edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Turei Metiria: Holidays (Transfer of Public Holidays) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Turei Metiria: Holidays (Transfer of Public Holidays) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:650;Page:19262] 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 I will make just a short comment on this Holidays (Transfer of Public Holidays) Amendment Bill on behalf of my colleague Sue Bradford who is not here this morning and this will be our only comment on the bill this morning. We support the bill. We raised concerns at the first reading that this kind of piecemeal change to the Holidays Act is not good enough and we say that a proper look at it needs to be taken. Fixing up little bits as they pop up is useful to some extent but it does not actually do the job of making sure that workers’ rights are fully considered and protected. 
In respect of holidays we are always particularly concerned about the most vulnerable workers. People have a right to participate in their community activities and their families and public holidays are often the one opportunity for them to be able to do that. This is especially so for those vulnerable workers who work shift work or split shifts. They do not always work on Mondays and therefore are not always entitled to holidays on Mondays. 
People work to live they do not live to work and that needs to be better respected. We have very few public holidays in this country compared with other countries and we really need to beef up the commitment to enable people in our communities to contribute to their community and family life rather than being just economic units producing cash for large multinational corporations—and for some local domestic ones as well. 
We are very pleased to see the bill come to fruition. We are looking forward to its speedy progress but it is not enough just of itself; more needs to be done. Thank you.
Mallard Trevor: Holidays (Transfer of Public Holidays) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Mallard Trevor: Holidays (Transfer of Public Holidays) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:650;Page:19260] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the Holidays (Transfer of Public Holidays) Amendment Bill be now read a second time 
. This is a simple bill. I think it comes from a mistake on the part of a court and it was decided that it would be easier to sort it out in this way rather than in any other. The mistake led to something that none of the parties involved in the case wanted as a result. We have an increasing degree of unanimity between the Council of Trade Unions and Business New Zealand around the stability of employment law in New Zealand and this bill puts the law back to what everyone thought it was. Thank you.
Brown Peter: Holidays (Transfer of Public Holidays) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Brown Peter: Holidays (Transfer of Public Holidays) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:650;Page:19261] 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I do not intend to take a long call; this is a very straightforward bill. I think it is fair to say that this matter was overlooked when the Holidays Act went through the House some 3 or 4 years ago. I agree with the latter part of Kate Wilkinson’s speech but I think it was most unkind of her to say that this was a Government stuff-up. New Zealand First was on the Opposition benches at that time and Kate Wilkinson was not a member. Wayne Mapp will agree that this was a matter of significant debate both at the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and in this House. 
New Zealand First did not agree with everything in the Holidays Bill when we went through it—we had concerns. But we are big enough ugly enough and strong enough to say that the legislation has gone through this House and that people in this country are entitled to have proper protective holiday legislation. At the time we were supportive of most of the bill but not all of it. I think in our last vote we voted against it but having said that we were in large measure supportive of it. The provisions in this legislation needed to be addressed; we all know that. We are all going to agree with the bill. Let us get on with it and do it. New Zealand First supports this bill.
Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 4) — Second Reading Third Reading 
Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 4) — Second Reading Third Reading 
[Volume:650;Page:19259] 
Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 4) 
Second Reading 
Third Reading 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 4) be now read a second and a third time 
. I am very much obliged to the House for allowing the two stages of the bill to be read together. This is the annual bill that confirms a range of subordinate legislation—things for example like levy rates of various sorts—of a classical variety. The bill includes the issue of excise duty on petrol and road-user charges it includes areas in agriculture but most important it includes the confirmation of the annual adjustment on 1 April to benefit rates and New Zealand superannuation. Under law these changes have to be confirmed by statute by the end of the calendar year or on 1 January those rates revert to where they were on the previous 1 January. 
