edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Carter David: Third Readings — 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Carter David: Third Readings — 
[Sitting date: 23 September 2008. Volume:650;Page:19009. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon DAVID CARTER (National) 
: 
 In rising to support the Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill I acknowledge that legislatively this is a difficult area. It is an industry that I think has huge potential but there are also difficulties around environmental issues and certainly the occupation of space which people with competing interests feel they have a right to be involved in. The solutions are not easy.  
In supporting this particular narrowly focused legislation which tidies up one quite specific issue in Tasman Bay I note that there is further legislation on the Order Paper that may or may not be referred to a select committee before the election. Even that legislation I suspect when passed through its full parliamentary process will not be enough to ensure that we harvest the potential of this industry. I look forward to the day when Parliament can have a realistic and unemotional debate on what we can do that is right for the New Zealand economy. We have huge potential because of our unique location in the world. We have a very large ocean area that is ours and the trend throughout the world now is to farm fish rather than harvest wild fish. Therefore I think that as that trend accelerates and the demand for fish products grows exponentially the potential for New Zealand is huge. We cannot harvest that potential unless we have the correct legislative framework. As I said earlier I think the passing of this legislation today and the subsequent legislation if it does receive a third reading before the election will in itself not be enough to unshackle this industry and let it go forth.
Tremain Chris: Financial Advisers Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Tremain Chris: Financial Advisers Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 23 September 2008. Volume:650;Page:18990. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
CHRIS TREMAIN (National—Napier) 
: 
 I would like to speak to the enduring clauses of the Financial Advisers Bill and to beg to differ just slightly with my colleague Simon Power who claimed there are only two enduring clauses. When we look at the amended legislation in the mark-up version we see that in fact only one clause remains in the legislation. If we look at page 9 of the new bill we see that only the title has remained the same from day one. Clause 1 states: “This Act is the Financial Advisers Act 2007.” and everything apart from that clause has changed. The commencement clause has quite clearly been changed. In the first draft there was an original provision there but that has actually been changed. 
Sitting suspended from 1 p.m. to 2 p.m. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
Clause 2 agreed to. 
Bill reported with amendment. 
Report adopted.
Heatley Phil: Third Readings — 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Heatley Phil: Third Readings — 
[Sitting date: 23 September 2008. Volume:650;Page:19008. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
: 
 The National Party will be supporting this legislation. It does address the findings of the Environment Court made on 9 May 2006 that clarified that the applications for aquaculture space can only be inside aquaculture management areas. The intent of the law was that marine farms be inside aquaculture management areas only.  
This legislation does freeze applications between 1 January 2005 and the court decision such that they can proceed only if the area becomes an aquaculture management area and it cancels applications made after the court decision. Of course the applications that are frozen are still able eventually to be involved in marine farming if the area becomes an aquaculture management area within the next decade. If not of course those applications will fall void.  
It is true that this legislation is very complex. It reflects the fundamental problems with the underlying legislation. The progress of creating new marine farming spaces has been very slow. No new significant aquaculture management areas have been created in the last 3½ years which quite frankly is a disgrace. It means that no 20 percent settlement has gone to Maori in that same time period of 3½ years. This legislation along with the Fisheries Act 1996 Amendment Bill (No. 2) which we will be debating probably today also will simply secure the current process—a process that clearly needs streamlining.  
The industry wishes us to support this legislation and we are happy to do so. On behalf of the National Party I do say that it is an interim measure. It is a sticking plaster to temporarily deal with some pressing matters affecting the industry and more fundamental changes need to be made particularly to the overarching Resource Management Act. National supports this legislation. It is making some progress but certainly not the progress that we want to see over the next decade.
