Tirikatene Rino: Wellington Town Belt Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeTirikatene Rino: Wellington Town Belt Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 06 April 2016. Volume:712;Page:10293. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): I would just like to pick up on the points raised by Mr O’Rourke. It certainly is good having an experienced legal practitioner in the House and in particular his reading of clause 4 the principles clause because those clauses that are at the front of the legislation are obviously the most important. They set the scene; they establish the founding purposes and principles of the legislation.I think that Mr O’Rourke is correct in the use of the language: instead of it being mandatory for the council in terms of performing its role as trustee it becomes a little bit more vague when it talks about having “particular regard to the following principles: (i) the Wellington Town Belt should be managed in partnership with mana whenua”—should be. Again the repetition of “should” occurs all the way through those very important principles provisions.In my reading you could say that there is wiggle room there for the council. It should “have particular regard” to these principles but it may not necessarily do so. It is not an express prescription or a mandatory obligation on the council; it is only that it should do it. I think it is a very valid point that Mr O’Rourke raised that the language in the bill should be more express because if we carry on through the actual nuts and bolts of the bill where we talk about management plans and powers of the council everything is very prescribed it is very clear and it is very explicit as to what the council must do and what it must not do in relation to the town belt.We should really look at the principles provisions because I am just noting that the first principle that is there in clause 4(1)(b)(i) is that the town belt should be managed in partnership with mana whenua—should be. But if we look at that clause there is nothing in the body of the bill itself that actually gives meaning to what the council should be doing or must do in relation to its partnership with mana whenua. It is silent. It is very explicit in terms of what the council can and cannot do but it says nothing in relation to how it is to conduct its dealings with mana whenua in its partnership—partnership—with mana whenua. So I just endorse Mr O’Rourke’s remarks and I believe that perhaps further consideration should be given to the wording. It just leaves too much wiggle room in my mind having read through it again in that there is not an express obligation on the council that it must fulfil or adhere to those principles.Also I do support Supplementary Order Paper 169 from Mr Robertson. It is very clear that if you are not wanting to grant a lease for—what is it—8 hectares you should provide an open-ended licence provision to grant a licence. That has a great deal of common sense and that has been picked up on. Also just in response to Mr Nash’s point about the rule against perpetuities I know it has been a long time since I looked at the law but I think that statutory provisions would override the rule against perpetuities. I think it might apply to private trusts but not—I guess Parliament can override those common-law principles.Lastly I just want to go back to the beautiful town belt itself. Yes it has a lot of history both Māori history and in the development of our city but it is also an everyday space—