wahiao—and I say that with all due respect to Te Arawa. 
I must declare a bit of a conflict of interest in terms of my children. Their mother is of Te Arawa descent. I had better declare that conflict quick smart. 
This is the first time that I have seen two different entities specifically put together in settlement legislation. We have done the Tuwharetoa ki Kawerau settlement; that group is specific to one area and does not include the whole of Tuwharetoa. I have never seen a coupling of what I consider to be two different pods of— 
Hon Member 
: Wakas. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: No not two different wakas because they came off the same one. But members get my gist. 
I think it is quite telling that the title is “Affiliate Te Arawa Iwi and Hapu Claims Settlement Bill”. The way I see it through my urban Maori eyes if Tuhourangi is an iwi under the Te Arawa affiliate and Ngati Wahiao is a hapu then they have to be separate—they have to be. They cannot be together. They have never been together. If Ngati Wahiao is an iwi then surely they must be separate from Tuhourangi. To my way of thinking the title gives the game away. I have been known to refer to it before as mana-munching and some not-so-kind terms but I really do think that somebody is being hard done by through this process. I do not for 1 minute think it is the Government’s fault or that the Government set out to do it. 
I stand to air my concerns arising from the select committee hearings in Rotorua. I have some major concerns. Maybe we will be lucky and this matter will not come back to bite us on the proverbial; maybe my concerns are just a figment of my imagination. Let us hope so.
Finlayson Christopher: Affiliate Te Arawa Iwi and Hapu Claims Settlement Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
Finlayson Christopher: Affiliate Te Arawa Iwi and Hapu Claims Settlement Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
[Volume:650;Page:18932] 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
: 
 I will take a brief call on Part 4. I do not intend to say much about Subpart 1 which deals with the “Transfer of commercial redress properties”. These properties are defined by clause 10 as meaning “the licensed land” and “a deferred selection property”. That is all in order and can be supported. 
Subpart 2 deals with “Licensed land and MAF forest land” and a couple of amendments are proposed by Supplementary Order Paper 250. I referred to these in my second reading speech. The first of these which the National Party supports is the proposal to include a new clause 130A so that where land has been transferred public access will continue. This issue arose a couple of times both in relation to this bill and the bill we will shortly debate. It simply states that “Clause 6.2 of the Crown forestry licence (which relates to public entry for recreational purposes) continues to apply even though the Crown is no longer the licensor under the licence …”. Clause 130B will be inserted by the same Supplementary Order Paper to ensure that public right of way easements may be granted. There is a reference to various provisions of the Crown Forest Assets Act and there is nothing in there that I need detain the Committee on. We are happy with Subpart 2. 
Subpart 3 deals with the “Right of access to protected sites” which are also defined and that is all as it should be. The National Party supports those provisions as well. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 250 in the name of the Hon Dr Michael Cullen to Part 4 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to. 
Part 4 as amended agreed to.
Simich Clem: Affiliate Te Arawa Iwi and Hapu Claims Settlement Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
Simich Clem: Affiliate Te Arawa Iwi and Hapu Claims Settlement Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
[Volume:650;Page:18932] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: The debate on Part 4 includes schedule 7.
te Heuheu Georgina: Affiliate Te Arawa Iwi and Hapu Claims Settlement Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
te Heuheu Georgina: Affiliate Te Arawa Iwi and Hapu Claims Settlement Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
[Volume:650;Page:18932] 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) 
: 
 Part 3 deals with “Cultural redress properties and other properties” and that is of course a very important part of a settlement. As all members of the House will understand as we have been on this Treaty settlement process for a number of years now iwi like many others have close associations with various landscapes in the area and Te Arawa no less. I see some very important sites in the bill and I guess those have all been worked out—obviously they have to be. The Minister might like to take a call and let the listeners know how they were worked out. 
For instance Te Koutu Pa is very ancient in Te Arawa history. Clause 90 states: “(1) The reservation of Te Koutu Pa under the Reserves Act 1977 is revoked. (2) The fee simple estate in Te Koutu Pa vests in the trustees.” who become the trustees of the settlement itself. Others are listed as I look down clause 88: “(h) site adjacent to Orakei Korako:” “(j) Te Wairoa:”. They are all important sites and it is clearly important to have them returned as part of this settlement. Clause 96 states: “The site on Horohoro Bluff ceases to be a conservation area under the Conservation Act 1987.” and “(2) The fee simple estate in the site on Horohoro Bluff”—once the law goes through—“vests in the trustees.” as well. 