Dalziel Lianne: Third Readings — 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Dalziel Lianne: Third Readings — 
[Sitting date: 23 September 2008. Volume:650;Page:19008. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Commerce) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister for the Environment 
: I move  
That the Aquaculture Reform (Repeals and Transitional Provisions) Amendment Bill the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 2) the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Amendment Bill (No 2) and the Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a third time 
. I do not intend to traverse the very extensive coverage that I gave to the issues arising out of this legislation that I gave in my second reading address. I simply place on record my gratitude to members of the Primary Production Committee for their very hard work on this legislation. I know that they had a shortened period of time to look at it because it was technical legislation addressing as it does the outcome of an Environment Court decision that allowed applications for aquaculture activities to be made before aquaculture management areas were defined in regional coastal plans. Addressing that matter was the primary intent of the legislation. Yes we did tidy up other matters as identified by Mr Heatley during the Committee stage in respect of unitary authorities.  
It has been very good to have such good assistance from members of the select committee and the Opposition in facilitating the passage of this legislation. I place on record as well the thanks of the Minister for the Environment to the officials who supported the select committee in that work. I commend the legislation to the House.
Cullen Michael: Business of the House 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Cullen Michael: Business of the House 
[Sitting date: 23 September 2008. Volume:650;Page:19016. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Pursuant to discussion I have had and for technical reasons to enable the bill we are dealing with at the moment the Fisheries Act 1996 Amendment Bill (No 2) to be assented to by 1 October 2008 I seek leave for Government order of the day No. 16 the second reading of the Financial Service Providers (Registration and Dispute Resolution) Bill to be taken at the conclusion of the third reading of the Fisheries Act 1996 Amendment Bill (No 2). 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Dr Cullen has sought leave to change the order of business slightly. Is there any objection to that course of action? There being none it is agreed to.
Moroney Sue: Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Moroney Sue: Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
[Sitting date: 23 September 2008. Volume:650;Page:19005. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
SUE MORONEY (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I seek leave for the bill to be considered as one question. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Leave has been sought for that course to be followed. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.
Peters Winston: Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Peters Winston: Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
[Sitting date: 23 September 2008. Volume:650;Page:19005. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Mr Clarkson wants to make his valedictory speech early. Do you see Mr Assistant Speaker? Oh he has pulled the sign down. It will be a short speech. He has been totally incomprehensible since the day he arrived. He jumped before he got pushed.
Vote: Financial Advisers Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Vote: Financial Advisers Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 23 September 2008. Volume:650;Page:18994. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Financial Advisers Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 118 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 47; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 2 
ACT New Zealand 2. 
Bill read a third time.
Clarkson Bob: Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Clarkson Bob: Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
[Sitting date: 23 September 2008. Volume:650;Page:19005. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
BOB CLARKSON (National—Tauranga) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have just two words Mr Assistant Speaker: good bye. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: That’s his valedictory. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: We must be in urgency I think.
Woolerton R Doug: Financial Advisers Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Woolerton R Doug: Financial Advisers Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 23 September 2008. Volume:650;Page:18993. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
R DOUG WOOLERTON (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First supports the Financial Advisers Bill as we do the suite of bills that surround it. We look forward to bringing to this House in the next Parliament other measures to help investors in this country. We need to encourage people to invest in our businesses and the sort of behaviour we have seen recently does exactly the opposite. Successive Governments have tried to steer people in this country away from property which New Zealanders have a preference for and one cannot do that if people see their money disappearing down the tubes. This bill goes some way towards making sure that the people who advise investors are at least registered which means they can have some faith in the advice that they get.  
I think it is great that the people who advise at the budgetary advice level like those from citizens advice bureaus have been left out of this bill thus ensuring that people who give advice to others like my friend Clayton Cosgrove are not caught up by this sort of thing. Where Mr John Key gets his advice from for his share trading we do not yet know—that has yet to be seen—but we suggest he would probably come into a category 1 or 2 situation whereby the level at which he operates is somewhat more sophisticated. We were pleased to see that those who advise people in good faith and without receiving any recompense need not feel that they could suffer a fine because of their good works. We think that is absolutely appropriate.  
As I said at the beginning and I will finish on this note New Zealanders need to have faith that the investments they make usually at the latter end of their working life do have some sort of surety around them and in particular that the people giving them advice are qualified to do so that they understand the situation people are in and that they give advice appropriate to people’s age their risk profile and those sorts of things. This bill goes some way towards ensuring that without taking away any of the entrepreneurial activity that we seek to encourage in this country.
