edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Chadwick Steve: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Chadwick Steve: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:635;Page:6366] 
5.  
STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) 
 to the  
Minister of Tourism 
: What recent reports has he received on international visitor spending? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Minister of Tourism) 
: 
 I am pleased to say that figures released today show that international visitor spending in New Zealand increased to $7 billion in the year to June 2006. This represents a massive increase of 16.5 percent on the previous year or close to $1 billion. This is a huge boost for the economy and once again demonstrates the importance of the tourism industry to New Zealand. 
Steve Chadwick 
: What has this Government done for the tourism industry since coming into power in 1999? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: Since 1999 the Labour-led Government has established the Ministry of Tourism to enhance the whole-of-Government approach to tourism policy. We have developed the New Zealand Tourism Strategy 2010 and are currently undertaking a review. We have provided significant funding for a major expansion of the Qualmark quality grading system for tourism and we have funded tourism infrastructure projects through the tourism facilities grant. This has emphasised the importance of the tourism industry to the economy and this Government’s important commitment to that industry.
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:635;Page:6363] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I wonder whether this question might be held over until later in the session when the Minister of Maori Affairs will be able to be with us. I have a copy of his diary and he is certainly available but clearly detained in getting to question time. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: It is for the Government to decide who in fact answers the question. Is the member seeking leave? 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I sought leave. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Sorry I had not realised you were seeking leave. Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: They say “You can run but you can’t hide.” but the member cannot do either. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The member will please just ask the question. [ 
Interruption 
] We are trying to keep order in this House and it is comments like that that create disorder. Would members please just ask their questions and give the answers. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. It also causes disorder when the Government decides that Ministers are not capable of answering questions and therefore does not let them come to the House. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: There is no truth in that matter. As the member can neither run nor hide there is no need for him to raise the sensitive issue. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I do not think this is getting us anywhere. Would the member just ask the question. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I am happy to take Parekura on over the 100-metres. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Well that is our humour quota for the day.
Hughes Darren: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Hughes Darren: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:635;Page:6359] 
1. DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki) 
 to the  
Minister for Industry and Regional Development 
: What is the Government doing to stimulate growth in regional New Zealand? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for Industry and Regional Development) 
: 
 Heaps. In the last week there have been two very recent major regional initiatives announced. The first is in Kapiti-Horowhenua. Thanks to the very good work of my colleague Darren Hughes $1.96 million will be provided towards a DesignTex project that aims to strengthen the region’s and the country’s textile businesses and enable them to be more globally competitive. The second initiative announced yesterday was in the Wairarapa. The Government will provide $1.9 million towards cuisine and fine wine; a major regional initiative that aims to build on the region’s wine and food reputation in order to take it to an international level. It involves an international partnership. Both these initiatives play to the key strengths of the regions. They fit perfectly with this Government’s agenda to transform New Zealand into an export-led high-wage innovative economy. [ 
Interruption 
] The member should read it. 
Darren Hughes 
: What results can New Zealanders expect to see from these initiatives particularly the most excellent one in the Kapiti and Horowhenua region? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: High-quality high-wage jobs. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: Does the Minister agree that other initiatives such as Export Year 2007 will act positively to stimulate growth in regional New Zealand? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Absolutely and I thank the member for his work on it.
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
[Volume:635;Page:6359] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week in the House priority will be given to the remaining stages of the Business Law Reform Bill the Ngati Mutunga Claims Settlement Bill the Geographical Indications (Wine and Spirits) Registration Bill the Social Security (Long-term Residential Care) Amendment Bill and any first readings of bills that appear above the line on the Order Paper.
Business Statement 
Business Statement 
[Volume:635;Page:6359] 
Thursday 9 November 2006 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Business Statement 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week in the House priority will be given to the remaining stages of the Business Law Reform Bill the Ngati Mutunga Claims Settlement Bill the Geographical Indications (Wine and Spirits) Registration Bill the Social Security (Long-term Residential Care) Amendment Bill and any first readings of bills that appear above the line on the Order Paper.