Obviously with the election being held on 8 November the House is not likely to be meeting for very long before Christmas so it would be quite difficult to get this legislation through given that there will be an Address in Reply debate and so on before Christmas. I am sure that nobody in the House wants to go into the election campaign explaining the possibility that New Zealand superannuation rates—or indeed benefit rates—may be cut on 1 January. The bill has been to the Regulations Review Committee where under the excellent chairmanship of Dr Richard Worth it has been given a clean bill of health. There are no strange things in it and no peculiar forms of validation so I am happy to support the bill. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I think Dr Cullen adequately describes what is in the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 4). I add that when it comes to the point at which any particular rate around excise is fixed clearly any Government has an opportunity to change those rates at any time. But New Zealanders particularly those who are in retirement do have a right to certainty about matters relating to their income and it would be the desire of no one in the House to give anything other than certainty that those payments will continue. We can be sure that Dr Worth and the people who sit on the Regulations Review Committee some of whom are excellent members of this House—and some of whom are retiring sadly for the House so some of their expertise will be lost to it—have done their work and we are assured that there is nothing untoward in this bill. It is a functional bill and for that reason we will be supporting it. 
Bill read a second time and a third time.
Brownlee Gerry: Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 4) — Second Reading Third Reading 
Brownlee Gerry: Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 4) — Second Reading Third Reading 
[Volume:650;Page:19259] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I think Dr Cullen adequately describes what is in the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 4). I add that when it comes to the point at which any particular rate around excise is fixed clearly any Government has an opportunity to change those rates at any time. But New Zealanders particularly those who are in retirement do have a right to certainty about matters relating to their income and it would be the desire of no one in the House to give anything other than certainty that those payments will continue. We can be sure that Dr Worth and the people who sit on the Regulations Review Committee some of whom are excellent members of this House—and some of whom are retiring sadly for the House so some of their expertise will be lost to it—have done their work and we are assured that there is nothing untoward in this bill. It is a functional bill and for that reason we will be supporting it. 
Bill read a second time and a third time.
Cullen Michael: Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 4) — Second Reading Third Reading 
Cullen Michael: Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 4) — Second Reading Third Reading 
[Volume:650;Page:19259] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 4) be now read a second and a third time 
. I am very much obliged to the House for allowing the two stages of the bill to be read together. This is the annual bill that confirms a range of subordinate legislation—things for example like levy rates of various sorts—of a classical variety. The bill includes the issue of excise duty on petrol and road-user charges it includes areas in agriculture but most important it includes the confirmation of the annual adjustment on 1 April to benefit rates and New Zealand superannuation. Under law these changes have to be confirmed by statute by the end of the calendar year or on 1 January those rates revert to where they were on the previous 1 January. 
Obviously with the election being held on 8 November the House is not likely to be meeting for very long before Christmas so it would be quite difficult to get this legislation through given that there will be an Address in Reply debate and so on before Christmas. I am sure that nobody in the House wants to go into the election campaign explaining the possibility that New Zealand superannuation rates—or indeed benefit rates—may be cut on 1 January. The bill has been to the Regulations Review Committee where under the excellent chairmanship of Dr Richard Worth it has been given a clean bill of health. There are no strange things in it and no peculiar forms of validation so I am happy to support the bill.
Cullen Michael: Business of the House 
Cullen Michael: Business of the House 
[Volume:650;Page:19259] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Subject to agreement between the whips I seek leave to take the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 4) through its remaining stages and to take the second and third readings as a single debate of 12 10-minute speeches. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Leave is sought to take this course of action. Is there any objection? There is none.
Business of the House 
Business of the House 
[Volume:650;Page:19259] 
Tuesday 23 September 2008 
( 
continued on Friday 26 September 2008 
) 
Business of the House 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Subject to agreement between the whips I seek leave to take the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 4) through its remaining stages and to take the second and third readings as a single debate of 12 10-minute speeches. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Leave is sought to take this course of action. Is there any objection? There is none.
Flavell Te Ururoa: Settlement Systems Futures and Emissions Units Bill — First Reading 
Flavell Te Ururoa: Settlement Systems Futures and Emissions Units Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:650;Page:19256] 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 Tena koutou katoa. At 10 minutes to 12 o’clock almost near the end of business when the debate on this particular bill is coming to a close and in order to give my colleague Mr Groser a good shot I want to make sure that the Maori Party maintains its record and speaks on every bill that has come into the House. I say that the Maori Party supports this bill at its first reading. Kia ora tatou.