Power Simon: Financial Advisers Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Power Simon: Financial Advisers Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 23 September 2008. Volume:650;Page:18989. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 If I had not received such a pleading look from the Minister Lianne Dalziel not to stand I would have sat down. I just make the point that Part 5 relates to general provisions and appeal of decisions the right of appeal of the commission—interestingly on the issue of authorisation—and the potential decline of qualifying financial entity status. The District Court apparently will make those decisions. I suppose on an issue like that there does need to be a procedure for appeal and I guess on balance that the District Court is the appropriate place for that. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 253 in the name of the Hon Lianne Dalziel to Part 5 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to. 
Part 5 as amended agreed to.
Dalziel Lianne: Financial Advisers Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Dalziel Lianne: Financial Advisers Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 23 September 2008. Volume:650;Page:18986. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Commerce) 
: 
 I am happy to respond to Simon Power’s comment on accountability and say that that is the reason why the qualifying financial entity approach that has been adopted in the Financial Advisers Bill is as the member himself described such an elegant solution. It says that the qualifying financial entity which is required to meet a standard in order to have that status acquired through the Securities Commission takes responsibility for defining who falls on either side of the line. On one side of the line we have the ones who are to be individually authorised and therefore individually accountable like any other authorised financial adviser. On the other side of the line we have the category 2 advisers who are dealing with the lower-level products based on that risk assessment. I think that is a neat way of allowing the institutions to take responsibility for employees and agents who are operating to sell essentially products that are in that lower-level risk category; the higher-level advisers will be required to be authorised financial advisers.  
To go back to a comment another member made about the sequence of events around budget advisers I say that is a very good example to use to explain how we have got to this particular position. When we started off by defining people by their particular occupations we ended up in a situation where budget advisers necessarily were included in the definition because it was so broad. We are trying to bring that back but at the same time we are very mindful of the fact that if we exclude an occupation then all of a sudden people will redefine themselves as budget advisers instead of financial advisers in order to avoid coverage which is why we tried to link it to the funding from the Ministry of Social Development. That was not the best mechanism. The select committee came up with a better one and I am grateful to it for that. Then the officials and I have come up with an even better one which is the one in the Supplementary Order Paper.  
But that is the exact point I am making: that the qualifying financial entity actually taking responsibility for dividing the two groups—one requiring the individual authorisation of the Securities Commission and the other coming within the responsibility of the qualifying financial entity—is I believe the best of both worlds. We get really good coverage and we get that eye-to-eye contact for those who have made bad professional judgment.
Cullen Michael: Valedictory Statements 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Cullen Michael: Valedictory Statements 
[Sitting date: 23 September 2008. Volume:650;Page:19037. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I seek leave for the dinner adjournment to be taken at the conclusion of this speech should it proceed past 6 p.m. and for the House to then resume 1 hour after the start of the dinner adjournment.  
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is none.
Heatley Phil: Fisheries Act 1996 Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Heatley Phil: Fisheries Act 1996 Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Sitting date: 23 September 2008. Volume:650;Page:19015. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I did not want to interrupt Dr Sharples in his speech but when he was talking about seabed exploration he mentioned an Andrew. Was it a place name or a person’s name? It was Andrew I think and I did not catch the surname. Or did I misinterpret? I am just interested in that. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: I think you might have to settle that out of House time. Is that all right? It is perfectly legitimate. 
PHIL HEATLEY 
: OK.
Robertson H V Ross: Financial Service Providers (Registration and  Dispute Resolution) Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Robertson H V Ross: Financial Service Providers (Registration and  Dispute Resolution) Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
[Sitting date: 23 September 2008. Volume:650;Page:19029. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I wish to advise members that in accordance with a decision of the Business Committee for members to make valedictory statements I will report progress and ask to sit again presently. 
Progress reported. 
Report adopted.
