Finlayson Christopher: Mauao Historic Reserve Vesting Bill — In Committee 
Finlayson Christopher: Mauao Historic Reserve Vesting Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:647;Page:15868] 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
: 
 I want to focus on clause 7 which has been taken out of the bill by the Maori Affairs Committee and also on substituted clause 8(3). Clause 7 as it was when the bill was introduced caused quite a deal of excitement in the committee mainly because the language was inappropriate and badly written. Clause 7 provided that the general law was to continue to apply as if the reserve itself continued to be vested in the Crown. That really was inappropriate and I considered it almost insulting to the tangata whenua of the district. I am very pleased that clause 8(3) represents a substantial improvement and I thank my colleagues on the committee for the work they did because the end product is much better. 
Clause 8(3) simply provides that until the reservation of the reserve is revoked—I think under the Reserves Act 1977—the Crown continues to have certain rights and obligations and that those rights and obligations are akin to those of the holder of a fee simple estate. The very reason why the clause is expressed in that way is that the Crown continues to have obligations in relation to occupational health and safety building and rating liability legislation. So the select committee has done an admirable job in focusing on the words and expressing them in a more felicitous manner. As a result the legislation is much improved. 
That kind of diligence and effort undertaken by the Maori Affairs Committee can of course be contrasted with what happens with regard to much of the other legislation that goes through the system in this place—for example the Electoral Finance Bill. That bill went through the Justice and Electoral Committee and the Labour members paid absolutely no attention to the words. As one can see the net result is legislation where the Labour Party has shot itself in the foot with a howitzer and that will become very apparent over the next few weeks. It is a recipe for litigation. That is what Labour wanted and that is what it has got. [ 
Interruption 
] I hear my friend Mr Woolerton from New Zealand First. Well he is no babe in the woods no innocent either. He is one of the guilty people because he could have focused on the words as his friend on the Maori Affairs Committee did. Those members may look from this angle to be like peas in a pod but I can tell the committee they are not. Mr Paraone is a very diligent and hard-working person who focuses on the words. Although I like Mr Woolerton immensely and think he is a fine chap and a good bloke the reality of the matter is that last year he did not focus on the words in the Electoral Finance Bill and he is going to pay the penalty for that. 
The only other thing I want to say is that clause 13 “Rule against perpetuities does not apply” is one that members will be very interested in. The rule against perpetuities often appears in legislation. I had a brief discussion with my friend Mrs te Heuheu and I think we both agreed that the relevant provision is section 6 of the Perpetuities Act 1964. As I understand it if a disposition is made the perpetuity period applicable to the disposition under the rule against perpetuities is to be a period not exceeding 80 years. Of course what we want here is a disposition that is not affected by the rule against perpetuities and we therefore have a particular provision that the rule against perpetuities will not apply. That is very interesting and I am sure Mr Chauvel could lecture the Committee for hours on that particular provision. It is necessary just to tidy up one minor matter. 
The rest of Part 2 is consequential on the vesting of the reserve. Some provisions deal with what is to happen if reserve status is revoked and another provision states that the vesting itself is to have no effect on certain pre-existing rights. Other than that it is all pretty standard stuff. 
I am pleased the select committee did what the Justice and Electoral Committee failed to do with regard to the Electoral Finance Bill—that is to focus on the words in the bill and tidy them up.