Power Simon: Settlement Systems Futures and Emissions Units Bill — First Reading 
Power Simon: Settlement Systems Futures and Emissions Units Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:650;Page:19256] 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. During my speech when the Minister and I were exchanging views on a particular matter she asked me whether NZX had written my speech. I said no but that I was reading from notes. In the interests of making sure I am not misleading the House I should say that I was provided with a briefing note from NZX which I scribbled notes all over. On reflection I wanted to clarify that matter before the proceedings. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Thank you Mr Power.
Hobbs Marian: Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
Hobbs Marian: Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
[Volume:650;Page:19236] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Before I call the next speaker who will be Dr Pita Sharples can I just ask the House to settle down. Eric Roy kept on calling things out which meant that Trevor Mallard kept contributing. It is two-sided. Can we just have a little bit of quiet. 
Eric Roy 
: But it’s a debate! 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: It is a debate in turns and speeches.
Mallard Trevor: Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
Mallard Trevor: Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
[Volume:650;Page:19232] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 I move  
That the Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a first time. 
 At the appropriate time I will move that the bill be referred to the Primary Production Committee and I thank the chair of that committee for his work on this general area. 
Since the aquaculture reforms were enacted in December 2004 a number of issues with the legislation have arisen. These issues relating to the Environment Court’s decision in  
SMW Consortium Ltd v Tasman District Council 
 were addressed in the Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill that has already been passed. This new bill the Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill (No 2) aims to facilitate the creation of new aquaculture marine areas known as AMAs and aquaculture space. 
The bill amends the Aquaculture Reform (Repeals and Transitional Provisions) Act 2004 to provide an opportunity for a person who has made an application under the Fisheries Act 1983 to negotiate an aquaculture agreement with the relevant commercial fishers where the permit would have previously been declined due to its undue adverse affect on commercial fishing. The amendment brings transitional processes more into line with the current law for new aquaculture marine areas. A preliminary assessment is that the impact of aquaculture in the Tasman area suggests that a large part of the area proposed for aquaculture may have needed to be declined without this bill. 
Experimental aquaculture is limited in scale of occupation to a maximum of 2 hectares and for a maximum of 5 years. Applications for experimental aquaculture must be assessed for any undue adverse effects on fishing under the Fisheries Act 1996 and be authorised by a resource consent granted under the Resource Management Act 1991. 
The bill makes a number of other minor technical amendments. These include addressing issues with the time frame for review of deemed consents amending the process for lodging aquaculture agreements providing clarification that an area deemed to be an aquaculture management area remain an aquaculture management area unless expressly removed by a later plan change and correcting definition problems in the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Act 2004. 
The bill aims to ensure that the planning framework for aquaculture is up to the task in providing environmentally and socially sustainable aquaculture and that it enables the industry’s potential to be realised. I commend the bill to the House.
Jones Dail: Public Lending Right for New Zealand Authors Bill — Second Reading 
Jones Dail: Public Lending Right for New Zealand Authors Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:650;Page:19228] 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First will be supporting this legislation. I thank the National member Chris Finlayson for reminding the House of the comments we both made at the first reading stage. The bill has been referred back from the Government Administration Committee—[ 
Interruption 
]—I tell Mr Harawira and no doubt he will be making submissions at the Committee stage on what should be done. 
The bill is still not satisfactory of course because no amendments have been made to it at all. However some suggestions have been made which will be considered in the Committee stage. It is still not satisfactory because those amendments are relatively small. One would have hoped that more could be done but I guess if we want to try to get this bill through as soon as possible then we will be leaving it to the authors to decide the ultimate conclusion. 
Mind you I do not really believe that people who are authors and who have very liberal views on issues might necessarily be able to agree on what should be done and we do not want a situation where there can be no agreement. Sometimes a body like a parliamentary drafting office needs to be involved in the drafting of the legislation rather than leaving it to numerous third parties to try to reach a decision. Literary people and artistic people have a bad habit of not being able to express themselves as well as they might because they are too liberal minded. Sometimes the real rigour and discipline of a lawyer is needed in order to come to a conclusion and have decisions made. We will see what happens and I wish them all the greatest amount of luck. 