Hobbs Marian: Government Superannuation Fund Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Hobbs Marian: Government Superannuation Fund Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 23 September 2008. Volume:650;Page:19066. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Just before I call the Minister I ask that the person who had that phone ringing earlier and all other members please now check that the phones are off.
Paraone Pita: Central North Island Forests Land Collective  Settlement Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Paraone Pita: Central North Island Forests Land Collective  Settlement Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
[Sitting date: 23 September 2008. Volume:650;Page:18964. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Chair. I want to take a short call on clause 1 which is the title. First of all I say that I support a lot of the sentiments of the previous speaker the Hon Georgina te Heuheu. You know we talk about the use of te reo Maori and I wonder whether any consideration was given by the principals of each of the iwi groupings that came to the negotiating table to the opportunity of giving this particular bill a Maori name. I see that my colleague from the Maori Party is grinning—I do not know whether it is a grin of derision or a grin of support. In terms of promoting the use of te reo I would have thought that this might be an opportunity to give the bill a Maori title. 
I am very mindful of the fact that the spokesperson for Ngati Manawa was very emphatic about what Ngati Manawa meant in relation to his tribe. Of course I can appreciate what he said. But I think that we will see similar titles in terms of collectives and affiliates and I suppose this title does provide a blueprint for titles of similar settlement bills. There is an opportunity for both the Crown and negotiators to consider Maori titles for our legislation. During my first term in this House I can recall making references to the opportunity of giving bills Maori titles. If it is OK for the House to provide committee reports back to the House in te reo Maori then I think that at some time in the near future we should be seeing bills that pass into law being written in te reo Maori. 
New Zealand First does not have any concerns about the title of this bill or its commencement date. Kia ora. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
Clause 2 not agreed to.
Cullen Michael: Business of the House 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Cullen Michael: Business of the House 
[Sitting date: 23 September 2008. Volume:650;Page:19051. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I seek leave for Government orders of the day Nos 7 and 8 which are the third reading of the Te Roroa Claims Settlement Bill and the first reading of the Port Nicholson Block (Taranaki Whanui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika) Claims Settlement Bill to be taken after the third reading of the Central North Island Forests Land Collective Settlement Bill on Thursday morning. I indicated at the Business Committee on Tuesday afternoon that this would likely be the case if we had reached this point on the Order Paper by this stage.
Hereora Dave: Financial Service Providers (Registration and  Dispute Resolution) Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Hereora Dave: Financial Service Providers (Registration and  Dispute Resolution) Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
[Sitting date: 23 September 2008. Volume:650;Page:19022. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
DAVE HEREORA (Labour) 
: 
 I take this opportunity to speak in the second reading debate of the Financial Service Providers (Registration and Dispute Resolution) Bill. In doing so I want to highlight some of the benefits for consumers that will occur following its enactment. The introduction of freely accessible dispute resolution for all consumers is not only something that is based on a moral principle; it is also a practical initiative that will increase confidence in the financial sector.  
Currently there are a large number of consumers who are using financial advisers and non-bank credit providers and who cannot access consumer dispute resolution. When consumers are in dispute with their financial provider be it a mainstream bank or a local service they can feel quite powerless and not sure where to turn. Under this bill consumers who have a grievance with their financial service provider will always have somewhere they can go to get a fair hearing. The framework established by the bill supports the formation of industry-based dispute resolution schemes. These will be approved if they meet the benchmarks of accessibility independence fairness accountability efficiency and effectiveness. Experience suggests that industry-led schemes are particularly flexible and responsive in addressing consumer complaints.  
This bill represents a win-win situation for consumers. It provides a free service to assist with the resolution of disputes against financial service providers and it incentivises providers to put in place good complaint resolution processes and to be more responsive to consumers. Consumers will be able to confront any unethical or sub-standard dealings from a provider through challenging behaviours that do not meet acceptable practice. Consumers will help to raise the quality of financial services in New Zealand and to that end I stand in support of the bill.
