"\u003C!DOCTYPE html\u003E\u003Chtml xmlns:xlink=\u0022http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink\u0022 xmlns:xsi=\u0022http://www.w3.org/2007/XMLSchema-instance\u0022 xmlns:mml=\u0022http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML\u0022\u003E\n  \u003Chead\u003E\n    \u003CMETA http-equiv=\u0022Content-Type\u0022 content=\u0022text/html; charset=utf-16\u0022\u003E\n    \u003Cmeta name=\u0022viewport\u0022 content=\u0022width=device-width, initial-scale=1\u0022\u003E\n  \u003C/head\u003E\n  \u003Cbody style=\u0022font-family:sans-serif; font-size:100%;\u0022\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000001\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022cf99252a54a3407db98c912820beaa3b\u0022\u003ETuesday, 16 November 2004\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000003\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022ea83dbf54ee345be99ce94ddeb8c325b\u0022\u003ETuesday, 16 November 2004\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000002\u0022\u003EMr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000004\u0022\u003EPrayers.\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000005\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u00225e17ec669e224e948a9bf3ce07785f53\u0022\u003EVisitors\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000006\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u00226e3cc574395d42a390abfe66a287a3bb\u0022\u003ECentre for Democratic Institutions\u2014Sixth Pacific Parliamentary Retreat\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022 data-id=\u00220930c3d4bf2e42de90379766701b9205\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000007\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00220930c3d4bf2e42de90379766701b9205\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: I have much pleasure in informing members that participants in the sixth Pacific parliamentary retreat of the Centre for Democratic Institutions are present in the gallery. I am sure that members would wish that they be welcomed.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000008\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022aea659a4483f414f83d42ae8abdf9412\u0022\u003EPoints of Order\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000009\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022daec121f39e24e29b30baad6bdf90489\u0022\u003EForeshore and Seabed Bill\u2014Availability of Supplementary Order Paper\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022 data-id=\u0022e1d784f4b99747e5985442d879e7fc63\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000010\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022e1d784f4b99747e5985442d879e7fc63\u0022\u003EGERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader\u2014National):\u003C/span\u003E I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Later in the day the House is expected to begin work on the Foreshore and Seabed Bill. Could I seek leave to ask the Leader of the House when he intends to make the very substantial 120-page Supplementary Order Paper available to the Opposition in order that we may appropriately participate in the debate?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022 data-id=\u00226793a07cc3474c2bb720aa997c50a648\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000011\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00226793a07cc3474c2bb720aa997c50a648\u0022\u003EHon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House):\u003C/span\u003E The Supplementary Order Paper will be made available as soon as it is printed\u2014it will go to the Bills Office. I will also be seeking leave, subsequently, once the copies are available, to table what is called a redline version of the bill, which will look like a report-back version of the bill, had the Fisheries and other Sea-related Legislation Committee been allowed to do its job properly.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022 data-id=\u0022622bf3d3e209423a99745d6a18cd9025\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000012\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022622bf3d3e209423a99745d6a18cd9025\u0022\u003EGERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader\u2014National):\u003C/span\u003E I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think it would be worth the House taking a moment for the Leader of the House to explain exactly what he means by a redline version of the bill that would be as the select committee might have reported back. The fact is that the select committee did not report back.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022 data-id=\u0022c8ee4d0652a544388f7d7e1bbf606f81\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000013\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c8ee4d0652a544388f7d7e1bbf606f81\u0022\u003EHon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House):\u003C/span\u003E This matter has been dealt with by the Business Committee, which the member has been at, over the last two meetings and he is well aware, therefore, of what I am talking about. I will be seeking leave to table a copy of the bill as originally introduced, with the amendments as in the Supplementary Order Paper, as if those amendments had been adopted by the select committee. The Committee, of course, will still consider the Supplementary Order Paper as the actual document in front of it, but the purpose of that redline copy would be to enable members to see and to read the amendments more clearly in relation to the substantive provisions\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000014\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002221c2ddb78dd44a43b7cec46facc93f41\u0022\u003EHon Dr Nick Smith\u003C/span\u003E: What?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000015\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e1e160f929704c1b90cd032c1a190da5\u0022\u003EHon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN\u003C/span\u003E: Dr Smith may find that disgraceful, but I think most members would find it will actually help in understanding the bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000016\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u00222a3935974239474697a2992db287a1ff\u0022\u003EQuestions for Oral Answer\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000017\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022145afd00f7fb419587fc9c05fae06755\u0022\u003EQuestions to Ministers\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000018\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u00228809b0e2e5b04b9ba7c6df1a07b7fcf9\u0022\u003EEmployment\u2014Labour Market\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000019\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226f6e1ae1-8aa5-4f71-8e73-30bb378026c4\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002288d184808c53446984b8fe6f796f6d5b\u0022\u003E1. GEORGINA BEYER (Labour\u2014Wairarapa)\u003C/span\u003E to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What recent reports has he received on the state of the labour market?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022605133aa-6c88-4150-82dd-7d9fcf1824b4\u0022 data-id=\u00227c62e58fb23f417a870b3af8e9ea869f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000020\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022605133aa-6c88-4150-82dd-7d9fcf1824b4\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00227c62e58fb23f417a870b3af8e9ea869f\u0022\u003EHon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister for Social Development and Employment):\u003C/span\u003E The September household labour force survey, released last Thursday, reported an increase in employment of 19,000 in the quarter, and 56,000 in the past year, taking total employment to 2,022,000, which is 230,000 more people in work than when this Government took office. The proportion of the working-age population in work is 64 percent, the highest in 18 years. Females accounted for 16,000 of the 19,000 increase in employment during the quarter, which means they are now getting the jobs they are after. Unemployment fell to 3.8 percent, the lowest in the 18-year history of the household labour force survey, and the second lowest in the OECD. Members will be pleased to know that job advertisements tell us that these levels of employment and unemployment should continue.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000021\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226f6e1ae1-8aa5-4f71-8e73-30bb378026c4\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222e26e03936ab42a4b9c9c80958047e41\u0022\u003EGeorgina Beyer\u003C/span\u003E: What are the appropriate responses to the current state of the labour market?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000022\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022605133aa-6c88-4150-82dd-7d9fcf1824b4\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002269c34b72f55e4bb894da81a2df457f3b\u0022\u003EHon STEVE MAHAREY\u003C/span\u003E: I have to agree with the wisdom shown by my colleague the Minister of Immigration, when he said we need to attract more skilled immigrants but do not want a flood of cheap labour through large-scale immigration, as some have advocated. He said we need to solve the current skill shortage through a combination of lifting skills, removing barriers to participation by under-represented groups, improving workplace practices to retain staff, investing in new technology, and having employer flexibility, as also advocated by Mr Swain\u2019s colleague Michael Barnett, Chief Executive of the Auckland Regional Chamber of Commerce.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000023\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002295ac7206-f497-429d-bf58-715224d5160f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220c19bb58af714bd18f8063285a3bab88\u0022\u003EKatherine Rich\u003C/span\u003E: When last October there were 80,000 people on all forms of unemployment benefit, why are growers, such as Peter Falloon of Canterbury, mowing their asparagus crops and losing thousands of dollars because they cannot fill vacancies for unskilled work; and what does the Minister say to growers such as Peter Wing in the Waikato, who, despite offering $20 an hour and transport, can still not fill vacancies, and last month mowed 12 tonnes of asparagus because he could not fill the vacancies on his farm?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000024\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022605133aa-6c88-4150-82dd-7d9fcf1824b4\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ed9e602654574ee8ae3b02615128dcb5\u0022\u003EHon STEVE MAHAREY\u003C/span\u003E: I do acknowledge that the enormous drop in unemployment around the country has seen the number of people on a register available for work in many areas where seasonal work is available so low that people are experiencing this. Therefore, I have to go back to the wisdom of my colleague the Minister of Immigration, when he talked about the need to lift skills, to bring new groups such as women into the workforce\u2014making sure they have access to good-quality childcare\u2014to lift wages, and to introduce good employment practices. That is the kind of advice I would give that employer.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000025\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e3dc3d88-a571-4ed7-a4b4-b66dedd6134b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022fd4b2f8e3d3a415c85d5531803d3404a\u0022\u003EPeter Brown\u003C/span\u003E: Will the Minister provide us with a breakdown of the figures, please: the percentage of the workforce permanently employed, the percentage of the workforce casually employed, and the number of people who are employed for 1 hour or thereabouts a week; and will he assure this House that no 1-hour workers are counted twice in those statistics?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000026\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022605133aa-6c88-4150-82dd-7d9fcf1824b4\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222003199a2e2f4f378d6a4e763b130e1b\u0022\u003EHon STEVE MAHAREY\u003C/span\u003E: I assure the member of the last point straightaway and tell him that last Thursday Statistics New Zealand released the household labour force survey. Every single one of those questions is answered in absolute detail in that report. I am happy to send him 10 copies, if he would like me to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000027\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220d9640b0-d861-43d8-b321-e7ba56dbe362\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220bf8dc1e337e4a2892c8f0913305a555\u0022\u003EJudy Turner\u003C/span\u003E: What specific steps is the Minister taking to ensure that older unemployed people are able to find work, given his response to my question in the House last week that this is \u201Can issue we are dealing with as a country\u201D, and in which I pointed out that the number of those on the dole for more than 3 years has actually increased by 24 percent since 1999, with the number of those unemployed for over 5 years doubling over the same period?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000028\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022605133aa-6c88-4150-82dd-7d9fcf1824b4\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002236e3e12027074459a99e35e6f0cad0eb\u0022\u003EHon STEVE MAHAREY\u003C/span\u003E: The member will remember that this Government\u2014this very good Government\u2014introduced work testing for people between the ages of 55 and 60 so they could gain access to all the support training that goes with a return to the workplace. We have not introduced work testing for people between 60 and 64. We believe that at the present time those people are best left to re-enter the labour market voluntarily. If the member is recommending that they should be work tested\u2014a 64-year-old, for example\u2014I am happy to receive those representations.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000029\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002246abb73a33b34b7db8d67961224ead53\u0022\u003ERt Hon Winston Peters\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My colleague Peter Brown asked the Minister a very significant question, one that has been on the question paper now for 4 hours. He wanted to know the percentage of the workforce permanently employed, the percentage casually employed, and the number of people working for 1 hour a week\u2014questions that were all asked at the Financial and Expenditure Committee and of which the Minister and his staff must surely have been apprised. His saying in the House that he had seen a document some weeks ago that had all the answers, does not address the issue for the public who take time to watch and listen to question time, or, for that matter, the people in the gallery who came to hear the question answered. That is a dodge from the Minister and, given that he has been here a while, he should not be allowed to get away with it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000030\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002238cd0fc459e2439c8292f54bd71fd55f\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: If that had been the original question, and that had been the Minister\u2019s answer, the member would have been absolutely correct. We are talking about a supplementary question, not the original question. The Minister might want to comment.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000031\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022605133aa-6c88-4150-82dd-7d9fcf1824b4\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022017d67a124014691ae3dbf643cac463a\u0022\u003EHon STEVE MAHAREY\u003C/span\u003E: Essentially, the original question asked what the source of that information was, and I therefore referred him to the household labour force survey. However, I can tell the member that, broadly speaking, 2,022,000 New Zealanders are employed. Approximately 450,000 have part-time jobs and about 18,000 have small numbers of hours of work\u2014between about 1 and 15 hours a week. The number of people who are under-employed is reported to have dropped by 18 percent in the last quarter. All those figures are available to the member in that household labour force survey.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000032\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022871061eb5cac41c0935cae068af54b41\u0022\u003ERt Hon Winston Peters\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That is precisely my point of order. The Minister could have given the answer and not wasted Parliament\u2019s time. Instead, he decided to duck and evade. When put to it, he knew some of the facts, and he has now shared them with us. That should have happened the first time around.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000033\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ba7ba33c0665457e8353ff59de27a7aa\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: I am glad it has happened now. The member made a point that was useful.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000034\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ba6fde7e-93f4-4636-9ce2-02c07007973a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b1ae8635b56b4b639f0a6853031c6847\u0022\u003EHon Paul Swain\u003C/span\u003E: Can the Minister confirm that the Government is working very constructively with the horticulture sector on a short, medium, and long-term strategy, and can he also confirm that this is the first time such constructive engagement has occurred between the Government and that industry?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000035\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022605133aa-6c88-4150-82dd-7d9fcf1824b4\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222e67ac9aa46e4473863d88152a42056c\u0022\u003EHon STEVE MAHAREY\u003C/span\u003E: I can confirm that there is engagement with the horticulture industry, that it is the first time it has happened, and that it is due to the leadership of Mr Paul Swain and Mr Rick Barker.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000036\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u00226f2b5832b81445aa9c9e4b9c4eebc705\u0022\u003EHealth, Minister\u2014Confidence\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000037\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E2. \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022138028bd3df04fbf80d5f354a9277ec2\u0022\u003ERt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader\u2014NZ First)\u003C/span\u003E to the Prime Minister: Has she still got confidence in the Minister of Health; if so, why?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00228ff55f5e-9237-45e2-8e15-24228a10320e\u0022 data-id=\u0022521e5767a7314b58a6640766f3c8e1b9\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000038\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228ff55f5e-9237-45e2-8e15-24228a10320e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022521e5767a7314b58a6640766f3c8e1b9\u0022\u003ERt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister):\u003C/span\u003E Yes, because she is a hard-working and conscientious Minister.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000039\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022606185c9a1d04249b742819ebb73557d\u0022\u003ERt Hon Winston Peters\u003C/span\u003E: How can the Prime Minister possibly make that statement, when almost 4,000 people died whilst waiting for surgery, and on surgery waiting lists, in the last 3 years alone, and when last year alone well over 1,100 died when on hospital or surgery waiting lists; given that at the last Labour Party conference she and her colleagues got up and boasted of the great health services they were providing in this country, are not those services at the cost of people in New Zealand dying unnecessarily?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000040\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228ff55f5e-9237-45e2-8e15-24228a10320e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224fdc527ce21344ef89c878ca8fbb72f1\u0022\u003ERt Hon HELEN CLARK\u003C/span\u003E: Most certainly not, because the numbers of people coming through day-case surgery and inpatient surgery have risen quite substantially under this Government.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000041\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002285ec30d4-6394-433a-a12e-2c4def705dd0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229aff4776d8d2466f92dbf09d74b6470a\u0022\u003EJudith Collins\u003C/span\u003E: Does she believe that being hard-working and conscientious involves disrespecting a World War II veteran who has waited 4 years for his operation, as Ms King did to Mr John Power last week, then having the bare-faced cheek to write a letter wrongly blaming others for her shameful display in the House?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000042\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228ff55f5e-9237-45e2-8e15-24228a10320e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226da7ef51f2764669bcd247df3be3c54f\u0022\u003ERt Hon HELEN CLARK\u003C/span\u003E: No disrespect will be shown to World War II veterans on my watch, nor was any shown by the Minister. I myself was in the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000043\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022eaaad191-62cf-43e8-a772-63a71dbf4d4a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002266abc6a362764f0d92554ae3219b8422\u0022\u003ESue Kedgley\u003C/span\u003E: Can she assure frail elderly New Zealanders who are living at home and totally dependent on home care that her Government will ensure that there are sufficient home-care workers to look after them properly over the Christmas period; if not, why not?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000044\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228ff55f5e-9237-45e2-8e15-24228a10320e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002279a14dafa93d4e3f8d8a016fe0745846\u0022\u003ERt Hon HELEN CLARK\u003C/span\u003E: I would certainly hope that those who are responsible, with the devolution to district health boards, for those contracts make sure of that. Of course, as the Minister for Social Development and Employment has already said, we have record low unemployment, so in a number of areas where pay rates are low\u2014and home-care workers is one\u2014there are some issues. Over time, the Government will need to grapple with the provision of further support for the skills development and wages of those workers.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000045\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb5e591b-8ffc-4539-a900-1ee22224f7d7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022305a365b7dc74c6bb596666d834f0c96\u0022\u003EDeborah Coddington\u003C/span\u003E: How can she express confidence in a Minister of Health who, in 1988, said that there being 96,000 people on waiting lists was criminal, and now there are 110,000 people on waiting lists, the number of people on waiting lists who have died has doubled under this Government, and the number forced to give up waiting and go private has tripled; how many more people have to die or pay for their own operations, for her to lose confidence in this Minister?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000046\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228ff55f5e-9237-45e2-8e15-24228a10320e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228479df15071b45fc847e79bb161e53a8\u0022\u003ERt Hon HELEN CLARK\u003C/span\u003E: I can say that there are more day-case and inpatient surgery procedures being performed now than there were when the member made that statement\u2014considerably more.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000047\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220d9640b0-d861-43d8-b321-e7ba56dbe362\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225677f00ad7144383b1bec55fc1eabda7\u0022\u003EJudy Turner\u003C/span\u003E: Does the Prime Minister have confidence that the Minister of Health has given sufficient consideration to the idea of establishing a contestable fund in order that both public and private health providers could tender to provide elective surgery so as to reduce waiting times, given that last Wednesday her response to United Future\u2019s question that she consider the proposal was a flat-out no; if not, why not?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000048\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228ff55f5e-9237-45e2-8e15-24228a10320e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022877d40b4f177442685719cdf3de5f6a3\u0022\u003ERt Hon HELEN CLARK\u003C/span\u003E: No, the Government would not support a contestable fund. Our view is that the public health system can work, and does work well. Where a district health board has more money for surgery than it can use to provide surgery from its own resources, it may contract out some operations to the private sector, but that should be the exception not the rule.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000049\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221747c5089e514b029f056065298c4667\u0022\u003ERt Hon Winston Peters\u003C/span\u003E: Will she take any responsibility whatsoever for a Minister of Health who has seen our cancer mortality rates become amongst the world\u2019s worst, with Ministry of Health figures indicating that 60 cancer patients waited more than the prescribed maximum of 4 weeks for radiation therapy in August alone, putting their lives at risk; and when will she take responsibility for the fact that almost 4,000 people have died early or unnecessarily, while waiting for treatment, when she has been the Prime Minister with that Minister of Health?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000050\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228ff55f5e-9237-45e2-8e15-24228a10320e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228fcedc4e8415499ab1c1789eb96d7afb\u0022\u003ERt Hon HELEN CLARK\u003C/span\u003E: What the Minister of Health will take a great deal of pride in is having been the first Minister of Health to ensure that a national Cancer Control Strategy has been developed for this country. Secondly, she has taken responsibility for ensuring that the training of the numbers of people needed to provide radiography and radiology has actually increased quite dramatically. Thirdly, it is fair to point out that one may be waiting for a cataract operation and be run over on the road; there are all sorts of reasons why people might not be alive when their number comes around for an operation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000051\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228af1ea8e7dd34bd58eb3b35d403bd9a4\u0022\u003ERt Hon Winston Peters\u003C/span\u003E: Does her indication of confidence in the Minister demonstrate her belief that waiting times for radiation therapy of up to 11 weeks in the Waikato and 10 weeks in Wellington are acceptable, or that the situation in Auckland, where patients face up to 9 weeks\u2019 wait, which may or may not culminate in a trip to Australia for treatment, is acceptable, yes or no; and if she does not believe those waiting times to be acceptable, why does she not hold somebody accountable, including herself?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000052\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228ff55f5e-9237-45e2-8e15-24228a10320e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022238456525ff748f4bdcf1c16777eedc2\u0022\u003ERt Hon HELEN CLARK\u003C/span\u003E: I am advised by the Minister that the waiting times have improved dramatically because she has been putting the resources in place. I also take some pride\u2014given that we did not inherit sufficient provision\u2014that this Government has fully paid all the expenses that people have incurred when in Australia, where that was required.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000053\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002285ec30d4-6394-433a-a12e-2c4def705dd0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227ad0aa24366f4c53a4cadc993ac76616\u0022\u003EJudith Collins\u003C/span\u003E: I seek the leave of the House to table a letter from Annette King to Mr John Power, in which she blamed noise in question time for her rude display; and that is despite our not being allowed to say anything during questions\u2014a point that I got pulled up for before.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000054\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228ff55f5e-9237-45e2-8e15-24228a10320e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225eba2a4e887d452f936223b1401ccc93\u0022\u003ERt Hon HELEN CLARK\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I consider that the comment made was a direct reflection on you as Speaker, and should be withdrawn and apologised for.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000055\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002253480dc8aabf415d842de113b4580dd7\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Let me say that there are people who were listening at the time who do not understand my rulings. While questions are being asked there will be silence, because we are in a democracy and every member is entitled to ask a question in silence. I do not require silence during answers; if I did, it would make my job very simple! As far as I am concerned, I did not take that comment as a reflection on me, but I will be listening very, very carefully in the future.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000056\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022\u003EDocument, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000057\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb5e591b-8ffc-4539-a900-1ee22224f7d7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228fd4d20d47e44c3e9c490d1e151ff2c2\u0022\u003EDeborah Coddington\u003C/span\u003E: I seek leave to table figures released by the Health Information Service that show that the number of people who became deceased while on waiting lists has doubled.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000058\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225a0732eed62649c0a69acf994029b691\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000059\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002209a5b71a-ca7e-4e7c-9e09-f9e63f18aa12\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225748f0e3b5594d639b2b78aceeb4f086\u0022\u003EHon Annette King\u003C/span\u003E: I seek leave to table information from the Health Information Service that shows that the number of people treated electively has gone up from 68,000 in 2001 to 114,000 in 2004. The same information was given to ACT, but it did not bother to use those figures.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000060\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223b1afa8846294c5abd99285341159e84\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000061\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b0d8b0e0-3ece-4865-9145-5eb5983fc54c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221255bd75c9f042ea9ea67f90b8b2fa95\u0022\u003EHon Richard Prebble\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. If it is the same information, I am quite happy to agree, provided that the Government is prepared to allow the rest of the information to be tabled so that we can have a complete picture.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000062\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b7e95b660a74483b94cb671455033e06\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: I want to know whether there is any objection to the tabling\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000063\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b0d8b0e0-3ece-4865-9145-5eb5983fc54c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022bc5fffa5ba5147dbb4e5058c76a64372\u0022\u003EHon Richard Prebble\u003C/span\u003E: I do object, and now I am going to seek leave for the document that the Minister wanted to present to be tabled, together with the document from the ACT party\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000064\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002209982a00d1594c728e9fdd388bec305e\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: No, the member cannot do that. He can ask for permission to table\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000065\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b0d8b0e0-3ece-4865-9145-5eb5983fc54c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222f90bc63736441a48b1361018857afbf\u0022\u003EHon Richard Prebble\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, I can.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000066\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022402027cdc93944bd9713cac860f5dca0\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Please be seated\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000067\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b0d8b0e0-3ece-4865-9145-5eb5983fc54c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f5b93cf0070f4d6a8ad7183543062891\u0022\u003EHon Richard Prebble\u003C/span\u003E: No, I can ask for leave to table those documents\u2014most certainly.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000068\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227fd00a7ef50040d586411694309945df\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: The member can ask for leave to table the document from the ACT party\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000069\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b0d8b0e0-3ece-4865-9145-5eb5983fc54c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227a7bc0d3f2144b999e1321991ba53aef\u0022\u003EHon Richard Prebble\u003C/span\u003E: That is what I am doing.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000070\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b0d8b0e0-3ece-4865-9145-5eb5983fc54c\u0022\u003EDocument, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000071\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022dc8398739cbb495381a5edeab7cdf341\u0022\u003EForeshore and Seabed Bill\u2014Policy Development\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000072\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d48244fc-ceef-4ef5-9cee-851e4d439468\u0022\u003E3. \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022db6c9b32af80419fb135a97a68cc5ed2\u0022\u003EDr DON BRASH (Leader of the Opposition)\u003C/span\u003E to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by her statement of 7 April 2004 regarding the foreshore and seabed legislation that \u201Cthe government has undertaken an exhaustive process of policy development.\u201D; if so, why?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00228ff55f5e-9237-45e2-8e15-24228a10320e\u0022 data-id=\u00226a8e482a6e3c4fd0b493ba4386e7551d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000073\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228ff55f5e-9237-45e2-8e15-24228a10320e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00226a8e482a6e3c4fd0b493ba4386e7551d\u0022\u003ERt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister):\u003C/span\u003E Yes, because we have.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000074\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d48244fc-ceef-4ef5-9cee-851e4d439468\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022dc8875134af24bfb8e406ee120c8e631\u0022\u003EDr Don Brash\u003C/span\u003E: Why is a Supplementary Order Paper, rumoured to be 120 pages in length, being introduced into the House today to change the foreshore and seabed legislation, if the Government had prepared it so exhaustively; and how can she expect Parliament to consider legislation on such a matter of such major constitutional importance, without having seen its substance, until the very day it is asked to vote on it?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000075\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228ff55f5e-9237-45e2-8e15-24228a10320e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002258b5e40df9a94eb3966bdc80e87c3128\u0022\u003ERt Hon HELEN CLARK\u003C/span\u003E: The reason for the Supplementary Order Paper is obvious: a select committee heard a great deal of evidence. Although the committee itself was not able to report back, New Zealand First and the Government parties did listen and have brought back a Supplementary Order Paper.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000076\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b16e6f07636f410f9e1c551ef851b32e\u0022\u003EMetiria Turei\u003C/span\u003E: Does the Prime Minister consider it good government that most M\u0101ori will not even see the final shape of the legislation, which removes their common law rights and their treaty rights, before it is passed into law?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000077\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228ff55f5e-9237-45e2-8e15-24228a10320e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221cd9c00eec5b438b8bc7e7404dbb4aae\u0022\u003ERt Hon HELEN CLARK\u003C/span\u003E: The bill does not remove common law rights.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000078\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bc1e9f65-e08b-4939-867c-22ef093e2a4e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226b89b200d3d64ebdbcfbe79e7885fb6f\u0022\u003ERodney Hide\u003C/span\u003E: Can the Prime Minister name one controversial bill, outside of Budget legislation, that has been brought to this Parliament to be passed under urgency, without the Opposition parties even having seen it; and what would be wrong with having the second reading this week and polishing the bill off next sitting week?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000079\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022620d637a4cbc4df28cbb956555a5c932\u0022\u003ERt Hon Winston Peters\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The question has to be accurate: we are an Opposition party, and we have seen it. [Interruption] \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000080\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022102b5dd68eda4849a05b6305861ce894\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: I am on my feet, and the member will sit down, or he will leave. That was not a point of order, and the member knows it. It was a political comment. Whether the answer was to the member\u2019s satisfaction is a matter for the House. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000081\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bc1e9f65-e08b-4939-867c-22ef093e2a4e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226bcb0feb2ec442a1b74a33aafabb613e\u0022\u003ERodney Hide\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The problem with that interjection, of course, is that Mr Peters is trying to get around the fact that he has now become this Government\u2019s doormat, and he certainly should not be raising a point of order and trying to get out of that point.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000082\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d403358b56824b068d1a4176b78ac35a\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: That member, also, has not raised a point of order.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000083\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a4b36226172a46299ff93a81f1d7c64d\u0022\u003ERt Hon Winston Peters\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The last member who raised the point of order knows he cannot get away with that. It was simply a case of: \u201CCould we fix it? Yes we could.\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000084\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022dcb52e9c2181453281b36e0c6c944785\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: I am warning the member. That is the last warning\u2014if he wants to stay in the House for question time. I now want the Prime Minister to answer the question.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000085\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228ff55f5e-9237-45e2-8e15-24228a10320e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226e886f0ca3454633a67885e4c35404ba\u0022\u003ERt Hon HELEN CLARK\u003C/span\u003E: Mr Peters has quite rightly said that an Opposition party has seen the Supplementary Order Paper, and that indicates that the Government is always happy to work with Opposition parties where common cause can be found, and in that respect I welcome ACT\u2019s decision to participate in another important select committee on constitutional reform\u2014unlike the National Party, which is abrogating its responsibility.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000086\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bc1e9f65-e08b-4939-867c-22ef093e2a4e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022fc7abd8ffdba4d2d86e5472ab55e8d9a\u0022\u003ERodney Hide\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is quite possible that the Prime Minister forgot my original question, which was about her naming one other piece of legislation, and my question talked about Opposition parties. I do not regard Winston Peters as anything in Opposition, and the points\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000087\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b85d78f49eb84cd496734403f221c9d8\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Please be seated. I am not having those parenthetical comments made during a point of order. I am hearing the member\u2019s point of order, which was, according to what I have heard\u2014and I have heard sufficient\u2014that the Prime Minister did not address the question. I thought she did.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000088\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d48244fc-ceef-4ef5-9cee-851e4d439468\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222502016503ad4cec8348d46b5ed3e842\u0022\u003EDr Don Brash\u003C/span\u003E: What does it say of her attitude to major constitutional legislation like the foreshore and seabed legislation, that she intends to table some 120 pages of last-minute amendments, which most parties in the House will not even see before they have to vote on them?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000089\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228ff55f5e-9237-45e2-8e15-24228a10320e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022565ce514f7514338bc5b955e9d38af1a\u0022\u003ERt Hon HELEN CLARK\u003C/span\u003E: It is really up to the National Party if it does not want to read the Supplementary Order Paper before it votes.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000090\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d6c31bab3a014faeb92b5273a3dca704\u0022\u003EGerry Brownlee\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is bad enough that you have allowed Mr Peters to bail the Prime Minister out by spurious points of order, but the question here quite simply was: why will the Prime Minister not make the range of amendments that will be included in this Supplementary Order Paper available to the House in good time before a debate takes place?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000091\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225708ae62908845f6b06f193862a0ed93\u0022\u003EHon Dr Michael Cullen\u003C/span\u003E: As I indicated before, the Supplementary Order Paper will be tabled as soon as possible. It includes the protection of customary rights, as supported by the National Party. It supports Crown ownership. It removes ancestral connection orders. What is it they oppose in this bill?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000092\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a1088cf0b57146659887fdaa76e6825a\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: No. I have asked the Prime Minister to comment on the original question that was asked by the member.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000093\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228ff55f5e-9237-45e2-8e15-24228a10320e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221a0c562bf1ed4b27826bfe0a79e66c62\u0022\u003ERt Hon HELEN CLARK\u003C/span\u003E: I am advised that the Supplementary Order Paper will be tabled later today, and there will be plenty of time for the National Party members, if they can give up their dinner hour, to read the amendments.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000094\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022207dd124fcc044eaae396c81a5e38077\u0022\u003ERt Hon Winston Peters\u003C/span\u003E: Could I ask the Prime Minister whether it is a fact that every parliamentary party could, if they had decided to continue the select committee process, have had access to all the Supplementary Order Papers, and, moreover, is the length of the Supplementary Order Paper because of the fact that there are certain members of this Parliament who simply cannot get their heads around this issue and are more interested in shibboleths and myth making?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000095\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002287b4d074453a44b097a99477aa01351d\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: The first part of the question is in order.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000096\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222c5656ff1a604e288ab770e32331413e\u0022\u003EGerry Brownlee\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. How can it be in order for the Prime Minister to comment on the select committee process before the bill is reported back?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000097\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226f16c133bfd744fb90308f634acef533\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Firstly, the bill has been reported back. Secondly\u2014[Interruption] I am getting a little tired of these interjections while I am on my feet. That is a direct comment to the Government. The bill has been reported back, and, secondly, I consider that the Prime Minister did address that particular question.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000098\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4030eb1-1b72-4bc3-b00d-7126013abc01\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022df75b2ec06c842b49f705e7a08759ded\u0022\u003EStephen Franks\u003C/span\u003E: Can the Prime Minister name one piece of controversial legislation, outside of Budget legislation, that has been brought to Parliament to be passed under urgency without opposing parties even having seen it; and what would be wrong with having a second reading this week and the Committee stage next week so that it could be an informed debate?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000099\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228ff55f5e-9237-45e2-8e15-24228a10320e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229ba90ea512204ee39ba1454d515e37ce\u0022\u003ERt Hon HELEN CLARK\u003C/span\u003E: Under MMP, where Government and support parties may not have a majority on a select committee, it is quite possible that there will be cases\u2014there have been in the past and there will be in the future\u2014where it was not possible to deal with amendments to a bill in a select committee. In that case, the amendments will come back to this House to be dealt with.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000100\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228694bb55d36e4089bfb7e2c48cfc6959\u0022\u003EMetiria Turei\u003C/span\u003E: Is the Government\u2019s definition of an exhaustive process one where M\u0101ori are left completely exhausted and completely ignored?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000101\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228ff55f5e-9237-45e2-8e15-24228a10320e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022bfd892c964ca4f19bd2912077e8d9a1b\u0022\u003ERt Hon HELEN CLARK\u003C/span\u003E: My definition of an exhaustive process is a debate that has now gone on for 18 months and that has included a discussion paper, a full round of hui, a further set of proposals, and a very full select committee process before being debated in this House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d48244fc-ceef-4ef5-9cee-851e4d439468\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002290bcd55d1e624d54aa2e11a8566e46cb\u0022\u003EDr Don Brash\u003C/span\u003E: Is the Government rushing through the Foreshore and Seabed Bill in order to disguise the fact that the label \u201CCrown ownership\u201D is a farce, since in practice it is qualified by extensive M\u0101ori rights and governance powers; if not, why is it suddenly necessary to put the bill through in a matter of hours when the Government has previously indicated it would go through normal processes?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000103\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228ff55f5e-9237-45e2-8e15-24228a10320e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022970af70592c948b8881a1f343ec405b3\u0022\u003ERt Hon HELEN CLARK\u003C/span\u003E: I would have thought there was nothing about \u201Cfull and beneficial ownership resting with the Crown\u201D being a sham. I am also aware that others have said that public ownership does leave room for recognising customary rights. That was said by the Leader of the Opposition.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000104\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022a14b4aff2e264ebdadcd076dfb80d3dd\u0022\u003EEarly Childhood Education\u2014Free Education Policy\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000105\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fd427be0-7196-4605-b39e-d665553240b0\u0022\u003E4. \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222825816c96324b74893e6b05e065e1a4\u0022\u003ELYNNE PILLAY (Labour\u2014Waitakere)\u003C/span\u003E to the Minister of Education: Has he received any proposals to scrap the Government\u2019s policy of 20 hours per week of free early childhood education from mid-2007 for 3 and 4-year-olds in community-based centres?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002279db8b64-1f9b-4416-9b81-a12963db9cbf\u0022 data-id=\u002229c7f3ee92ed4097a9ff3681eff97a22\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000106\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002279db8b64-1f9b-4416-9b81-a12963db9cbf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002229c7f3ee92ed4097a9ff3681eff97a22\u0022\u003EHon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education):\u003C/span\u003E Yes. I have seen a proposal to scrap the free 20 hours per week in favour of 10 hours of free education for both community and private centres. That will come as a major shock to the families of around 28,000 children who would have their existing entitlements to morning kindergarten slashed and charges imposed for the 5 hours a week that are currently free. In the case of free kindergarten, it would be gone well before lunchtime if Don Brash had his way.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000107\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fd427be0-7196-4605-b39e-d665553240b0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022bd4b89fabb634809ae427ccbded15faf\u0022\u003ELynne Pillay\u003C/span\u003E: Why is the Government committed to extending 20 hours per week of free early childhood education for 3 and 4-year-olds to all community-based centres?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000108\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002279db8b64-1f9b-4416-9b81-a12963db9cbf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223d9e5cf658064debb4b6c1aef4c179c8\u0022\u003EHon TREVOR MALLARD\u003C/span\u003E: Research has shown that children who participate in quality early childhood education are more likely to succeed at school and later in life. Private centres are not missing out. They will receive around half of the $307 million being invested in this year\u2019s Budget package, which will allow them to improve quality and decrease charges. That is why major Australian companies and New Zealand private sector chains are investing millions in buying private sector centres in New Zealand. The private sector likes it, even though the Tories whinge about it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000109\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d48244fc-ceef-4ef5-9cee-851e4d439468\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022248f050044414ea799824cdb07d08669\u0022\u003EDr Don Brash\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I believe the Minister quoted me in a grossly misleading fashion. I am not sure whether he intended to quote me\u2014he seemed to imply that he was quoting me. I have at no stage said that that was what our policy position would be. I was asked last week by the media whether I endorsed 20 hours of free early childhood education for all children. I said I was not endorsing any specific thing. I objected to discrimination between children going to community-based centres and those going to privately based centres. The reporter, I think, made the point of whether there could be some other option, and I said that it could be 10 hours and 10 hours. But I am not endorsing any particular\u2014[Interruption]\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000110\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f069323a91fc4fe5a94e0adfbd9176c1\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: The member is raising a point of order. He could have sought leave to make a personal explanation. I will not be too restrictive on that. The member was rightly raising a point of order. I would like him to finish it, and then I will rule on it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000111\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d48244fc-ceef-4ef5-9cee-851e4d439468\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022848469e6d0a147699cf12f54d849d782\u0022\u003EDr Don Brash\u003C/span\u003E: My impression is that the Minister quoted me in a quite misleading way. I would be interested to see the transcript on the basis of which he made his comment. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000112\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226fbf5efd49384280b36ff51ba06c4663\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: The member\u2019s word is to be accepted. Of course, it becomes a matter for debate, and that is what this place is all about. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000113\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bb158206-360b-4757-8d72-f7d0994e1fb3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022fa87e9e0d63f4fdcaf8c0a50185e7368\u0022\u003EHon Bill English\u003C/span\u003E: Can the Minister give the House one good reason why he is so determined to discriminate against 40,000 New Zealand children by giving them a fundamentally lesser entitlement to early childhood care than that of other New Zealand children?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000114\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002279db8b64-1f9b-4416-9b81-a12963db9cbf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002216bb4f2078c24fc3b881d30cf5234ca9\u0022\u003EHon TREVOR MALLARD\u003C/span\u003E: Because I am not prepared to promote the sorts of cuts that Don Brash suggested on the radio last week.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000115\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bb158206-360b-4757-8d72-f7d0994e1fb3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229a68cd35e38b482f82ebcef9dd5c21ad\u0022\u003EHon Bill English\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I asked the Minister to give a reason for his policy\u2014one good reason why one group of children would get a lesser early childhood entitlement than another group has\u2014and he did not even attempt to answer that question. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000116\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002202177b719a7f40b09fb4eb6b7e5d94a3\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: I am ruling in favour of the member.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000117\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002279db8b64-1f9b-4416-9b81-a12963db9cbf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222bd5caa2b64b4f7a97f897e3abd84610\u0022\u003EHon TREVOR MALLARD\u003C/span\u003E: Because if I went to even a 10-hours-a-week basis, as promoted by the Leader of the Opposition on the radio last week, it would result in children being charged for 5 hours a week to go to what is currently free morning kindergarten\u2014and I will not do that. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000118\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a031c9de-7856-491c-8f6f-bc67f285b4f7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f08f3c522b9d4d44a63eaf262cf6dbc3\u0022\u003EBernie Ogilvy\u003C/span\u003E: Can the Minister confirm that the estimated cost of extending 20 hours per week of free early childhood education for 3 and 4-year-olds to children in all early childhood education centres would be only $62 million more; and is his unwillingness to agree to that extension fiscal or ideological?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000119\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002279db8b64-1f9b-4416-9b81-a12963db9cbf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002275887d744587477682c8d5f778eb3b0c\u0022\u003EHon TREVOR MALLARD\u003C/span\u003E: I think that the member was referring to the annual cost, rather than the 3-year cost we had been referring to before. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000120\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223a4f3f1f91944df99081c6b6679915bc\u0022\u003EHon Dr Nick Smith\u003C/span\u003E: Ah! That\u2019s pathetic.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000121\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002279db8b64-1f9b-4416-9b81-a12963db9cbf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022971d52582aea4563bd450dad3888f135\u0022\u003EHon TREVOR MALLARD\u003C/span\u003E: Well, poor old Mr Smith may think that $62 million is pathetic\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000122\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222328b0cb1d4a4dc98b09d035d5bf67e1\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: The member will please just answer the question, and not make parenthetical comments. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000123\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002279db8b64-1f9b-4416-9b81-a12963db9cbf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022dfce050ee47141589978e9a0f0be48d2\u0022\u003EHon TREVOR MALLARD\u003C/span\u003E: This Government does not think that $62 million a year is chicken feed. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000124\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u00228c16b63c2f0b441497e2d691be7ca186\u0022\u003ECommunications Centres, Police\u2014P\u012Bh\u0101 Incident\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000125\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a83ea07a-806c-45ad-95bb-eb2c481cd0e2\u0022\u003E5. \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ee1897dcee8143d6886ec7dee03e2d7a\u0022\u003EHon TONY RYALL (National\u2014Bay Of Plenty)\u003C/span\u003E to the Minister of Police: Has he listened to a recording of, or read the transcript of, Iraena Asher\u2019s conversations with the 111 police communications centre; if so, how many times did she ask for help?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022ba6fde7e-93f4-4636-9ce2-02c07007973a\u0022 data-id=\u0022aebf91b70a224ec88ff7678a9776d8ad\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000126\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ba6fde7e-93f4-4636-9ce2-02c07007973a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022aebf91b70a224ec88ff7678a9776d8ad\u0022\u003EHon PAUL SWAIN (Acting Minister of Police):\u003C/span\u003E On behalf of the Minister of Police, I reply \u201CNo\u201D. However, he has been advised that Iraena Asher made three specific requests for help, as well as indicating other concerns about her safety. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000127\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a83ea07a-806c-45ad-95bb-eb2c481cd0e2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022719f7e0c54c9413c9d2888544ed061ea\u0022\u003EHon Tony Ryall\u003C/span\u003E: What responsibility will the Minister of Police take so that 111 callers who do not scream can get police help?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000128\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ba6fde7e-93f4-4636-9ce2-02c07007973a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002218ee44bb498e4717bbaaec066b7b3197\u0022\u003EHon PAUL SWAIN\u003C/span\u003E: The police have already indicated that this response was not satisfactory. They have also apologised to the family. In addition, disciplinary procedures are under way and, on top of that, the police have announced an inquiry into the way in which the communications centres work. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000129\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a83ea07a-806c-45ad-95bb-eb2c481cd0e2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022193b7b9a418f4c6c8ae6ed1adb805632\u0022\u003EHon Tony Ryall\u003C/span\u003E: Does the Government intend to take any action or express a view on the New Zealand Commissioner of Police\u2019s advice that it helps if 111 callers scream?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000130\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ba6fde7e-93f4-4636-9ce2-02c07007973a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f00bb92f35244340b5125d29f0ff01a5\u0022\u003EHon PAUL SWAIN\u003C/span\u003E: The commissioner\u2019s response at the select committee was taken out of context. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000131\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002207dc4112-8a19-4dd6-a57c-878b47f8a9b6\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229c273b5bebd64cf0978587a330065db5\u0022\u003ERon Mark\u003C/span\u003E: How much longer is the Minister of Police going to let the men and women of the New Zealand Police take the rap for his failure to address the staffing shortages, the training deficiencies, and the consequential increase in workloads and stress within police communications centres, brought on by his inability to respond to letters that were written personally to him as far back as 2002; and is it not simply that the biggest problem the police face is that they have an inept and incompetent Minister of Police, who cannot secure resources?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000132\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ba6fde7e-93f4-4636-9ce2-02c07007973a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002288b1897821254f39b469a2d1c40566bc\u0022\u003EHon PAUL SWAIN\u003C/span\u003E: The answer to the last question is clearly \u201CNo\u201D. Having said that, I add that the member will know that 18 additional staff have been placed in the communications centres. As well, of course, the Minister of Police has been able to secure over $1 billion in police resources. The staff levels in New Zealand Police are the highest they have ever been, and the resolution rates are the best they have ever been. The inquiry may show up a number of issues to be addressed. At that point, the Minister of Police will raise those with his colleagues.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000133\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a83ea07a-806c-45ad-95bb-eb2c481cd0e2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022bfa242a7963845c6ba61885e569f069d\u0022\u003EHon Tony Ryall\u003C/span\u003E: Exactly how were the words of the Commissioner of Police taken out of context?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000134\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ba6fde7e-93f4-4636-9ce2-02c07007973a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a8519e3f944d4f1299341fbbfdff05c0\u0022\u003EHon PAUL SWAIN\u003C/span\u003E: I am advised that the question was around whether a psychologist should be used as part of the communications centre operations and that the commissioner was addressing that particular issue.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000135\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a83ea07a-806c-45ad-95bb-eb2c481cd0e2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d47efc114eb4429aadc5648303b0e4c1\u0022\u003EHon Tony Ryall\u003C/span\u003E: I seek leave to table a transcript of the commissioner\u2019s appearance before the select committee, which makes it absolutely clear he was referring to the question in the House about people having to scream to get police help.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000136\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a83ea07a-806c-45ad-95bb-eb2c481cd0e2\u0022\u003EDocument not tabled.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000137\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u00224cfb7748857947498fbbb2c2eacc8905\u0022\u003EPrime Minister\u2014Travel and Police Escorts\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000138\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bc1e9f65-e08b-4939-867c-22ef093e2a4e\u0022\u003E6. \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002248a032d6c1394977b3390a32f3dc37ac\u0022\u003ERODNEY HIDE (Leader\u2014ACT)\u003C/span\u003E to the Prime Minister: What responsibility does she take for her travel arrangements and her police escorts in New Zealand?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00228ff55f5e-9237-45e2-8e15-24228a10320e\u0022 data-id=\u0022f49378dccec848a594ad2ab5873a26db\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000139\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228ff55f5e-9237-45e2-8e15-24228a10320e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022f49378dccec848a594ad2ab5873a26db\u0022\u003ERt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister):\u003C/span\u003E Such operational matters are handled by the police, Government drivers, and any other relevant staff.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000140\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bc1e9f65-e08b-4939-867c-22ef093e2a4e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b786deefa24a47e289ef99fc7b222efc\u0022\u003ERodney Hide\u003C/span\u003E: Has the Prime Minister heard of her Government\u2019s taxpayer-funded road safety campaign, which encourages passengers travelling in a speeding car to \u201Cspeak up to slow him down\u201D, \u201Cspeak up and live; shut up and die\u201D, and \u201Cstop him speeding; put your foot down\u201D, or did that campaign, directed to the rest of us, not apply to her?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000141\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228ff55f5e-9237-45e2-8e15-24228a10320e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c26598cc4a0a4674a119616270b39f04\u0022\u003ERt Hon HELEN CLARK\u003C/span\u003E: I am still very much alive, and I will not comment on any matters that are sub judice.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000142\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a83ea07a-806c-45ad-95bb-eb2c481cd0e2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229d64928f53084f44888533daa45e5329\u0022\u003EHon Tony Ryall\u003C/span\u003E: Has the Prime Minister ever congratulated her drivers or police escorts on meeting her tight deadlines?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000143\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228ff55f5e-9237-45e2-8e15-24228a10320e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022293e3d99363940309b50880b36cba8a1\u0022\u003ERt Hon HELEN CLARK\u003C/span\u003E: I am not commenting on any matter currently before the courts.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000144\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002257732e403961428dba7ef9920a9685a2\u0022\u003EGerry Brownlee\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Surely it stretches credibility to say that a question about some past congratulations to a driver concerns a matter that is sub judice, or, for that matter, to say that a comment on the Government\u2019s own road safety programme concerns a matter that is sub judice, as was the answer given to Mr Hide. If Ministers are to use that as a defence against answering legitimate questions, it needs to be absolutely certain that those matters are covered in the court case. It is hard to imagine how the prosecution of five policemen and a civilian driver will be affected by the Prime Minister answering a question about the Government\u2019s road safety programme or, for that matter, a question about congratulations she might have offered in the past.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000145\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f5f2e01e48804112af1a9d1a9862fbfe\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: The member took too long to make that point of order. The Prime Minister is entitled to answer in that way.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000146\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bc1e9f65-e08b-4939-867c-22ef093e2a4e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002213524359ec7d4550a1e5f0bd88928704\u0022\u003ERodney Hide\u003C/span\u003E: How does the Prime Minister feel about leaving the police officers and a VIP Transport driver, who tried to do their best for her, to face serious charges for their loyal work; and why does the buck not stop at the top, where the benefit of their speeding lies?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000147\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228ff55f5e-9237-45e2-8e15-24228a10320e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229da70e6803e344e28f8ac67174f81228\u0022\u003ERt Hon HELEN CLARK\u003C/span\u003E: I will make no comment on matters that are sub judice.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000148\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a83ea07a-806c-45ad-95bb-eb2c481cd0e2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a57ecff382944b27a558179d6b4ee27e\u0022\u003EHon Tony Ryall\u003C/span\u003E: How many times has the Prime Minister found herself using the Nuremburg defence, whereby the leaders said they knew nothing and the lower ranks said they were simply obeying orders?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000149\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228ff55f5e-9237-45e2-8e15-24228a10320e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a3cb36588ff44adab53aa46526ea556e\u0022\u003ERt Hon HELEN CLARK\u003C/span\u003E: I will not make any comment on matters before the court, but I do want to say that I take offence at any comparison made between me and Nazis at a trial. I have taken offence at that, and I ask for that comment to be withdrawn.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000150\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002279db8b64-1f9b-4416-9b81-a12963db9cbf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b74254e756f44a0b90d02bd44bc1906a\u0022\u003EHon Trevor Mallard\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think that you might have missed the end of the Prime Minister\u2019s answer.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000151\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228ff55f5e-9237-45e2-8e15-24228a10320e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227a4d989eb8524d6e9e23ed47a0e3a57d\u0022\u003ERt Hon HELEN CLARK\u003C/span\u003E: I took offence and asked for it to be withdrawn.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000152\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022bf50fa87369e4e62a49a343213fd4d86\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: I think that the comment making that comparison was not perhaps the wisest sort of comment to be made. As offence has been taken, I would like the member to withdraw and apologise.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000153\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a83ea07a-806c-45ad-95bb-eb2c481cd0e2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ab259e3b2d53427c9f287fad94d3580c\u0022\u003EHon Tony Ryall\u003C/span\u003E: I am happy to take\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000154\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4030eb1-1b72-4bc3-b00d-7126013abc01\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225bbd5b5603a243348bea1ad93fec8033\u0022\u003EStephen Franks\u003C/span\u003E: The Nuremburg defence\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000155\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d0598e55155a4344b565ce2d66ead028\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: The member cannot get up like that. [Interruption] The member will now leave the Chamber. He is not to interject while I am talking. He knows that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000156\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022\u003EStephen Franks withdrew from the Chamber.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000157\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ad67f02f2a0d4a92ae933d4a706270c5\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: I have asked the member to stand, withdraw, and apologise.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000158\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a83ea07a-806c-45ad-95bb-eb2c481cd0e2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222543cf064f834f118ed7ff4ce3c967ea\u0022\u003EHon Tony Ryall\u003C/span\u003E: I am happy to take responsibility\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000159\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223a834b067a924e0abe3705b676d4bf8c\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: I said that the member will withdraw and apologise.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000160\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a83ea07a-806c-45ad-95bb-eb2c481cd0e2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b7e88542676849b79ca210522be9b0e3\u0022\u003EHon Tony Ryall\u003C/span\u003E: I withdraw and apologise.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000161\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b0d8b0e0-3ece-4865-9145-5eb5983fc54c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224a3347ffd0e14753965fd3818853173f\u0022\u003EHon Richard Prebble\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I want you to reflect on your rulings. The fact that there is such a thing as a Nuremburg defence is in common parlance. If a member of this House, when accused of adopting a Nuremburg defence, can then say that it is being called a Nazi, it would be a most extraordinary and unfortunate confinement of the ability of members to question the Government. I say that it is now established as part of international law that one cannot just say: \u201CI was doing my duty.\u201D I believe that when you look at the transcript, you will find that Mr Ryall\u2019s question\u2014especially given the nature of this question\u2014was perfectly in order.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000162\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c1c648bb2d624a1cab66723a2e26be4f\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: I thank the member for his point of order, which was one. If a member, however, takes offence on personal grounds, it is invariable\u2014and has been since I have been here\u2014that the comment must be withdrawn.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000163\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b0d8b0e0-3ece-4865-9145-5eb5983fc54c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002211624a68f2ef480f8b98b4b51daa206c\u0022\u003EHon Richard Prebble\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That may be so, but the Prime Minister did not take offence.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000164\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229ce3b28e3e1b48289232aafbef5476bc\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, she did.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000165\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b0d8b0e0-3ece-4865-9145-5eb5983fc54c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226d908495d2954beab81c426e5adefc91\u0022\u003EHon Richard Prebble\u003C/span\u003E: Or was it another MP who decided to take offence and raise it as a point of order?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000166\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022dca4a99b8b174214b6a23300f1c1522b\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: I am sorry, but the Prime Minister did take offence in her last three or four words.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000167\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b0d8b0e0-3ece-4865-9145-5eb5983fc54c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c48ab0eca2f0418fb977cf4dd00331d5\u0022\u003EHon Richard Prebble\u003C/span\u003E: No, she said in her answer that she did not like it, but she did not raise it as a point of order or a parliamentary matter. No doubt now she is doing so, but I say that the person who raised it as a point of order was her Minister. Following your logic, a member could get up and take objection to anything, even if it is not unparliamentary.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000168\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225f4d9c82687142d59f4d307c9958bba9\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: I listened to the Prime Minister\u2019s reply, and in her last words she took offence at the actual comment that was made. When she takes offence she is entitled to say that, and then the comment must be withdrawn.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000169\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224c08d2c2c73845f89e8a9d70b90631e5\u0022\u003EGerry Brownlee\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think it is worth noting that the Prime Minister did not take a point of order to register the offence that she felt was directed at her by the use of that particular term. Mr Mallard took offence, and the Prime Minister then confirmed that she was somehow offended. I would also ask this question.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000170\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b55e16c603224af58957b938a32ada0d\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Please be brief.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000171\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e605a3919c5448179764c1bdb1168377\u0022\u003EGerry Brownlee\u003C/span\u003E: If a member is simply able to say: \u201CI don\u2019t like what you said. Withdraw and apologise, because it is offensive to me.\u201D, surely that will severely limit debate in this House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000172\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002223c6ee0317e340b88e463a44df116aab\u0022\u003EHon Dr Michael Cullen\u003C/span\u003E: Firstly, Mr Mallard drew attention to what the Prime Minister had said, because it appeared that you had missed the last part in terms of requesting a withdrawal. Secondly, I have been required to withdraw on a number of occasions what I regard as utterly accurate remarks about the Opposition that Opposition members have found offensive. [Interruption] \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000173\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002274c5bd3661ba49afb8550e33994e6c46\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: The member will be leaving very quickly if there is any comment while I am on my feet. No point of order was taken, at all. I will listen to the tapes, but I am advised that no point of order was taken, at all. The Prime Minister did confirm that she took offence. There the matter rests.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000174\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bc1e9f65-e08b-4939-867c-22ef093e2a4e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e4d7c0cf51b94b3d800e18c76edb0b04\u0022\u003ERodney Hide\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am not contesting your ruling, but I ask you to consider the situation that we find ourselves in, which is this. The Prime Minister refused to answer the question, and said the matter is sub judice. Well, that is OK. But then she ended her answer to a question by saying she had taken offence and wanted the remark to be withdrawn. You did not then hear that, so it was Trevor Mallard, I think, who stood up and said that she had taken offence.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000175\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002248663a94e44a4655b223136e40a8bcd8\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: I listened to what the Clerk said, not to anyone else.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000176\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bc1e9f65-e08b-4939-867c-22ef093e2a4e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022bb8ba9ee47c2441bb36448c05c21deb3\u0022\u003ERodney Hide\u003C/span\u003E: OK, well, the Clerk said that she had taken offence. But will it now be the standard situation that a member can ask for a withdrawal and apology that is just tacked on to the end of an answer to a question, or is the member required to take a point of order? I would have thought that it is unacceptable that a Minister answering a question can say, at the end of it: \u201COh, and I take offence and want that withdrawn.\u201D, and can then force the questioner to have to withdraw and apologise for what was a legitimate question.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000177\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221a10f82ae9c64a0abd0aaa8b5a6f1403\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: No, of course I do not take that as a general rule. I listen to each case and judge it on its merits. That is why I am in this job. Occasionally it is and occasionally it is not, and that has to be my judgment call. As I said, I am a referee.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000178\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002273cfa65f33c446dcab4861a513330e16\u0022\u003ERt Hon Winston Peters\u003C/span\u003E: Can I ask the Prime Minister about the distance and the time it took to cover that distance with her entourage, which means that if the average speed was 120 kilometres per hour there were times when that entourage must have been at 150 kilometres per hour; is she pleading the fifth amendment on the basis that it may incriminate her?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000179\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228ff55f5e-9237-45e2-8e15-24228a10320e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002218ef3bfe18a44a9088df603d593b4350\u0022\u003ERt Hon HELEN CLARK\u003C/span\u003E: I am not commenting on matters before the court, and of course I will be taking legal advice throughout the matter.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000180\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022a0ca97d2166447d391bdad5b64a71da2\u0022\u003ECrime\u2014Police Investigations\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000181\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a83ea07a-806c-45ad-95bb-eb2c481cd0e2\u0022\u003E7. \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002206e1c207a4654735a9935a6952aa5b77\u0022\u003EHon TONY RYALL (National\u2014Bay Of Plenty)\u003C/span\u003E to the Minister of Police: What assurances has he received that the New Zealand Police is actively investigating all aspects of crime?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022ba6fde7e-93f4-4636-9ce2-02c07007973a\u0022 data-id=\u00223da0ab917514416d8c620acc4e74bd87\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000182\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ba6fde7e-93f4-4636-9ce2-02c07007973a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00223da0ab917514416d8c620acc4e74bd87\u0022\u003EHon PAUL SWAIN (Acting Minister of Police):\u003C/span\u003E I have been assured that the New Zealand Police is producing very positive results from the current crime and crash reduction strategies that, by their very nature, range widely across all major crime types.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000183\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a83ea07a-806c-45ad-95bb-eb2c481cd0e2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002265be3c3058134645813190f8434acea6\u0022\u003EHon Tony Ryall\u003C/span\u003E: Why have some police been ordered not to hunt for clandestine laboratories making the drug P?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000184\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ba6fde7e-93f4-4636-9ce2-02c07007973a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022062b98c5ccce42cc9ef0f197cae653b4\u0022\u003EHon PAUL SWAIN\u003C/span\u003E: Firstly, that is completely and utterly not true. Secondly, in the calendar year 2003, 202 laboratories were put out of action, and in the calendar year 2004\u2014in just a few months of this year\u2014153 laboratories have been busted. That is hardly the sort of thing that happens if someone had been ordered not to do it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000185\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002270dd644d-8bcf-40dc-998a-887d62d24a76\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022face182abbfe48be87283e63e3f206eb\u0022\u003EMoana Mackey\u003C/span\u003E: What results are the police achieving as a result of the emphasis on crime and crash reduction?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000186\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ba6fde7e-93f4-4636-9ce2-02c07007973a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225370760206ab432aa40f4a9b1b7f6df3\u0022\u003EHon PAUL SWAIN\u003C/span\u003E: The Government has raised the police budget to over $1 billion, and there are now more staff than ever before. As a result, there has been a drop in recorded crime of 6.5 percent per 10,000 head of population, we have seen the highest resolution rates\u2014of 45 percent\u2014in 20 years, and we have the lowest October road toll figure since monthly recording began in 1965. That is due to the good work of this very good Government and of our great police force.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000187\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b62240ad-adda-430d-887a-8f999ef4bbc4\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022184868c7f2874d49975f442542d0fd3d\u0022\u003EDr Muriel Newman\u003C/span\u003E: How can the public have confidence that the New Zealand Police is adequately investigating all areas of crime when its administration ignored the warnings about serious problems with the emergency services until a tragedy occurred, when senior detectives are being forced to issue traffic tickets instead of investigating methamphetamine crime, and when five police officers have now been hung out to dry by a Prime Minister who was happy to speed to a rugby game?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000188\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ba6fde7e-93f4-4636-9ce2-02c07007973a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e31ec113b57349ee980b31e494195425\u0022\u003EHon PAUL SWAIN\u003C/span\u003E: There are three questions there, and I will answer two of them. The first point is that we did not ignore the warnings; in fact the number in the communication centres went up by 18. The fact of the matter is that the police see a range of policing as important to reduce crime, including the issuing of tickets for traffic offences.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000189\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002204ed8007-24ee-45fb-ab8e-8573da79b238\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002212be6c1b9b02463ca54b371dab39cb7f\u0022\u003EMarc Alexander\u003C/span\u003E: Is the Minister satisfied that the police are at least investigating all violent crime, in light of the fact that they have identified 87 links to past crimes, including murder and sexual assault, through taking retrospective DNA samples from prison inmates; or does he think that is all terribly unfair on those inmates\u2014a position argued by the Greens, who continue to place the interests of criminals over victims, and who vote accordingly? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000190\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ba6fde7e-93f4-4636-9ce2-02c07007973a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022515b3f4912104e639eee0c1919ee9322\u0022\u003EHon PAUL SWAIN\u003C/span\u003E: The police are doing a fabulous job as far as investigating and completing the work on violent crime is concerned, but of course like everyone else they can do better.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000191\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a83ea07a-806c-45ad-95bb-eb2c481cd0e2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229349c2306a0c4ae881dc232f178192af\u0022\u003EHon Tony Ryall\u003C/span\u003E: If no such instructions have been given, then who is the public to believe: a police spokesperson in Wellington, or the front-line officers battling the evil of the drug-dealing gangs; and why would so many officers be saying that is happening, if it is not?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000192\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ba6fde7e-93f4-4636-9ce2-02c07007973a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a2c807220f644a43baaa8f5e9c0b574c\u0022\u003EHon PAUL SWAIN\u003C/span\u003E: Peter Marshall, the assistant commissioner of police, has said that he would caution the public to be wary of unsourced commentaries supposedly downplaying methamphetamine. He said that quite frankly it is a nonsense to allude to unwritten orders. I think that member would be very concerned about rumours that there were unwritten orders that the Leader of the Opposition should stay away from Parliament because he is not up to the job.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000193\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a089224f309e444ab4f68825b61e08b0\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: No, that last comment was unnecessary. The member will withdraw and apologise.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000194\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ba6fde7e-93f4-4636-9ce2-02c07007973a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002243cf9f0f394e4bb69d7f2072a73b2555\u0022\u003EHon PAUL SWAIN\u003C/span\u003E: I withdraw and apologise.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000195\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a83ea07a-806c-45ad-95bb-eb2c481cd0e2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b7f54ea97b294fe9bbf7a1a2603e4579\u0022\u003EHon Tony Ryall\u003C/span\u003E: I seek leave to table two media reports identifying people who confirm the nature of that police advice.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000196\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a83ea07a-806c-45ad-95bb-eb2c481cd0e2\u0022\u003EDocuments, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000197\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ba6fde7e-93f4-4636-9ce2-02c07007973a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222ae065de9ace4b41a3d94a8f7208b335\u0022\u003EHon PAUL SWAIN\u003C/span\u003E: I seek leave to table a media release from the office of the Commissioner of Police about that subject.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000198\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ba6fde7e-93f4-4636-9ce2-02c07007973a\u0022\u003EDocument, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000199\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u002261da3dc893f84730a07aef28dc8959a3\u0022\u003ETertiary Education\u2014Voluntary Long-term Savings\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000200\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a031c9de-7856-491c-8f6f-bc67f285b4f7\u0022\u003E8. \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022064a290babb94666927f8e521379c626\u0022\u003EBERNIE OGILVY (United Future)\u003C/span\u003E to the Associate Minister of Education (Tertiary Education): Can he confirm that the Government intends to introduce a voluntary long-term savings scheme for tertiary education; if so, why?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022605133aa-6c88-4150-82dd-7d9fcf1824b4\u0022 data-id=\u0022fc1cc572bf714dd6836b88733fe22807\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000201\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022605133aa-6c88-4150-82dd-7d9fcf1824b4\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022fc1cc572bf714dd6836b88733fe22807\u0022\u003EHon STEVE MAHAREY (Associate Minister of Education (Tertiary Education)):\u003C/span\u003E What I can do is quote the Prime Minister\u2019s comments about saving for tertiary education made at the Labour Party conference on Saturday, where she said: \u201C\u2026 we will look at ways of supporting families to plan ahead for the inevitable costs, not to replace what the government funds, but to be better prepared to meet the costs which fall on students and families now.\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000202\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a031c9de-7856-491c-8f6f-bc67f285b4f7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221eb486c0bb6d4d9094f04b2e873b47ba\u0022\u003EBernie Ogilvy\u003C/span\u003E: Can the Minister therefore confirm that he received support from United Future for establishing such a scheme, as part of last year\u2019s Budget round; and that the Ministry of Education\u2019s analysis of submissions in response to last year\u2019s student support discussion document found that over one-half of submitters supported it\u2014by far the single most popular proposal to emerge from the consultation?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000203\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022605133aa-6c88-4150-82dd-7d9fcf1824b4\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b341776c5a0b4c7fa5c2426e35fff5b6\u0022\u003EHon STEVE MAHAREY\u003C/span\u003E: I can confirm that United Future often provides support for very good ideas that are put about, and in this case it has supported this idea. And, yes, I can confirm that the student discussion document responses did indicate that a large number of people supported such an idea. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000204\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002212f01718-dc1f-4307-b0b3-451098ab73df\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225c4be5cd65a342afbaa1174fb4112bbd\u0022\u003EDr Ashraf Choudhary\u003C/span\u003E: What initiatives has the Government previously undertaken to reduce the costs of tertiary education that fall on students and families, and what have been the results of those changes?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000205\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022605133aa-6c88-4150-82dd-7d9fcf1824b4\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226241d7f7f3dc439bb069392e585346a4\u0022\u003EHon STEVE MAHAREY\u003C/span\u003E: Too many to list. I will just mention a few of the most significant: no interest while studying; fee stabilisation and fee maxima; increased allowance thresholds; and annual indexing of those thresholds. I could go on, but it would take far too long.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000206\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002285712e72-b25f-4850-b4d9-90035064fde3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002224b3f19bd5c34ed389c501ac6fc67f4b\u0022\u003ENandor Tanczos\u003C/span\u003E: Is not this individualised savings scheme just another step towards the privatisation of education; and whatever happened to the expectation that society provides low-cost tertiary education in return for an obligation on graduates to give back to the community?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000207\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022605133aa-6c88-4150-82dd-7d9fcf1824b4\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002211a5a73716674cfbac7a2f7c18306428\u0022\u003EHon STEVE MAHAREY\u003C/span\u003E: In answer to the first part of the question, no; in answer to the second part, this Government stands for low-cost tertiary education, and for students being able to contribute to their society.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000208\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a031c9de-7856-491c-8f6f-bc67f285b4f7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220791cf6e7608405eb84b1ec995f33d48\u0022\u003EBernie Ogilvy\u003C/span\u003E: Can the Minister confirm that any proposals to introduce a long-term savings scheme for tertiary study would be voluntary, and would not legitimise wholesale increases in course fees; and is he confident that the rest of his party would be comfortable with it on that basis?