I also make the point that New Zealand First supports this bill because it supports the views of all religions all creeds and all races. We do not enter into this House with just a one-race viewpoint of how things should be done. We work on behalf of all the people of New Zealand and wish that when the regulations are finalised all the people of New Zealand will benefit. We do not come to this House with a one-eyed view on the matter. This is a short bill and the sooner we can get it through the House the better.
Goudie Sandra: Public Lending Right for New Zealand Authors Bill — Second Reading 
Goudie Sandra: Public Lending Right for New Zealand Authors Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:650;Page:19227] 
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 I am delighted that we have the opportunity to support the Public Lending Right for New Zealand Authors Bill. As a huge fan of libraries and books I think it is a wonderful opportunity to support our authors. I just note that this payment will not be made to all authors; it will be made just to those who meet the eligibility criteria that are going to be set by the advisory committee. 
If we look at clause 13 “Establishment of advisory group” we see that the advisory group will set the regulations that have been identified in clause 10—and they are quite substantive—and that includes being able to determine the definition of “author”. One of the problems raised with us was the fact that one might pay an author of a book that meets the eligibility criteria but there is not just an author; there may also be an illustrator. How to define that and how to work out who gets what will be left up to the advisory group. So not all authors will receive some payment; only those who meet the eligibility criteria will receive it. I think that point needs to be made quite clear. 
It is interesting to note that 28 public lending right schemes exist internationally and that the underlying principle is to pay authors for the public benefit derived from the recurrent use of their works in a public library. I think that is a pretty sound principle but it does have to meet the criteria that the advisory group set. International practice has excluded non-book material held in libraries such as CD-Roms videos audio tapes music scores and other online services. The Public Lending Right for New Zealand Authors Bill reflects that principle by paying creators for the public benefit derived from the current use of their works and that is an eminently sound proposition. 
The bill is a very short bill. There was considerable debate about the fact that in clause 10 substantial reference is made to regulations needing to be set—quite substantial in actual fact—but there did not seem to be a way of avoiding that because it will be people who have the experience in this field who will be on the advisory group that will be able to determine the parameters of each of those regulations that are being referred to. 
Suffice it to say National is supporting this bill. We look forward to seeing the conclusion and the positive results in support of our authors and their wonderful contribution to our many libraries throughout New Zealand.
Tizard Judith: Public Lending Right for New Zealand Authors Bill — Second Reading 
Tizard Judith: Public Lending Right for New Zealand Authors Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:650;Page:19223] 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Associate Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage) 
: 
 I move  
That the Public Lending Right for New Zealand Authors Bill be now read a second time 
. This bill will establish a public lending right scheme to replace the New Zealand Authors’ Fund which is currently administered by Creative New Zealand under section 31 of the Arts Council of New Zealand Toi Aotearoa Act 1994. 
The Authors’ Fund exists only because of the action of some members of Parliament to insert the Authors’ Fund into that Act but I am delighted to say that this legislation repeals section 31 of that Act disestablishing the New Zealand Authors’ Fund and establishing a public lending right scheme for New Zealand authors in stand-alone legislation with greater transparency for the scheme’s purpose and operation. Like the New Zealand Authors’ Fund the public lending right scheme recognises that authors deserve payment in compensation for the ongoing use of their works in public libraries. 
The provisions in the bill have been developed in response to calls from authors and stakeholder groups over time. In particular in response to this a review of the Authors’ Fund in 2000 by Creative New Zealand made eight recommendations for reform. I am confident that this legislation will substantially implement the recommendations of stakeholder groups and of authors of course to deliver the arrangements they seek. 
The Public Lending Right for New Zealand Authors Bill was referred to the Government Administration Committee. I understand that owing to time pressure the committee was unable to report back on its deliberations on the bill. I would like to acknowledge the comments of those who made submissions. I found them very useful and insightful and as a result I intend to move some amendments to the bill in the Committee of the whole House. These amendments are mainly concerned with definitions of key terms to ensure that there is clarity about eligibility for payment. They also clarify the membership of the advisory group. 
The Government believes that this bill with the amendments specified in the Supplementary Order Paper will provide a firm foundation for the administration of the public lending right scheme. I commend the bill to the House.