Robertson H V Ross: Central North Island Forests Land Collective  Settlement Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Robertson H V Ross: Central North Island Forests Land Collective  Settlement Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
[Sitting date: 23 September 2008. Volume:650;Page:18960. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you Mr Flavell. I would like first of all to refer to the Speakers’ ruling you mentioned—110/2. It is quite specific. It states: “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.” That ruling was made both in 2003 and in 2005. I understand that you were seeking to amend the names of the signatories or the parties to the deed and to take one group out. This Supplementary Order Paper contains amendments to the settlement agreement that have the agreement of the parties. Bills such as this are to give effect to the settlements; they are not to amend the agreements unless both parties—the Crown and the signatories—agree. That is where the matter lies.
te Heuheu Georgina: Central North Island Forests Land Collective  Settlement Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
te Heuheu Georgina: Central North Island Forests Land Collective  Settlement Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
[Sitting date: 23 September 2008. Volume:650;Page:18964. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) 
: 
 I will take a very short call. We do not want to be seen to be dragging out something that we are all in support of and that is obvious but the title the Central North Island Forests Land Collective Settlement Bill is very important. It is a very proper title obviously. But if one reads the title only without knowing the substance of the bill then one may not necessarily get the significance of what is being achieved here. It certainly is a collective which is one that I do not think we have seen before; a number of iwi have come together in terms of the commercial side of interests that have their genesis some 20-odd years ago in the Crown Forests Assets Act 1989. 
The bill makes provision for the allocation of land under the Crown forests but the individual claims of the iwi involved are still to be completed. It is a unique initiative and one that hopefully will be repeated if in fact it all appears that it is able to work the way it is obviously intended to work here. So it may be that we will see more region-wide settlements where we have collectives involved as well. This is the first one. It is unique. We support it. We would like to see it happen again. 
My colleague Pita Paraone might suggest—[ 
Interruption 
]—oh OK. I will not say anything about the north then. But I was just hoping we might see that where there are similar iwi interests in a particular region there may be room for similar legislation so we might see this term in use again as we go forward. So it is pretty simple. I want to support clauses 1 and 2. Thank you Mr Chair.
Power Simon: Central North Island Forests Land Collective  Settlement Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Power Simon: Central North Island Forests Land Collective  Settlement Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
[Sitting date: 23 September 2008. Volume:650;Page:18963. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I am sorry. I do not mean to be difficult but it is an extraordinary situation when the Chairperson of the Committee of the whole House is saying before we have a vote that the vote is meant to be lost. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I understand. 
SIMON POWER 
: I think that in fairness to the Committee we should have the vote and then if indeed there is an issue someone can seek leave to amend it. It is most odd for you as Chair to be saying how a vote should go before you put the question. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you Mr Power and I concur with what you were saying. I was trying to provide some leadership in the situation.  
Schedule 2 not agreed to.
Power Simon: Central North Island Forests Land Collective  Settlement Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Power Simon: Central North Island Forests Land Collective  Settlement Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
[Sitting date: 23 September 2008. Volume:650;Page:18963. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. It is not for me to give an indication as to what the Government is doing and I see that we have a senior Minister in the Chamber who might be able to help us but we have the Labour whip calling one vote and the Minister in the chair the Hon Mita Ririnui calling for a party vote on the opposite position. That just cannot be right. We need some clarification about what is happening here. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: All right. Let us get some clarification from the Minister please. OK. I want to get this right; this is the question that schedule 2 stand part. I understand that schedule 2 has to be lost because there is a new schedule 2 which will be put after this one. Are we clear now? This one as I understand it should be lost but there is an additional vote for a new schedule 2 as set out on Supplementary Order Paper 230 and that is the one to be agreed to. So this one will be lost. Let me put it now so that we are all clear. All those in favour of schedule 2 standing part say “Aye”—
Brown Peter: Electricity (Continuance of Supply) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Brown Peter: Electricity (Continuance of Supply) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 23 September 2008. Volume:650;Page:19079. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I am going to take a short call. I assure the Chair that I do not want to trifle with her but I would like to respond briefly to some comments that Dr Nick Smith made in terms of solar energy. It will take 1 minute at the maximum. What he told us tonight is pleasing news. If the Government has changed its mind we are very happy about that. We have long been an advocate of developing solar energy in this country and we have always suggested that it should be developed along the lines of that in Australia in terms of finance. I think from memory and from what Dr Smith has said that the Electricity (Continuance of Supply) Amendment Bill is still short of what Australia offers. Am I correct? 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Yes. 