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000209\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022605133aa-6c88-4150-82dd-7d9fcf1824b4\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223520b53d6ceb4127b9931fcfff812b5b\u0022\u003EHon STEVE MAHAREY\u003C/span\u003E: There is a very long way to go with such a policy at this time, but, yes, I would expect that any such policy would need to be voluntary in nature.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000210\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a031c9de-7856-491c-8f6f-bc67f285b4f7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228ba61dbecdf54a5c8bb47816fbaed84a\u0022\u003EBernie Ogilvy\u003C/span\u003E: Has the Minister given any consideration to allowing the savings scheme to continue to be used beyond tertiary study, to perpetuate the savings ethic and to allow the account holders to save for houses or for their retirement; if not, why not?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000211\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022605133aa-6c88-4150-82dd-7d9fcf1824b4\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002267dc7d9f663d477ea0cceec43811f7bb\u0022\u003EHon STEVE MAHAREY\u003C/span\u003E: No.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000212\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u002236dba9cb14e74ab4ae1839da55306b70\u0022\u003EHealth, Ministry\u2014Service Providers\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000213\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220daaf9fb-1a1f-4d31-848a-fd13cb1a2c5a\u0022\u003E9. \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e8d8484730a94f308f7d14b3f878eaa4\u0022\u003EBARBARA STEWART (NZ First)\u003C/span\u003E to the Minister of Health: Is it her policy to ensure that those contracted by the Ministry of Health to provide services are audited to guarantee health funding is used appropriately?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002209a5b71a-ca7e-4e7c-9e09-f9e63f18aa12\u0022 data-id=\u0022fc9181a1febd4d96ad9e2d787ebcc8a3\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000214\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002209a5b71a-ca7e-4e7c-9e09-f9e63f18aa12\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022fc9181a1febd4d96ad9e2d787ebcc8a3\u0022\u003EHon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Health):\u003C/span\u003E Yes. A number of processes are in place to ensure that funding for services contracted by the Ministry of Health is used in an appropriate manner. Those processes endeavour to minimise the risk of funds being used inappropriately. It is important to balance the need for accountability with the desire not to tie up providers with bureaucracy.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000215\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220daaf9fb-1a1f-4d31-848a-fd13cb1a2c5a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022fef3d31995f544bdac4889be09d58c5a\u0022\u003EBarbara Stewart\u003C/span\u003E: Was the Minister advised about the alleged corruption occurring within the non-profit organisation, Supported Individualised Lifestyle Choices, by her colleagues Mark Burton, MP for Taupo, and Ruth Dyson, who is the Associate Minister of Health and the Minister for Disability Issues, and from within her own ministry; if not, how can she be sure that auditing is appropriate; if so, why has she done nothing about it?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000216\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002209a5b71a-ca7e-4e7c-9e09-f9e63f18aa12\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022de036ee44d76438aa52d185161f6bca7\u0022\u003EHon ANNETTE KING\u003C/span\u003E: No, I do not believe I am aware of that. However, I am aware that the Ministry of Health has many processes in place in terms of audit. Many non-governmental organisations, I believe, are audited far more than other sectors. However, that is not to say there will not be a bad apple in the barrel. We try to find them and stop any bad behaviour.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000217\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220daaf9fb-1a1f-4d31-848a-fd13cb1a2c5a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002280fa44a13d3f49e0ac35f8bb7929e695\u0022\u003EBarbara Stewart\u003C/span\u003E: Why is the Minister not taking seriously the ability for some unscrupulous individuals to easily exploit her auditing enforcement on contracted services, and is it not a fact that the moratorium on not allowing families to control their own care packages in New Zealand contravenes the rights of handicapped people and their families; if not, why not?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000218\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002209a5b71a-ca7e-4e7c-9e09-f9e63f18aa12\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022de06a8f86d704ac2be5777ff9123c012\u0022\u003EHon ANNETTE KING\u003C/span\u003E: The two questions are totally unrelated. In relation to the second one, if we are talking about the ability to pervert contracts and so on, I am sure there are individuals who would pervert contracts just as easily as non-governmental organisations would. We try to ensure there are as few as possible. However, they are not related just to the non-governmental sector. For example, at the moment there are two private businesses that have attempted to rip off the taxpayers of New Zealand by falsely claiming pharmaceuticals.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000219\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220daaf9fb-1a1f-4d31-848a-fd13cb1a2c5a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022661789dca71b440596ff739c66a68e11\u0022\u003EBarbara Stewart\u003C/span\u003E: Is the Minister confident that the appropriate auditing measures have been applied to Supported Individualised Lifestyle Choices, set up in Taupo to provide care for the intellectually handicapped; why are there people who are still convinced that it was set up as a money-laundering scheme, and why has her ministry done nothing about this?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000220\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002209a5b71a-ca7e-4e7c-9e09-f9e63f18aa12\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a51977dcf7224b15a5c876f5801afef1\u0022\u003EHon ANNETTE KING\u003C/span\u003E: I cannot answer that question in the House today. I am not aware of it, but I will undertake to find out the information for the member and provide it to her.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000221\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u002219cde3311e4e4ffe977d12b123c4a033\u0022\u003ESchools\u2014Compulsory Fees\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000222\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bb158206-360b-4757-8d72-f7d0994e1fb3\u0022\u003E10. \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225cd9b5490ffe4dd496f2d28bf2960e8b\u0022\u003EHon BILL ENGLISH (National\u2014Clutha-Southland)\u003C/span\u003E to the Minister of Education: Does he agree with the comment of Linwood College Principal, Rob Burrough, who said: \u201CWe rely on a significant amount of locally raised funds in order to balance the books.\u201D, and has he taken any action to prevent schools collecting compulsory school fees?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002279db8b64-1f9b-4416-9b81-a12963db9cbf\u0022 data-id=\u0022d47ed1b6ca0742f7b19e8773f37cb747\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000223\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002279db8b64-1f9b-4416-9b81-a12963db9cbf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d47ed1b6ca0742f7b19e8773f37cb747\u0022\u003EHon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education):\u003C/span\u003E I have a lot of respect for the gentleman concerned. There is a point of difference here. Linwood College raised $60,042 through donations last year. Total Government grants were $5.8 million, up $1.2 million since 1999. I have not taken any action with regard to that school, other than with all other schools when I reissued Wyatt Creech\u2019s circular Payments by Parents of Students in State and State Integrated Schools originally issued in 1998.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000224\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bb158206-360b-4757-8d72-f7d0994e1fb3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222eb11ffd1a6a496783c0aa31f1d6e892\u0022\u003EHon Bill English\u003C/span\u003E: Can he confirm that since he became the Minister parental contributions and donations have risen 34 percent to around $200 million per annum, and that his school-funding policy now relies on mid and higher decile school parents paying fees to keep the school viable?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000225\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002279db8b64-1f9b-4416-9b81-a12963db9cbf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b78d28032faa41c982e193c1ae2e9acb\u0022\u003EHon TREVOR MALLARD\u003C/span\u003E: No, I do not, and $60,000 is certainly not in that category.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000226\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221a59d3ae-788b-4b19-b7dd-7d0e29a626fc\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c0403b38d2064b77851dae92dfaddeaf\u0022\u003EHon Brian Donnelly\u003C/span\u003E: Does the Minister stand by his statement in the House last week that the New Zealand Council for Educational Research\u2019s research conclusion that affected schools rely significantly on locally raised funds is incorrect; if he does, what does that tell us about his opinion of the New Zealand Council for Educational Research\u2019s quality of research?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000227\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002279db8b64-1f9b-4416-9b81-a12963db9cbf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022962ca96292734f0a88eda5516779945c\u0022\u003EHon TREVOR MALLARD\u003C/span\u003E: I think the member is aware that I have to tread relatively carefully in that area, because of my close relationship with the New Zealand Council for Educational Research. However, leaving that to one side, it is fair to say that that particular piece of research ignored the fact that many of the extra teachers have been funded out of the extra operational grants. That is something the council should have referred to, and did not, and in my opinion that was more than a bit shoddy.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000228\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bb158206-360b-4757-8d72-f7d0994e1fb3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b1145c500ac844f2944f135dd5f516a3\u0022\u003EHon Bill English\u003C/span\u003E: Does the Minister agree, or disagree, with the following statement: \u201CMany of the schools I visit rely on local funds, school fees, and fund raising to pay for basic educational needs. That is wrong. The Education Act guarantees New Zealand children a free State education. The Government is breaching its responsibilities under that Act, when schools are forced to fund-raise to provide that education.\u201D?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000229\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002279db8b64-1f9b-4416-9b81-a12963db9cbf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002225e5f8c610554b22a53546c9203566b9\u0022\u003EHon TREVOR MALLARD\u003C/span\u003E: When I became Minister in 1999 I sat down with schools in order to track a path to get out of that position. As a result of that, there were 2,550 extra teachers paid for by the Government, a 10 percent, and then inflation-adjusted, increase per student, and $120 million a year in professional development. That is why that situation does not exist now.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000230\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bb158206-360b-4757-8d72-f7d0994e1fb3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022663c4ebbcdb849bc8a2fd760547f20d0\u0022\u003EHon Bill English\u003C/span\u003E: Can the Minister confirm that the reason he will not comment on that statement is that it was made by him as Opposition spokesperson on education, and will he confirm now what school principals all over the country are telling pupils at prize givings\u2014that is, Labour\u2019s policy on school funding relies on parents of pupils in middle and high decile schools topping up State funding with fees and donations, and when will he get real and just admit that that is just the way the world is?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000231\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222e1fbe96b3e64798adf5537827e4eca7\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: There are three questions there. The Minister may answer two.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000232\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002279db8b64-1f9b-4416-9b81-a12963db9cbf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022077df861698a441fa91617093a4dbb9e\u0022\u003EHon TREVOR MALLARD\u003C/span\u003E: Of course I recognise my own very brilliant statement. It no longer applies.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000233\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022b77ded6673c7446ca1b12bb148b49eb2\u0022\u003ESpecial Education\u2014Teacher and Learning Support\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000234\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002270fa4cbd-9380-4916-9f2a-78da059d220e\u0022\u003E11. \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002259ed2780015e49fdac8cd868e6fbaa34\u0022\u003EH V ROSS ROBERTSON (Labour\u2014Manukau East)\u003C/span\u003E to the Associate Minister of Education: What moves has the Government made to increase the number of students with special education needs receiving additional teacher and learning support?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00221583b5cb-f4e0-4981-97ba-193c338ff404\u0022 data-id=\u0022b2b4c2e2795b452b9f6deb8bf2efe473\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000235\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221583b5cb-f4e0-4981-97ba-193c338ff404\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b2b4c2e2795b452b9f6deb8bf2efe473\u0022\u003EHon MARIAN HOBBS (Associate Minister of Education (Adult and Community Education)) on behalf of the Associate Minister of Education:\u003C/span\u003E Today I announced that the number of special education students receiving additional specialist teacher support and time will increase from 550 students to 1,000 a year from next February. The Government is committing $18.3 million over the next 4 years, to address the needs of students who are not adequately supported through existing initiatives such as the Ongoing and Reviewable Resourcing Scheme, known as \u201CORRS\u201D.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000236\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002270fa4cbd-9380-4916-9f2a-78da059d220e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022379593e0c3db4575b636e2bb8d61fe97\u0022\u003EH V Ross Robertson\u003C/span\u003E: How does this announcement of extra provision supplement the existing education support?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000237\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221583b5cb-f4e0-4981-97ba-193c338ff404\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d9c14ae1dd2e4fe688f5102d6e8cc305\u0022\u003EHon MARIAN HOBBS\u003C/span\u003E: Around 7,500 students with very high needs receive support through that scheme\u2014about 800 more than in 1999. This Government also established the School High Health Needs Fund, which supports another 250 children. In total, the special education budget has risen from $279 million to $436 million, a rise of 56 percent since 1999. This Government takes people\u2019s special needs seriously.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000238\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u00222ddb34cf6c0f42629b2cbaa4caf8e7d6\u0022\u003EForeshore and Seabed Bill\u2014Public Access and Ownership\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000239\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003E12. \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022cdd002a0d1564d06bd567a131bb2cff5\u0022\u003EMETIRIA TUREI (Green)\u003C/span\u003E to the Deputy Prime Minister: Is the Government satisfied that the Foreshore and Seabed Bill will provide for public access to, and public ownership of, the foreshore?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022 data-id=\u0022ec657821f0bd4dcebe53494c6b02be46\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000240\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022ec657821f0bd4dcebe53494c6b02be46\u0022\u003EHon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister):\u003C/span\u003E I am satisfied that the Foreshore and Seabed Bill will provide for public access to, and public ownership of, the public foreshore and seabed.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000241\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022226ffecf92de455f89f4294887cf6521\u0022\u003EMetiria Turei\u003C/span\u003E: Why, then, does the Foreshore and Seabed Bill contain a provision hidden away in schedule 3 that removes the requirement to provide public access over reclaimed land, and therefore allows wealthy yachties such as those at Bayswater Marina to privatise the foreshore and exclude the public?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000242\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222c873a4d04f0431797aaad2a55b16aed\u0022\u003EHon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN\u003C/span\u003E: I suggest the member waits to see how the Supplementary Order Paper emerges on a number of these matters.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000243\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220636f2a887f447a2b24c98ea19c2d4ff\u0022\u003EMetiria Turei\u003C/span\u003E: Is it not the case that even with legal requirements to provide public access, local councils like the North Shore City Council find it almost impossible to get marinas like the Bayswater one to provide those mandatory marginal strips, and is not this bill simply making it easier for the wealthy to privatise the foreshore?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000244\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022922949d1bad04f8d865fe248fbd2ca12\u0022\u003EHon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN\u003C/span\u003E: No, absolutely not. There are, of course, always limits on the level of public access, even in public areas. I am sure the Green Party would be opposed to people being able to drive their private bulldozers down on to the beach and digging it up.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000245\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219386ba0-5a6e-485e-abc0-5a3128b4e1f6\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223694d469fd614618bc526ae40eef7eac\u0022\u003EHon Ken Shirley\u003C/span\u003E: Does the clause 21 that we have not seen yet provide the same as what the clause 21 in the bill as introduced did, which is what went to the select committee\u2014namely, that restriction and prohibition of access to the public foreshore and seabed can be provided, with the proviso that M\u0101ori can be exempted from that restriction, on the basis of customary right? Is that still in the bill as it stands now?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000246\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d4c4cdfff5314cb5ade281d8e4d48fd7\u0022\u003EHon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN\u003C/span\u003E: The member will find that the access provisions have been clarified in the bill that will be dealt with in the Committee stage. I can assure the member that, from my estimate of the timetable that we are on, he will have the Supplementary Order Paper long before we get to the Committee stage.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000247\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220b535ee5730e4f3982780c66f3f66228\u0022\u003EMetiria Turei\u003C/span\u003E: Is the Minister aware that wealthy landowners, such as some on Waiheke Island and elsewhere, have already used reclamations to exclude people from access to the beach; why is he supporting the rights of wealthy people to privatise the foreshore, over the rights of tangata whenua?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000248\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d0f688f05a8f4f8d858a4258574ad501\u0022\u003EHon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN\u003C/span\u003E: I am not, but what the member\u2019s case does highlight is the danger of allowing more private ownership of the foreshore and seabed, as she is proposing, when her party started off proposing that it should be held in the commons.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000249\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227aa457ab5b8b48a988f65fb634a3ad77\u0022\u003EMetiria Turei\u003C/span\u003E: Has the Minister received any reports that make him confident that he can get support from the New Zealand First Party to pass schedule 3, which allows wealthy yachties to privatise the foreshore by reclaiming land?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000250\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223b15c88e57fb446d9fa132d9fd2d56dd\u0022\u003ERt Hon Winston Peters\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That member has put up the same proposition three times. She has been wrong three times.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000251\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022bddb599ce4c6448ab897cc4692c79de8\u0022\u003EOpposition Member\u003C/span\u003E: That\u2019s not a point of order.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000252\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002231495dc080fd42e183603a480cf3b590\u0022\u003ERt Hon Winston Peters\u003C/span\u003E: That was OK. It will be a point of order when I have finished, if the member will keep quiet.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000253\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002296295a1087b2411b923334817539c964\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: There will be no interjection while there is a point of order.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000254\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022461fca7dac454fb79e79fff5059c8833\u0022\u003ERt Hon Winston Peters\u003C/span\u003E: My point of order is that, having put up three fallacious propositions, she now seeks to link New Zealand First with it. She cannot do that in any shape or form.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000255\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225dc8272271f9428dbdd995fa9dd0f4d0\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: The member can ask the same question, and the Minister can give the same answer.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000256\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226225e2bb10f64b7d8c4a146ac7a424af\u0022\u003ERt Hon Winston Peters\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. She cannot, when it comes to New Zealand First, and he cannot either, when it comes to New Zealand First. That is my point of order.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000257\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e5938da09d304d24a52422beaef49385\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: That particular part of the member\u2019s question was correct. The first part was in order. She referred to the Hon Dr Michael Cullen, and did not specifically refer\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000258\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222ed5cf8c6ace47cab868aa3faea0c044\u0022\u003EMetiria Turei\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am sorry but I am unclear as to what parts of my question you might be ruling out of order.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000259\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e6e794bfce68468a922c3e03ab3b4127\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Those in relation to the matters that are quoting New Zealand First. The member may ask questions of the Minister about the bill but not about New Zealand First. New Zealand First members are responsible for their policy, and the Minister is responsible for his. The member can restate the question. [Interruption] I am allowing the member to restate the question.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000260\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224056fafee7af49adb14a774c3eaacdc0\u0022\u003EMetiria Turei\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would like you to take into consideration, with all due respect, that the question concerned whether the Minister had received any reports about this issue, and was not asking him to make any comment on New Zealand First policy. Rather, it was about whether he had received reports that made him confident that he could get support from that party for that clause. It was not about New Zealand First policy at all.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000261\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c6d8194f92c843a7bd3bfef54eb1f81f\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: That point now having been made, and I have taken advice on this, the member is correct. The Minister may answer.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000262\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a180e12dad58424faa195fb22dd99349\u0022\u003EHon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN\u003C/span\u003E: I can confirm that I have support to pass the Government\u2019s Supplementary Order Paper, which of course is the result of negotiation between the Government and New Zealand First. I am very grateful for the assistance of Mr Dail Jones, particularly on some of the technical aspects around land law on those matters. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000263\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222d7bc40649b94f119667946503bdc849\u0022\u003EMetiria Turei\u003C/span\u003E: I seek leave to table two documents. The first is an article from the Nelson Mail of March reporting on Kerry Bateman\u2019s legal action.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000264\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221b24bdd6ea7b4e5a9c285ab14b4c31f2\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Leave is sought to table that article. Is there any objection? There is.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000265\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002203788f0385be4d9e93fba0babde3cc85\u0022\u003EMetiria Turei\u003C/span\u003E: The second document is a letter to the Minister of Conservation in which the Mayor of North Shore begs him to withdraw the repeal of that section of the Conservation Act that gets rid of marginal strips.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000266\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b20187d695f54fb98ebd7f2b25c74221\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Leave is sought to table that letter. Is there any objection? There is.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000267\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219386ba0-5a6e-485e-abc0-5a3128b4e1f6\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002298d1997c401f4dca955b313bed4f3f53\u0022\u003EHon Ken Shirley\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. A matter arose in that last interchange that I think needs some clarification. You made the point that the Government is responsible for its legislation, and that Mr Winston Peters is responsible for his policy. That would be the normal situation where a Government bill has come to the House, but we know that what we are going to see later this afternoon is now an amalgam of the Government\u2019s bill and Mr Peter\u2019s input. In the light of that, I think your comment was rather harsh; members should be able to ask, where there is an amalgam of those two positions.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000268\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022cf906ed5ec684cbebb4fe3c06d152b8b\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: The Minister can be asked whether he has support for his bill; to that extent I agree with the member.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000269\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b0d8b0e0-3ece-4865-9145-5eb5983fc54c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b2dc1dfa455b40178dc5fac8159a5638\u0022\u003EHon Richard Prebble\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. We have had an interesting time in question time. We have been assured by Mr Peters that he has seen the bill and the Supplementary Order Paper, and we have been told by the Minister that we can have the Supplementary Order Paper as soon as it is available. I guess the Minister is waiting for a full printed version. We all know Mr Peters; I cannot believe that he would have agreed to something that he had not seen in print. Can we at least have what Mr Peters had seen, as that would give us some time to be able to read it before we are supposed to debate it tonight? I would like to make that request, through you, Mr Speaker, to the Leader of the House. If it is good enough for Mr Peters, is it good enough for the rest of us?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000270\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225a11af103fdb48f281312e3da1e94513\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: That is a reasonable point of order. I ask the Minister to respond.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000271\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223faadd9022a04a47bbb7605aeaefcc18\u0022\u003EHon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN\u003C/span\u003E: Mr Peters has had all those documents, along with Mr Jones and their colleagues, no doubt, because they have been involved in discussions about the detail. Some of them, obviously, consisted of handwritten amendments to the point of consideration, by Mr Peters. I am not making those available. We will table, at the proper time, the fully printed Supplementary Order Paper, and I will be seeking\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000272\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219386ba0-5a6e-485e-abc0-5a3128b4e1f6\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002236dca03d6e69421b91f9ff80354fe4c4\u0022\u003EHon Ken Shirley\u003C/span\u003E: Proper time?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000273\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002280deade6d6f84e1e913a90899501650b\u0022\u003EHon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN\u003C/span\u003E: I said before that I have made special efforts, even though the select committee failed to produce a proper report, to have printed a redline version of the bill, which will considerably aid members\u2019 understanding of what they are actually looking at in the Committee stage, as opposed to our trying to put together the Supplementary Order Paper and the original bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000274\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ffb27ad4620e4c70a88c7be4c50dbe80\u0022\u003EGerry Brownlee\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Notwithstanding the general attitude that is being conveyed by the Leader of the House, which we find unacceptable, he did indicate before that, according to a timeline he had been provided with, the Supplementary Order Paper would be available to the House in good time, prior to it going into Committee. I wonder whether he might indicate when that time will be, as he seems to know it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000275\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b4b53659227843f29d529a3b05c4766d\u0022\u003EHon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN\u003C/span\u003E: I do not know the time, but I am an experienced member of Parliament, and we have a Committee stage coming up with three questions\u2014 \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000276\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225769c0f0da014944ba6e2785f240a5c5\u0022\u003EGerry Brownlee\u003C/span\u003E: Three now!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000277\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f4e65253a7244ecb999a541816dfedda\u0022\u003EHon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN\u003C/span\u003E: The Transport Legislation Bill has three questions in the Committee stage\u2014Part 1, Part 2, and the preliminary clauses. That, obviously, will take us some little time\u2014I do not expect the Opposition to be rushing it. We are already at 20 past 3. Therefore it seems likely that we will enter upon urgency some time in the evening. We will have a full second reading debate; I understand there will be some moves to try to extend the length of that debate. The House will lift at 10 o\u2019clock. It therefore seems likely that we will get to tomorrow morning before we actually start the Committee stage of the Foreshore and Seabed Bill. New Zealand First and the Labour Party have been staying up late at night working on the bill, and I now recommend that to other parties as well. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000278\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225c11bdba9cdb4eeea85de35831d4a7f8\u0022\u003EGerry Brownlee\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Quite simply, does that mean we will see the Supplementary Order Paper today?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000279\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002207a296dc677a431ba3016da628c55918\u0022\u003EHon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN\u003C/span\u003E: Yes. I am expecting, from my latest information, that the member will see the Supplementary Order Paper before teatime.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000280\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219386ba0-5a6e-485e-abc0-5a3128b4e1f6\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022565c902aae6b4790836cf6fadbfc0ea6\u0022\u003EHon Ken Shirley\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That, of course, requires further clarification, because if we go into urgency later this afternoon, it will still be \u201Ctoday\u201D on Thursday. So I would like to know whether we are going to get it on Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000281\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229aff72ef700b4540b0b31a347fe45101\u0022\u003EHon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN\u003C/span\u003E: I said \u201Cbefore teatime\u201D, and, as the member can see from my slightly expanding girth, I am not likely to wait till Thursday for my next teatime.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000282\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229483e41d86e24345b29af763bfe4e57d\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: To me, that meant \u201Ctoday\u201D. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000283\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u00222882eb194ec84981bcdaae1352b4d774\u0022\u003EUrgent Debates Declined\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000284\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u002208b754a2b06841eca897c1a4f1704d30\u0022\u003EPrime Minister\u2019s Motorcade\u2014Police Charges\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022 data-id=\u00226309c5a980dd413c8856cd60fa72e90f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000285\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00226309c5a980dd413c8856cd60fa72e90f\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: I have received a letter from Rodney Hide seeking to debate under Standing Order 373 an alleged speeding motorcade carrying the Prime Minister, in light of the decision by the police to bring charges in connection with it. This is not a very precise identification of the matter to be debated under Standing Order 373, which must be a particular matter of recent occurrence. In so far as the matter of the motorcade itself, it is not a matter of recent occurrence because that took place in July. In so far as the matter is the decision to bring charges, that matter is now sub judice so cannot form the basis for a debate under Standing Order 373\u2014see Speakers\u2019 ruling 151/1. Thus, however the matter is formulated, it cannot give grounds for a debate under Standing Order 373. The application is declined.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022\u003EBills\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000286\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u002254766e8d4e4b4a4aa0cbfbf9771639f1\u0022\u003ETransport Legislation Bill\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000287\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022499f3b437ab44bc6bccda7b1ba502648\u0022\u003EInstruction to Committee\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00229c0eba1d-17a6-44e2-a9b3-2e2535339570\u0022 data-id=\u002245a2ccc9edd643a7991cbaf1267d1779\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000288\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229c0eba1d-17a6-44e2-a9b3-2e2535339570\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002245a2ccc9edd643a7991cbaf1267d1779\u0022\u003EHon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Transport):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Transport Legislation Bill that it take the bill part by part.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000289\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229c0eba1d-17a6-44e2-a9b3-2e2535339570\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000290\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u002260025d9c1a6b4c05bfb9ddacd8cfdbe9\u0022\u003EIn Committee\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000291\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022acf599a5b4af4888a76b88135ef45629\u0022\u003EPart 1  Amendments to Transport legislation\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00224a11ce4e-9fb3-4738-b0be-5a9f81d975da\u0022 data-id=\u00220687ce65ebce4e13b5299cd7d85d31fc\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000292\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224a11ce4e-9fb3-4738-b0be-5a9f81d975da\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00220687ce65ebce4e13b5299cd7d85d31fc\u0022\u003EHon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National\u2014Pakuranga):\u003C/span\u003E I will start with a very generalised call on Part 1, and make it clear\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000293\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022df788c48-b9be-42fd-b8f2-76629a5572b8\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002252388617bc2f4009bc7b5f2a32599737\u0022\u003EDr Wayne Mapp\u003C/span\u003E: One of four speeches. [Interruption] \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000294\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fae7af0d-c48d-4dd4-88f3-928ccaa3a984\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a2bf7947e7b9486385e75698629772d3\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley)\u003C/span\u003E: I am sorry to interrupt the member but all members should be seated or leaving, showing courtesy to the speaker on his feet.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000295\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224a11ce4e-9fb3-4738-b0be-5a9f81d975da\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224b778d69c696426a9e34803217f40048\u0022\u003EHon MAURICE WILLIAMSON\u003C/span\u003E: A little delicate flower like me gets offended by that sort of behaviour. I make it clear in my first call\u2014one of four calls, as my good colleague Wayne Mapp said\u2014that the Government has made a complete foul-up of this legislation. Had it done most of what was in the bill, the Opposition\u2014the National Party, for sure\u2014would have supported it. The bill was reasonably technical. It was about realigning some of the transport structures, about bringing policy back into the ministry, and about saying to people, like those at the Land Transport Safety Authority: \u201CYou stick to operational things. Places where the Minister has a little bit more direct control over it, like the ministry, are where we\u2019ll do policy.\u201D However, the vast bulk of people who made submissions on this bill\u2014I have a copy of all the submissions that were made to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and will refer to them as the debate unwinds\u2014had one serious reservation, which I would be very keen for the Minister to try to explain. The reason the National Party will oppose this legislation centres simply on that one issue. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000296\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224a11ce4e-9fb3-4738-b0be-5a9f81d975da\u0022\u003E Let us look at some organisations, some of which, I think, are pretty respectable, pretty decent, and pretty sensible: the Bus and Coach Association (New Zealand) Inc.; the New Zealand Marine Transport Association; the Rental Vehicle Association of New Zealand, just to name some that put together a joint submission; and the Road Transport Forum, headed by Tony Friedlander, who usually makes sensible and constructive comments about legislation and what it could do. If we look at what those organisations have to say, we see that, in general, they all refer to the nebulous concept, \u201Csustainable\u201D, which is now being introduced into our transport legislation, as being an undefined term that no one knows the meaning of. But the one term in the past that everyone could hang their hat on and feel comfortable about was a measurable term\u2014one where we could actually stick some numbers in. There would often be debate about how money numbers went on to the plus side and on to the minus side when working out a cost-benefit analysis, but whenever a proposal was put up, either by a Minister or by a Government, the one thing we could say on transport legislation was: \u201CThis will proceed only if it has got safety at reasonable cost.\u201D \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000297\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224a11ce4e-9fb3-4738-b0be-5a9f81d975da\u0022\u003EI cannot understand why any political regime\u2014whether the extreme left, the extreme right, or anywhere in the middle\u2014would not want that to be the test. If we do not make that the test, then safety at any cost would mean we could do anything that is wild and madness beyond belief. The current Minister may not do that, and the Minister who follows him may not, but who knows about the future? When this legislation is on the books, we may have a coalition Government in Parliament that has some sort of lunatic-fringe Minister saying: \u201CI\u2019m going to make everybody walk rather than drive cars, because it will increase road safety.\u201D\u2014and it would; it would meet the first test, which is safety.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000298\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002209a5b71a-ca7e-4e7c-9e09-f9e63f18aa12\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229013fd8fa1174ea2ba580212510bb5f9\u0022\u003EHon Annette King\u003C/span\u003E: And obesity.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000299\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224a11ce4e-9fb3-4738-b0be-5a9f81d975da\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b47b6af8cc3141de9dd1c5ca3555cf5c\u0022\u003EHon MAURICE WILLIAMSON\u003C/span\u003E: Yes. The Minister of Health has a big smile. If everyone walked, it would fix a problem in her portfolio, as well. If we put in the second part of the condition, \u201Cat reasonable cost\u201D, it would mean that the entire economy would collapse. The entire nation would not function. However, if we remove that test, a Minister would be able to go ahead and put in such a ludicrous example. I know I am testing Parliament by taking an extreme example, but there could be something that is not quite so extreme where the costs are substantially more than the benefits. So the historical thing we have had in transport legislation has always been that test: safety, but at reasonable cost. One measures what it costs to do the particular initiative proposed, measures what the benefits from it will be, and, as long as the benefits are more than the costs, one goes ahead with it. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000300\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224a11ce4e-9fb3-4738-b0be-5a9f81d975da\u0022\u003EI simply have not had an answer, either through the select committee process or through the first and second reading debates in this House, and I will be looking to the Minister to give this Committee a realistic answer as to why the Government has removed that almost multipartisan, sensible, agreed, almost guideline, guarantee for the public. If there are things to be done in the future in the area of road safety, maritime safety, civil aviation safety, and so on, all of which are important, why on earth would we as parliamentarians, in passing legislation, want to remove that one guideline? So I finish as I started, by pointing out that we would have supported nearly everything else in this bill had it not been for that one issue.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022cb5e591b-8ffc-4539-a900-1ee22224f7d7\u0022 data-id=\u0022e39f807d071d4cc6abe5fb337a9ee3dc\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb5e591b-8ffc-4539-a900-1ee22224f7d7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022e39f807d071d4cc6abe5fb337a9ee3dc\u0022\u003EDEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT):\u003C/span\u003E ACT is opposed to this legislation. It is a typical example of how misleading this Government has been. When this legislation was being drawn up, we were led to believe\u2014which is why we agreed to support its referral to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee\u2014that this amendment to the Civil Aviation Act was concerned only with coordinating search and rescue, because of the debacle that occurred down south, when people drowned because of the mishandling of the search and rescue operation. But this legislation is a stalking horse for bringing the new filter of sustainability into legislation. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000302\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb5e591b-8ffc-4539-a900-1ee22224f7d7\u0022\u003EPeople out there should ask themselves whether their choice of airline is based on its safety record or its environmental sustainability record. Most people choose on price and safety. That is one of the main reasons why airlines are so vigilant about their safety record. They know that as soon as one of their planes goes down, their revenue plummets, as well. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000303\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb5e591b-8ffc-4539-a900-1ee22224f7d7\u0022\u003EHowever, under this legislation we have downgraded safety to the same level as sustainability. An airline that puts safety first is the one that people choose, not an airline or helicopter line that puts the environment first. Under this legislation, we will not be able to have it both ways. Safety in the air will no longer be paramount. This legislation uses the vocabulary that came into the New Zealand Transport Strategy. In the Civil Aviation Act, the words \u201Cmaintain aviation safety\u201D have been replaced with \u201Cassist aviation safety\u201D. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000304\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb5e591b-8ffc-4539-a900-1ee22224f7d7\u0022\u003EI draw members\u2019 attention to clause 7, which deals with the matters to be taken into account by the Minister when he or she is making rules. One of the first matters is the need to assist aviation safety and security. However, when we look at paragraph (f)(iv) of section 33(2) of the principal Act, we see that the proposed rule must ensure environmental sustainability. \u201CEnsure\u201D is a much stronger word than \u201Cassist\u201D. If one ensures something, one must make sure it happens. If one assists, one just gives it a bit of a shove along or tries to help it to happen. I still believe that it is not too late to change this wording. We tried to get it changed at the select committee. It is vitally important for air safety in this country and for the peace of mind of passengers, and not just for big airlines. In fact, the Government\u2019s own airline, Air New Zealand, said in its submission that despite the new legislation that came in, which it opposed, it would not reduce its focus on operational safety as a result of the proposed law change.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000305\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb5e591b-8ffc-4539-a900-1ee22224f7d7\u0022\u003ESo the airline that is owned by the Government does not agree with what is happening in this legislation but is, nevertheless, going its own way and ensuring that people who travel on the airline are safe. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000306\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb5e591b-8ffc-4539-a900-1ee22224f7d7\u0022\u003EWe will be introducing an amendment to clause 7 to have paragraph (e) of section 33(2) changed to \u201Cthe need to ensure aviation safety or maintain aviation safety and security, including (but not limited to) personal security\u201D. The Transport and Industrial Relations Committee heard from helicopter operators that that provision in clause 7 puts them in an untenable position. They pointed out to us that they have to ensure aviation safety\u2014it is part of their job to do so. They would not be licensed or in the air if they did not do it. They have to ensure it. To downgrade it to \u201Cassist\u201D is, I believe, a total insult to human beings whose lives are being put in a lesser grade than the importance of the environment. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000307\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb5e591b-8ffc-4539-a900-1ee22224f7d7\u0022\u003EThe other issue that the submitters brought up is that they are concerned with the environment. They were at pains to tell the committee that they do take environmental sustainability into account in all of their operations. If we look at the history of air transport in this country over the past several decades it is plain to everyone that air transport has become more and more environmentally friendly as the years have gone by. This is as a result of trying to force this Government\u2019s one-size-fits-all philosophy on to all areas of the transport sector. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000308\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb5e591b-8ffc-4539-a900-1ee22224f7d7\u0022\u003EThe environmental sustainability filter came in because of the Greens. The Greens had a major role in writing the New Zealand Transport Strategy. It came in because of their antipathy to road transport; especially to trucks, but also to motorways and cars. We cannot put the same standards for environmental sustainability that we have on road transport\u2014on trucks and cars\u2014on to air transport, as well. It just does not fit because the standards for air safety are much higher. We require them to be much higher. I believe that dumbing this down and downgrading it is a huge mistake. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000309\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb5e591b-8ffc-4539-a900-1ee22224f7d7\u0022\u003EWhat is sustainability? What does the word \u201Csustainability\u201D mean to helicopter pilots? Usually they are owner-operators. One thing they know for sure is that the future sustainability of their business depends entirely on their safety record. Who climbs into a helicopter after having done an eco-check on the machine and the fuel it uses? I doubt whether anyone does that. What people do before they climb into a helicopter, if they are really nervous, is make a check that that company\u2019s crafts do not regularly plunge from the sky. That is what people are concerned about. They are far more concerned about safety and personal security than sustainability. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000310\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb5e591b-8ffc-4539-a900-1ee22224f7d7\u0022\u003EIf the Government wanted to promote sustainable yield, it might be a totally different kettle of fish. But that is not what sustainability is defined as. In fact, nobody can define sustainability. It is, as the member said before, a nebulous term. If it is to be codified in legislation like this, we should at least have a definition of it, just as we had a definition before of \u201Csafety at a reasonable cost\u201D. There was absolutely nothing wrong with that. There was no argument over \u201Csafety at a reasonable cost\u201D, but we have biffed that out and brought in legislation that calls for ensuring environmental sustainability and assisting aviation safety. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000311\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb5e591b-8ffc-4539-a900-1ee22224f7d7\u0022\u003EI think that this wording should be changed. It is some of the most important wording in this legislation and it is not too late for the Minister to agree to change it or to at least take a call and explain to people in New Zealand why he thinks that safety is not as important as environmental sustainability. It is not just semantics that we are dealing with here. I do not want a lesson on semantics regarding the difference between \u201Cassist\u201D and \u201Censure\u201D. I want the Minister to take a call and explain why his Government believes that environmental sustainability should be ensured, but that aviation safety should only be assisted.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00229c0eba1d-17a6-44e2-a9b3-2e2535339570\u0022 data-id=\u002290c22629cf914fe9b655ff3e74e81e03\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000312\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229c0eba1d-17a6-44e2-a9b3-2e2535339570\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002290c22629cf914fe9b655ff3e74e81e03\u0022\u003EHon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Transport):\u003C/span\u003E It did not take long\u2014we are only two calls into the Committee stage and the Opposition parties are attacking the bill from precisely the opposite sides of the argument. United they are not. The first speaker, Maurice Williamson, stood up and said that the legislation is extremely good except for a problem in one area, the only one area that caused the National Party concern\u2014that is, we will end up with safety at unreasonable cost, because the words \u201Csafety at reasonable cost\u201D, which members seem to know and love and cannot allow themselves to be detached from, have been removed. The first speaker was particularly distressed about that. There would be safety at unreasonable cost and all the submissions said that, said the first speaker. The second speaker, Deborah Coddington, stood up and said that her party would not support the bill. She said that the problem was safety, and the reason she did not like the bill was that safety had been downgraded. There would not be enough safety, according to her. So the first speaker said there will be too much and the second speaker said there will not be enough. As is often the case, the National Party and the ACT party did not get their, shall we say, act together. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000313\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229c0eba1d-17a6-44e2-a9b3-2e2535339570\u0022\u003EWhen we come to the submissions, we find, unsurprisingly, that they also are of the view that there is too much or too little safety. But a very significant number of submitters thought that the bill was just fine. The select committee, having listened to the submissions, decided to make some changes. The changes were as follows: there would be no going away from the fact that the future of transport will be a whole lot more integrated than its past and there would be no going away from the five objectives of the Land Transport Management Act, but, in case someone was in doubt as to whether the Government had gone soft on safety, we decided, in the case of the Civil Aviation Authority, to put in the words \u201Cmaintain and improve\u201D. I ask members of this hallowed Chamber whether \u201Cmaintain and improve\u201D sounds like a reduction in safety. I do not quite get why \u201Cmaintain and improve\u201D would be a reduction. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000314\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229c0eba1d-17a6-44e2-a9b3-2e2535339570\u0022\u003ESo it would seem that the ACT party probably has had its prayers answered. Probably the Government moved, probably the select committee got the words right, probably the ACT party got up in mistake\u2014but wait, the aforementioned National Party speaker, an earlier Minister of Transport, is not assuaged. He is anxious that a current or future Minister might get up one morning, and say: \u201CVerily, everyone will walk to work\u201D, and we would end up with safety at unreasonable cost. That is the argument the member is running, and I think he has made a mistake.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000315\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224a11ce4e-9fb3-4738-b0be-5a9f81d975da\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002235bd52e3585c4843acb2d9c53c26fe05\u0022\u003EHon Maurice Williamson\u003C/span\u003E: No, the submitters made that point, too. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000316\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229c0eba1d-17a6-44e2-a9b3-2e2535339570\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d2ba3aad34bc42b59ce7bcd1ee1481dc\u0022\u003EHon PETE HODGSON\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, some of them did. Some of them ran with the opposite point, and some of them ran with a third point, which is that the bill is just fine. So let us not have it said in this Chamber that all submitters were of one view. They were not. They were all over the place, pretty much like the Opposition, because they knew what safety at reasonable cost meant\u2014they had had years to get used to it. This is what safety at reasonable cost delivers\u2014if I can go to the same extreme as the National Party contributor did when he opened the debate on the Committee stage: a future whereby traffic jams are just fine because no one will get hurt. If motorways clog up, there will be no deaths. There will be no transport or progress, but there will be no deaths. That is a logical position to take. That argument is absolutely as extreme as the member\u2019s. I would not have bothered running the argument had the member not run his extreme argument. Or, indeed, let us get people off their bikes\u2014not withstanding an outbreak of type 2 diabetes, or obesity, as mentioned by the Minister of Health\u2014in case they get run over by a car. So if we do not have integrated thinking we will end up with some crazy arguments, and in our past we have.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000317\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229c0eba1d-17a6-44e2-a9b3-2e2535339570\u0022\u003E There has been a decision to straighten the curve there, occasioned only by the fact that we have decided to put a higher dollar value on human life. A human life 10 years ago was worth about a quarter of a million dollars. I cannot bring to mind what a human life is worth these days, but I think the latest figure ever used was more like $2 million. So a person who was a member of the board of Transit and was going down his or her safety programme to see what engineering should be undertaken, would\u2014until the money ran out\u2014simply go down a list of projects that started with the highest cost-benefit ratio and went to the lowest. One needed to leave one\u2019s brain at the door; it was not necessary at the meeting. Of course, under National Party funding regimes, people did not get very far down the list before running out of money, either. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000318\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229c0eba1d-17a6-44e2-a9b3-2e2535339570\u0022\u003ENow we have a more integrated approach that requires people to think differently. It requires people to take into account a range of factors and to amalgamate them. It moves us away from a safety and efficiency history. It takes us away from fragmentation. It takes us away from: \u201CLet\u2019s do safety here and let\u2019s do economic undertakings there.\u201D, and from \u201CLet\u2019s look after human health here and let\u2019s look after the environment somewhere else.\u201D It requires us to integrate our thinking. Now, it is pretty clear that some members of the House are not very happy with that. Perhaps they are not able to do that integrated thinking.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000319\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224a11ce4e-9fb3-4738-b0be-5a9f81d975da\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b41983245e1e47018c18ffa74fc2fc75\u0022\u003EHon Maurice Williamson\u003C/span\u003E: We\u2019re supportive of it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000320\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229c0eba1d-17a6-44e2-a9b3-2e2535339570\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022877f73b3f92743a8ae83a3729a7f3725\u0022\u003EHon PETE HODGSON\u003C/span\u003E: Oh, they are supportive of it? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000321\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224a11ce4e-9fb3-4738-b0be-5a9f81d975da\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f1bfaf7c41874e7d8fd2bc69f4131a5c\u0022\u003EHon Maurice Williamson\u003C/span\u003E: Of an integrated transport system, yes.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000322\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229c0eba1d-17a6-44e2-a9b3-2e2535339570\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f376db01629a475ea8edeb132a19a2cd\u0022\u003EHon PETE HODGSON\u003C/span\u003E: Well, that is great. So let us integrate safety, which means we cannot have safety at reasonable cost alone; we have to have safety as a matter of balance against the other four objectives. Let us have safety integrated into people\u2019s thinking, because when we have that we come up with solutions that are somewhat more innovative than simply going down a listed schedule of \u201CB/C ratios\u201D until we run out of money. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022df788c48-b9be-42fd-b8f2-76629a5572b8\u0022 data-id=\u002200f5e6da02824bcc912544a291b09cef\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000323\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022df788c48-b9be-42fd-b8f2-76629a5572b8\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002200f5e6da02824bcc912544a291b09cef\u0022\u003EDr WAYNE MAPP (National\u2014North Shore):\u003C/span\u003E I want to spend my debating time on two issues, the first being safety at reasonable cost. It is quite clear that the Minister has not read or been made aware of the principal industry submissions. If he were aware of those, he would know that road transport operators, and the aviation industry in particular, are very concerned indeed about the removal of the test: safety at reasonable cost. He said there were submitters in support of that. Actually, there were. Some cyclists, I think, came along, and said: \u201CYes, yes. We want environmental sustainability.\u201D That is where the Minister draws that \u201Cbalanced\u201D range of submissions from. Industries that are worth billions of dollars, that have billions of dollars of assets, thousands of employees, and huge research departments, understand the difficult financial issues they have to deal with. They know they will get customers only if they are safe. But the Minister weighs all that against a few cyclists. That is essentially the balance the Minister has put on the Table here. I read today that this Labour Party boasts of balance. Well, if that is the sort of balance it is going to give New Zealanders, then frankly it will fail in due course, and we will see that. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000324\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022df788c48-b9be-42fd-b8f2-76629a5572b8\u0022\u003ESo what Labour substitutes is a clear test: safety at reasonable cost, which is well understood and supported by the industry. The Minister and other Government members will know the truth of that, but they are substituting un-testable, ill-defined propositions that will not guide this Minister or, indeed, future Ministers. So the proposed rules will have to look at things like: will it assist economic development? I ask how that will be measured\u2014by gross domestic product ratios, by interest-rate costs? Will John Key, who knows all about economic development in relation to money markets, be consulted on the money markets regarding transport roles? Will \u201Cimproving access and mobility\u201D mean checking airway bridge gates at airports? That is access. Maybe \u201Cprotecting and promoting public health\u201D means that the ozone layer generated by aircraft will be assessed. Finally, the term \u201Censuring environmental sustainability\u201D has no definition provided for it in the legislation, and that has been noted by National, New Zealand First, and ACT. All three parties were consistent on that matter. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000325\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022df788c48-b9be-42fd-b8f2-76629a5572b8\u0022\u003EThe failure to define these very open terms, these very open concepts that Ministers will now have to look at, will lead to uncertain rule making. Surely the powers delegated to Ministers should be clear. There should be a level of predictability so that in future the industry can forecast the kinds of rules it will be subjected to. It will not be able to do that. The Minister and the balance of the Government make great play of the notion that, after all, this is tested on a balance of the costs of implementing measures for which the rule is being proposed. That is supposed to be the substitute for \u201Csafety at reasonable cost\u201D, which is an open concept compared with a specific definable concept that has worked well and that the industry wants. That is why the industry made those submissions. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000326\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022df788c48-b9be-42fd-b8f2-76629a5572b8\u0022\u003ESo National is fundamentally opposed to this particular change in the legislation. Frankly, it will lead to uncertainty, and that uncertainty will lead to increased costs. The talk of $1 air fares from New Zealand to Australia\u2014if anyone would actually believe that\u2014clearly will now disappear, because the costs of rule making will become onerous and unpredictable, and New Zealand will be a less attractive place economically for our transport industries to be effective and profitable. I will be referring to one other matter in my second call, which maybe can be extended through this one, concerning clause 30.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00221e93d9c8-b183-40db-b200-833697df066c\u0022 data-id=\u0022c9c8e0ca4f244bed8c33bcc48bc43834\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000327\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221e93d9c8-b183-40db-b200-833697df066c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c9c8e0ca4f244bed8c33bcc48bc43834\u0022\u003ELARRY BALDOCK (United Future):\u003C/span\u003E I rise on behalf of United Future to speak on Part 1 of the Transport Legislation Bill. I think it is a bit of a long bow to draw to say that this bill is only about environmental sustainability. It is about\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000328\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022df788c48-b9be-42fd-b8f2-76629a5572b8\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002261d157f96560499d86a15bdf5f3baa9d\u0022\u003EDr Wayne Mapp\u003C/span\u003E: I didn\u2019t say that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000329\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221e93d9c8-b183-40db-b200-833697df066c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228b3b400a529d49239ebb50b1329a5223\u0022\u003ELARRY BALDOCK\u003C/span\u003E: No, it was not the speaker before me who said that; it was an earlier speaker. This bill is about safety, but it is not only about safety; it is also about the restructuring of the Land Transport Safety Authority and Transfund, which we will discuss a bit later on. It is certainly about the coordination of our search and rescue operations, which I think all of us in this Parliament who spend so much of our time in the air travelling around New Zealand welcome. If something were ever to go wrong in the safety aspects of our civil aviation network, we would, of course, want to know that well-established, coordinated search and rescue services would then come to our aid. It is regrettable that in the past those services have not been as coordinated as they could have been, so we welcome this amendment to bring about better coordination. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000330\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221e93d9c8-b183-40db-b200-833697df066c\u0022\u003EWe certainly want to have as much safety as we can, and we welcome the comments the Minister made earlier. Some are saying there is too much safety and others are saying there is not enough, but we will take as much as we can get. All of us, when we travel around this country, want to be as safe as possible. There will always be some debate about the cost of that safety, and whether it is money well spent. I guess that the whole purpose of the submission process on this bill was to hear the various opinions. I personally think that the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee has arrived at a reasonable conclusion and result in respect of those submissions. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000331\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221e93d9c8-b183-40db-b200-833697df066c\u0022\u003EI refer to clause 7 and to the amendment that was mentioned earlier to paragraph (e) of section 33(2) of the principal Act. The words \u201Cmaintain and improve\u201D in relation to aviation safety and security are an improvement on the previous word, \u201Cassist\u201D, and strengthen the bill. I will be glad to see that change supported in the vote soon to take place on Part 1, and I trust that the words \u201Cmaintain and improve\u201D will occur throughout the bill. Also, the wording in paragraph (f) has been changed to read: \u201Cwhether the proposed rule\u2014(i) assists economic development:\u201D. I think it is fairly clear that that test\u2014that it assists economic development\u2014has to be placed in the proposed rule. The converse of that would, of course, have to be understood as well. If it did not assist\u2014if it inhibited economic development\u2014then the rule would have to be thrown out. I think that gives some security and assurance to those who have been concerned about the removal of \u201Csafety at reasonable cost.\u201D \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000332\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221e93d9c8-b183-40db-b200-833697df066c\u0022\u003EFurther on, we come to paragraph (fa): \u201Cthe costs of implementing measures for which the rule is being proposed:\u201D. That is another test that has to be passed\u2014that the costs of implementing the measures are not as onerous as the benefits coming from the rule. So, although we can understand the concern of some to leave the wording that has perhaps served well in the past, I believe that the context of \u201Csafety at reasonable cost\u201D is still maintained within the legislation through the wording that has been recommended to us by the select committee. This matter is not only in The Civil Aviation Act; it will also be covered in the Land Transport Act. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000333\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221e93d9c8-b183-40db-b200-833697df066c\u0022\u003EI believe it is important to strengthen safety in land transport. We in New Zealand lose far too many lives through road accidents, and far too many people are crippled by the head injuries that occur on our roads\u2014injuries that are avoidable yet so debilitating. So we in United Future certainly welcome the strengthening of the need to consider safety in this part. We accept the amendments that have been proposed by the select committee and will be giving our support to this part of the legislation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e3dc3d88-a571-4ed7-a4b4-b66dedd6134b\u0022 data-id=\u002275b24524806042a9ac0d80965e4456c5\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000334\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e3dc3d88-a571-4ed7-a4b4-b66dedd6134b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002275b24524806042a9ac0d80965e4456c5\u0022\u003EPETER BROWN (Deputy Leader\u2014NZ First):\u003C/span\u003E I welcome the opportunity to follow the member who has just resumed his seat. If we wait in this Chamber long enough, we finally hear something sensible from United Future. I think, by and large, United Future covered the issues pretty well. Let me state from the outset that New Zealand First will be supporting this bill. We will never ever vote against safety when it comes to transport. We realise that safety is a very important element in the whole mix of transport, so we will be supporting this bill. But that is not to say that what the National Party and, indeed, ACT said can be dismissed. Without the constraints of reasonableness, we get safety at any cost. I take members back to the time, a few years ago, before we had the provision regarding safety at reasonable cost. I speak from my experience on the waterfront. Anything that was seen to be unsafe, somebody stopped something for\u2014stopped a ship from loading or discharging in order to have a look at it, examine it and modify it, or what have you. It was a totally unreasonable action. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000335\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e3dc3d88-a571-4ed7-a4b4-b66dedd6134b\u0022\u003EThe submission that sticks in my mind, the Air New Zealand submission, outlines that pretty darned clearly. I think it implies that if we take the constraint of reasonableness away from the costs of safety, then we are unwittingly likely to start a competitive scenario, inasmuch as operators will say that they will not get picked up for something that Air New Zealand would be picked up for. Because the other operators think they may get away with something, their safety level will go down a bit. Air New Zealand, I would say, will maintain safety at the appropriate level, but there may well be operators who will try to drop the safety net and get away with it. We need only to have one mishap to know that we have paid dearly for having no constraint on safety at reasonable cost. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000336\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e3dc3d88-a571-4ed7-a4b4-b66dedd6134b\u0022\u003EI share the concerns Larry Baldock alluded to about roading. I recall a document produced when the Hon Maurice Williamson was the Minister of Transport. It was called Better Transport, Better Roads and outlined the fact that 15 percent\u2014I think I am correct on that figure\u2014of road deaths were caused by bad road design, poor engineering, or something along those lines.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000337\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221e93d9c8-b183-40db-b200-833697df066c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229b96f8a6d0c147368fcdffe5c2cea93f\u0022\u003ELarry Baldock\u003C/span\u003E: You are right.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000338\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e3dc3d88-a571-4ed7-a4b4-b66dedd6134b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220525ac262d9a4244b43020a985081509\u0022\u003EPETER BROWN\u003C/span\u003E: The member says I am correct. In those days we were talking about 500 to 600 people dying on our roads each year. Fifteen percent of that is close to 90 people\u2014if the total is 600 people, it is 90 people; it is somewhat less, obviously, if the total is 500 people. That is a lot of people. I believe the cost of a life has now been put into legislation as being something like $2.5 million, not $2 million as the Minister said. That is a lot of money. Never mind the human cost; that is a lot of money. I think this bill, by having safety at\u2014dare I say\u2014whatever cost, will compel the Government to look more seriously at the state of our roads. I know that the Minister knows I welcome that. If he does not know this already, let me tell him that I believe the state of our roads has been poorly addressed for years now, in terms of funding. I believe that this legislation will give the Government an incentive to say it had better start to look at roads if it is to get rid of the provision for safety at reasonable cost. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000339\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e3dc3d88-a571-4ed7-a4b4-b66dedd6134b\u0022\u003EI recall the time some years ago when somebody who was in charge of our motorway network came on nationwide TV and stated, almost with a smirk on his face, that we did not need to have centre barriers on our motorways. If I had agreed with him then, the way that he put his point across would have made me disagree with him. Only moments later, the Rt Hon David Lange came on the programme and stated that we would have centre barriers on our motorways. I was grateful for that. I do not know how many lives just doing that has saved\u2014probably hundreds, if not thousands. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000340\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e3dc3d88-a571-4ed7-a4b4-b66dedd6134b\u0022\u003EAnother area I think the Government will be compelled to look at very seriously is the state of our rail-track. A chap called me the other day and asked me to come out and look at a section of rail-track. It was in Tauranga, on the line that goes from Auckland to Tauranga, which is heavily used by port traffic. The section I looked at runs through the residential area\u2014it has houses on the high side and houses on the low side\u2014in a gentle curve. The guy who asked that I come out there had a few colleagues with him. He bent down and, as I did shortly afterwards, literally plucked out bolts all over the place. That is not good enough. In fairness, I was so worried about the situation that I rang the Hon Harry Duynhoven there and then, and he got straight on to it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000341\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224a11ce4e-9fb3-4738-b0be-5a9f81d975da\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228f95008172ca49368f5449ad410033cd\u0022\u003EHon Maurice Williamson\u003C/span\u003E: Ha, ha!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000342\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e3dc3d88-a571-4ed7-a4b4-b66dedd6134b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022108646ad0f964786a72ad1650d236f38\u0022\u003EPETER BROWN\u003C/span\u003E: The member may laugh, but Harry Duynhoven got straight on to it and addressed the issue.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000343\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224a11ce4e-9fb3-4738-b0be-5a9f81d975da\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227c561d196cae438a9bcb31ae3c640876\u0022\u003EHon Maurice Williamson\u003C/span\u003E: He\u2019s like rust; he never sleeps.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000344\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e3dc3d88-a571-4ed7-a4b4-b66dedd6134b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002280ea8ae72f304854bd64f5a632a30f4a\u0022\u003EPETER BROWN\u003C/span\u003E: I can tell the member he was certainly on to it that day. Within a few days there was a team of people working on that rail-track. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000345\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e3dc3d88-a571-4ed7-a4b4-b66dedd6134b\u0022\u003EI have seen something else on the same rail-track that concerns me enormously. I will not go into the details now, because I would put the whole Committee to sleep.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000346\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022893adc11-ce4e-419c-a079-08f04b3d75f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e39da5f37c894c2f90708e944098742f\u0022\u003ELindsay Tisch\u003C/span\u003E: It\u2019s a good story. We want to hear it. It\u2019s about safety.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000347\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e3dc3d88-a571-4ed7-a4b4-b66dedd6134b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226fcb8b3e19c74e059fb94e5084364e5f\u0022\u003EPETER BROWN\u003C/span\u003E: The National Party is interested, which is very good. The track is actually near the foreshore and runs across the seabed. Does that lift the interest of the National Party even more? I am referring to the old rail bridge that crosses Tauranga Harbour.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000348\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f0a7cf3d2d1843c999c842c169e93b29\u0022\u003EJohn Key\u003C/span\u003E: I know it well.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000349\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e3dc3d88-a571-4ed7-a4b4-b66dedd6134b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022317f1eb05fb24d0a89daed76460f30e7\u0022\u003EPETER BROWN\u003C/span\u003E: The member knows it well; perhaps he has dived off it. I can tell him that bridge looks as though it needs some tender loving care and attention. I have raised that with the people involved, including Harry Duynhoven, and I have had a very positive response. I understand that the bridge will be inspected very shortly, if not now. My view of the situation is that I would expect some work to be done on that bridge, but I will let some expert tell me whether I am right or wrong. This legislation will, I believe, put the Government in a difficult position from time to time in looking at things like that. The legislation combines the Land Transport Safety Authority and Transfund, and New Zealand First welcomes that. We believe we should get a more professional, businesslike approach as a result of that, and I believe there will be a closer look at roading and the rail-track.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000350\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e3dc3d88-a571-4ed7-a4b4-b66dedd6134b\u0022\u003E But one little area that I must refer to, because I feel that I am running out of time, is the issue of when a ship is not a ship. It is raised under clause 25, and it is a little thing that really bugs me. Clause 25 provides that: \u201Cland transport\u2014(a) means\u2014(i) transport on land by any means: \u2026\u201D, and it then goes on to state: \u201Cand (b) includes\u2014(i) coastal shipping (including transport by means of harbour ferries, or ferries or barges on rivers or lakes) and associated infrastructure:\u201D. However, the bill then goes on\u2014and I know that members are very anxious to hear this\u2014to refer to transport on land, although I cannot remember the exact clause. I say to the Minister that that will confuse a few simple sailors out there. They will say they are aground, and ask whether they are land transport\u2014transport on land. They will ask what they are, and whether they should look up the Land Transport Safety Authority regulations now that they have gone aground. We were told at the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee that a coastal ship should be a form of land transport for funding purposes only. Well, why does the bill not just state that? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000351\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022893adc11-ce4e-419c-a079-08f04b3d75f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c6ce1410d0f2490c9ad7805402f6dfd2\u0022\u003ELindsay Tisch\u003C/span\u003E: Good point\u2014that\u2019s why we\u2019re voting against it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000352\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e3dc3d88-a571-4ed7-a4b4-b66dedd6134b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002248cb41d9c59e4b4aa86201ca7693f105\u0022\u003EPETER BROWN\u003C/span\u003E: The member says that is why he is voting against the bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000353\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224a11ce4e-9fb3-4738-b0be-5a9f81d975da\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225598023d5e86452c8b79905296ec91de\u0022\u003EHon Maurice Williamson\u003C/span\u003E: But the member is going to vote for it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000354\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e3dc3d88-a571-4ed7-a4b4-b66dedd6134b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002213809598f10f44339af2a3578325c702\u0022\u003EPETER BROWN\u003C/span\u003E: We will vote for it, I say to Mr Williamson. I tell the member that quite categorically. New Zealand First will never ever vote against safety in transport. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000355\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e3dc3d88-a571-4ed7-a4b4-b66dedd6134b\u0022\u003EWe think that a little tidying-up could be done in this bill, which would make for a bit of clarity here and there. But we will support the bill because overall it will put more onus on the Government to address the problems in roading and on our rail-track, and we will ignore that little glitch in terms of shipping and what have you, and take it for what it is. We will just have to educate all the sailors out there who may understand that they come under the Land Transport Safety Authority for something that they really are not meant to come under it for, and tell them that that is not the case.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022893adc11-ce4e-419c-a079-08f04b3d75f5\u0022 data-id=\u00226ff0cece0c8444b3827f58b24ee2f644\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000356\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022893adc11-ce4e-419c-a079-08f04b3d75f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00226ff0cece0c8444b3827f58b24ee2f644\u0022\u003ELINDSAY TISCH (National\u2014Piako):\u003C/span\u003E It is always interesting to follow New Zealand First, whose members say for 1 minute that they will support the bill, and then say for 10 minutes why they should not support the bill, and talk about the rail tracks in Tauranga. I know the bridge that the member referred to very well, and the Hon Maurice Williamson knows very well about the parking area under it. It is a great parking area, and there is a lovely restaurant there. I know that bridge. This bill has a very important subject, because it deals with safety. We should never compromise on safety. Although some of the principal elements of the bill are areas that National can support, overall we cannot support anything that compromises safety and removes the factor of safety at reasonable cost that previous National speakers have spoken about. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000357\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022893adc11-ce4e-419c-a079-08f04b3d75f5\u0022\u003EWe support the merger of Transfund and the Land Transport Safety Authority. That concept concerns the operational role, and we have no problem with allowing that to happen. That body will then become Land Transport New Zealand, which is fine. National supports the concept of one body being able to handle those areas. The policy area, however, moves from the Land Transport Safety Authority back to the Ministry of Transport. That is where the Minister will have control over the outcomes and objectives, and that is clearly identified. We support that. We have no difficulty with that, at all. There have been major concerns with regard to the way the Land Transport Safety Authority has operated over the years, especially from the trucking firms and from the big earth-moving operators in my area that have done much of the work on the roads throughout the Waikato and the Bay of Plenty, and on the highways around Tauranga. They have had major concerns with regard to some of the requirements that the Land Transport Safety Authority has imposed on them. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000358\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022893adc11-ce4e-419c-a079-08f04b3d75f5\u0022\u003EHowever, moving to the area of safety at reasonable cost, that is an area that we have great difficulty with, because, in our view, the bill does downgrade the whole area of safety. If we look at clause 7, which amends sections 33(2)(e) and (f) of the Civil Aviation Act, we see it provides that one of the requirements is: \u201C(e) the need to maintain and improve aviation safety and security, \u2026\u201D. But the word \u201Cassist\u201D, which was previously in the bill, has now been taken out. The proposed section 33(2)(f) states: \u201Cwhether the proposed rule\u2014(i) assists economic development: (ii) improves access and mobility: (iii) protects and promotes public health: (vi) ensures environmental sustainability:\u201D. The difficulty that we have concerns the difference between the words \u201Cassist\u201D and \u201Censure\u201D, because there is a major difference. When I look at what the word \u201Cassist\u201D means in the Concise Oxford Dictionary, which is paramount in terms of being an authority on these matters, I see it means to help persons, or the process of helping, and to take part in or be present at something. That is what \u201Cassist\u201D means.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000359\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224a11ce4e-9fb3-4738-b0be-5a9f81d975da\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223e6434e0831745dc8f3fb0db48bf126e\u0022\u003EHon Maurice Williamson\u003C/span\u003E: What\u2019s the derivation?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000360\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022893adc11-ce4e-419c-a079-08f04b3d75f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226d5bb878b19a4280afc0c3c84253f43b\u0022\u003ELINDSAY TISCH\u003C/span\u003E: I will not go into that, because it goes a little bit further than that. However, when we look at what the word \u201Censure\u201D means\u2014and this is a really important area, because in my view the word \u201Censure\u201D carries far more weight\u2014we see it means to make safe. That is what it states in the Concise Oxford Dictionary. It states that the word \u201Censure\u201D is to make a person or thing safe, and in brackets it states that is against risks\u2014to make certain that the thing is secure. When I look at the difference in wording between the words \u201Cassist\u201D and \u201Censure\u201D, I would note\u2014and this is my view and National\u2019s view\u2014that it is far more powerful to use the word \u201Censure\u201D than \u201Cassist\u201D. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000361\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022893adc11-ce4e-419c-a079-08f04b3d75f5\u0022\u003EHowever, in the bill, with regard to clause 7, which I have just mentioned, and clause 16A, which proposes to amend section 152 in the Land Transport Act concerning the power of the Minister to make ordinary rules, the point that I make is that nothing should compromise safety\u2014absolutely nothing. Reading out those definitions from the Concise Oxford Dictionary, which is the foremost authority on these matters, makes it very clear that the word \u201Censure\u201D carries far more weight than the word \u201Cassist\u201D does. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000362\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224a11ce4e-9fb3-4738-b0be-5a9f81d975da\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a5a58247874645f3b10909582ddd3318\u0022\u003EHon Maurice Williamson\u003C/span\u003E: Have you checked Webster\u2019s?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000363\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022893adc11-ce4e-419c-a079-08f04b3d75f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ce4899af6e0a431bbea682af18126d7b\u0022\u003ELINDSAY TISCH\u003C/span\u003E: I do not have Webster\u2019s with me, but I know that it would certainly state something similar. The amendment to section 152(c) in clause 16A, the new majority amendment, provides that the Minister may make ordinary rules to assist economic development, and the amended section 152(f) provides that the Minister may also make rules for the purpose of \u201Censuring environmental sustainability:\u201D. The point that National has concerns about is that greater emphasis is going to environmental sustainability than to the safety aspects that we would consider to be important. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000364\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022893adc11-ce4e-419c-a079-08f04b3d75f5\u0022\u003EI want to move to a practical example of that. In my electorate, the big dairy company is Fonterra. Fonterra will be moving its products from the Waitoa dairy factory through to Morrinsville, where other products will be coming in. They will then move to Te Rapa before they are railed through the Kaimai Ranges to the Port of Tauranga. That is a very sensible move, which will get transport and trucks off the road. However, the very point that I make about safety is that there is a major highway, State Highway 27, that runs through the area at a place called Tatanui. It is a major highway, with traffic coming from Auckland and going south, and vice versa, and there is a rail crossing with no barrier arms on it. In fact, I have written about that, because I think it is a major safety issue that Transit will need to look at, as will the New Zealand Railways Corporation. I am not quite sure who is responsible; maybe the Minister can help me with regard to that. But the situation is that a major highway, State Highway 27, comes through and crosses State Highway 26, which runs between Morrinsville in the west and Te Aroha in the east. There are major highways and a rail crossing with no barrier arms there. In recent times the compulsory stop sign at the railway line at Tatanui, at which one had to stop when coming from Auckland on State Highway 27, has been taken away, and there is now a give-way sign as one comes through on to highway 26. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000365\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224a11ce4e-9fb3-4738-b0be-5a9f81d975da\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002226633ead0ee440a3bb24c7507ae8f145\u0022\u003EHon Maurice Williamson\u003C/span\u003E: Under this bill there won\u2019t be a sign at all.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000366\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022893adc11-ce4e-419c-a079-08f04b3d75f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002266806584177e46f68f7289227018bfcb\u0022\u003ELINDSAY TISCH\u003C/span\u003E: No, and the point I make, which this Committee needs to realise, is that we cannot compromise on safety. I have written to Transit\u2014in fact, while waiting to get on the plane at Hamilton Airport this morning, I was talking to Transit members specifically about this point\u2014and I have written to Railcorp about it, as well.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000367\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224a11ce4e-9fb3-4738-b0be-5a9f81d975da\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022edebc3683dbb4b1fb4f18eaf22cd6ec3\u0022\u003EHon Maurice Williamson\u003C/span\u003E: What did they say?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000368\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022893adc11-ce4e-419c-a079-08f04b3d75f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002256d84c5ac60f421ea2271c02e7b2123f\u0022\u003ELINDSAY TISCH\u003C/span\u003E: They are going to look into it, and that is good. We do not want people to die because things like barrier arms are not there, in terms of the safety that one would expect. Certainly we do not want to see deaths occurring on a major highway. We should salute what Toll Rail is doing, in moving Fonterra\u2019s products on that section of rail-track. I think that is good, because it gets heavy trucks off the road. But it is an example of a situation where safety can be compromised, and National will have no part of that whatsoever. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000369\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022893adc11-ce4e-419c-a079-08f04b3d75f5\u0022\u003EI come back to the point I made earlier that this bill downgrades the safety factor. The bill talks about \u201Censuring environmental sustainability\u201D, and that is fine, but the word \u201Censure\u201D is far more definite than the word \u201Cassist\u201D. In the public\u2019s mind assisting and promoting, and \u201Cassisting land transport safety and security\u201D, are not as great as ensuring that those things will happen. That is the reason why National will not be supporting this legislation. It is fine in parts. We have no difficulty with what will happen to Transfund and no difficulty with what will happen to the policy area of the Land Transport Safety Authority, which is to go back to the ministry\u2014we have no trouble at all with that. But where safety at reasonable cost will be a factor, then there are issues that we cannot support. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022df788c48-b9be-42fd-b8f2-76629a5572b8\u0022 data-id=\u0022e16a973838a3414baa81f35ad2f029b0\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000370\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022df788c48-b9be-42fd-b8f2-76629a5572b8\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022e16a973838a3414baa81f35ad2f029b0\u0022\u003EDr WAYNE MAPP (National\u2014North Shore):\u003C/span\u003E I want to turn to a specific issue contained in clause 30, \u201CWho must be consulted about land transport programme\u201D. As has become the habit with this Government, once again we see separatism creeping into legislation where it has no place at all. Yes, that is extraordinary. New subsection (4A) of section 15, inserted by clause 30, states that the following entities and people must be consulted when a land transport programme is being prepared: Transit, regional councils; territorial authorities; every affected approved organisation\u2014as opposed to unapproved organisations\u2014the Ministry of Health, the Accident Compensation Corporation, the Commissioner of Police, the Secretary for Transport, the Ministry of Justice, land transport users, affected communities, M\u0101ori, and the public.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000371\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022df788c48-b9be-42fd-b8f2-76629a5572b8\u0022\u003EI have to ask the Government\u2014it is a serious question\u2014why M\u0101ori have been put in there specifically, separate from the public. I thought M\u0101ori were part of the public. When we talk about all New Zealanders being treated equally under the law, we are talking about the public of New Zealand. That seems a reasonable proposition.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000372\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d52e59e3-2195-4c95-a654-665c11b39b63\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220df5075444e2429cb7c482546b4448f1\u0022\u003EHon Parekura Horomia\u003C/span\u003E: The legal counsel did a very good job.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000373\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022df788c48-b9be-42fd-b8f2-76629a5572b8\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022eef6a34553da4968a3afb2c4b0cb966d\u0022\u003EDr WAYNE MAPP\u003C/span\u003E: I guess that the Minister of M\u0101ori Affairs, Parekura Horomia, would admit that, yes, he is a member of the public of New Zealand. He would be consulted in that capacity. He is also a member of his local community up on the East Coast, in Ruat\u014Dria, I guess, and he would be consulted as such. If there is a land transport programme that proposes a new road, bridge, or something of that nature, in his area, he will be consulted, firstly, as a member of the public from that area, secondly, as a member of the affected community, and, thirdly, as a M\u0101ori person, with a different interest, I guess, from either his interest as a member of the public or his interest as a member of an affected community.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000374\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022df788c48-b9be-42fd-b8f2-76629a5572b8\u0022\u003EI wonder what particular thing the Minister of M\u0101ori Affairs would say he would be consulted on as a M\u0101ori. Would it be his concerns about taniwha? As a member of the M\u0101ori community, would he have major concerns about the new bridge to be built in Ruat\u014Dria? The Minister seems to be acknowledging that he has serious concerns about taniwha in Ruat\u014Dria. Well, maybe he does. Would he be consulted on his spiritual needs, on the wairua of this land transport programme? Would he, as a M\u0101ori person, also be consulted on the basis of tikanga M\u0101ori? On the issues of land transport programmes, there is simply no case for M\u0101ori to be consulted separately and apart from their capacity\u2014the Minister included\u2014to be consulted as members of the affected community. They have the same interests in land transport as everyone else in the community. Similarly, they have the same interests as members of the public.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000375\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022df788c48-b9be-42fd-b8f2-76629a5572b8\u0022\u003EOne of the things that National is very committed to is ensuring that our laws apply equally to all New Zealanders. That is a fundamental platform laid down by our party. It was set out in the \u014Crewa speech as clearly as anything could be. New Zealanders in their hundreds of thousands have responded to it, and the Government seems to have listened to that response, in some respects. There is huge public yearning that we all be treated equally. Is that not what last week was all about\u2014the whole issue of the Unknown Warrior, of all of us recognising that sacrifice? Despite all of that, today, yet again, we see in general legislation\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00229c0eba1d-17a6-44e2-a9b3-2e2535339570\u0022 data-id=\u0022d77c62640e844f32a85d60e378e5ce7f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000376\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229c0eba1d-17a6-44e2-a9b3-2e2535339570\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d77c62640e844f32a85d60e378e5ce7f\u0022\u003EHon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Transport):\u003C/span\u003E I am quite sure that Mrs Wayne Mapp will be very interested in that contribution from \u201CMr Denese H\u0113nare\u201D. Rather than prolong the debate, I will just read a section from the Transit New Zealand Amendment Act of 1995. Section 42L, \u201CMaori interests to be considered, reads: \u201CNo output or capital project which affects or is likely to affect Maori land or Maori historical, cultural, or spiritual interests shall be included in a national roading programme \u2026 unless the Board, the Land Transport Safety Authority, \u2026 regional council, or territorial authority preparing the programme\u2014(a) Has consulted every iwi or hapu that, in its opinion, will or may be affected by the output or capital project;\u201D. I wonder whether that legislation draws this tacky part of the debate to a close.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022cb5e591b-8ffc-4539-a900-1ee22224f7d7\u0022 data-id=\u0022f0d10be34647415781f904466cb42e0c\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000377\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb5e591b-8ffc-4539-a900-1ee22224f7d7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022f0d10be34647415781f904466cb42e0c\u0022\u003EDEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT):\u003C/span\u003E Is it not wonderful to see that the National Party is influenced by the ACT party? We are so pleased that the National Party is returning to its constitutional roots and recognising the freedom of the individual. The ACT party is quite happy for the National Party to adopt its policies. The Minister of Transport forgot to mention the 1992 amendment to the Maori Land Court legislation, which also brought us into the situation we now have with the Foreshore and Seabed Bill. It gave the M\u0101ori Land Court the ability to consider vesting title of the foreshore and seabed under customary rights. But we are very pleased that the National Party has now come back to its senses and is following the ACT party\u2019s lead on this\u2014one law for all. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000378\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb5e591b-8ffc-4539-a900-1ee22224f7d7\u0022\u003E I want to comment on the issue\u2014coming back to this legislation\u2014of downgrading safety in terms of land transport. We got a hint at question time today why this Government is doing this. It is actually a good way for this Government, we found at question time, to reduce hospital waiting lists. The Prime Minister herself said that waiting lists are reduced because people suffering from cataracts are being knocked down by cars and killed. I would say that the reason people suffering from cataracts, and who are on waiting lists for operations, are being knocked down and killed by cars is that they cannot see the cars because they have cataracts.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000379\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb5e591b-8ffc-4539-a900-1ee22224f7d7\u0022\u003EI want to follow on from what Peter Brown brought up. He said New Zealand First would never vote against legislation that promoted safety. But this legislation pits safety against environmental sustainability. That is the issue. One cannot have the two things. The Minister of Transport says one can. I disagree with that, and the ACT party disagrees with that. They are two issues that will be in constant conflict with each other.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000380\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb5e591b-8ffc-4539-a900-1ee22224f7d7\u0022\u003EBut there was a good point that Peter Brown brought up; people laughed at him, but he is absolutely right. If members look at clause 25, \u201CInterpretation\u201D, they will see that \u201Cland transport\u201D now also means coastal shipping. But \u201Cland transport\u201D does not mean only coastal shipping; it also means the infrastructure, goods, and services facilitating land transport by any means, and also in terms of coastal shipping, ferries, and barges. The reason that that is important to debate is that if we look at the infrastructure, goods, and services facilitating that transport\u2014that is, transport on land by any means\u2014and take that clause in conjunction with clause 30, \u201CWho must be consulted about land transport programme\u201D, which provides that the authority in preparing a land transport programme has to consult with M\u0101ori, we find we will never ever get any infrastructure relating to land transport. I am leaving roads out of the equation at the moment. I am talking bus shelters.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000381\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb5e591b-8ffc-4539-a900-1ee22224f7d7\u0022\u003EMore important, what will happen with jetties and ports when the foreshore and seabed legislation goes through? What will happen with reclaimed land. Every time the authority prepares a land transport programme, and whenever local authorities prepare land transport programmes, they have to consult M\u0101ori. What will happen when those programmes are drawn up, and the Foreshore and Seabed Bill goes through? I have to guess, because that legislation is being rushed through without our even seeing it properly, but we are informed that reclaimed land will be under the guardianship\u2014the kaitiakitanga, which is the current politically correct word\u2014of the Department of Conservation, and it will be impossible for any form of commercial development, in terms of coastal shipping, to go ahead at all, unless, of course, as we saw when taniwha popped up around every bend in the roadway\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00224ad02d80-0242-43c0-a0b6-862d72b3f978\u0022 data-id=\u00223c1fa34a68c6458f91acc7007286707a\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000382\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224ad02d80-0242-43c0-a0b6-862d72b3f978\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00223c1fa34a68c6458f91acc7007286707a\u0022\u003EBRENT CATCHPOLE (NZ First):\u003C/span\u003E I would like to take a call on behalf of New Zealand First on this Transport Legislation Bill, and pick up on a few points I have been listening to with regard to airline safety. We are concerned about the safety of airlines\u2014everybody is\u2014but airlines are controlled by international safety rules and regulations, and we deal with only the landing side of things. Airlines have to be controlled internationally because they are expected to fly internationally. Therefore, the whole legislation around airlines is quite a separate issue.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000383\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224ad02d80-0242-43c0-a0b6-862d72b3f978\u0022\u003EAs far as the search and rescue side of things goes, that is controlled here in New Zealand. We do our own search and rescue operations. This legislation is designed to give a much better process for our search and rescue organisations. It will make it a lot easier for them to operate under the regulations we have in place.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000384\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224ad02d80-0242-43c0-a0b6-862d72b3f978\u0022\u003EI will now move on to the safety of roads and the state of our roads. We have heard that a large percentage of the deaths on our roads can be directly attributed to the condition of the roads. That is correct. One has only to drive on some of our roads to find that Transit, the funding organisation\u2014Transfund\u2014and the local regional authorities have not provided the funding to upgrade certain sections of the road. They keep putting it off, hoping that, perhaps, new legislation will come in that will allow the improvements to be funded from elsewhere. Each organisation keeps passing the buck. Transfund keeps shuffling the money backwards and forwards between projects and not getting on with them. Therefore, a lot of projects are sitting on the drawing board and have not been completed. The need for funding has been put aside. A large chunk of funding goes into the consolidated account from our petrol tax; New Zealand First believes that it should be put towards roading. That is what it is collected for.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000385\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224ad02d80-0242-43c0-a0b6-862d72b3f978\u0022\u003EWhat is happening around the local communities now is that speed limits are being reduced rather than roads being upgraded. I have come across reduced speed limits, as of 1 November, from 100 kilometres an hour to 80 kilometres an hour, simply because those particular roads are not suitable for a driving speed of 100 kilometres an hour. Although that reduction is a fine thing, why are those roads not being upgraded? Perhaps it is because the communities around that area are expanding at such a rate that the authorities are holding off putting funding in place until they know exactly how large the volume of traffic will be.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000386\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224ad02d80-0242-43c0-a0b6-862d72b3f978\u0022\u003EA third thing we mentioned was the state of the rail-tracks. The rail-tracks in New Zealand are in an abysmal state because money has not been spent on upgrading them. My colleague Peter Brown mentioned an area around Tauranga, but I am well aware that areas around Papakura, in south Auckland, have problems with subsidence under tracks. That subsidence has been reported, and has been marked off by the authorities that look after the tracks, but the tracks have not been repaired. Everybody is silent; members are shocked. Sooner or later, further subsidence under those tracks will end up in a train dropping from the tracks, into somebody\u2019s backyard; it could well be a member\u2019s backyard, if his or her property backs on to those tracks\u2014[Interruption] Maurice Williamson is calling out; he may well have been pinching stones from underneath the tracks, to build his stone wall out the front of his house! The rail-track and the roading are not getting the funding that they should.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000387\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224ad02d80-0242-43c0-a0b6-862d72b3f978\u0022\u003EI would like to pick up on Lindsay Tisch\u2019s comments, assist, and assure him those words have been struck out.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022d52e59e3-2195-4c95-a654-665c11b39b63\u0022 data-id=\u00225245a81c92894b959dbf10c9f4f1bb60\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000388\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d52e59e3-2195-4c95-a654-665c11b39b63\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00225245a81c92894b959dbf10c9f4f1bb60\u0022\u003EHon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Minister of M\u0101ori Affairs):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That the question be now put.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002225f8c78b-f301-4aca-a936-366f00a26bc9\u0022 data-id=\u0022ca35a1dd93b747ca9df8bc42c70f1ee7\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000389\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002225f8c78b-f301-4aca-a936-366f00a26bc9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022ca35a1dd93b747ca9df8bc42c70f1ee7\u0022\u003ESANDRA GOUDIE (National\u2014Coromandel):\u003C/span\u003E I would like to carry on from the question that was raised about the phrase \u201Censuring environmental sustainability\u201D. The fact that there is not a definition of \u201Csustainability\u201D has been referred to in a number of the key submissions, but my concern relates to what this does for land transport, and the costs associated with land transport when applying for resource consent. It will mean now that because we have \u201Censuring environmental sustainability\u201D in the bill, and with the importance and precedence in the legislation that the Government has now given it, it will have an effect upon resource consent applications and the ability for objectors to place emphasis on environmental protection.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000390\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002225f8c78b-f301-4aca-a936-366f00a26bc9\u0022\u003E Environmental sustainability is in the legislation in 11 different situations. A huge amount of emphasis has been put on environmental sustainability, and I suggest that it is taking precedence over the safety factor. There are situations whereby, while parts of the environment are valued and have some degree of real value, there are considerable safety issues, and environmental value will be compromised as a result of trying to meet some safety issues. The Coromandel Peninsula has a lot of very windy roads, and in order to make those roads extra safe, some of the corners will need to be taken off. I am sure there are a number of other roads throughout the country in other members\u2019 electorates that are like that. However, when there is an application for resource consent for that work to be done, there will be objections from people who want the roads to remain windy and who will claim that there is an environmental reason for that. There will then be an argument between the safety aspect and the environmental aspect. Both aspects are written into the legislation, but I would suggest that because of the particular purposes of the Resource Management Act, objectors will pick up on the environmental sustainability aspect and compromise the importance of the safety aspect of this legislation. That, for me, would be an overriding concern, and I know that it has been raised by other speakers. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000391\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002225f8c78b-f301-4aca-a936-366f00a26bc9\u0022\u003EAnother matter I would like to raise, which was also put forward by the Automobile Association and Roading New Zealand, is that new clause 16A looks at the power of the Minister to make ordinary rules. New section 152, inserted by clause 16A, states: \u201C(g) any matter related, or reasonably incidental, to any of the following:\u201D, and the first subparagraph states: \u201C(i) the Minister\u2019s objectives under section 169:\u201D. Submitters said\u2014and I concur with their concerns\u2014that it was not appropriate that that be in the bill. I also do not consider it appropriate that that is in the bill. One reason put forward by the Road Transport Forum was that the Minister\u2019s objectives do not comply with the Legislation Advisory Committee guidelines. I do not think that many Ministers are aware that those legislative guidelines actually exist. Perhaps Mr Fairbrother should refer to those guidelines, so as to have a greater understanding of what they say with regard to this matter. It is a de facto fetter on the Minister\u2019s freedom to formulate policy in Government and the electorate\u2019s right to vote for parties espousing particular policies. It is impractical, inconsistent, cumbersome, and a surprise that it is there. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000392\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002225f8c78b-f301-4aca-a936-366f00a26bc9\u0022\u003EThe other matter that submitters were particularly concerned about was the inclusion of the land transport strategy, because it makes it much more difficult to change those objectives within the strategy, and the Minister\u2019s objectives as well. Does there need to be a legislative change to do that? That matter was raised by submitters, and I doubt whether the Minister will be able to answer that readily. Perhaps he would like to take a call and give us an explanation. However, there was some concern, particularly if the land transport strategy is like some of the other strategies I have seen, which are based largely on ideology, and does not have the thinking and the grunt behind it to be referred to in the bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00221a705910-5320-43bf-aa82-027a761519f6\u0022 data-id=\u0022bb84c7e89eb54517805dcfbe9d974989\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000393\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221a705910-5320-43bf-aa82-027a761519f6\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022bb84c7e89eb54517805dcfbe9d974989\u0022\u003ERUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour\u2014Napier):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That the question be now put.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00224a11ce4e-9fb3-4738-b0be-5a9f81d975da\u0022 data-id=\u00225ae293460f8f4a648cbb8ed56e304693\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000394\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224a11ce4e-9fb3-4738-b0be-5a9f81d975da\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00225ae293460f8f4a648cbb8ed56e304693\u0022\u003EHon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National\u2014Pakuranga):\u003C/span\u003E I shall respond to what the Minister said earlier about how the \u201Csafety at reasonable cost\u201D argument put up by National had been debated by some saying in their submissions that yes, there was a problem, but others said the opposite. I want to play a game with the Minister\u2014\u201CI\u2019ll show you mine if you\u2019ll show me yours.\u201D I have here all the submissions on the bill, I have the lot, and I am prepared to do the trade. I have a list here and I will read for the Committee the names of some of the organisations on that list. Members should remember that these organisations are huge. For example, the Automobile Association, which covers the biggest chunk of ordinary motorists, states in its submission: \u201CThe association is concerned about the removal of the term \u2018at reasonable cost\u2019 from the transport legislation as a result of this legislation. We consider efficiency and cost considerations to be an important element of transport decision-making, especially when seen from the perspective of our membership who are often required to bear the compliance costs of Government regulatory interventions in the transport sector. The association seeks the term \u2018at reasonable cost\u2019 to be retained.\u201D \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000395\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224a11ce4e-9fb3-4738-b0be-5a9f81d975da\u0022\u003EThat is my first bid, and I am happy to go on. We have lots of others. Let us go with the Road Transport Forum, which represents all the big commercial operators in the country. The way to fix the legislation, they say, is by the proposed amendments: \u201CClause 18 of the bill should be amended by adding the following after the final word of the proposed section 169A of the Act, \u2018(b) which achieve their purpose or outcome at reasonable cost, and (c) for the purpose of this section, a reasonable cost is a reasonable cost if the value of the cost to the nation is exceeded by the value of the resulting benefit of the nation\u2019. \u201D Those are the first two bids. We have the Automobile Association, which represents ordinary motorists, and the Road Transport Forum, which represents the big commercial operators. Let us go with the Aviation Industry Association, which represents all the aircraft operators, and so on. [Interruption] Well, the Minister is going to come back and give us his big list of those from the other side of the debate, which I understand was from a couple of cyclists. But never mind, he will tell us that I am wrong, and give us the big listing of the organisations. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000396\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224a11ce4e-9fb3-4738-b0be-5a9f81d975da\u0022\u003EThe Aviation Industry Association\u2019s proposal states: \u201CThe above amendments should apply to section 72AA.\u201D The Aviation Industry Association represents all the operators of aeroplanes. It states further: \u201CSafety at reasonable cost is presently the cornerstone test for the Minister in determining whether or not a rule change should proceed. Under the proposed changes there is no longer a precise test as to whether or not a rule change will enhance safety. In fact, a rule change is only required to assist or help out safety and security. Only if the rule change also assists economic development, and so on. It is so murky, it is not funny.\u201D So there are three. We have the Automobile Association, and we will now go to someone else. How about trying Federated Farmers? That organisation represents all the farmers in New Zealand, so they are getting some pretty big blocks here. We have heard from representatives of individual motorists and commercial truck operators, and the Aviation Industry Association, and what do Federated Farmers say? Their two-page submission, which is unusual for them, states: \u201CSection 2.5. Federated Farmers is concerned that the Government does not intend to carry over the LTSA\u2019s \u2018safety at reasonable cost\u2019 mandate into this new legislation. Federated Farmers is concerned with the lack of emphasis on efficiency in the proposed legislation and recommends the reintroduction of the words \u2018at reasonable cost\u2019.\u201D \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000397\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224a11ce4e-9fb3-4738-b0be-5a9f81d975da\u0022\u003EHow are we going now? Is it looking pretty good? No, there are some more big organisations. How about all the port companies. I will not read the names of all of them, but they include the Port of Auckland, the Port of Otago, and the Port of Marlborough. I think that includes all the ports. Their submission, which is a one-pager really, because after the heading it only fills in the page a little bit more, states: \u201CThe current Act prescribes the Minister and the MSA\u2019s prime role is to promote safety at reasonable cost. This concept has proven to be very useful when evaluating policy proposals in the past. By failing to recognise the importance of efficiency and cost, it could well facilitate the creation of a transport system that is inefficient, and consequently impacts negatively on the economy and living standards. This will normally be a trade-off between safety and cost, because the alternative is safety at any cost.\u201D \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000398\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224a11ce4e-9fb3-4738-b0be-5a9f81d975da\u0022\u003EI do not know how many more submissions there are, but I will be happy to take three or four more calls on this. Here we are\u2014a submission from Business New Zealand, which represents all businesses. We now have submissions from representatives for the private motorist, commercial operators, the Aviation Industry Association, and the ports companies. Business New Zealand states: \u201CSection 2.2. However, we are very concerned with the aspects of the bill that remove safety at reasonable cost, and it is our advice to return the words \u2018safety at reasonable cost\u2019 into the legislation.\u201D I have shown the Minister mine. It is time he gave us his list, other than the names of the two cyclists.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002270dd644d-8bcf-40dc-998a-887d62d24a76\u0022 data-id=\u0022a01e772e56a54d7ca2e965e45ddf0b74\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000399\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002270dd644d-8bcf-40dc-998a-887d62d24a76\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a01e772e56a54d7ca2e965e45ddf0b74\u0022\u003EMOANA MACKEY (Labour):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That the question be now put.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022 data-id=\u0022fc8ab45e7a2244e5b8e7eefdc1a3c659\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000400\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab45e7a2244e5b8e7eefdc1a3c659\u0022\u003EJOHN KEY (National\u2014Helensville):\u003C/span\u003E My honourable colleague Mr Williamson just gave us a very extensive list of organisations that are worried about the removal of \u201Csafety at reasonable cost\u201D. I was surprised that the Minister of Transport did not leap to his feet, because he has a long list. Air New Zealand and the Aviation Association of New Zealand are not on that list; nor are Orion, Origin Pacific Airways, or any of those airlines. They are not on that list. The Automobile Association of New Zealand is not on that list. All the motorists of New Zealand\u20141.5 million; a great many motorists of New Zealand\u2014are not on that list. The port companies are not on the list; nor are the farmers who Michael Cullen was trying to woo the other day by cutting their rates. Every business is not on the list. This is like a game. If it is not farmers or business people, and it is not pilots or plane drivers, and it is not Federated Farmers, then who is it?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000401\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224a11ce4e-9fb3-4738-b0be-5a9f81d975da\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222d81923b80e3452f81699786ea306670\u0022\u003EHon Maurice Williamson\u003C/span\u003E: I can answer that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000402\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002293bfa749f5e844a0a95fd40d7dddfca7\u0022\u003EJOHN KEY\u003C/span\u003E: Who is it?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000403\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224a11ce4e-9fb3-4738-b0be-5a9f81d975da\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228cfd32aef6e04e5eaa83fbe583da4ab5\u0022\u003EHon Maurice Williamson\u003C/span\u003E: Two cyclists.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000404\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002239384ece519a4ac7b9cf775770165e90\u0022\u003EJOHN KEY\u003C/span\u003E: Two cyclists do not mind about \u201Csafety at reasonable cost\u201D! This is from a Government that listens to the people of New Zealand! I wonder whether the Government has ever heard the expression: \u201CIf it\u2019s not broken, don\u2019t bother to try to fix it.\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000405\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224a11ce4e-9fb3-4738-b0be-5a9f81d975da\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229823ff1c671c477fbbf17dbf7f29fa36\u0022\u003EHon Maurice Williamson\u003C/span\u003E: Unless you are a consultant.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000406\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d1b2193e5b00457f94898acb3313e22c\u0022\u003EJOHN KEY\u003C/span\u003E: Unless one is a consultant! It is not broken. Thousands of people were not marching in, giving submissions, saying that if only the \u201Csafety at reasonable cost\u201D aspect had not been in the previous legislation, everything would have been fixed up; everything would have been OK. That never presented, at all. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000407\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003EI want to refer in particular to the rail industry. Some months ago the Government injected quite a lot of cash into an entity called TrackCo. In fact, it was so much cash that the Minister of Finance is not quite sure how much went in, but the initial amount was in the order of around $200 million. The indications are that it was considerably more than that. That money will be going into upgrading the rail track that is in need of repair in many parts of the country. There is a risk, I might add, that some politicisation of the process will take place. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000408\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003EBut putting that to one side, one of the issues interestingly that came up at the time was about bridges, and fixing rail bridges across New Zealand, in particular on the West Coast of New Zealand. The issue here was that Solid Energy had done some work with people in the South Island to indicate how much needed to be spent on bridges in the South Island. Originally, the consultants came up with an amount of $50 million-odd. It then increased to about $71 million. In fact, the real cost of fixing those bridges on the West Coast, because there are hundreds of them, is literally hundreds of millions of dollars. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000409\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003EThe Minister of Finance has the busy role these days of chaperoning the Foreshore and Seabed Bill through whatever political party of the week is willing to support it. It is most interesting. The Foreshore and Seabed Bill is like a chameleon. It changes by whatever political party of the particular week is prepared to support it. But putting that to one side, I wonder whether the Minister of Finance has had an opportunity to see what is happening in the transport legislation today. He might be interested to know that with the removal of \u201Csafety at reasonable cost\u201D and the implication that that could have on bridges in the South Island, I suggest that may change the capital requirement of TrackCo. This is not just a few million dollars that we are talking about. We are not talking about the loose change in the pockets of one or two Ministers. We are talking about spending hundreds of millions of dollars to comply with the removal of \u201Csafety at reasonable cost\u201D. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000410\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003EInterestingly enough, I am not surprised that the Automobile Association so keenly rejected this legislation. I say that because we have had a few incidents recently where the public has become increasingly frustrated when going out to clip their front bushes, only to find a traffic officer hiding under them with his radar gun. People are out there on a Saturday morning with their clippers, trimming the fences to make them nice. Someone will ask: \u201CWhat\u2019s your name, sir?\u201D. \u201CIt is the Hon George Hawkins, and I am here with my radar gun to catch a speeding motorist.\u201D It is quite an interesting scenario that happens on Saturday mornings.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022c437bda8-4741-4ac5-89ab-b0818e1ab9fa\u0022 data-id=\u0022a5e2ee69ec5047959134487c44f47dd2\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000411\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c437bda8-4741-4ac5-89ab-b0818e1ab9fa\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a5e2ee69ec5047959134487c44f47dd2\u0022\u003EDARREN HUGHES (Junior Whip\u2014Labour):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That the question be now put.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022eb6cdb688808427db290794e0bd6ebdf\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the question be now put.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 71\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; M\u0101ori Party 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 49\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000412\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 301 in the name of the Hon Pete Hodgson to Part 1 be agreed to.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u002299da97b31905494290b56cc039daad5d\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 84\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; M\u0101ori Party 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 36\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendments agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u00227391a13d6b0546d4852f817981c83fac\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That Part 1 as amended be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 84\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; M\u0101ori Party 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 36\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EPart 1 as amended agreed to. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000413\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u002225acd04e858a4fe28db6b851921cdac7\u0022\u003EPart 2  Miscellaneous provisions\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00224a11ce4e-9fb3-4738-b0be-5a9f81d975da\u0022 data-id=\u0022ee6b3e71079f41488141a94ff6818178\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000414\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224a11ce4e-9fb3-4738-b0be-5a9f81d975da\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022ee6b3e71079f41488141a94ff6818178\u0022\u003EHon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National\u2014Pakuranga):\u003C/span\u003E I think it would be fair to say that Part 2 is reasonably brief in its clauses. [Interruption] I say to Dr Mapp that I think a fair person seeing this and realising that it goes only to just less than one page would say it is quite brief. However Dr Mapp makes a very good contribution, as he normally does, about the technicality of that because it does refer to enormous schedules that are to do with which Acts are affected, and which come into the new regime, and which ones go out. I have to say that this is where I think the Minister owes the Committee an explanation about some of the legislation. I look at a particular provision in Part 2, which is clause 53. I apologise in advance to my adoring drive-time audience that I will be really boring by doing this, but I am going to read clause 53 and then ask the Minister what it means. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000415\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224a11ce4e-9fb3-4738-b0be-5a9f81d975da\u0022\u003EClause 53 is headed \u201CGeneral savings provision\u201D. We could say that this is something to do with superannuation or long-term nationhood building. No, we should look at the wording: \u201CExcept as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, nothing in this Act affects the completion of a matter or thing, or the bringing or completion of proceedings, that relates to an existing right, interest, title, immunity, or duty.\u201D What on earth does that mean? I will read it out again: \u201CExcept as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, nothing in this Act affects the completion of a matter or thing,\u201D\u2014what is a \u201Cmatter or thing\u201D?\u2014\u201Cor the bringing or completion of proceedings, that relates to an existing right, interest, title, immunity, or duty.\u201D Clause 54, which is lovely stuff, states: \u201CTransitional regulations\u2014The Governor-General may, by Order in Council, make regulations\u2014(a) prescribing transitional and savings provisions concerning the coming into force of this Act that may be in addition to, or in place of, the transitional and savings provisions in this Act:\u201D. How bad does it have to get before someone calls an end to this sort of nonsense, where we are allowing for transitional and savings provisions concerning the coming into force of this Act, whereby those provisions may be in addition to or replacing those that are already in the current Act?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000416\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002225f8c78b-f301-4aca-a936-366f00a26bc9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221f140ac46c75405ab72d157ee9b58c85\u0022\u003ESandra Goudie\u003C/span\u003E: Labour lunacy.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000417\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224a11ce4e-9fb3-4738-b0be-5a9f81d975da\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224d94ef23a8a1427498bb119eef7d459f\u0022\u003EHon MAURICE WILLIAMSON\u003C/span\u003E: My colleague is right. I think clause 54 deserves another reading, because I do not know what it means, and I am asking the Minister to get up and tell us what it means. I will read it out again: \u201CThe Governor-General may, by Order in Council, make regulations\u2014\u201D I am happy with that. I know about the Governor-General and about making regulations by Order in Council, so that is great. The regulations are: \u201C(a) prescribing transitional and savings provisions\u201D\u2014remember this is transport legislation, not superannuation, or anything\u2014\u201Cconcerning the coming into force of this Act that may be in addition to, or in place of, the transitional and savings provisions in this Act:\u201D. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000418\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224a11ce4e-9fb3-4738-b0be-5a9f81d975da\u0022\u003EWhat does that mean? I think it means that if we have got it wrong, if we have messed it up, then we have an ability to come back at any time and make some savings and some transitional provisions to cover the ones that we got wrong in the first place. How pre-emptive is that! The Minister is basically saying that because he does not know what he is doing, he will put in a clause that allows him to keep changing the legislation as we go along, so he can keep fixing up the mess-up he made along the way. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000419\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224a11ce4e-9fb3-4738-b0be-5a9f81d975da\u0022\u003EThis bill could have been done more simply. There are a lot of provisions that the National Party is supportive of, and a lot of provisions for which we would have been happy to come to the party and save this time on a lengthy debate that will have to be gone through. It would have been all simply handled, in Part 1, when the Minister had dealt with that \u201Csafety at reasonable cost\u201D provision. He has refused to answer who is on his big list. We will be delving into that later in the debate on the title. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000420\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224a11ce4e-9fb3-4738-b0be-5a9f81d975da\u0022\u003EI am going to leave it to my colleagues to get into some of the details of some of the specific schedules\u2014like technical amendments to the principal Act, amendments to various Acts such as the Local Government Act and the Health and Safety in Employment Act, and so on. It is quite complicated. We have an absolute right to hear, and the Minister has an obligation to get up and explain, a few of these bits and pieces. They are quite technical, they will involve the lawyers, and we have that right. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022df788c48-b9be-42fd-b8f2-76629a5572b8\u0022 data-id=\u0022dce64da0b3dd456697c952edfffad3f5\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000421\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022df788c48-b9be-42fd-b8f2-76629a5572b8\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022dce64da0b3dd456697c952edfffad3f5\u0022\u003EDr WAYNE MAPP (National\u2014North Shore):\u003C/span\u003E I will take up the invitation of my colleague the Hon Maurice Williamson and refer to the schedules. I guess that most people would reasonably think that a Transport Legislation Bill deals with various items of transport\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000422\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022893adc11-ce4e-419c-a079-08f04b3d75f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f3c1b95a2090486c8ffab5cdc39d5ea6\u0022\u003ELindsay Tisch\u003C/span\u003E: Cars and trucks.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000423\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022df788c48-b9be-42fd-b8f2-76629a5572b8\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022cbcfd61784bd4fc0bc686f1aca8a9c1c\u0022\u003EDr WAYNE MAPP\u003C/span\u003E: Some people would even say cars and trucks, and so on. I have been carefully looking at schedule 5, and it refers to the Transport Services Licensing Act\u2014fair enough. It refers to the Transport Accident Investigation Commission Act\u2014fair enough. However, there are also references to the Immigration Act, the Electoral Act, and the Health Act. There is even reference to the Oaths and Declarations Act. There are references to the Privacy Act, and, indeed, the Ombudsmen Act itself. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000424\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022df788c48-b9be-42fd-b8f2-76629a5572b8\u0022\u003ESo Part 2\u2014innocent though it might seem on the face of it\u2014amends a whole swathe of legislation. In fact, it amends 26 separate Acts, and that is not speaking of the regulations, which have already been pointed out. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000425\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022df788c48-b9be-42fd-b8f2-76629a5572b8\u0022\u003EI wish to refer to another serious matter in clause 54, \u201CTransitional regulations\u201D. These are normally quite innocent, but what it actually says here is that rather than the Act coming into force on 1 December 2004\u2014we will return to that matter in the next debate\u2014the Minister under these transitional powers is given the power to bring various parts, clauses, provisions, sections, and subsections of the Act into force when and as he pleases. So here we are passing legislation, virtually under urgency, because the bill has to be passed in the next few days, yet the Minister is giving himself these extraordinary executive powers to, in effect, thwart the will of Parliament. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000426\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022df788c48-b9be-42fd-b8f2-76629a5572b8\u0022\u003EIn the weekend the Government announced a constitutional inquiry. Do members think it will refer these sorts of executive powers to that inquiry? Of course, not! When we get serious issues like this, with the executive bound to decide when, where, and if it is going to introduce legislation into effect, these sorts of things are expected to go unremarked. I guarantee that the Minister will not take a call on this matter. But maybe I will be pleasantly surprised. Maybe he is actually reading up on these issues right now, so he can make a proper response. Because he ought to, because we need to know that the executive will not abuse the authority of this Parliament. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000427\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022df788c48-b9be-42fd-b8f2-76629a5572b8\u0022\u003EThe people here are elected, are accountable to their constituents and to parties who are part of this Parliament, for the legislation we pass. These debates are recorded. Do we think the Minister will be issuing press releases as to when he introduces particular clauses, regulations, and so forth? No, the Government will just do it. It will be a Gazette order, I guess. How many people read the New Zealand Gazette these days? How many lawyers, even, read it? The answer is \u201Cvery few\u201D. So this Parliament is empowering the Government to pass into law this legislation by stealth. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000428\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022df788c48-b9be-42fd-b8f2-76629a5572b8\u0022\u003EI am surprised, actually, that New Zealand First would want to be part of that. New Zealand First is voting for this bill. It had particular concerns, but it is voting for these kinds of clauses. I would like to think that it has properly considered the way this works, because it actually flies in the face of the opening clause. No wonder this provision is buried at the very end of the bill! No wonder it is buried in this kind of clause! Because although the Government intended to delude the public that they would get new transport legislation on 1 December 2004\u2014the very first clause says that\u2014in reality we are empowering a Minister of Transport to do this. My colleague has referred to maybe future reckless Ministers doing this. I suggest this Minister will be the reckless Minister who will introduce it whenever and however he wants. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022cb5e591b-8ffc-4539-a900-1ee22224f7d7\u0022 data-id=\u00222039f4084bcd4de99458570cb208563a\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000429\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb5e591b-8ffc-4539-a900-1ee22224f7d7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00222039f4084bcd4de99458570cb208563a\u0022\u003EDEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT):\u003C/span\u003E I want to address clause 51, \u201CDissolution of Land Transport Safety Authority and Transfund\u201D. The Transport and Industrial Relations Committee heard a submission, and then a follow-up clarification, from the Automobile Association. That organisation represents more than 1 million people in New Zealand, a quarter of the population, many of whom will be listening to this debate. The Automobile Association raised a very important concern\u2014that is, the bill dissolves the Land Transport Safety Authority and Transfund and instead forms Land Transport New Zealand, but it does not address the end of the funder/provider split. That is the really important issue the association brought up.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000430\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb5e591b-8ffc-4539-a900-1ee22224f7d7\u0022\u003EThe Automobile Association acknowledged that it is not a complete return to the bad old days, when the Minister of Transport who lived out the back of Waipukurau had the road from the corner to his house tar-sealed. The association acknowledges that it is not a return to that, but it did specify that in its view not enough was done in the bill to safeguard special interests, to provide checks and balances, and in its words to ensure that special interests, whether local in nature or otherwise, were prevented from influencing the transport funding allocation process.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000431\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb5e591b-8ffc-4539-a900-1ee22224f7d7\u0022\u003EAt the moment, as I understand it, in terms of current funding arrangements the Minister approves the output classes of funding, but when this bill comes into existence he will approve the funding for the national land transport programme. Admittedly, under the new situation he will not approve the funding for specific projects, project by project, so that will provide some independence from political pressures. However, when the Minister approves the national land transport programme, he will include in that programme specific projects within each funding category.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000432\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb5e591b-8ffc-4539-a900-1ee22224f7d7\u0022\u003EYet the Automobile Association\u2014an organisation that represents so many people, and an organisation, I might say, that supported the overall philosophy of this legislation and the tidying up of Crown entities\u2014has raised concerns about that. This is an important issue, and I would like the Minister to take a call and reassure New Zealand that the Automobile Association\u2019s concerns are not valid, and that there was no need to address them in the bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000433\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb5e591b-8ffc-4539-a900-1ee22224f7d7\u0022\u003EWe at the select committee asked the Automobile Association to follow up its concern with an example, and it gave us the funding of the road safety education programme. Under the present situation the Land Transport Safety Authority has a road safety education programme, but under the new legislation other agencies will be competing against Land Transport New Zealand for that funding. I do not have time to go into that example in detail, but I would be interested to know the views of other parties in Parliament. I know that New Zealand First always supports the Automobile Association and its submissions, and I wonder how that party feels about this concern.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000434\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb5e591b-8ffc-4539-a900-1ee22224f7d7\u0022\u003EI finish by summing up the Automobile Association\u2019s concern. It said that there would be a potential conflict of interest for Land Transport New Zealand\u2014that is, the new entity\u2014in making allocation decisions regarding road safety advertising, education, and information provided by itself, vis-\u00E0-vis road safety engineering and enforcement activities provided by outside agencies. However, that issue was not addressed satisfactorily by the current legislation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002225f8c78b-f301-4aca-a936-366f00a26bc9\u0022 data-id=\u002228a11d9098a4484c88464fb8f23cc2d0\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000435\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002225f8c78b-f301-4aca-a936-366f00a26bc9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002228a11d9098a4484c88464fb8f23cc2d0\u0022\u003ESANDRA GOUDIE (National\u2014Coromandel):\u003C/span\u003E I certainly share the concerns of my colleagues. I, too, was alarmed when I saw clause 53, \u201CGeneral savings provision\u201D. I understand that a considerable amount of that $250 million is still in the pot, so the concern would be that that money is spent on actual road construction and is not frittered away on a lot of airy-fairy policies with regard, maybe, to additional road signage or the whims of Land Transport Safety Authority policy.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000436\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002225f8c78b-f301-4aca-a936-366f00a26bc9\u0022\u003EI am also concerned about what that means. If the Minister can do what he likes in terms of the effect of the bill, and can undertake different aspects of this bill at any time before it comes into effect, what does that really mean? Perhaps he will take a call and explain that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000437\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002225f8c78b-f301-4aca-a936-366f00a26bc9\u0022\u003EThere are a number of things in the offing and one of them, of course, is the implementation of the vehicle emission policy. My understanding is that the policy does not exempt pre-1980 cars, and that will have a significant impact. There are questions about whether the policy is being implemented for environmental purposes, safety purposes, or whatever, but what will the Minister\u2019s position be in relation to that? How soon will he move to incorporate the Land Transport Safety Authority with Transfund, and what will happen to the policy recommendations of the Land Transport Safety Authority at that point? Will he take them over and have some sense brought into that argument? After all, when it comes to vehicle emissions, there were no cars pre-1980 that were actually designed with a catalytic converter, which is now what may be required to be installed. Pre-1980 cars were not designed to have catalytic converters. Of course, when cars with catalytic converters were coming in\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000438\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022516b477770f24d7ab0d4a7aea6a5cd59\u0022\u003EJohn Key\u003C/span\u003E: Does your car have one?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000439\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002225f8c78b-f301-4aca-a936-366f00a26bc9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f4316a7b55a444e391e0435338051cd2\u0022\u003ESANDRA GOUDIE\u003C/span\u003E: No, my car does not have one, and it was not built to have one. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000440\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226c3492f3fad3442baa7055950ff09ef2\u0022\u003EJohn Key\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019ve got a Commodore.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000441\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002225f8c78b-f301-4aca-a936-366f00a26bc9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022de17e55dfe9045ca93da01b78972eb80\u0022\u003ESANDRA GOUDIE\u003C/span\u003E: What year is it?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000442\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221397ec65eaa54881ad2b71ff90937df7\u0022\u003EJohn Key\u003C/span\u003E: 2001.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000443\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002225f8c78b-f301-4aca-a936-366f00a26bc9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022db438e62566c4facbdcad36325750647\u0022\u003ESANDRA GOUDIE\u003C/span\u003E: 2001? Actually, I do not know. But I think it will be interesting\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000444\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c437bda8-4741-4ac5-89ab-b0818e1ab9fa\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002235b49fa2f36841f9ab57ed6dfde79fd5\u0022\u003EDarren Hughes\u003C/span\u003E: That member drives a Rolls Royce. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000445\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002225f8c78b-f301-4aca-a936-366f00a26bc9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223cbcb82bcb0d43778a220cc6b9fa2adb\u0022\u003ESANDRA GOUDIE\u003C/span\u003E: Really? I am enjoying this. It is just wonderful how we all take great interest in vehicles and in our cars!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000446\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002225f8c78b-f301-4aca-a936-366f00a26bc9\u0022\u003EObviously, there is some considerable concern and debate about this particular policy coming through from the Land Transport Safety Authority, so it will be interesting to see whether the Minister exercises the largesse provided by the transitional regulations under clause 54. Will the Minister exercise his largesse and actually bring a bit of sensibility to the policy for vehicle emission testing, and have an exemption for pre-1980 vehicles, because there is some concern about the legitimacy of the basis for that policy.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000447\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002225f8c78b-f301-4aca-a936-366f00a26bc9\u0022\u003EThe Minister could exercise his rights under clause 54, because pre-1980 cars do not have the ability to have catalytic converters attached to them without some serious difficulty. Perhaps that would compromise safety and, given that this bill is meant to be all about safety\u2014however, with the emphasis on environmental sustainability\u2014the Minister will, hopefully, put some rationality into the policies being floated with regard to vehicle emission testing\u2014and, I might add, into the policies about speed limit reductions that are also taking place.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000448\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002225f8c78b-f301-4aca-a936-366f00a26bc9\u0022\u003EThose are two policy areas and that is what this bill is meant to be all about\u2014bringing policy back into the ministry. So perhaps the Minister will use the transitional regulations and actually put a bit more control and sense around the speed limit policy being put forward, too, by the Land Transport Safety Authority. After all, in our area, where the average speed limit is about 89 kilometres an hour instead of 100 kilometres an hour, the proposal is to drop the limit to 80 kilometres an hour, which is absolutely nonsensical, particularly as a speed problem cannot be proven with regard to the one, or maybe two, fatalities on that particular stretch of road.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000449\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002225f8c78b-f301-4aca-a936-366f00a26bc9\u0022\u003ESo the general savings provision is a concern, and we would hope for transparency in any sort of funding that will be affected by this legislation. We want to make sure that that is handled appropriately and, of course, we are very concerned about this Government\u2019s fiscal capability.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00229c0eba1d-17a6-44e2-a9b3-2e2535339570\u0022 data-id=\u002239a595704fea4d5fa39ca4c73a4fa3c8\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000450\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229c0eba1d-17a6-44e2-a9b3-2e2535339570\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002239a595704fea4d5fa39ca4c73a4fa3c8\u0022\u003EHon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Transport):\u003C/span\u003E I think that the member who just resumed her seat has raised some interesting issues. They are not entirely within the scope of Part 2, but if she is entitled to raise them, it may not be a bad idea for me to respond to them. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000451\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229c0eba1d-17a6-44e2-a9b3-2e2535339570\u0022\u003EPart 2 is quite simple. Apart from the various schedules that some members seem to have read\u2014which is always encouraging\u2014it is primarily the part that dissolves Transfund New Zealand and the Land Transport Safety Authority. That means that both of those organisations move into a new organisation called Land Transport New Zealand, although the policy functions revert to the Ministry of Transport. [Interruption] The member wants to know when, and the answer is 1 December. I hope that is helpful.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000452\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229c0eba1d-17a6-44e2-a9b3-2e2535339570\u0022\u003EThe member also raised matters about vehicle emissions testing. That piece of work is being ably managed by my colleague the Associate Minister of Transport, the Hon Judith Tizard, and it is not for me to speak at great length about it. But I do just say that the status of emissions management in New Zealand through cars is probably the worst in the Western World. It is a matter of disgrace that it has not been addressed by successive Governments.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000453\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229c0eba1d-17a6-44e2-a9b3-2e2535339570\u0022\u003EOne interesting little factoid that comes out of taking an integrated approach to transport is that if one looks at human health and safety instead of just safety, one finds that a number of people are killed on our roads. I am afraid that the figure looks as if it will just exceed 400 this year\u2014lower than last year, and the second lowest figure for decades. So we have managed to take the blip out of the rise we saw a year ago.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000454\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229c0eba1d-17a6-44e2-a9b3-2e2535339570\u0022\u003EBut, interestingly, about 400 people also die prematurely from air emissions\u2014pollution\u2014arising from transport. Those are not people with names and addresses.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000455\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb5e591b-8ffc-4539-a900-1ee22224f7d7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229a21e6ad4f404b90baa179fa32aaea41\u0022\u003EDeborah Coddington\u003C/span\u003E: That\u2019s nonsense. Those are nonsense statistics. Are those scientifically based statistics?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000456\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229c0eba1d-17a6-44e2-a9b3-2e2535339570\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002260da0b1aa91f45a39f977610a6b21f6f\u0022\u003EHon PETE HODGSON\u003C/span\u003E: Indeed they are. The member has decided to interject. Let me just jump down her throat a little and say that the difference between the two groups of figures is that one group has people\u2019s names and addresses\u2014and, indeed, those of their relatives and loved ones\u2014and the other group is an epidemiological, statistical derivation. But the statistics are still people.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000457\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229c0eba1d-17a6-44e2-a9b3-2e2535339570\u0022\u003EThe fact of the matter is that we have paid careful attention to reducing the road toll\u2014and good on us! It is now time for us to start to get on top of the damage that is caused to human health by emissions from motorcars. That is why we have begun the emissions\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000458\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002225f8c78b-f301-4aca-a936-366f00a26bc9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002250256a8c0727466090ade18c60f28dcb\u0022\u003ESandra Goudie\u003C/span\u003E: Some of the speed policy is nuts.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000459\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229c0eba1d-17a6-44e2-a9b3-2e2535339570\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ae76b0cd28094cc280baa975b35aafb8\u0022\u003EHon PETE HODGSON\u003C/span\u003E: That may be, but the fact of the matter\u2014because the member raised the issue\u2014is that this is the first Government, through the good work of the Hon Judith Tizard, to get on top of vehicle emissions. We are at the stage where just a couple of months ago in various parts of the country we have begun piloting, so that we can get a look at what is coming out of the pipe now.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000460\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229c0eba1d-17a6-44e2-a9b3-2e2535339570\u0022\u003EA discussion paper will go out on Monday that will then get the public\u2019s viewpoint on where we might set these standards and how often we might require cars to be tested, and on whether, for example, pre-1980 vehicles should be counted. Those are things the member is welcome to offer her opinion on; we would look forward to it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000461\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229c0eba1d-17a6-44e2-a9b3-2e2535339570\u0022\u003EThen, progressively, the Government\u2019s vehicle emissions policy will be rolled out, and we will start to pay attention to the statistical deaths of 400 people per annum, in the same way that we pay careful attention to the actual deaths each year of people killed in accidents on the roads. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022 data-id=\u00220e6118c558404aebb93458896d86822b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000462\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00220e6118c558404aebb93458896d86822b\u0022\u003EJOHN KEY (National\u2014Helensville):\u003C/span\u003E I will follow on from the Minister of Transport, Pete Hodgson, and address Part 2 of the Transport Legislation Bill. I note that there are five clauses in Part 2. It is a relatively simple part of the bill, which is followed by the schedules.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000463\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003EIn particular, I will traverse the ground of what Part 2 does. It essentially recognises the three independent bodies as they are today\u2014the Ministry of Transport, the Land Transport Safety Authority, and Transfund\u2014and the fact that each has a part that is policy and a part that is operational. The effect, if we like, of Part 2 is to strip out operational activities and to put them into one entity. The Ministry of Transport pretty much has a policy element today, the Land Transport Safety Authority has both operational and some policy people involved, and Transfund also has operational and some policy people. Under this part we will draw those people out and put them collectively in a group of staff at the Ministry of Transport that look at policy.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000464\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003EBroadly speaking, National is supportive of that. I think there is a strong case for saying that across the Ministry of Transport, the Land Transport Safety Authority, and Transfund, various policy people need to be thinking in the right direction.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000465\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003EProbably a year or so ago, before I was on the Finance and Expenditure Committee, I sat on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000466\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022803002d1-e810-4bd8-b8e7-2e97d0d6f626\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225a4c17606c2d4cac943e9be55f29a90f\u0022\u003ESimon Power\u003C/span\u003E: Those were the days.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000467\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022322196cad94b416f88049fcfde724cef\u0022\u003EJOHN KEY\u003C/span\u003E: They were happy times. In that 12 months on the select committee I learnt much about ships from Peter Brown\u2019s many stories he regaled me with, as he sat next to me and I made him coffees. With his general swagger as we had a Tim Tam biscuit together, he would put his arm around me and share with me some quite interesting stories. It was touching stuff.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000468\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003EAs I reflect back on that time, I recall something interesting about the policy work from the Ministry of Transport, the Land Transport Safety Authority, and Transfund. On one particular day someone came along to the select committee and said that there should be a policy differentiation for M\u0101ori New Zealanders due to the impact of emissions on them. I asked the obvious question about why M\u0101ori New Zealanders\u2014people of the ethnic grouping of M\u0101ori\u2014would be any more affected by emissions than any other New Zealanders. It was a pretty fair question. The answer came back that it was because of some of the places where M\u0101ori tended to live, and because of all sorts of completely rubbishy reasons. Of course, that probably would not happen today, post-\u014Crewa. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000469\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003EBut I am at least a little bit concerned to make sure that the policy work that comes out of this new body\u2014because it will be pretty important\u2014as combined and with a cadre of individuals involved in it, will be a lot stronger than what we have previously seen. Quite frankly, some of the policy has been absolutely complete and utter rubbish.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000470\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003EI want to talk a little about the schedules\u2014in particular, the provision under schedule 2, relating to schedule 4, to repeal clause 27(3) and substitute new clause 3. I would term that the \u201CMike Williams provision\u201D, which states: \u201CTo avoid doubt,\u2014(a) a person who is a member of the board of one entity may also be a member of the board of the other entity:\u201D. Mike Williams, being the Labour Party president, is on the board of Transfund\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000471\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b1b5881-3b86-4894-ac77-72905f786141\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002254eda9ebbb784d9591784b213417ebff\u0022\u003EHon Judith Tizard\u003C/span\u003E: Transit, not Transfund.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000472\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022aaea94b2fa9147e9a98bf856784bd12f\u0022\u003EJOHN KEY\u003C/span\u003E: That is right. He decides which roads are built. My apologies to Mr Williams, who is on the board of Transit. He is also on the board of TrackCo\u2014obviously he knows a lot about trains. He is actually on quite a number of Government-appointed boards. That provision is put in this bill to remove any doubt whatsoever for Mr Williams. As he looks at his future appointments under a Labour Government\u2014and he no doubt hopes there will be quite a few of them\u2014and as he looks around the \u201Cjobs for the boys\u201D schemes rolled out by the Labour Party, he will be able to see that under schedule 4 there is no concern for him. He will be able to have many appointments. He will be able to take on a diverse range of Government appointments under that schedule. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022fcd222c3-03a3-4568-a8aa-b6e8c6ef37c5\u0022 data-id=\u002224a7bbe593fa49ccad8e75f268274585\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000473\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fcd222c3-03a3-4568-a8aa-b6e8c6ef37c5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002224a7bbe593fa49ccad8e75f268274585\u0022\u003EMIKE WARD (Green):\u003C/span\u003E I was not going to bother to speak, because I think the good sense of this legislation is very evident. However, I rise to speak to Part 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000474\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fcd222c3-03a3-4568-a8aa-b6e8c6ef37c5\u0022\u003EThe Land Transport Safety Authority and Transfund New Zealand will be dissolved. Those organisations have been primarily concerned with providing a land transport system that caters very well to those who drive cars. It is very clear that the future of the car will be different from its past. Peak oil is a reality. I have heard the Minister speak about it. It is likely to hit us; it probably has already hit us. The prices we are paying for oil right now may go up and down a little, but they are trending upwards. The demand is likely to exceed supply\u2014if it has not already done so\u2014sometime this decade.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000475\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fcd222c3-03a3-4568-a8aa-b6e8c6ef37c5\u0022\u003ETransport policy needs to be concerned about health, safety, and sustainability\u2014they are all linked. Probably the most threatened groups in the community are children, cyclists, and the elderly, who have been poorly catered for by our transport system. Those who cannot drive, those who choose not to drive, those who are too young to drive, and those who cannot afford to drive have been poorly served. Those people\u2019s transport methods are probably the most sustainable. They travel shorter distances, they travel only when they need to, they do not climb into their motorcars at the drop of a hat, and they tend to be healthier, as well\u2014except when it comes to the safety angle. When it comes to safety, they are the most vulnerable.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000476\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fcd222c3-03a3-4568-a8aa-b6e8c6ef37c5\u0022\u003EThe Minister of Transport mentioned respiratory diseases. He might also have mentioned type 2 diabetes, which is a disease the cost of which is likely to blow out to something like a billion dollars per year in this decade and in the next decade, from a figure of about $20 million. That disease is largely brought about by a sedentary lifestyle, which is the consequence of people spending much too much time in motorcars.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000477\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fcd222c3-03a3-4568-a8aa-b6e8c6ef37c5\u0022\u003EThe Minister could perhaps set my mind at rest, however, that the new organisation that will replace the Land Transport Safety Authority and Transfund New Zealand will in fact have the expertise to make sure that the regional land transport strategies, documents that set out the roading and transport needs of communities up and down this country, do provide for the transport disadvantaged, and do ensure that those who drive are aware that they have legs and those legs can be used\u2014that they can catch buses, they can walk, they can cycle, and they can choose other methods to get around. Perhaps the new organisation could look at some land-use measures that would avoid the need to move people around, by persuading them to live closer to where they need to be, and by persuading town planners to site industries in locations where people can get to them without travelling from one side of their communities to the other, at great cost.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000478\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fcd222c3-03a3-4568-a8aa-b6e8c6ef37c5\u0022\u003EWe will be supporting the legislation. It is good legislation. It will ensure that we have a healthier New Zealand, that we have a sustainable transport system, and that the most vulnerable and most transport disadvantaged can actually get around when they want to. Those who use motorcars will be able to use them efficiently and effectively, if this bill goes ahead. We will support it. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022330c030b-99be-4461-8aaa-9a10ee5bd889\u0022 data-id=\u002266dc3538f04f43118496c64c914a3938\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000479\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022330c030b-99be-4461-8aaa-9a10ee5bd889\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002266dc3538f04f43118496c64c914a3938\u0022\u003EHon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister of Fisheries):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That the question be now put.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e3dc3d88-a571-4ed7-a4b4-b66dedd6134b\u0022 data-id=\u002288e46e39df0242a8ab0928ffd4676c77\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000480\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e3dc3d88-a571-4ed7-a4b4-b66dedd6134b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002288e46e39df0242a8ab0928ffd4676c77\u0022\u003EPETER BROWN (Deputy Leader\u2014NZ First):\u003C/span\u003E I was actually not going to take a call, but then I heard the honourable member Mike Ward make a contribution. For the first time, I have to say I am a bit worried about whether we should be supporting this legislation\u2014after listening to his contribution. Clearly, he wants to tear up the roads and remove motorists from them, but the actual truth in this country is that we need more roads, which need to be wider and safer.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000481\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e3dc3d88-a571-4ed7-a4b4-b66dedd6134b\u0022\u003ENew Zealand First is hopeful that with the dissolution of the Land Transport Safety Authority and Transfund, and their amalgamation into Land Transport New Zealand, a much more proactive attitude will prevail through that organisation. We are hopeful that organisation will have a much more professional attitude, a much more caring attitude, and a much more businesslike attitude than the current organisations. I am referring more specifically to Transfund than to the Land Transport Safety Authority.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000482\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e3dc3d88-a571-4ed7-a4b4-b66dedd6134b\u0022\u003ERoading in this country has not kept pace with vehicle numbers and traffic demand. It is a long way short of those. It is actually shameful that Government after Government and Minister after Minister have just taken dollars from the petrol motorist\u2014thousands, even millions, of dollars\u2014used them in all sorts of frivolous areas, and not spent an adequate amount of funding on roading. If we are silly enough\u2014and I say that with sincerity\u2014to think the motorcar will not play a prominent role in our society, then I suggest that we should think again. If there are any members here who believe that we can get rid of the motorcar, then I tell them that they are living on the wrong planet. That is not going to happen. [Interruption] I am getting a little worried; United Future members are agreeing with everything I am saying this afternoon, and that is a problem in itself.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000483\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e3dc3d88-a571-4ed7-a4b4-b66dedd6134b\u0022\u003EThe motorcar is here to stay. It might become more fuel-efficient. We looked at hybrid cars out on the forecourt only the other day, and they are very impressive vehicles. I am told by those who know a little more about them than I do that they can do 65 kilometres to the gallon, or thereabouts, and they go on to battery power automatically\u2014there is no switch over. It is modern technology. But the motorcar is here to stay. Hopefully, more and more people will use public transport where and when they can, but it will never take over from the car. It will never take over completely from the car. If we want to get rid of congestion, sure, we should cater for the travelling public who want to use public transport\u2014and maybe encourage people to use it\u2014but we must improve our roading. That is very, very important.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000484\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e3dc3d88-a571-4ed7-a4b4-b66dedd6134b\u0022\u003EI am hopeful, and New Zealand First is hopeful, that by getting rid of the Land Transport Safety Authority and Transfund, by bringing them together in recognition of their common goals, we will get a far more professional organisation that will look at roading much more objectively, that will look at funding, and that will have the courage of its convictions to say that we cannot fund roads on a drip-feed basis. I hope it will have the courage of its convictions to go to the Minister of Transport and say: \u201CLook! The average New Zealander doesn\u2019t want tolls. Please think again.\u201D I am very, very hopeful that Land Transport New Zealand will take such a positive attitude, and that when the Minister asks what the best way is to fund our roads\u2014I know he will ask that; he is a very objective Minister\u2014the new organisation will tell him to read the Allen report in detail and see the advantage of borrowing to invest in our roads. The return is thousands of dollars per year in excess of what is invested. Indeed, I believe that the return estimated by the Allen report in terms of Tauranga, with its strategic roading network, is something like $7.60 for every dollar invested. That is a huge return and, dare I say\u2014because I know that the Minister is listening\u2014there would not be a greater or better investment of Government dollars than an investment in roading at this particular time in our history. We need to do something positive about our roading, and I am hopeful that Land Transport New Zealand will do just that. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002276e4b8b7-c205-49d8-a21e-5d7a3ddf1330\u0022 data-id=\u002297ca5c336bda4d589fe4d443e710e091\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000485\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002276e4b8b7-c205-49d8-a21e-5d7a3ddf1330\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002297ca5c336bda4d589fe4d443e710e091\u0022\u003EMARK PECK (Labour\u2014Invercargill):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That the question be now put.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u002218d322edf55049858112315ce173fff3\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the question be now put.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 71\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; M\u0101ori Party 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 49\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000486\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 301 in the name of the Hon Pete Hodgson to the heading before clause 51 be agreed to.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022a06382d109454847839abf1844be7134\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 84\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; M\u0101ori Party 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 33\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 5; Independent: Awatere Huata.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022548a70879f394b2fb0b5bd98016a491d\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That Part 2 as amended be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 84\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; M\u0101ori Party 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 33\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 5; Independent: Awatere Huata.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EPart 2 as amended agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000487\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022af0eafc5df044502b7bbe86633050212\u0022\u003ESchedules\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022d9d7373b28f44c539b72ba62f1c8d1aa\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That schedule 1 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 84\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; M\u0101ori Party 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 33\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 5; Independent: Awatere Huata.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESchedule 1 agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022f903fd884ae848a6a26a4fc07142cb8b\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That schedule 2 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 84\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; M\u0101ori Party 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 33\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 5; Independent: Awatere Huata.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESchedule 2 agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000488\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 301 in the name of the Hon Pete Hodgson to schedule 3 be agreed to.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u00222e839600732f44828a58f230174ae7fe\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 84\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; M\u0101ori Party 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 33\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 5; Independent: Awatere Huata.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022b85cf3e598a24f54b89551cef8cf92e4\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That schedule 3 as amended be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 84\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; M\u0101ori Party 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 33\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 5; Independent: Awatere Huata.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESchedule 3 as amended agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000489\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 301 in the name of the Hon Pete Hodgson to schedule 4 be agreed to.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022c2e2c217db6a42df924e6492f921e883\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 84\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; M\u0101ori Party 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 33\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 5; Independent: Awatere Huata.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendments agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u002226f35a1191d2432cbc595d12c69e409e\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That schedule 4 as amended be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 84\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; M\u0101ori Party 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 33\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 5; Independent: Awatere Huata.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESchedule 4 as amended agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000490\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 301 in the name of the Hon Pete Hodgson to schedule 5 be agreed to.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022fcd74727e5f744bf84e1e22f21d75470\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 84\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; M\u0101ori Party 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 33\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 5; Independent: Awatere Huata.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendments agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022fb6ef35cad46453aafe3f82057c060a8\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That schedule 5 as amended be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 84\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; M\u0101ori Party 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 33\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 5; Independent: Awatere Huata.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESchedule 5 as amended agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000491\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u00223a3362e2a07f4531a45d4eacfdee4651\u0022\u003EClauses 1 and 2\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00224a11ce4e-9fb3-4738-b0be-5a9f81d975da\u0022 data-id=\u00220d80e06f31f445a79b4b501b5dae9d48\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000492\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224a11ce4e-9fb3-4738-b0be-5a9f81d975da\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00220d80e06f31f445a79b4b501b5dae9d48\u0022\u003EHon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National\u2014Pakuranga):\u003C/span\u003E Tonight I want to re-emphasise to the Committee that the National Party has been very, very clear on this bill. A lot of it is something we support, and we would have been very happy to give our vote to the legislation, if not for a few little things\u2014which we probably would have lived with, as one always does when another party is putting legislation through\u2014but also for one big thing. That one big thing, which is central to this whole legislation, is the removal of the proviso that the provision of safety be at a reasonable cost.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000493\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224a11ce4e-9fb3-4738-b0be-5a9f81d975da\u0022\u003EI simply do not understand it. I see Michael Cullen sitting in the House. He is always guarding the purse strings and is careful to make sure that money is not spent in a foolish way. I ask him why he would not want to have a transport regime that stated that the provision of safety be at a reasonable cost. I bet his officials said\u2014I had better put in an Official Information Act request for his Treasury advisory papers\u2014\u201CMinister, you need to go to Cabinet and fight to keep in legislation that the provision of safety be at a reasonable cost.\u201D I know how it works, and I bet that was what he was in there fighting for on behalf of Treasury.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000494\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224a11ce4e-9fb3-4738-b0be-5a9f81d975da\u0022\u003EBut the most important thing, I think, that this Committee and the people listening need to know is that after I had run this matter in the first speech on Part 1, the Minister of Transport got up, belittled me, and said: \u201COh well, that\u2019s just National; its members are all over the place\u2014just like the submissions. Some thought that was an issue, and others didn\u2019t.\u201D And he is right. Let us go through the list. Who thought it was a serious omission and needed to be fixed? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000495\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022df788c48-b9be-42fd-b8f2-76629a5572b8\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022022cca85940641e295458f191c487f4a\u0022\u003EDr Wayne Mapp\u003C/span\u003E: Everyone.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000496\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224a11ce4e-9fb3-4738-b0be-5a9f81d975da\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c99daa3cee9245038e8d6f85a508e875\u0022\u003EHon MAURICE WILLIAMSON\u003C/span\u003E: Well, Mr Mapp is not quite right. He said \u201Ceveryone\u201D; I think that one could say \u201Cnear as damn everyone\u201D, because someone who came before the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee said the opposite. [Interruption] Sorry, there were two\u2014two cyclists. That is whom the Minister is using as his weight of evidence. I have been able to show the Committee today that the Automobile Association, Business New Zealand, the Road Transport Forum, the Bus and Coach Association, the ports companies through a joint submission, the Aviation Industry Association, and Federated Farmers opposed it. In fact, it is very hard, if one goes through my list of submissions to the committee, to find anybody in New Zealand, other than those two cyclists, who is for it\u2014and I need to make sure they are kept in this debate, because they are what the Minister is hanging his entire issue on. Every other organisation involved in transport\u2014with some of them, like the Automobile Association, representing a million or more people\u2014made it very clear that this legislation was deficient because it removed the proviso that the provision of safety be at a reasonable cost.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000497\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224a11ce4e-9fb3-4738-b0be-5a9f81d975da\u0022\u003EI understand why, in politics, when there is a very strong ideological difference between left and right, Government members would want to do that, and why they would want to say: \u201CLook, we\u2019re taking the proviso that the provision of safety be at a reasonable cost out of this legislation because \u2026\u201D, but we have not heard that. There has been not a mutter, not a murmur, not a nothing, other than the Minister saying; \u201COh, you\u2019re confused, and there were just as many submitting the other way.\u201D Well, I tell the Minister that there were not. There was hardly anybody, representing anybody, saying anything other than: \u201CWhy are you removing provision of safety being at a reasonable cost?\u201D, because that is the test that will stop some fruit loop in the future from doing some idiotic thing in transport, with bizarre costs and almost no benefits. Even right now, I simply do not understand why this issue does not transcend all political colours and all persuasions in the entire spectrum, or why the Government is not prepared to say: \u201CYes, we accept it.\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000498\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224a11ce4e-9fb3-4738-b0be-5a9f81d975da\u0022\u003EThat change was requested by all those organisations. I will not go through the list again, but one will not find a major organisation representing transport\u2014or even a minor organisation representing quite a number of affected people\u2014that did not want provision of safety being at a reasonable cost put back in, and did not make it the cornerstone of its submission. Let me tell members\u2014[Interruption] No, Business New Zealand is not a good example, because its submission was lots and lots of pages.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000499\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223b1b5881-3b86-4894-ac77-72905f786141\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002245f5e13a488f49e7846f0f54b2e45dd9\u0022\u003EHon Judith Tizard\u003C/span\u003E: Ha, ha!