Motions — Regulation—Notice of Scopes of Practice and Related Qualifications  Prescribed by the Nursing Council of New Zealand 
Motions — Regulation—Notice of Scopes of Practice and Related Qualifications  Prescribed by the Nursing Council of New Zealand 
[Volume:650;Page:19223] 
Motions 
Regulation—Notice of Scopes of Practice and Related Qualifications  Prescribed by the Nursing Council of New Zealand 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
on behalf of the  
Minister of Health 
: I move  
That pursuant to section 9(1) of the Regulations (Disallowance Act) 1989 the House revoke clause 4 of the Notice of Scopes of Practice and Related Qualifications Prescribed by the Nursing Council of New Zealand dated 18 August 2004 and published on 15 September 2004 on pages 2958-2960 of a supplement to the New Zealand Gazette which sets out the “Scope of Practice—Enrolled Nurse” and substitute the following: 
4. Scope of Practice—Enrolled Nurse 
Enrolled nurses practise under the direction of a registered nurse or midwife to implement nursing care for people who have stable and predictable health outcomes in situations that do not call for complex nursing judgment. The responsibilities of enrolled nurses include assisting clients with the activities of daily living recognising the changing needs of clients and performing delegated interventions from the nursing or midwifery care plan. 
Qualification 
Successful completion of a programme approved by the Nursing Council of New Zealand and a pass in the specified examination leading to registration as an enrolled nurse. The programme must be completed prior to 31 December 2004. 
This scope of practice is not open for any further new applicants from New Zealand who completed a programme after 31 December 2004 or new applicants from overseas who have applied after 18 September 2004. Applicants from that date will be registered as nurse assistants. 
Motion agreed to.
Cullen Michael: Motions — Regulation—Notice of Scopes of Practice and Related Qualifications  Prescribed by the Nursing Council of New Zealand 
Cullen Michael: Motions — Regulation—Notice of Scopes of Practice and Related Qualifications  Prescribed by the Nursing Council of New Zealand 
[Volume:650;Page:19223] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
on behalf of the  
Minister of Health 
: I move  
That pursuant to section 9(1) of the Regulations (Disallowance Act) 1989 the House revoke clause 4 of the Notice of Scopes of Practice and Related Qualifications Prescribed by the Nursing Council of New Zealand dated 18 August 2004 and published on 15 September 2004 on pages 2958-2960 of a supplement to the New Zealand Gazette which sets out the “Scope of Practice—Enrolled Nurse” and substitute the following: 
4. Scope of Practice—Enrolled Nurse 
Enrolled nurses practise under the direction of a registered nurse or midwife to implement nursing care for people who have stable and predictable health outcomes in situations that do not call for complex nursing judgment. The responsibilities of enrolled nurses include assisting clients with the activities of daily living recognising the changing needs of clients and performing delegated interventions from the nursing or midwifery care plan. 
Qualification 
Successful completion of a programme approved by the Nursing Council of New Zealand and a pass in the specified examination leading to registration as an enrolled nurse. The programme must be completed prior to 31 December 2004. 
This scope of practice is not open for any further new applicants from New Zealand who completed a programme after 31 December 2004 or new applicants from overseas who have applied after 18 September 2004. Applicants from that date will be registered as nurse assistants. 
Motion agreed to.
Turei Metiria: Walking Access Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Turei Metiria: Walking Access Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:650;Page:19220] 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I want to get some clarification around that rule because it does concern me a little bit that the bar might be set too high. Standing Order 111 states as you have pointed out: “Subject always to the discretion of the Speaker and to the right of the House to determine its own matters matters awaiting or under adjudication in any court of record may not be referred to … (b) in any debate … if it appears to the Speaker that there is a real and substantial danger of prejudice to the trial of the case.” I am asking for clarification: is it then your ruling that the Speaker has automatically made a decision that in every case any matter that is being adjudicated by the court poses a real and substantial danger of prejudice to the trial without hearing the specifics of that case?