PETER BROWN 
: The member is nodding that I am correct. The Minister of Energy David Parker summarised this bill very well. I am not going into any detail. He said it will give consumers in remote rural areas certainty that they will have access to electrical power on an ongoing basis from one means or the other. That is my summation of what he said. We wholeheartedly agree with that and we support it 100 percent. 
But I am compelled to say that some years ago I was sitting on a select committee discussing an electricity amendment bill of some form—I think it was the bill that dealt with lower charges for low-paid people. I can remember some farming people coming before us. I think they were Federated Farmers members but I have to be careful because I cannot remember exactly. I think they were representatives of Federated Farmers. They told us in no uncertain terms that electricity should be provided only on a user-pays basis. I took them to task on the cost of the lines and pointed out to them that they were being subsidised by urban users because the urban users of this country were paying more for their lines so that the rural community could have access to lines. The rural farming people would not have a bar of it. They threw that point back at me in no uncertain terms. 
I am very encouraged that the explanatory note outlines quite clearly under the heading “Status quo—benefits” that “For urban consumers it is reasonable to assume that their service cost should reduce. They currently pay more for their line services than they otherwise would as they subsidise the costs of supply to remote areas where revenue from those areas is insufficient to cover costs.” 
We support this bill which will deliver electricity on an ongoing basis to rural communities despite some of them wanting the contrary—wanting the opposite. We are 100 percent behind the bill.
Finlayson Christopher: Central North Island Forests Land Collective  Settlement Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Finlayson Christopher: Central North Island Forests Land Collective  Settlement Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
[Sitting date: 23 September 2008. Volume:650;Page:18960. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
: 
 I have only one other question that I want to raise about schedule 2 and I would be grateful for the guidance of the Minister in the chair Mita Ririnui. My question concerns clause 13(e). 
Clause 13 provides—I think sensibly—that the adjudication panel will have complete discretion to determine the process and the timetable for the hearing. That complete discretion is subject to certain requirements and they are more particularly set out in paragraphs (a) to (g). For example paragraph (g) provides that a decision is to be reached by 25 June 2011. But I am interested in paragraph (e) which states: “there is a right to question witnesses;”. What I would like to know and maybe we need clarification is whether that right to question witnesses relates only to the adjudication panel or whether an iwi claimant can also ask questions of another iwi claimant. If I were to proffer an opinion I would say it means both: that the panel could ask questions but that iwi claimants should also have the right to test evidence by way of cross-examination—by asking questions of witnesses for other iwi. 
What we do not want in the course of the adjudication panel hearing this matter is to have some kind of eleventh hour application for judicial review. I know that these sorts of questions have been subject to judicial review in the context of commissions of inquiry. I seem to recall a case concerning someone called Badger where the person presiding over the commission of inquiry was a former Attorney-General Dr Martyn Finlay and the case was held up for some time while the parties went to the courts. 
That is my interpretation but I would be very grateful if the Minister could give some guidance. Does the right relate to the panel alone asking questions or is there also the right of iwi claimants to ask questions and to test the written evidence that will have been filed by another iwi claimant?
Simich Clem: Financial Advisers Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Simich Clem: Financial Advisers Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 23 September 2008. Volume:650;Page:18980. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: The question was that Part 1 stand part and we have— 
Simon Power 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairman. I am sorry for interrupting when you are just about to take the vote but there were a couple of questions and one in particular that I had asked the Minister in the chair the Hon Lianne Dalziel during my contribution on Part 1. They related to circumstances where financial advisers were asking clients to sign documentation relating to disclosure. I just wondered whether before you put the vote in order to keep the Minister’s contribution in order she would be prepared to offer me some advice on that matter. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: Part 2. 