As I say it is a very important part of the settlement and it is very important that Te Arawa is recognised for its ancient history and for its history in the areas that are deemed to be theirs and that in the modern day there are sites that can be returned to them—properly returned. My colleague in referring to Part 2 of the bill also previewed some of the deeds of recognition that give voice to Te Arawa’s association with their land their landscapes and their important places. It is quite in order that this settlement follows the way of other settlements and recognises their history their traditions and their associations. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 250 in the name of the Hon Dr Michael Cullen to Part 3 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to. 
Part 3 as amended agreed to.
Henare Tau: Affiliate Te Arawa Iwi and Hapu Claims Settlement Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
Henare Tau: Affiliate Te Arawa Iwi and Hapu Claims Settlement Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
[Volume:650;Page:18932] 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 I will take a brief call and it is about clause 21 “Authority to issue amend or cancel protocols”. Clause 21(1) states: “Each responsible Minister may—(a) issue a protocol to the trustees in the form set out in Part 1 of Schedule 1 of the deed of settlement;”. My issue is that if we want to find out a wee bit more about the form of a protocol we have to try to find a copy of the deed of settlement. There is no explanation in the bill of the form of a protocol. I wonder whether Part 2 should have a form—it could even be a schedule to the bill—that sets outs the hows the whys and the why-nots of a protocol. My main concern about the protocols is that if somebody picks up the bill looks at it and says “OK what is this protocol business?” that person then has to try to get a copy of the deed of settlement. I wonder why we cannot have a form as a schedule to the bill. 
That is all—a very quick speech. 
Part 2 agreed to.
Flavell Te Ururoa: Affiliate Te Arawa Iwi and Hapu Claims Settlement Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
Flavell Te Ururoa: Affiliate Te Arawa Iwi and Hapu Claims Settlement Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
[Volume:650;Page:18931] 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I do not want to take up too much time Mr Chairperson but could you give me some clarification in respect of my amendments to clause 11 being out of order. Is there some rule or explanation in respect of the amendments I placed before the Committee being automatically ruled out of order? Was it solely because they relate to a settlement that has been negotiated? I am seeking some clarification. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Yes. These issues are pretty clear especially when we are dealing with a deed of settlement that has already been signed. It is rare to accept amendments to it. I do not think I can be much clearer than that. It is a deed of settlement; it is different from normal legislation. It is a matter that has been agreed to. On that basis the amendments were inconsistent with the deed itself. Thank you.
te Heuheu Georgina: Affiliate Te Arawa Iwi and Hapu Claims Settlement Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
te Heuheu Georgina: Affiliate Te Arawa Iwi and Hapu Claims Settlement Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
[Volume:650;Page:18930] 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) 
: 
 Every time the honourable member Pita Paraone feels he has to raise the issue of the principles of the Treaty I feel bound to take a call to say my piece about them. Although I have said it before I think it is worth repeating that reference to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi first appeared in our legislation in the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1974 I think— 
Pita Paraone 
: 1975. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU 
: —1975! Of course that was a bill in the name of Matiu Rata who might even be the member’s whanaunga. There is a good reason why that reference was put into the legislation and not “the terms” of the Treaty. Part of the reason is that Maori mostly signed the Maori version of the Treaty but also some signed the English version so we have a Maori version and an English version in the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975. If we were to say “the terms” or “the provisions” of the Treaty we would have to ask which Treaty because there are in essence two Treaties if we take the Maori and English versions side by side. Over the last 20 years the task undertaken by the Waitangi Tribunal which was given the job of measuring the Crown’s conduct against the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi has been to discern from the two versions the underlying essence the underlying principles of those versions. In a way it is very apt. I think the process we have followed to settle historic injustice has been served very well by that statement. One day I am sure our friend Pita Paraone will discover those principles for himself. They are easily found in various judgments and reports. 
Pita Paraone 
: But the laws are made here. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU 
: The laws are certainly made here and they are made in the courts as well I say to my friend Pita Paraone. Although we say Parliament is the highest court in the land laws are being made daily in our courts as well. So there you go. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: The amendments in the name of Te Ururoa Flavell to subparagraphs (vii) and (viii) of clause 11(1)(a) and to paragraphs (g) and (h) of clause 11(2) are out of order because they are inconsistent with the deed of settlement. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 250 in the name of the Hon Dr Michael Cullen to clause 5 and the following amendment in his name to clause 12 be agreed to: 
to add the following subclause: 
(5) To avoid doubt  
Affiliate historical claims 
 does not include any claim submitted to the Waitangi Tribunal in accordance with the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 in respect of the airspace over or the flight paths to Rotorua airport.  