Hobbs Marian: Walking Access Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Hobbs Marian: Walking Access Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:650;Page:19221] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: The most recent supplementary sub judice ruling was made by the Speaker on 27 August and I will read it or parts of it to the member: “The sub judice rule is set out in the Standing Orders and it is the Speaker who determines its application”—the member accepts that. “It is not for individual members to waive the application of the rule. The rule is not intended to inhibit discussion of the law in general. … However nothing said in the House should prejudice however slightly the decision of any court.” I think that is where we are erring on the safety side. I make the point that particularly when I was a Minister I knew that a first reading speech I made or what I said about potential rules affected what judges thought. So we have to be very careful about what we say in the House.
Wilson Margaret: Valedictory Statements 
Wilson Margaret: Valedictory Statements 
[Volume:650;Page:19171] 
MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Can I just indicate to the House that my retiring colleagues or my departing colleagues have indicated a desire that congratulations should occur at the collective end of their valedictory speeches rather than between each one. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Thank you.
Business of the House 
Business of the House 
[Volume:650;Page:19160] 
Business of the House 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 There has been a discussion between the whips and in order to avoid interrupting this debate I seek leave for the commencement of the valedictory speeches by retiring Labour members to be postponed until the conclusion of the first reading of the Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Bill and for the dinner hour to be postponed until the conclusion of those valedictory speeches. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Leave is sought to carry out that action. Is there any objection to that course of action? There being none that is agreed to.
Cullen Michael: Business of the House 
Cullen Michael: Business of the House 
[Volume:650;Page:19160] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 There has been a discussion between the whips and in order to avoid interrupting this debate I seek leave for the commencement of the valedictory speeches by retiring Labour members to be postponed until the conclusion of the first reading of the Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Bill and for the dinner hour to be postponed until the conclusion of those valedictory speeches. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Leave is sought to carry out that action. Is there any objection to that course of action? There being none that is agreed to.
Kedgley Sue: Port Nicholson Block (Taranaki Whanui ki Te Upoko  o Te Ika) Claims Settlement Bill — First Reading 
Kedgley Sue: Port Nicholson Block (Taranaki Whanui ki Te Upoko  o Te Ika) Claims Settlement Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:650;Page:19152] 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 As a Wellington-based MP and a Wellingtonian born and bred I am delighted to support the first reading of the Port Nicholson Block (Taranaki Whanui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika) Claims Settlement Bill on behalf of the Green Party. 
The grievances of the Taranaki whanui are so stark and so long-lasting—168 years—and the breaches of the Treaty are so extreme that it is extraordinary that this bill has taken so long. I am a little bit sad that the bill has been introduced only in the very last days of this Parliament but we look forward to its very speedy progression through the next Parliament. 
I recall being briefed on the settlement many many years ago when I was a Wellington city councillor and I understood then its significance not just for the Taranaki whanui but also for all the people of the Wellington region. Perhaps it is partly because the bill has taken so long and there has been such wide consultation that there is a sense of real anticipation and very positive enthusiasm for the settlement on the part of the people of Wellington. I agree with previous speakers that the settlement will have tremendous significance for the Wellington economy. I think we understand that which is why it is so eagerly anticipated. 
Like the previous speaker Pita Paraone I have not had the opportunity to see the plans for Shelly Bay. They have been discussed for many many years and I am delighted to hear that they are as exciting as the previous speakers have said. I congratulate all of those who have taken part in negotiating this settlement. It really has been a marathon. I think this bill is justly deserved long overdue and much supported by the people of Wellington. There is tremendous enthusiasm and support across all parties across all of our region and indeed across all of our nation for the bill. 
For the sake of iwi and hapu we wish very speedy progress in the second and third readings of this bill.
Turner Judy: Te Roroa Claims Settlement Bill — Third Reading 
Turner Judy: Te Roroa Claims Settlement Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:650;Page:19142] 
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I stand on behalf of United Future to speak in support of the Te Roroa Claims Settlement Bill which resolves a wide range of issues that Te Roroa have sought redress on since 1861. This bill acknowledges clear breaches of the Treaty including very poor process and clear alienation from lands and resources. The bill acknowledges the effect of those breaches over time on the people of Te Roroa and to ensure that those acknowledgments are not glossed over the redress includes an agreed-upon historical account. There is financial and commercial redress and rights of deferred selection and rights of first refusal are included in terms of future provisions. United Future congratulates the Crown and the iwi negotiators. We recognise that time and circumstances have seen much land in private ownership unable to be included. We wish Te Roroa well with the new beginning that today signals. We are very very happy to support this third reading.