Simon Power 
: Part 2? 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: All the disclosure is in Part 2. 
Simon Power 
: OK well I am happy to wait until Part 2. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 253 in the name of the Hon Lianne Dalziel to Part 1 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to. 
Part 1 as amended agreed to.
Robertson H V Ross: Central North Island Forests Land Collective  Settlement Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Robertson H V Ross: Central North Island Forests Land Collective  Settlement Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
[Sitting date: 23 September 2008. Volume:650;Page:18960. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Can I suggest Mr Flavell—it cannot be done now—that there is always the opportunity to make amendments to the Standing Orders. The Speaker on a number of occasions has invited parties to do that. Maybe that is something the member needs to look at in the future but we cannot go back and do that now because we already have Standing Orders and Speakers’ rulings that govern the proceedings of this House and that is how it works.
Flavell Te Ururoa: Central North Island Forests Land Collective  Settlement Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Flavell Te Ururoa: Central North Island Forests Land Collective  Settlement Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
[Sitting date: 23 September 2008. Volume:650;Page:18960. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I accept that that on the face of it is very much the case and that was an explanation given by Dr Cullen. What we are talking about however is a bigger issue. Sure the agreement has been done but if you listened to the first part of the debate you would have heard that it was very much about the notion of those agreements being between iwi and under that particular wording “the Crown”. The point I was trying to make was that the definition of “the Crown” within that is open to interpretation and is not clear.
Ririnui Mita: Central North Island Forests Land Collective  Settlement Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Ririnui Mita: Central North Island Forests Land Collective  Settlement Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
[Sitting date: 23 September 2008. Volume:650;Page:18961. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon MITA RIRINUI (Associate Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 I say to the member Chris Finlayson yes iwi claimants can ask questions as well.
Finlayson Christopher: Central North Island Forests Land Collective  Settlement Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Finlayson Christopher: Central North Island Forests Land Collective  Settlement Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
[Sitting date: 23 September 2008. Volume:650;Page:18957. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
: 
 I would really be grateful to receive the comments of the Minister in the chair the Hon Mita Ririnui on an issue. In my earlier contribution I dealt in detail with schedule 2 and particularly with the adjudication part which is to be completed by 25 June 2011. I focused on clause 6(15) in schedule 2 which provides that a “decision of the adjudication panel will be final and binding on all the parties.” I said the authorities have suggested that the effect of that clause would not be to oust the jurisdiction of the court in judicial review. My personal view is that maybe it should do so.  
But I come to clause 7 in Part 2 of the bill which may provide us with some guidance. Clause 7(1) is the standard privative clause and it is not dissimilar to section 6 of the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 as amended by section 40 of the Treaty of Waitangi (Fisheries Claims) Settlement Act 1992. In fact it is very similar because section 40 provides: “… the Tribunal will not have jurisdiction to inquire or further inquire into or make any finding or recommendation in respect of— … Commercial fishing … The Deed of Settlement … or … Any enactment …”. In a 1996 case the Court of Appeal stated that the effect of that clause—the so-called privative clause—in section 6(7) of the Treaty of Waitangi Act was to oust the jurisdiction of the tribunal.  
Then we come to clause 7(2) of this bill which is an interesting clause. It states that “Subsection (1) does not exclude the jurisdiction of a court tribunal or other judicial body in respect of the interpretation or implementation of the deed of settlement or this Act.” So any question of the interpretation of the legislation which would include the schedules obviously would be available in jurisdictional terms for a court or a tribunal to consider as would any question of implementation.  
It would seem on the face of it that the jurisdiction of the court is not ousted and that clause 6(15) of schedule 2 may not be the end of the road. I really think that we ought to be crystal clear about this because I believe based on my experience of the fisheries allocation saga that there could well be litigation although I agree with what my colleagues have said—that given the parties involved and the desire to reach a settlement one would certainly hope that there would be a conclusion of the allocation debate if there is to be a debate by 25 June 2011. But the Minister’s contribution on the allocation model and on whether it is intended to be final and oust the jurisdiction of the courts is very important because on the face of it I do not think it does that.