Vote: Social Security (Long-term Residential Care)  Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Social Security (Long-term Residential Care)  Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:635;Page:6482] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 47 
New Zealand National 45; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Part 1 as amended agreed to.
Vote: Social Security (Long-term Residential Care)  Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Social Security (Long-term Residential Care)  Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:635;Page:6482] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 47 
New Zealand National 45; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Amendments agreed to.
Vote: Social Security (Long-term Residential Care)  Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Social Security (Long-term Residential Care)  Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:635;Page:6482] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 45 
New Zealand National 45. 
Noes 72 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; United Future 3; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 69 in the name of the Hon Pete Hodgson to Part 1 be agreed to.
Vote: Social Security (Long-term Residential Care)  Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Social Security (Long-term Residential Care)  Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:635;Page:6482] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 9 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 3. 
Noes 108 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand National 45; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: The amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 74 in the name of Sue Bradford to insert new clause 8A is out of order because it is inconsistent with a previous decision of the Committee. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 63 in the name of Dr Paul Hutchison to insert new clause 8A be agreed to.
Vote: Social Security (Long-term Residential Care)  Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Social Security (Long-term Residential Care)  Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:635;Page:6481] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 9 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 3. 
Noes 108 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand National 45; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 74 in the name of Sue Bradford to clause 8 be agreed to.
Hodgson Pete: Human Tissue Bill — First Reading 
Hodgson Pete: Human Tissue Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:635;Page:6476] 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health) 
: 
 I want to make just a few remarks given that I did not speak earlier when the bill was introduced. My colleague the Hon Ruth Dyson did speak and I thank her. It has been an interesting debate. I have enjoyed listening to the views of all members of Parliament. 
I thank the National Party for its work and in particular Jackie Blue for the introduction of a member’s bill. It was good of her to acknowledge the contentious issues that surround the rights of a family to override a donor’s wishes. I think it is something that will be before the select committee for a while and Jackie Blue has done this House a great service in the attention that she has placed on this issue. 
I thought that Barbara Stewart’s contribution was pretty useful. I think the select committee needs to look very carefully at the relative importance of a register on one hand and of education and awareness on the other hand. The select committee will probably adduce quite a lot of evidence from offshore for example from Western Australia where a lot more emphasis has been placed on education awareness than we have and where there is a much better donor rate than in other parts of Australia. We probably need to be careful that we do not assume that a register by itself will work. 
I thought that the contribution from the Green Party was pretty useful when it pointed out that in the US the land of the free they are going in for the possibility of an age limitation quite understandably because they are facing similar issues to those that we face and that we will face to a greater and greater extent. 
In respect of the contribution from the Maori Party I thank Tariana Turia for giving the House her views on a Maori perspective but I wonder whether the legislation as introduced allows for the tikanga that she speaks of to be exercised none the less. It seems to me that it does not preclude it. 
 Finally I say to the select committee that the Government looks forward to a quite open debate and we are open to any suggestions the select committee might have to improve this legislation or indeed to advice offered to the Government on things other than a legislative way forward—whether about education awareness or whatever. I think the House is united on the idea that we do need to improve organ donation rates in this country and if the select committee has any wisdom it wishes to proffer then I for one would be pleased to receive it. 
Bill read a first time. 
Bill referred to the Health Committee.referred to Health Committee
Blue Jackie: Human Tissue Bill — First Reading 
Blue Jackie: Human Tissue Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:635;Page:6469] 
Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) 
: 
 I will take a short call on the Human Tissue Bill. National will be supporting this Government bill to go through to a select committee. The Government’s Human Tissue Bill proposes to replace the Human Tissue Act 1964 which has become out of date. As has already been outlined by the Minister the Government bill is broader than my own member’s bill which is now waiting to be considered by the Health Committee. 
This bill does differ from my bill in some respects. Both bills provide a consent process and an organ donor register. The current driver’s licence requiring one to tick a box does not give informed consent in any real sense of the word. The bills differ on how families can intervene in organ donation. The Government bill makes provision for family members to override the donor’s wishes in exceptional situations; my member’s bill does not. 