Turner Judy: Central North Island Forests Land Collective Settlement Bill — Third Reading 
Turner Judy: Central North Island Forests Land Collective Settlement Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:650;Page:19129] 
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I stand on behalf of United Future to support and celebrate the passage of the Central North Island Forests Land Collective Settlement Bill. This bill now takes the record for being the largest settlement to date so congratulations are due to both the Crown and iwi who have done a remarkable job in pulling this together. We applaud the wisdom of collective strength that has secured this outcome and we are very pleased to see that legislatively the door has been kept ajar for those who were unable at this stage to determine whether this was the best outcome for them. Obviously there is an encouragement for them to reconsider their position. 
We are pleased to see that the intention of this bill includes the status quo to remain regarding public access to central North Island forests land. It is interesting that today we will probably be debating the third reading of the Walking Access Bill which has a relationship to this as well. 
The Central North Island Forests Land Collective Settlement Bill will see the forest land cease to be Crown forest land and vests in CNI Iwi Holdings Ltd the new company that was previously owned by the Crown. 
We note there were 66 information or endorsement hui and that the allocation model incorporated in the bill was the result of unanimous agreement. This has been extremely well negotiated and it is a fantastic outcome. We are very happy to support this bill.
Kedgley Sue: Affiliate Te Arawa Iwi and Hapu Claims Settlement Bill — Third Reading 
Kedgley Sue: Affiliate Te Arawa Iwi and Hapu Claims Settlement Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:650;Page:19112] 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 Tena koutou tena koutou tena koutou katoa. On behalf of the Green Party I too welcome the representatives of Te Arawa who are here today in Parliament on this historic day. The Green Party like others before us acknowledges that the bill is a historic settlement bill and we are very pleased to support it. It is by far the biggest Treaty of Waitangi settlement with the Crown involving 170000 hectares of central North Island forest and is significantly bigger than previous large settlements including the Tainui settlement the Ngai Tahu settlement and the Sealord deal. Indeed some have referred to this as the “Treelords” deal and there are similarities. Its income is derived from harvesting rights in the first instance and although it does lay out a process for establishing mana whenua at some time in the future in the meantime ultimate ownership of whenua is left undetermined. 
The bill vests ownership of 86 percent of the central North Island Crown forest land and the accumulated rentals of $222 million held in trust by the Crown Forestry Rental Trust plus ongoing rentals in the Central North Island Iwi Collective. These funds will be divided up among iwi collective members according to a percentage formula and in addition Maori foresters will benefit from the emissions trading scheme. 
So it is a significant outcome with significant economic benefits for many Maori and according to the bill eventual ownership of the land will be determined on the basis of mana whenua in accordance with tikanga Maori. There is no dispute that negotiating this settlement is very very significant. We give our respect to the negotiating team such as Tumu Te Heuheu and others for their very long and tireless work in negotiating this settlement. 
The Green Party does however have a concern which has been alluded to by previous speakers that some small iwi and hapu can feel they are grist to the mill in a settlement process when there is a desire by the Government to negotiate a large settlement in a specific time frame. There are hapu and iwi for whom this bill constitutes a loss of land and mana and we are concerned that the Government’s Treaty process enables breaches to continue and that as a result no Treaty settlement is truly full and final or indeed can be felt by all to be truly just. 
Nevertheless the Green Party supports this bill. We acknowledge the enormous amount of work effort and determination it has taken on the part of iwi to bring it to this point. We congratulate those who have secured the settlement and we also acknowledge the significant concerns that continue to exist and cannot be denied. We will continue to advocate for a Treaty breach settlement process that is determined by Maori rather than the Crown and that is therefore inherently more just. We wish Te Arawa and all of those iwi and hapu involved in this settlement the very best of luck for the future and we acknowledge them on this historic day.