Amendments agreed to. 
Part 1 as amended agreed to.
Henare Tau: Affiliate Te Arawa Iwi and Hapu Claims Settlement Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
Henare Tau: Affiliate Te Arawa Iwi and Hapu Claims Settlement Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
[Volume:650;Page:18930] 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 I want to make it clear to the Minister in the chair the Hon Dr Michael Cullen that National members will not be supporting any amendments or Supplementary Order Papers to uncouple Tuhourangi Ngati Wahiao. I understand perfectly well the constraints on the Minister. The Affiliate Te Arawa Iwi and Hapu Claims Settlement Bill involves a negotiated settlement between the Crown the Government and those people so any change would have to have the acquiescence of both parties. I thought I would make that quite plain. I wanted to raise the specific issue of the coupling of Tuhourangi and Ngati Wahiao. As for the coupling of Ngati Tahu and Ngati Whaoa I absolutely agree that if that is their decision it is their ball game. However I believe there is enough talk around the traps to show that Tuhourangi Ngati Wahiao will become a problem later on—but that is for the future to decide. I just wanted to make it clear to the Minister that we will not be supporting any amendments about uncoupling.
Paraone Pita: Affiliate Te Arawa Iwi and Hapu Claims Settlement Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
Paraone Pita: Affiliate Te Arawa Iwi and Hapu Claims Settlement Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
[Volume:650;Page:18930] 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Chairperson. On behalf of New Zealand First I say that it would be very remiss of New Zealand First not to once again make a comment in respect of treaty settlements about the inclusion of references to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi which are articulated in Part 1 and in particular in clause 7 “Text of acknowledgements” and in clause 8(2). I can understand why those references are put there; without reference to the Treaty the whole settlement process could not proceed. But that does not diminish the concern of New Zealand First that those same principles which are often referred to in legislation do not have a clear definition set by this House. I know that other members of my caucus have often asked for those principles to be articulated by this House and we have never received any response. 
Christopher Finlayson 
: That’s not right. 
PITA PARAONE 
: Oh so that member will articulate— 
Christopher Finlayson 
: No I’ve already done so. 
PITA PARAONE 
: Oh OK. The other point I want to make about Part 1 is that I am glad that it actually identifies by name the parties to this settlement. When this settlement becomes history the people who have expressed concerns particularly concerns about the identity of their hapu—and there was discussion about whether groups should be identified separately—can point to the very people who signed up to the settlement. I refer specifically to those who expressed some concern during the select committee process regarding Tuhourangi Ngati Wahiao and who also made references to Ngati Tahu - Ngati Whaoa. I totally support the response that the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations made in regard to Ngati Tahu - Ngati Whaoa. If that is what those iwi want to be described as who are we to change that? I think any departure from that would almost see this whole process go back to the drawing board. 
I just wanted to make those comments and also to say that the descriptions of the affiliates are very important for the future of this particular settlement. Thank you Mr Chairman.
Cullen Michael: Affiliate Te Arawa Iwi and Hapu Claims Settlement Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
Cullen Michael: Affiliate Te Arawa Iwi and Hapu Claims Settlement Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
[Volume:650;Page:18927] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 I will briefly respond to the last part of Georgina te Heuheu’s speech. Of course full and final settlements can scarcely be full or final if the claims remain active subsequent to the legislation. It is important that the extinguishment occurs at that point. Of course it is part of the actual deed of settlement that it is accepted that that is going to take place. 
On the other matter I might say as someone who has been around here for a while that I am so pleased when in the Committee stage we get back to being able to discuss a hyphen instead of our simply having a great long second reading speech all over again which has become the practice. I am advised that in that particular case that is how the groups choose to describe themselves. The bill is simply following their self-description in that regard.
Henare Tau: Affiliate Te Arawa Iwi and Hapu Claims Settlement Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
Henare Tau: Affiliate Te Arawa Iwi and Hapu Claims Settlement Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
[Volume:650;Page:18925] 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 Let me start again. My humble thanks to the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations; the whip put me wrong but I will not say which one. 