To date 42 submissions have been received on my member’s bill and it is clear that the organ donor register and the issue of whether a family can veto a donor’s wishes are both a source of contention. Interestingly the main objections to a voluntary opt-on register are from intensive care doctors and some transplant surgeons who feel that a register would be overly bureaucratic and expensive and that it would not increase the number of donors. The doctors also consider that families when asked about donation do not object in the vast majority of situations and do not support the donor’s wishes being paramount. 
A number of individual submitters had either received an organ or had a family member who had been a donor. There were also submissions from groups and organisations representing individuals who had diseases that could result in the need for an organ donation. Individual submitters and organisations were supportive of the member’s bill and the sentiment regarding the family being unable to veto the donor’s wishes. 
Internationally countries are taking on organ donor registers and some countries are going further by basing their registers on presumed consent. Our organ donor rates in New Zealand are dreadfully low and need to be boosted. What we are doing currently is not working. New Zealand faces an increasing demand for organs because of end-stage renal disease as a result of diabetes and end-stage liver disease as a result of the hepatitis B and hepatitis C diseases. We really have to get this situation right. 
This bill has to be right and for the right reasons. It is entirely appropriate that these two bills be heard together at the Health Committee which will hear all submissions and evidence. National will be supporting this bill going to a select committee. Thank you.
Tanczos Nandor: Property Law Bill — First Reading 
Tanczos Nandor: Property Law Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:635;Page:6464] 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
 I rise just to give a very short speech on behalf of the Green Party in relation to this Property Law Bill and to indicate that the Green Party will be supporting this bill going to a select committee. 
I understand from the debate and from the explanatory note of the bill that it sets out to replace the 1952 Act. That replacement was proposed as has been stated by other speakers by the Law Commission in its report  
A New Property Law Act 
 and I understand that the bill largely follows the proposals set out in that report. The text of the bill was included in that commission report and the explanatory note notes some exceptions to it. It states: “Proposals not carried forward in this Bill include proposals on release of assignors from liability appointment of receivers in respect of mortgaged land mortgagee sales of goods through the Registrar and waiver of contingent conditions in agreements for sale and purchase.” I am not a lawyer so am not in a position to give the kind of erudite speech that my learned colleague Mr Worth gave— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Yours is far better! 
NANDOR TANCZOS 
: Thank you Mr Cosgrove. Really the Green Party’s support for the bill is reliant on the fact that it follows the recommendation of the Law Commission report. That body has done a lot of very important and worthy work in relation to law reform. Mr Palmer I think has described this bill as uncontentious but with important reforms. So it is right that we support it going to a select committee. That will give an opportunity to go through in some detail the provisions of it. It is a pretty weighty bill. 
I guess I was relieved as a non-lawyer to see that one of the important objectives of the new Act is to set out rules of property law accessibly and in a way that can be readily understood. I think that is important. When Mr Worth mentioned that one of the things that the bill does is abolish the right to distrain I looked at that clause because I thought it was important in terms of making the law more readily understood. Apparently the right to distrain is abolished. Clause 264 states: “Right to distrain abolished—(1) The right to distrain for rent or other amounts payable under a lease or for a rentcharge is abolished. (2) A provision in a lease or in an encumbrance securing a rentcharge that purports to give any person the right to levy distress for rent or other amounts payable under the lease or for the rentcharge has no effect.” Clearly the bill has put this matter into plain English and made it accessible to the ordinary person. I think that is a worthy thing.
Paraone Pita: Property Law Bill — First Reading 
Paraone Pita: Property Law Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:635;Page:6463] 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
: 
Tena koe Mr Speaker tena tatou. On behalf of New Zealand First I say from the outset that we too will be supporting the Property Law Bill. This bill is very significant because of the fact that property law is complex. It is important that any bill such as this recognises that complexity. The bill covers a wide range of issues pertinent to commercial and private property.  