Brownlee Gerry: Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Brownlee Gerry: Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
[Sitting date: 23 September 2008. Volume:650;Page:19005. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. I appreciate the opportunity to make a contribution to the proceedings in the House this afternoon as we appear to have reached some form of impasse whereby the Government is not able to proceed with its business because the Minister has not turned up. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thought that was going to be a point of order Mr Brownlee. 
Hon Members 
: What’s going on? 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I sought the call. You gave me the call. I assumed that— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: No I did not give you the call Mr Brownlee. Please be seated. I was under the impression that you had a point of order. I declare the House in Committee for consideration of the Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill.
Hobbs Marian: Central North Island Forests Land Collective  Settlement Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Hobbs Marian: Central North Island Forests Land Collective  Settlement Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
[Sitting date: 23 September 2008. Volume:650;Page:18953. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: The debate on this part includes clauses 6 to 29 and schedules 1 2 and 3.
Ririnui Mita: Central North Island Forests Land Collective  Settlement Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Ririnui Mita: Central North Island Forests Land Collective  Settlement Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
[Sitting date: 23 September 2008. Volume:650;Page:18953. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon MITA RIRINUI (Associate Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 The preamble of the bill does not specifically mention the interests of Ngati Rangitihi in terms of the period for which the remaining beneficial interest will be held but the member can take it as read that it is referring to Ngati Rangitihi. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 230 in the name of the Hon Dr Michael Cullen to the preamble be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to. 
Preamble as amended agreed to.
Gallagher Martin: Walking Access Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Gallagher Martin: Walking Access Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 23 September 2008. Volume:650;Page:19100. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) 
: 
 The previous speaker I have discovered was the deputy chair of the Local Government and Environment Committee when this bill was considered. I ask members to tell me where in the commentary on the bill there is any talk about the code. I have to talk to my colleagues on this side of the Committee. I ask them to tell me what issues and what concerns the member raised during the hearings on this bill.  
I would be very afraid if that member was anywhere near any form of outdoor recreation policy as he does not understand about the code. The code is very simple and very clear—it is to protect the rights of adjacent landowners and the rights of walkers who need access. There is no rocket science here. That is really all I have to say.  
I am amazed that that member as the deputy chair of the Local Government and Environment Committee did not raise these issues at the select committee. Where is the minority report? I cannot see it.
Flavell Te Ururoa: Central North Island Forests Land Collective  Settlement Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Flavell Te Ururoa: Central North Island Forests Land Collective  Settlement Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
[Sitting date: 23 September 2008. Volume:650;Page:18953. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 I am sorry to labour the point but the key issue in the discussions at the Maori Affairs Committee and indeed in the submissions made to the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations was that Ngati Rangitihi was originally included in the bill. We know that there are mandate issues—that is not argued. I thank the Minister in the chair Mita Ririnui for at least saying that they are ongoing. All that I want to know is whether it is clear that Ngati Rangitihi’s interests which are not now specifically covered in this bill have therefore moved to the other slot. That is all I need to know.
Ririnui Mita: Central North Island Forests Land Collective  Settlement Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Ririnui Mita: Central North Island Forests Land Collective  Settlement Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
[Sitting date: 23 September 2008. Volume:650;Page:18952. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon MITA RIRINUI (Associate Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 For the benefit of the member Te Ururoa Flavell I will be very specific in terms of his queries about the preamble to the bill. If the member looks at recital (4) very carefully he will see that it is quite specific about the interests of Ngati Rangitihi. He asked a question about the progress being made in resolving the issue of a mandate within Ngati Rangitihi. I think it is too early to make any comment about that particular issue. It is an internal matter. There is a closing date for resolving the matter but it is quite some time away yet. I think we should allow Ngati Rangitihi the opportunity to resolve their internal matters and then come back to us and declare their position. Prior to that I certainly do not intend to speculate.