Turner Judy: Affiliate Te Arawa Iwi and Hapu Claims Settlement Bill — Third Reading 
Turner Judy: Affiliate Te Arawa Iwi and Hapu Claims Settlement Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:650;Page:19117] 
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I stand to speak in support of the Affiliate Te Arawa Iwi and Hapu Claims Settlement Bill. United Future supports and congratulates Te Arawa iwi and hapu for achieving this settlement. We wish them well as they chart a positive way forward better resourced to do so. We also support the relational aspects of the settlement which see the Crown acknowledge and apologise for taking too long to respond to the grievances acknowledge the failure to protect tribal structures and acknowledge the failure to protect the interests of the iwi and hapu when purchasing land. We also note the new gratefulness that sees the Crown acknowledge the generosity of Te Arawa in gifting land of scenic significance to the nation and their contribution and faithfulness as Treaty partners. Someone once explained to me that Maori back into the future mindful of lessons learned in the past. I think this bodes well for the handling of this settlement. We thank Te Arawa for their graciousness and patience and we acknowledge those who did not live long enough to see this day. We have great pleasure in supporting this bill’s third reading.
Cullen Michael: Walking Access Bill — In Committee 
Cullen Michael: Walking Access Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:650;Page:19103] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That the Committee report progress and sit again presently 
. 
Progress reported. 
Report adopted.
Walking Access Bill — In Committee 
Walking Access Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:650;Page:19103] 
Tuesday 23 September 2008 
( 
continued on Thursday 25 September 2008 
) 
Walking Access Bill 
In Committee 
Debate resumed. 
Part 2 New Zealand Walking Access Commission ( 
continued 
)  
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That the Committee report progress and sit again presently 
. 
Progress reported. 
Report adopted.
Vote: Public Transport Management Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Public Transport Management Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:650;Page:18747] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 55 
New Zealand National 47; New Zealand First 7; Independent: Copeland. 
Noes 65 
New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 249 in the name of Jeanette Fitzsimons to clause 29 be agreed to.
Vote: Public Transport Management Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Public Transport Management Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:650;Page:18747] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 55 
New Zealand National 47; New Zealand First 7; Independent: Copeland. 
Noes 65 
New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Maurice Williamson to clause 32 be agreed to: 
to omit subclause (1)(aa).
Vote: Public Transport Management Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Public Transport Management Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:650;Page:18747] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand National 47; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Maurice Williamson to clause 30 be agreed to: 
to insert in subclause (1)(b) after “person or by” “a”.
Vote: Public Transport Management Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Public Transport Management Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:650;Page:18745] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 55 
New Zealand National 47; New Zealand First 7; Independent: Copeland. 
Noes 65 
New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Maurice Williamson to clause 19 be agreed to: 
to insert in subclause (1) before “The following written” “Subject to section 12(1)”.
Vote: Public Transport Management Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Public Transport Management Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:650;Page:18744] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand National 47; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Maurice Williamson to clause 18A be agreed to: 
to omit subclauses (3) and (4).
Vote: Public Transport Management Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Public Transport Management Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:650;Page:18743] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 55 
New Zealand National 47; New Zealand First 7; Independent: Copeland. 
Noes 65 
New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Maurice Williamson to clause 16 be agreed to: 
to omit subparagraph (a)(viii). 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Maurice Williamson to clause 16 be agreed to: 
to add the following subclause: 
(2)Nothing in this section limits section 12(1). 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Maurice Williamson to clause 17 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (3) “the” and substitute “an”.
Vote: Public Transport Management Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Public Transport Management Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:650;Page:18744] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 55 
New Zealand National 47; New Zealand First 7; Independent: Copeland. 
Noes 65 
New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 249 in the name of Jeanette Fitzsimons to clause 18 be agreed to.
Vote: Public Transport Management Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Public Transport Management Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:650;Page:18763] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 1 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand National 47; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Schedule 1 as amended agreed to.
Vote: Public Transport Management Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Public Transport Management Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:650;Page:18763] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand National 47; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Vote: Public Transport Management Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Public Transport Management Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:650;Page:18763] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand National 47; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Amendments agreed to.
Vote: Public Transport Management Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Public Transport Management Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:650;Page:18762] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 55 
New Zealand National 47; New Zealand First 7; Independent: Copeland. 
Noes 65 
New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Amendment not agreed to.
Vote: Public Transport Management Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Public Transport Management Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:650;Page:18763] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 2 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand National 47; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Part 2 as amended be agreed to.