Any law should be readily accessible and updated. The importance of this bill lies in the fact that it has been some 50-odd years since the whole issue of property law has been addressed. On the suggestion of the Law Commission—albeit some time ago back in 1994—this bill is a product of that concern. As I said the principal Act has been in existence since 1952 and since then much water has passed under the bridge so to speak. So it is important that such a major Act is updated to meet present and future needs. 
Some concerns were expressed by the previous speaker. Giving due support to this bill at this stage will ensure that it is referred to a select committee where the very concerns that have been expressed can be addressed not only by people from this House but by the wider community particularly those who are involved in property law. 
This bill will provide certainty in regard to a number of issues particularly mortgages—for example in terms of mortgagees in possession. During the halcyon days of Maori development there was a department known as the Department of Maori Affairs which had the responsibility of providing housing for Maori people. At least 200 Maori families every year could be guaranteed they would move into their own homes. Part of that process unfortunately from time to time required the Crown to re-enter properties due to non-payment of the mortgage by the mortgagee. I know from personal experience that there were times when we tended to forget our responsibilities as mortgagees in possession. I have no doubt that this bill will certainly address those concerns albeit I am sad to report that the Department of Maori Affairs does not exist any more. It no longer provides for the housing of our people in spite of the poor record of Maori homeownership in this day and age. 
I also want to acknowledge that one group or one type of property is exempted from the provisions of this bill: Maori customary land. I am glad that such Maori land is exempted from this legislation. Maori land is usually customary land and therefore a whole raft of different rules apply to it much of which is determined and controlled by the Maori Land Court. 
Having said that albeit in a short contribution to this debate I just reaffirm New Zealand First’s support for this bill. We look forward to the opportunity to be part of the discussions when the submissions on this bill are heard by a select committee.
Vote: Geographical Indications (Wine and Spirits)Registration Bill — Third Reading 
Vote: Geographical Indications (Wine and Spirits)Registration Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:635;Page:6460] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Geographical Indications (Wine and Spirits) Registration Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 111 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand National 45; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 5; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 3 
Maori Party 3. 
Bill read a third time.
Hughes Darren: Geographical Indications (Wine and Spirits)Registration Bill — Third Reading 
Hughes Darren: Geographical Indications (Wine and Spirits)Registration Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:635;Page:6457] 
DARREN HUGHES (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 Maybe I could assist the member. I seek leave for the sitting of the House to be suspended until 7.30 p.m. 
Sitting suspended from 5.58 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.
Flavell Te Ururoa: Geographical Indications (Wine and Spirits)Registration Bill — Third Reading 
Flavell Te Ururoa: Geographical Indications (Wine and Spirits)Registration Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:635;Page:6457] 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Kia ora tatou katoa. It has been a privilege this afternoon to listen to some of the debate and one reflects on one’s performance in the House. I just mention at this point as it is close to the dinner break that I have waited this afternoon in respect of the time given— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is this a point of order? 
TE URUROA FLAVELL 
: Yes. I prepared my speech for this afternoon knowing that we have 10 minutes in which to make sure that we nail home our points. I seek leave of the House for my speech to be deferred until after the dinner break. I ask whether that can be considered. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member is perfectly entitled to ask. The House is the master of its own destiny.
Dalziel Lianne: Business Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
Dalziel Lianne: Business Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:635;Page:6445] 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Commerce) 
: 
 As I said I am always happy to respond to those who ask intelligent questions; I am going to make an exception to that rule and respond to that member Chris Auchinvole. I am making the exception because I think there is a genuine misunderstanding as there was with the captive insurers when they came to make submissions to the select committee about the purpose of this particular provision in the legislation. It is to prevent entities from representing that they are supervised under New Zealand’s insurance regulatory regime when in fact they are not even acting as insurance companies in New Zealand and it is necessary to prevent damage to New Zealand’s reputation internationally. Tragically we have companies that use the word “insurance” in their name register in New Zealand and are not acting as insurers. They are not subject to any regulatory framework in New Zealand at all but are enabled to operate carte blanche in other jurisdictions and that has great potential for impact on New Zealand’s reputation. 