It is quite important that this issue is sorted out. I would like to hear the Minister give his dissertation on why we cannot do it. I have heard other speeches made by other members in the House as to why the uncoupling cannot happen. I think Part 1 would be the most appropriate part in which to insert some acknowledgment that there is an issue in terms of why Tuhourangi and Ngati Wahiao should not be uncoupled. Part 1 is headed “Purpose of Act acknowledgements and apology interpretation provisions settlement of claims and miscellaneous matters”. There should be some recognition at least in Part 1 of the issue because if there is not then the issue will keep on going and going and whoever is in Government in say even 10 years’ time people from Ngati Wahiao from Ngati Whaoa and from Tuhourangi will be back here to try to sort out that issue. I can put a ring round it. 
I think it is important to acknowledge that there is an issue. I think it is important to see whether there is a way that we could get through the issue. I would have thought that a Supplementary Order Paper along the lines of the uncoupling of Tuhourangi—[ 
Interruption 
] I know that the Minister says no and I know the reasons why. The Minister does not want to create another affiliate and therefore upset the quantum. But if we uncoupled the groups and said that it did not mean that there would be an extra affiliate and that it would have no effect on the quantum then we might be able to get round it. 
I am interested in what the Minister has to say and whether we could do it through Part 1 considering that it includes the purpose of the Act.
Cullen Michael: Affiliate Te Arawa Iwi and Hapu Claims Settlement Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
Cullen Michael: Affiliate Te Arawa Iwi and Hapu Claims Settlement Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
[Volume:650;Page:18925] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 I am advised that there is actually no practical way of achieving what Mr Henare wants. I think it is very dangerous to legislate on the floor of the House to change negotiated agreements because it reopens the whole process of negotiation of Treaty settlements. It would be an endless process and quite a dangerous process. I was quite concerned about what happened in the case of Te Roroa. Although there were some issues there it seemed to mean that we were getting ourselves into potentially dangerous territory in revisiting details of a grievance by means of the parliamentary process. 
This settlement is the clear expression of the process that occurred. Obviously if at some future point there is a determination by those involved that they wish to separate that could be relatively easily done within the confines of this legislation. They could separate into two groups within the affiliate structure. The structure is essentially the total settlement; the component parts can be revisited in that regard. 
While I am on my feet I will mention again my amendment to clause 12 in relation to Rotorua airport. The amendment is specifically drafted in terms of “To avoid doubt”. All the legal advice I have is that any claims in relation to the airport are not affected by the bill as originally drafted anyway and indeed the people from Raumata Marae themselves are quite satisfied about that. But I am aware that at least two parties in this House do not entirely share that view. Again I have some reluctance to intervene by way of an amendment on the floor of the House that runs against where the negotiators themselves have got to. The amendment expresses avoidance of doubt to make it clear in case anybody has any concerns about this matter that claims in relation to the approach to and airspace over the airport are not included in this settlement. But I would emphasise again that the bill in its current form before that amendment is passed does not affect that claim because the Wai 918 claim does not cover the issue of airspace over and a flight path to Rotorua airport.
Henare Tau: Affiliate Te Arawa Iwi and Hapu Claims Settlement Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
Henare Tau: Affiliate Te Arawa Iwi and Hapu Claims Settlement Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
[Volume:650;Page:18925] 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 Basically the whole purpose of Part 1 is—if I might read out clause 3—“(a) to record the acknowledgements and the apology given by the Crown to the Affiliate in the deed of settlement …”. The interesting thing is that the purpose of this bill is to settle a grievance but what it does not do as we said in the second reading debate is take cognisance of the Ngati Whaoa Tuhourangi and Ngati Wahiao issues. The major issue that came up in the select committee process was the coupling of iwi and hapu under their own steam. The purpose clause should read that this bill is about Te Arawa and its affiliates and it should include those issues that were brought up at the select committee. I think that is where we— 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I apologise for interrupting the member but I think he is debating the first part of Part 1. We are on the preamble which outlines the historical background. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: OK we will skip that and get to Part 1. 
Preamble agreed to.
Vote: Urgency 
Vote: Urgency 
[Volume:650;Page:18910] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That urgency be accorded. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 47; Independent: Copeland. 
Motion agreed to.