So this provision is to tidy that up for the captive insurers who made submissions on this. When they are carrying on an insurance business in New Zealand for the purposes of these Acts then essentially this bill is not designed to disrupt that process at all. They are able to continue to do that and this amendment will not apply to them so no action will be required on their part. There was some misunderstanding about that which is what I think was the underlying issue that the member wanted me to respond to and I am happy to do so. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 72 in the name of the Hon Lianne Dalziel to Part 5 be agreed to. 
Amendment agreed to. 
Part 5 as amended agreed to.
Auchinvole Chris: Business Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
Auchinvole Chris: Business Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:635;Page:6445] 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National) 
: 
 Thank you Mr Chairman. [ 
Interruption 
] It is quite a delight to have such splendid support not only from this side of the Committee but also from the other side and I thank the members for it. When we look at Part 5 we are talking about the Insurance Companies’ Deposits Act. This is not necessarily an area that I have a great deal of expertise in but from that point of view it does prevent foreign companies labelling themselves as New Zealand companies. I guess that is quite a significant thing and it will be continued no doubt with other legislation that the Minister will bring about to facilitate the additional opportunity for New Zealand companies to be given true representation. 
It comes back though to the purpose of commerce and legislation surrounding it. The question I would like to ask the Minister is—and I am sure she will be happy to respond—what in fact she sees as the true purpose of a commercial entity in New Zealand. Wealth creation I have always believed is what business is about and these regulations for the sake of regulating can inhibit a company’s opportunity to create wealth. I was always taught that the purpose of a commercial entity—be it insurance or otherwise—is to increase the wealth of the shareholders of that company. I would like to ask the Minister whether she responds to that and agrees with it. Far be it from me to anticipate the Minister’s response but I think it is crucial to know so I again ask the Minister what she thinks is the commercial purpose of a limited liability company in New Zealand.
Dalziel Lianne: Business Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
Dalziel Lianne: Business Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:635;Page:6441] 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Commerce) 
: 
 I am quite happy to respond to such invitations. I thank Craig Foss for raising the question of the Accounting Standards Review Board’s exemption-making power. I am well aware that the board itself did not seek this exemption-making power as it believed that it already had this power in respect of its current arrangements. 
I draw the member’s attention to Supplementary Order Paper 72 in my name which addresses some of the concerns that the board has raised with me. I met with Warwick Hunt the chair of the board after he made his appearance at the Commerce Committee and I thought we had a very constructive discussion. In the end we did not agree on the fundamental issue which was whether to have legislative authority for the exemption-making power but we did take on board some of the concerns he raised on the specifics. That is why we are removing the ability to make individual exemptions; the ability will only be for class exemptions. I felt that that was a very particular concern that Mr Hunt had raised. 
We are replacing the exceptional-circumstances test with what I consider to be an even higher test and that is whether the compliance with the relevant provision of the financial reporting standard would result in financial statements that are misleading or are likely to mislead. It is a very specific test that will now apply to the granting of an exemption. We are also of course removing the “fit and proper” test which nobody I think considers to be necessary any more. 
I know that this amendment has not gone the full way to meeting the concerns that the Accounting Standards Review Board raised. But I have had that conversation with the chair and I feel that the amendment goes a considerable way towards addressing the concerns that the board raised.
Hereora Dave: Ngati Mutunga Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Hereora Dave: Ngati Mutunga Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:635;Page:6437] 
DAVE HEREORA (Labour) 
: 
 I take the opportunity to respond in some way to the concerns raised by the previous speaker Christopher Finlayson. I note that during the debate parts of the commentary on the bill have been shared with the Committee. I think it is important that we read the whole extract from the commentary in order to give an overall picture of the issue. It particularly concerns me that there has been a claim that the Maori Affairs Committee has been given faulty advice and has set up a faulty premise in relation to the commentary so I will attempt to rectify that issue and confirm whether that is indeed correct. 
Page 23 of the commentary states: “The Office of Treaty Settlements advised us that amending the bill to provide for the disestablishment of the iwi authority and the establishment of the post-settlement governance entity was not feasible.” Page 23 of the commentary also states: “The Parliamentary Counsel Office advised us that amending the bill to disestablish or establish private trusts would be very unusual and could have implications for previous settlements. They told us that establishing a new governance entity is a private matter. Settlement legislation addresses matters necessary to achieve the settlement which cannot be achieved with certainty under normal (non-legislative) processes. Although settlement legislation has been used in association with private trusts to the extent that the trusts are made perpetual instead of being subject to the rules that limit the life of a trust the Crown will not use government legislation to establish a legal entity to receive and manage settlement assets.” 
In reading that entire part of the commentary I find that it lines up with the rulings provided by Madam Chairperson and subsequently by Madam Speaker. So I find it very difficult to accept that the committee had been given wrong advice from the Office of Treaty Settlements or the Parliamentary Counsel Office. I actually think that the advice was correct and it is in line with the rulings that have been provided this evening. 
The previous speaker mentioned that the chair of the Maori Affairs Committee was to receive a letter from Ngati Mutunga on—if I heard it right—13 November. I make a point of ensuring that I respond to those who write to us and I can confirm to the member that although I have not yet sighted that letter I will indeed be prepared to respond accordingly. I refer now to comments made by the Hon Tau Henare and say that the committee is meeting on Wednesday and obviously there will be some debate and discussion on that matter. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
Clause 2 agreed to. 
Bill to be reported without amendment presently.
Paraone Pita: Ngati Mutunga Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Paraone Pita: Ngati Mutunga Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:635;Page:6436] 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
: 
 Although I do not normally speak in support of the previous speaker he did raise some valid points. It just goes to show how important settlement legislation is and also the way the text of an apology is recorded. The debate over the last 40 minutes is testament to the need to have more clarity in trying to meet the wishes of any claimant group in terms of the position the Crown takes in such matters. The fact that one party to this legislation approached some people in this Chamber—and I ought to place on the record that I do not know why they approached that particular group—quite clearly is something of concern to that claimant group. Although I accept that in terms of the processes of the House the Supplementary Order Paper submitted by the National Party was ruled out of order I think all of us cannot disagree with the intent of it and that on a mere technicality we are being denied the opportunity to help to fulfil the request of a claimant group—I need to repeat a claimant group—and that of all those who have suffered breaches of the Treaty I suggest that this particular claimant has suffered the most. The Committee had the opportunity to provide the sort of redress that it felt would be appropriate. Sadly I have to accept the ruling of the Chairperson and indeed the Speaker. 
But before I sit down I reiterate the issues regarding the references to the principles of the Treaty. The commentary on the bill refers to a breach of the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles yet most members of the House would agree that any reference to such principles is vague unclear or non-existent. Those adjectives have been used by some members in the Chamber. On behalf of New Zealand First I am saddened that our Supplementary Order Paper has not been supported. I understand the comments of the honourable member Chris Finlayson that that part of the Act where it refers to another document has led to this legislation. We accept that. I think that is valid but where it helps to define the claimant group as it does in clause 14 we think its exclusion would not remove the durability or the intent of the legislation. I just wanted to reiterate that point. Kia ora.
Henare Tau: Ngati Mutunga Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Henare Tau: Ngati Mutunga Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:635;Page:6435] 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 I seek leave to have proposed new Part 4 in the name of Christopher Finlayson inserted into the bill we are debating. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The Committee does not have that power. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: I can seek leave. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: No it is only the House that could give that power.
Wilson Margaret: Ngati Mutunga Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Wilson Margaret: Ngati Mutunga Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:635;Page:6434] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: As I said and to reiterate in relation to the procedural matter as to relevancy and the fact that it has been ruled on the Speaker will not interfere with that ruling. However in relation to the second part as I said I agree with the ruling. The wrong process has been used to try to achieve the end in this instance. I declare the House in Committee.
Hughes Darren: Ngati Mutunga Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Hughes Darren: Ngati Mutunga Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:635;Page:6434] 
DARREN HUGHES (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I do not think there is any debate about what the members opposite are proposing in the sense of what the amendment actually does. I think where the disagreement is is about the mechanism of whether this bill can be changed in this way to give effect to what the members are arguing for. 