Urgency 
Urgency 
[Volume:650;Page:18909] 
Urgency 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That urgency be accorded the passing through their remaining stages of the Affiliate Te Arawa Iwi and Hapu Claims Settlement Bill the Central North Island Forests Land Collective Settlement Bill the Financial Advisers Bill the Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill and the Fisheries Act 1996 Amendment Bill (No 2); the first reading of the Education Amendment Bill (No 3); the third reading of the Te Roroa Claims Settlement Bill; the first reading of the Port Nicholson Block (Taranaki Whanui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika) Claims Settlement Bill; the first readings of the Government Superannuation Fund Amendment Bill and the Electricity (Continuance of Supply) Amendment Bill; the passing through their remaining stages of the Walking Access Bill and the Public Lending Right for New Zealand Authors Bill; the first readings of the Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill (No 2) the Whakarewarewa and Roto-a-Tamaheke Vesting Bill and the Settlement Systems Futures and Emissions Units Bill; the passing through their remaining stages of the Financial Service Providers (Registration and Dispute Resolution) Bill the Holidays (Transfer of Public Holidays) Amendment Bill and any bills into which those bills may be divided; the introduction and first reading of Government bills; Government notice of motion No. 11; and any valedictory statements to be made by retiring members at the times determined by the Business Committee. 
 This motion is moved to complete the Government’s intended legislative programme before the House rises for the general election. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That urgency be accorded. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 47; Independent: Copeland. 
Motion agreed to.
Cullen Michael: Urgency 
Cullen Michael: Urgency 
[Volume:650;Page:18909] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That urgency be accorded the passing through their remaining stages of the Affiliate Te Arawa Iwi and Hapu Claims Settlement Bill the Central North Island Forests Land Collective Settlement Bill the Financial Advisers Bill the Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill and the Fisheries Act 1996 Amendment Bill (No 2); the first reading of the Education Amendment Bill (No 3); the third reading of the Te Roroa Claims Settlement Bill; the first reading of the Port Nicholson Block (Taranaki Whanui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika) Claims Settlement Bill; the first readings of the Government Superannuation Fund Amendment Bill and the Electricity (Continuance of Supply) Amendment Bill; the passing through their remaining stages of the Walking Access Bill and the Public Lending Right for New Zealand Authors Bill; the first readings of the Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill (No 2) the Whakarewarewa and Roto-a-Tamaheke Vesting Bill and the Settlement Systems Futures and Emissions Units Bill; the passing through their remaining stages of the Financial Service Providers (Registration and Dispute Resolution) Bill the Holidays (Transfer of Public Holidays) Amendment Bill and any bills into which those bills may be divided; the introduction and first reading of Government bills; Government notice of motion No. 11; and any valedictory statements to be made by retiring members at the times determined by the Business Committee. 
 This motion is moved to complete the Government’s intended legislative programme before the House rises for the general election.
Vote: Privilege — Consideration of Report of Privileges Committee Members’ Pecuniary Interests—Gifts and Donations 
Vote: Privilege — Consideration of Report of Privileges Committee Members’ Pecuniary Interests—Gifts and Donations 
[Volume:650;Page:18909] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 62 
New Zealand National 47; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 2; United Future 2 Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7. 
Abstentions 1 
Progressive 1. 
Motion agreed to.
Vote: Privilege — Consideration of Report of Privileges Committee Members’ Pecuniary Interests—Gifts and Donations 
Vote: Privilege — Consideration of Report of Privileges Committee Members’ Pecuniary Interests—Gifts and Donations 
[Volume:650;Page:18908] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the words “censure Rt Hon Winston Peters for knowingly providing false or misleading information on a return of pecuniary interests” be deleted and the following words inserted: “note that several members of Parliament had legal fighting funds and did not disclose donations to these as it was unclear that this was required”. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Progressive 1. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand National 47; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Amendment not agreed to.
Vote: Privilege — Consideration of Report of Privileges Committee Members’ Pecuniary Interests—Gifts and Donations 
Vote: Privilege — Consideration of Report of Privileges Committee Members’ Pecuniary Interests—Gifts and Donations 
[Volume:650;Page:18909] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the following words be added: “That the member Mr Peters be requested to apologise to the New Zealand Herald’s editor Tim Murphy and political editor Audrey Young for calling them liars and demanding their resignations and that the member be suspended for the remainder of the day.” 
Ayes 2 
ACT New Zealand 2. 
Noes 117 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 47; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Amendment not agreed to.