So the purpose of the bill in clause 3 is to give effect to the deed of settlement—to the claims settlement as it has been signed—and that document does not transfer assets. Yet when we come to Mr Finlayson’s proposed new clause 104 that is what is proposed—to transfer the assets of a private entity within an existing Government bill. That is the nub of the matter. It is not necessarily the merits of the argument in proposed new clause 104 but whether the mechanism is correct to be able to amend that by way of a Government bill. I refer you Madam Speaker to Speaker’s ruling 108/4 which I think touches on that but I think the main point is that it is inconsistent with the purpose in terms of what this Government bill gives effect to in regard to Mr Finlayson’s Supplementary Order Paper.
Finlayson Christopher: Ngati Mutunga Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Finlayson Christopher: Ngati Mutunga Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:635;Page:6434] 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
: 
 Thank you for your comments Madam Speaker. I go to the part of the commentary where it seems to me that the select committee got it wrong: “The Office of Treaty Settlements advised us that amending the bill to provide for the disestablishment of the iwi authority”—and these are the important words—“and the establishment of the post-settlement governance entity was not feasible.” Of course that is not what is happening here because the settlement entity which is Te Runanga o Ngati Mutunga was established on 21 December 2005 and that followed a Crown-approved ratification process involving all Ngati Mutunga members over the age of 18 years. So it is not a question of establishing it by statute—I understand exactly what the Speaker was saying in that regard—but of facilitating the transfer of assets to an entity that is already in existence. 
The report goes on to state: “The Parliamentary Counsel Office advised us that amending the bill to disestablish or establish private trusts would be very unusual and could have implications for previous settlements.” but the primary point having been erroneous the rest of that paragraph is erroneous. We are not seeking to establish a new governance entity but to facilitate the transfer of assets to an entity that is already in existence. Unless I have the wrong end of the stick which I suppose is entirely possible I am seeking to adopt the formula that has been adopted in other settlement statutes including for example Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Act 2006. I refer you Madam Speaker by way of example to Part 4 Subpart 2.
Henare Tau: Ngati Mutunga Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Henare Tau: Ngati Mutunga Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:635;Page:6434] 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 I just want to add a bit of information to the issue. It is that again the Supplementary Order Paper does not set out to establish a new entity. That so-called entity which is Te Runanga o Ngati Mutunga was established on 21 December 2005. So the entity is already there. The old entity has changed into the new entity and what we are trying to do is allow the transfer from the old to the new entity not actually use the legislation to create a new entity. That might help and my colleague Chris Finlayson will most probably be able to help as well.
Wilson Margaret: Ngati Mutunga Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Wilson Margaret: Ngati Mutunga Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:635;Page:6433] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Thank you Madam Chair. I think the first point to make to the member having heard the debate—and I thank Madam Chair for the summary—is to refer the member to Speakers’ rulings 73/1 73/2 and 73/3 which do relate to the procedural matter that has to be dealt with first. That is that the Speaker will not interfere with a decision of the Chairperson on a question of relevancy and this is a question of relevancy as to the scope. As you will note there are a great deal of Speakers’ rulings on this matter and it is very clear. It might be of interest to the member though just to make a comment on the substantive matter. I do agree with the substance of the ruling because this is essentially a private entity and it has always been the case that private entities are the subject of private bills.
Hartley Ann: Ngati Mutunga Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Hartley Ann: Ngati Mutunga Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:635;Page:6433] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Madam Speaker you have been recalled to give a ruling on new part 4 proposed by Christopher Finlayson which effectively sets up the governance of the Ngati Mutunga Iwi Authority and Te Runanga o Ngati Mutunga. What has happened is that I have ruled it out of scope as per Speaker’s ruling 110/1 because the entities themselves should regulate their business and transfer assets. If legislation is needed I have ruled that it would be by means of a private bill not by inclusion in this Government bill as per Speaker’s ruling 110/1.
Henare Tau: Ngati Mutunga Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Henare Tau: Ngati Mutunga Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:635;Page:6433] 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 Under Standing Order 179 a motion may be moved. I move  
That the Chair obtain the Speaker’s ruling on a matter of procedure 
. 
Motion agreed to. 
House resumed.
Hartley Ann: Ngati Mutunga Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Hartley Ann: Ngati Mutunga Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:635;Page:6433] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I appreciate the member’s point but the point is that the Committee cannot give itself permission to do something outside the scope of the bill—it cannot give itself leave. But I respect the member’s position and if the member would like to recall the Speaker at this point then he should do so.
Henare Tau: Ngati Mutunga Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Henare Tau: Ngati Mutunga Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:635;Page:6433] 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I do not want to go on all day but I have two options open to me. I do not think that this amendment does what you think it does. It does not establish all the administrative duties of the new entity; all it does is transfer everything from yesterday to today and give the entity a new name. The amendment does not establish by statute everything that the new entity will do. That is my first point. The second option open to me is to maybe get the big guns—the Speaker—back down here. That is no reflection on you Madam Chairperson; please do not take it in that way. It is an important point. Here we have a Treaty settlement. We have been in contact with one side of the negotiated settlement and obviously we have had a very very short talk with the Government. I am not sure what the Government’s position is on the matter yet but I think it is important that we come to some sort of resolution here. So the options are either to come to a resolution or to call the Speaker back and get into it again.
Hartley Ann: Ngati Mutunga Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Hartley Ann: Ngati Mutunga Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:635;Page:6433] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Thank you but the point is that the amendment cannot be made within this bill; it still has to be made within a private bill. It is a well-established principle in this Parliament that matters of iwi administration are matters for private legislation. The Ngai Tahu Claims Settlement Bill illustrated that point clearly. The bill establishing that runanga and providing for the conduct of its business required private legislation at the time and the Standing Orders by leave of the House were suspended to allow what was intended as a public Act to proceed as a private bill.
Henare Tau: Ngati Mutunga Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Henare Tau: Ngati Mutunga Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:635;Page:6432] 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I actually have to disagree with your ruling with all due respect to the office of the Speaker and the Chair. How can the new entity be outside the scope of the bill when the bill itself actually talks about moving from the old to the new? It is the express wish of the Crown to move from the old entity to the new entity. In fact it was part of the negotiations that the Crown had to be satisfied that the new entity was going to meet the obligations of what the Crown wanted in terms of mandate and the whole structure of the new structure. I cannot see how this amendment is outside the scope of the legislation when moving from the old organisation to the new organisation goes to the heart of the settlement.
Hartley Ann: Ngati Mutunga Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Hartley Ann: Ngati Mutunga Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:635;Page:6432] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: There is a new Part 4 proposed by Christopher Finlayson. I need to rule on this matter. The purpose of the Ngati Mutunga Claims Settlement Bill is to implement the terms of the deed of settlement. An amendment to transfer the assets of an iwi authority to a new entity is outside the scope of the bill and therefore out of order. It is a matter for the entities concerned how they regulate their business and transfer assets. If legislation were needed it would be by means of a private bill; it would not be for inclusion in a Government bill as per Speaker’s ruling 110/1. So there will be no debate on this matter; the amendment is out of order.
Vote: Ngati Mutunga Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Vote: Ngati Mutunga Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:635;Page:6432] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 7 
New Zealand First 7. 
Noes 112 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand National 47; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; United Future 3; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
Part 1 agreed to.
Hartley Ann: Ngati Mutunga Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Hartley Ann: Ngati Mutunga Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:635;Page:6432] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The amendments in the name of Pita Paraone to clauses 7 8 9 and 10 to omit references to the principles of Treaty of Waitangi are ruled out of order because they purport to amend the text of the deed of settlement. The clauses quote directly from the deed; I advise members to look at Speakers’ ruling 110/2. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Pita Paraone to clause 14 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause 1(a)(i)(A) the words “or the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi (te Tiriti o Waitangi)”.