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000500\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224a11ce4e-9fb3-4738-b0be-5a9f81d975da\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d78e8d15aeba4ff5bf6376e9464d90da\u0022\u003EHon MAURICE WILLIAMSON\u003C/span\u003E: I was just saying\u2014I say to Judith Tizard, who is cackling up the back there\u2014that some submissions were only a page long. There was one page from the port companies, and that issue is all they submitted on. Federated Farmers\u2019 submission was two pages long; again, it was nearly all about the provision of safety being at a reasonable cost. Yet the Government will not even take a call to explain its removal.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b8383f38-c78c-4e5d-8324-677d91e95c49\u0022 data-id=\u002297ffb543092d4a99b3ebf8260e9e433a\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000501\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b8383f38-c78c-4e5d-8324-677d91e95c49\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002297ffb543092d4a99b3ebf8260e9e433a\u0022\u003EKEITH LOCKE (Green):\u003C/span\u003E I rise on behalf of the Green Party to respond to some of the comments made by Maurice Williamson. He was going on and on in his speech about safety at reasonable cost. I think that the problem with the reality we face on the roads today is that every excuse in the book has been used by authorities, local bodies, and people in charge of transport, to avoid having our roads safe. Mr Williamson talked about cyclists. I am a cyclist myself in Auckland. Cyclists have been getting a raw deal, for years and years. There are just not the proper provisions throughout most of Auckland for safe cycling. If one cycles down many of the inner city streets\u2014for example, Symonds Street is a nightmare\u2014there just are not the provisions there for cyclists. There are some off-road cycleways in Auckland and, hopefully, Auckland City under its new council will expand off-road cycleways and improve conditions for cycles. I think that this legislation will help the council, because it will enable it to work hand in hand with the various authorities in this bill, to promote proper safe cycling. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000502\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b8383f38-c78c-4e5d-8324-677d91e95c49\u0022\u003EI have recently visited Norway and Sweden in Scandinavia, where a much higher proportion of the population cycles because their Governments make serious provision for cycling. Sometimes they take a parking lane off and put a two-way cycle lane along it instead. It is not only a question of safety, but also a question of health, if people are to cycle for short journeys. Most of the transport journeys in urban settings, including in Auckland, are for relatively short distances of a kilometre, 2 kilometres, or 3 kilometres. These journeys could be done by cycle, if there were the cycle lanes and cycleways to encourage that. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000503\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b8383f38-c78c-4e5d-8324-677d91e95c49\u0022\u003ESo I very much support the safety emphasis in this legislation, which was worked out in very close collaboration between Labour and the Greens. I think it would do people like Mr Williamson and his National colleagues credit if they took up cycling themselves, to try to encourage people to use cycles and therefore reduce car congestion. [Interruption]\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000504\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002270fa4cbd-9380-4916-9f2a-78da059d220e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002226422b2a01b744fdbdd0f7bbf3801fa7\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson)\u003C/span\u003E: I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member. The Chair will not allow a speaker to be drowned out. I can hardly hear the member. I say to members that chaos may be the parent of creation, but in this Committee we will have order.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000505\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b8383f38-c78c-4e5d-8324-677d91e95c49\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b146159cb250498a9ad2c2117169ec1d\u0022\u003EKEITH LOCKE\u003C/span\u003E: I will not talk just about cycling, but also about facilities for pedestrians. Again in Auckland, half the time there are not proper footpaths around the city and there are difficulties at traffic lights, particularly for disabled people. Important improvements are needed. There are still a lot of pedestrian accidents, including accidents at traffic lights. The turning lanes at intersections are not adequate, and often create difficulty for pedestrians, and particularly for older citizens. There are still projects going ahead without proper cycling and pedestrian facilities. There was a big debate in Auckland recently in relation to an overbridge over the Grafton Gully motorway extension, because it did not have cycle facilities and proper pedestrian facilities. Under the cycling and walking strategy being developed by the Government, in collaboration with the Greens, on which initial draft discussion papers have been presented, hopefully in every road and transport project that goes ahead, consideration will be given to proper facilities for the safety of cyclists and pedestrians. This is not only in relation to road projects. Each rail development project can have cycling and walking facilities in it. One of the advantages\u2014particularly in a place like Auckland, which is rather hilly\u2014is that the railways are relatively level and are good for also providing walking and cycling facilities. So that is one issue that the Greens, including the Greens in Parliament, will be promoting.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022df788c48-b9be-42fd-b8f2-76629a5572b8\u0022 data-id=\u002221cf729ea171456798a078400437ef36\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000506\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022df788c48-b9be-42fd-b8f2-76629a5572b8\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002221cf729ea171456798a078400437ef36\u0022\u003EDr WAYNE MAPP (National\u2014North Shore):\u003C/span\u003E One of the interesting points about that last contribution was the one that Mr Locke made very early on, when he talked about Labour and the Green Party getting together to make sensible legislation. He was very enthusiastic about that point, too. Interestingly, the Minister of Finance nodded in affirmation, because he knows that is what lies in the future for him. He is looking forward to that new coalition. We saw that last week, because legislation was passed and\u2014get this\u2014the Labour - Green - M\u0101ori Party\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000507\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b8383f38-c78c-4e5d-8324-677d91e95c49\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c1ae679e37134cc2863111ac13ad4b7f\u0022\u003EKeith Locke\u003C/span\u003E: Isn\u2019t that good? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000508\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022df788c48-b9be-42fd-b8f2-76629a5572b8\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022eeea3c68b5f040d084c3106a2ef1f9e0\u0022\u003EDr WAYNE MAPP\u003C/span\u003E: That is what Mr Locke said. That is the real choice that will confront New Zealand at the next election\u2014the Labour - Green - M\u0101ori Party coalition. That is what the constitutional select committee is all about\u2014the Labour - Green - M\u0101ori Party facilitation of debate on that issue. That is the sort of thing those parties are doing. I just wanted to draw that point to the attention of members. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000509\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022df788c48-b9be-42fd-b8f2-76629a5572b8\u0022\u003EThe only credible support for this legislation\u2014actually, it is incredible support\u2014is one submission made by two cyclists. All the other groups, as my colleague Mr Williamson referred to, representing literally millions of people in this country, said no to this legislation. It has been pointed out quite carefully that at least in those circumstances we would expect the Government to defend the abandonment of a principle that millions of people want to retain: safety at reasonable cost. No, we do not get that. Instead, we get the flimflam of the weasel words that are scattered through this legislation about environmental sustainability and economic benefits. Those are things that we cannot quantify. That is the danger of this legislation: on the one hand we have the certainty and security, which is surely a cardinal principle of legislation, of safety at reasonable cost, and on the other hand we have conjecture, hypotheses, and uncertainty, which are the very enemies of good legislation. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000510\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022df788c48-b9be-42fd-b8f2-76629a5572b8\u0022\u003EThere is one further thing, and we are not just opposed to this. The Government made much play that a former Minister of Transport was in the Chamber and, indeed, had been the Minister of Transport in 1995, and Government members boasted about their inclusions. I say to the Government that we have listened to the people of New Zealand. We have been listening over a period of time and yes, there has been a fundamental change in the way we should develop public policy. Concepts like the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi did not elicit great concern 15 years ago, but today they do. Surely the lesson from that, and surely the lesson for legislators and for those aspiring to represent the public, is to listen to the public. The public has made it very clear, I suggest, that the election will be fought on the principle that the law applies to us equally. That will be one of the great cardinal issues in the coming election. So that is why National has said it might have done certain things in the 1990s, but it has listened to the people who have said that it went too far. National has listened to the real concerns about the future viability of this nation and the way that people interrelate together. In the law itself, there should be one principle. People should not be sectioned out according to ethnicity, and then get special rights and obligations.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000511\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c437bda8-4741-4ac5-89ab-b0818e1ab9fa\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022beaf197ced674ebb809cff980da762fe\u0022\u003EDarren Hughes\u003C/span\u003E: How\u2019s the polling going?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000512\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022df788c48-b9be-42fd-b8f2-76629a5572b8\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227cee634d299f4b7f907a15ac3d8ad4e8\u0022\u003EDr WAYNE MAPP\u003C/span\u003E: That is exactly what the junior whip wants. He wants to be able to divide people by their ethnicity, and to say that some get special rights that others do not, simply on the basis of ethnicity. We are opposed to this legislation on that fundamental ground itself. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000513\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022df788c48-b9be-42fd-b8f2-76629a5572b8\u0022\u003EYes, I am focusing on the issues contained in clause 30, which are inherent in this bill\u2014in its title and its conception. If we as a nation continue to go down that path, and in all general legislation always seek to identify M\u0101ori people as a special class with special rights and special privileges, then this country will falter. I have listened to many, many New Zealanders on the North Shore, and they do say they are worried about that trend. That is why there was such an outpouring about it. Even National did not understand the sense and depth of outpouring on that issue from the general public. Addressing that does call for some simple rules that are the foundation of every modern democracy: that the law applies to us equally, and that in democratic States we look first to the individual. We put the individual at the apex of our system, and rights are connected to individuals, not provided on the basis of people\u2019s race and ethnicity. That is a fundamental flaw in this legislation. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000514\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022df788c48-b9be-42fd-b8f2-76629a5572b8\u0022\u003EThis bill could have been made right, and National could have ended up supporting it. All that was required was for the Government to listen to two things. First the Government should have listened to all the submitters who said they wanted to have reference in the legislation to safety at reasonable cost because that was predictable, certain and known, and people could plan on that basis. Organisations and companies with literally billions of dollars of investments need to be given predictability, and they asked for predictability in their submissions. In fact they did more. They subsequently wrote letters to me and to Mr Williamson, and I guarantee that they wrote those same letters to the Minister of Transport as well, to ask him to reconsider the issue because they could see the danger of shifting away from a tried and true principle. Yet the Minister simply ignored them. So ignorant was the Minister on this issue that he came along to the Chamber earlier today and said there was, of course, a range of submissions, with some people saying yes, some saying no, and others saying maybe.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000515\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224a11ce4e-9fb3-4738-b0be-5a9f81d975da\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002290f4948b813f4496991268cab5e8fb03\u0022\u003EHon Maurice Williamson\u003C/span\u003E: A balance.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000516\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022df788c48-b9be-42fd-b8f2-76629a5572b8\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223bdf4557807a48df8450bc2fbda1fdf5\u0022\u003EDr WAYNE MAPP\u003C/span\u003E: Labour talks about balance. Its balance, I guess, is that about 98 percent here and 2 percent there looks like fifty-fifty to it. That is the kind of balance the Government believes in. If the Minister, who is, after all, said to be the responsible Minister on this issue, had taken note of the submissions, he would have understood that particular issue. So we are opposed to this legislation on that basic issue in its own right. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000517\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022df788c48-b9be-42fd-b8f2-76629a5572b8\u0022\u003EThe second point is one that I have mentioned, but I just want to restate my concern at what I find buried in this legislation\u2014and this is a point of issue around general legislation. We should not be identifying people by race or by ethnicity, and then giving them special rights in general legislation. We acknowledge on the Opposition side of the Chamber that there is M\u0101ori land law, M\u0101ori language\u2014all those things\u2014and treaty settlements. In those things, obviously, we expect to find specific reference to M\u0101ori ethnicity and particular references to M\u0101ori, because we do understand our history. But we are into the 21st century. This Minister no doubt spoke to Shane Jones in the weekend. Shane Jones gave a very interesting interview earlier this week, in which he said: \u201CSettling historic grievances was last century\u2019s problem. That should not be the issue that we look toward in the 21st century. In the 21st century we should be looking at people achieving in their own right.\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000518\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022df788c48-b9be-42fd-b8f2-76629a5572b8\u0022\u003ESitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022c437bda8-4741-4ac5-89ab-b0818e1ab9fa\u0022 data-id=\u0022a29ccbb268644e659dd9062eb989c0b8\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000519\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c437bda8-4741-4ac5-89ab-b0818e1ab9fa\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a29ccbb268644e659dd9062eb989c0b8\u0022\u003EDARREN HUGHES (Labour\u2014Otaki):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That the question be now put.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022fcd222c3-03a3-4568-a8aa-b6e8c6ef37c5\u0022 data-id=\u0022c28e30451b4545aa8300f17c02ccd974\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000520\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fcd222c3-03a3-4568-a8aa-b6e8c6ef37c5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c28e30451b4545aa8300f17c02ccd974\u0022\u003EMIKE WARD (Green):\u003C/span\u003E A great deal of legislation that we pass sets out to sustain the unsustainable, and to perpetuate behaviour that has no future. That has been true of most of the transport legislation that has come before this House, and of most of the transport initiatives that have been followed in this country for a very long time. This bill, I suggest, is culture-changing legislation, in that it sets out to persuade people to behave in ways that give my children a future, and to change the behaviour of waste. It sets out, in fact, to look at the underlying problems and to address them. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000521\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fcd222c3-03a3-4568-a8aa-b6e8c6ef37c5\u0022\u003EI have never driven. I have managed to live a reasonable life in spite of not having driven. Part of the reasonableness of my life has been that I have not had to run a car. I have worked fewer hours, spent less time in going to places, and spent less time in travelling than most people. I find it rather bizarre that in a time when we have never had so many cars and so many roads, we have never spent so much time in travelling. One has to say that, maybe, we have been getting it wrong. I would suggest that this piece of legislation, in fact, addresses that\u2014getting it wrong\u2014and tries to get it right. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000522\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fcd222c3-03a3-4568-a8aa-b6e8c6ef37c5\u0022\u003EWhat sort of a future are we looking for? A future where the streets are safe enough to send our kids out on to, a future where we actually have choices about how we get to places, and a future where, in fact, we will be able to climb into our motor cars when we need to, because I suggest they are going to be around for a while. This bill does that. This legislation is good, culture-shifting legislation. As I said before, not much of our legislation is culture-shifting legislation. Most of it sets out to perpetuate unsustainable behaviour. We probably do not have a lot of time to get more of this kind of legislation in front of the House. I think we have an aimlessness and a pointlessness out there that this legislation addresses, as well. One cannot have two cars in every garage. May I say that in the Tasman District\u2014a district adjacent to my city of Nelson\u201467 percent of households last year had two or more cars. I tell members that the cost of those cars is that people are working to earn two or more incomes per family.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000523\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b0d8b0e0-3ece-4865-9145-5eb5983fc54c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f5bd73da92d9495b9d05ab13f811d0d2\u0022\u003EHon Richard Prebble\u003C/span\u003E: That is their choice.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000524\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fcd222c3-03a3-4568-a8aa-b6e8c6ef37c5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c9e02d82dc0e4524a549e18f135a54b8\u0022\u003EMIKE WARD\u003C/span\u003E: This bill does not take away choice; it gives choice\u2014genuine choice. Having umpteen different models of motorcar is not choice. Having a choice between safe cycling, safe walkways, safe buses, regular buses, frequent buses, and one\u2019s car is choice, and this bill sets out to give that kind of choice. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000525\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fcd222c3-03a3-4568-a8aa-b6e8c6ef37c5\u0022\u003EI mentioned earlier, and I have mentioned at times to the Minister, that I hope we will have the expertise to make sure that local authorities, in providing that choice, genuinely consider the needs of the transport disadvantaged in such a way as the rest of us, those of us who do climb into cars\u2014and I am one of those these days; it is somebody else\u2019s car and I pay for it, but I do climb into cars\u2014but who actually have other choices. May I say I actually still catch the bus from the airport from time to time, and it is probably quicker than getting a cab. One might have to wait a little longer for the bus, but it gets one here to Parliament just about as quickly as a cab. It goes through the tunnel and misses out on the queues of traffic. That is the kind of future that I think this bill will provide for all New Zealanders. Wellington does that well. In Auckland one sits in queues of traffic that is going nowhere extraordinarily slowly. I fail to understand the good sense of that; I do not see any good sense in it. But Aucklanders do sit there forever in their cars, going nowhere. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000526\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fcd222c3-03a3-4568-a8aa-b6e8c6ef37c5\u0022\u003ESo the Greens have much pleasure in supporting this legislation. We believe it is good legislation. We are proud to have been part of forming this legislation, and we look forward to seeing it passed.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002272e48ab0-e7ae-427f-bedc-793b7a91adba\u0022 data-id=\u0022387212791ccf48dbbfe6ba9ff989b1dd\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000527\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002272e48ab0-e7ae-427f-bedc-793b7a91adba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022387212791ccf48dbbfe6ba9ff989b1dd\u0022\u003EHon MARK BURTON (Minister of Defence):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That the question be now put.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000528\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb5e591b-8ffc-4539-a900-1ee22224f7d7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002274ffa07d5f99478bb5ee904d25b335b9\u0022\u003EDeborah Coddington\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. The ACT party has not been given a call on the title.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000529\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022bfec91068dbf4ecca1da6c38d9fa817c\u0022\u003EHon Dr Michael Cullen\u003C/span\u003E: I seek leave for the ACT party to take one call, and for us then to proceed to the closure motion.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000530\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002270fa4cbd-9380-4916-9f2a-78da059d220e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227d0b10878394494ba4639526aa2a0797\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson)\u003C/span\u003E: Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is not.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022cb5e591b-8ffc-4539-a900-1ee22224f7d7\u0022 data-id=\u00226da77ba175bf4e32a2a424ef21945237\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000531\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb5e591b-8ffc-4539-a900-1ee22224f7d7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00226da77ba175bf4e32a2a424ef21945237\u0022\u003EDEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT):\u003C/span\u003E I thank the Committee for giving me the opportunity to respond to that absolute nonsense from the Green Party. The title of this legislation\u2014the Transport Legislation Bill\u2014is very misleading. This legislation will do nothing to improve transport in New Zealand. In fact, it will set transport back two decades. The Green Party says that it increases choices. How can the Greens say it increases choices and at the same time be so opposed to cars? Cars give New Zealanders freedom of choice. They give old people, mothers, and families freedom of choice. Why does the Green Party think that bus transport is more sustainable, environmentally, than car transport? The Green Party members have obviously never been stuck behind a diesel bus that is grinding its way up a hill and belching out black diesel smoke. Cars have become more efficient and more environmentally pure than buses have in the last two decades. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000532\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb5e591b-8ffc-4539-a900-1ee22224f7d7\u0022\u003EThe main objection that we heard from all the submitters to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee was that this legislation codifies, for the first time, the Government\u2019s specific land transport strategy. We heard from Business New Zealand, the Automobile Association, the Road Transport Forum, the Cycling Advocates Network, Federated Farmers, Queenstown Lakes District Council, and numerous other submitters whose concerns were ignored. They said that legislation should be flexible and robust enough to actually just accommodate a Government\u2019s range of policies, rather than spell out, in word for word detail, the four objectives of the New Zealand Transport Strategy, which was written by Roland Sapsford from the Greens office in conjunction with Heather Simpson in the Prime Minister\u2019s office. A deal was done whereby that strategy would be allowed to go through in return for the Greens\u2019 support on the Supreme Court Bill. That was MMP at its worst. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000533\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb5e591b-8ffc-4539-a900-1ee22224f7d7\u0022\u003EEven though we are talking about land transport, which includes all the motorists in New Zealand who use the roads, let us not forget that this bill actually defines coastal shipping, barges, and ferries as land transport, as well. So this bill includes the users of all those services. New Zealand\u2019s future economic viability is put at stake by this legislation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000534\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c437bda8-4741-4ac5-89ab-b0818e1ab9fa\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ee6ba9669a5340c887821defdc5f8c7a\u0022\u003EDarren Hughes\u003C/span\u003E: Nagger, nagger!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000535\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb5e591b-8ffc-4539-a900-1ee22224f7d7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ca4913f55da74074a6b56c2a2c10978b\u0022\u003EDEBORAH CODDINGTON\u003C/span\u003E: When that member\u2019s voice breaks he may be able to get up, take a call, and contribute something sensible to the debate. Meanwhile he just sits there, chirping away\u2014[Interruption]\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000536\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002270fa4cbd-9380-4916-9f2a-78da059d220e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222c46913cae25409eb8b9d03e35dedae9\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson)\u003C/span\u003E: Would the member please continue.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000537\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb5e591b-8ffc-4539-a900-1ee22224f7d7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ec9dbef017114ec393a9728bd1505939\u0022\u003EDEBORAH CODDINGTON\u003C/span\u003E: Overwhelmingly the submissions on the bill requested that the sustainability filter, which has now taken the place of safety at a reasonable cost, be changed. It has not really been changed; it has been tweaked and tinkered with. We now have more weasel words such as \u201Cmaintain\u201D and \u201Cimprove\u201D, but the only thing that is to be ensured under this legislation is environmental sustainability. How can one have transport legislation, for which the main objective\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000538\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c437bda8-4741-4ac5-89ab-b0818e1ab9fa\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f99eb51aae8345b78cd91a72bd54bf7a\u0022\u003EDarren Hughes\u003C/span\u003E: What a nagger.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000539\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb5e591b-8ffc-4539-a900-1ee22224f7d7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226582ebebdce54c1cb3b89b877254b31e\u0022\u003EDEBORAH CODDINGTON\u003C/span\u003E: That member obviously does not care about safety. He does not care that airlines, and the helicopter industry, will have to be more concerned about how they pollute the atmosphere than about the safety of their passengers. That is what this bill does, in stating that environmental sustainability will be ensured, but safety will be assisted. [Interruption] \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000540\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b0d8b0e0-3ece-4865-9145-5eb5983fc54c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a7b8303539254f1a9d04f0a4576845af\u0022\u003EHon Richard Prebble\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I think the Minister of Fisheries is under the influence. I think he was calling out \u201CA party of crooks.\u201D, or something similar to that. He is nodding his head. The Minister Mr Benson-Pope is completely out of order, and he should be required to withdraw and apologise for those remarks. He should sober up.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000541\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002270fa4cbd-9380-4916-9f2a-78da059d220e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ee42f57fc94c4104a176614c185a333a\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Prebble. I actually thought that I had heard that myself. If that was the case, I ask the member to stand, withdraw, and apologise.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000542\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022330c030b-99be-4461-8aaa-9a10ee5bd889\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227e788da2c9a548a9a339734118915cdc\u0022\u003EHon David Benson-Pope\u003C/span\u003E: I withdraw and apologise.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000543\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb5e591b-8ffc-4539-a900-1ee22224f7d7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222518ec6014394ffa99052bf849c766ce\u0022\u003EDEBORAH CODDINGTON\u003C/span\u003E: I would have thought that it was a case of pots and kettles. To get back to the title, this bill amends already the legislation that we passed just last year. The Government could not get the legislation right last year. How do we know whether next year its transport policy may not change again? The Government itself may change. If that happens we will have to go through this whole process again, because this Government will have specifically written into the book its transport strategy.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022f2b98bf351b94fe99a9317d4dfdba2e4\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the question be now put.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 71\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; M\u0101ori Party 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 48\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022f7127cfe567140deb5f77d1272667d98\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That clause 1 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 84\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; M\u0101ori Party 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 35\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EClause 1 agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u00224361ce52197a45dc919b36976c35f44d\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That clause 2 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 84\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; M\u0101ori Party 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 35\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EClause 2 agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00229c0eba1d-17a6-44e2-a9b3-2e2535339570\u0022 data-id=\u00220f41cd742d6141918c9a386f811758b0\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000544\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229c0eba1d-17a6-44e2-a9b3-2e2535339570\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00220f41cd742d6141918c9a386f811758b0\u0022\u003EHon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Transport):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That the Committee divide the bill into the Civil Aviation Amendment Bill (No 2), the Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 2), the Land Transport Management Amendment Bill, and the Maritime Transport Amendment Bill, pursuant to Supplementary Order Paper 300.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022047e950eab4249bdbed2fe0bcdaf02fc\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the motion be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 84\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; M\u0101ori Party 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 35\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000545\u0022\u003EBill reported with amendment.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000546\u0022\u003EReport adopted.\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000547\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022ec381fd06711483fb0b372511c2fbc6c\u0022\u003EUrgency\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000549\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u002299f2ac5fde334643923754821de60772\u0022\u003EUrgency\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000548\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002208b722ff75d14b13828b2079a4e86ccb\u0022\u003EHon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That urgency be accorded the passing through its remaining stages of the Foreshore and Seabed Bill. This is so that the bill can be passed before the House rises for a 1-week adjournment and to give legal certainty around the framework on the matter.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022c57d4b4a5a264447a0b36ea45aa2314a\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That urgency be accorded.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 66\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 53\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 27; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Maori Party 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022\u003EBills\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000550\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022465ac7d5341f41008aecbf69da42ef82\u0022\u003EForeshore and Seabed Bill\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000551\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u00226781a06a73934d3e9150b684192dccf3\u0022\u003EProcedure\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022 data-id=\u00221ba06b70caa042dc81a113a62266c115\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000552\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00221ba06b70caa042dc81a113a62266c115\u0022\u003EHon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House):\u003C/span\u003E Pursuant to our discussion in the Business Committee I seek leave for there to be 14 speeches, each of a maximum of 10 minutes, on the second and third reading debates on the Foreshore and Seabed Bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000553\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022666de71249294240bce3bb5ff5e6568c\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There appears to be none. That will be so.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022 data-id=\u00225314152e390c4cc29e5ab9feb9f4a86a\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000554\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00225314152e390c4cc29e5ab9feb9f4a86a\u0022\u003EHon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House):\u003C/span\u003E Secondly, I seek leave to table a document that shows the effects that the amendments proposed in Supplementary Order Paper 302 would have on the text of the Foreshore and Seabed Bill as introduced. The document, of course, has no official status. It is provided solely for the convenience of members of Parliament.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000555\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003EDocument, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002219386ba0-5a6e-485e-abc0-5a3128b4e1f6\u0022 data-id=\u0022029787b594794a1aaabaf19422cb6a9c\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000556\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219386ba0-5a6e-485e-abc0-5a3128b4e1f6\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022029787b594794a1aaabaf19422cb6a9c\u0022\u003EHon KEN SHIRLEY (ACT):\u003C/span\u003E I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Seeing as this is quite an extraordinary situation we have here with, effectively, a new bill just tabled and available for Opposition members, perhaps the Deputy Prime Minister could have unlimited time\u2014with the first Opposition spokesperson having equivalent unlimited time\u2014so that he can go through and explain the changes and the detail, given that the select committee could not give a full report back to the House, and that we will move into the Committee stage on this very important bill without having done it justice at the second reading.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000557\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228c9c3f1dcaa2427ba693042da1d95703\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Leave is sought that the first two speeches have unlimited time. Is there any objection? There is objection.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000558\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022d34932e0666f4eacbba6035f938c8926\u0022\u003ESecond Reading\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022 data-id=\u00224178046a237d4ddbb3361ba487057e66\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000559\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00224178046a237d4ddbb3361ba487057e66\u0022\u003EHon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That the Foreshore and Seabed Bill be now read a second time. I would never be so cruel to Mr Brownlee as to insist that he speak at length on this bill\u201410 minutes will no doubt be an extension of time! \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000560\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003ETo repeat a point I made in the debate on the first reading, this bill gives effect to the four principles we set out at the start: access, regulation, protection, and certainty. The bill provides a clear unified system for recognising and protecting rights in the foreshore and seabed. It creates a fair and reasonable framework for working through individual cases, in the context of a settled concept of Crown ownership on behalf of all New Zealanders. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000561\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003EI said in my first reading speech that this bill would not satisfy everyone. I doubted that that would be possible, given the contentious and complex nature of the issues. But I emphasised that the bill did go a long way to addressing the concerns that have been raised. I expressed the hope that people would take time to examine and discuss the bill, and suggest improvements. The select committee report shows that people certainly exercised their democratic rights, with nearly 4,000 written submissions and over 200 oral presentations. It is disappointing that the committee could not agree on amendments to the bill, many of which are simply of a technical nature, that would have assisted members, and we shall hear a great deal of huffing and puffing about that later, ignoring the fact that the parties responsible are those that actually opposed the bill, not those that supported the bill. But that has not detracted from the integrity of the legislative process, as Mr Russell Fairbrother, chair of the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee, pointed out. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000562\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003EI turn to the select committee\u2019s report. I would like first of all to express my gratitude to Government members of the committee for their contribution to the work of the committee and for their report. Their advocacy of a reserve status for areas of the foreshore and seabed, expressed both in the report and directly, has been influential and is reflected in the Government\u2019s proposals for changes to the bill. I shall say more on those later. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000563\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003EI am not able to compliment National members of the committee on their report. They restate their earlier position, that Parliament simply needs to legislate to remove the M\u0101ori Land Court jurisdiction that was the subject of the Ng\u0101ti Apa judgment. The bill does a great deal more than that, because it has to. Recognising and protecting rights in the foreshore and seabed is a complex matter, not one amenable to simple solutions, yet National says it supports recognising and protecting those customary rights. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000564\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003ENational tells us that it does not accept the claim that non-M\u0101ori New Zealanders can never have the same feeling, love, and care for, or connection with, the coastline of this country as someone who is M\u0101ori. The Government and New Zealand First reject that, too. If National members think that that is what the bill does, they have simply not read it through. What they have to consider is whether particular M\u0101ori interests in the foreshore and seabed can be acknowledged, consistent with the general interests of all New Zealanders, and that is what the bill has set out to do. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000565\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003EMr Dail Jones made a thoughtful and constructive contribution to the report, repeating the position that the bill does ensure the ownership of the public foreshore and seabed by the Crown, and the protection of customary rights. That dialogue is continued, and the Supplementary Order Paper represents the outcome of that dialogue. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000566\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003EACT simply said we were precipitate, inconsistent, and wrong, but never said at all clearly what should have been done. [Interruption] Apparently the ACT position was that we should have allowed the law to run as it was, and foreshore and seabed should have passed into private hands. We know ACT favours privatisation but we did not realise it actually went as far as that, in this respect. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000567\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003EThe Green members\u2019 report is extensive and considered, but does not provide a basis for reaching an accommodation with the Government on the issues in the bill, because it adopts this notion that in the meantime the Crown has some kind of trusteeship before ownership is transferred to M\u0101ori under the current jurisdiction. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000568\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003EThe United Future member made many constructive suggestions, and I think probably United Future\u2019s disagreements with the bill are less substantive than those of some other parties in the House. Theirs is more about process, rather than the substance of the bill. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000569\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003EThe Supplementary Order Paper incorporates a very large number of the amendments suggested in the departmental report and could have been done at the select committee stage. Other amendments reflect discussions with Government members and with New Zealand First. They cover the following. First of all, there is the objective of the bill. The objective is to preserve the public foreshore and seabed in perpetuity as the common heritage of all New Zealanders in a way that enables the protection by the Crown of the public foreshore and seabed on behalf of all the people of New Zealand, including the protection of the association of wh\u0101nau, hap\u016B, and iwi with areas of the public foreshore and seabed. That seemed to be consistent with the National Party\u2019s position.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000570\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003ESecondly, right of access: the powers in the bill are to restrict access only to protect activities that are the subject of a customary rights order, and relate to sites of special significance. Thirdly, statutory criteria, for the new jurisdiction of the High Court to consider claims of territorial customary rights, that is, continuity, contiguity, and exclusive use and occupation: so far the National Party has shown no sign of recognising that the issue of the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court is on the table right now, and unless the law is changed there is nothing to prevent the High Court from issuing customary title to foreshore and seabed. The National Party seems to pretend that somehow that can be completely ignored in the legislation. Such folly on its part I think is extraordinary. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000571\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003EThe tests that are applied are arguably more liberal than in the common law of other jurisdictions. They certainly reflect the kind of common law test the courts should have applied, should any application be made under customary title procedures. The redress for territorial customary rights covers a couple of possibilities. The first is that a successful applicant group, where there is redress to be available, can apply for the establishment of a foreshore and seabed reserve. That is held for the common use and benefit for the people of New Zealand, but acknowledges the guardianship status of the applicant group. The board operates within the statutory framework of the Resource Management Act. Its task will include the preparation of a management plan for the reserve, which councils will recognise and provide for in preparing or changing regional policy statements or plans. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000572\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003ERegional councils will be required to review relevant regional policies and plans within 6 months of a management plan for the reserve being lodged with them. This is so unscary that it is remarkably similar to provisions in the Resource Management Act, which the National Government itself passed in 1991. But we will hear vast huffing and puffing for many hours about the supposed effects of that, in relation to special privileges. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000573\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003EThe Supplementary Order Paper removes ancestral connection orders. They were widely criticised on the grounds of cost and ineffectiveness, and will not proceed. The National Party called for the removal of ancestral connection orders, and it will be interesting to see what it says on that part of the bill in the Supplementary Order Paper. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000574\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003EThe new customary rights orders clarify that these must be based on actual activities, and cannot be issued simply in response to cultural or spiritual associations, and cannot be described as a right to the exclusive use of an area unless it can be justified by evidence of exclusive use. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000575\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003EChanges in existing infrastructure clarify that the maintenance of, and new consents for, existing infrastructure will not be subject to the new restrictions on consent applications that would have a significant adverse effect on a recognised customary activity, and provided that the effects are temporary or the same as those that existed before the application was made. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000576\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003EThe vesting of reclaimed land: limited exemptions will apply if a resource consent for a reclamation has been granted before the enactment of this bill, or if there is specific statute or legal agreement, and new provisions will give port companies an automatic right of renewal on leases. They will reclaim the land necessary for port infrastructure, while other holders of a lease over reclaimed land that is due to expire will have a right to have an application for a new lease considered. Existing rights are protected, and the situation going forward provides adequate protection for reclamations. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000577\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003EThese are significant changes to aspects of the bill. I would have preferred that they be considered on their merits by the select committee and reported on in full to the House. That would have assisted us in taking this bill through its remaining stages. But the obstructiveness of Opposition parties is no reason to prevent the bill from being taken through its remaining stages. That would have assisted in terms of the later debate. The changes strengthen, clarify, and take account of practical concerns. They do not affect the bill\u2019s basic purpose and direction, which centres on those four principles. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000578\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003ELastly, let me dwell upon a particular point. Ever since the Court of Appeal decision, there has been a heroic overstatement of the implications of that decision on the part of many people throughout the country. Many M\u0101ori have claimed that there would be automatic ownership of the foreshore and seabed, or that already there was effective legal and beneficial ownership of the foreshore and seabed, and therefore this legislation takes that away. That is nonsense. Legal ownership is vested in the Crown under existing legislation, and existing legislation such as the Resource Management Act is incomprehensible without that assertion of ownership, because under it the Crown contracts further ownership on reclamations. But on the other hand, people got the notion that somehow or other the legislation was going to hand everything over to the full control and the full benefit of M\u0101ori. [Interruption] Yes, says Mr Richard Worth. Neither position represents the reality at all, except of course the National Party is trying to argue both of them simultaneously, which only it is ever capable of doing on these kinds of issues. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000579\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003EThe bill represents a delicate balance. It represents a balance that reflects the actual common law rights position, codified into statute\u2014no more and no less than that. We shall hear a great deal more over the next 20 hours or so but it will be a great deal of noise signifying very little from the National and ACT parties.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000580\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a9ad305ec64445d2826dcbc8be76e918\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: I have organised the list of the parties I will call in order. It is on the Table, and people can come and consult if they wish. I have already consulted some of the parties.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022 data-id=\u002296fce01817ff483b9742c4b6ad942600\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000581\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002296fce01817ff483b9742c4b6ad942600\u0022\u003EGERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader\u2014National):\u003C/span\u003E A Government that is confident about a bill as important as this would not spend so much of its introductory speech-time pre-empting what the Opposition might say. The Government would not so quickly put itself into defence mode unless it knew that the bill was incredibly divisive and was going to be a problem for it. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000582\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003ENow, some 18 months after the Court of Appeal decision on Ng\u0101ti Apa, very little has changed. Government members went around the countryside consulting, so-called, with M\u0101ori and holding hui here, there, and everywhere. Then, just before Christmas last year, the Government introduced the Foreshore and Seabed Bill into the House\u2014an appalling bill that now lies in tatters on the Table of the House. The Government has come up with a very substantial Supplementary Order Paper, which makes the bill a very different bill. This bill was not put together by the Government; it was put together by the Government\u2019s white knight in this case\u2014namely, Winston Peters and the New Zealand First Party. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000583\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003EI will explain what is so significant about this Supplementary Order Paper. The Court of Appeal decision on Ng\u0101ti Apa upheld the premise that the M\u0101ori Land Court could issue title to foreshore and seabed to some M\u0101ori applicants. In terms of the bill now before us, those same M\u0101ori applicants can go to the High Court to seek territorial customary rights, which lead to co-management or a cheque for compensation. It is clear that Dr Cullen has not read his own press release, so for his benefit I will quote from it: \u201CWhere a territorial customary rights finding is made, and the group does not seek the establishment of a reserve\u201D\u2014that is, the co-management bit\u2014\u201Cthe High Court shall refer the finding to Ministers to discuss other redress options.\u201D Everyone knows \u201Cother redress\u201D means a cheque. John Tamihere certainly knows that \u201Cother redress\u201D means a cheque. So there is very little change from exactly what was the case 18 months ago. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000584\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003EThe select committee process was a disgrace. However, in saying that, I do want to pay tribute to the chairman, Russell Fairbrother. He is a very able fellow, and he must wonder what the heck he is doing in Parliament, after his previous illustrious career. He was under an incredibly hard drive, all the time, from the Prime Minister and Michael Cullen. He knew that he could not listen to people, that he could not allow the committee to listen to people, and that he could not take on board their views, because the Government was always going to do what suited it best. Sadly, because the numbers fell over, the Government had to go to Dail Jones to write the Supplementary Order Paper, and to Winston Peters to help them out, in order to get the legislation through. Members of the select committee were fascinated with the goodwill\u2014by and large\u2014that was exhibited by many of the M\u0101ori submitters who felt aggrieved and were very uncertain. It was interesting to note that the uncertainty felt by M\u0101ori submitters was paralleled just as strongly in the non-M\u0101ori community. This bill does nothing to allay those fears\u2014on the part of either party. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000585\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003EDr Cullen suggested that somehow there was something wrong with National\u2019s suggestion that the Government should have considered Te Ture Whenua Maori Act when looking to sort this problem out. That legislation came before the House only 11 years ago, so that is in living memory of many members here. For the benefit of those of us who were not in Parliament then, we went back through all the submissions received on that bill and we went back through all the speeches in Hansard. We found that not one submitter, MP, or M\u0101ori MP at the time, mentioned that the foreshore or the seabed was land. Not one! It was never ever suggested, despite what Government members might think, that the foreshore or the seabed was land. That was the view of 11 years ago. What has happened within the M\u0101ori community that makes them suddenly decide that the foreshore or seabed is land? The Government is in this pickle because Helen Clark overreacted to the appeal court decision. She was caught on the hop when she was asked what the Government was going to do about it. She immediately said that the Government would legislate to fix it. So about 18 months later we have this bill before the House, but it will do nothing to change those circumstances\u2014not a thing. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000586\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003EM\u0101ori will be able to make a claim to the High Court to get a declaration of customary rights over an area, and a reserve will be created, which, apparently, everybody can walk over, everybody can stomp up and down on, and everybody can use a boat on, but there will be a management committee that somehow will administer that reserve. Dr Cullen knows, and everybody in the Labour Party knows, that when one sets up committees\u2014and Labour is good at that\u2014then inevitably there will be rules, there will be charges, and there will be restrictions on use. No matter what this bill says, that is what they will do. The bill contains plenty of clauses\u2014[Interruption] and the member for Taupo ought to read them\u2014that will allow the access issue to be parked up. How can anybody in this country be confident with the bold claim made by Dr Cullen today that this bill has no more in it to fear than the Resource Management Act? Well, I can tell members opposite that their votes, their seats, are being undone on a daily basis because of their insistence that the Resource Management Act is all fine and dandy and nothing needs to be done about it. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000587\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003EDr Cullen challenged National to give a position on the Government\u2019s decision to take the ancestral connection provision out of the bill. Well, the Government has not done that. It will argue that it has gone\u2014because those words are not there\u2014but if anyone looks at the purpose of the bill, and at clause 2A, \u201CObject\u201D, it is patently clear that ancestral connection is now very much embedded in the bill. So if one is a M\u0101ori, one has an opportunity to claim a special connection to specific parts of the coastline.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000588\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002214244387bae043cb8e31bbad7c9b58ec\u0022\u003ERt Hon Winston Peters\u003C/span\u003E: No. It\u2019s gone.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000589\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f47dbd952f8b49dfb3cbdc93cdf6a3ce\u0022\u003EGERRY BROWNLEE\u003C/span\u003E: Mr Winston Peters sits there and says it is gone. I ask him to tell us what it means where it states that a M\u0101ori group can go to the High Court to have a customary rights finding in their favour. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000590\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a9a6d3fc06c549b9ae5f001bcf0d6e72\u0022\u003ERt Hon Winston Peters\u003C/span\u003E: It doesn\u2019t say that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000591\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227682dc5651bf4b6a829a7d036b526747\u0022\u003EGERRY BROWNLEE\u003C/span\u003E: That is exactly what it says. If that is somehow not something special that those of us who are non-M\u0101ori cannot claim, then what is it? If it is not saying that those groups have a preference in our society, what is it saying? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000592\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226de7f1d9-7be9-468a-b27c-06000416b96a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220ce19e4f0a39447cb397bac493361029\u0022\u003EJohn Tamihere\u003C/span\u003E: Ask Georgina.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000593\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022809c374e95174ff3b3cd8075c9fb4d85\u0022\u003EGERRY BROWNLEE\u003C/span\u003E: I wish John Tamihere would shut his mouth, because when it comes to dishing out cheques, no one in this House knows more than he does. That is what this bill does. This bill is designed to placate M\u0101ori with a cheque and convince other New Zealanders that everything is OK when it is not.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022 data-id=\u00220b26f3213d73424c9aedd139ba5aae44\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000594\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00220b26f3213d73424c9aedd139ba5aae44\u0022\u003ERt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader\u2014NZ First):\u003C/span\u003E \u201CA little learning is a dang\u2019rous thing; drink deep or touch not the Pierian Spring\u201D. That member knows nothing about this bill, and he demonstrated that with everything he said tonight, which would be his leader\u2019s position and the position of his party. In a democracy like ours, an issue arises now and again that requires us to put aside our differences and act in the best interests of the nation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000595\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002220ba6d7f6ca54691a3c363980c50a3b2\u0022\u003EGerry Brownlee\u003C/span\u003E: Refute everything I\u2019ve said.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000596\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b3995ec3b7e44c16954b80079792a20d\u0022\u003ERt Hon WINSTON PETERS\u003C/span\u003E: I can refute, rebut, and debunk everything the member has said. June last year was such an occasion, when the Court of Appeal released its ruling on the Ng\u0101ti Apa case, regarding the foreshore and seabed. It came from left field and caught all who were involved by surprise. There was a judicial inference that the understandings we always had regarding the ownership of the foreshore and seabed needed greater clarity. The issue seemed straightforward enough. We had all assumed that the Crown owned the foreshore and seabed. But with this in judicial doubt we were required to clarify the issue; and that is what New Zealand First has done from day one. What we have secured is the following: Crown ownership in perpetuity for all New Zealanders; guaranteed public access; customary rights for all New Zealanders, regardless of race; one law for all in access to the courts; and certainty, particularly in respect of business activities linked to the seabed and foreshore, like port companies. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000597\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003EThe issue required a non-partisan approach to clarify what we had assumed to be law. It could have been resolved quickly. Instead, many parties in this House chose to play petty politics. They saw it as a chance to promote themselves and to promote different agendas, even the legal nonsense of a public domain. If these people thought that the Court of Appeal had made a strange decision in respect of the Ng\u0101ti Apa case, just imagine what sort of interpretation a court would have come up with in respect of an alien, inappropriate doctrine such as public domain. This had to be stopped, and it was stopped. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000598\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003EWe also had some M\u0101ori who became obsessed with an aspect of the court\u2019s rulings related to the process of securing customary rights. Some, including lawyers who knew better, and lawyers should know better, helped create the hoax that some people owned the foreshore and seabed because of their ancestry. There is no M\u0101ori in this country with a closer connection to the sea than, for example, myself, or Dover Samuels. We, and our ancestors, have lived smack on the sea for thousands of years. No M\u0101ori can contest that, so let us put a few facts out there. We must remember that many of those lawyers have been on the treaty gravy train for years. They have been cynical and manipulative, and they saw a chance to add to the grievance industry themselves\u2014all division, all confusion, all disharmony. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000599\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003EM\u0101ori and other New Zealanders deserve better and they have got better. They deserve the truth and they have got it. For a time we were drowned by a media frenzy and all sorts of myths and shibboleths, but the truth is now emerging. We have stayed the course on this matter, and we have seen off the mischief-makers. The Court of Appeal never did say that M\u0101ori owned the seabed and foreshore. It simply said there was a process of procuring customary rights through the M\u0101ori Land Court, and then it doubted that any such process would ever succeed. Those are the facts\u2014an abbreviated version\u2014and the rest is bunkum. The court never said that M\u0101ori owned the seabed and foreshore.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000600\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b0d8b0e0-3ece-4865-9145-5eb5983fc54c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c257d2173e78402d967fb7e7ffca66f3\u0022\u003EHon Richard Prebble\u003C/span\u003E: You\u2019ve got the wrong notes.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000601\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002205a0e81177ec432cac61a2f599530e94\u0022\u003ERt Hon WINSTON PETERS\u003C/span\u003E: If my party was going through the floor, I would keep quiet. In fact, I would retire. Oh, I am sorry; the member is retiring. This issue needs clarity and there will be clarity. I have a warning for those in the M\u0101ori Party who believe that their hoax over the seabed and foreshore will sustain them into the next campaign. There will be no mass dissatisfaction. M\u0101ori, like all New Zealanders, will see they have a stake in the ownership of the foreshore and seabed through the Crown, and, more important, for the first time their customary rights are now secure. That is the truth. That is the reality. I have to say they have New Zealand First to thank for that. The next h\u012Bkoi will be to the ballot box, and we will see who is right and who is wrong. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000602\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003EBut it was not just M\u0101ori who were engaged in spreading confusion. We had from the National Party the most confused and the most blatant politicking of them all. Sadly, that is one more sign of its weak and confused leadership. Where is the leader\u2014the great debater\u2014on this issue tonight? Where is the man who would bore the Rotary club silly on the issue? Where are the words of wisdom from this new clarion-call leader who calls himself the new voice? There is not a mutter, not a murmur, not a sound, not a syllable\u2014gone. That leadership lives and thrives in a perverse time warp. They believe there is no legitimate place for M\u0101ori, except as subservient workers for their colonial masters. The tea planter strikes again! \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000603\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003ETonight in the name of M\u0101oridom, Gerry Brownlee rises to put a defence. I feel sorry for M\u0101ori if the new white man\u2019s burden becomes a cloak laid on the shoulders of the National Party. National members could have acted in the national interest. They could have done what their name suggests, but they have long since stopped believing in anything to do with the nation. They are about short-term, opportunist opportunity. In that respect, they are unparalleled in this Parliament. Even the ACT party cannot beat them at doing that. The ACT party does not know whether it is Arthur or Martha. They are opposed to this legislation, but they are going to join the constitutional conference. I say to them: \u201CWould you guys make up your minds!\u201D. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000604\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003EThe whole country is looking for an alternative Government. We know there is leadership here that is an alternative. We know there is a party that is an alternative. There are only 13 of us. We need more who are prepared to get up and put the issues of the day, but not like the National Party and the ACT party. They are hopelessly divided with no idea where they are going. They have no principles and no policy; just objection. Why could the National Party not have done its duty? They said the foreshore and seabed must be in Crown ownership. The bill does all of that. But they will not support it. The National Party stated in its report that customary rights must be protected. The bill does that, but they will not support it. Why not? \u201CBeaches for all\u201D was what Don Brash proclaimed. Well, they will be\u2014but National will not support it. But at Christmas time this year everybody will know who secured the beaches for all of us in New Zealand. They will remember who did it. The National Party could have been part of the solution but instead it decided to become part of the problem. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000605\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003ELet me just say this: although we do not see eye to eye with the Government on many, many things, when there is a threat to our common heritage and our birthright, we have to act together, just like we do in times of war. Nobody should read any more than that into it. But the issue threatened to shake the foundations of this nation, and New Zealand First is proud to have fixed it. We said we would fix it, and we have\u2014unlike the rest on my right and my left. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000606\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003EThere is an old M\u0101ori saying, which I will put in English, which epitomises our position: \u201CNot like the seagull tossing and turning its head at every wave, but like a rock, steadfast against the surging sea\u201D.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022d52e59e3-2195-4c95-a654-665c11b39b63\u0022 data-id=\u0022d82081693b634904961b96e183294cb2\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000607\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d52e59e3-2195-4c95-a654-665c11b39b63\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d82081693b634904961b96e183294cb2\u0022\u003EHon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Minister of M\u0101ori Affairs):\u003C/span\u003E Tihei mauri ora! Ki a koutou katoa e tae ake an\u014D i te rongo, e Paora, koutou katoa, e mihi kau ana, t\u0113n\u0101 koutou. E ng\u0101 m\u0101t\u0101waka \u0101-iwi, \u0101-wh\u0101nau, \u0101-hap\u016B hoki t\u0113n\u0101 koutou. Kaua koutou e m\u0101harahara, e \u0101wangawanga r\u0101nei m\u014D \u014D koutou mana, n\u0101 rangatiratanga hoki n\u014D te mea, k\u0101re \u0113nei e murua i raro i te Pire o te Takutai Moana. Ka mau tonu \u0113nei mana m\u014D ake tonu. M\u0101 t\u0113nei pire in\u0101 ka whakamanatia e tiaki \u014D t\u0101tau mana tipuna ki ng\u0101 takutai moana. Ahakoa noa t\u0113nei pire kei te w\u0101tea te huarahi ki te k\u014Drero tahi mai te Karauna. Kia ora t\u0101tou katoa. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000608\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d52e59e3-2195-4c95-a654-665c11b39b63\u0022\u003E[Behold the breath of life! To all of you, Paora, who have arrived to listen, your presence is acknowledged. Greetings to you all. Greetings as well to the ethnic groups, tribes, families, and subtribes. Do not be anxious or uneasy about your authority or independence as well, because these will not be confiscated under the Foreshore and Seabed Bill but will be retained forever. This bill, should it be passed into law, will protect our ancestral rights to the foreshore. Despite this bill, the pathway is clear to dialogue alongside of the Crown. Greetings to us all.] \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000609\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d52e59e3-2195-4c95-a654-665c11b39b63\u0022\u003EGreetings to the many tribal waka, inclusive of wh\u0101nau and hap\u016B, and to those who have turned up here tonight. I say to them not to be fearful or concerned about the protection of their mana and sovereignty, because they will not be affected under the provisions of the Foreshore and Seabed Bill. Such rights will endure in perpetuity. This bill, when enacted, will protect our ancestral associations and mana to the foreshore and seabed. Under this bill, the way is still available for iwi to negotiate with the Crown. That is the norm. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000610\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002293f3ca12c27240e19209df9e6ea418b1\u0022\u003EGerry Brownlee\u003C/span\u003E: Oh!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000611\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d52e59e3-2195-4c95-a654-665c11b39b63\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220a44e4de603d4f76912cb8f080ee8d88\u0022\u003EHon PAREKURA HOROMIA\u003C/span\u003E: Greetings to Mr Brownlee! I am pleased to speak in support of the second reading of the Foreshore and Seabed Bill. It has been a long journey getting here. We had to sit in front of the h\u012Bkoi, and we had to go around the marae when everybody else went away. We went there. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000612\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d52e59e3-2195-4c95-a654-665c11b39b63\u0022\u003EThe bill is a product of extensive discussion and consideration. It has generated considerable comment from M\u0101ori and non-M\u0101ori, sector groups, local government, and recreational groups.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000613\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bc1e9f65-e08b-4939-867c-22ef093e2a4e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e08629341734457f9478bab417cd1f10\u0022\u003ERodney Hide\u003C/span\u003E: Who wrote this?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000614\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d52e59e3-2195-4c95-a654-665c11b39b63\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221622a41399404ea4870cb54c844b45f9\u0022\u003EHon PAREKURA HOROMIA\u003C/span\u003E: Before I go any further, it is important for that person who is yelling to understand\u2014and I stress, yet again, the need for this House and for all New Zealanders to understand\u2014from the outset that there is a tangata whenua in this country, and that is M\u0101ori. That factor is most relevant to this bill, and it has been at the forefront of the Government\u2019s M\u0101ori caucus\u2019s journey in trying to defend that and ensure that we get there. In line with the Government\u2019s view, the perspective in this bill is about protecting what was tuku-ed to us. It is about passing on those inherited rights, privileges, and interests that were passed on to us. It is quite clearly about kaitiakitanga and guardianship o Tangaroa, and not about the pervasive, perverted speechmaking sessions such as we heard in \u014Crewa. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000615\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d52e59e3-2195-4c95-a654-665c11b39b63\u0022\u003EThis Government has not swayed or moved away from recognising the customary rights of the people who are tangata whenua in this country. We are a Government that is prepared to do the hard work. We confront the issues in this bill. As M\u0101ori members in the Government, we need to understand some things in the sense of what is relevant to M\u0101ori, and in the sense of being a mokopuna. As a mokopuna I went around the rocks with my nan to ruku p\u016Bp\u016B\u2014to get kai moana\u2014two or three times a month, every month, through most of my childhood. I appreciate what the takutai moana has in store for us. It is clearly something that has been passed on to us by our tupuna, and we want it to last. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000616\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d52e59e3-2195-4c95-a654-665c11b39b63\u0022\u003EThe way things were heading, our kai moana would have lasted but a few years. Our fridge and our covenant are being ravaged, pillaged, and sold on the black market even as I speak. There are people in this country who want to forget about the tangata whenua; who want to leave things as they are. The great leader from New Zealand First alluded to that\u2014to those on the gravy train and to the great Government contracts with the elite, the privileged, and the cunning. Most of the members behind that were from that Opposition party over there. We do not want that carry-on. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000617\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d52e59e3-2195-4c95-a654-665c11b39b63\u0022\u003EIn 1992 the customary right was put in a regulated framework. That is where the fishing right went. It was done without consultation. It was done in the dark. It was done in Wellington. It was done by that person and that Opposition. At least we have brought the issue out into the public arena. We stand by what we have done. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000618\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d52e59e3-2195-4c95-a654-665c11b39b63\u0022\u003EThe Government has consulted widely on this bill. I am pleased that by the end of the week, traditional M\u0101ori rights and interests will be protected, guaranteed, and enhanced in perpetuity with the passing of this legislation. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000619\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bc1e9f65-e08b-4939-867c-22ef093e2a4e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002281a8926ca3ff41e580ff11dd05c355d0\u0022\u003ERodney Hide\u003C/span\u003E: Who says that?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000620\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d52e59e3-2195-4c95-a654-665c11b39b63\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a71fd4a90ba546558bc959fbbc344abc\u0022\u003EHon PAREKURA HOROMIA\u003C/span\u003E: I say that as a M\u0101ori and as a member of the tangata whenua of this great country. I am confident that this bill will preserve the rights of all New Zealanders, M\u0101ori and non-M\u0101ori, over the foreshore and seabed. The foreshore is that strip of land between the high-water mark and the low-water mark that people boogie board on, that P\u0101keh\u0101 go to to make themselves look darker like me, that people walk the dog on, and that we get kai from. We want to look after that and respect it. When people go to the beach at Christmas\u2014like my former party member friend over there\u2014they will appreciate the serenity and the right that everybody has to that area. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000621\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d52e59e3-2195-4c95-a654-665c11b39b63\u0022\u003EWhen this issue first arose, the Government developed principles to guide the development of this bill: access, regulation, protection, and certainty. This bill must proceed if we are to have a lasting and certain solution to this issue. The bill will be a lasting solution, because it lives up to those four principles. It protects what all New Zealanders want to see protected: public rights of access and navigation on the one hand, and M\u0101ori customary rights on the other. M\u0101ori have nothing to fear with the passing of this legislation. Customary rights and the interests of wh\u0101nau, hap\u016B, and iwi are acknowledged and protected. There are those who say we should leave things as they are. I disagree. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000622\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d52e59e3-2195-4c95-a654-665c11b39b63\u0022\u003EThere are those who are muscling up to create fee simple, which, quite simply, is about purchase and sale. If one buys someone\u2019s house or car and sells it, kei te pai\u2014that is OK. But some are selling tuku-ed whenua. At the moment there are M\u0101ori who are selling whenua that was tuku-ed to them, that they inherited, that they never paid a cent for, and that was a lifetime interest gifted to them due to their genealogical whakapapa connection. Other races are encouraging them to pillage the kai moana and sell it in Auckland in the dark. I want to make sure that my mokopuna\u2014and Mr Brownlee\u2019s, if he has any\u2014can go to the beach and get kai when they grow up; that they can go there and get suntanned if they want. If the status quo were to remain, they would be denied all those simple niceties that New Zealand people want to participate in. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000623\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d52e59e3-2195-4c95-a654-665c11b39b63\u0022\u003EThis bill will vest the full and legal benefits of the public to the seabed and foreshore in the Crown, and will provide for the recognition and protection of ongoing customary rights. It will also prevent the creation of new private foreshore and seabed titles that could be sold off, which that person on the Opposition benches helped to organise. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000624\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d52e59e3-2195-4c95-a654-665c11b39b63\u0022\u003EThis bill makes the public foreshore and seabed inalienable, except by special Act of Parliament. It gives protection to M\u0101ori as much as to everyone else. I thank the members of the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee and Russell Fairbrother. I especially thank our M\u0101ori caucus members on that committee and the other members for the effort they put in and for the heavy flak they had to take. It is regrettable that the select committee was not able to reach agreement on the bill\u2014that is Parliament; that is MMP\u2014despite the effort it made to consider a vast number of written submissions. Even though the committee was not able to reach agreement, the Government has heard what submitters were saying. It was not realistic to do away with the bill altogether, as some suggested, but amongst the raruraru\u2014the concern we heard from a few\u2014many of the submitters made useful, constructive suggestions on how to improve the bill. That is what this Supplementary Order Paper is about. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000625\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d52e59e3-2195-4c95-a654-665c11b39b63\u0022\u003EI will not comment on the amendments because the bell has gone, but I will say a couple of other things. If M\u0101ori groups get a territorial customary right finding, this amendment will give wh\u0101nau, hap\u016B, and iwi the powers to manage the foreshore. The foreshore and seabed reserves have been designed especially for this bill. It is not too different from marae\u2014the hundreds and thousands of them around this country are reserved. My learned pakeke Dover Samuels alluded to that. On those reserves, our connection to those marae and those meeting houses is through our genealogical and hap\u016B connection. That is a reserve. We can do all those things. We do not pay rates, but we certainly cannot build an ablution block without the consent of the local authority. We certainly cannot do all of those things. The reserves are not a new thing in that sense. It is well practised in M\u0101ori. We manage them well as M\u0101ori. We are respected generally when people go to them. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000626\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d52e59e3-2195-4c95-a654-665c11b39b63\u0022\u003EThere are different tribal cultures and tikanga, even with the foreshore. There are no generic models, generic aspirations, or generic rights that will put everything right. M\u0101ori, like the National Party at times, put things asunder amongst themselves. M\u0101ori are familiar with marae reserves. Like those guardians of the foreshore, we will continue. We want this to be flexible. I want to remind Opposition members about retention. Quite simply, that is what this bill is about. Most of the M\u0101ori land that is still intact now was put into a regulated framework by T\u0101 Apirana Ngata, and it has stood the test of time. Whether it has been used or has been lying idle, it has stood the test of time, and we M\u0101ori still have it. It is still in our possession. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000627\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d52e59e3-2195-4c95-a654-665c11b39b63\u0022\u003EThat is what this bill is about. It is about looking forward with our young population, which does not have all the tikanga skills that people have said. Much of the land that was left out of the regulated framework was pillaged by people who came as visitors to this country. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000628\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d52e59e3-2195-4c95-a654-665c11b39b63\u0022\u003E It was ransacked. We were haemorrhaged by it. It was disgraceful. It was not only the visitors who sold our land. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000629\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219386ba0-5a6e-485e-abc0-5a3128b4e1f6\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d45ec23580d641268bf2844512a10b86\u0022\u003EHon Ken Shirley\u003C/span\u003E: Oh, so it wasn\u2019t only them?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d52e59e3-2195-4c95-a654-665c11b39b63\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229252695bed314775bd65e3517b5223a0\u0022\u003EHon PAREKURA HOROMIA\u003C/span\u003E: No, it was not only them. Our own people have sold on in recent times whenua that was tuku-ed to them\u2014whenua that was gifted to them through their ancestral connection and their genealogical ties. It was given to them by our ancestors. As I said, we have to ensure that we have documents and policies like this that will protect all New Zealanders, especially the tangata whenua\u2019s right in this country. I have no hesitation in supporting the second reading of the Foreshore and Seabed Bill. I want to thank New Zealand First, especially Winston Peters\u2014like me, a seafaring person\u2014for coming along at this late stage and helping us to get on with it. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022 data-id=\u0022beca9b5072be402cb8b2a40fa7f8ba98\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000631\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022beca9b5072be402cb8b2a40fa7f8ba98\u0022\u003EMETIRIA TUREI (Green):\u003C/span\u003E Already this debate has been utterly sickening, and I stand with the thousands of other New Zealanders who, over the next few days, will likewise be sickened by listening to M\u0101ori justify the taking of M\u0101ori land. So much has been said in the last 18 months about the Government\u2019s abject failure to manage the issue of the foreshore and seabed properly; from Helen Clark\u2019s ridiculous over-reaction after the Ng\u0101ti Apa decision, to the arrogant disregard of Michael Cullen and Trevor Mallard for M\u0101ori analysis and experience during the consultation hui, and to the creation of this legislation, which extinguishes customary rights, confiscates land, and is nothing if not entirely deceptive. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000632\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003EThis litany of failures has cost Labour one of its best members of Parliament and a significant chunk of its traditional M\u0101ori and P\u0101keh\u0101 support, and it has set back M\u0101ori and P\u0101keh\u0101 relationships by more than 30 years. What a sick achievement for this Government! At one point it looked as if the Government seriously wanted to give New Zealanders the opportunity to be heard on the issue through the select committee process, but even that turned into one of this Parliament\u2019s greatest disgraces. Labour and New Zealand First refused to give enough time for the select committee to consider the bill properly, and the committee could not hear the thousands of submitters who wanted to be heard. Nor could committee members properly consider the major issues that arose from those submissions; nor in the end did they have even enough time to discuss and recommend any changes to the bill. Of course, the submitters themselves were treated with an extraordinary level of contempt and abuse by some committee members. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000633\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003EThe community that we are here to serve is rightly outraged. Submitters were not even permitted the basic dignity of being written to by the committee and thanked for their efforts to make submissions. At least the Green Party wrote to those who sought an oral hearing, to thank them for their effort and contribution to the democratic process. Despite the abuse suffered by those submitters who came to the committee, many presented their views with compassion and respect. Some certainly expressed frustration and anger. Many brought stories about their ongoing commitment to the coast and their continued efforts to protect the coast from unsustainable development and the damage made by 4-wheel drive vehicles and other destructive human activities. They told of their efforts to protect the planting of indigenous species that are under threat, their efforts to protect the nesting sites of rare and threatened birds and, of course, their efforts to protect their own w\u0101hi tapu. Those stories came from the people, M\u0101ori and P\u0101keh\u0101, who live on the coast and are the most affected by any changes to the legal status of the coast itself. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000634\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003EI have described this bill as deceptive, and I say that because for all the rhetoric about the protection of public access, the bill turns the foreshore and seabed into a saleable commodity and repeals one of the few requirements for public access. This bill hides a myriad of hidden agendas. Some are just pure opportunism\u2014for example, the taking of Te Whanga Lagoon on the Chatham Islands. The ownership of Te Whanga Lagoon is the subject of current litigation\u2014litigation that has been very difficult for everyone involved\u2014but the courts are the legitimate forum for that dispute. This Government is using the Foreshore and Seabed Bill to take ownership of the lagoon for itself, even though the lagoon is not within the coastal marine area. It wants to do that just because it can. There is no justification. It is a simple theft. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000635\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003EOne serious deception is the removal of mandatory marginal strips under the Conservation Act. That clause is hidden in the bill and kept quiet by the Government so that no one will notice. Currently, the law states that when reclaimed land is vested as fee simple\u2014for example, in a marina\u2014a marginal strip must be set aside for public use and access. That marginal strip can be exchanged for similar coastal-access land, but it remains one of the few legal provisions for guaranteed public access over private coastal foreshore land. This Government\u2014Labour along with the complicit New Zealand First\u2014will repeal that law with this bill. They will replace the mandatory public access provisions with an optional one. For the residents of the North Shore in Auckland who have been fighting through the North Shore City Council to have Bayswater Marina provide a marginal strip, this bill is a direct kick in the guts, denying them the public access over reclaimed land they that are legally entitled to and have been fighting for for so long. In a letter, the Mayor of North Shore City, George Wood, pleaded with the Minister of Conservation to remove that clause from the bill, but that call has fallen on deaf ears. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000636\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003EThis bill will strip away existing public access provisions, and, of course, any reclaimed land that is in the process of becoming private freehold title is allowed to proceed under the bill. Applications for private fee simple title and reclaimed foreshore land will proceed, creating a number of further freehold titles in the foreshore and seabed. That is exactly what New Zealanders, M\u0101ori and P\u0101keh\u0101, have been saying they do not want. Not only does this bill take away guaranteed public access along reclaimed land and create further freehold titles in the foreshore but it also creates saleable customary rights. For M\u0101ori that is the ultimate deception, and it cuts directly to the bone. For 18 months now, M\u0101ori have said that they do not want freehold title; they want collective customary title that recognises their full kaitiakitanga rights and responsibilities. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000637\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003EM\u0101ori acknowledge that there is a public interest in the beaches, and they want to find a way to share them that does not undermine their tikanga. They want what the law says they are entitled to\u2014just as any P\u0101keh\u0101 New Zealander would want. But the Government has been spreading the vicious untruth that M\u0101ori cannot be trusted. In fact, it is the Government that cannot be trusted, along with New Zealand First, as evidenced in the sneaky provisions of the bill and the 67 pages of ill-considered amendments that the public will not have the chance to see before the law is passed. This bill provides for the privatisation of the foreshore, and it sets up an easy process for customary rights orders to be sold off and extinguished forever. The foreshore becomes a commodity, and M\u0101ori lose forever their customary rights that come to them as taonga tuku iho. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000638\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003EM\u0101ori pose no threat to the foreshore. The Government, however, hides its real agenda of commodification. With the easy cancellation of customary rights orders, along with the repeal of the marginal strip provisions and the existing freehold reclamation applications being allowed to proceed, Labour and New Zealand First are creating saleable, tradable fee simple titles in the foreshore and seabed\u2014the exact opposite of everything they say they are trying to do. So much for New Zealand First\u2019s supposed campaign for public ownership! In supporting this bill, that party supports the trade in New Zealand\u2019s coast. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000639\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003EThe Greens support access to the courts for M\u0101ori, for a declaration of customary land status and the development of collaborative management in the coastal marine area. We believe that there should be no saleable, private, and exclusive title granted over the foreshore and seabed to anyone\u2014to New Zealanders in general, to tangata whenua, or to overseas interests. Te Ture Whenua Maori Act must be amended so that M\u0101ori customary foreshore and seabed land has to remain in M\u0101ori ownership. Collective customary title to the foreshore and seabed should be upheld and not extinguished by legislation, and public access should be protected, except for those areas where environmental protection or historical, cultural, and spiritual significance make that inappropriate. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000640\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003EWe have also suggested that the Government consider the Brookfield model as a potentially politically unifying alternative, but practical, effective, and just solutions will not satisfy this Government. The rights of M\u0101ori and of all the citizens of this country are being trampled. The cost of that will be borne for generations to come. The Greens have consistently proposed solutions that meet the needs of all New Zealanders and do not make our community complicit in a 19th century confiscation. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002219386ba0-5a6e-485e-abc0-5a3128b4e1f6\u0022 data-id=\u0022b3fb74f303444764a8eff40738681b3f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000641\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219386ba0-5a6e-485e-abc0-5a3128b4e1f6\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b3fb74f303444764a8eff40738681b3f\u0022\u003EHon KEN SHIRLEY (ACT):\u003C/span\u003E The ACT party is certainly opposing this legislation. The Government has been lurching from panic to panic from the moment the Court of Appeal brought down its decision last June. The Government has been precipitous, inconsistent, and wrong at every turn of this legislation, and the way in which Winston Peters and his party have at this late stage allowed the legislation to proceed through Parliament, is an indictment on them.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000642\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219386ba0-5a6e-485e-abc0-5a3128b4e1f6\u0022\u003EIt is bad legislation, and I believe that the future generations who will have to live with it will regret its passage. It fails to protect property rights, and it is a gross breach of due process, which is an aspect of this legislation ACT is particularly upset about.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000643\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219386ba0-5a6e-485e-abc0-5a3128b4e1f6\u0022\u003EWe were promised that the bill was based on the principles of access, regulation, protection and certainty. It certainly will not deliver certainty. It will deliver incredible uncertainty, by the very fact that it amends the Resource Management Act\u2014the tool by which this legislation is to be implemented. Who thinks we have certainty under the Resource Management Act? What we will do here is extend the principle of the Resource Management Act\u2014codified tikanga\u2014over the whole management of our foreshore and seabed. That is a recipe for ongoing uncertainty, not certainty.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000644\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219386ba0-5a6e-485e-abc0-5a3128b4e1f6\u0022\u003EThe select committee process was an absolute and utter disgrace. The committee had 4,000 submissions from concerned New Zealanders, most of whom wanted to be heard. The Government screened them out, and we were able to hear from only 200. Only 5 percent of the submitters were heard by the select committee.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000645\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219386ba0-5a6e-485e-abc0-5a3128b4e1f6\u0022\u003EThe Government did not have the numbers on the select committee. In fact, Government members themselves opposed this legislation. Do members remember John Tamihere\u2019s public comments the week before the report back? He was going to bring down all sorts of changes, because he was opposed to it. That is why the select committee was unable to report back fully.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000646\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219386ba0-5a6e-485e-abc0-5a3128b4e1f6\u0022\u003ETo carry on the insult of ramming bad legislation through Parliament, only today did the Government show Parliament the whites of its eyes. We saw the detail of this legislation only about 5.30 this evening, immediately prior to this debate commencing. That is a disgrace.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000647\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219386ba0-5a6e-485e-abc0-5a3128b4e1f6\u0022\u003EThe Ng\u0101ti Apa decision of 23 June last year did not actually say very much at all. All it said was that pursuant to the Te Ture Whenua Maori Act, there might in some cases be rare and remote instances\u2014and it even stressed that they would be rare and remote\u2014by which some iwi could go to court and establish that they did indeed have title based on customary rights. The Government totally overreacted to that situation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000648\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219386ba0-5a6e-485e-abc0-5a3128b4e1f6\u0022\u003EPeople blame the courts and say what a bad decision that was, but the more I read the judges\u2019 decision, the more I do not blame them. I blame the legislators and the Government of the day\u2014the previous National Party Government\u2014for passing the Te Ture Whenua Maori Act in 1993, because it was vague, it was uncertain, and it extended by default the jurisdiction of the M\u0101ori Land Court. As Mr Brownlee has already pointed out, not one submitter in the lengthy legislative process in 1993 even referred to the foreshore and seabed.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000649\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219386ba0-5a6e-485e-abc0-5a3128b4e1f6\u0022\u003EThat aside, the previous Government let through bad drafting that made it quite specific that the M\u0101ori Land Court had extended jurisdiction, and that it could indeed issue title over the foreshore and seabed. Prior to 1993, no such right existed and it was not an issue, so that was the genesis of the problem.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000650\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219386ba0-5a6e-485e-abc0-5a3128b4e1f6\u0022\u003EThe ACT party asks why we do not go directly to the problem, directly to the mischief\u2014if, indeed, it is a mischief\u2014and address that issue, rather than create a whole new regime of complicated mechanisms codifying tikanga, amending the Resource Management Act, and introducing all manner of new concepts to manage the foreshore and seabed that are untried, unproven, and untested, and that will certainly create mass uncertainty.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000651\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219386ba0-5a6e-485e-abc0-5a3128b4e1f6\u0022\u003EThe Government is saying that it will codify M\u0101ori tikanga. Let us remind ourselves that every iwi in the country, every iwi that came to the select committee, was horrified at that\u2014and so they should have been. What right has a Government to codify spiritual belief? That is what is upsetting M\u0101ori, as I learnt from the select committee. How dare the Government give itself the right to put bounds and limits on, and to codify, M\u0101ori spiritual beliefs! They are not asking the Government to do that. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000652\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219386ba0-5a6e-485e-abc0-5a3128b4e1f6\u0022\u003ENot only is the Government codifying those beliefs but it is also making an instrument for the Resource Management Act, which of course upsets the rest of society\u2014all the non-M\u0101ori\u2014in relation to how that will be applied. Somehow it will be used as a tool in resource consents\u2014in whether someone wants to build a marina, engage in aquaculture, or carry out any development. Any activity on the foreshore and seabed will be subject to that codified tikanga.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000653\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219386ba0-5a6e-485e-abc0-5a3128b4e1f6\u0022\u003EWe have had enough problems with the Resource Management Act. It was meant to be for the sustainable management of natural and physical resources. The fact that previous Governments have imported all sorts of ill-defined, nebulous spiritual and metaphysical references into it is a key reason why the Resource Management Act is in such chaos. What we are doing here, in part, is importing those same principles into the total management of our foreshore and seabed.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000654\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219386ba0-5a6e-485e-abc0-5a3128b4e1f6\u0022\u003EBut it gets worse. Can members guess what agency will be the Government\u2019s holder of all the foreshore and seabed? It will be an old friend of ours: the Department of Conservation. All reclamations, all management of coastal waters, and all applications to do anything with the foreshore and seabed will be controlled and managed on behalf of the Crown by the Department of Conservation. So we have the Department of Conservation having this great big new tool: the amended Resource Management Act.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000655\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219386ba0-5a6e-485e-abc0-5a3128b4e1f6\u0022\u003EThat is what Winston Peters is supporting; that is what Dail Jones is supporting\u2014and they say it is good legislation! It is appalling legislation, and future generations are going to regret it, absolutely. The ACT party will continue to oppose it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000656\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219386ba0-5a6e-485e-abc0-5a3128b4e1f6\u0022\u003ENow I come to the issue of reclamations. The ACT party says, and I say, that we should be issuing title to a reclamation. A reclamation creates a block of land. But, no, it all has to be vested in the Department of Conservation. Let us look back in history. The foreshore used to be right outside the door of this building; there is a little plaque about it on the footpath. Lambton Quay was Lambton Quay because it was the foreshore, so all of that land in Wellington is reclaimed land. Henceforth, moving on in our history, all such land will be vested in the Department of Conservation. Who thinks that that is a good idea? I do not think it is a good idea. Winston does, though; Winston thinks it is a good idea. He supported that measure, and it is an appalling measure.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000657\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227352a7b19b464051a2ec75599ea35517\u0022\u003ERt Hon Winston Peters\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I was prepared to indulge the member for a while, but he cannot go on referring to me by my Christian name.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000658\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220ed9ad81-05c1-4171-80c6-24fa02cade42\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226a1c1bac2fd243fa88a32ed959a3f3b0\u0022\u003EThe ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich)\u003C/span\u003E: The member is absolutely right.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000659\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219386ba0-5a6e-485e-abc0-5a3128b4e1f6\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022832580c288444929b1915cce073a5134\u0022\u003EHon KEN SHIRLEY\u003C/span\u003E: Mr Peters supports having all future reclaimed lands under the control of the Department of Conservation. He supports a position where all the spiritual and metaphysical amendments to the Resource Management Act are applied to all future management of the foreshore and seabed. That will not work; it will be a disaster. I am prepared to stand here tonight and predict that it will be a disaster. Just as the Resource Management Act has frustrated all development in this country, this amendment to it\u2014this so-called foreshore and seabed legislation\u2014will certainly be a disaster. The ACT party will oppose it at every stage.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00221e93d9c8-b183-40db-b200-833697df066c\u0022 data-id=\u0022127d241d79e941a381fd4d6bc0375d45\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000660\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221e93d9c8-b183-40db-b200-833697df066c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022127d241d79e941a381fd4d6bc0375d45\u0022\u003ELARRY BALDOCK (United Future):\u003C/span\u003E I begin my comments on the second reading of this legislation by acknowledging the hard work done by Russell Fairbrother, the chairperson of the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee, under very difficult circumstances, and also by other members of the committee, who worked hard in the best interests of the people of New Zealand. It has been a very interesting year in this specially convened committee.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000661\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221e93d9c8-b183-40db-b200-833697df066c\u0022\u003EI also express my thanks to the committee staff, who worked long and hard to try to accommodate the submitters in this process and give them the opportunity, within the constraints set by the Government, to be heard by the committee. A special note of thanks is also due to the committee\u2019s independent adviser, who provided invaluable guidance and assistance throughout the process. My thanks go, too, to the officials who worked hard to provide advice on concerns raised by submitters\u2014advice that was taken seriously by the committee.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000662\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221e93d9c8-b183-40db-b200-833697df066c\u0022\u003EThe submission process at the select committee is a very important part of our democracy, and it is something that disturbs us a great deal with regard to this particular bill. Of course, it has to be balanced and kept in perspective, because one submission is only a part of the total picture, but it is a vital part of perfecting legislation in this country, so it is important to thank those who made submissions on this legislation. Some were very good submissions and many were very impassioned arguments, and that is the strength of our democracy. I only hope that no one is tempted after their experience with this bill to take the view that making submissions is a waste of time.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000663\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221e93d9c8-b183-40db-b200-833697df066c\u0022\u003EWith all due respect to the Deputy Prime Minister, I feel that it is a bit rich for him to have sought leave earlier in the House to table a Clayton\u2019s redline version of the bill, and then to say that that was done in a similar manner to what the committee would have done, had it been allowed to do its job. He said: \u201Chad the committee been allowed to do its job\u201D when we all know that it was not allowed to do its job, because of the refusal of the Government to allow any extension to the 5 November deadline on reporting back to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000664\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221e93d9c8-b183-40db-b200-833697df066c\u0022\u003EBeing given a short space of time to deal with this bill, with all its submissions and controversy, was hardly fair to the committee. On many occasions we worked 4 days a week to try to do our best, from the date of the closing of submissions on 12 July to the report-back date of 5 November, which is not much time to deal with 3,946 submissions on such a controversial and passionate issue. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000665\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221e93d9c8-b183-40db-b200-833697df066c\u0022\u003EThe political goal of the Government and New Zealand First to pass this legislation before Christmas is the real reason we are here today with such a large Supplementary Order Paper before us. I want to say to the Deputy Prime Minister that process does matter, and it is something that United Future has been concerned about throughout the select committee stage. Any leadership that does not understand the importance of process will find after a short period of time that it no longer has the loyal followers it used to have. It is in no one\u2019s interest to see the process shafted somewhat by a rush to pass a bill with indecent haste, for no reason other than a political one, because when that happens, the possibility is that it can cause people to lose confidence in the process and then we all suffer from the apathy of lack of participation. That weakens our democracy.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000666\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221e93d9c8-b183-40db-b200-833697df066c\u0022\u003EI think there are times when urgency is needed to pass legislation. There are times when urgency is legitimately needed, there are times when deadlines have to be met, and there are times when haste is justified on some occasions\u2014but this is not one of those times. This is definitely not one of them.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000667\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221e93d9c8-b183-40db-b200-833697df066c\u0022\u003EUnited Future called for an interim report to be given by the select committee to this House, so that the people of New Zealand would have an opportunity for more dialogue over the summer months before the committee made its final report early next year. The tabling of a 69-page Supplementary Order Paper by the Minister in charge of the bill indicates how many changes are being made to the legislation, and the fact that it has been completed only this morning further underscores the fact that the committee could not have completed a final report back to the House by the deadline of 5 November, anyway.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000668\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221e93d9c8-b183-40db-b200-833697df066c\u0022\u003EChanges continue to be made and further changes will be made, I am sure, as members debate the bill this week. How much better it would have been if the majority of the thousands of submitters had been able to have time to look at those changes before the bill was rushed through the House into law. Many of those changes may well be changes for the good\u2014changes the committee actually recommended rather than changes that New Zealand First demanded, as its leader arrogantly claims. However, even if the changes are good, that does not excuse or negate the affront to the integrity of the process, or the frustration and disappointment felt by submitters who engaged in good faith in the process.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000669\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221e93d9c8-b183-40db-b200-833697df066c\u0022\u003EUnited Future\u2019s position\u2014that of engaging with the Government in the process of addressing the consequence of the Court of Appeal decision in the Ng\u0101ti Apa case\u2014has been clear from the start. It was not an option to do nothing, as Peter Dunne made clear on a number of occasions. Despite initial attacks from other parties, we took the principled position of ensuring that the foreshore and seabed would be available for all New Zealanders to enjoy. This was implied in the concept of public domain, but to suggest that our support for the legislation or engagement in the process could be reduced to a simple discussion about the semantics of a few words, is to miss the point entirely, along with the commitment we showed during the select committee process to resolving a host of issues raised by the legislation as first introduced into the House and supported by the Government and New Zealand First.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000670\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221e93d9c8-b183-40db-b200-833697df066c\u0022\u003EBecause the wording of the bill is now amended to include the concept of public domain and is not simply about Crown ownership, the Prime Minister suggested on the radio this morning that somehow we in United Future should now lend our support to the bill\u2014even when the Government has introduced a Supplementary Order Paper of 67 pages with a myriad of changes. That just shows that she underestimates our commitment to supporting only good legislation that is truly in the interests of the people of New Zealand\u2014both P\u0101keh\u0101 and M\u0101ori, and all who have chosen to make this country their home.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000671\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221e93d9c8-b183-40db-b200-833697df066c\u0022\u003EWe will not support or oppose legislation based on some gimmick, political trickery, or political expediency. Certainly, we cannot support the second reading of this legislation, because it is being reported back to the House by the select committee in the same form in which it was presented at its first reading\u2014and that did not have to happen. After reading hundreds of submissions and listening to submitters, I am convinced that of course there is need for substantial change in this bill, and we will be engaging in the debate in this Chamber in the next few days. The fact that there is a need for substantial change can reflect only on the measure of how well the Government and New Zealand First did their consultation, or listened during their consultation, prior to the tabling of the bill on 8 April this year.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000672\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221e93d9c8-b183-40db-b200-833697df066c\u0022\u003EIn our report to the select committee, I expressed our concern regarding a number of issues in the bill: the rights of access; the removal of common law fishing rights; the Crown claiming reclamations\u2014as was pointed out by the speaker before me, Ken Shirley\u2014and ancestral connection orders. It is pleasing to see from analysis of the Supplementary Order Paper that some of those issues are being addressed now as we move into the Committee stage of this bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000673\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221e93d9c8-b183-40db-b200-833697df066c\u0022\u003EAnother consistent claim from submitters to the select committee surrounded the issue that their concerns about the Crown being trusted not to sell any part of the foreshore or seabed in the future has not been addressed in this legislation. For that reason, I will introduce a Supplementary Order Paper myself during the Committee stage, which seeks an entrenchment of clause 12(2)(a) by this Parliament, so that it will be more difficult for any future Parliament to be able to sell off or transfer the ownership of the foreshore and seabed to any other entity. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000674\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219386ba0-5a6e-485e-abc0-5a3128b4e1f6\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e18b83b78df44f23a514cc5fea48bdf6\u0022\u003EHon Ken Shirley\u003C/span\u003E: Double entrenchment?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000675\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221e93d9c8-b183-40db-b200-833697df066c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002250aeab2dcc094508b0cd256d3878c114\u0022\u003ELARRY BALDOCK\u003C/span\u003E: I would certainly welcome a double entrenchment if the member, with his party, would give us support for that. It would be a very substantive and clear signal to send to the submitters who have that concern, particularly in light of ACT\u2019s reputation in the House of selling off important assets considered necessary for the people of New Zealand.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000676\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221e93d9c8-b183-40db-b200-833697df066c\u0022\u003EUnited Future will not be supporting the second reading of this bill for those reasons, but we look forward to ongoing debate through the Committee stage.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022c2dfe169-d946-4f87-8d43-0bcdb7d8bebc\u0022 data-id=\u0022334bd7a8a2af4d17907617897b76b768\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000677\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c2dfe169-d946-4f87-8d43-0bcdb7d8bebc\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022334bd7a8a2af4d17907617897b76b768\u0022\u003ETARIANA TURIA (Leader\u2014M\u0101ori Party):\u003C/span\u003E The last time that I was granted leave to speak on the Foreshore and Seabed Bill, it was on a defining day in the history of this nation. The nation will not forget the 45,000 who marched to Parliament to describe their utter outrage and grief at the introduction of the bill. And the Prime Minister chose to talk to a sheep. The one thing we have in common with Shrek is that we were both fleeced. We were fleeced by a bill that will extinguish another M\u0101ori inheritance, this time to the foreshore and seabed\u2014an inheritance that is recognised in tikanga. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000678\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c2dfe169-d946-4f87-8d43-0bcdb7d8bebc\u0022\u003E Today is another such defining day in our history\u2014a day when a travesty of justice is being supported into law. Whatever \u201Crights\u201D or \u201Credress\u201D it purports to offer, the fact remains that the Foreshore and Seabed Bill takes away the foreshore and seabed from tangata whenua. After 1840, most of the other whenua was, of course, confiscated under various laws, but M\u0101ori rights in the foreshore and seabed were never actually extinguished. The bill confiscates what little M\u0101ori have left by default. The colonising heritage took from our people their land, their whenua, their moana, with overt violence in the 19th century. Over the last century, and more, the alienation has become more insidious through the influence of lawmakers.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000679\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c2dfe169-d946-4f87-8d43-0bcdb7d8bebc\u0022\u003EThe court has found that the assumption of sovereignty in Aotearoa in 1840 means that, in accordance with long-established common law, title was subject to the pre-existing property rights of tangata whenua. M\u0101ori customary title is no different from that of any other common law title, which continues to exist until it is extinguished. That is why we have this bill\u2014because it can be extinguished only by an Act of Parliament. What the Waitangi Tribunal found was that the indigenous customary title has always existed. Indigenous customary title is recognised by common law and affirmed by the Treaty of Waitangi. Both the M\u0101ori Land Court and the Court of Appeal agreed that the concerns and claims of tangata whenua concerning the seabed and foreshore should be heard. Instead, what we have seen over these last 18 months is a whirlwind ride whereby the Government is acting in a reactionary manner, attempting to change and override common law, the Treaty of Waitangi, and the decisions of our nation\u2019s courts, and, most important of all, attempting by proclamation to override the interests of our people.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000680\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c2dfe169-d946-4f87-8d43-0bcdb7d8bebc\u0022\u003EI was interested to hear the word \u201Cintegrity\u201D being floated by the first speaker in this debate. The Deputy Prime Minister should be aware of the definition of \u201Cintegrity\u201D: the quality of having strong moral principles; the state of being whole; the condition of being unified or sound in construction; and internal consistency or lack of corruption. Our contention today is that this Government, in this bill, fails to achieve any of these qualities.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000681\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c2dfe169-d946-4f87-8d43-0bcdb7d8bebc\u0022\u003EIf we had a Government with strong moral principles, we would see demonstrated the paramount principle\u2014the principle of justice. That is what we are being denied. Instead, the Government tried to mislead the nation by plucking four concepts out of the air and calling them principles. It talked of the principle of access. Our people have always been clear in stating that there has never been any intention to deny people access to the beaches or those areas. It talked of the principle of regulation, yet the authority for regulation has been with local councils, regional councils, and the Department of Conservation; the question of the Crown\u2019s role in regulation has never been questioned. It talked of the principle of protection, and what it really meant was that the protection of private property rights would be sacrosanct\u2014protection of private investors, of harbour companies, of ports, but not of the guardians, those who for centuries have safeguarded and cared for the takutai moana. It talked of the principle of certainty, and the one certainty we have is that there is no way that the Crown is acting in the interests of wh\u0101nau, hap\u016B and iwi. The certainty is a racially divisive bill, because in fact the only groups that have certainty are the private property owners.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000682\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c2dfe169-d946-4f87-8d43-0bcdb7d8bebc\u0022\u003EIntegrity, it would seem, is also about the state of being whole. The state of being whole is not to pit one group of people against another. I was fascinated to hear Mr Peters say tonight that tangata whenua have New Zealand First to thank for this bill tonight. He spoke also of his belief that this bill was in the interests of all of the nation. Let me be clear: Mr Peters\u2019 interests are purely and simply for the New Zealand First constituency, and it was a very clever strategy of Labour to get someone of Winston Peters\u2019 calibre to take responsibility for aspects of the bill that Labour knew were behind the great flight of support for it from the M\u0101ori seats. In doing so Labour is trying to move the outrage of the people on to the M\u0101ori members of the New Zealand First Party, who, of course, do not stand in the M\u0101ori seats. In taking out ancestral rights, in limiting customary right to an activity, Mr Peters can delude himself into thinking he will be thanked by tangata whenua, but we know better. Customary right is not an activity. It is not about being limited to collecting h\u0101ngi stones and launching waka. It is a development right. It is a property right. The foreshore and seabed have always been open to use and enjoyment for all New Zealanders. Our rights are longstanding. Any extinguishment of those rights is raupatu.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000683\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c2dfe169-d946-4f87-8d43-0bcdb7d8bebc\u0022\u003EThe third aspect of integrity is the condition of being unified or sound in construction, and as we have seen in Mr Horomia\u2019s press release and in his speech tonight, this Government is far from being unified. Mr Horomia used the word \u201Cfear\u201D. The Minister protests too much. His plaintive plea that M\u0101ori have nothing to fear with the passing of this legislation recognises that he knows too well the reality of what our people think of this bill. The reality is that our people have almost universally rejected both the policy and the bill. And these are all of our people, including the so-called \u201Chaters and wreckers\u201D, or the academic elite, those on the gravy train, the cunning, P\u0101keh\u0101, mainstream churches\u2014however much the Government tries to dismiss us. The Waitangi Tribunal found the bill was inconsistent with the text in the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. The United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination requested that the Government respond to the allegations that the bill racially discriminates. The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights sets the benchmark against which the actions of Governments may be judged. Article 17 of the declaration states that \u201Cno one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property\u201D, and it is clear that unilateral extinguishment of M\u0101ori property rights, as envisaged in the bill, is an arbitrary deprivation of our property interests.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000684\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c2dfe169-d946-4f87-8d43-0bcdb7d8bebc\u0022\u003EThe final component of the definition of integrity is the question of internal consistency or lack of corruption. Much has been made of the amendments that are supposedly about creating a day in court. Under the proposed legislation, territorial customary rights will be established through the High Court\u2014a compromise position that is meant to placate tangata whenua. A day in court is almost an impossible dream for most M\u0101ori, as the costs of taking this case through the court are exorbitant\u2014tens of thousands of dollars. So most of our people will be excluded. The M\u0101ori Party is adamant that this Government should have treated tangata whenua in the same way as it does all other New Zealanders, and allowed due process. The courts must be allowed to do their job and reach a decision based on the law of the land. The nation tonight knows that the Government chose to interfere in the due process of law when it chose to legislate this issue. And we know that as soon as the legislation is implemented, our people will lose all that they have lived off for the past 1,000 years.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000685\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c2dfe169-d946-4f87-8d43-0bcdb7d8bebc\u0022\u003EIt could have been so different. The Government could have considered amendments to Te Ture Whenua Maori Act. Amendment of one section in the Act could have rendered customary land inalienable, and would therefore have provided the Crown with security in terms of the foreshore and seabed remaining in New Zealand ownership. The Government could have chosen a conversation, a meaningful and honest conversation, a conversation based on listening to each other, on integrity, on the principle of justice\u2014not one squashed into a 20-minute submission that could be ignored or not heard.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022df788c48-b9be-42fd-b8f2-76629a5572b8\u0022 data-id=\u0022f3be0cee259341498334b896dffecfcf\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000686\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022df788c48-b9be-42fd-b8f2-76629a5572b8\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022f3be0cee259341498334b896dffecfcf\u0022\u003EDr WAYNE MAPP (National\u2014North Shore):\u003C/span\u003E Tonight we have an arrogant Government. It is a Government that has tabled a 67-page Supplementary Order Paper, as it calls it. In effect, it is a complete amendment Act. It is a document that no one in the public has seen yet\u2014no submitter, no media outlet, no one. The public will not have the opportunity to think about it, to talk about it, or to write or telephone their members of Parliament about it. Instead, the Government intends to ram it through over the next 20 hours or so, essentially without debate\u2014without public input. There was an opportunity for the Government\u2014it was given a quite reasonable proposition, I thought\u2014to table that Supplementary Order Paper today, and to have us deal with this issue in a week\u2019s time. Anyone would think that would be a reasonable way to do it in the circumstances. Even then, the Government simply refused. It does not want to debate it, and the reason it does not want to debate it is that it is scared. The Government is scared of the debate.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000687\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022df788c48-b9be-42fd-b8f2-76629a5572b8\u0022\u003ELet me be clear: National is committed to the foreshore and the seabed belonging to all of the people of New Zealand, in Crown ownership. That is our birthright, and that should be guaranteed. The initial statements of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice 18 months ago were correct, because they proposed a simple bill\u2014a bill of no more than two pages, a bill that would have, in fact, guaranteed Crown ownership on behalf of all New Zealanders. That is our birthright. What we have seen in the last 18 months is this: raised expectations, false hui, and a distortion of reality by those members in the Government as to how they would protect people\u2019s interests and rights. They were false hopes. They will be seen to be such.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000688\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022df788c48-b9be-42fd-b8f2-76629a5572b8\u0022\u003EThe simpler and fairer way was Crown ownership, by way of a simple bill. National had made a clear undertaking: if that had been presented 18 months ago, we would have supported it. New Zealand First members\u2014and I have heard their interjections\u2014say that there is guaranteed Crown ownership. That is what they say. In fact, what they have done is strip the substance out of that\u2014totally strip the substance. I say that because we have these kinds of concepts: customary rights orders for M\u0101ori, which under clause 35 are to be determined by the M\u0101ori Land Court; territorial customary orders, to be determined by the High Court\u2014and the Government goes around boasting that they have been strengthened\u2014and, finally, customary rights orders under clause 61. Each and every one of those measures adds up to denying the general public their rights, because what they do is deliver particular rights to particular people. That is wrong. We will see, in fact, over time, a steady erosion of the public interest, and nothing that the New Zealand First people say can deny that fundamental reality.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000689\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022df788c48-b9be-42fd-b8f2-76629a5572b8\u0022\u003EI wish to make a prediction. Within a few years some parts of the foreshore and the seabed\u2014the fee simple\u2014will be transferred to M\u0101ori claimants. The Government might like to deny that, and I wonder whether it will take the opportunity to deny it. I guarantee that it will not. The Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee was told by Government officials that the whole purpose of absolute Crown ownership, as set out in clause 11, is to enable the transfer of that fee simple title to M\u0101ori as part of settlements. The officials said that they had to do that\u2014and I assume it was on instruction from the Minister\u2014to undertake those settlements. In short, unless one owns it one cannot transfer it. It is a simple proposition. That is the Government\u2019s secret agenda, and that is, in fact, precisely how it has gained the support of the M\u0101ori members. It is absolutely clear that the foreshore and seabed of the West Coast harbours, Te Araroa on the East Coast, other parts of the northern part of the East Coast, and the Karikari Peninsula in the far north, will be transferred to M\u0101ori as part of settlements.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000690\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022df788c48-b9be-42fd-b8f2-76629a5572b8\u0022\u003EThe precedent is the Rotorua lakes settlements. For a long period of time, almost the entire last century, those lakes clearly were in Crown ownership on behalf of all New Zealanders. In fact, Te Arawa voluntarily transferred that as part of the settlement\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000691\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219386ba0-5a6e-485e-abc0-5a3128b4e1f6\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222a181888a929406b8dc03d6a5e4db0e5\u0022\u003EHon Ken Shirley\u003C/span\u003E: And received valuable consideration.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000692\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022df788c48-b9be-42fd-b8f2-76629a5572b8\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a3b6593d2f504e9aaf867f66b0d5af3d\u0022\u003EDr WAYNE MAPP\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014and received valuable consideration. What the Government is doing now is transferring the fee simple\u2014and let us be clear that it is not customary rights, and not territorial customary orders; it is the fee simple\u2014to the Te Arawa people. That is the intended precedent for the West Coast harbours, much of the East Coast, and parts of the far north. The Minister might deny it; we heard in this Parliament the Prime Minister say that is what the Government intended to do.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000693\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022df788c48-b9be-42fd-b8f2-76629a5572b8\u0022\u003EDo members know what the protection is? The protection is: \u201COh well, it will take a special Act of Parliament.\u201D Well, no doubt that is true, but that is precisely what is provided for in the bill. There is provision for special Acts of Parliament. Each and every settlement of M\u0101ori claims has always been preceded by a special Act of Parliament. So we know the real agenda of this Government. We know, on this side of the House, just how the Government gained the support of its M\u0101ori members. It intends to transfer to the M\u0101ori claimants parts of New Zealanders\u2019 birthright.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000694\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022df788c48-b9be-42fd-b8f2-76629a5572b8\u0022\u003EI would say this. The Government has totally and completely ignored the interests of the people of the North Shore. I just want to recite the history of this matter. I see the member for Northcote over there. She knows about it, because I have spoken to her at length about it. She is, in fact, a former mayor of the city. The city of North Shore actually won a High Court decision that a marginal strip be provided at the Bayswater Marina. That strip was supported by the vast majority of residents. That case went to the Court of Appeal. That appeal is now stayed pending this decision. Would it not be a reasonable thing to allow that case to proceed, and, whoever wins\u2014be it North Shore City or the Bayswater Marina\u2014that would be the outcome? That is what people mean by fair justice.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000695\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022df788c48-b9be-42fd-b8f2-76629a5572b8\u0022\u003EWhy do I draw a distinction between that case and Ng\u0101ti Apa? The Government at least claims that this bill is a sort of reflection of the Ng\u0101ti Apa case. In the North Shore City case, all that the Government has done is simply strip away the decision and leave nothing in its place. In fact, what the Government has done is this. It has said that the Bayswater Marina is the winner, by legislative fiat. We have had the Prime Minister go to the North Shore, to the Takapuna point\u2014Fort Cautley. She said that it should be public land. She campaigned in North Shore on that. Ann Hartley campaigned on it. It was transferred to the public. We see the complete opposite for Bayswater Marina; the Government has said that it shall not be public land, that it shall belong to the Bayswater Marina by way of a lease. That was the result. I will be putting up an amendment to allow that Court of Appeal case to proceed. In the way that our courts work, a decision will come. People have a right to have their cases heard and decided\u2014and that decision will be accepted, either way\u2014rather than this running over the top of the interests of the residents. It is a travesty, and the only answer that the Government gives to the people of the North Shore is to rely on the Resource Management Act, which shall be their protection. It is simply not good enough.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000696\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022df788c48-b9be-42fd-b8f2-76629a5572b8\u0022\u003EI acknowledge, in this particular instance, the member for the Green Party who has also been dealing with this issue. I have to say this issue was brought to the attention of the Government and the New Zealand First party some weeks ago, and they have ignored the residents of the North Shore.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022022cfe6b-bae4-4028-b68a-ccffb4269442\u0022 data-id=\u00223e46efcaa10e4d2eaa99b424cca80c38\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000697\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022022cfe6b-bae4-4028-b68a-ccffb4269442\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00223e46efcaa10e4d2eaa99b424cca80c38\u0022\u003EHon MARGARET WILSON (Attorney-General):\u003C/span\u003E The Foreshore and Seabed Bill is, indeed, an important bill for the consideration of this House. It addresses an area of the law that has long been uncertain: the application of common law customary rights and title in the New Zealand context. The bill clarifies that although the foreshore and seabed of New Zealand is to be held in perpetuity for the benefit of all New Zealanders, the customary rights of M\u0101ori in the foreshore and seabed are also to be recognised. Furthermore the bill provides a procedure for M\u0101ori to follow in order to establish whether, in a particular situation, those customary rights still exist or have been extinguished. The bill therefore recognises and balances competing rights and interests. It achieves a balance through an application of the principles of access, regulation, protection, and certainty, as outlined by Dr Cullen. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000698\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022022cfe6b-bae4-4028-b68a-ccffb4269442\u0022\u003EThis bill has generated much heat, but little light, on occasions. Much has been made of the need for more consultation and more time, to delay a decision. It is important to state that this bill has been through an extensive process of public and parliamentary debate. Before the bill was even introduced, a discussion paper was debated at 10 hui around the country with Ministers and members of Parliament. A total of over 4,000 written submissions was received, read, and listened to. There was also an urgent Waitangi Tribunal hearing, which was supported by the Crown\u2019s petition for urgency in that hearing. At that hearing it is interesting to note that the claimants were represented by 35 lawyers, so that their case could be fully heard. The Crown, of course, was represented by four. The report of the tribunal did lead to changes in the bill that was eventually introduced into the House, the most important of which was the statutory recognition of the High Court\u2019s jurisdiction to hear claims relating to territorial customary rights. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000699\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022022cfe6b-bae4-4028-b68a-ccffb4269442\u0022\u003EThe bill, when introduced to the House, received, as we have heard, 4,000 submissions. I think that it is important, however, to place that in context. Although as I have said it is an extremely important bill, it is useful to be reminded in this context that the Civil Union Bill received 6,419 submissions, the Employment Relations Bill 17,000 submissions, and the Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill 8,053 submissions. Although this is an important issue, Parliament is the place where such issues are heard, determined, debated, and clarified, and where laws are made. It was therefore disappointing that the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee could not bring itself to include in its report back a consideration of those submissions, thereby showing respect to those who had made them by having recommendations for amendments to the bill that were based on the thoughts of those who had appeared before the committee. However, that was a decision for the committee to make. Therefore, it became the responsibility of the Government to introduce Supplementary Order Paper 302 in the name of the Hon Dr Michael Cullen, recommending changes that reflected the decisions made. The assistance and response of New Zealand First must be acknowledged in that context, and in particular, the contribution that has been made to the Supplementary Order Paper by Mr Dail Jones. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000700\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022022cfe6b-bae4-4028-b68a-ccffb4269442\u0022\u003EIt is my pleasure, then, to speak this evening in the second reading debate on this bill, and to refer to some of the most important changes that are recommended in the Supplementary Order Paper, since it is apparent from the speeches already that it has not been read. The changes include, first, a clarification of the objective and purpose of the bill, making it completely clear that the foreshore and seabed is preserved for all New Zealanders, as well as preserving existing customary law rights. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000701\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022022cfe6b-bae4-4028-b68a-ccffb4269442\u0022\u003ESecondly, ancestral connection orders have been removed, as they were widely criticised by many submitters as imposing unnecessary cost\u2014not only financial cost but cost in terms of the mana of those who felt that they should not have to come before a committee, a court, or another body to establish their connection to the foreshore and seabed. That was acknowledged by the Government, but because the select committee could not bring itself to agree on that issue, the Supplementary Order Paper reflects the fact that the Government, having listened to those submitters, has removed the ancestral connection orders. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000702\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022022cfe6b-bae4-4028-b68a-ccffb4269442\u0022\u003EThirdly, the new criteria for the exercise of the jurisdiction of the High Court are also clarified in the light of the submissions that were made. Such criteria now include the need for applicants to demonstrate that the claimed rights existed in 1840, that they have continued to exist in a substantially uninterrupted manner, that they have involved the exclusive use and occupation of a particular area of the public foreshore and seabed, consistent, of course, with public rights of navigation, and that the applicants have had continuous title to a significant part of the dry land contiguous to the area. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000703\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022022cfe6b-bae4-4028-b68a-ccffb4269442\u0022\u003EFourthly, the Supplementary Order Paper acknowledges the concerns of submitters on the nature of redress, and that important point was made by many submitters. It provides, therefore, new provisions for redress of territorial customary rights. Successful applicant groups are now able either to enter into discussions with the Crown for the purpose of negotiating an agreement as to the nature and extent of the redress to be given by the Crown, or to apply for an order from the court that gives effect to the establishment of a foreshore and seabed reserve. Such a reserve will be held in common use and benefit for the people of New Zealand, and will acknowledge, of course, the important role of the exercise of guardianship by the applicant group. It is important also to acknowledge in this context that it is for the claimants to decide which route they wish to take in terms of gaining redress that is appropriate for them. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000704\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022022cfe6b-bae4-4028-b68a-ccffb4269442\u0022\u003EThis legislation is very much the result of New Zealand\u2019s particular historical circumstances. It has been constructed after a lot of engagement and discussion, both within the Government and between the Government and the wider public. The story of its making tells us much about the constitutional architecture of this country. In the end, however, the bill expressly balances the various rights of all New Zealanders. It balances the rights to continue long-established customary practices relating to proportions of the public foreshore and seabed with rights of access to public foreshore and seabed for recreational purposes and, under appropriate controls, for commercial purposes. I commend this bill and the Supplementary Order Paper to the House, and I look forward to the debate on them.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220bd5aa67-2f2b-4a13-a2b4-21a392396f11\u0022 data-id=\u0022547656422e1542eebe52fae53696e98e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000705\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220bd5aa67-2f2b-4a13-a2b4-21a392396f11\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022547656422e1542eebe52fae53696e98e\u0022\u003EHon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National):\u003C/span\u003E It is at times like this, when Parliament behaves at its worst, that New Zealanders like us the least. The Foreshore and Seabed Bill is one of the most significant pieces of legislation to come before this House in recent times, but from the way that the Government has behaved, one would not think that. That is an insult to New Zealanders. Even the way that the Government has ignored most of the submissions in the select committee process, and has ignored a lot of what M\u0101ori have said, is an insult. In terms of the way the Government has handled the issue, it has ignored not just M\u0101ori but a lot of other New Zealanders, as well. To put this House into urgency for such significant legislation and to ram this bill through in 2 days, tabling Supplementary Order Paper 302 in the name of the Hon Dr Michael Cullen at about 5.30 this afternoon, a Supplementary Paper that is as substantial as the bill itself, without so much as having subjected it to any sort of scrutiny by people outside this place\u2014it is all very well that we in this House have it\u2014is symptomatic of the cynical way that the Government has handled this issue. Having reacted in an entirely inappropriate manner when the matter first burst on to the scene with the Court of Appeal decision in June last year\u2014a knee-jerk reaction, I would say\u2014this Government will pass this bill into law some 17 months later, in a similar knee-jerk fashion. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000706\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220bd5aa67-2f2b-4a13-a2b4-21a392396f11\u0022\u003ESomething needs to be said about the Government\u2019s reaction when the Court of Appeal issued its decision last year. Winston Peters said that that decision came from left field. It did not come from left field. Any Government worth its salt would have been prepared for a decision that went against what it wanted. The Government ought to have been prepared for that. Any competent and careful Minister or Government would have prepared for that outcome to the case that had started to wend its way through the courts\u2014the Ng\u0101ti Apa case\u2014from 1996 onwards, when National was still in Government, starting with a judgment stated in the M\u0101ori Land Court by Judge Hingston and eventually reaching the Court of Appeal. Any competent Government should have been prepared for a decision that might go the other way\u2014against what it expected.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000707\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220bd5aa67-2f2b-4a13-a2b4-21a392396f11\u0022\u003E This Government was not prepared for that. People may have felt that the law was settled. They may have assumed that the Crown owned the foreshore and seabed, but as I say the very fact that the case had wound its way up through the tiers of our courts should have been a warning that maybe someone ought to be properly prepared for it. The Attorney-General was not prepared; neither was the Prime Minister. So what we had on the day after was politics at its worst. It was a knee-jerk reaction that raised the heat\u2014raised the bogey\u2014by saying that M\u0101ori could not own the foreshore and seabed because they would bar New Zealanders from going to the beach. From that point on, it was all downhill. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000708\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220bd5aa67-2f2b-4a13-a2b4-21a392396f11\u0022\u003EWinston Peters makes reference to and chides those political parties that are not supporting the bill. He is scathing of us, and says we are playing politics. He should talk! What does he think he is playing? Principle? I do not think so; he is not. The Court of Appeal decision did not raise any bogeys. Basically, the Court of Appeal decision stated that the M\u0101ori Land Court had jurisdiction to entertain claims. That is all it stated. On the basis of what it had seen, the court thought it was unlikely that M\u0101ori would succeed\u2014they might succeed, but in very few cases. So there was no need for the Government to raise the heat in the way it did\u2014no need at all. But, of course, the Government did that because it wanted to reach out and assure New Zealanders that M\u0101ori would not get their way, and wanted to tell people not to worry, because it would do the right thing. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000709\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220bd5aa67-2f2b-4a13-a2b4-21a392396f11\u0022\u003EThe Attorney-General, who spoke just before me, went through the legislation in the way that she does, as if it is all nice and tidy. Well, it is not nice and tidy. I had M\u0101ori people ringing me from outside this afternoon, and they were saying I was the one ramming this legislation through the House. [Interruption] \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000710\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219386ba0-5a6e-485e-abc0-5a3128b4e1f6\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002259a558dc88e74794b2ad1c855b4aea04\u0022\u003EHon Ken Shirley\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I apologise for interrupting the member\u2019s speech. I was very interested in what she was saying, but we are getting a barrage of sustained and noisy interjections from the Government benches. Government members obviously do not like what they are hearing from the Opposition in this debate. I would ask you that interjections be rare and reasonable, and preferably witty.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000711\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220bd5aa67-2f2b-4a13-a2b4-21a392396f11\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022175355f8c2214250af41732128f23d90\u0022\u003EHon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU\u003C/span\u003E: I am very grateful to Mr Shirley As I say, politics has been the order of the day. Nobody in this House should deny that this place is all about politics. Let us not pretend that it is about anything else. The Government, as I was saying, has played politics on this issue right from day one, and Winston Peters now, on the eve of supporting the passage of this bill into law, is playing politics to the nth degree as well, so he cannot point the finger either. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000712\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220bd5aa67-2f2b-4a13-a2b4-21a392396f11\u0022\u003EI want to say something to M\u0101ori people. I hope the New Zealanders who are listening to this debate will not take that to mean that I am necessarily on the side of their arguments. There is no doubt that the foreshore and seabed belong to all of us. We are all New Zealanders. Most certainly a way had to be found to balance the interests of all. This bill does not do that. [Interruption] I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I do not mind a barrage of interjections from the Government side of the House, but those members are not sitting in their proper seats\u2014certainly, John Tamihere is not. If he wants to sing out, he should go back to his own seat. [Interruption] I say to Government members they do not have to be kind to me, but they should be kind to New Zealanders. We ask for what we get in this House, but New Zealanders out there do not. They deserve something better than this. They deserve something better than a bill that on the one hand states to M\u0101ori they should not worry because their mana is protected, yet on the other hand states to New Zealanders at large that they should not worry because they will have public access. The Government cannot have it both ways. This bill does not deliver either of those things to either group of people, and does not make either of them feel that their mana is protected or that they can have confidence in anything this Government has done. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000713\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220bd5aa67-2f2b-4a13-a2b4-21a392396f11\u0022\u003EI want to send a message to M\u0101ori people. That should not be taken to mean that I take their side. I hope I am here for the good of New Zealand, like everybody else. But I want to say that during the select committee process some angry words were spoken to the Fisheries and Other Sea-Related Legislation Committee at some of the hearings, and there was talk of civil action being taken. I want to say to M\u0101ori that they should not go in that way. They should keep their dignity. The one thing M\u0101ori people asked for and did not get was due process of law. It is very ironic that M\u0101ori should seek to have the rule of law upheld, and this Government should step right over it. That is absolutely ironic. But M\u0101ori can go down in history as seeking only to have the rule of law upheld. They should be proud of that. I want M\u0101ori people to think about this. They should not let this setback intrude upon the momentum of development that is clearly coming through. M\u0101ori are everywhere in business\u2014they are everywhere in enterprise. They are earning export dollars for this country and are running innovative businesses, both here and overseas. So M\u0101ori should not let this Government step on their dignity. They should just keep on rolling through, and there will always be another day.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022 data-id=\u0022cabab8254e144b3bb13221c60caefdd9\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000714\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022cabab8254e144b3bb13221c60caefdd9\u0022\u003EDAIL JONES (NZ First):\u003C/span\u003E I believe that this debate highlights one major issue, and that is the question of leadership. The only leader of the Opposition in this House is the Rt Hon Winston Peters. He was here tonight, to front up to this issue. Where was the leader of the National Party tonight, to speak in this House? When will he speak in the House tonight?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000715\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022332d0cea218f4057ac15b59db0e29775\u0022\u003EGerry Brownlee\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Might I say that this will be the first of many, if that line continues. I understood that it was inappropriate to mention the absence of members from the House. Dr Brash, of course, is engaged in important work of\u2014[Interruption] It is about as important as that useless Prime Minister, Helen Clark, who has not bothered to come to the House tonight to explain why her Government is stripping New Zealanders of their rights.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000716\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221a9a6e5fe14b49bd961b79eb5809e951\u0022\u003EHon Dr Michael Cullen\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I listened to what Mr Dail Jones said. He did not refer to the absence of a member; he said that he did not front up on the issue. He may well be sitting there, for all I can see, and not fronting up on the issue.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000717\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a682fcd67d504a69a48b7e684b19bfbc\u0022\u003EGerry Brownlee\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Just for the record I want to make it absolutely clear that Helen Clark is not here as this is a bill that terrifies her.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000718\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226e466e0c9bfa4053a68b57bb7907796f\u0022\u003EHon Dr Michael Cullen\u003C/span\u003E: That is doubly out of order. Both parts of that statement are out of order. The member should learn what the Standing Orders are on the reference to members being absent from the Chamber.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000719\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220ed9ad81-05c1-4171-80c6-24fa02cade42\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b7db116e3972497fa16adc8884e1b70f\u0022\u003EThe ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich)\u003C/span\u003E: The member is quite right.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000720\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022fb7a1cbeb9a94f758059e1853fa1e806\u0022\u003EDAIL JONES\u003C/span\u003E: I will continue my speech, and I would like to thank the honourable Gerry Brownlee for letting everybody know that the leader of the National Party is not here tonight, which is not the point I was making.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000721\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022eaef6726743740f091b99acfa6d383ea\u0022\u003EGerry Brownlee\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Where is Winston Peters? I take it that he is in the bar. Call him down here immediately.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000722\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220ed9ad81-05c1-4171-80c6-24fa02cade42\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022bae175e792b24a84b31fc5457b303d39\u0022\u003EThe ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich)\u003C/span\u003E: That is not a point of order.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000723\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224585b4e56993484ebc6f097f899ab468\u0022\u003EDAIL JONES\u003C/span\u003E: The Rt Hon Winston Peters, the leader of the Opposition as far as the Opposition parties are concerned, has spoken in this House tonight and made a contribution to this debate. We have heard nothing of any worth from the other Opposition parties in this House. I say that this is a question of leadership. When New Zealand First was confronted with this issue in the Ng\u0101ti Apa case, the Rt Hon Winston Peters said in this House on 25 June 2003, within days of the decision in the Ng\u0101ti Apa case, in Hansard, Volume 609, at page 6566: \u201CNew Zealand First will support any move to ensure that the Crown has legal title to the foreshore and seabed.\u201D That is not a political speech; that is what we said, and that is what we are doing tonight. We are making sure the Crown has legal title to the foreshore and seabed. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000724\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022\u003EAgain we said, in the same speech: \u201CM\u0101ori traditional rights of use must be protected, but those rights cannot be extended to property ownership on the basis of race.\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000725\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022\u003E That is what we are doing tonight. We are not politicking on this issue. We are giving leadership\u2014something the National Party and other Opposition parties are not capable of doing. We said it, on 25 June 2003, and we are doing it\u2014unlike the speeches that we have heard before. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000726\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022\u003EAgain we said, in that particular speech: \u201CAll Governments must be fair and neutral in matters of race.\u201D When we look at the customary rights orders in the High Court we are making it clear that they can be obtained, regardless of race. I look forward to the Auckland Anniversary regatta\u2014which Mr Baldock seemed to think was not an important issue, when he mentioned it in the select committee\u2014being able to get a customary rights order, as the Hon Wayne Mapp of the National Party established could be the case in his questioning of the officials. I look forward to that as a sign of the equality that is available under this legislation. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000727\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022\u003ENew Zealand First has shown leadership in this matter. We have set out what our principles were, and we are now giving effect to them. We have heard nothing like that from the National Party. We heard a speech made at \u014Crewa, which could only be described as divisive. We have heard, in the last few days, that the National Party supports customary rights, but when it is faced with a bill that does put up customary rights, it opposes it. What sort of leadership is that on the part of the National Party? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000728\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022\u003EWe have heard a speech from Mr Brownlee tonight, which suggests that he has not even understood all the submissions he heard and has no grasp of what is contained in this bill. If he has any aspirations for leadership, he has shown tonight that he is really at sea on the whole issue. He has no idea of what he is doing, and even tonight he has let us know the whereabouts of his leader. That is not the sort of thing that any aspiring leader should undertake. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000729\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022\u003EIt is really a privilege and a pleasure for me to be taking part in the debate on this bill. I must say that as a New Zealand First member of Parliament\u2014I am delighted that I am a New Zealand First member of Parliament tonight\u2014I think National Party members should be ashamed of the way in which they are behaving on this legislation. When I was in the House previously we had a problem with Samoan legislation and we had to take some action, and the National Party did. I remember certain Labour Party members being dragged\u2014kicking and screaming\u2014into the Ayes lobby, or voting unanimously, on that issue. I reread that debate a little while ago and I read the speeches made by some people\u2014who occupy a very high office today\u2014who protested against the issue. But, at the end of the day, it was a national issue. Something had to be done. The National Party did it, and the Labour Party supported it\u2014unanimously. That showed a degree of leadership on the part of the Labour Party, and perhaps it was no great surprise that it went on to win the next election. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000730\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022\u003EThis National Party has no regard for the welfare of New Zealand, in the types of speeches we have heard here tonight. New Zealand First has set out what leadership should be. We have seen our leader, the Rt Hon Winston Peters, act in terms of what he said he would do in June 2003, and that is what the bill does. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000731\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022\u003EIt is a fairly lengthy piece of legislation, one way and another, but, essentially, I will read out a couple of things to the honourable Gerry Brownlee, whom I have tried to help from time to time. For example, new clause 2A, \u201CObject\u201D, states: \u201CThe object of this Act is to preserve the public foreshore and seabed in perpetuity as the common heritage of all New Zealanders in a way that enables the protection by the Crown of the public foreshore and seabed on behalf of all the people of New Zealand,\u201D\u2014including the M\u0101ori people of New Zealand, if I can summarise the end of it. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000732\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022\u003ESo all New Zealanders are protected under this bill and all New Zealanders have the right to use the public foreshore and seabed. That was a clause that was suggested at the select committee, in part, because the current purpose clause was not adequate enough, and the members of the committee, from all sides of the debate, said that we need to make this clearer and say that it is on behalf of all the people of New Zealand. That was put to the committee, and, in consideration between the Labour Party and New Zealand First, clause 2A was accepted, because that is what the committee seemed to think was needed. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000733\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022\u003ESomething had to be done, of course, because this particular area is in two strands: the first under Te Ture Whenua Maori Act and the second under the common law. Provisions under Te Ture Whenua Maori Act are tidied up here, and, hopefully, the Court of Appeal will now have no difficulty in understanding that the term \u201Cforeshore and seabed\u201D means just that, and does not mean \u201Cland\u201D. We have got a pretty good definition of foreshore and seabed, and I am sure there will be no difficulty in that respect, and, of course, that is important because currently there are 80 applications before the M\u0101ori Land Court. If all those 80 applications are successful, M\u0101ori would own the entire coastline of New Zealand. So something had to be done, and this bill does it, while still protecting customary rights. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000734\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022\u003EThe second leg is the common law. The Ng\u0101ti Apa decision is based on common law, not on the Treaty of Waitangi, as some other members have said. Something had to be done to codify the common law situation to make it clearer to everybody, and that is what this bill does. I am a lawyer, and when people go to court I really feel that after they have gone through the tests set out in this legislation\u2014and the hurdle in this legislation is like Everest and a half, with no oxygen; it is a pretty tough test\u2014and they have won, they should get something at the end of the day, and they ought to have some idea of what it is they might get. It seemed to me to be common sense and fair that we should agree to some sort of clear redress. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000735\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022\u003EI was delighted to take part in creating a bill in which we tried to specify what it should be. I was a wee bit disappointed that we had phrases like \u201CM\u0101ori reservation\u201D and \u201Ctrustees\u201D, although I can understand where the idea for trustees came from, and there is a M\u0101ori word that means beachside, but that I cannot repeat; it was just a bit too much for me. All the witnesses we heard suggested kaitiakitanga, or guardianship. They wanted that to be made very clear. That was what they all felt was their way of life, and it was a great pleasure to suggest that the phraseology in the bill should relate to guardianship, and that we should have a foreshore and seabed reserve. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000736\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022\u003EBut, again, I am a lawyer, and I am a suspicious sort of bloke, and I felt we ought to make it clear in the bill that people going on to these foreshore and seabed reserves\u2014the ownership of which is still vested in the Crown, and in which there is free access and navigation\u2014do not have to pay to go on them. I can just imagine some bloke with a pickup sitting on the side of the beach saying: \u201CHey, this is ours. You\u2019ve got to pay a few dollars.\u201D, and all sorts of problems arise. We have seen what happened at Mount Tarawera. We saw it happen at Lake Taupo\u2014and who gave away Lake Taupo? So this bill makes it quite clear that all New Zealanders have access to the foreshore and the seabed. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000737\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022\u003EI am reminded of the song, which Mr Gerry Brownlee perhaps sang in his day: \u201CThis foreshore and seabed is your foreshore and seabed, it\u2019s my foreshore and seabed, from Stewart Island to Cape Reinga and the Chatham Islands. This foreshore and seabed is here for you and for me and for all of us.\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00226de7f1d9-7be9-468a-b27c-06000416b96a\u0022 data-id=\u0022b81c51f0b8384d2e93d802d8f5682a30\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000738\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226de7f1d9-7be9-468a-b27c-06000416b96a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b81c51f0b8384d2e93d802d8f5682a30\u0022\u003EJOHN TAMIHERE (Labour\u2014Tamaki Makaurau):\u003C/span\u003E Kia ora huihui mai r\u0101 t\u0101tau katoa. E te kaihaut\u016B me te whakaruruhau ki a m\u0101tau t\u0113n\u0101 r\u0101 koe, Clem.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000739\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226de7f1d9-7be9-468a-b27c-06000416b96a\u0022\u003E[Greetings to us all who are gathered here. Greetings indeed to you, Mr Speaker, Clem, the one who shelters us.]\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000740\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226de7f1d9-7be9-468a-b27c-06000416b96a\u0022\u003EDobra vecher, dobra vecher.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000741\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226de7f1d9-7be9-468a-b27c-06000416b96a\u0022\u003EThis is a further mighty step on the road to fulfilling a nationhood manual.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000742\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219386ba0-5a6e-485e-abc0-5a3128b4e1f6\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002259134922cc5849d2ad83be2d68f51f37\u0022\u003EHon Ken Shirley\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You may not have picked it up, but the member, in addressing you, used your Christian name. That is certainly not appropriate. It is grossly disorderly to call another member by his or her Christian name but to actually address you, the Assistant Speaker, as \u201CClem\u201D is certainly out of order.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000743\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220ed9ad81-05c1-4171-80c6-24fa02cade42\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022112024b88916433896edde6c6fb11be8\u0022\u003EThe ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich)\u003C/span\u003E: Not in the context he used it in. The member may interpret for the House\u2014his first sentences\u2014if he wishes.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000744\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226de7f1d9-7be9-468a-b27c-06000416b96a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225b7bcdcd57614fa4a830e437a25b53ae\u0022\u003EJOHN TAMIHERE\u003C/span\u003E: This bill is a further mighty step on the road to fulfilling our nationhood manual. We continue to write it. We continue to persevere, and we continue to be stoic, but above all, we must continue to be fair in continuing to write this most important document. We support the foreshore and seabed legislation as part of the continuing and evolving journey of nationhood. We do not care what Tariana Turia says or what Pita Sharples says. We do not much care what Gerry Brownlee, Don Brash, or Rodney Hide might say. What we care about is building our nationhood. It is easy to oppose. It is easy to walk over justifiable rights that are deeply ingrained in the bedrock of our constitution in terms of our nationhood. They may well walk over them; this legislation does not. This bill would not be here were it not for the finding of the New Zealand Court of Appeal. It ruled that M\u0101ori may have a range of existing rights awaiting exploration and crystallisation. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000745\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226de7f1d9-7be9-468a-b27c-06000416b96a\u0022\u003EI am grateful to be a part of the Labour Party. This party represents all New Zealanders\u2019 interests, not just the vested interests of a few people in the National Party or ACT. Our parliamentary make-up is the face of the future. It reflects the face of a dynamic, go-forward New Zealand, but, above all, it reflects social justice. It reflects an acknowledgment of private property rights. It reflects the ability to bring our races together in this country and to forge them in a way that no other party in this Parliament can. Parties in the Opposition could never forge the continuity that this Labour Party can. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000746\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226de7f1d9-7be9-468a-b27c-06000416b96a\u0022\u003EI acknowledge the leadership of Dr Michael Cullen. I acknowledge the integrity of our leader, the Prime Minister, in this very fraught and difficult process. But, most of all, I acknowledge my M\u0101ori colleagues, who have had to undergo a daily baptism of fire in their electorates on this most important issue. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000747\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226de7f1d9-7be9-468a-b27c-06000416b96a\u0022\u003EWe support the Supplementary Order Paper for the following reasons. The first is protection. When our ancestors signed the treaty, which is now entrenched and embedded in the constitution and the consciousness of this nation, they signed up to three major articles. We acknowledged the first principle, of governorship\u2014k\u0101wanatanga. In turn, the Government acknowledged our rights of rangatiratanga over matters M\u0101ori. In the third article, our ancestors acknowledged that we would be treated with equality as citizens of this country. In allowing the Crown to assert legal and beneficial ownership over the foreshore and seabed, we acknowledge the Crown\u2019s right to govern. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000748\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226de7f1d9-7be9-468a-b27c-06000416b96a\u0022\u003EIn governing, the Crown has a significant fiduciary responsibility to M\u0101ori in terms of the principle of protection. It is well known that common law rights can be extinguished only if they are freely alienated by the holders\u2014the M\u0101ori people. We demand the right of equality before the law granted to us under article 3 of the treaty. Just because our rights are different and have a different genesis\u2014Mr Brownlee has to get his limited mind around that\u2014that does not mean they are special and preferential. They are embedded in the bedrock of our constitution. We walk over those rights, we take them away, at our peril. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000749\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226de7f1d9-7be9-468a-b27c-06000416b96a\u0022\u003EOur ancestors fought\u2014as they did in every battle that is respected around this Chamber\u2014and died for the rights that have been justly obtained under this legislation. The National Party can talk about preference and special rights, but they are not. The rights are different because we have a different genesis. We therefore support the legislation. This legislation attempts to codify and explain those rights. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000750\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226de7f1d9-7be9-468a-b27c-06000416b96a\u0022\u003EWhat about due process? Under no circumstances has the Crown moved to extinguish the right of due process. M\u0101ori can and, I would argue, must proceed to the M\u0101ori Land Court and the High Court to assert their rights. This legislation guarantees that. There is now a clear process for doing that, and the possible results are now codified. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000751\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226de7f1d9-7be9-468a-b27c-06000416b96a\u0022\u003ERegarding the definition of customary territorial rights, we have been somewhat constrained by our colleagues in New Zealand First. I acknowledge that. I leave it at that. That will come out at the Committee stage. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000752\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226de7f1d9-7be9-468a-b27c-06000416b96a\u0022\u003EIt has often been said that we have stopped redress. Once the territorial customary right\u2014aboriginal title, if one likes\u2014has been found by the High Court, the High Court then directs the applicants to negotiate, as they must under the legislation. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000753\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220ed9ad81-05c1-4171-80c6-24fa02cade42\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022cf83757508a94083b6ecf4dc9fe62c5a\u0022\u003EThe ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich)\u003C/span\u003E: This call was split by arrangement to give each speaker 5 minutes each.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00221a705910-5320-43bf-aa82-027a761519f6\u0022 data-id=\u0022cf85875e5d9a48b78799c6236641dcfb\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000754\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221a705910-5320-43bf-aa82-027a761519f6\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022cf85875e5d9a48b78799c6236641dcfb\u0022\u003ERUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour\u2014Napier):\u003C/span\u003E All P\u0101keh\u0101 must approach this bill with hesitant steps. It was the forebears of we P\u0101keh\u0101 who, with good intentions, may have contributed to the tragic marginalisation that has been the past and real experience of M\u0101ori, at the expense of accepted P\u0101keh\u0101 culture. As a P\u0101keh\u0101, I ask myself what my mokopuna\u2014my grandchildren\u2014will say of my endorsement of this bill. I approach the concepts in this bill, which are grounded in tikanga, and I know I can intellectualise tikanga but I can never live it. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000755\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221a705910-5320-43bf-aa82-027a761519f6\u0022\u003EI also approach the contents of this bill with 30 years of intense and daily experience in litigation\u2014advocacy, in the first instance, and at appellate level, including the Privy Council. I thus believe this is legislation that will become recognised as a law that all New Zealand will be proud of, and that this Labour Party will develop as a flag-bearer. The pride will stem from the sound legal and moral basis of the bill. This bill is a reflection of inspired, thoughtful, intelligent, and principled leadership of both P\u0101keh\u0101 and M\u0101ori leaders of this country. That is also the leadership that truly reflects the face of 21st century New Zealand. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000756\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221a705910-5320-43bf-aa82-027a761519f6\u0022\u003EThe work of Dr Cullen, Margaret Wilson, Dover Samuels, Parekura Horomia, Mita Ririnui, John Tamihere, Mahara Okeroa, Dave Hereora, and Moana Mackey on this bill has been considerable and ongoing. It has not been done in the isolation of some extreme theory or some political, petty agenda. We see that in the approach taken in this House by the parties that lament receiving a Supplementary Order Paper today. They had an opportunity of contributing to the development of this bill, but they abrogated that responsibility by playing politics at the select committee and by refusing to debate the amendments that would be available. But if one reads the report, which, surprisingly, the members of the select committee agreed would go forward, and the report of the independent legal adviser that they unanimously endorsed\u2014the adviser who endorsed the concept of this bill\u2014we can take from that endorsement that the concepts of inalienability, of guardianship, and of public access are all inherent concepts of our foreshore and seabed, and they are reflected in this bill. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000757\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221a705910-5320-43bf-aa82-027a761519f6\u0022\u003ENot once did those lions in this House tackle the concepts articulated by Dr Paul McHugh in his 2\u00BD-hour contribution to the select committee.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000758\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227bc5ed794b1344a28d0832ebb8519926\u0022\u003EGerry Brownlee\u003C/span\u003E: You are a waste of space.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000759\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221a705910-5320-43bf-aa82-027a761519f6\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022547c3df3e39b410ba06cf23b1106f853\u0022\u003ERUSSELL FAIRBROTHER\u003C/span\u003E: Not once did that man even open his mouth for fear that he would be put in his place. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000760\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221a705910-5320-43bf-aa82-027a761519f6\u0022\u003ENot once did Dr Wayne Mapp, who shared the same university background, challenge the concepts of Dr McHugh. But when it comes time to politicise and to advocate in the public arena, to grab the airways and to inflame, boy, they are very brave then! But they avoided pitting their wits against the best mind behind the development of this bill. That is why I stand proud. This is a moral bill, because it balances\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000761\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221d92c6df9b914e609baddc338e6019c4\u0022\u003EGerry Brownlee\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I ask you to keep your ears open for some of the comments that are coming from the other side of the House. We appreciate that this is a vigorous debate, and we realise that someone like Russell Fairbrother is going to be somewhat reckless with the truth when he gives a speech like this, but it is inappropriate that Mr Tamihere\u2014of all people\u2014makes the comments he has been making. In the same vein as the Prime Minister, might I say that I am offended by his comments and ask that he withdraw and apologise. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000762\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220ed9ad81-05c1-4171-80c6-24fa02cade42\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f0914ff9c9724a14ac76b610cc562ded\u0022\u003EThe ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich)\u003C/span\u003E: I am afraid that I missed the comments. I apologise for that. I do not know what they were, but I accept that the member heard something that offended him.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000763\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226de7f1d9-7be9-468a-b27c-06000416b96a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002270c60799850e4947b05a149e8ca297b1\u0022\u003EJohn Tamihere\u003C/span\u003E: In the event that people were offended, I withdraw and apologise. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000764\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221a705910-5320-43bf-aa82-027a761519f6\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002288b0af79ffbe4248b33501f4be0e414b\u0022\u003ERUSSELL FAIRBROTHER\u003C/span\u003E: What we have seen in the reports of the various members of the select committee demonstrates that this is a moral bill because it is balanced. It is balanced because it reflects the different perception, use, and understanding of property in the P\u0101keh\u0101 world\u2014the very refined sense of that\u2014and the different view in the M\u0101ori world. This bill successfully brings these two together, and no party, in any of its reports, has undermined the basis of that. This is a legally sound bill. It is legally sound because it codifies a difficult area of common law. It codifies the common law in a New Zealand sense. It reflects the plea of all submitters that what is special to New Zealand goes forward in our legislation. This bill lays a road map for future litigation, so that the road map is not developed on the haphazard status of how the case is pleaded\u2014by the inadequacies of a particular lawyer or the over-exuberance of another lawyer.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000765\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221a705910-5320-43bf-aa82-027a761519f6\u0022\u003EDebate interrupted.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000766\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221a705910-5320-43bf-aa82-027a761519f6\u0022\u003ESitting suspended from 10 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Wednesday)\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041116e8de117a27894596bf97a98f745c45db000767\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221a705910-5320-43bf-aa82-027a761519f6\u0022\u003E\u003Cbr\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000001\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022ad76998bd40a461faa576d63f89722cd\u0022\u003ETuesday, 16 November 2004\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000002\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022720b8671f2c749f6a770876026c8e874\u0022\u003E(continued on Wednesday, 17 November 2004)\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022\u003EBills\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000003\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022697d532ca8c54abf92a53a4b6e1a9540\u0022\u003EForeshore and Seabed Bill\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000004\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u002283f026209aa94e2ba1a94e1f6215bc86\u0022\u003ESecond Reading\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000005\u0022\u003EDebate resumed.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00221a705910-5320-43bf-aa82-027a761519f6\u0022 data-id=\u002232504b4a78ed4c65bb58677100a9762f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000006\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221a705910-5320-43bf-aa82-027a761519f6\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002232504b4a78ed4c65bb58677100a9762f\u0022\u003ERUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour\u2014Napier):\u003C/span\u003E The staff of the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee deserve the thanks of the whole House for the work they did over and above the call of duty. Their attitude to the committee was tremendous.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002273f60731-048d-4a21-81c5-52d588de2325\u0022 data-id=\u0022d1ac10414da9464084c8c98839200b00\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000007\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002273f60731-048d-4a21-81c5-52d588de2325\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d1ac10414da9464084c8c98839200b00\u0022\u003EMITA RIRINUI (Labour\u2014Waiariki):\u003C/span\u003E I stand to support the second reading of the bill. In doing so, I want first to acknowledge the contributions of the Government members, supported by the New Zealand First members, to the processes of the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee. I acknowledge Russell Fairbrother for his strong chairmanship, and also the contributions of my colleagues Dover Samuels, Mahara Okeroa, and Dail Jones, who played a significant part throughout the whole process\u2014unlike some, who were there only during the hearings process. I have to say that that was more a case of political point-scoring than a genuine attempt to resolve many of the issues expressed by the submitters. The United Future member Larry Baldock often attended. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000008\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002273f60731-048d-4a21-81c5-52d588de2325\u0022\u003EThe bill as amended acknowledges the unique relationship M\u0101ori have with the coastline. Our tipuna signed the Treaty of Waitangi to seek Crown protection. I am satisfied that the provisions contained within the bill honour their legacy. However, there was an unrealistic expectation that the Government M\u0101ori caucus would deliver the entire foreshore and seabed to M\u0101ori ownership in fee simple title. That was never going to be the case. It was an expectation that required much more than we were able to provide. Some parties in this House have given M\u0101ori the impression that they are able to deliver that ownership. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000009\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002273f60731-048d-4a21-81c5-52d588de2325\u0022\u003EM\u0101ori caucus members have advocated strongly throughout the entire process for the recognition of M\u0101ori customary interests and the right of M\u0101ori to have their day in court. As a result of the proposed changes to the bill, the High Court may grant a territorial customary rights order to M\u0101ori groups, which may result in the establishment of a foreshore and seabed reserve. For those who seek reserve status, the High Court will be able to direct them to the Crown to discuss redress options. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000010\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002273f60731-048d-4a21-81c5-52d588de2325\u0022\u003EWe believe that the proposed amendments will recognise some of the fundamental issues that were raised during the select committee process. No fee simple titles will be awarded, and this reflects the views of the majority of M\u0101ori who appeared before the select committee. We have been instrumental in strengthening the redress provisions around territorial customary rights. We recognise that this bill will not please the extremists or the purists. However, we are confident that it caters to the wishes of the majority of M\u0101ori, who take a more pragmatic view of progressing our development as a people. The Resource Management Act is currently being reviewed and will be strengthened to recognise more effective consultation with local M\u0101ori over coastal areas. We believe that this will provide stronger recognition of the traditional association of wh\u0101nau, hap\u016B, and iwi with the coast than the ancestral connection orders initially provided for in the legislation. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000011\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002273f60731-048d-4a21-81c5-52d588de2325\u0022\u003EDuring the select committee process many submitters sought a longer conversation on the foreshore and seabed issue. However, we believe that would have stymied the aquaculture developments that many coastal iwi around the country are exploring. We M\u0101ori are very good at long conversations. The last one we had took 13 years. As M\u0101ori members representing a wide, diverse range of views, we could not allow this to happen. I heard in the House last night a speech advocating that we have a longer conversation. I wonder whether the many who came on the h\u012Bkoi who were involved in aquaculture development would have agreed with that speaker on that particular point. I doubt it very much. In fact, I have received many calls expressing great concern about that suggestion. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000012\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002273f60731-048d-4a21-81c5-52d588de2325\u0022\u003EM\u0101ori caucus members have played an active role in the discussion on aquaculture and the setting aside of 20 percent of all marine farming space for M\u0101ori interests. Therefore, we believe that it is important that this opportunity not languish for another decade in much the same way as the Treaty of Waitangi fishing allocation process did. The consequence of a long conversation would have been a halt to aquaculture farming for years or even decades. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000013\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002273f60731-048d-4a21-81c5-52d588de2325\u0022\u003EIn the very little time I have left, I want to acknowledge much of the progress this Government has made in relation to M\u0101ori employment, or unemployment. The first thing many M\u0101ori families think about when they wake up each day is their children and their mokopuna. It is interesting that the latest figures on unemployment among M\u0101ori are below 8 percent. Never in the 18 years since the records have been kept has this been the case. There are 40,000 more M\u0101ori in work now than there were when this Government took office. In the mid-1990s, one in three M\u0101ori did not have a job. Now, under this Government, fewer than one in 10 are unemployed.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00224029b198-a7b2-4eea-867c-79ef46cafeb9\u0022 data-id=\u00229512a90264a34060a8509e00b2258296\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000014\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224029b198-a7b2-4eea-867c-79ef46cafeb9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00229512a90264a34060a8509e00b2258296\u0022\u003EHon DOVER SAMUELS (Minister of State):\u003C/span\u003E When I woke up this morning I turned on the radio and heard claptrap and rhetoric. That is what I heard this morning on Morning Report from a party that says it represents M\u0101ori, and then I heard a representative from the Green Party in and out of hallucination. She said that the members of this House did not have the courage\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000015\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022dd1ac850a01243e6a6b6431327667b4d\u0022\u003EMetiria Turei\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. It was difficult to hear the speaker. I am uncertain as to whether he referred to the Green Party member as \u201Challucinating\u201D. If he did, I take personal offence at that comment and ask that it be withdrawn and apologised for.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000016\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fae7af0d-c48d-4dd4-88f3-928ccaa3a984\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e5cc1df8bb2244d4abef607cc6f622f0\u0022\u003EMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, I think that that is inappropriate. The member has taken offence. Would the Hon Dover Samuels please stand, withdraw, and apologise.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000017\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224029b198-a7b2-4eea-867c-79ef46cafeb9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e975d4b0d63c446bbcea67dc67913a04\u0022\u003EHon DOVER SAMUELS\u003C/span\u003E: I withdraw and apologise. I was just saying that the person who made those comments on Morning Report this morning was, in my view, hallucinating\u2014was somewhat under the influence. [Interruption] I did not refer to the Green Party.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000018\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fae7af0d-c48d-4dd4-88f3-928ccaa3a984\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002213a6437e6e5748a0b73bf34020947648\u0022\u003EMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: The member has been called on the point of order. The Green Party member has taken offence. The member should not refer to that and insinuate the same point he made before. The member will withdraw and apologise.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000019\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224029b198-a7b2-4eea-867c-79ef46cafeb9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228c8c2bd7e4434874a4d313c60caff08d\u0022\u003EHon DOVER SAMUELS\u003C/span\u003E: I withdraw and apologise.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000020\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219386ba0-5a6e-485e-abc0-5a3128b4e1f6\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223c01117cfed044aea9437dd4e9426091\u0022\u003EHon Ken Shirley\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I just want to get this clear. Are you telling us that now, as part of the record, we cannot use the word \u201Challucinating\u201D\u2014that we cannot say that another member is \u201Cdreaming\u201D or \u201Challucinating\u201D? Is this a new standard that you, from the Chair, are saying is unacceptable in the House?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000021\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fae7af0d-c48d-4dd4-88f3-928ccaa3a984\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022724aab9061604d66bc3d7ce43c6f8ce7\u0022\u003EMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: No. The remark was a personal reflection on a member who took offence.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000022\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224029b198-a7b2-4eea-867c-79ef46cafeb9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022615b7d77df864654b68fbaaa680be429\u0022\u003EHon DOVER SAMUELS\u003C/span\u003E: I support the second reading of the bill, and I tell the House that I have a vested interest. It may very well be that I have a conflict of interest. Why? Because I am a M\u0101ori and I belong to a hap\u016B. In the generations of my people, my t\u016Bpuna at Matauri Bay, Ng\u0101ti Kura, there was never any recognition of any right given to their takutai moana\u2014never in generations. I have never seen representation by any other party acknowledging that M\u0101ori have customary rights that have to be accorded and given effect to in the law. I have lived there for many years and my t\u016Bpuna are there. I challenge the other M\u0101ori members of the House to show me anywhere in legislation that M\u0101ori customary rights have ever been given effect to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000023\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224029b198-a7b2-4eea-867c-79ef46cafeb9\u0022\u003EThose Green Party members who walked in and out of the select committee\u2014who spent 5 minutes there\u2014advocate on behalf of M\u0101oridom and know nothing at all about customary rights. They know nothing about the relationship that M\u0101ori have with their takutai moana.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000024\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224029b198-a7b2-4eea-867c-79ef46cafeb9\u0022\u003EI ask the members of this House to show me any legislation passed in the history of this House, going back to the whakapapa or to 1840, where a Government and a party stood tall to recognise that M\u0101ori have customary rights to their takutai moana. This is the first time in the history of this nation\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000025\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ee4fde663c4f4e759b9b7049683f8549\u0022\u003EGerry Brownlee\u003C/span\u003E: 1996.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000026\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224029b198-a7b2-4eea-867c-79ef46cafeb9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229ff39ed70867434db246248636aa2717\u0022\u003EHon DOVER SAMUELS\u003C/span\u003E: It does not matter about the balderdash from that member across the other side of House, who most of the time has his cellphone to his ear while talking to Don Brash and trying to justify his own existence instead of getting on with the business. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000027\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224029b198-a7b2-4eea-867c-79ef46cafeb9\u0022\u003EI am proud of this Government and I am proud that this Parliament has finally moved to give recognition that wh\u0101nau and hap\u016B have customary rights over their foreshore and seabed. I say to the member opposite that this legislation finally gives me the opportunity as a member of the hap\u016B to take my case to the M\u0101ori Land Court and to the High Court. Never before in the history of this nation have those processes been available to our people\u2014never before.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000028\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224029b198-a7b2-4eea-867c-79ef46cafeb9\u0022\u003EAlong with my hap\u016B I live by the sea. Some people would say that I have gills\u2014not unlike my whanaunga there from Ng\u0101ti Wai, who lives by the sea also. I say to this House\u2014and I think it is an important issue\u2014that our customary rights have never been recognised in law\u2014never!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000029\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223df453771e39428487a06b94ec2c2259\u0022\u003EGerry Brownlee\u003C/span\u003E: Of course, they have.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000030\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224029b198-a7b2-4eea-867c-79ef46cafeb9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227a90cc3a299f4eefa8b27cbf94dc906d\u0022\u003EHon DOVER SAMUELS\u003C/span\u003E: I ask that member: where?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000031\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d8af994b62a54ffe99244e635cc5150b\u0022\u003EHon Member\u003C/span\u003E: The Fisheries Bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000032\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224029b198-a7b2-4eea-867c-79ef46cafeb9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ca40f7c2f89c4d1488bd5c6515961be9\u0022\u003EHon DOVER SAMUELS\u003C/span\u003E: We are talking about the foreshore and seabed. That is how those members are so far out and away from reality.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000033\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224029b198-a7b2-4eea-867c-79ef46cafeb9\u0022\u003ENever before have our rights been recognised in any legislation. I will ask the other party\u2014the \u201CHarawira Party\u201D\u2014to show me where they have been. I will ask the Green Party to show me if M\u0101ori customary rights have ever been recognised in legislation. My hap\u016B, my ancestors, and my elders in generations right back\u2014generations\u2014have never had their customary rights recognised in the law of this land. Halleluiah to David; God bless; tihei mauri ora!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000034\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224029b198-a7b2-4eea-867c-79ef46cafeb9\u0022\u003EIt is no matter about the old humbug and claptrap from the members of other parties\u2014the intellectuals, the know-alls\u2014who have never lived beside the sea and who would not know what the hell the difference was between a snapper, a kahawai, or a tadpole. They would not understand what it was.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000035\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224029b198-a7b2-4eea-867c-79ef46cafeb9\u0022\u003EI do not tell lies. I go out there and tell our people the truth, and I tell them this: they can go down to their rock, and they can go and dive for kinas. They can still go and pick tuatuas, they can still go and get a suntan\u2014if they want to get browner than Parekura Horomia\u2014and they can still go out and fish for kinas. They can do anything and everything that they have done historically\u2014nothing will change. But there is humbug and claptrap out there, and those people spreading mistruths amongst our people should be ashamed of themselves. Kia ora t\u0101tou.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000036\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e7eb03520c88470196d759e9bb9c2333\u0022\u003EGerry Brownlee\u003C/span\u003E: Well done, the trained seals.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022 data-id=\u0022b4f5d57de4c942ed9c60717a4be113be\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000037\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b4f5d57de4c942ed9c60717a4be113be\u0022\u003EHon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister):\u003C/span\u003E I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. That was an absolutely disgraceful interjection from the deputy leader of the National Party. I suggest that you require him to withdraw and apologise. You know exactly what he said. I will not repeat it in the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000038\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fae7af0d-c48d-4dd4-88f3-928ccaa3a984\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022050b48dd37f349b7a50f65f2a12bf901\u0022\u003EMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Did the member make an offensive remark?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022 data-id=\u0022dacfd5a371e04a5bbdc4e3b1982a99e4\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000039\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022dacfd5a371e04a5bbdc4e3b1982a99e4\u0022\u003EGERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader\u2014National):\u003C/span\u003E Well, it depends. If one is a trained seal, being compared with the Labour Party probably would have been offensive.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000040\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fae7af0d-c48d-4dd4-88f3-928ccaa3a984\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022539ade6564a14180855a4c0b5c37828e\u0022\u003EMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: It was taken as an offensive remark. Would the member like to withdraw and apologise.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000041\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022943f51558e3049a58cc80135bce71f73\u0022\u003EGERRY BROWNLEE\u003C/span\u003E: For making the comment: \u201CWell done, the trained seals.\u201D, I withdraw and apologise.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u00228547902e8e864a529590cec8e6185d9b\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the Foreshore and Seabed Bill be now read a second time.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 65\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 13; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 55\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 27; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; M\u0101ori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata; Other: Mahuta.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EBill read a second time.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000042\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022197f73eda0eb4998bbe033aa5335d831\u0022\u003EInstruction to Committee\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022 data-id=\u0022ce5ac10cb2da4d6f86d4e4d966317554\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000043\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022ce5ac10cb2da4d6f86d4e4d966317554\u0022\u003EHon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Foreshore and Seabed Bill that it take the bill part by part. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022a03b1654a9d64b3cb6a1eeafd81e05ba\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the motion be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 66\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 54\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 27; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; M\u0101ori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000044\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u002294ec5dd4a9194ed78b6a437e60278eea\u0022\u003EIn Committee\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000045\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u002215af9e45731c480080a40aeef3b55c56\u0022\u003EPart 1 Preliminary provisions\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000046\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002270fa4cbd-9380-4916-9f2a-78da059d220e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228a2a0f9c7ca74f0cb2c8a9513166ad21\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson)\u003C/span\u003E: Part 1 includes clauses 3 to 5.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022 data-id=\u0022be6a8d2f39734dc892a5bc5f6bfd2ef6\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000047\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022be6a8d2f39734dc892a5bc5f6bfd2ef6\u0022\u003EGERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader\u2014National):\u003C/span\u003E This is where Parliament will start to untangle the extraordinary spin that the Deputy Prime Minister has put about in the last couple of days, suggesting that this amended bill\u2014because Supplementary Order Paper 302 is not really a Supplementary Order Paper; it is a fully amended bill\u2014will solve and salve all the problems and concerns that many New Zealanders have.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000048\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003EWe see in it this tricky little idea of inserting a new clause 2A, \u201CObject\u201D. That is a Dail Jones initiative, and in it there is a paragraph that almost contradicts itself.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000049\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c437bda8-4741-4ac5-89ab-b0818e1ab9fa\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222b177d5527b54607a52bb4b93cf9e715\u0022\u003EDarren Hughes\u003C/span\u003E: It must have been written by the National Party.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000050\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002244a421a6c2204f64891874a739a4e536\u0022\u003EGERRY BROWNLEE\u003C/span\u003E: Mr Hughes, the confused member on the other side of the Chamber, is saying that it must have been written by a party other than Labour. It was; it was written by New Zealand First, and, frankly, the New Zealand First member should be sitting in the Minister\u2019s chair, because this amended bill is his work.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000051\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003EWe have here a problem insomuch as whereas the object is, supposedly, to put the foreshore and seabed into Crown ownership for the people of New Zealand, the Government equally wants to say that the foreshore and seabed can be dealt away in deals with M\u0101ori, provided that the High Court of New Zealand agrees with that. That seems to me to be a very weak protection, given the sort of judicial activism in this area that we have seen in the last few years. Is it not extraordinary that, on a bill that is a result of just that sort of judicial activism, we end up seeing an old lawyer, Dail Jones, trying to solve the problem by once again creating the opportunity for these things to go back before a court?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000052\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003EIt is a problem insomuch as this is the part of the bill that also makes it very clear to non-M\u0101ori New Zealanders that they have fewer rights to undertake activity on the foreshore and seabed of this country than M\u0101ori do. That is undeniable. That is quite undeniable, because unless one is M\u0101ori one cannot go to the High Court to talk about a customary right or a customary use.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000053\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002279650b03a96c414a86e7f337be2f0ec1\u0022\u003EDail Jones\u003C/span\u003E: That\u2019s not true.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000054\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002212d952b5859b4f5485a725cc33264842\u0022\u003EGERRY BROWNLEE\u003C/span\u003E: That is true. The bill excludes it particularly. [Interruption] Here is a question for \u201CMinister\u201D Dail Jones to stand up and answer. This is his cunning out; this is his out on this argument. He is saying that I am wrong because if non-M\u0101ori were here before 1840, and they had established some sort of activity that continues today, they could get a customary right, but if one came after 1840, one can forget about it. The fact is the vast majority of people in this country arrived here after 1840\u2014or their ancestors did\u2014and their activities commenced after that time. These people think they are very clever by saying that anyone can go for a customary right, provided that it happened before 1840. Well, that is the divisive aspect of this bill that will do damage to this Government. I tell Mr Samuels that it is quite inappropriate, in the year 2004, to tell New Zealanders that they cannot be considered equal to M\u0101ori in their love of the coastline of this country, because their ancestors were not here before 1840. That is a nonsense.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000055\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003EIt is as big a nonsense as saying that M\u0101ori can claim the seabed out to the territorial limit, which did not exist prior to 1967. That is another little piece that has been put in place by Winston Peters. Last night he was claiming that New Zealanders will thank him for his great work on this measure. Although we know that Mr Jones has done the work, we know that Mr Jones would not breathe without Mr Peters telling him he can, and the reality is that this measure very much will be sheeted home to him. He is the man who has decided that this Parliament will pass a bill that separates M\u0101ori and non-M\u0101ori when it comes to consideration of activities on the coastline of this country.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022 data-id=\u00223703bd440bbc4d89b0f87a43fe15b382\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000056\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00223703bd440bbc4d89b0f87a43fe15b382\u0022\u003EHon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister):\u003C/span\u003E What a thoroughly confused piece of extended piffle that was from the deputy leader of the National Party! First of all, let me make it clear to him that new clause 2A was drafted in consultation with my colleagues in the M\u0101ori caucus committee and with\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000057\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022495fa625c86f4bf1926fb7883b2a9864\u0022\u003EGerry Brownlee\u003C/span\u003E: Oh!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000058\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022be31a5425a9149e5a4ef6b5dd9a94b59\u0022\u003EHon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN\u003C/span\u003E: It is even worse, my goodness me! A brown face has had something to do with drafting the bill, and that makes it totally bad according to the deputy leader of the National Party. Horror show! It is a nightmare and Friday the 13th all in one go for the poor old deputy leader of the National Party that M\u0101ori have had something to do with the bill. Of course, National members are not racist on this bill, at all! No, no, no! They just do not want anything to do with M\u0101ori being involved in it\u2014that is all.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000059\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003EClause 2A was put to the New Zealand First members and they agreed to it. They agreed as part of another set of arrangements that were entered into the bill. So let us absolve Mr Jones of the blame for new clause 2A; the Government accepts full responsibility.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000060\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002230af45573f824ef789f8d9fcdcbd2b82\u0022\u003EGerry Brownlee\u003C/span\u003E: We don\u2019t believe you!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000061\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d538b598f0a943fbb627a81c935e474d\u0022\u003EHon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN\u003C/span\u003E: I do not care what the member believes. The member\u2019s brain is something I do not want to explore for more than a few seconds.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000062\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003EWhat the member does not seem to understand is that common law rights are those rights that existed at the time that the Crown assumed sovereignty. The Court of Appeal found that common law rights had not been removed by the Crown\u2019s assertion of legal ownership of the foreshore and seabed. That was not judicial activism; that followed any number of overseas judgments in that area. That member needs to front up and say whether he believes there are common law rights, or not. What he is really saying is that if those rights are held by M\u0101ori, they should not be allowed to exist. That is what he is actually saying.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000063\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003EHe is totally wrong when he says that this bill enables only M\u0101ori to go to the court. P\u0101keh\u0101 can go to the High Court for a declaration of customary usage rights. The only difference is M\u0101ori go to the M\u0101ori Land Court in relation to customary usage rights, and the reason is that there are tikanga issues that the M\u0101ori Land Court has expertise in. Both M\u0101ori and P\u0101keh\u0101 have the right to go to the High Court on an equal basis in terms of the issue of territorial customary rights. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000064\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223488d887f8e9497ea450c17010dfbbe0\u0022\u003EGerry Brownlee\u003C/span\u003E: What is the cut-off? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000065\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f10bdee748964f1ca03c5188702ad374\u0022\u003EHon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN\u003C/span\u003E: The cut-off is what the law itself determines: the point at which the Crown assumed sovereignty. If those members do not like that, then they are simply rejecting the entire jurisprudence on these matters, not just here but in any other number of jurisdictions as well.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000066\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003EThis really emphasises how stupid the National Party is on this bill. It does not have an argument. National members are simply trying to wind up an issue around race to frighten people. And what confusion and contradiction there is! Other parties in the House claim we are taking everything away from M\u0101ori. The National Party claims we are giving everything to M\u0101ori. Georgina te Heuheu says we are taking everything away from M\u0101ori. The ACT party says it thinks there should be property rights, but it does not think M\u0101ori should have any of them, so it will oppose the bill on both grounds. And Metiria Turei exists in some kind of ethereal stratosphere; I have yet to understand what she is saying at all on the issue at this particular point.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000067\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003EThe Government\u2019s position is clear: the Court of Appeal left us with a legal framework that would have led to results that were divisive and untenable from a public policy perspective\u2014that is, the transfer into private ownership of public foreshore and seabed. Firstly, we reaffirm the Crown\u2019s ownership of the public foreshore and seabed. Secondly, we provide the mechanisms for the consideration of customary usage rights. Thirdly, we provide the mechanism for redress where there might have been territorial customary rights established, and, to deal with the issue the member raises, we place in statute the test that has to be applied by the court in the consideration of those applications.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000068\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003EWhat bit of that can those members actually oppose in principle at all, as opposed to trying to do an \u014Crewa speech, scratch-scratch job, hoping somehow or other that people will think there is something in it? We need just listen to the media reports, and just read the editorials; already, they have nothing to say of any interest. Those members will bash their gums uselessly for some 15 to 20 hours to come, saying nothing of any importance at all throughout this debate. They have nothing to contribute on this issue, and they have not contributed to this issue at any stage. They have no argument of any substance, do not understand the law, do not understand the Court of Appeal judgment, and do not understand the bill, but that will not stop the National Party, because it never has stopped it when it comes to issues of complexity. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022df788c48-b9be-42fd-b8f2-76629a5572b8\u0022 data-id=\u0022416bfa5fb19c4ac694a95a9fef5b64d5\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000069\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022df788c48-b9be-42fd-b8f2-76629a5572b8\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022416bfa5fb19c4ac694a95a9fef5b64d5\u0022\u003EDr WAYNE MAPP (National\u2014North Shore):\u003C/span\u003E What an arrant bit of nonsense we have heard from the Deputy Prime Minister! It is typical of his arrogance in this place. It is a testament, is it not, that he himself has not read new clause 2A. It has to be read out, because Mr Jones, as usual, has tried to deny the public the truth. What does this clause state? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000070\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002258b949bcb3974218ae268e6ce5b00776\u0022\u003EDail Jones\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. The member cannot say that I am in any way trying to deny anyone the truth, as if I am involved in a lie. I take personal offence at that, and I ask the member to withdraw.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000071\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fae7af0d-c48d-4dd4-88f3-928ccaa3a984\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022460c549aa29649df850981d36add4ebf\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley)\u003C/span\u003E: The member is right, and he has taken offence at the comment. I ask the member to withdraw.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000072\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022df788c48-b9be-42fd-b8f2-76629a5572b8\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022fc6c83094b074af9bf840be3f5005b4b\u0022\u003EDr WAYNE MAPP\u003C/span\u003E: Speaking to the point of order, I appreciate that\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000073\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fae7af0d-c48d-4dd4-88f3-928ccaa3a984\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229ab3caec7b7c49b5ae66c1af6019dd49\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley)\u003C/span\u003E: I have ruled on the point of order. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000074\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022df788c48-b9be-42fd-b8f2-76629a5572b8\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229e5397e07d594d48991bdc8311ccff94\u0022\u003EDr WAYNE MAPP\u003C/span\u003E: I withdraw and apologise. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000075\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b0d8b0e0-3ece-4865-9145-5eb5983fc54c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d033d280cfdb4594b755cf0601010874\u0022\u003EHon Richard Prebble\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. Perhaps I should have risen earlier, but I expected you to appreciate that to say that someone is trying to deny the truth of something is not to accuse that person of being a liar. In fact, the rule cannot be that any member of Parliament can interrupt debate just by deciding that that person does not happen to like vigorous discussion. I say to you that you are setting a very bad precedent. I realise that the Speaker made a ruling yesterday, which I think he now regrets, but that is not in the rulings, and I suggest that you consult with the Clerk, and get on with the matter. Otherwise, we will find that this debate will not be a robust exchange of views; it will be just a series of points of order breaking up speeches. I think the member ought to be allowed to start again. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000076\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fae7af0d-c48d-4dd4-88f3-928ccaa3a984\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226b154c02b4f4427aa52eec1de488c758\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley)\u003C/span\u003E: The member certainly does make a valid point, but what I counsel members against is making imputations against other members. The member certainly did take offence at that. But the Hon Richard Prebble does make a point about robust debate.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000077\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223613e1c1e2ca40b286790b84a065c64f\u0022\u003EGerry Brownlee\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. Do I take it that what you have just said is another ruling?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000078\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fae7af0d-c48d-4dd4-88f3-928ccaa3a984\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022872eb3a7612b4f33b1ce78eabe2301d3\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley)\u003C/span\u003E: No.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000079\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022358e6ea80f92455eab84bf8cf230a788\u0022\u003EGerry Brownlee\u003C/span\u003E: Well, I ask you whether it means we cannot have robust debate. Does it mean that if the reality is that the truth, as one party might see it, is being put in a way quite contrary to the way it is being put by another party, we are not able to suggest that is what is happening? Everybody knows\u2014and Dr Cullen has alluded to the fact that editorials and other articles in the papers have attested to this fact\u2014that New Zealand First has been intrinsically involved in the development of the amendment bill that we now see before us, and that Mr Jones himself has been very instrumental in putting together a number of the clauses here. In fact, yesterday I overheard the Deputy Prime Minister congratulating Mr Jones on the fine work he had done on this bill. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000080\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fae7af0d-c48d-4dd4-88f3-928ccaa3a984\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228f30ae3560484821a8559e8621b1ea77\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley)\u003C/span\u003E: The member has made his point. I say to members that casting aspersions and attacking the member, as against the point of view, is what this is about, and the member has clearly said he took offence. That is the end of the matter.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000081\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022df788c48-b9be-42fd-b8f2-76629a5572b8\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022282be9beb62f4258bd85e956fd57b41a\u0022\u003EDr WAYNE MAPP\u003C/span\u003E: When a Supplementary Order Paper of 67 pages, an amendment bill, is denied to the public until the beginning of the debate, how are members to know the truth of the contents of the material? They have almost no time to read it, and that is the point I was making.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000082\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022df788c48-b9be-42fd-b8f2-76629a5572b8\u0022\u003EThe Government claims that new clause 2A will protect the Crown ownership of the foreshore and seabed. Then it goes on to state: \u201Cincluding the protection of the association of wh\u0101nau, hap\u016B, and iwi with areas of the public foreshore and seabed.\u201D What the Government is doing here is clearly preferring M\u0101ori above all other members of the community. The Minister in the chair, Michael Cullen, might deny it, but that is what clause 2A actually states. Clause 2A, for the benefit of Government members, sets out the object of the bill itself. So it is very, very clear that we have two classes of citizenship. M\u0101ori are in a preferred position. That is why the clause refers to protection of the association of wh\u0101nau, hap\u016B, and iwi. I do not believe that those terms are intended to apply to all New Zealanders. Maybe they are\u2014maybe the junior whip will tell us that they are terms for all New Zealanders\u2014but I believe that they are intended for M\u0101ori alone. So that is a compromise.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000083\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022df788c48-b9be-42fd-b8f2-76629a5572b8\u0022\u003EIt is a derogation of the general right, and the whole of the rest of the bill is intended to achieve precisely that. I am sure we will see Dail Jones get up and say that it is wonderful that the Auckland regatta is now protected, and that one can apply to the High Court for a customary rights order. Well, I ask Mr Jones whether there actually was a problem. Were the organisers of the regatta seriously troubled that they might not be able to hold the regatta in January 2005\u2014the first time in 165 years that the organisers really feared they would not be able to hold it? We know that that is a nonsense proposition. The reality is that that customary rights order, said by the Deputy Prime Minister and by Mr Dail Jones to be available for the general public, is in fact of no value whatsoever. The only case that is ever mentioned is that of the regatta, which does not need the protection. Frankly, it is a tissue and a fabrication.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000084\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022df788c48-b9be-42fd-b8f2-76629a5572b8\u0022\u003EOn the other hand, Mr Dover Samuels is correct. He says that M\u0101ori will get all sorts of rights and protections. Those will be deep, and they will compromise the public interest.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b0d8b0e0-3ece-4865-9145-5eb5983fc54c\u0022 data-id=\u00228e767a66d0ba4608a36d0068c1b81659\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000085\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b0d8b0e0-3ece-4865-9145-5eb5983fc54c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00228e767a66d0ba4608a36d0068c1b81659\u0022\u003EHon RICHARD PREBBLE (ACT):\u003C/span\u003E I rise at the beginning of the Committee stage on the Foreshore and Seabed Bill to say to the Committee that I realise I have been here only 26 years, but I have never seen the House doing what we are now doing. We are now debating what is regarded by everyone, I think, as one of the most important pieces of legislation introduced by the Government, and one of the more important pieces of legislation introduced by any Government. It is one of the few pieces of legislation that has caused a by-election, so we can see it is important. This version of the bill was given to the Opposition only yesterday\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000086\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219386ba0-5a6e-485e-abc0-5a3128b4e1f6\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d11a66c131d74b8eb6778e29bb1bf38f\u0022\u003EHon Ken Shirley\u003C/span\u003E: At 5.30.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000087\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b0d8b0e0-3ece-4865-9145-5eb5983fc54c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b544a13db71b449c9dbba91ead3241d4\u0022\u003EHon RICHARD PREBBLE\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014at 5.30 p.m., with the so-called redline amendments that we are now working from, and there is no explanatory note\u2014none whatsoever.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000088\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228cc322a3c3b94720a8980530da5f3f00\u0022\u003EHon Dr Michael Cullen\u003C/span\u003E: There is on the Supplementary Order Paper. Look at the back.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000089\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b0d8b0e0-3ece-4865-9145-5eb5983fc54c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002222f3fa4f514744d3b6ac4b47307ceaf1\u0022\u003EHon RICHARD PREBBLE\u003C/span\u003E: The Minister says so, but perhaps he can refer me to the explanatory note on new clause 2A, because when I read it, I say to the Committee that it is incomprehensible. I realise I am just a mere lawyer, but I do not understand what on earth it means. It states: \u201CThe object of this Act is to preserve the public foreshore and seabed in perpetuity as the common heritage of all New Zealanders in a way that enables the protection by the Crown of the public foreshore and seabed on behalf of all people of New Zealand,\u201D. I think I understand that. But then it states: \u201Cincluding the protection of the association of wh\u0101nau, hap\u016B, and iwi with areas of the public foreshore and seabed.\u201D What does that mean?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000090\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219386ba0-5a6e-485e-abc0-5a3128b4e1f6\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f82c8dd4d38b4f07b8460dcc8cd5c7e6\u0022\u003EHon Ken Shirley\u003C/span\u003E: Gobbledygook.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000091\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b0d8b0e0-3ece-4865-9145-5eb5983fc54c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222422291d7d2e4feeb63dfaeb33312b5d\u0022\u003EHon RICHARD PREBBLE\u003C/span\u003E: Perhaps it is gobbledygook. What it appears to me to state is that we are protecting the whole of the foreshore but we are also protecting it all for M\u0101ori. Those two statements are in contradiction. A court is supposed to know what that means. I say to the Minister in the chair, Michael Cullen, that perhaps it is just flannel. I once said to Geoffrey Palmer, when he said to me \u201CIt\u2019s just window dressing\u201D, that the problem with window dressing is that a court will give it a meaning. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000092\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b0d8b0e0-3ece-4865-9145-5eb5983fc54c\u0022\u003EIt appears to me to be racist legislation. The Government is saying that \u201Call New Zealanders\u201D and \u201Cwh\u0101nau, hap\u016B, and iwi\u201D are different. That is what that clause states. I would have said that \u201Call New Zealanders\u201D includes both M\u0101ori and non-M\u0101ori, but not this Government. That is the heart of the problem in the bill. It is deeply racist legislation. I say to the Minister again that the ACT party would have left the matter to the courts. We have said that consistently. We are a party that believes in the rule of law and I took great exception, although I did not raise a point of order, to the member saying that we protect non-M\u0101ori property rights only. This party is in favour of property rights, and we accept that there are some parts of New Zealand\u2014not many, but some\u2014where M\u0101ori do have property rights on the foreshore. The ACT party stands for that. We do not get upset about that, because they have had them since 1840 and it has not caused any trouble up until now, and we would not have panicked. We would have said that they should go ahead with court cases. Let me make that clear. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000093\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b0d8b0e0-3ece-4865-9145-5eb5983fc54c\u0022\u003EI object very strongly to Parliament passing provisions like clause 2A that no member opposite can explain. We tried to be parliamentarians. We said to the Minister that he could have unlimited time to explain the bill\u2014a gift that most parliamentarians would accept. What did Dr Cullen do? He said no. He was the first person to say no, and that was because he is not a fool. He realises that he cannot explain clause 2A. But on the face of it, it is a deeply racist provision, because it states that there will be protection on behalf of all people and then states that M\u0101ori are not all people\u2014they are somehow different. I say to the Minister that \u201Call people\u201D ought to mean both M\u0101ori and non-M\u0101ori, but that is not so under this deeply racist Government. As a parliamentarian, I am appalled that we should be considering legislation like this.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000094\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fae7af0d-c48d-4dd4-88f3-928ccaa3a984\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229c5204a741b3463189104cb840f77e31\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley)\u003C/span\u003E: The member will be seated. He cannot say that. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000095\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b0d8b0e0-3ece-4865-9145-5eb5983fc54c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228a38f0bc246744379a44b271eb0794fb\u0022\u003EHon RICHARD PREBBLE\u003C/span\u003E: I most certainly can!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000096\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fae7af0d-c48d-4dd4-88f3-928ccaa3a984\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ee3e9affc5794e7491072c638984d0bf\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley)\u003C/span\u003E: The member knows that under the Speaker\u2019s ruling by Doug Kidd, he certainly cannot call the Government or a member \u201Cracist\u201D. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000097\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b0d8b0e0-3ece-4865-9145-5eb5983fc54c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c0009e9dea324eaa9096ac977beff476\u0022\u003EHon RICHARD PREBBLE\u003C/span\u003E: I withdraw saying that the Government is racist. This is deeply racist legislation, introduced by members who, apparently, are not racist. It has been introduced by members who say they would never be racist, but it is deeply racist. We know it is. It is apartheid legislation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00221a705910-5320-43bf-aa82-027a761519f6\u0022 data-id=\u00223fd9a2a68e7f49fd8d10700d8477e0df\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000098\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221a705910-5320-43bf-aa82-027a761519f6\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00223fd9a2a68e7f49fd8d10700d8477e0df\u0022\u003ERUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour\u2014Napier):\u003C/span\u003E There is no surprise in new clause 2A for those who understand the principles on which the bill comes about. There is no surprise in it for those who have read any part of the Ng\u0101ti Apa Court of Appeal decision. There is no surprise in it for those who have read anything about Mabo or the international law on aboriginal rights. There is no surprise in it for anybody who has read the Treaty of Waitangi. There is no surprise in it for anybody who understands the common law principles on which the House is built. The only surprise in clause 2A is that those who use the term racist to describe the legislation have that word in the forefront of their imagination. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000099\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221a705910-5320-43bf-aa82-027a761519f6\u0022\u003EThe bill will \u201Cpreserve the public foreshore and seabed in perpetuity as the common heritage of all New Zealanders\u201D, and that is the position that has prevailed in New Zealand for 160 years and that has been assumed by everybody to be the actuality. The Court of Appeal pointed out that riding upon that also, as a burden on the Crown\u2019s radical title, is an obligation by the Crown to recognise the aboriginal title that the common law recognised, whereby indigenous people had rights until they were clearly taken away by statute. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000100\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221a705910-5320-43bf-aa82-027a761519f6\u0022\u003E New clause 2A does precisely that. The object is to preserve the public foreshore and seabed in perpetuity as the common heritage of all New Zealanders, but it includes the burden that has always been on the Crown, for the common law right of aboriginal title. To describe that as racist legislation is to describe a skateboard as a motorcycle. The House deals with the facts, and the Opposition appears to be trivialising the matter, because it is not prepared to recognise the intelligence and principled nature of this bill. The clause includes the protection of the association of wh\u0101nau, hap\u016B, and iwi with areas of the public foreshore and seabed. That simply means that hap\u016B, wh\u0101nau, and iwi who have customary relationships that have continued since the assumption of sovereignty in 1840 can be recognised, and will be recognised, under this bill. There is nothing new about that, nothing radical about that, and nothing racist about that. But, of course, one cannot read clause 2A in isolation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000101\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b0d8b0e0-3ece-4865-9145-5eb5983fc54c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227477f51387b241bfa6625c5ebbb2c94d\u0022\u003EHon Richard Prebble\u003C/span\u003E: Why not?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221a705910-5320-43bf-aa82-027a761519f6\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022487d8b5cc11d443cbef2fb797738a51a\u0022\u003ERUSSELL FAIRBROTHER\u003C/span\u003E: The purposes clause elaborates on that. It is very convenient for Mr Prebble not to have read as far as clause 3, \u201CPurposes\u201D. The bill has been around only since July! It may not be an illustrated version\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000103\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228a530a8613674e9383db70ab32daf644\u0022\u003EHon Dr Nick Smith\u003C/span\u003E: How long has clause 3 been around?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000104\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221a705910-5320-43bf-aa82-027a761519f6\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226e456984dfdc41cd998caddd91bc39f8\u0022\u003ERUSSELL FAIRBROTHER\u003C/span\u003E: About 140 years, if one reads the common law and reads about Ng\u0101ti Apa. It has been here for a long, long time; since the signing of the treaty, in fact. If one bothered to read the treaty and recognised that it was bringing into this country the common law of England, then one would not be asking that question. One would not be thinking in terms of \u201Cracist\u201D. One would be saying that clause 2A is self-evident and not even worthy of debate, because it is a simple fact on which this country is built, a simple fact on which this Parliament is run, and a simple fact that all people in this country, be they M\u0101ori, P\u0101keh\u0101, or more recent immigrants, are prepared to concede, when one talks to them out in the street. If the member interviews his mirror, he may see a different picture.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000105\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221a705910-5320-43bf-aa82-027a761519f6\u0022\u003E Clause 3 vests the full legal and beneficial ownership of the public foreshore and seabed in the Crown. That is the clause that the Court of Appeal required to be stated clearly so that the assumption of sovereignty and the Acts of this Parliament could express that principle. Then it gives rise to the burden, which is then dealt with in paragraphs (b), (c), and (d) of clause 3. It follows, as night follows day, that if we recognise that this country is founded on the common law\u2014the treaty recognises those common law principles and the right of Parliament to make laws arising therefrom\u2014then any objection one can take to clause 2A is illusory, and brings into intellectual argument what Richard Loe brought to forward play in the All Blacks. This part of the bill really sets the parameters for the rest of the understanding. We will have an interesting debate over the next few hours if clause 2A causes as much difficulty, to those who consider themselves worthy to take part in this debate. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000106\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221a705910-5320-43bf-aa82-027a761519f6\u0022\u003EWe move on to clause 4, \u201CInterpretation\u201D, but nobody from the Opposition has bothered to mention it. Interpretations are fine\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000107\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b5d8bb222c704ab39b072416a77b752d\u0022\u003EGerry Brownlee\u003C/span\u003E: It\u2019s early days yet!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000108\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221a705910-5320-43bf-aa82-027a761519f6\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022be309049ca0e4ff79f9c5f725f6051d6\u0022\u003ERUSSELL FAIRBROTHER\u003C/span\u003E: It has been around since July. Mr Brownlee should have gone to the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee and would have heard the submissions on the clause.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000109\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022803002d1-e810-4bd8-b8e7-2e97d0d6f626\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d9b57386e30c4a95957be4eb8e35048f\u0022\u003ESimon Power\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. The Standing Orders and Speakers\u2019 Rulings state that members should not refer to anyone\u2019s absence from the House or a select committee. Mr Fairbrother made a direct reference, and you did not pull him up. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000110\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221a705910-5320-43bf-aa82-027a761519f6\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002252b7c35c96bd4ec7a5ed734a8b04e6c7\u0022\u003ERUSSELL FAIRBROTHER\u003C/span\u003E: I was saying what he would have heard in the select committee. Whether he was there, I do not know\u2014[Interruption]\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000111\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fae7af0d-c48d-4dd4-88f3-928ccaa3a984\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f4105c18163148d184335558ba979ae1\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley)\u003C/span\u003E: I give Mr Power one warning. When I am on my feet making a ruling, I do not expect comment. I was about to rule in his favour. He is right; the same rules apply to the select committee and the House. I give all members another warning: when I am ruling on a point of order, or when a member is speaking to a point of order, there will be silence.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002219386ba0-5a6e-485e-abc0-5a3128b4e1f6\u0022 data-id=\u00226506ee386f9e4230b60357d0132fe04a\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000112\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219386ba0-5a6e-485e-abc0-5a3128b4e1f6\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00226506ee386f9e4230b60357d0132fe04a\u0022\u003EHon KEN SHIRLEY (ACT):\u003C/span\u003E As my colleague has already pointed out in this debate, Part 1 is racist legislation. But it is not only racist, it is actually socialist, as well. It is actually racist and socialist. Those members do not mind me calling them socialists\u2014they actually smile and rejoice as I call them socialists. I am not allowed to call them racist, we have established that, but this Government is bringing both racist and socialist legislation to this Committee, and I will explain why. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000113\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219386ba0-5a6e-485e-abc0-5a3128b4e1f6\u0022\u003EThis part essentially takes away the right of a group of New Zealanders even to pursue a possible property right through the courts. It takes away the right, and strips them of due process. The ACT party defends all property rights, and we say that if there are parts of New Zealand where people can establish that they hold a customary title, then those people should have the right to pursue that. The point has been made that if they have held it since 1840 and there has not been any problem, then what should we be fearful of. How can they answer that question? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000114\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219386ba0-5a6e-485e-abc0-5a3128b4e1f6\u0022\u003EOn the one hand this part strips away the rights of some people to pursue that property right, but on the other hand it actually creates a tool that is very fearsome. Dr McHugh, who was a key adviser to the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee, made the point that this bill actually gives a lot more to M\u0101ori than they would have likely got through the courts. It creates a whole new regime across all the foreshore and seabed that is not confined to any basis of property right, but which is race-based law. On the basis of skin colour, or ethnicity, a group of New Zealanders will have rights, through the Resource Management Act, to wield powers and controls through the back-door, as already we see with land under the Resource Management Act, now extended over the whole of the foreshore and seabed. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000115\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219386ba0-5a6e-485e-abc0-5a3128b4e1f6\u0022\u003ETo that extent this is lose-lose legislation. It breaches due process. It denies iwi the rights to pursue whether they do hold property rights. That is all the Court of Appeal said in the Ng\u0101ti Apa case. It said that in some rare and remote instances it may be that they can establish customary title based on having held that land continuously\u2014no more and no less than that. McHugh emphasised that point. He predicted it would be extremely rare. He doubted whether there would be even one or two instances in the country where the High Court would uphold that. But this Government panicked because it was looking at the politics of it, not the substance of it. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000116\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219386ba0-5a6e-485e-abc0-5a3128b4e1f6\u0022\u003EThere is the Deputy Prime Minister, with hands clenched behind his head. He knows that he has the tiger by the tail. He is digging himself deeper and deeper. He knows that he has messed it up. Rather than front up to the country and admit that the Government went down the wrong path, the Government is trying to ram it through under urgency and impose this racist and socialist legislation on the whole country. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000117\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219386ba0-5a6e-485e-abc0-5a3128b4e1f6\u0022\u003EThe socialists just love it. Here is a way for the Crown to have everything. They would like the Crown to own all the land as well, not just all the sea. I have a colleague out on the highways and byways of New Zealand who is fighting this Government, because it is trying to find a back-door way to take over all farmers\u2019 land, calling it access, and taking away property rights on the land. Here we see the Government stripping away potential property rights on the one hand, and then creating a new regime that we should all be fearful of, and that is this amendment to the Resource Management Act. That is essentially what it is. We are calling it the Foreshore and Seabed Bill. It is actually the \u201CResource Management Act Amendment (Foreshore and Seabed) Bill.\u201D That is what we should be concentrating on because this mechanism is a disaster.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000118\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219386ba0-5a6e-485e-abc0-5a3128b4e1f6\u0022\u003E There are expanded powers on the foreshore and seabed, in a nebulous form. Spiritualism has been introduced into the management of the foreshore and seabed. There will be taniwha running along the beach in all directions\u2014and who will control it? The Department of Conservation will. We will have all that extra foreshore and seabed, all reclamations, with that wonderful, balanced Department of Conservation controlling it! Can members imagine any developer, anyone with a proposal, whether it be for a marina or whatever, going to the Department of Conservation and getting a fair hearing?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00225cee6a89-68e3-40fd-b2d8-d8adb0ba5da0\u0022 data-id=\u0022e34cf2c7d3974ed6aeee5f6c6a26c000\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000119\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225cee6a89-68e3-40fd-b2d8-d8adb0ba5da0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022e34cf2c7d3974ed6aeee5f6c6a26c000\u0022\u003EGORDON COPELAND (United Future):\u003C/span\u003E I want to speak entirely on clause 2A, which, of course, is the object clause of the bill, and therefore is an overarching clause that is reflected right through the rest of the text of the bill. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000120\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225cee6a89-68e3-40fd-b2d8-d8adb0ba5da0\u0022\u003EOn 18 August 2003 our Prime Minister, Helen Clark, was interviewed on the Holmes show. On that evening she announced to the nation that the Government\u2019s proposal was to put the foreshore and seabed into \u201Cpublic domain\u201D, so that no one would own it. Paul Holmes then asked her: \u201CWhy on earth are you doing that? Why don\u2019t you just do the straightforward thing and put the ownership of those assets with the Crown?\u201D. I found the Prime Minister\u2019s response on that evening very, very interesting indeed. She said: \u201CWell, Paul, you know that if I were to do that, then from a M\u0101ori perspective they would have lost and the Crown would have won.\u201D She made it quite clear, therefore, that the concept of public domain was an attempt to seek a kind of a neutral position in the hope that both the Crown and M\u0101ori, who are the two partners to the treaty, would be able to come to some common understanding and say: \u201CYes, we together can go forward on this issue as a nation.\u201D \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000121\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225cee6a89-68e3-40fd-b2d8-d8adb0ba5da0\u0022\u003EI say to Dover Samuels that I too grew up on the beach. I walked on the beach, used the beach, swam in the water, took mussels from the water, ate them on the beach, and so forth for all of my boyhood. I frazzled my fair skin almost to obliteration in the process, but I say, as I think any New Zealander would, that each of us desires to have full, unfettered access to the beach. The bill achieves that but I do, more in sorrow than in anger, regret the fact that the Government lost its nerve and moved away from the concept of public domain. I thought it was a very useful concept. I think it could have contributed very positively to this debate and helped us to find a way forward. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000122\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225cee6a89-68e3-40fd-b2d8-d8adb0ba5da0\u0022\u003EThis is the way that I would have worded clause 2A: \u201CThe object of this Act is to provide for the guardianship\u201D\u2014and I use the word \u201Cguardianship\u201D, of course, because that term will resonate with the concept of kaitiakitanga\u2014\u201Cof the public seabed and foreshore, in perpetuity, as the common heritage of all New Zealanders, for themselves and all future generations, by vesting in the public domain the public foreshore and seabed, and recognising as appropriate the association of wh\u0101nau, hap\u016B and iwi with the areas of the public foreshore and seabed.\u201D \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000123\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225cee6a89-68e3-40fd-b2d8-d8adb0ba5da0\u0022\u003EUnited Future really does regret that the concept of public domain was ditched so quickly, after the good start the Prime Minister and the Government made, in favour of going back to Crown ownership. I think it will, therefore, continue to be viewed by M\u0101ori as a win for the Crown and a loss for them. That is because, of course, for generations now M\u0101ori have regarded the word \u201CCrown\u201D as symbolising not the people of New Zealand but the sovereign of the United Kingdom. We see in treaty settlements, for example, the Crown even apologising for the confiscation of land and so forth. So that is embedded in M\u0101ori thinking, and rightly and understandably so. I regret very much that the Government so quickly gave away the concept of public domain. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000124\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225cee6a89-68e3-40fd-b2d8-d8adb0ba5da0\u0022\u003EMy colleague Larry Baldock told me there would have been some legal difficulties. OK, there might have been, but the bottom line is that where there is a will there is also a way. I think that if the will had been there in the Government to stick with that concept, a way could have been found to express the concept that is involved in the term \u201Cpublic domain\u201D. One has only to look at, say, the Auckland Domain or, down the road from where I grew up, to the Mapua Domain, to know that all New Zealanders understand that a public domain is something that all of us own, that all of us have access to, and that all of us enjoy egress from and travel across. It is something we can all use for recreation; to carry out our swimming, our fishing, our sandcastle building, and all the other activities that all New Zealanders associate with the beach and with the foreshore and, of course, the seabed itself as we go out and fish and enjoy other activities of that kind. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000125\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225cee6a89-68e3-40fd-b2d8-d8adb0ba5da0\u0022\u003EReally, if that had been changed, then, of course, all of the rest of the bill would be changed. When we read the bill now, it is like a tattoo: a repetition of the word \u201CCrown\u201D.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00224029b198-a7b2-4eea-867c-79ef46cafeb9\u0022 data-id=\u0022d0682e5e515447ccb121f743c2eac193\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000126\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224029b198-a7b2-4eea-867c-79ef46cafeb9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d0682e5e515447ccb121f743c2eac193\u0022\u003EHon DOVER SAMUELS (Minister of State):\u003C/span\u003E It has been very interesting listening to the claptrap coming from the other side of the Chamber. I would have thought that Opposition members would realise that this is an important issue, and they would put a bit of intellectual horsepower into it, but I guess when one\u2019s leader is in the deep freeze, it is very difficult to defrost him overnight and have him take part in the debate. We have heard all the k\u014Drero from the members of the National Party who are members of the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee. We have heard them all blah-blahing about not receiving the Supplementary Order Paper at the appropriate time. I just want to say that they began playing games in terms of the process of reporting back to the House. They are the architects of their own destiny, yet yesterday we heard enough whingeing and whining because they did not get the Supplementary Order Paper in time. I say to them: \u201CYou play your games and that is what you get.\u201D It is called cause and effect.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000127\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b72ac04ee55e4b868bd38a8677d64476\u0022\u003EHon Dr Nick Smith\u003C/span\u003E: Outrageous.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000128\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224029b198-a7b2-4eea-867c-79ef46cafeb9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022574c82eb7203496e843cf6bf242992c7\u0022\u003EHon DOVER SAMUELS\u003C/span\u003E: I know that Nick Smith does not understand what cause and effect is all about. He may have to go to court to find out. But, anyway, I just want to say that I am interested in the comments about racism that are coming from Richard Prebble and the ACT party. They have been talking about how racist this legislation is. I am reminded of the debate we had here in this House, relating to M\u0101ori reserve land. ACT members opposed the legislation because they thought it was racist, because the rights of M\u0101ori, in their view, overrode the rights of their farmer mates, so they organised a h\u012Bkoi of tractors down to Parliament. They did not think about racism then. They did not call the legislation racist. In fact, they actually promoted it. Is it not a bit\u2014I will not say that word, because I know it is unparliamentary. But is it not speaking with forked tongue to call this piece of legislation racist? All of a sudden they suffer from some sort of amnesia about their position in terms of their performance during the debate on M\u0101ori reserve lands. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000129\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224029b198-a7b2-4eea-867c-79ef46cafeb9\u0022\u003ELet me say that I am very clear on the objects of this legislation. All M\u0101ori are clear on the objects of this legislation. I say again that in all my lifetime and the lifetime of my tipuna, my kaum\u0101tua, my grandparents, my great grandparents, we lived beside the sea. Their whole being, their wairua was part and parcel of the takutai moana, foreshore and seabed. There has never been any recognition in law, at all, over that period of time of the rights of my people. I want to reiterate that, time and time again, because somehow, somewhere there is a blockage in some people\u2019s thoughts and interpretation of this matter. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000130\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224029b198-a7b2-4eea-867c-79ef46cafeb9\u0022\u003EFor the first time in the history of this nation there will be some recognition in statute. It is not all that we wanted and not all we fought for, but at least, at this particular time in the history of this nation, this Parliament, this Government will recognise the tangata whenua, M\u0101ori, the indigenous people of this country. It is consistent with the world view. It is consistent with international covenants that in fact the customary activities of the indigenous people of this country are recognised. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000131\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224029b198-a7b2-4eea-867c-79ef46cafeb9\u0022\u003EI do not know how much more clearly it can be spelt out in terms of the objectives. The objectives quite clearly reconfirm what has already, in the last 150 years, been the understanding of all New Zealanders, including M\u0101ori. We never saw a h\u012Bkoi 20 or 30 years ago in relation to some people\u2019s warped understanding that M\u0101ori own all the foreshore and seabed out to Hawaiki nui, Rapanui, and out to the Cook Islands and everywhere. Those are some of the untruths that have been permeated throughout the M\u0101ori community.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000132\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224029b198-a7b2-4eea-867c-79ef46cafeb9\u0022\u003E I say to members that if the other party\u2014the under-party, the Green Party\u2014can deliver the foreshore and seabed into the ownership of M\u0101oridom, then its members should put their signatures on the line. They know very well that they were not able to deliver. They know very well that they cannot deliver, and they know very well that the only party in this Parliament that will deliver is the Labour Party, with the assistance of New Zealand First.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b0d8b0e0-3ece-4865-9145-5eb5983fc54c\u0022 data-id=\u002213444de48ebf464a9eed46b2b2707038\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000133\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b0d8b0e0-3ece-4865-9145-5eb5983fc54c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002213444de48ebf464a9eed46b2b2707038\u0022\u003EHon RICHARD PREBBLE (ACT):\u003C/span\u003E I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I did not interrupt the previous speaker, because I do not believe in raising points of order to break up people\u2019s speeches, but I do think we now need a consistent ruling from the Chair. Earlier, a National member suggested that the Government had not told the full truth about the bill, and his speech was broken up. He was required to withdraw his statement, which I would have said was parliamentary, but the previous speaker was allowed to say that I had given a forked-tongue speech. Everybody knows that speaking with a forked tongue is saying that a person is lying. I would have said that that was an outrageous statement and was out of order. I drew the matter to your attention, Madam Chair, but you did nothing. I decided that perhaps we were having another think about this matter and we would have a vigorous debate. However, I would not want us to have a situation whereby people can say whatever they like, while the Chair waits for members of the Committee to establish order. Left to myself, I am in favour of a vigorous debate. I have to say that although I was not greatly upset by the speaker\u2019s comments, I think we need some consistent rules during the debate. When you have ruled on this, Madam Chair, I want to raise a different point of order.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022fae7af0d-c48d-4dd4-88f3-928ccaa3a984\u0022 data-id=\u002288851fe82f74499aba0113ee91040376\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000134\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fae7af0d-c48d-4dd4-88f3-928ccaa3a984\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002288851fe82f74499aba0113ee91040376\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley)\u003C/span\u003E: I thank the member for his point of order but just remind him that it was not the same as the one ruled on previously. However, the member is correct. I did not quite hear the context, and that is why I discussed it with the Clerk at the Table. We clarified that what Mr Prebble said about the use of the term \u201Cforked tongue\u201D was absolutely correct. It is after the event, and I know that the member would prefer that the debate was more robust, but it is quite clear now we have discussed the context that the matter should be ruled on and that the member be required to withdraw his remark. I ask him to stand and withdraw the remark.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000135\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224029b198-a7b2-4eea-867c-79ef46cafeb9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a34a44fba20e4205b329145cf70868ea\u0022\u003EHon Dover Samuels\u003C/span\u003E: I withdraw and apologise.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b0d8b0e0-3ece-4865-9145-5eb5983fc54c\u0022 data-id=\u002230200d1f4dd04c719420a17d168c9ba1\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000136\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b0d8b0e0-3ece-4865-9145-5eb5983fc54c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002230200d1f4dd04c719420a17d168c9ba1\u0022\u003EHon RICHARD PREBBLE (ACT):\u003C/span\u003E I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. Having broken up the debate, it seems to me to be an appropriate time to raise this matter, which I want to do very early with the Chair. As I mentioned in my own contribution, I have never seen a Government introduce what is actually a completely new bill, with no explanatory note, as this Government has done, and then put it into urgency. I want to suggest to you, and have it discussed with the other Chairpersons, that the appropriate response from the chairmanship to such a ruling is to allow proper and adequate debate. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000137\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b0d8b0e0-3ece-4865-9145-5eb5983fc54c\u0022\u003EI also draw it to your attention, Madam Chairperson, that on this bill there was no clause by clause analysis by the select committee. Again, when I was first a member of Parliament we would have taken this bill clause by clause, which would probably have taken a couple of weeks. All I am saying to you, Madam Chair, is that I notice that the Committee has not even managed to get past proposed new clause 2A, because we do not have an explanatory note, and I hope that adequate time will be given. Following the usual rules, I will get one contribution on one clause\u2014and I was actually criticised because I had not got on to talking about clause 3. I am happy to give the Committee my views on clause 3, but I can do so only if the Chair takes that into account when the inevitable closure motions come. I just raise this matter now so that you can consider it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022fae7af0d-c48d-4dd4-88f3-928ccaa3a984\u0022 data-id=\u0022a333e47b657e4a598a07b97580b3c405\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000138\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fae7af0d-c48d-4dd4-88f3-928ccaa3a984\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a333e47b657e4a598a07b97580b3c405\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley)\u003C/span\u003E: I thank the member for his contribution. I assure him that this has been discussed and that there will be plenty of time for debate.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022 data-id=\u00221be9cd432cb140fbb229b7ba6c3321db\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000139\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00221be9cd432cb140fbb229b7ba6c3321db\u0022\u003EMETIRIA TUREI (Green):\u003C/span\u003E The Green Party has a number of amendments to Part 1. The first one I want to talk about proposes to omit new clauses 2A and 3 from Supplementary Order Paper 302. This legislation is racist. I know that is uncomfortable for people to hear; none the less, it is the truth. If there is one thing about the whole process of the foreshore and seabed it is that the truth, the facts, have been continually denied and fallacies put in their place. There has been purposeful deception of the community and the public, which is not the way any good Government, in any circumstances, can be expected to behave and proceed in a democracy. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000140\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003EOne of the fallacies that have been relied on by this Government and New Zealand First is set out very clearly in new clause 2A. There is a fundamental flaw in its reasoning. I will read out this clause for those who may not have had the opportunity to read it: \u201CThe object of this Act is to preserve the public foreshore and seabed in perpetuity as the common heritage of all New Zealanders in a way that enables the protection by the Crown of the public foreshore and seabed on behalf of all the people of New Zealand, including\u201D\u2014and here is the problem\u2014\u201Cthe protection of the association of wh\u0101nau, hap\u016B, and iwi with areas of the public foreshore and seabed.\u201D \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000141\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003EThe Ng\u0101ti Apa Court of Appeal decision last year clearly dispelled the myth that the Crown has absolute ownership of the foreshore and seabed. There is no such thing as public foreshore and seabed\u2014it is a myth, a deception, that is being used to drum up support from the public, who do not have the full information about the nature of the law and of the common law rights that M\u0101ori have had before and since 1840 and that are actually still extant. They may still exist, and they are due to be explored in law, and rightfully so. The fallacy that the foreshore and seabed are owned by the Crown has been continually challenged by M\u0101ori for well over 100 years in all the various forums we have had available to us. We have been pursuing those interests continually\u2014hence, the Ng\u0101ti Apa decision.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000142\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003E Jim Evans, a highly esteemed legal professor from Auckland University law school, has also clearly articulated that the Crown must first acknowledge that it and the public have been operating on a false premise. Just because one thinks the foreshore and seabed are in Crown ownership does not make them in Crown ownership. Just because one wants them to be so does not make them so. One has to deal first with the actual realities and truths of the situation, which is that the customary rights to the foreshore and seabed have not necessarily been extinguished. M\u0101ori customary rights may still be extant, and they are entitled to be explored in law. The underlying title is still up for discussion and negotiation in the courts. Those rights may still continue to exist, and all citizens of our country are entitled to explore fully their rights in the courts. M\u0101ori are citizens of this country, too, and they are entitled to explore the full extent of their rights in law in the courts. Yet this Government, operating on the false premise, on the fallacy, that the customary rights to the foreshore and seabed have been extinguished are denying M\u0101ori the opportunity to go to the courts, as other citizens are entitled to do, to explore their full rights. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000143\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003ENew clause 2A makes this false presumption that there is such a thing as a public foreshore and seabed, but, as I have said, M\u0101ori still have unexplored rights in that foreshore and seabed. Therefore, it is not public. The underlying title is still in dispute. It is a deception; it is a redefinition of those areas in order to extinguish M\u0101ori rights and to confiscate those areas where the courts may find customary rights are still in existence. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000144\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003EOur amendment to omit clauses 2A and 3 on the Supplementary Order Paper is an attempt to eliminate the fallacies that the Government and New Zealand First are operating on and restore some status of truth to the situation, so that at least members of the public clearly understand what is going on for them. One of the other amendments we have proposed is to omit clause 3, which vests the full ownership of the foreshore and seabed to the Crown, making what has been untrue to this point legally true but morally wrong\u2014ethically wrong. It is an unnecessary clause. There is no need for Crown ownership to be vested in this full way in the bill. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000145\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003EOther options have been proposed by submitters and various people since this issue has come up for discussion. Those options include allowing M\u0101ori to proceed to the courts to have their rights explored, like other citizens are entitled to do. That exploration would not be confined only to the legal principles from overseas jurisdictions like Canada and Australia. In fact, those explorations would occur within the treaty jurisprudence that has already been developed in this country over the last 30 or 40 years. We have a different situation here. Government members continue to argue that this bill will give M\u0101ori more than what they would get in the courts.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022 data-id=\u0022d85c0e7cd21f4af1bd9f3157e69d7ada\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000146\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d85c0e7cd21f4af1bd9f3157e69d7ada\u0022\u003ERt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader\u2014NZ First):\u003C/span\u003E After that legal dissertation I want to say that I am going to organise a lunchtime meeting between \u201CTariana Turei\u201D\u2014[Interruption] \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000147\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fae7af0d-c48d-4dd4-88f3-928ccaa3a984\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022be8b7e88ca634a9497a87ac6cceefdfe\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley)\u003C/span\u003E: I am sorry to interrupt the member but Mr Brownlee will not contest rulings like that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000148\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f786aedc57c64c6fbdfc88f8460e637d\u0022\u003ERt Hon WINSTON PETERS\u003C/span\u003E: Particularly when I am his senior.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000149\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a9114fb5089046638ccf0623099a5ff5\u0022\u003EMetiria Turei\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I suspect that the member may have been referring to me; if so, he mispronounced my name completely. I ask that he pronounce my name properly.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000150\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fae7af0d-c48d-4dd4-88f3-928ccaa3a984\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225fcbfb6553494db585ab36642b59afa7\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley)\u003C/span\u003E: It is always best to\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000151\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022043a3c8dfa6d4cf999662b867db3a3bd\u0022\u003ERt Hon WINSTON PETERS\u003C/span\u003E: Who cares!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000152\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fae7af0d-c48d-4dd4-88f3-928ccaa3a984\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ee90b1356ae1410fba677c73e65b7466\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley)\u003C/span\u003E: No, for order in the Chamber members should always be referred to by their correct name.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000153\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002211c1ed6d304143309670f611e11d0e16\u0022\u003ERt Hon WINSTON PETERS\u003C/span\u003E: Madam Chairperson, I have had three interruptions before I have even got going. Can I start now?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000154\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fae7af0d-c48d-4dd4-88f3-928ccaa3a984\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022848c0c02ff8042afa6b740971df31093\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley)\u003C/span\u003E: It is not off the member\u2019s time.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000155\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227b786d71b8644db6857ed6e7874ba201\u0022\u003EGerry Brownlee\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. We have been repeatedly assured that there will be a significant amount of time for debate. The expectation is that a number of members will take more than one call on this debate. That matter has been discussed, as you are aware. Can I ask whether it is correct that this is the second call from New Zealand First. I understood that Dail Jones spoke.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000156\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fae7af0d-c48d-4dd4-88f3-928ccaa3a984\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002266b19d4848b445afbe4e1e4d7e991267\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley)\u003C/span\u003E: To interrupt a member\u2019s speech for that point of order, when the member had already been corrected by the Clerk\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000157\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002248e938cae2114e6faa6c4feb3a73529c\u0022\u003EGerry Brownlee\u003C/span\u003E: Not on that point.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000158\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fae7af0d-c48d-4dd4-88f3-928ccaa3a984\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221a642713ff5f49699f97e3c17931571b\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley)\u003C/span\u003E: I have already warned members this morning that when I am on my feet giving a ruling, there will be silence. I now give another warning on that. I have already indicated quite clearly, when ruling on Mr Prebble\u2019s point of order\u2014and I assure the member as I assured Mr Prebble when we discussed this\u2014that plenty of time will be given.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000159\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002261d73adee9064de28011a3ad18a6e8d4\u0022\u003ERt Hon WINSTON PETERS\u003C/span\u003E: This is the first contribution from New Zealand First in this debate. We want to bring some sanity to this side of the Chamber. I am offering to organise, at lunchtime today, a meeting between Tariana Turia, Metiria Turei of the Greens, and the National Party. It is a very important meeting that I have to organise, and I will tell members why. It is because the first two say that M\u0101ori are getting nothing, and the National members on my right say they are getting everything. So I am going to organise this public meeting in the Beehive so that they can sort this out then come back to the Chamber this afternoon and talk some sense for the first time. I have never heard such a ridiculous debate. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000160\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003EThe second point I want to signal is that I want to know from Dr Cullen where his secret bill is\u2014the covert, clandestine bill that the National Party keeps addressing. We have never seen it. It may exist. It may be somewhere out there in the ether. After hearing National members talk last night and today, I know that there has to be another bill. It is not this one. There has to be a secret bill somewhere else that Dr Mapp keeps addressing. He said that M\u0101ori can get all these things by private arrangement and by private deal, but he never admitted that they could not get a thing under this bill in the way that he described. It is not that M\u0101ori are not going to get a fair go, but he knows demonstrably, because he is a law lecturer, that they cannot get the things that he is talking about under this legislation. So why on earth does he keep on saying it? Why on earth do the Greens act that way? Why does Tariana Turia keep making those speeches? Why is the National Party doing the same at the other extreme? I hate to say it, but I think it is about politics. I think it is about raw, venal, selfish politics. At a time when the country calls out for a sense of unity on an important matter, all they can do is play petty, shallow politics. Would they do us a favour\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000161\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226c1377c15f114830a5f6c82dd9f4ec9c\u0022\u003EHon Dr Nick Smith\u003C/span\u003E: Here\u2019s the expert.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000162\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222c8701dbd8a14a36a1d5ae0cf49274bf\u0022\u003ERt Hon WINSTON PETERS\u003C/span\u003E: The expert is Dr Nick Smith. He is a real expert. Do members remember when he was head of the Department of Conservation? He was up there taking land off M\u0101ori everywhere.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000163\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d5971f9e9d2e47009307256b4b942681\u0022\u003EHon Dr Nick Smith\u003C/span\u003E: Name one.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000164\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ffdeeb20779644aabfc78c63a71d88c8\u0022\u003ERt Hon WINSTON PETERS\u003C/span\u003E: Rawhiti 2B. These members know full well about the prime paradise of Ng\u0101ti Wai on the southern reaches of the Bay of Islands, and he was going to take the whole lot off them. He said: \u201CLook, I\u2019ll give you a deal. I\u2019ll look after the possums and the pests, but you give me the land.\u201D That was his idea of a deal. Every fifth acre there would be worth $1 million, and there are thousands of acres, and he wanted to take the whole lot on behalf of the socialist State that he was then the head of. Talk about\u2014I cannot use the word, but it starts with \u201Ch\u201D. Where did this mess start? It started with an Act passed by those geniuses after they had thrown me out of the National Party, between 1991 and 1993. I remember it. I warned them about their stupidity, but, no, they knew better. They gave Doug Graham a knighthood for it. They all signed up and said: \u201CYes, Doug, yes, Doug, three bags full.\u201D Yet here they come today, as some sort of Pontius Pilate, saying \u201CWe come with clean hands.\u201D \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000165\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003EI am glad that people are not hearing that from New Zealand First. I am glad that they are not hearing that shallowness and banality from New Zealand First. Can I ask the Committee a question? Why would a party that calls itself conservative oppose the Crown having the foreshore and seabed reposed unto it? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000166\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003EWhy would a party that says it believes in one law for everyone oppose this bill?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000167\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002266f53aef7c6349b282703a70c460206c\u0022\u003EHon Dr Nick Smith\u003C/span\u003E: Because it doesn\u2019t have one law for everyone.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000168\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022bc986bae77434584947cbbfcac8ba0e7\u0022\u003ERt Hon WINSTON PETERS\u003C/span\u003E: There we go. Here is the genius on law. He is so good on law that he was recently in court and he got done over like a dinner, yet he still thinks he is right. The poor guy was told by his colleagues: \u201CDr Smith, don\u2019t say that. It\u2019s illegal. Don\u2019t do it.\u201D But, no, he knew better.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000169\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002284e4418c77644ac7aaee8b0f2efbce8e\u0022\u003EHon Dr Nick Smith\u003C/span\u003E: That\u2019s not true. He\u2019s making it up.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000170\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002250c3f0b511444039b5cd9a6a23a0a5be\u0022\u003ERt Hon WINSTON PETERS\u003C/span\u003E: No, I am not. The member\u2019s colleagues told me.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022 data-id=\u002284f2c537153b4d8b8ad1b8c38a1d0755\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000171\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002284f2c537153b4d8b8ad1b8c38a1d0755\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH (National\u2014Nelson):\u003C/span\u003E This bill is racist. This bill is flawed. The tragedy is that for all those in this Chamber who claim to care about our 18,000 kilometres of coastline and beaches, this is a bill about politics, not a bill about doing the very best for the management of our coast. I want to start by quoting from a former Labour Prime Minister whose words Margaret Wilson likes to regularly trot out. He said this: \u201CThe Labour Party opposes the approach that laws are introduced one day and passed the next.\u201D That is what Geoffrey Palmer said. But this is even worse. The Government is introducing and passing a law on exactly the same day. These 135 pages of law were tabled only last night. It is a disgrace that the New Zealand media are not exposing the Government for that sort of abuse of this Parliament. It is an abuse because of what we see in this bill. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000172\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003EDover Samuels said earlier that it is OK for the Government to pass 135 pages of law without it ever being debated, without it being tabled in the House, and without it being distributed to local government and any of the groups that have a substantive interest. He says that that is somehow OK because people have opposed it. He says: \u201COh, National members on the select committee expressed the opposite view.\u201D So somehow he thinks that makes it OK to abuse Parliament. The member is wrong. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000173\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003EThis part introduces a concept of foreshore and seabed reserves. We have never heard of them before. The concept was introduced only yesterday. I have some questions for the Minister in the chair, Margaret Wilson. Can there be marine reserves over the top of areas that are foreshore and seabed reserves? Does the Minister know? I will ask Dover Samuels. I ask any member of the Labour Party to answer this question: can there be a marine reserve and a foreshore and seabed reserve in the same area? It is an important question. Can Winston Peters tell me? Nobody knows! Here we are being asked to pass legislation to create a new form of reserve\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000174\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002295f8dbd9efe948b5ae6f7421a94ea634\u0022\u003ERt Hon Winston Peters\u003C/span\u003E: Of course not, you fool.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000175\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ead6db76f3b24bc79cf1dc393dbb8498\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH\u003C/span\u003E: Sorry?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000176\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228de3ae38f28a476fbac98480005bf96a\u0022\u003ERt Hon Winston Peters\u003C/span\u003E: Of course not. You\u2019re an idiot.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000177\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229f279cc2d922498fbc206c0e24ef4b04\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH\u003C/span\u003E: Where does it say that there cannot be a foreshore and seabed reserve where one of our 14 reserves has been created? Can the member answer this question: can there be a m\u0101taitai reserve in the same area that there is a foreshore and seabed reserve? What does Dover Samuels say?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000178\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224029b198-a7b2-4eea-867c-79ef46cafeb9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f7188e0e96704ed6a6f99c739cc0e26a\u0022\u003EHon Dover Samuels\u003C/span\u003E: We can reserve a plot just for that member.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000179\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002271b0d7e5b15a4807b08c05a73127e07a\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH\u003C/span\u003E: I asked a serious question. The Minister in the chair has given lectures about unbridled power and about Parliament introducing and passing bills on the same day. That is what she said at the election. What does she do in Parliament? She has not taken a single call to explain any of the 135 pages of law that is being rammed through this Parliament under urgency. Can somebody answer me as to whether there can be an aquaculture management area in the same area in which a foreshore and seabed reserve has been created? Dail Jones says that he has been involved in this bill\u2019s drafting. Can he answer that question? No, he cannot. Can Mr Fairbrother? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000180\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221a705910-5320-43bf-aa82-027a761519f6\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f67bebd76ea04e3a955d2b6d799cfdb1\u0022\u003ERussell Fairbrother\u003C/span\u003E: Clause 28 is your answer.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000181\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222c58c124ec194943a0543e378ac6e7ee\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH\u003C/span\u003E: He says it is explained in clause 28. Clause 28 does not exclude any area from being a foreshore and seabed reserve. My point is that this bill will make a diabolical mess of the management of the most precious areas of New Zealand. This is not a sensible way of managing these areas. This bill is solely political. I ask members opposite how they can sign up to this. When they were in Opposition I often heard their bleating about bills being passed under urgency\u2014bills that had been around for weeks or months. Now we have 135 pages of law that was tabled only last night being rammed through Parliament. The Minister in the chair has the cheek to say to the deputy leader of the National Party that he might not understand it all. That is not surprising. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022c5b3ede3-ae58-4862-b45d-b4c8f3280960\u0022 data-id=\u0022d6829cd634b64345835008be5d7b4a78\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000182\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c5b3ede3-ae58-4862-b45d-b4c8f3280960\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d6829cd634b64345835008be5d7b4a78\u0022\u003EMAHARA OKEROA (Labour\u2014Te Tai Tonga):\u003C/span\u003E I have been moved to rise by the previous speaker\u2019s statements that this bill is racist. Let me remind this House that as a Minister that member, Nick Smith, took an action against Wakapuaka reserve, which already had an existing blue-water title that had been enshrined by the M\u0101ori Land Court a number of times and which enabled the Ng\u0101ti Tama people of that area to get on with their business as the tangata whenua. Oh no! He prefers to lead a charge, which I shall call racist, amongst the community of Nelson against the inherent tangata whenua rights of the Ng\u0101ti Tama people, which were enshrined in law, on the basis that they somehow exclude access to their estuary. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000183\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c5b3ede3-ae58-4862-b45d-b4c8f3280960\u0022\u003EThis is private M\u0101ori land, and the estuary has a blue-water title. The only reason that Ng\u0101ti Tama\u2014and I hope Dr Mitchell is listening to this\u2014has put a gate across the access is to ensure that people who want to visit treat the estuary and the foreshore and seabed with respect. It is there so that people do not drive their four-wheel drive vehicles up and down, unfettered, and leave their rubbish around this estuary that has a blue-water title that is in the ownership of Ng\u0101ti Tama ki Wakapuaka. The member wonders why, under clause 2A, we have included the statement \u201Cincluding the protection of the association of wh\u0101nau, hap\u016B, and iwi with areas of the public foreshore and seabed.\u201D One of the reasons that is included is that misguided influence and ministerial authority leave those tangata whenua in a difficult position. That case is still before the courts. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000184\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022de69ac3b9e224fdf9a7d66d2307c545f\u0022\u003EHon Dr Nick Smith\u003C/span\u003E: Because your Government is appealing it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000185\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c5b3ede3-ae58-4862-b45d-b4c8f3280960\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002236f1f5adbb314d56bea8c93444609ba0\u0022\u003EMAHARA OKEROA\u003C/span\u003E: So what do the people do? Because he was the Minister of Conservation. So not only he suffered, but so did a certain section of tangata whenua ki Te Tau Ihu o te Waka. I am appalled that some members of the Opposition who are not supporting this bill view clause 2A as being deeply racist. I am absolutely appalled that we started the discussion this morning on that level. It demonstrates for us that there is nothing to fear about this. M\u0101ori have for many, many years insisted on a right, as M\u0101ori, so that they can protect themselves\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000186\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002271cc61486ee44d65a12b49dbe3333a22\u0022\u003EHon Dr Nick Smith\u003C/span\u003E: A special right.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000187\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c5b3ede3-ae58-4862-b45d-b4c8f3280960\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223911bc47ca6e44ee9177f81281d1a06b\u0022\u003EMAHARA OKEROA\u003C/span\u003E: So that they can protect themselves, I say to Mr Smith, into the future from the misguided views and visions of people of his ilk. One submitter from Nelson came to a submission hearing we had in Christchurch. I must endorse her courage. She stayed, even though her message was obviously totally unpopular, given the context. She was carrying a message that was very similar to the messages we are hearing this morning about this law being deeply racist. She appended that with her experience of Wakapuaka. How can this law be deeply racist? I fail to understand that when we are discussing whether M\u0101ori\u2014wh\u0101nau, hap\u016B, and iwi\u2014can be included in clause 2A. To exclude that is racist. So what National left in its wake is a diabolical mess.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00221e93d9c8-b183-40db-b200-833697df066c\u0022 data-id=\u0022ec4c2bd27b9c4cc192ff5df67a156d64\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000188\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221e93d9c8-b183-40db-b200-833697df066c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022ec4c2bd27b9c4cc192ff5df67a156d64\u0022\u003ELARRY BALDOCK (United Future):\u003C/span\u003E It is not surprising that when the Hon Nick Smith, a former Minister of Conservation, leaps to his feet to give his first speech in this debate, the first question out of his mouth is: \u201CWhat about marine reserves?\u201D. It seems that whenever people get anywhere near the Department of Conservation, they start thinking about grab, grab, grabbing marine reserves and more estate for the department from all around the country. So that was the first question out of his mouth.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000189\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221e93d9c8-b183-40db-b200-833697df066c\u0022\u003EThe answer to his question, from my reading of the bill, is that it would probably be up to the guardians of the new reserves to determine whether there would be marine reserves within the new reserves. I think that is a jolly good idea. A lot of New Zealanders would like to see more control over their inshore area, rather than see the Department of Conservation slapping marine reserves all over the place, wherever it thinks it can protect this wonderful environment. So I do not see that it is a bad thing at all that this bill gives more control back to the people of New Zealand.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000190\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221e93d9c8-b183-40db-b200-833697df066c\u0022\u003EIn fact, that is largely what clause 2A is all about. United Future welcomes the amendment from the Deputy Prime Minister to introduce clause 2A, \u201CObject\u201D, which states: \u201CThe object of this Act is to preserve the public foreshore and seabed in perpetuity as the common heritage of all New Zealanders in a way that enables the protection by the Crown of the public foreshore and seabed on behalf of all the people of New Zealand,\u201D. We could almost have taken that statement and put it under the interpretation clause, clause 4, with the heading \u201CPublic domain\u201D. I think it is a pretty good definition of the concept of public domain that we were talking about in the very beginning.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000191\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221e93d9c8-b183-40db-b200-833697df066c\u0022\u003ESo United Future will be supporting this amendment, because we think it goes a long way towards calming the people of New Zealand down about what is going on in this legislation and this debate. It is not just about Crown ownership, as has been claimed by Winston Peters and New Zealand First. I think the definition has broadened out considerably, and that is a good thing. As my colleague Gordon Copeland said earlier, the idea of Crown ownership has carried with it some negative connotations. It is important for us to speak about it being for the benefit of all New Zealanders\u2014the common heritage of all New Zealanders. Those are very good words.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000192\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221e93d9c8-b183-40db-b200-833697df066c\u0022\u003EThe amendment further provides that the object of the bill is to protect or preserve the foreshore and seabed in perpetuity, which is why I have tabled this morning an amendment to entrench clause 12(2)(a), when we come to debate Part 2 later on, so that this Parliament does all we can to make sure that it is very difficult for any future Parliament to sell off or transfer the title of the foreshore and seabed to anybody else. It will be held in perpetuity as the common heritage of all New Zealanders. I think that will be a very, very good thing. I will be asking all the parties in the Committee to support that Supplementary Order Paper when we vote on Part 2 later on.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000193\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221e93d9c8-b183-40db-b200-833697df066c\u0022\u003EClause 2A also includes the concept that the Crown is to protect the public foreshore. Crown ownership is for the protection of the public foreshore on behalf of all New Zealanders. I think it is time to begin to discuss that in our debate. There is not enough going on to protect the foreshore and seabed in New Zealand. We are prepared to march to Wellington about the ownership of it, but the crucial issue is what is going on there. Pollution is still occurring. Siltation is still occurring from run-off from the land. There is pollution in all sorts of forms. Raw sewage is still going into our sea, and siltation occurs every year in the construction season. We create siltation ponds that are not adequately monitored, then when we get a bit of extra rain one summer\u2014as happened this year\u2014the entire Tauranga harbour turns brown because suddenly a huge amount of clay goes into it and destroys that pristine foreshore that we all like to walk on and enjoy. Instead of having sand to walk on, we have mudflats all over the place. It is a disgrace.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000194\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221e93d9c8-b183-40db-b200-833697df066c\u0022\u003EInstead of having such a huge fight about the title and the ownership, we should be having a big debate about doing more to protect these areas. Our regional councils are not monitoring those issues, and are not imposing fines on the people who are polluters of the foreshore and seabed area. I hope that when the bill finally becomes law, the Crown will take up its responsibility to do a lot more about protection. Protection is not just about imposing marine reserves, because there is no point in having marine reserves for the protection of our seabed and marine environment if we have pollution flowing off the land. It is even coming out of the Department of Conservation estate, and nothing is being done about it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022 data-id=\u00229aeb1ae0f20c4769ac4705593b5ef60d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000195\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00229aeb1ae0f20c4769ac4705593b5ef60d\u0022\u003EDAIL JONES (NZ First):\u003C/span\u003E I have sought a call although it seems almost superfluous for me to speak in this debate, my having been mentioned so many times in despatches by members all around the Chamber! It has been a great honour to take part in the work on this legislation to ensure the protection of the national interest, and to have the foreshore and seabed in the ownership of all New Zealanders. New Zealand First is prepared to show leadership in this matter among the Opposition, and that is embodied in no better form than that of our leader, the Rt Hon Winston Peters.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000196\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022\u003EI particularly wanted to follow on from Larry Baldock, because of what he said. He referred to the discussions in the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee on, effectively, clause 2A. We in the committee said\u2014and I am sure that Dr Mapp will remember\u2014that we wanted a clause in the bill that would state something along the lines of what is in clause 2A: \u201CThe object of this Act is to preserve the public foreshore and seabed in perpetuity as the common heritage of all New Zealanders \u2026\u201D. That was a point we wanted to emphasise. We asked the officials whether they could put something together to reflect that view, as that was what the members of the select committee wanted. When clause 2A came forward I could see exactly what the officials were getting at. It reflects the views and wishes of the select committee as a whole\u2014including, at that time, the National Party members on it. But, of course, National members are always ready to oppose anything, even if they might have supported the concept of common heritage and of having something extra in the purpose clause, which is what clause 2A achieves.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000197\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022\u003EMany people might be interested in what the bill actually says. I know that various Kawau Island groups, including the Kawau Island ratepayers, were concerned\u2014as were others\u2014about, for example, the definition of \u201Cforeshore and seabed\u201D. They may not be able to get a copy of the amended bill immediately, but I tell them that we have made an alteration to the meaning of foreshore and seabed. It now: \u201C(a) means the marine area that is bounded,\u2014(i) on the landward side by the line of mean high water springs;\u201D. That is the meaning that is now in the bill. We have removed the reference to \u201Chigh water line at mean high water spring tides\u201D. As I understand it, some people were concerned that the previous definition effectively took it too far. We now have a more reasonable definition of what the high-water mark is, and what the marine area is on the landward side. On the landward side, it will be bounded by the line of mean high-water springs. People who are interested in the bill should perhaps take more note of that. [Interruption]\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000198\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022\u003EMr Mapp keeps chirping away. I was disappointed that he tried to make a personal reflection on me when he spoke. That was quite unusual for him. He had become quite excited by this legislation, and I regret that I had to raise a point of order on him about it. Obviously, he is concerned that he has been totally unsuccessful on behalf of the people of the North Shore. I can tell him that I am trying to do something about that matter with the Minister now, and there might be some improvement in that area before the day is out. The North Shore City Council did not get hold of New Zealand First to deal with that particular issue, but I think it has realised its mistake, and now we are trying to do something about it. We will see what might happen later on, and whether we can achieve something in the meantime.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000199\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022\u003EThere are various new definitions in the bill, such as \u201Cguardians\u201D and \u201Ckaitiakitanga\u201D. [Interruption] I thank members; I admit to being an absolute novice, but I am prepared to learn, even if Georgina te Heuheu\u2019s National Party members are not prepared to learn about M\u0101ori matters. That is why they have dismissed her from the National Party altogether. I, as a member of New Zealand First, a recent immigrant, am prepared to learn about M\u0101ori things, even if\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000200\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219386ba0-5a6e-485e-abc0-5a3128b4e1f6\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226a5e7a8933cb4e7c9c541417497111b4\u0022\u003EHon Ken Shirley\u003C/span\u003E: What does it mean?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000201\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022350eb4e73af94164ab6893b1f9a070fe\u0022\u003EDAIL JONES\u003C/span\u003E: It means guardianship. Mr Shirley does not know what it means, so I will help him. The use of that word is extremely important, because time and time again M\u0101ori submitters to the select committee said they wanted to retain guardianship. It really impressed me, and that is why New Zealand First has made sure that any foreshore and seabed reserve is protected by guardians. It is so much common sense, really. It is good to see that New Zealand First has been able to achieve that in the legislation. Simply put, this bill protects\u2014[Interruption] I have to put it simply for some members of the National Party, whom I am always willing to help on this legislation\u2014as I did when it was first introduced.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002273f60731-048d-4a21-81c5-52d588de2325\u0022 data-id=\u0022aea9c61a74d54de0aa43551bc7a21a7f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000202\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002273f60731-048d-4a21-81c5-52d588de2325\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022aea9c61a74d54de0aa43551bc7a21a7f\u0022\u003EMITA RIRINUI (Labour\u2014Waiariki):\u003C/span\u003E I start by saying that probably the best proposal put to the Committee this morning was the proposition by the Rt Hon Winston Peters that he convene a meeting at lunchtime today of the Opposition parties, for their benefit, so that they can get their lines right\u2014for that simple reason.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000203\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002273f60731-048d-4a21-81c5-52d588de2325\u0022\u003EMost of them oppose this bill, but for different reasons. National Party members have described this bill as racist. At the same time, its members on the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee supported Crown ownership. They also acknowledged that M\u0101ori had customary rights over the foreshore and seabed. If National members did not have that view, they would never have passed Tainui\u2019s settlement Act and the Ng\u0101i Tahu Claims Settlement Act. Both those Acts refer to the customary rights of those iwi. National Party members also support the concept of public access being protected. Given all of that, and given that they still oppose this bill, one wonders how they determine their position.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000204\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002273f60731-048d-4a21-81c5-52d588de2325\u0022\u003EI shall also comment on the contribution made by the Hon Richard Prebble earlier today. He referred to the object of the bill as being racist. He read out that clause, and he seemed to have an issue with that two-part statement. The first part of it acknowledges the common heritage of all New Zealanders, and the second part acknowledges the association of wh\u0101nau, hap\u016B, and iwi with the foreshore and seabed. Which part of that does he consider racist? Is he suggesting that we take out the first part\u2014the common heritage of all New Zealanders? He did not make that very clear. He did not understand the second part, which I find very interesting, given that he belongs to a party that acknowledges property rights. Really, this matter is about M\u0101ori property rights, and that is reflected throughout this bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000205\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002273f60731-048d-4a21-81c5-52d588de2325\u0022\u003EI also want to touch on a matter raised by the United Future speaker Gordon Copeland. Obviously, like the Rt Hon Winston Peters, the Hon Dover Samuels, myself, and many other people in this House, he has a strong association with the foreshore. Many of us experienced an upbringing in which we enjoyed the leisure time we spent at the beach. Mr Copeland believes that this bill will stop him from doing all those kinds of things that he has done in his life. That is absolute rubbish. He needs to go back to the bill and read it very, very carefully. He will find that nothing will change following its enactment.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000206\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002273f60731-048d-4a21-81c5-52d588de2325\u0022\u003EI have tried to get a fix on the Greens\u2019 position. I am afraid I am still trying. It seems they share the view of ACT that the bill is racist, but ACT believes that any acknowledgment of M\u0101ori customary rights is racist because they are rights peculiar to M\u0101ori. What is racist about that? Those members also believe that the bill threatens the rights of access of the general public. That is also not true. It is stated quite clearly in the purpose clause of the bill that public access is guaranteed. Throughout the select committee hearings process, all the M\u0101ori submitters made it very clear that it was not their intention at any time to inhibit public access to the foreshore and seabed.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000207\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022df788c48-b9be-42fd-b8f2-76629a5572b8\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228d6062154f9742fb9d4750bb858e25fa\u0022\u003EDr Wayne Mapp\u003C/span\u003E: Actually, that is not true. Margaret Mutu said she should deny access.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000208\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002273f60731-048d-4a21-81c5-52d588de2325\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022dcd53a6c770947cfaa0434cc721a1829\u0022\u003EMITA RIRINUI\u003C/span\u003E: I think Mr Mapp is doing Margaret Mutu a disservice. Although she has some very strong views about the bill, one thing she was adamant about was that there was not a threat to public access. Mr Mapp needs to get his statements correct. I recall his misquoting a number of the submitters who came to the select committee, and suggesting that they were threatening the rights of all New Zealanders, when, in fact, all that they were doing was spelling out their rights very clearly to the select committee. Those rights have been taken into consideration. If we had been given the opportunity to report back in the way that we would have liked, with amendments to the bill, those points would have been made very clear in the report. But we were denied that opportunity, and here we are with a very, very lengthy Supplementary Order Paper.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000209\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002273f60731-048d-4a21-81c5-52d588de2325\u0022\u003EA lot of attention was given throughout the hearings process to M\u0101ori development rights. Like many iwi around the country, my people, Mataatua and Te Arawa, have very, very strong links with the foreshore and seabed. We have always been very active in the fishing industry\u2014although this bill is not about fishing or mahinga m\u0101taitai; it is in fact about other areas of customary rights. In particular, my people, Ng\u0101ti Whakaue, have an ancestral connection, for want of better words, to a particular area on our coast. We have used that area in the past for commercial gain for the benefit of our people.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220bd5aa67-2f2b-4a13-a2b4-21a392396f11\u0022 data-id=\u00222bc5a451e0624fe4a0c6eaa1caba3596\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000210\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220bd5aa67-2f2b-4a13-a2b4-21a392396f11\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00222bc5a451e0624fe4a0c6eaa1caba3596\u0022\u003EHon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National):\u003C/span\u003E That member\u2019s days as the electorate MP for Waiariki are numbered. However, it was good to see him on his feet. I am pleased to rise in the debate on Part 1. I want to make some comments about other comments that have been made by members, particularly members from the Government side of the Chamber. Dover Samuels showed the arrogance of a Labour Government member when he commented about the Opposition \u201Cblah-blahing\u201D on about the late introduction of a significant Supplementary Order Paper. It does not matter whether we got Supplementary Order Paper 302 in the name of the Hon Dr Michael Cullen only yesterday; it matters to the New Zealand public that that Supplementary Order Paper was not open for scrutiny by people outside this House. The only reason we are here is to represent the interests of people outside this House, so we need to get it right. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000211\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220bd5aa67-2f2b-4a13-a2b4-21a392396f11\u0022\u003EDr Cullen had a bit of fun, directed at the National Party, when he talked about a brown face on the Opposition side of the House having a part in drafting this law. He and the M\u0101ori members on the Government side should get with the plot. It is a brown face that will ensure this legislation passes into law\u2014and no credit goes to that person.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000212\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224029b198-a7b2-4eea-867c-79ef46cafeb9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225eb6ec17896a48ba9e81f8d41fb54577\u0022\u003EHon Dover Samuels\u003C/span\u003E: Where is the brown face in the National Party?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000213\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220bd5aa67-2f2b-4a13-a2b4-21a392396f11\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002287c5ce7b147e4c28babe9b26416693e9\u0022\u003EHon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU\u003C/span\u003E: The brown face I refer to does not sit on the Government side of the House. So, no matter how much the Labour M\u0101ori MPs puff out their chests, and pretend that this is their bill and that they have delivered a lot for M\u0101ori, it is not a brown face over there on the Government benches that has done that. In fact, it is Mr Peters. If Government members look in the mirror, they will see his image staring back at them. But of course it is no credit to Mr Peters that he has supported this bill. If this bill is good for M\u0101ori, why is it that Tariana Turia walked, and why is it that Nanaia Mahuta is still hedging her bets? She voted against the bill in the first reading, and she is still hedging her bets. So Government members should not puff up their chests and say this legislation is great for M\u0101ori. In fact, they should not even puff up their chests and say it is great for all New Zealanders, because there are uncertainties in it, and that is where the rub comes. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000214\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220bd5aa67-2f2b-4a13-a2b4-21a392396f11\u0022\u003EDr Cullen also wrongly stated that I have said that M\u0101ori are not getting enough. That is not a statement of mine. What I have commented on is that M\u0101ori are not getting the thing they wanted the most, which is due process of law and the right of all New Zealanders to go to the courts\u2014and that comes from a Government that for all but 3 of the last 70 years has enjoyed the overwhelming support of M\u0101ori, excluding me, of course. I am as keen as anyone to ensure that the rights of all New Zealanders to our foreshore and seabed are protected. Of course, balances have to be found. That is where we come to the object clause, clause 2A, which, on the face of it, sounds good. It states the object is: \u201Cto preserve the public foreshore and seabed in perpetuity as the common heritage of all New Zealanders in a way that enables the protection by the Crown of the public foreshore and seabed on behalf of all the people of New Zealand, including the protection of the association of wh\u0101nau, hap\u016B, and iwi with areas of the public foreshore and seabed.\u201D \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000215\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220bd5aa67-2f2b-4a13-a2b4-21a392396f11\u0022\u003EOn the face of it that it sounds good, but when we look into the detail of the bill we see that uncertainties remain. If the Minister in the chair will not clarify some of those uncertainties, then perhaps Winston Peters, who is actually the main person who is getting this bill through Parliament, should be sitting in the chair. The uncertainties are issues like these. When M\u0101ori go and get their customary territorial rights, what rights will they actually get? When the Labour Government says to New Zealanders that their rights of public access will be protected, how will those rights be balanced on the ground? How will they be balanced on the ground, when M\u0101ori have certain customary rights that will be defined, and then the Government also says public access will be guaranteed?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022 data-id=\u002233f71952ad5e4b7d9f768cfab08a97af\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000216\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002233f71952ad5e4b7d9f768cfab08a97af\u0022\u003ERt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader\u2014NZ First):\u003C/span\u003E Whatever Ng\u0101ti Wai had 2 years ago they have got today, and they will still have it this Friday when the Foreshore and Seabed Bill is passed. But does anybody remember the surplus land at Paraparaumu Airport, which was taken from the M\u0101ori people and then sold under a National Government? Did that Government offer the land back to the M\u0101ori people, who had a legal right of first option? No. What did the Government do? It sold the land for a pittance to one of its mates, denying the M\u0101ori people everything in that case. [Interruption] The member asks what that has to do with the bill. What it has to do with the bill is that National members should not come and tell us about the National Party\u2019s tutelage in so far as the M\u0101ori people are concerned. What has happened up north? All the Poor Knights Islands reserve was taken by a National Government off the M\u0101ori people.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000217\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221590cdf3399c4a498b511c341f115530\u0022\u003EHon Dr Nick Smith\u003C/span\u003E: Good reserve.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000218\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c22a38f37c79482090d0266990c5c849\u0022\u003ERt Hon WINSTON PETERS\u003C/span\u003E: The member says it is a good reserve. Right now, promoted by him as well, is a proposal for 16 times that area at Mimiwhangata\u2014and he would defend that. That area, which belongs to the M\u0101ori people there in terms of ancestral use, he would walk all over. But all of a sudden, the M\u0101ori people are meant to find some sanctuary in the National Party! \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000219\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E I remember that in 1993, and this is very apposite to the bill, at 11.30 one day\u2014I was not in the National Party caucus then, but I remember the circumstances very well\u2014in came Bill Birch and Jim Bolger, and they were going to give the M\u0101ori wardens in the tribal zones the right of arrest. There was no notice given of that to any other party, or even to the National Party. They were going to hijack the whole organisation. Now, somebody here in the Chamber must remember that. Oh, the National members are very quiet now. So what happened? That night on the Holmes show at 7 o\u2019clock, one National Party guy blew the whole thing wide open. And on the show later that night Jim Bolger came on and said the proposal had been dropped. That is the National Party. Those members rant and rave about M\u0101ori getting everything, when their whole background is to have done things for M\u0101ori that M\u0101ori should not have done for them, and not to do things for M\u0101ori that they should have done for them. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000220\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003EI can recall National winding up with $92 million of debt on M\u0101ori kiwifruit orchards, and when I said I would sue that Government for a failure to exercise a duty of care, the National members ran around the gallery, saying that I favoured M\u0101oris. I had a whole lot of legal opinions, and I said to Ruth Richardson we would sue that Government for the appalling way it had built that debt up over M\u0101ori kiwifruit farms. Did the National members say I was right? Oh, no! Did they say that the legal opinion I had was irrefutable? Oh, no! They just went around and tried to bag me. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000221\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227ede29c2185a45fbac71a00d717f9aaf\u0022\u003EHon Member\u003C/span\u003E: What\u2019s that got to do with the bill?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000222\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224217d07560f448219943f36b050e7cdc\u0022\u003ERt Hon WINSTON PETERS\u003C/span\u003E: What it has to do with the bill is this. The National members have never understood this bill. They have never understood the select committee process. They have never understood the fundamentals that they claim to preach\u2014one law, and Crown ownership. Oh, yes\u2014and here is the rub. They get up, talk about clause 2A, and want to know why wh\u0101nau, hap\u016B, and iwi appear in that object clause. Well, that is obvious. It is because M\u0101ori have a different perspective from the rest of the country, and it differs iwi by iwi. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000223\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228b0d72527d314087b7c0a51aa5f6a309\u0022\u003EHon Member\u003C/span\u003E: It\u2019s not obvious, at all.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000224\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224ba9b32040874344b51778a325847049\u0022\u003ERt Hon WINSTON PETERS\u003C/span\u003E: That is obvious to anybody who understands M\u0101ori. But then again, if one goes to \u014Crewa and makes a speech in which one says that M\u0101ori have no culture at all, then one will make the kind of fallacious mistake that those members keep on making. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000225\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003EClause 2A is in the bill because there are some people in this world who recognise that cultures are different in the way that they see things. People from different cultures can operate under the same law, but the standards by which they may approach a problem or an issue could be, in terms of their perspective, different. It is as simple as that. So why is the ACT party doing a triple somersault and a side twist, and trying to land on its feet? I heard Mr Prebble. He made much of that clause this morning, did he not, as if it was something incomprehensible that he could not understand. That is what he said\u2014he said that no court would understand it. Well, I tell members something. One could leave out the words \u201Cincluding the protection of the association of wh\u0101nau, hap\u016B, and iwi\u201D, but if one adds them in, it just demonstrates that one may understand that different people see things in different ways. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000226\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003EHowever, whilst I am at it, I will talk to the M\u0101ori Party and ask how many of its leadership have sold M\u0101ori land? What is the record on the sale of M\u0101ori land by the leadership of the M\u0101ori Party? Can that party say, like I can, that it has never sold an inch, ever? The M\u0101ori Party should not come here with a whole lot of people and preach about the M\u0101ori people and their heritage, when its background is ridden with people who have sold M\u0101ori land and, worse still, the people in its leadership have never been off the State\u2019s teat since they left school. They have never been privately employed; they have been on the State\u2019s teat since they left school. [Interruption]\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000227\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220ed9ad81-05c1-4171-80c6-24fa02cade42\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002279ea560dbacb47a48bf34394686ed6d7\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich)\u003C/span\u003E: I warn Mr Samuels for the last time.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022 data-id=\u00224f9f422403ba4d04a61ae281017bb91b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000228\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00224f9f422403ba4d04a61ae281017bb91b\u0022\u003EGERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader\u2014National):\u003C/span\u003E I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. That is his third warning. I just want to know what the process is. We notice that Mr Peters has had two calls, New Zealand First has had, I think, four\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000229\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002298cd6b1f00a54d45ac9eda7556ac0cf4\u0022\u003EOpposition Members\u003C/span\u003E: Three!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000230\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221ec60744af4b43b990baa450de85b97e\u0022\u003EGERRY BROWNLEE\u003C/span\u003E: I am sorry; I thought that that party had had more than that. I thought that party had more competent members. With no disrespect intended to Mr Prebble, I notice that he is now getting a second call. A number of our members want to make contributions on this part. After all, unlike the ACT party, we do represent constituencies and have a direct association with voters. Further, I would like to say that I intend to take a second call. I would like to have an assurance that the Committee, as we approach the second hour of debate on this particular part, will not suddenly be bombarded by requests for closure motions.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000231\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220ed9ad81-05c1-4171-80c6-24fa02cade42\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f65849f224bf4ed2860610c0bcbe709c\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you for raising that issue. I am quite conscious of it. All parties will have their opportunity to take part.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b0d8b0e0-3ece-4865-9145-5eb5983fc54c\u0022 data-id=\u00228f318dcdc7ee4cb2af547c2865881cb8\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000232\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b0d8b0e0-3ece-4865-9145-5eb5983fc54c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00228f318dcdc7ee4cb2af547c2865881cb8\u0022\u003EHon RICHARD PREBBLE (ACT):\u003C/span\u003E Let me make it quite clear to Gerry Brownlee that, as a list member, I represent constituents\u2014every New Zealander, both M\u0101ori and non-M\u0101ori\u2014and I intend speaking in that way.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000233\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b0d8b0e0-3ece-4865-9145-5eb5983fc54c\u0022\u003EI have to say to Mr Peters that his last contribution really sounded like that of an old man going back and talking about his past grievances. He is stuck in history, telling us all about what happened to him in the National Party caucus. He lost. He should get over it and start again. He was booted out, and he should move on.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000234\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b0d8b0e0-3ece-4865-9145-5eb5983fc54c\u0022\u003ELet me take up the matter that Mr Peters raised with the Committee: how can people say this bill is racist, and how can people say that M\u0101ori have lost everything and they have gained everything? I will take him through that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000235\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b0d8b0e0-3ece-4865-9145-5eb5983fc54c\u0022\u003ELet me first explain why the bill is racist, because Mr Peters\u2019 claim that M\u0101ori will next week have everything they had last week is simply not true. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000236\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224005279c389e4e948f68b4d108a3dc99\u0022\u003ERt Hon Winston Peters\u003C/span\u003E: It is.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000237\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b0d8b0e0-3ece-4865-9145-5eb5983fc54c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226129fb9676e34d1b9d22b1c8f352a6b1\u0022\u003EHon RICHARD PREBBLE\u003C/span\u003E: In this bill, I say to Mr Peters, no non-M\u0101ori lose any freehold right that they have over the foreshore; no non-M\u0101ori lose that. But the Court of Appeal said there may well be iwi in New Zealand who actually do own freehold foreshore. They lose that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000238\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225d7981384df24439905db3aa7f46dbf1\u0022\u003ERt Hon Winston Peters\u003C/span\u003E: No, they don\u2019t.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000239\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b0d8b0e0-3ece-4865-9145-5eb5983fc54c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002281ddf0ea97084445a5aebecc6c150e79\u0022\u003EHon RICHARD PREBBLE\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, they do. Under this bill, M\u0101ori\u2014and M\u0101ori alone\u2014lose that title, which they now have. The court does not create it; it just recognises it. The court does not create it; it says: \u201CNo, M\u0101ori own it.\u201D That is why the bill is racist\u2014because only M\u0101ori lose that property right under the bill. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000240\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022dad19081f91f4e179352c9969e5ef6b8\u0022\u003EHon Member\u003C/span\u003E: Tell that to the people of Matauri Bay.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000241\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b0d8b0e0-3ece-4865-9145-5eb5983fc54c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225dd7af4131744541ab4e9bf8231b95b2\u0022\u003EHon RICHARD PREBBLE\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you very much. The next point that I want to make is why people can say that M\u0101ori gain enormously under the bill. One has to look to Supplementary Order Paper 303, which came in so late that it is not even in the redline copy. It says that the actual title of the bill will be changed; part of the legislation will be called the Resource Management (Foreshore and Seabed) Amendment Act. Why is that? Because when we look through the bill we discover that under the Resource Management Act a whole lot of new rights have been created for M\u0101ori\u2014and only for M\u0101ori. They are not for anyone else; they are only for M\u0101ori. Yes, there will be some M\u0101ori who do well. If I might use Mr Peters\u2019 own colourful phrase when criticising the Treaty of Waitangi fisheries settlement\u2014he said that no ordinary M\u0101ori had seen a snapper, which was true\u2014under this Resource Management (Foreshore and Seabed) Amendment Bill, no ordinary M\u0101ori will get a pipi, but the \u201CBrowntable\u201D, to use another of his colourful phrases, will do well under it. For the people who have made a fortune out of the grievance industry, this bill is a new gold mine. The lawyers, the accountants, and the white-shoe brigade will do well.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000242\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b0d8b0e0-3ece-4865-9145-5eb5983fc54c\u0022\u003EThat is why there is the irony that M\u0101ori lose under this bill; they alone lose their property rights. That is why the bill is deeply racist and a disgrace to this Parliament. How on earth can we be starting this century with racist legislation that removes property rights, but only from one race in this nation? That is a disgrace! I cannot understand how the great Labour Government could possibly be introducing such a bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000243\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b0d8b0e0-3ece-4865-9145-5eb5983fc54c\u0022\u003EThen it goes and introduces something that my friend Mr Shirley calls socialism, and that is what it is. There is a new saying of socialists: one does not have to actually own it\u2014just regulate it. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000244\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219386ba0-5a6e-485e-abc0-5a3128b4e1f6\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229a6d062f4cdd403a9ca15eefff56ed06\u0022\u003EHon Ken Shirley\u003C/span\u003E: Control it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000245\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b0d8b0e0-3ece-4865-9145-5eb5983fc54c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022da43c7ee5c614329a3d82b5580de5694\u0022\u003EHon RICHARD PREBBLE\u003C/span\u003E: This bill does hand over control, but not to all M\u0101ori\u2014only to those M\u0101ori whose activities we have already seen on the Treaty of Waitangi settlements, on the Treaty of Waitangi gravy train. The gravy train has just been turned into an express by this bill. This bill will cause legal uncertainty, and there will be case after case. This bill actually solves nothing; it makes things far worse.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022022cfe6b-bae4-4028-b68a-ccffb4269442\u0022 data-id=\u0022eb3127c0f541417ca550976358338a51\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000246\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022022cfe6b-bae4-4028-b68a-ccffb4269442\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022eb3127c0f541417ca550976358338a51\u0022\u003EHon MARGARET WILSON (Attorney-General):\u003C/span\u003E I rise to make a clarification, in the light of the previous member\u2019s presentation of the bill as being racist on the grounds that no non-M\u0101ori loses private property rights. It is true that no M\u0101ori, or non-M\u0101ori, who has private property rights loses them under the bill, so it is not discriminatory in that sense. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000247\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b0d8b0e0-3ece-4865-9145-5eb5983fc54c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224d65cfd1fa8e4dd88c4c0fe0e7be091a\u0022\u003EHon Richard Prebble\u003C/span\u003E: Rubbish!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000248\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022022cfe6b-bae4-4028-b68a-ccffb4269442\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229d88ababdd754fe69e6e2be3bd50a283\u0022\u003EHon MARGARET WILSON\u003C/span\u003E: If the member would just bear with me for one second, so that we can go through\u2014as he has been kind enough to raise it\u2014what the Court of Appeal actually said, and what it was deciding. The Court of Appeal was deciding whether there should be a process for determination by the M\u0101ori Land Court of a common law customary title. At common law, those titles are not alienable; they are not fee simple titles. It is true, however, that the only jurisdiction that the M\u0101ori Land Court has is under the Te Ture Whenua Maori Act, which does provide for fee simple title, but not for a customary common law title. Therein lay the dilemma, because when that Act was enacted, there was no intention that it should cover wetland\u2014only dry land.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022a83ea07a-806c-45ad-95bb-eb2c481cd0e2\u0022 data-id=\u0022180e0de7ef61439583b0f6c281de819b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000249\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a83ea07a-806c-45ad-95bb-eb2c481cd0e2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022180e0de7ef61439583b0f6c281de819b\u0022\u003EHon TONY RYALL (National\u2014Bay Of Plenty):\u003C/span\u003E I would like to speak to the various purposes of this bill, and just observe that there are many, many contradictions, confusions, and conundrums in this bill, which will be causing never-ending problems for Parliament in the years to come.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000250\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a83ea07a-806c-45ad-95bb-eb2c481cd0e2\u0022\u003EThe issue with the legislation is this: the problems will not be seen next week, they will not be seen before Christmas, and they will not be seen next year; but, 2 or 3 years later, the problems caused by this legislation will be seen at Mount Maunganui, Papamoa, Maket\u016B, and throughout the rest of this country. New Zealanders will ask why Winston Peters travelled up and down the country telling the people of New Zealand that this legislation was OK. Government members must be laughing all the way back to their offices. They have brought in this legislation and Winston Peters is going to sell it for them. He is going to lose whatever shreds of credibility he has left, when he has to go around New Zealand defending this legislation. He is the man the Government is looking to to sell this legislation. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000251\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002204ed8007-24ee-45fb-ab8e-8573da79b238\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c9eb955bbcba4090a857f7f4e83267b0\u0022\u003EMarc Alexander\u003C/span\u003E: The poodle.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000252\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a83ea07a-806c-45ad-95bb-eb2c481cd0e2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002283e8af68560b469fb62704f8a9032f71\u0022\u003EHon TONY RYALL\u003C/span\u003E: No, Winston Peters could never be described as a poodle. This bill will haunt Parliament in generations to come. Only a few of us in this Chamber will still be here when Parliament has to wipe this legislation and start again. This legislation is going to be a weeping sore in this country in generations to come, because it lays nothing but confusion and division before the people of this country.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000253\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a83ea07a-806c-45ad-95bb-eb2c481cd0e2\u0022\u003EThis Government cannot answer basic questions like this: if we can have a foreshore and seabed reserve, and a marine reserve, and an aquamarine management area, and a m\u0101taitai and a tai\u0101pure, how do they all fit with each other? If we have a foreshore and seabed reserve, can we also have a marine reserve? Mr Peters said that we cannot. The officials say that we can. That tells us we will have no end of confusion over who runs these things. It is fine for a few city members to come down to the Chamber and argue why we should have this divisive legislation, but for those of us who represent coastal New Zealand, who are at the forefront of where the conflicts will be, I want to tell this Government that this bill is a recipe for disaster and division. And the problems will not be seen in the next couple of years. It is in the next few years that people will see them. It is in 2, 3, or 4 years\u2019 time that the conflicts and the division will come forward.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000254\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a83ea07a-806c-45ad-95bb-eb2c481cd0e2\u0022\u003EThey will come forward for this reason: when people are given rights to exercise control, they will eventually want to exercise those rights. It may not happen tomorrow, but it will happen. What that will mean is that regardless\u2014[Interruption] Government members may laugh, but I say to Mr Fairbrother that he will not be here when Parliament has to deal with the mess that this Government and the New Zealand First Party are leaving this country. Mr Peters is being used by this Government to try to sell to this country what is a divisive and ineffective policy. If Mr Peters has read this bill as well as he read his Cabinet papers, then I am worried. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002285712e72-b25f-4850-b4d9-90035064fde3\u0022 data-id=\u0022be60ede1d9374764b6bd319ec2596827\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000255\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002285712e72-b25f-4850-b4d9-90035064fde3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022be60ede1d9374764b6bd319ec2596827\u0022\u003ENANDOR TANCZOS (Green):\u003C/span\u003E I am ashamed to be witnessing what is happening in this Parliament today. What we are seeing is a new raupatu\u2014a new confiscation\u2014in this Parliament, in the year 2004. Government members can argue about it, trying to convince themselves and the rest of the country that that is not what is going on, but this bill is nothing other than a confiscation of M\u0101ori property rights. I find it curious that at a time when we are spending hundreds of millions of dollars trying to patch up injustices from the past, trying to address ongoing suffering and grievance arising from confiscations of the past, we are about to perpetuate the same thing in Parliament today. I am ashamed to see that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000256\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002285712e72-b25f-4850-b4d9-90035064fde3\u0022\u003EI do not doubt that there are members on the Government side who also feel shame at what is going on. I find it curious when I hear intelligent members of the Government talking about this measure\u2014people like John Tamihere, who has fronted the Government campaign on this issue\u2014and saying it is not taking away rights from M\u0101ori. I fail to understand how the member can say that. I heard Russell Fairbrother, who chaired the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee, talking about his mokopuna last night, and I challenge him to think about the legacy he is leaving for his descendants when it comes to this bill\u2014the legacy that he and this Government are leaving.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000257\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002285712e72-b25f-4850-b4d9-90035064fde3\u0022\u003EI know that this bill is passing with the support of New Zealand First. I do not doubt that some New Zealand First members also feel ashamed of what is happening today, although we would not know it, because most of them, clearly, are not allowed to speak on this bill, and are leaving it to only Winston Peters and Dail Jones to do so. I debated on Marae with Winston Peters on this very issue, and I challenged his position on this\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000258\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229e75544494b3480eae29b8bb17b84232\u0022\u003ERt Hon Winston Peters\u003C/span\u003E: Where?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000259\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002285712e72-b25f-4850-b4d9-90035064fde3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d78ced95df884b8d80c9b9f6b8311a89\u0022\u003ENANDOR TANCZOS\u003C/span\u003E: On the Marae programme. Maybe Mr Peters does not remember, but if he checks the video he will see it there. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000260\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022caa17bf0328047d98e221be00ac5d8c3\u0022\u003ERt Hon Winston Peters\u003C/span\u003E: Which one?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000261\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002285712e72-b25f-4850-b4d9-90035064fde3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022841984a5fd9742168bfc0e1aa8c45962\u0022\u003ENANDOR TANCZOS\u003C/span\u003E: He tried to deny it on M\u0101ori television, but his own website showed that the New Zealand First position was to confiscate not only foreshore and seabed but waterways, mountains, and forests, as well. Of course he tried to deny it on M\u0101ori television, but his own website showed it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000262\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002285712e72-b25f-4850-b4d9-90035064fde3\u0022\u003EIt is telling that New Zealand First put Dail Jones in charge of negotiating this issue. Dail Jones is a man who follows the Justice Prendergast interpretation of the treaty. He believes that the treaty is a nullity. How could New Zealand First put him in charge of negotiating the New Zealand First position on this bill?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000263\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002285712e72-b25f-4850-b4d9-90035064fde3\u0022\u003EThe Government has ended up relying on New Zealand First because it has got itself in a very difficult position with its knee-jerk overreaction to the finding of the Court of Appeal. It is true, as Dover Samuels has said, that there has been a lot of misinformation about what the Court of Appeal said. It did not say that M\u0101ori own all the foreshore and seabed, but that does not take away from the power of what it actually did say. What it said was that the Government, the Crown in general, did not own the foreshore and seabed, and that M\u0101ori could go to court to prove their customary ownership. The Court of Appeal stated that that would be difficult to prove, and it implied that there would not be many places in the country that would be affected, but it recognised that M\u0101ori had that right. But the Government, for its political advantage, chose to rark up P\u0101keh\u0101 fear about M\u0101ori closing off access to the beaches. It knew that was wrong and false, but it chose to do it for political advantage.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000264\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002285712e72-b25f-4850-b4d9-90035064fde3\u0022\u003EThe really interesting thing is that since the introduction of the bill I have come across at least one example of a M\u0101ori landowner who previously, from goodwill, had been totally happy to allow general access to the beach that that person\u2019s land adjoined, but who is now closing it off because of anger and disgust at what the Government is doing with this bill. That is a shame on the House, and it shows that the Government is setting back relationships between M\u0101ori and P\u0101keh\u0101, and other New Zealanders, considerably by the passage of the bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000265\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002285712e72-b25f-4850-b4d9-90035064fde3\u0022\u003EIt is not about going to the beach, or access for a beach barbecue. The areas that those kinds of things are concerned with are very unlikely to be covered by court recognition of customary ownership, because of the conditions of exclusive and uninterrupted use. It is not about M\u0101ori denying P\u0101keh\u0101 access to the beach for a barbecue; it is about the fact that the Government does not want M\u0101ori to have control. This bill is about putting control back into the hands of local councils. The Government does not want M\u0101ori to have real power in relation to these issues, particularly when it comes to commercial activity. It especially does not want M\u0101ori to have any kind of veto right, because it knows that one of the strongest voices for environmental protection is tangata whenua.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00226de7f1d9-7be9-468a-b27c-06000416b96a\u0022 data-id=\u0022f7b08cd4348f4b60b105cbb175000e9c\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000266\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226de7f1d9-7be9-468a-b27c-06000416b96a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022f7b08cd4348f4b60b105cbb175000e9c\u0022\u003EJOHN TAMIHERE (Labour\u2014Tamaki Makaurau):\u003C/span\u003E I have listened with interest to a number of contributions in the Committee today. The difficulty that a number of members have in getting their minds round this legislation comes from their inability to understand the key cultural drivers behind M\u0101ori thinking, so I want to express those in regard to their application to Part 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000267\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226de7f1d9-7be9-468a-b27c-06000416b96a\u0022\u003EAt no time have M\u0101ori ever wanted ownership in the sense of freehold title, fee simple title. When we talk about rangatiratanga, kaiwhakahaeretanga, and matters of kaitiakitanga and the like, we do not talk about the type of fee simple, freehold title system that has been implemented under this and a whole range of Governments. We do not talk of that. At no time have our people ever wanted the level of ownership expressed here. This legislation acknowledges and recognises that. It recognises the fact that we are stewards and guardians. It recognises the fact that those rights have been tuku to us from our ancestors. It recognises the fact that in no circumstances should we be able to alienate those and lose our customary heritage that has been handed to us.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000268\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226de7f1d9-7be9-468a-b27c-06000416b96a\u0022\u003EWe were faced with the challenge of having to encapsulate our cultural requirements, for the very first time, in a piece of legislation. I say to the Committee that I commend the legislation to it, because it is the first attempt at writing that manual\u2014in actually evidencing M\u0101ori customary rights. It is the first attempt on this scale ever conducted by a Parliament in this country. We are doing the best we possibly can in that regard.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000269\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226de7f1d9-7be9-468a-b27c-06000416b96a\u0022\u003EThe next point is about the way in which the law must work. Much ado has been made about the legislation being racist. It is not racist legislation, on the basis of\u2014solely\u2014the law. One cannot rock up to Parliament, as the Hon Ken Shirley or Gerry Brownlee have said, and say that this legislation is racist because it deals only with M\u0101ori. It is legislation that deals with M\u0101ori because M\u0101ori solely have the rights. If we take away those rights and walk across them, we destroy the whole constitution. We would not have law; we would not have order. There is a difference between law, order, and justice, and M\u0101ori have the right of equality of opportunity before the law, under article 3 of the Treaty of Waitangi. M\u0101ori have a right to good governance, under article 1 of the treaty. M\u0101ori have a right to the retention of our cultural processes, as endorsed and encompassed within this legislation, under article 2 of the treaty. So for the very first time in this country we are starting to see the merging and the converging of our great Waitangi Tribunal jurisprudence, on the one hand, and our constitutional bedrock, on the other, based on the common law. We walk across those at our own peril.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000270\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226de7f1d9-7be9-468a-b27c-06000416b96a\u0022\u003EThe Opposition does that. Opposition members confuse this very simple process, and in trying to confuse it are confusing the rights that M\u0101ori have\u2014which are different rights, just as the Fens people in Great Britain, and a whole range of other indigenous folk, have different rights\u2014which are bonded in our constitution of the common law. The fact that M\u0101ori have those rights in a larger sense of the word is just a fact of history. It is a fact of the settlement and it is a fact of the law. We either uphold the law in this country, or we do not. The foreshore and the seabed\u2014[Interruption] It is a quote from hell, I tell the member; the stench on him will be pungent in the next few months, I can assure him\u2014particularly from the allegations he has made. I move to more important matters on the foreshore and seabed.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000271\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002227f8388ca0bd4a30aff75e0c6759b157\u0022\u003EGerry Brownlee\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I am not sure whether you were listening to that tract of the former Minister\u2019s speech, but I believe that what he actually did was issue a threat across the Chamber, which is quite unparliamentary, and he should be required to either explain himself or withdraw and apologise.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000272\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c437bda8-4741-4ac5-89ab-b0818e1ab9fa\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ff34d5a8d919486a90bda6324741068b\u0022\u003EDarren Hughes\u003C/span\u003E: I did not take that inference from what the member for Tamaki Makaurau said, at all. He talked about the future, in the same way the Hon Tony Ryall talked in his address about the future political fortunes of people in this House. Mr Tamihere was doing the same. There is a lot of sensitivity on the other side of the Chamber.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000273\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002245206ebfa791407b9e9fda91e1a0bceb\u0022\u003EGerry Brownlee\u003C/span\u003E: There should be recognition that when a member makes those sorts of comments there is clearly a sinister aspect behind them. I am sorry but there is. It does not matter how much the gender-confused Labour junior whip wants to titter away there; that remains a fact.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000274\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220ed9ad81-05c1-4171-80c6-24fa02cade42\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224d5d523e979c433c9324c286fdbb0f00\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich)\u003C/span\u003E: The member should stick to the point of order.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000275\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c34f715fe10f42288fffb423e1e9f484\u0022\u003EGerry Brownlee\u003C/span\u003E: I think Mr Tamihere should be required to explain himself, or to withdraw. He will not apologise\u2014that would be too much to expect of him\u2014but perhaps he could at least withdraw the remark.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000276\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220ed9ad81-05c1-4171-80c6-24fa02cade42\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022005440b4b2e94f44bf952aa274a09682\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich)\u003C/span\u003E: I thank the member for all the options he offered me. I heard what Mr Tamihere said. He moved on very quickly from it, but if you object to it, I ask Mr Tamihere to withdraw only.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000277\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226de7f1d9-7be9-468a-b27c-06000416b96a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d13adfd3ffda4baab04fe2648812b1b2\u0022\u003EJOHN TAMIHERE\u003C/span\u003E: I withdraw. I bring the Committee\u2019s attention back to new clause 2A, \u201CObject\u201D. More particularly, I indicate that the Government has actually affirmed the \u201Cprotection of the association of wh\u0101nau, hap\u016B, and iwi with areas of the public foreshore and seabed.\u201D, which is to be cemented into the object of the bill. Secondly, as a reinforcement of that, new clause 3(b) provides for the \u201Crecognition and protection of ongoing customary rights to undertake or engage in activities, uses, or practices in areas of the public foreshore and seabed;\u201D.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022 data-id=\u0022e0efe367864b4045a382a62cc1bf435b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000278\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022e0efe367864b4045a382a62cc1bf435b\u0022\u003EGERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader\u2014National):\u003C/span\u003E The previous speaker made a great plea on behalf of M\u0101ori for their rights to be recognised. We teased a lot of those issues out with Mr McHugh, who is recognised as an expert on those matters. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000279\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c2dfe169-d946-4f87-8d43-0bcdb7d8bebc\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002210f92850b8b94f78b4dc7803dc859917\u0022\u003ETariana Turia\u003C/span\u003E: Is he a M\u0101ori expert?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000280\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229a56b349d3b54852b84db876395e144c\u0022\u003EGERRY BROWNLEE\u003C/span\u003E: There was an interjection there that was worth recording, but I did not hear it. Mr McHugh claims to be an expert on those matters. He was brought before the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee to give us the benefit of his expertise, and one of the most interesting things, I think, that we got out of him in the 3-odd hours that we listened to his interesting view on how those things are constructed within the law was the acceptance that anything to do with a customary law title is understood by us only in the context of the British common law. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000281\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003EOne of the things that fascinates me about all of this is that if M\u0101ori have those rights and claim them, why do they need to have them affirmed in the law in this way if, in fact, there is not some intention to constrain those rights? That is the contradiction in the Labour Party\u2019s argument. M\u0101ori member after M\u0101ori member stands up and says what a great thing they have done for their people. Well, that is just not right. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000282\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003EOn the other side of it is my strong objection that, as somebody who is from the fifth generation of his family in this country, I continue to be told that I will never be the same in this country as someone who is M\u0101ori. So I ask myself what the purpose is of this particular bill. It does not satisfy M\u0101ori, it does not satisfy the people I represent, and it does not show much direction for the future. Mr Prebble is absolutely right when he says that in new clause 2A, as soon as the qualification is expressed that is put in there in the words \u201Cincluding the protection of the association of wh\u0101nau, hap\u016B, and iwi with areas of the public foreshore and seabed.\u201D, it separates out\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000283\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221a705910-5320-43bf-aa82-027a761519f6\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ef0713fe139447a9aa52bbac01b96e2b\u0022\u003ERussell Fairbrother\u003C/span\u003E: It is inclusive.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000284\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e9b99e66a0cb4c35a6353838d529b4f8\u0022\u003EGERRY BROWNLEE\u003C/span\u003E: It would be inclusive if that sentence stopped at the words \u201Cthe common heritage of all New Zealanders\u201D. That would be the end of it. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000285\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003EA whole lot of questions are raised in this newly renamed bill, and they will not get the sort of scrutiny or public attention that they deserve. For example, if we get very practical, some of them would be the questions that the Hon Dr Nick Smith asked. How can we create new reserves inside reserves and over areas where other arrangements are in place? What will be the relationship between the Minister of Fisheries, the Minister of Conservation, and the Minister of M\u0101ori Affairs under the new arrangements? The beneficial owner\u2014if one likes, the nominal owner\u2014of the foreshore and seabed under this bill will be the Hon Chris Carter. What will happen when it comes to fisheries legislation or regulation? Will he negotiate with Parekura Horomia, or will he negotiate with the Minister of Fisheries, the Hon David Benson-Pope?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000286\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221a705910-5320-43bf-aa82-027a761519f6\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022096bcdcfad5e489a812c96d3a1f5d510\u0022\u003ERussell Fairbrother\u003C/span\u003E: What\u2019s this got to do with it?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000287\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022429f50f913e044c48f65acd081f2a461\u0022\u003EGERRY BROWNLEE\u003C/span\u003E: That is exactly the sort of confusion that has been put in this bill\u2014there is total confusion in the bill. I do not think anybody on the Government benches has worked out at this stage how difficult it will be to achieve the reserves for M\u0101ori. That will be very difficult. That is why we know that there is a clause in the first part that talks about the requirement, when a reserve is not able to be put in place, that the Government must then engage in looking for redress. That means getting out the chequebook.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00224029b198-a7b2-4eea-867c-79ef46cafeb9\u0022 data-id=\u0022bacddaec6e99458ab157a5003239ee78\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000288\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224029b198-a7b2-4eea-867c-79ef46cafeb9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022bacddaec6e99458ab157a5003239ee78\u0022\u003EHon DOVER SAMUELS (Minister of State):\u003C/span\u003E Once again I say this is certainly an interesting debate. It is interesting to hear the deputy leader of the National Party say very clearly to the people of this nation why the National Party does not support this bill. Now we are getting to the nitty-gritty. All the rain-dancing around the bill is peripheral to the real crux of the matter. Now we have a bit of horsepower in terms of the bill when National asks why it should support the bill and why it should have to recognise M\u0101ori customary right. Therein lies the issue. Why do we have to recognise M\u0101ori customary right? I want to repeat again\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000289\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a3f491379a94460f92f25b65b28025e0\u0022\u003EGerry Brownlee\u003C/span\u003E: Mr Chairperson. I seek leave of the Committee to repeat my speech, because quite clearly Dover Samuels was not listening to it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000290\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220ed9ad81-05c1-4171-80c6-24fa02cade42\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002203119dc83e684273bc8a5d70336a1ab8\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich)\u003C/span\u003E: Leave has been sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is objection.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000291\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224029b198-a7b2-4eea-867c-79ef46cafeb9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022647b89a10db5450fa19700940894d59d\u0022\u003EHon DOVER SAMUELS\u003C/span\u003E: I just want to repeat again what my experience, and the experience of my people, has been. The fact is that over years and years\u2014over generations\u2014the customary rights of my people have never been recognised in the law. It is as simple as that. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000292\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224029b198-a7b2-4eea-867c-79ef46cafeb9\u0022\u003EIt is absurd to suggest that M\u0101ori customary right does not need to recognised. To those people who say that when they get back into power they will repeal this legislation, I say God help the nation if they ever do. I tell those people that legislation will not repeal what is inherently that of M\u0101ori, the indigenous people of this nation. M\u0101ori are entitled to have their customary rights recognised, and this legislation spells that out very clearly. Let me say very clearly to the Opposition members that I have had no access, and neither have the generations of my forebears, to actually even go to the court to have our customary rights recognised. This bill provides access for our people not only to obtain a customary right order but to go to the High Court and get recognition of a territorial customary right\u2014in fact, an aboriginal title. That is unprecedented in the history of this nation. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000293\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224029b198-a7b2-4eea-867c-79ef46cafeb9\u0022\u003EI say again to the people of this country, both M\u0101ori and P\u0101keh\u0101, that my mokopuna and their mokopuna will stand side by side on the foreshore of this nation\u2014our mokupuna, both M\u0101ori and P\u0101keh\u0101\u2014and look towards the future. Under this legislation future generations of our people will stand side by side, proud to be New Zealanders. They will recognise their different origins, but will be proud to stand together on the beach. I say \u201CMerry Christmas\u201D to the people of this nation; it is not too far away. M\u0101ori and P\u0101keh\u0101 will be able to go down to the beach, and nothing will be changed. They will be able to have their barbecues. Even Gerry Brownlee will be able to go down there with his bikini and try to get a suntan. Even the deputy leader of the National Party will be able to put on his swimming togs, go down to the beach, put a bit of slip-slop on\u2014a bit of oil\u2014and try to turn the same colour as my colleague Parekura Horomia. Nothing will change, but God help them if they have any observers. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000294\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224029b198-a7b2-4eea-867c-79ef46cafeb9\u0022\u003EI am here to tell the truth, not to tell a bunch of lies. New Zealanders will be able to go down to the beach and do the things that they have always done.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000295\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ca14e4120673478791ff7289a0c81c0f\u0022\u003EHon Dr Nick Smith\u003C/span\u003E: Not true.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000296\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224029b198-a7b2-4eea-867c-79ef46cafeb9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b5c94920ef094fd293a3e34d09ddf148\u0022\u003EHon DOVER SAMUELS\u003C/span\u003E: Who is the apparition who made a comment? I cannot understand who he is. M\u0101ori will be able to go down to the beach and, I repeat, pick their pipis, dive for their tuatuas, go to their favourite rock, go snapper fishing, and do all the things that they have been doing in the past. The members who have got up and said that people will not be able to do so are a bunch of liars. They have not told the truth outside this Parliament, because this bill does not change anything, except by recognising the rights of our people. I come back and say again that I have heard claptrap from the parties on the Opposition side of the Chamber. I can understand the Green members talking like that. They are hallucinating; they cannot help it. They smoke too much psychedelic p\u016Bh\u0101, so I can understand that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000297\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002261af1a90b53a4c8d927adb5c84e3def8\u0022\u003EMetiria Turei\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I take personal offence to the description of the Green members as hallucinating. I ask the member to withdraw and apologise.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000298\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002270fa4cbd-9380-4916-9f2a-78da059d220e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f84305be74c04b25850c4be6fe55aec0\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson)\u003C/span\u003E: I heard that ruling this morning. The member will withdraw and apologise.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000299\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224029b198-a7b2-4eea-867c-79ef46cafeb9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022aab4ec9c7f214c9fbdd7f990f350e6bb\u0022\u003EHon DOVER SAMUELS\u003C/span\u003E: I withdraw and apologise. I am just trying to make the point that groups of people out there spin untruths to our people. I appreciate what the Rt Hon Winston Peters said. That is politics, but sometimes one actually has to tell the truth. I go out there and tell the truth.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00221c818ce2-6ca3-4c4a-9e6a-2e3a67d070e1\u0022 data-id=\u0022e0f39f8aa144459097c9658a41aa8cdf\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000300\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221c818ce2-6ca3-4c4a-9e6a-2e3a67d070e1\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022e0f39f8aa144459097c9658a41aa8cdf\u0022\u003ESHANE ARDERN (National\u2014Taranaki-King Country):\u003C/span\u003E I have been seeking this call since about 10 past 9, so I intend to use my 5 minutes very wisely. At the outset when MMP was introduced I could see only one good thing about it, which was that for the first time it brought to this Parliament about the right number of M\u0101ori, in terms of the population represented. I think that is very good, and it should be upheld. That is the only good thing I can see about MMP, and here are the bad things.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221c818ce2-6ca3-4c4a-9e6a-2e3a67d070e1\u0022\u003E Today the Government, aided and abetted by New Zealand First, is passing legislation that has tried to please all the people. There is an old clich\u00E9 that goes: \u201CYou can please some of the people some of the time, but you can\u2019t please all the people all the time.\u201D This socialist Government has done that, helped by New Zealand First\u2014which, I hasten to add, brought more M\u0101ori members into Parliament than the Labour Party did. Labour has had a proud history of association with the M\u0101ori people through the R\u0101tana Church. That proud record was broken by the New Zealand First members, who swept it to one side. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000302\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221c818ce2-6ca3-4c4a-9e6a-2e3a67d070e1\u0022\u003EToday New Zealand First is aiding and abetting a socialist Government to pass legislation that is divisive. This legislation will bring about only divisive outcomes. There is no other way of looking at it. The M\u0101ori members over there on the Government benches have made some fine contributions to the debate, but they are muddled. If any more of them jump out of the waka, it will tip over. That is what will happen here. A Cabinet Minister and one well-known M\u0101ori family have already jumped out of the waka. If any more people jump out, the waka will tip over. Even New Zealand First will not be able to help them. We have here today something that is very divisive. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000303\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221c818ce2-6ca3-4c4a-9e6a-2e3a67d070e1\u0022\u003EThis legislation has been described as racist. That is a very strong word\u2014it is an awful word. Racism is awful. It is up there with hate, and I hate it. I hate racism. I have seen it, I have experienced it, and it is awful. It is something we should never ever tolerate\u2014not for a moment. But racism is what is being inflicted by those who would normally oppose it\u2014that is what is happening. I say to the Minister in the chair, Damien O\u2019Connor, that he should get the Attorney-General to explain to the M\u0101ori members of the Labour caucus why she did not let the issue of the foreshore and seabed go through the due court process. Why did the Attorney-General step in and say to M\u0101ori that although we have laws in this land and allow things to go through the court process, that is not the case for M\u0101ori. Because of Margaret Wilson\u2019s loony-left activists in the M\u0101ori Land Court\u2014her hand-chosen loony-left activists\u2014she would not let M\u0101ori take the issue through the court process. Why not? That is what I ask Government members. I ask Mr Fairbrother, the chairperson of the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee, a lawyer who understands the detail of that, to explain why the issue was not allowed to go through the court process. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000304\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221c818ce2-6ca3-4c4a-9e6a-2e3a67d070e1\u0022\u003EI can understand the reasons that would have been given, and the debates and the arguments that would have gone on in the caucus, but I will not and cannot understand how the Labour Party, with its proud history of association with the R\u0101tana Church and with the support from M\u0101ori that it has always enjoyed, could do that to its own voters. That is beyond comprehension, and no Minister has stood in this Chamber so far and told us why the Government would not let that process take place\u2014other than, of course, the fact that the court is stacked with Labour\u2019s own loony-left activists. That is the only explanation we can see. I say to the members who have stood up and said this legislation will be good for M\u0101ori that it will not be. There is a well-documented history that M\u0101ori have not been well served by Labour. That is the reality. More has been done for M\u0101ori by National, and over a very long period of time, than by Labour. All that this legislation really is about is a back-door amendment to the Resource Management Act. This whole problem came about, as Mr Fairbrother well knows, when that Act overlooked what had been prescribed in law under previous Acts like the harbour boards Act, and other such Acts. That is all it is\u2014and what does it do? This legislation brings about a opportunity for M\u0101ori and non-M\u0101ori to stand apart in the eyes of the law. That is what it does, and it does not matter how much the Hon Dover Samuels and others stand up and talk about M\u0101ori culture.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022 data-id=\u0022b1ffeef9e777419b8eb7d7a11b6019a0\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000305\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b1ffeef9e777419b8eb7d7a11b6019a0\u0022\u003ERt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader\u2014NZ First):\u003C/span\u003E I remind Shane Ardern that there is an old saying that goes like this: \u201CYou can fool some of the people most of the time, and you can fool most of the people some of the time, but you can\u2019t fool all the people all the time.\u201D He raised the issue of the Resource Management Act. Who passed the Resource Management Act? It was his predecessor when he was an electorate chairman.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000306\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219386ba0-5a6e-485e-abc0-5a3128b4e1f6\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b36ff1387dbb461f82c53bdf662d36ba\u0022\u003EHon Ken Shirley\u003C/span\u003E: And when you were in Cabinet.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000307\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e47e34ff2de14c5da88779adc211e025\u0022\u003ERt Hon WINSTON PETERS\u003C/span\u003E: No, no. It is like striking a nerve. The National Party ought to be reminded that noise and bombast is no substitute for debate and analysis. Gerry Brownlee wanted to know why there were two bills. He was on the select committee, yet he got up and asked everyone else why there were two bills. There have been since day one, but he does not know. So it gets worse. The real issue with regard to this debate today and yesterday, is this: where on earth is the great communicator? This should have been the day he had a field day. This is his issue. This is his time. This is his chance. So where is the great communicator? Where is the great debater?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000308\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002270fa4cbd-9380-4916-9f2a-78da059d220e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a929ae4d002a497384dcd07d39aaf196\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson)\u003C/span\u003E: The member will speak to the bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000309\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229bae1625870e4b698f302fced64da2ee\u0022\u003EGerry Brownlee\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000310\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002270fa4cbd-9380-4916-9f2a-78da059d220e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002278c5842f021348eaba0928c4420b986a\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson)\u003C/span\u003E: The matter has been dealt with.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000311\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022bcad385a15c644e1b41956a761314434\u0022\u003EGerry Brownlee\u003C/span\u003E: I just want to make it clear that the great communicator, the Prime Minister, Helen Clark, is swanning around the country looking for another photo opportunity.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000312\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002270fa4cbd-9380-4916-9f2a-78da059d220e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227dca6df804854f609653406f1414900d\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson)\u003C/span\u003E: The member has been here a long time. I suggest that he look at Speaker\u2019s ruling 23/7.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000313\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229757b47ca22d4b41b049b3907e1fc10d\u0022\u003ERt Hon WINSTON PETERS\u003C/span\u003E: I have to admit that if I were out there in radioland or if I were in the gallery, I would be saying to myself: \u201CSurely this has to be the day when the great communicator sheets home his point.\u201D But, of course, all he does is copy New Zealand First. That is why we do not understand why he is not backing us on this bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000314\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002270fa4cbd-9380-4916-9f2a-78da059d220e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022da5602df45724871ba69301447d02ce2\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson)\u003C/span\u003E: The member will speak to the bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000315\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223103e8a475d549ccb2b4c17cb018e9d3\u0022\u003ERt Hon WINSTON PETERS\u003C/span\u003E: I am getting to it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000316\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022553cdd4141cd4ea884d32b6eadc15904\u0022\u003EDail Jones\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. This debate is wide ranging. The purpose clause includes ownership of the foreshore and the seabed, and everything that is in the bill. So the member is perfectly entitled to make the comments he is making. They are consistent with the bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000317\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002270fa4cbd-9380-4916-9f2a-78da059d220e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f64578f6f55e4002848e28896657c4df\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson)\u003C/span\u003E: The member said he is getting to the bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000318\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022559f0ba9fa42428e8c2b9bbdf1cb0da2\u0022\u003ERt Hon WINSTON PETERS\u003C/span\u003E: I am getting to it, but I should make this point. On Saturday he did not know whether National would be part of the committee that will consider the constitution, but he followed our lead, and now he is out. So will Rodney Hide be, shortly. They do not know what they are doing. They just go around copying another party that does know what it is doing. I ask the National Party this: which port authority is complaining now?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000319\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022cb3e63355d464d49b9d78ec64cfb2af1\u0022\u003EHon Dr Nick Smith\u003C/span\u003E: Port Nelson.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000320\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022478724719e924e909c92490eb86b36f5\u0022\u003ERt Hon WINSTON PETERS\u003C/span\u003E: Oh, I see. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000321\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219386ba0-5a6e-485e-abc0-5a3128b4e1f6\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022759a06d3bbe8405689126a7922c596da\u0022\u003EHon Ken Shirley\u003C/span\u003E: Ports of Nelson.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000322\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220903068beb844ceb9b0df59f3abe1f5d\u0022\u003ERt Hon WINSTON PETERS\u003C/span\u003E: Oh, ports of Nelson are complaining. About what? In Whangarei, Auckland, the Bay of Plenty, Napier, Gisborne, New Plymouth, and everywhere, they are happy because we said that whatever they had they will go on having. There will be no imposition or attack on any rights they might have. But, of course, Nick Smith has probably gone down there and misinformed the local ports of Nelson. What port authority is complaining? Nick Smith\u2019s port authority is complaining. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000323\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003EI heard Nandor Tanczos talking about confiscation, and I want to ask him this: why would it be right, as his party advocates, to have every foreigner come to this country yet not try to preserve what is here for ourselves in the form of this law? He said he knew of an example of a M\u0101ori closing off access to the beach. He was asked which one, and he could not say. He did not know. He does not understand that when we talk about riparian rights, we are not talking about the foreshore and seabed. He should go away and see his colleague Metiria Turei, and get her to get somebody who knows something about the law to tell him, because he is talking absolute humbug. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000324\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003EThere is just one last thing I want to say, and it is in reply to Richard Prebble. Why was the M\u0101ori wardens case important, when the National Party wanted to give them rights of arrest? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000325\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221ea68dbfa3df42cfa33c2184e15acb67\u0022\u003EGerry Brownlee\u003C/span\u003E: Get back on the wicket!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000326\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002206ee3bf379ad4f9082db1df82fe41027\u0022\u003ERt Hon WINSTON PETERS\u003C/span\u003E: It is to do with fishing law. That is why it is relevant. That is why I get sick and tired of that party over there that has lost every semblance of principle and consistency. They stand for nothing anymore. They cannot even hold an argument together for one day, let alone one year or one decade. They are just riddled with contradiction and dispute amongst themselves, scrapping as they do to try to gain power.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002219386ba0-5a6e-485e-abc0-5a3128b4e1f6\u0022 data-id=\u0022426b9d01423e4eedb678311266d56e9a\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000327\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219386ba0-5a6e-485e-abc0-5a3128b4e1f6\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022426b9d01423e4eedb678311266d56e9a\u0022\u003EHon KEN SHIRLEY (Whip\u2014ACT):\u003C/span\u003E I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I did not want to interrupt the member who has just resumed his seat. He said there had always been two bills, and I raise this as a matter of procedure, not as a matter of debate. We have before us Supplementary Order Paper 303, which was tabled yesterday and is titled \u201CForeshore and Seabed Bill\u201D. It is a proposal only\u2014a motion\u2014to divide the bill into two bills. I seek clarification on whether there have always been two bills, or whether there has been one bill and there is now a proposal to divide it. I would hate the Committee to be misled by the claim made by Winston Peters that there have always been two bills. I seek clarification that my understanding is correct: that there is one bill and a proposal has been made to divide it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000328\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002270fa4cbd-9380-4916-9f2a-78da059d220e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002238481e78c003442083452cb2d5d424df\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson)\u003C/span\u003E: The member has made his point.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022 data-id=\u002282e4ef0a377b408a8366e013c76f31ce\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000329\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002282e4ef0a377b408a8366e013c76f31ce\u0022\u003EDAIL JONES (Junior Whip\u2014NZ First):\u003C/span\u003E I think that even someone like Mike Ward, a member of this House, would know that it was always intended to have two Acts of Parliament\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000330\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002202eeebcd001d4172b182654d3c653805\u0022\u003EMetiria Turei\u003C/span\u003E: Point of order\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000331\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002270fa4cbd-9380-4916-9f2a-78da059d220e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022828c3261eb584ecca2cb27a2972f7136\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson)\u003C/span\u003E: There is a point of order already on the floor. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000332\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022532f19a770a54d389df4149b885c6923\u0022\u003EDAIL JONES\u003C/span\u003E: I am responding to a point, but I apologise to the member: I did not mean what I said to be so harsh. I meant that any first-term member, as opposed to Mr Shirley who has been in Parliament for about six or seven terms, would know that when a bill contains amendments to the Resource Management Act\u2014as this one contains in Part 5\u2014a procedural motion would always be moved later on in the debate to have two bills. In this case, one would be a Foreshore and Seabed Bill and the other would be a bill to amend the Resource Management Act. That has always been the case. Mr Shirley has also been a member of the select committee, and, if he does not know that, then we can understand what a hopeless case he and the National Party have been presenting today.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000333\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002270fa4cbd-9380-4916-9f2a-78da059d220e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a2b9cfaba4684b4f9b44293130e73105\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson)\u003C/span\u003E: That is not a debating issue. The member has made his point well.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022 data-id=\u002200f6d22b13e7447cab3df48492fbfffe\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000334\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002200f6d22b13e7447cab3df48492fbfffe\u0022\u003EGERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader\u2014National):\u003C/span\u003E I just want to say that a comment was directed at me, which was designed to cast a bit of an aspersion. It was a derogatory comment. Of course, technically, Mr Jones is always right. I asked questions about \u201Ca bill\u201D in front of the select committee, and quite reasonably so. The thing is, we should move on. We all know that the New Zealand First Party cannot make any points without getting personal. We know that Mr Peters is going through some sort of a reminiscence of past grievances this morning, demonstrating exactly the problem with M\u0101ori in this country, and I just want to say that I forgive him.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000335\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002270fa4cbd-9380-4916-9f2a-78da059d220e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225967027d773843a390f2472f46f33878\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson)\u003C/span\u003E: We have all had our fun. It is time we moved on.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022c5b3ede3-ae58-4862-b45d-b4c8f3280960\u0022 data-id=\u002205fe36c15fd2494093b1a55b97a51481\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000336\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c5b3ede3-ae58-4862-b45d-b4c8f3280960\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002205fe36c15fd2494093b1a55b97a51481\u0022\u003EMAHARA OKEROA (Labour\u2014Te Tai Tonga):\u003C/span\u003E This morning I was appalled at notions of racism. I am now absolutely amazed. So I have moved from being appalled to being amazed.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000337\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002276e4b8b7-c205-49d8-a21e-5d7a3ddf1330\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227ac462d970ac4e39b9453d5afd80e2c4\u0022\u003EMark Peck\u003C/span\u003E: Not a bad start.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000338\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c5b3ede3-ae58-4862-b45d-b4c8f3280960\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e3fdb4fbf0cd453fbdd8c9c06e7df947\u0022\u003EMAHARA OKEROA\u003C/span\u003E: No, not bad. I am amazed at a comment made by the shadow Minister of M\u0101ori Affairs, who asked why M\u0101ori would want to include their customary rights in legislation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000339\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226981ba3c9933426497b96dc5247497ca\u0022\u003EGerry Brownlee\u003C/span\u003E: I didn\u2019t say that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000340\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c5b3ede3-ae58-4862-b45d-b4c8f3280960\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ac2e2f19b1c841ca9e83b10f8de15f1a\u0022\u003EMAHARA OKEROA\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, the member did\u2014why would M\u0101ori want to go through that process to enshrine it in legislation? That demonstrates to me quite clearly that as a shadow Minister of M\u0101ori Affairs the member has very little knowledge of the historical reality. If nothing else, one of the driving motivations for M\u0101ori members to be here is to make a difference in terms of legislation that affects the constituency\u2014in spite of what Shane Ardern says about divisiveness. He should know about divisiveness. He comes out of Taranaki. That demonstrates to me, as well, that he does not know anything about the history of Taranaki. Who drove the divisiveness in Taranaki?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000341\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219386ba0-5a6e-485e-abc0-5a3128b4e1f6\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224a8ea83746194cb7bfd07e9fc542a8f1\u0022\u003EHon Ken Shirley\u003C/span\u003E: Tainui.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000342\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c5b3ede3-ae58-4862-b45d-b4c8f3280960\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002240adebd40c1d4907a3e0593ee80a8bbd\u0022\u003EMAHARA OKEROA\u003C/span\u003E: No, not at all. What I am saying in the context of this discussion [Interruption]\u2014and we do not want any interruptions from that member from Ng\u0101ti Raukawa, because we know what happened to those people, as well. That member demonstrates very clearly that he does not understand the notion of divisiveness and the forces of early legislation that caused that divisiveness in the community of Taranaki. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000343\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c5b3ede3-ae58-4862-b45d-b4c8f3280960\u0022\u003EI will give here a bouquet, which is overdue, to New Zealand First. Mr Ardern said that we had made a lot of progress with legislation for M\u0101ori. The biggest piece of legislation I will mention in that regard is the legislation on the reserve lands issue. Who was in coalition? It was not the National Party but in fact New Zealand First where the initiative came from. So I would not be about claiming kudos for one party; I am about to give a bouquet to the most effective leader of the Opposition. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000344\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c5b3ede3-ae58-4862-b45d-b4c8f3280960\u0022\u003EWhen we get asked why we are here, I tire of listening to speeches that continue to serve the marginalisation of our people. If these things are not enshrined in legislation, and apparent there, then iwi, hap\u016B, and M\u0101ori in general will continue to be marginalised. That is a lesson of history. It is a lesson that we have learnt at our own cost. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000345\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c5b3ede3-ae58-4862-b45d-b4c8f3280960\u0022\u003EIn conclusion, it is my view that this bill, supported by New Zealand First, will put an end to any further marginalisation, because it also protects\u2014and it takes vision and courage. I have not heard yet what the shadow Minister of M\u0101ori Affairs may promote as his party\u2019s policy for a solution, rather than it creating a problem. So it is my absolute honour to stand here today and give my\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000346\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f429f155ec2746b6a69c4a11d131a2d2\u0022\u003EGerry Brownlee\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Yesterday the Prime Minister became very upset because a member suggested she had pleaded the Nuremburg defence when it came to the incident of her speeding from Waimate to Christchurch and to the subsequent charging of five policemen and one civilian, while she, it would seem, is escaping any question. I have just heard Mr Tamihere suggest, in response to Mr Mahara Okeroa\u2019s suggestion that he had not heard what the shadow Minister of M\u0101ori Affairs might offer as his solution, that that would be \u201Cthe final solution\u201D. That is even more offensive than suggesting that someone is pleading a Nuremburg defence. It think it is a waste of time asking that man to withdraw and apologise. It is evident that he does not have much sense of what is right and wrong. But I do ask, Mr Chairperson, that you keep your ears open and make sure that that sort of thing does not occur again.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000347\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002270fa4cbd-9380-4916-9f2a-78da059d220e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e6e30f5fe0e542739c5bb58254114b12\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson)\u003C/span\u003E: The member has made his point. One unparliamentary remark does not justify another. I call the member to order.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000348\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c5b3ede3-ae58-4862-b45d-b4c8f3280960\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a61c9743c5294fbb913cc345558d0d86\u0022\u003EMAHARA OKEROA\u003C/span\u003E: I was attempting to bring a conclusion to what I had to say. We need to avoid any suggestion of the interpretation by the shadow Minister of M\u0101ori Affairs, because in fact I doubt whether the member on my right was being negative about what he was saying. We need to bring this issue to a positive end. We need to be a reflection of the community as it is today, not as it was in the 19th century. So I applaud this bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022 data-id=\u0022d6b3796f8a96434989c10e3f7898de5d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000349\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d6b3796f8a96434989c10e3f7898de5d\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH (National\u2014Nelson):\u003C/span\u003E Let us remind ourselves of the sort of parliamentary skulduggery that is going on this morning, with Parliament under urgency and passing major legislation that will impact hugely on this nation and with that member who has spoken somehow believing that that will resolve this issue. I want to highlight the major provision included in this part\u2014that is, the creation of a new legal instrument: a foreshore and seabed reserve. On the front page of this morning\u2019s New Zealand Herald the M\u0101ori caucus is quoted as saying that they expect 10 percent of New Zealand will be set aside as foreshore and seabed reserves. I would be interested to know from the Minister in the chair, the Hon Dr Michael Cullen, whether he thinks that is a fair estimate. I ask again of the Minister in the chair: is it a fair estimate, as recorded on the front page of the New Zealand Herald, that 10 percent of our coast will be set aside as foreshore and seabed reserves? That is attributed to the M\u0101ori caucus. Is that correct?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000350\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f0694203465244dbbf24a21f5bd90e9e\u0022\u003EHon Dr Michael Cullen\u003C/span\u003E: They did not say that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000351\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228189c791c4664337b05303f7f3630c0d\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH\u003C/span\u003E: Is the expectation, the report, reasonable?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000352\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223704cb4d7f5d4061bda5a54868a85f44\u0022\u003EHon Dr Michael Cullen\u003C/span\u003E: They didn\u2019t say that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000353\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ad4a06ff934d46a9b3882ed3f9357947\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH\u003C/span\u003E: Well, do the people of New Zealand have any idea as to the proportion of our coast\u2014our precious beaches and our precious coastline\u2014that will be set up in the new legal instrument provided in these amendments? Does the Minister have any idea at all as to what area of New Zealand will be set aside in these new foreshore and seabed reserves? The Minister in the chair, Dr Cullen, shakes his head and says he has no idea. So am I to draw the conclusion that we are being asked to pass legislation that will set aside, according to the M\u0101ori caucus\u2014that is the promise he has obviously made in secret to the M\u0101ori members\u201410 percent of New Zealand\u2019s coastline, which is 2,000 kilometres or 4 million hectares, to be vested in new foreshore and seabed reserves? I heard the last M\u0101ori member who spoke say that this will not change anything. Members can bet it changes things! It changes and moves the control of 4 million hectares\u20142,000 kilometres\u2014from locally elected councils to a new special committee appointed exclusively by M\u0101ori. We are to expect\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000354\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f3414decd8614831b7aaa0a1267293e4\u0022\u003EHon Dr Michael Cullen\u003C/span\u003E: It doesn\u2019t say that, either.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000355\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221e0775aa0c8d4a988fdafeb2d7cd8c4a\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH\u003C/span\u003E: Well, what does it say?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000356\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022dd6bc864d18b47d79f3e268c0af41e01\u0022\u003EHon Dr Michael Cullen\u003C/span\u003E: The court directs people to go and discuss the composition of the board. Read the bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000357\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e10554053a854b64ab8621ff6d4d2271\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH\u003C/span\u003E: Registers it with the court! Parliament does not get a say. It is to be registered by the Minister. This is a Trojan Horse for transferring the say\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000358\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022596d75300cd346f1826d575e28ae5b1c\u0022\u003EHon Dr Michael Cullen\u003C/span\u003E: No, wrong again.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000359\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b87fa6a229b649168a1b29937b01ec9e\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH\u003C/span\u003E: Would the Minister like to take a call?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000360\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002270fa4cbd-9380-4916-9f2a-78da059d220e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002280e1c76ff637401b912ceb9ecfef1fab\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson)\u003C/span\u003E: I say to the Minister that it is generally accepted that when Ministers are in the chair they do not use the live microphone.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000361\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002253d7b22826af4f9895a1b779f16c920f\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH\u003C/span\u003E: The Minister cannot expect to table legislation on this very day, introduce a whole new concept of foreshore and seabed reserves, and say that the Government is not allowed to answer any questions and that it cannot tell us how much the area is. If we take the equivalent, marine reserves were first introduced in 1974. They make up only 0.3 percent, not 10 percent as the M\u0101ori caucus says the figure will be. Those marine reserves have been debated over years and years and years. They were first introduced in 1974 and they have been debated extensively, yet the Minister in the chair thinks it is kosher to introduce a new concept of foreshore and seabed reserves today and pass it all in 1 parliamentary day. Dover Samuels said that it would not make any difference to families wanting to go down to the beach and have a barbecue. Well, yes, it does, and I will tell members why. In relation to the 10 percent that his M\u0101ori caucus claims will now be foreshore and seabed reserves, it will be for the management committee to decide who will be able to have a barbecue and where. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000362\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002214d23a3606024ed5bac899dd09790c6a\u0022\u003EHon Dr Michael Cullen\u003C/span\u003E: No, that\u2019s nonsense.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000363\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227fb85f221e8e47769c839df769506aed\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH\u003C/span\u003E: It is true. Can the Minister in the chair explain why it is that the management committee of the foreshore and seabed reserves will be guardians. The guardians will be able to have those controls.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000364\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4030eb1-1b72-4bc3-b00d-7126013abc01\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e475b6de37f945fa86a389c4107b50a0\u0022\u003EStephen Franks\u003C/span\u003E: If they can\u2019t, why are they guardians?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000365\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e0e1a354032e47c38bce761fd4e58dff\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH\u003C/span\u003E: Exactly. As my colleague Stephen Franks says, if the guardians who are going to manage 10 percent of our foreshore and seabed cannot decide whether a barbecue is allowed, or whether there will be a gate or boat access, what the heck are the guardians? Is it just a big fraud on M\u0101oridom? I suggest that it is not, that it is real. It is a Trojan Horse for taking control away from councils and passing it over to these guardians.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00221e93d9c8-b183-40db-b200-833697df066c\u0022 data-id=\u0022d6529d06c168441c91e6aad4f16732b9\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000366\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221e93d9c8-b183-40db-b200-833697df066c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d6529d06c168441c91e6aad4f16732b9\u0022\u003ELARRY BALDOCK (United Future):\u003C/span\u003E I begin my comments by thanking the honourable member Dail Jones, who in his speech some time ago gave us an explanation of why the new clause 2A had appeared in the Supplementary Order Paper 302 proposed by the Deputy Prime Minister. He took ownership of the fact that it was New Zealand First members who went to the officials and discussed broadening the definition of Crown ownership to be what we now read there, which is a pretty good description of what was conveyed by the term \u201Cpublic domain\u201D. I thank the member for that, and I thank New Zealand First and the Rt Hon Winston Peters for doing so.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000367\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221e93d9c8-b183-40db-b200-833697df066c\u0022\u003EBut it does the beg the question of the Rt Hon Winston Peters as to who is copying whom, which he raised earlier. It seems very clear that the concept of public domain has been copied by New Zealand First. While United Future is happy that that is occurring, because it is a useful concept, we believe that there should be some recognition of it. It is not only the concept that is being copied but also the behaviour. I do not know whether anyone has noticed in the House, but New Zealand First is becoming very reasonable, very constructive, and very cooperative with the Government. I think Winston Peters must be becoming very worried, because he is morphing into United Future. Progressively, week by week and month by month, New Zealand First is morphing into United Future, and that must be of concern to Winston Peters. He has sat here for 2 years and watched the way that we have operated constructively with the Government, and I am sure that on many occasions he has thought: \u201CGee, I wish we had done that in 1996 when we were in a relationship with the National Party. We would not have got into so much trouble.\u201D But many people are still holding their breath as to how long that attitude will last. Time will tell whether New Zealand First can truly morph into a party that is able to work constructively on behalf of all New Zealanders.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000368\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221e93d9c8-b183-40db-b200-833697df066c\u0022\u003EI want to make some comments about clause 3, the purpose clause, because it is, of course, a crucial part of the bill. It gives effect to the object stated in clause 2A, which has been discussed quite a bit already, then goes on to establish the purpose of this legislation. It is important that we debate this matter in the Committee today and, possibly, into tomorrow, but I believe that it is even more important that after the debate has occurred here it goes out into the community. I want to put forward a suggestion to the Minister and the Government this morning, which I hope they will take up, and that is that they take steps to ensure that communication is carried out from this Chamber. Not everybody tunes into the radio and listens to the debate\u2014for obvious reasons, if anybody listens to it for any length of time! But it is important that this bill, in its new form with this huge Supplementary Order Paper, be communicated through hui throughout the country, and to P\u0101keh\u0101 New Zealanders, so that everyone is brought up to speed. It is not enough to rely upon what is reported in the newspapers and in 60-second or 30-second sound bites on television and radio to convey information about this important legislation, which is now being improved in many ways by the Minister\u2019s proposed amendments.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000369\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221e93d9c8-b183-40db-b200-833697df066c\u0022\u003ESo I offer that suggestion to the Government. It is important that it find some independent people who are not affiliated with any particular political party, and who can go around the country and give a good explanation of what this legislation now means. A number of Government members who have spoken in the debate have said that there was a long consultation process, and have asked why everyone is complaining about the House taking urgency this week. It seems that they have completely missed the point. The fact that they went around the country talking to people does not necessarily mean that they were heard. It does not necessarily mean that they conveyed anything through all the hui that they held. The fact that 4,000 submitters came to the select committee is fairly clear evidence that those members were not heard as well as the Government thought they were.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000370\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221e93d9c8-b183-40db-b200-833697df066c\u0022\u003EIt somewhat reminds me of the trouble that parents sometimes get into with their teenagers when they tell them everything, then wonder why the teenagers go off and do the complete opposite. They scratch their heads and say: \u201CWell, we told them. Weren\u2019t they listening?\u201D. No, they were not listening; often teenagers do not listen to parents, because parents are not listening to teenagers. The Government needs to understand that it was not enough to go around the country and simply tell everybody what its policy was going to be and how it was going to solve this problem. It also needed to be listening. That is why we attempted to have the select committee produce an interim report; we wanted more opportunity for some dialogue, which may have resulted\u2014we hope it still will, if it is initiated by the Government\u2014in the bringing together of people in New Zealand over this legislation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220e7e8da2-a6a1-41bb-aeb0-a49be255a293\u0022 data-id=\u00224f4e22ecab85402fbb798fd4767817f8\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000371\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220e7e8da2-a6a1-41bb-aeb0-a49be255a293\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00224f4e22ecab85402fbb798fd4767817f8\u0022\u003ENANAIA MAHUTA (Labour\u2014Tainui):\u003C/span\u003E I want to speak on Part 1 and to highlight a couple of clauses that I believe provide some clarification in terms of the intention of Supplementary Order Paper 302.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000372\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220e7e8da2-a6a1-41bb-aeb0-a49be255a293\u0022\u003EThere has been a lot of talk today about the objects clause, clause 2A. Implicit in that clause is the fiduciary obligation of the Crown to look after the foreshore and seabed for all New Zealanders, after it having first recognised that it has a role to protect the association of wh\u0101nau, hap\u016B, and iwi with the public foreshore and seabed. That implicit obligation will, in time, help to develop the thinking and the context of how the common law has been provided for in this bill. It is a good clause and a good addition in the Government\u2019s Supplementary Order Paper.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000373\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220e7e8da2-a6a1-41bb-aeb0-a49be255a293\u0022\u003EThe member before me made a couple of comments on the purposes clause. It sets out quite clearly the intention of the bill. Rightly or wrongly\u2014whatever people may think about the content of the rest of the bill\u2014the purposes clause gives a very good description of what is provided for in the legislation. I will highlight clause 3(c), which enables \u201Capplications to be made to the High Court to investigate the full extent of the rights that may have been held at common law, and, if those rights are not able to be fully expressed as a result of this Act, enabling a successful applicant group\u2014(i) to participate in the administration of a foreshore and seabed reserve; or (ii) to enter into formal discussions on redress;\u201D. I think that sets out very clearly that there are provisions within the bill that enable the full extent to be explored.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000374\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220e7e8da2-a6a1-41bb-aeb0-a49be255a293\u0022\u003EThere were some issues raised within the debate about whether the common law rights applied to all New Zealanders. My friends in the Opposition will know that in the interpretation clause the devil is in the detail. The definition of \u201Capplicant group\u201D could apply to anybody. Anyone who can pass the threshold test that is provided for later on in the bill has the opportunity to go to the High Court to find out whether he or she has a territorial customary right. So it is not race-specific, as members in the Opposition would have people believe; the way in which \u201Capplicant group\u201D has been defined in the interpretation clause opens it up.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000375\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220e7e8da2-a6a1-41bb-aeb0-a49be255a293\u0022\u003EThere are other points about Part 1 that I would like to comment on\u2014notably, what is not there, and that is ancestral connection. All members will recognise that ancestral connection has been removed from Part 1 because a lot of submissions, as I understand it, had asked what it achieved. In effect, because of the way in which the ancestral connection has been provided for throughout the rest of the bill, it is a given that M\u0101ori have a very strong association with the takutai moana. Implicitly, within the other parts of the bill the ancestral connection becomes very relevant and is a given. That is a credit to some progressive thinking on both sides of the House about the nature of the relationship of M\u0101ori to the takutai moana.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000376\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220e7e8da2-a6a1-41bb-aeb0-a49be255a293\u0022\u003EThere were also comments, and I think they were quite wide ranging, about whether a marine reserve would be affected\u2014whether a m\u0101taitai would be prohibited by this bill. Well, if the test is passed in the High Court, and a takutai moana reserve, or foreshore and seabed reserve, is created, then it is up to the management committee to determine that. Through its management plan, it may determine whether it wants a m\u0101taitai within a marine reserve\u2014it is up to it. Under the laws of this land, which apply to all citizens of New Zealand, it will follow the due process of law to lodge a marine reserve application. It is all up to it. I think that shows the depth of thinking that has gone into the possibilities that can be created within this bill that also uphold some of the interests that M\u0101ori have promoted in this area.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000377\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220e7e8da2-a6a1-41bb-aeb0-a49be255a293\u0022\u003EIn times to come there will be some extensive thinking about what another part of this bill means. I am happy to see that the recognition of kaitiakitanga is the same as that referred to in the Resource Management Act. Why? Because it is consistent, it is something that people already have an understanding of, and it is not departing from some of the principles of resource management that we are all concerned about.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000378\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220e7e8da2-a6a1-41bb-aeb0-a49be255a293\u0022\u003EThere has been a mishmash of understanding about what is not protected. I want to say in my contribution that the existing private property rights of all New Zealanders will be protected. The definition of \u201Cspecified freehold interest\u201D applies to all New Zealanders, including M\u0101ori.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e4030eb1-1b72-4bc3-b00d-7126013abc01\u0022 data-id=\u00221963421fd6344a35aac04c764d8986bb\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000379\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4030eb1-1b72-4bc3-b00d-7126013abc01\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00221963421fd6344a35aac04c764d8986bb\u0022\u003ESTEPHEN FRANKS (ACT):\u003C/span\u003E I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I do not know what rule is governing the debate on this part. I am aware that normally there are tight limits, but I have now been here for nearly an hour and a half and have seen the call go to National members and to Winston Peters. The National members have all had a round, and Mr Peters has had two speeches while I have been here. I do not raise this point of order only for myself; there are two members of Mr Peters\u2019 party who have been calling throughout the time I have been here and who have not had a go. As I understand it, the Standing Orders suggest that the call should be available at least once to each member for a debate of this nature.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022 data-id=\u0022198395eb038f4828acab562fb08359ee\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000380\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022198395eb038f4828acab562fb08359ee\u0022\u003ERt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader\u2014NZ First):\u003C/span\u003E The format of the debate is that the contrary side of the argument is given first, and the supporting side second, or vice versa. It goes from side to side. In respect of the defence of my colleagues\u2019 rights being put by another party\u2019s member, let me say that my colleagues will get a chance to speak in this debate and they will do so shortly. It is not for Mr Franks to decide what their rights are. We have organised that, because I cannot be here all day, I will speak at the appropriate time. That is a fact. The second part of his argument was nebulous and nonsense.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000381\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002270fa4cbd-9380-4916-9f2a-78da059d220e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002223c1013c942248e7bdbb3e6024f4a2bc\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson)\u003C/span\u003E: I thank all the members for their contributions. I say to Mr Franks that I look at proportionality within the House. He is within my radar at the present stage.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022ac23eedf-0a53-4d88-a49b-d5b440483616\u0022 data-id=\u0022e6109bc6f84947329d188489a9ce2069\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000382\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac23eedf-0a53-4d88-a49b-d5b440483616\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022e6109bc6f84947329d188489a9ce2069\u0022\u003EDr LYNDA SCOTT (National\u2014Kaikoura):\u003C/span\u003E I have also been waiting for a long time to take a call on this bill, and I wish to do so because I am the MP for Kaikoura, which includes all of Marlborough and North Canterbury, and this whole debate began with the decision about the foreshore in the Marlborough Sounds. The drawing of that line in the sand was what led us to the discussions we have had in the select committee, and to our debating today in the Chamber a Supplementary Order Paper that nobody had a chance to see and digest until very, very recently.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000383\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac23eedf-0a53-4d88-a49b-d5b440483616\u0022\u003EI listened to the speeches that have gone before me. John Tamihere said that M\u0101ori have not wanted freehold title. That is certainly not my understanding of what was happening with the Marlborough Sounds seabed. M\u0101ori definitely wanted freehold title. I had people come into my office and say that when there was no land and no fish, no one cared, but now they did care, they did want that land, and they did want title\u2014it was not just about guardianship. People have now moved to the concept of guardianship for about 10 percent of the foreshore and seabed, but there was definitely an intention to have freehold title. When the Attorney-General v Ng\u0101ti Apa decision provided that there was a possibility that private ownership of the foreshore and seabed could be granted\u2014that it could go to the M\u0101ori Land Court\u2014action had to be taken. That had never been the intention in the past, in our history. Until the Resource Management Act came in, most New Zealanders had supposed that the foreshore and seabed were in Crown ownership. It had not been an issue until that time.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000384\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac23eedf-0a53-4d88-a49b-d5b440483616\u0022\u003EI heard Mahara Okeroa talking about people being denied access to a certain area of M\u0101ori land in Nelson because, he said, people were not treating it correctly. When my own parents-in-law were down in the Arahura Valley, on the West Coast, where pounamu is gathered, they were denied access one time, when they were just wanting to take a stroll along the river. That is what has been beginning to happen around New Zealand. People have been denied access. I was in the Chatham Islands and went out for a run on the beach, and was told I was on private property. I and all other New Zealanders have grown up with the concept of the Queen\u2019s Chain, the concept that we can walk down a beach without restriction, so it was a huge surprise to me to be told in the Chatham Islands that someone else owned the foreshore and seabed.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000385\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac23eedf-0a53-4d88-a49b-d5b440483616\u0022\u003EWhen one travels overseas, one realises that a lot of the foreshore and seabed is privately owned. It brings us back to what it means to be a New Zealander. What it means to be a New Zealander, for all the people I talk to in my electorate, is to have that access and not be denied it. A huge amount of consternation was generated by the decision to allow Ng\u0101ti Apa to go to the M\u0101ori Land Court, because it definitely would have led to a possibility of private, individual ownership of, and title to, that land\u2014or even collective title to that land, but one that would deny others access.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000386\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac23eedf-0a53-4d88-a49b-d5b440483616\u0022\u003EThe select committee process did not manage to return a new bill to this House, and we now have Supplementary Order Paper 302, which creates, in Part 1, a new legal scheme. A new system is being created. The amendment states that legal ownership is in the Crown\u2014preserved in perpetuity for the people of New Zealand\u2014but it is very uncertain about what will happen with the guardianship that can be given if M\u0101ori can show continuous rights. That is uncertain. It will be a reserve, but will M\u0101ori be able to deny access? I ask members to consider the Department of Conservation. Does it allow open access? No, it often shuts up areas of land. We will not know.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022 data-id=\u00226d85b10ac3814454be7ca92977b01f8b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000387\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00226d85b10ac3814454be7ca92977b01f8b\u0022\u003EMETIRIA TUREI (Green):\u003C/span\u003E I was quite distressed to hear Nanaia Mahuta\u2019s speech in which she lauded clause 3, \u201CPurposes\u201D, as providing M\u0101ori with access to the courts to get territorial customary rights orders. I wonder whether she is aware\u2014we will talk about this later, in the debate on Part 2\u2014that New Zealand First has negotiated a clause that means that contiguous land ownership is a condition of being able to get a territorial customary rights order. That is, in effect, the reinstatement of the 90 Mile Beach decision, which legal academics have known and continually said, since that decision was made, was wrongly decided. The Ng\u0101ti Apa decision overturned it because it was wrongly decided. Clause 3 will mean that those South Island iwi who took the Ng\u0101ti Apa case to court will not qualify for a territorial customary rights order. That is the effect of clause 3. It is not about providing access to the court; it is about denying, specifically and directly, those iwi who might well be able to establish some form of exclusive use and possession the right to attend court.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000388\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003EMr Tamihere talked earlier about how the challenge for the M\u0101ori Labour MPs was to find ways to incorporate M\u0101ori rights into the bill. Their challenge was not to find ways to integrate M\u0101ori into this bill. Their challenge was not to find ways to assimilate M\u0101ori rights into this bill. Their challenge was to protect M\u0101ori customary rights, to protect the common law rights of iwi, wh\u0101nau, and hap\u016B in this country, and to protect tipuna title. By supporting this bill, the M\u0101ori Labour MPs and M\u0101ori New Zealand First MPs have failed in that challenge. They have failed to protect M\u0101ori rights. They are allowing the continual confiscation and extinguishment of those rights, and the further taking of land.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000389\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003EThose MPs try to justify this bill by saying it will give M\u0101ori more rights than they would get in the courts. That is a completely wrong justification. It is not true. They try to say that this bill incorporates the common law tests from other jurisdictions, such as Canada and Australia, and that M\u0101ori would be subject to those tests in the courts. But, in fact, M\u0101ori would be subject to tests in the courts that include our own treaty jurisprudence, which has been in development now for 30, 40, or more years. That treaty jurisprudence acknowledges that the common law rights of M\u0101ori are in a form set out in the Treaty of Waitangi\u2014that that document has force, and is relevant to these decisions. Of course, the Canadian tests do not have that issue, and the Australian tests do not take it into account. But the New Zealand courts would, enabling M\u0101ori to have better access to justice, and enabling the formation in our own country of our own jurisprudence about what common law rights might actually be. By putting forward this bill, this Government is preventing the courts from exploring those issues, and preventing M\u0101ori from being able to explore the full scope and spectrum of what their common law rights might be in accordance with international jurisprudence and our own treaty jurisprudence here.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000390\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003EOne of the real failures of this bill and of the whole process\u2014including the select committee process\u2014was the fact that so many alternative options were not explored. The most obvious of those would be to allow M\u0101ori to proceed to the courts to have the full scope of their common law rights determined. Yes, there would be some uncertainty for the Government, but it would leave an opportunity for that exploration and development of the law to continue. There were no problems last summer, when this issue had not been decided. The esoteric kinds of academic questions that go on in the courts do not have a huge impact at all on New Zealanders\u2019 ability to enjoy the beach in the summertime. There is no urgency. There is no need to rush this decision. We could allow the courts to proceed and develop the law in accordance with New Zealand jurisprudence.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000391\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003EIt is urgent only for Labour and New Zealand First. They want this bill dealt with before the election, because they see votes in it. They do not see the injustice of it. They do not see and understand the extinguishment and confiscation of M\u0101ori rights. They do not see that they are undertaking a return to the 19th century.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220e7e8da2-a6a1-41bb-aeb0-a49be255a293\u0022 data-id=\u0022b9d49245b00d42dfa55a66b28b7f7ee0\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000392\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220e7e8da2-a6a1-41bb-aeb0-a49be255a293\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b9d49245b00d42dfa55a66b28b7f7ee0\u0022\u003ENANAIA MAHUTA (Labour\u2014Tainui):\u003C/span\u003E In my previous contribution I outlined that in new clause 2A there is an implicit fiduciary obligation on the Crown. I want to pick up on a point in clause 3, \u201CPurposes\u201D, relating to subclause (a): \u201Cvesting the full legal and beneficial ownership of the public foreshore and seabed in the Crown;\u201D. As the debate has progressed over time, I see that people have misconstrued the concerns of M\u0101ori as an issue of sovereignty. Although at the extreme end of the debate there is a strong view about the sovereignty interests of M\u0101ori, it is irreconcilable, to some extent, with the treaty arguments that are then put up. If we move towards the middle ground, in order for the Crown to exercise its fiduciary obligation, it has to be quite clear on what basis it does that. New clause 2A provides that level of clarity and does that. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000393\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220e7e8da2-a6a1-41bb-aeb0-a49be255a293\u0022\u003EFor the extreme ends of this debate, I think that new clause 2A will make very clear that there is an ongoing fiduciary obligation, and will bring people more towards the middle of where this argument sits. The Crown will have a full expression of its ability to be able to assert, on the one hand, the common law interests of M\u0101ori within the context of this bill, and, outside of this bill, another pathway that is more fitting and aligned to the Treaty of Waitangi settlements process. That understanding has been missed quite a bit in the debate, probably because people like to play around on the edges of it. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000394\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220e7e8da2-a6a1-41bb-aeb0-a49be255a293\u0022\u003EOn the issues that were raised by the previous speaker with regard to the common law, I think those are more apt for the Part 2 debate. That is the context for them. In saying that, I point out in response that Dr Paul McHugh said that for the development of common law within New Zealand, we cannot get away from the issues of tikanga and the Treaty of Waitangi. I think there is a debate to be had that can probably be extended in Part 2. My contribution is very brief in this respect, but I highlight that there has been a lot of game-playing on the edges of this debate around the question of sovereignty. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000395\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220e7e8da2-a6a1-41bb-aeb0-a49be255a293\u0022\u003EComing from a tribe that signed the Declaration of Independence only\u2014from a group of people who can say that they did not sign the treaty but have been treated as though they were signatories, and have suffered the most\u2014I will say that it is our responsibility as parliamentarians in this country to try to bring people together, notwithstanding the historical facts that have occurred over time. It requires a lot of effort and commitment to act in good faith as responsible parliamentarians and leaders of this country. Although I accept that there is a lot of emotion around this issue, I also accept that if we are to have a nation that works together and commits to that, we basically have to look at the realities of what we can achieve here today, and move from that point. I look forward to more cooperation within the Government on this question. I think it is important that we really put to rest some ridiculous expectations that are out there.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000396\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220e7e8da2-a6a1-41bb-aeb0-a49be255a293\u0022\u003E The member from Marlborough, who will not be with us next year, made the point that there are interests amongst M\u0101ori who want to go for freehold title. The reality is that, under the M\u0101ori Land Court and Te Ture Whenua Maori Act, that is all they could have been awarded had they gone along that track. So when that presented itself, I guess it presented the real question of us all in the domain of Tangaroa, or the foreshore and seabed, which is what it was that we were really trying to achieve here. Yes, interests exist\u2014customary property rights, I believe\u2014but was there a general view amongst New Zealanders that anyone owned the foreshore and seabed? I do not think that had been contemplated very clearly within any statute. In so far as it affects M\u0101ori, there was general agreement throughout the submission process that M\u0101ori accepted that access to the foreshore and seabed, the inalienability of title, and the rights of navigation are public rights for all New Zealanders. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000397\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220e7e8da2-a6a1-41bb-aeb0-a49be255a293\u0022\u003EI think, balancing up where the meeting-point was, those were the three clear points we had in working out how to find a way through this. Clearly the laws that could affirm title presented some difficulties. We may not be there yet. However, those difficulties have forced us into a situation where we have had to reconsider just what are the customary property interests and rights of M\u0101ori to the foreshore and seabed. That is what this bill is moving towards.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e4030eb1-1b72-4bc3-b00d-7126013abc01\u0022 data-id=\u0022498eeb7bf0aa45c4951a48471f7d897e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000398\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4030eb1-1b72-4bc3-b00d-7126013abc01\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022498eeb7bf0aa45c4951a48471f7d897e\u0022\u003ESTEPHEN FRANKS (ACT):\u003C/span\u003E I wish to point out that Nanaia Mahuta has in fact voted against this. The comments made earlier about New Zealand First speakers still apply. I would like to know just what their reasons are. The Rt Hon Winston Peters has spoken many times and has given us no substantive reasons. He goes into history but gives us no substantive reasons for his support of this bill. We have had the benefit, however, of Government contributions\u2014unusually in a debate of this kind. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000399\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4030eb1-1b72-4bc3-b00d-7126013abc01\u0022\u003EIn particular, the contribution from John Tamihere was interesting. He assured us that at no time have M\u0101ori ever wanted ownership of the seabed and foreshore. What were the 80 or so cases filed\u2014which this bill cancels without replacement\u2014about? I think John Tamihere has become accustomed to dealing with his colleagues, those people who exhibit the bigotry of false expectations and allow M\u0101ori claimants to spout pure racism\u2014the notion that M\u0101ori are somehow different from everyone else in the world in the sense that if they are offered an opportunity they will not take it. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000400\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4030eb1-1b72-4bc3-b00d-7126013abc01\u0022\u003EThe opportunity this bill offers them is very clear. They can become guardians of public land, and nothing in this bill will stop the guardians from becoming beach trolls. That is what this bill will justify. It will generate expectations among M\u0101ori\u2014and it has already, as we can tell by the agitation that has made the life of the Hon Michael Cullen so miserable for the last year. The expectation is that this is a soft substitute for genuine ownership. When they are given guardianship with no definition of what a guardian is or does, they will treat guardianship as equivalent to ownership. If it is not, they will think they have been robbed. And if they think they have been robbed they will feel justified in slashing car tyres and doing the other kinds of things we have already seen people do when they do not accept that the rights they have been given are the rights they are entitled to. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000401\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4030eb1-1b72-4bc3-b00d-7126013abc01\u0022\u003EI have looked for evidence that what is really intended here is a consolidation of proper legal rights. As a lawyer, of course, I note that in this part we have the definitions. The definitions show just how racist this bill is. It is racist because they are not law; they are a set of slogans and duplicitous words designed just to postpone definition until later. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000402\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4030eb1-1b72-4bc3-b00d-7126013abc01\u0022\u003ELet us look at a few. Clause 4 says \u201Ctikanga M\u0101ori\u201D has the meaning it is given in section 4 of Te Ture Whenua M\u0101ori Act. When we go there and see what tikanga M\u0101ori means we see that it means \u201CM\u0101ori customary values and practices\u201D. That is not law. Any people can expect their customary values and practices to move as they want them to. Law is something you can know in advance. Law is something by which people can order their lives, by looking at it and saying: \u201CHere is the boundary.\u201D A custom or practice does not have a boundary. M\u0101ori are not going to forgo the right to shift, to move, and to develop. We have heard that in this Chamber. So the definition of tikanga M\u0101ori is not a legal one. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000403\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4030eb1-1b72-4bc3-b00d-7126013abc01\u0022\u003EWhat else do we have? We have a definition of \u201Crecognised customary activity\u201D. This bill tells me to look at the Resource Management Act, where it is \u201Can activity, use or practice carried on, exercised, or followed under a customary rights order\u201D. Where is \u201Ccustomary rights order\u201D defined? It is defined in this Act. So we are deliberately sent in a circle, because they do not want us to know that there is actually no definition. There is no statement anywhere of what a customary activity is, so people can invent it and, with the collusion of the M\u0101ori Land Court, make it up as they go along. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000404\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4030eb1-1b72-4bc3-b00d-7126013abc01\u0022\u003EBecause there is so much agitation from Tariana Turia, the Greens, and M\u0101ori about not getting real ownership, New Zealanders are being encouraged to think that this settles it\u2014that the Crown ownership in this bill is what it says. It is not; it is simply a platform for the assertion of completely undefined rights and interests that will enable kaitiakitanga\u2014guardianship\u2014to be set up with all the rights of beach trolls. The Government anticipates now that this will apply to 10 percent of the coastline. I venture to say that it will be all of the coastline. Why would it not be when this bill, which looks as if it defines the terms, does not even do so? One of the drafting conventions is that one does not define\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022cba965bb-864f-4e06-99dc-6fcdfd007ad5\u0022 data-id=\u00223ad28389a2a646358dd6c96a9dfbc6c1\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000405\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cba965bb-864f-4e06-99dc-6fcdfd007ad5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00223ad28389a2a646358dd6c96a9dfbc6c1\u0022\u003EPITA PARAONE (NZ First):\u003C/span\u003E From the outset of the debate today I have wondered whether I was actually sitting in the Parliament of New Zealand, given some of the vitriolic expressions in this Chamber towards the intent of the bill. As a New Zealander I reflect the face of our country, in the sense that one part of me is M\u0101ori and the other part of me is of Irish and Scottish descent. This bill is all about New Zealanders. It ensures that the ownership of the seabed and foreshore, that part of our country that lies between the high-water mark and the low-water mark, is vested in the Crown for everybody\u2014for M\u0101ori and P\u0101keh\u0101 New Zealanders. The previous speaker wondered why New Zealand First was giving its support to this bill. That is the very reason we support the bill\u2014because it is for everybody. It ensures that the ownership of that part of our country is vested in the Crown for and on behalf of every New Zealander, M\u0101ori or non-M\u0101ori. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000406\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cba965bb-864f-4e06-99dc-6fcdfd007ad5\u0022\u003EWe have heard in the debate this morning about the various descriptions the bill has introduced. I noticed that the speakers from ACT made particular reference to the last part of new clause 2A, \u201CObject\u201D, which states: \u201C\u2026 including the protection of the association of wh\u0101nau, hap\u016B, and iwi with areas of the public foreshore and seabed.\u201D I wonder whether, in order to minimise that source of criticism, we should have included \u201Cfamilies, extended families, and clans\u201D to describe the non-M\u0101ori make-up of our community. All that the wording in the bill does is to ensure that we recognise the connection M\u0101ori had with that part of our country before we were colonised. As I have used that word, some of our M\u0101ori critics may feel that we have been colonised. But if it means that all New Zealanders can be assured of having access to that part of our country and of knowing that its ownership is vested in the Crown on their behalf, then I am quite happy to say that I am colonised.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000407\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cba965bb-864f-4e06-99dc-6fcdfd007ad5\u0022\u003E I just want to refer to the definition in clause 4 of \u201Cforeshore and seabed reserve\u201D. In the discussions leading up to Supplementary Order Paper 302 in the name of the Hon Dr Michael Cullen, it was suggested to us that we should include the phrase takutai moana, in recognition of the belief that M\u0101ori had over that issue. New Zealand First, and particularly its M\u0101ori members, suggested that phrase should not be included, and I will tell members why that was. I suggest to the Minister of M\u0101ori Affairs that when we talk to our relations about takutai moana, 99.9 percent of my relatives and his relatives talk about where the sand begins and where the seabed ends on someone else\u2019s coastline. By saying foreshore and seabed reserve, we are quite clear as to the part we are talking about. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000408\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cba965bb-864f-4e06-99dc-6fcdfd007ad5\u0022\u003EThe question was also asked of why New Zealand First supports this bill. One reason is that the legislation ensures the public foreshore and seabed is vested in the Crown. It ensures the rights of access and navigation of the public.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002276e4b8b7-c205-49d8-a21e-5d7a3ddf1330\u0022 data-id=\u002237ca4a8dcaaa42b3aa24fac77891cd8c\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000409\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002276e4b8b7-c205-49d8-a21e-5d7a3ddf1330\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002237ca4a8dcaaa42b3aa24fac77891cd8c\u0022\u003EMARK PECK (Labour\u2014Invercargill):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That the question be now put.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022ac169d29-4849-42c2-a4a7-f344fd416503\u0022 data-id=\u0022c06cb1d8cdc74ee6bda637a8cbdea25b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000410\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac169d29-4849-42c2-a4a7-f344fd416503\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c06cb1d8cdc74ee6bda637a8cbdea25b\u0022\u003EDr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National\u2014Rodney):\u003C/span\u003E In speaking to Part 1 of the Foreshore and Seabed Bill, I must observe that I just know what the Minister\u2019s former colleague Sir Geoffrey Palmer would think of what is going on in this Parliament. He would consider this, I suspect, to be a constitutional outrage\u2014and that is what it is. As we look at this bill, we see at least 50 percent of it has been amended, and that amendment was dumped on this Committee when the debate started. The consultation with the public of New Zealand on this legislation has been almost non-existent. Sure, M\u0101ori have had a lot of say, but the ordinary people who are members of the public in Rodney\u2014where there is a huge coastline and foreshore in the Kaipara Harbour\u2014have had no say on it. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000411\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac169d29-4849-42c2-a4a7-f344fd416503\u0022\u003EToday I have heard members of this Parliament refer to this bill as being deeply racist legislation. Members of the Government have denied that, but when I look at the wording in Part 1, I see there is no way to escape that conclusion. Members of the Government have suggested that the bill is not racist because in applying to be involved in the administration of a foreshore and seabed reserve, the applicant group is open to anyone under clause 4. Sure, the definition of \u201Capplicant group\u201D does not specify that the applicant group has to be M\u0101ori, but the courts will have to try to interpret this law, and that is why I think what we are doing today is so serious. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000412\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac169d29-4849-42c2-a4a7-f344fd416503\u0022\u003EThis is new, complex law, and the way that the courts interpret it could have huge implications for New Zealand. How are they to interpret what an applicant group is? As I understand it, a court would look back to the object of the legislation. Let us look back at clause 2A, \u201CObject\u201D. We see nothing in that clause to suggest that anyone other than M\u0101ori can have any specific interests, because what is protected under the object is \u201Cthe association of wh\u0101nau, hap\u016B, and iwi with areas of the public foreshore and seabed\u201D. How is a court to interpret that that means anything other than M\u0101ori? My family is not wh\u0101nau or hap\u016B. Those terms relate to M\u0101ori families and extended families. So clearly, as we look at the object of this bill\u2014even though it does not state this, because the Government is trying to make it look as though this is not deeply racist legislation\u2014we see an applicant group will have to be M\u0101ori. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000413\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac169d29-4849-42c2-a4a7-f344fd416503\u0022\u003EI look further in clause 4 at the issue of who is to administer those foreshore and seabed reserves. I think I even heard the Minister in the chair say that the High Court will be involved in the appointment of the members of the boards\u2014the governors. When I look at clause 4, I see it states the members \u201Care appointed in accordance with section 34E\u201D. Does clause 34E spell out how the members of those boards are to be appointed? No, it does not. All that clause states is that the High Court confirms appointments. This kind of law, I believe, is quite new for New Zealand, and to be ramming it through under urgency, even though it will provide huge opportunity for the courts to interpret what this Parliament is saying, is a new kind of arrogance that surpasses even that of Dr Cullen, who was certainly not dealt a short suit when it came to arrogance. This surpasses anything that I have seen. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000414\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac169d29-4849-42c2-a4a7-f344fd416503\u0022\u003EI come back to the fundamental concern I have with this bill, which is that it is a new kind of law, because the object makes it very clear that some of these measures are designed for M\u0101ori, yet some of the specific clauses try to pretend that that is not the case. How the courts will balance up the conflicting elements of this legislation and sort that out in the future is something that this Parliament clearly cannot know. For us to be passing legislation under urgency, when we have no idea how a court will interpret what we are doing, is dangerous for the future of our country, and it should be opposed.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022d4506109-be18-4b9d-9a79-1e15e2e2cd41\u0022 data-id=\u0022f55decd14a2b46729499ba1a67e18ef6\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000415\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d4506109-be18-4b9d-9a79-1e15e2e2cd41\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022f55decd14a2b46729499ba1a67e18ef6\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Conservation):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That the question be now put.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u00229e12c65946074f25aaa51e2625f9d1fc\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the question be now put.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 66\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 53\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 27; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; M\u0101ori Party 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000416\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the following amendment in the name of Metiria Turei to clause 4 be agreed to:\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000417\u0022\u003Eto omit paragraph (c) of the definition of foreshore and seabed.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022e54bcb327d0c49aa996abe51a1322b36\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 9\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EGreen Party 9.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 109\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000418\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the following amendment in the name of Metiria Turei to clause 4 be agreed to:\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000419\u0022\u003Eto omit from paragraph (b) of the definition of public foreshore and seabed the word \u201Cbut\u201D.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u00229d2f888b83b840459c0ec4db401acc5a\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 9\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EGreen Party 9.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 109\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000420\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the following amendment in the name of Metiria Turei to proposed new clauses 2A and 3 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 302 in the name of the Hon Dr Michael Cullen be agreed to:\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000421\u0022\u003Eto omit these clauses.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u002208e3db7c206e45d69153e80c9dd49467\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 17\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EGreen Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 101\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment to the amendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000422\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the following amendment in the name of Metiria Turei to the amendment to clause 4 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 302 in the name of the Hon Dr Michael Cullen be agreed to:\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000423\u0022\u003Eto omit the omission of the definition of ancestral connection order.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u00222fc9fc10fd23406c972608f5ce00551f\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 17\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EGreen Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 101\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment to the amendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000424\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 302 in the name of the Hon Dr Michael Cullen to Part 1 be agreed to.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u00229e787e97f89640a0ac4d2773d3b53e03\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 74\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 45\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 27; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8; M\u0101ori Party 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendments agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022ff5a600d6b244fa9bb9500af1a645419\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That Part 1 as amended be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 66\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 53\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 27; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; M\u0101ori Party 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EPart 1 as amended agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000425\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022978d6f2b2e9f4f8d946d6353203f4155\u0022\u003EPart 2 Public foreshore and seabed\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022 data-id=\u0022615d85e7f91e41308525a0b224226f30\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000426\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022615d85e7f91e41308525a0b224226f30\u0022\u003EGERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader\u2014National):\u003C/span\u003E This Part 2 is entitled \u201CPublic foreshore and seabed\u201D and it deals with access rights, navigation rights, fishing rights, and a number of other aspects of activity in the public foreshore and seabed. One of the first things it does, is to start to scope the limits of those access rights. It starts to talk about how authorities may be empowered to limit access to the public foreshore and seabed. We might say that that is reasonable. If the authority were a port company, it would not want everybody strolling through the container yards; if it were a marina, then clearly the operators at the marina would need to have some security for the craft located there. There would be other places too, where we might say that it is perfectly reasonable for the public to have some limited access. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000427\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003EWe are fascinated by the references in clause 6(2) to issues granted under clause 21. Clause 21 directs us to new clause 62B, \u0022Protection of sites of significance\u0022. There will be sites of significance around New Zealand, there is no doubt about that, and there might be a place where we might want to say it was not appropriate to go on to the foreshore and seabed. I can think of Maud Island, in the Pelorus Sound, where there are considerable bird-recovery programmes. Naturally, we would want to see that access was somewhat limited\u2014everyone benefits by the limitations put on such access. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000428\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003EBut the \u201Csites of significance\u201D becomes interesting when we start to consider the issue of the reservations that are likely to be set up for M\u0101ori. It is a fascinating prospect, actually, in the 21st century for a country like New Zealand to be creating reservations for M\u0101ori\u2014a fascinating way for them to be treated. However, when it comes to those reservations, we find they are going to be administered by a governance group. The bill is absolutely silent on the structure of those groups\u2014it is left open for the Minister to negotiate with the people who are the beneficiaries of those reserve areas. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000429\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003EThe question then becomes why a group would be administering an area if there were no capacity for them to make some rules about the usage of that area. Quite clearly what we see in new clause 62B is the power that those groups will have to restrict access to what we are now told will be 10 percent, or more, of the New Zealand coastline. Clause 62B talks about \u201Csites of significance\u201D. Surely any one of those reservations will be considered a site of significance\u2014[Interruption]\u2014it is in this part. I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. This just shows what a huge mess Parliament is in, and how poorly constructed this legislation is. What I am referring to is a reference from clause 21\u2014so we have clause 6 that sends us to clause 21. Clause 21, to be understood, requires one to understand what is in new clause 62B. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000430\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E It is new clause 62B(3) that I am most interested in canvassing. It cannot be discussed without a cross reference, and for Dr Cullen to sit there and say that we are on the wrong part, simply means that he does not have a clue what is in his own bill, and it shows what a huge mess Parliament is in because it has not had the time to scrutinise the bill properly.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000431\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002270fa4cbd-9380-4916-9f2a-78da059d220e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ed6bdc38181d48fdac84e2cbfe0da736\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson)\u003C/span\u003E: That is not a point of order. The member will please continue.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000432\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223d680c00498f473782538b9e29cf720c\u0022\u003EGERRY BROWNLEE\u003C/span\u003E: So members can see that the powers given to the governance, or the governors, of those reserves is quite considerable, and implicit in subsequent provisions of the bill. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000433\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003EWe can also see an interesting little piece here about existing fishing rights reserved. What does that mean? Does it mean that the Ministry of Fisheries can no longer change catch limits around the coastline of the country? Does it mean that the Ministry of Fisheries will have to consult the new nominal owner of the foreshore and seabed, the Department of Conservation, which has, in turn, to discuss the matter with the Minister of M\u0101ori Affairs, and will we see different catch limits made available in reservation areas for the beneficiaries of those areas, compared with the rest of the country? The answer is almost certainly yes. Why would any people want to say that although something is theirs and they have governance over it, anybody can come and stomp all over it, and that even though they sit and meet, and charge, they still have to do just as they are told by the Minister of Fisheries, the Minister of Conservation, or the Minister of M\u0101ori Affairs? Everyone knows that is not how it will work. Those bodies will see themselves very much as mini - local authorities, and in so many ways\u2014although I will acknowledge before Dr Cullen races to his feet that we have not got to this part\u2014this is also the first indication that the veto powers, which the National Party has been so concerned about for so long, remain in the bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bc1e9f65-e08b-4939-867c-22ef093e2a4e\u0022 data-id=\u00229149ea22b94a48e5a1bb640fbed60760\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000434\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bc1e9f65-e08b-4939-867c-22ef093e2a4e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00229149ea22b94a48e5a1bb640fbed60760\u0022\u003ERODNEY HIDE (Leader\u2014ACT):\u003C/span\u003E I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I am sorry to raise this, but I just need your clarification. We are discussing Part 2. Does that include new Part 2A, or will that be separate?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022 data-id=\u0022ba1de76d0dc6486ab49ac5b444d3bdb7\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000435\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022ba1de76d0dc6486ab49ac5b444d3bdb7\u0022\u003EHon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister):\u003C/span\u003E I can help on that matter. The member will see that there is a Supplementary Order Paper 304 in my name. In Supplementary Order Paper 302, which is also in my name, the draftsperson put in an amendment to insert a new heading Part 2A but did not provide the necessary other wording to actually have a separate part. It has been redrafted. The exact wording of the operative clauses is all the same in both Supplementary Order Papers, except that two typos have been corrected, so members can read either version in terms of the meaning. It is now all part of Part 2. It is a single debate, so the last clause in Part 2 is clause 34G. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022 data-id=\u0022219829003ea74137a1a99ade837daa0f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000436\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022219829003ea74137a1a99ade837daa0f\u0022\u003ERt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader\u2014NZ First):\u003C/span\u003E When I listen to this unholy confused alliance, and when I listened to the last speech, which was mistaken on every point, it brings to mind the famous words of Jonathan Swift, who said: \u201CWhen a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces of the world are all in confederacy against him.\u201D That is the case with this bill. As clear as daylight in the bill are the fundamental things that matter: the rights of access in clause 6, the right to be on the public foreshore and seabed, the right to enter, remain in, and leave it, the right to pass and repass\u2014all those rights are there, as clear as daylight, except where they are changed by some other Act under clause 6(3). It is the same in clause 7, which sets out the rights of navigation, the right to pass and repass, and the right of passage, except where some other Act circumvents or forecloses on that right. The right, even, to \u201Cremain temporarily in a place until wind or weather permits departure or until cargo has been obtained or repairs completed\u201D is a total right when it comes to navigation. New clause 7A, \u201CExisting fishing rights preserved\u201D, states: \u201CNothing in this Act affects any rights of fishing recognised, immediately before the commencement of this section, by or under an enactment or a rule of law.\u201D It is as plain as daylight. Any right that people may have had, they still have under this legislation, or it lies in other legislation. How about clause 11, \u201CPublic foreshore and seabed vested in the Crown\u201D? What could be clearer than that? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000437\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003EWhy would National not support that? Why would National line up with the M\u0101ori Party, or the Greens, or any other group out there that has no interest in national unity or cohesion? Members should go to clause 12, \u201CPublic foreshore and seabed not to be alienated\u201D. That is the reason why National is not happy with this legislation. National has always been dead keen on flogging off this country\u2019s assets to anybody and everybody, whether foreign or local. Public foreshore and seabed\u2014[Interruption] Mr Prebble says that that is his policy, and he is right. The public foreshore and seabed is not to be alienated\u2014it is not to be sold. That is why National opposes the bill. It has always been after the privatisation of somebody else\u2019s resources. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000438\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003EClause 34B(3) sets out the issue of reserves. It concerns the issue of status in respect of the seabed and foreshore, and the issue of access and the rights of navigation. I have mentioned all those provisions. There is a total assurance to any and every New Zealander that the rights of access and use will not be threatened, at all. So why does the National Party put up its least-qualified person, who has the least understanding of the issue, and make him the No. 1 defender of its position? Where is the great communicator to lead the charge? Do members know why he is not here? He is not here because he cannot front it. He does not have a case or an argument, and he does not have any contentious\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000439\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b0d8b0e0-3ece-4865-9145-5eb5983fc54c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224c1d30c026b64c408aae3632306ac679\u0022\u003EHon Richard Prebble\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. The member cannot talk about the absence of another member.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000440\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002270fa4cbd-9380-4916-9f2a-78da059d220e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022fd2c4de3c4404adeaec907e1f9114db4\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson)\u003C/span\u003E: I thought the member might raise that. The member has been here a long time. I suggest he look at Speaker\u2019s ruling 23/7.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000441\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002298d27da36b6d4cba846354f89113df23\u0022\u003ERt Hon WINSTON PETERS\u003C/span\u003E: Mr Chairperson, to whom do you think I was referring when I referred to the \u201Cgreat communicator\u201D or the great debater? I did not refer to the person National jacked up with the Toastmasters club in June of this year to be called the great communicator. I have not referred to any name or personality, at all. The assumption that the person who does not have the guts to get down here and show himself is the \u201Cgreat communicator\u201D is beyond me\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000442\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002270fa4cbd-9380-4916-9f2a-78da059d220e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c958076c178c47ccb9c883039cf5ddbc\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson)\u003C/span\u003E: The member has gone too far now. To infer that someone lacks courage is out of order. It is a personal reflection.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000443\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022eed7fa5196354453b92436ab2a021b68\u0022\u003ERt Hon WINSTON PETERS\u003C/span\u003E: But who is it?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000444\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220d69b7536a6c41938fabfce85e65db7e\u0022\u003EGerry Brownlee\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I do not know who some people may think Mr Peters is referring to. I know that he is referring to the Prime Minister, and I think it was very offensive for him to refer to the Prime Minister as \u201Che\u201D in this Chamber.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000445\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002270fa4cbd-9380-4916-9f2a-78da059d220e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220eebe277a5214c9490fb2674e5d7bef0\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson)\u003C/span\u003E: We have had our fun. We have a serious debate here, and members should take a deep breath and get back to it. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000446\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022dd0e466fca62471eba6bbb73c8c47441\u0022\u003ERt Hon WINSTON PETERS\u003C/span\u003E: It is as clear as daylight to any doubting Thomas that the rights of access, the rights of navigation, and the personal fishing rights of New Zealanders are not attacked or interrupted in any way. The bill specifically sets that out. Just because it clarifies M\u0101ori rights and has greater definition as to what they may be does not mean that every other person is threatened. That is fundamental to the bill. It means that there can be some national cohesion and unity on this critical issue. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000447\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003ENot one National Party supporter out there could possibly be happy with the argument that is being mounted by the National Party in the Chamber today\u2014or, rather, the lack of it. That is why the great communicator would not come and communicate. He would not come and debate this legislation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000448\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b0d8b0e0-3ece-4865-9145-5eb5983fc54c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022cb3ff00d81b24a79b287bf6373b041d2\u0022\u003EHon Richard Prebble\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. The member may be referring to the Prime Minister or he may be referring to the Leader of the Opposition, but he was clearly referring to a member of Parliament, because only members of Parliament can come here. Therefore his statements are out of order. I think, given the fact that he is now a repeat offender, you should terminate his speech, so we can all go and have lunch. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000449\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002270fa4cbd-9380-4916-9f2a-78da059d220e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226aa1ab3a402848cc9eaf7b59b0b3b2bd\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson)\u003C/span\u003E: Mr Prebble always has something to add. I thank him, and again refer the member who was speaking to Speaker\u2019s ruling 23/7. He must not refer to the absence of members. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000450\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002270fa4cbd-9380-4916-9f2a-78da059d220e\u0022\u003ESitting suspended from 1 p.m. to 2 p.m.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022df788c48-b9be-42fd-b8f2-76629a5572b8\u0022 data-id=\u00223379f1f979b84f6d9e60ef3e12ec5289\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000451\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022df788c48-b9be-42fd-b8f2-76629a5572b8\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00223379f1f979b84f6d9e60ef3e12ec5289\u0022\u003EDr WAYNE MAPP (National\u2014North Shore):\u003C/span\u003E Part 2 is, of course, one of the major parts of the Foreshore and Seabed Bill, and I anticipate an extensive debate and more than one call on it. In this particular call I shall focus on one particular issue only, which concerns clause 11 on ownership, clause 12 on the fact that the area is not to be alienated, and then how that is tied into new clause 115A on the issue of treaty settlements. I heard this morning on the radio that Mr Peters claims\u2014and I use the word \u201Cclaims\u201D advisedly\u2014to be protecting the public interest, and that there will be no alienation of the foreshore and seabed. We know, from answers given by the Prime Minister in this House, that that is a false statement. The Minister in the chair, the Hon Dr Michael Cullen, also knows that that is a false statement. We know that the Government has made its deal with its own internal opponents in the M\u0101ori caucus\u2014a special deal that is contained effectively in clause 115A. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000452\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022df788c48-b9be-42fd-b8f2-76629a5572b8\u0022\u003EI want to say this. Clause 11 purports to provide for Crown ownership of the foreshore and seabed. That clause then immediately states that it is subject to the customary rights provisions of clause 28 and other clauses thereafter. So straight away the idea of absolute ownership on behalf of all the people of New Zealand is immediately compromised\u2014hugely compromised by a whole panoply of customary rights orders. They will be the territorial customary rights orders and the Government\u2019s management plans that go with that. That will hugely compromise the reality of Crown ownership, and it is all set out in subclause (3). So the first point is that when the Government states in clause 11 that it provides for absolute ownership on behalf of the Crown, that is, of itself, compromised within the very same clause by the provisions of subclause (3). \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000453\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022df788c48-b9be-42fd-b8f2-76629a5572b8\u0022\u003EThe next issue\u2014and this is more serious\u2014is the link to clause 12, \u201CPublic foreshore and seabed not to be alienated\u201D. That, of itself, seems to be a grand promise. After all, this Government, and New Zealand First in particular, have gone up and down the country and said they will protect the public interest by guaranteeing ownership of the foreshore and seabed on behalf of all New Zealanders. They are not true to their word. They have knowingly set up a device whereby the foreshore and seabed will be alienated. They heard in May of this year that the Prime Minister intends to settle treaty grievances by transferring foreshore and seabed to M\u0101ori owners. OK, I know that the New Zealand First speakers will say that that takes a special Act of Parliament, and that they will not consent to it. They will say that, but of course they know perfectly well that the Labour Government will go along to the Green Party, the United Future party, or the M\u0101ori Party, and get votes from those parties for the alienation of foreshore and seabed for those settlements, so there will be a majority. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000454\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022df788c48-b9be-42fd-b8f2-76629a5572b8\u0022\u003EWhat has really happened, in effect, is that New Zealand First has set a process in place in this bill to enable the alienation of the foreshore and seabed. That is actually not some kind of secret. The Prime Minister directly told the nation, through her answers to parliamentary questions in this Chamber, that that is exactly what will happen. I am prepared to bet that the Government will transfer ownership of the west coast harbours\u2014K\u0101whia, Aotea, and Raglan\u2014together with much of the East Cape, the Eastern Bay of Plenty, and the far north, estimated by the M\u0101ori members to be 10 percent of the New Zealand coastline, to M\u0101ori. That will require special Acts of Parliament; I acknowledge that. But that is what the Government will do\u2014and the Green Party will vote for that absolutely consistently, as will the M\u0101ori Party. The Labour Party knows that. The reality is that New Zealand First has been duped. It has been duped, and is duping its supporters as a consequence. New Zealand First\u2019s supporters have trusted it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000455\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022df788c48-b9be-42fd-b8f2-76629a5572b8\u0022\u003EDebate interrupted.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000456\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u00223bd2c60b227a470ca21ba5b4de85c8bc\u0022\u003EVisitors\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000457\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022b50a4d91dd094684afc61492a0fd64fa\u0022\u003EDelegation from the Senate of the State of California, United States of America\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022fae7af0d-c48d-4dd4-88f3-928ccaa3a984\u0022 data-id=\u00221006908f271843f0b59dafbee58a834e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000458\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fae7af0d-c48d-4dd4-88f3-928ccaa3a984\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00221006908f271843f0b59dafbee58a834e\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley)\u003C/span\u003E: I have much pleasure in informing members that a delegation from the senate of the state of California, United States of America, is present in the gallery. I am sure that members would wish that delegation to be welcomed.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000459\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u002274855d7613da43edafe281a7e36cbfca\u0022\u003EMembers of the Committee of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister from the House of Commons, United Kingdom\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000460\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fae7af0d-c48d-4dd4-88f3-928ccaa3a984\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002201cd64635ebf42a7ab880f3ac65b388f\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley)\u003C/span\u003E: I also have pleasure in informing members that members of the Committee of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister from the House of Commons, United Kingdom, are present in the gallery. I am sure that members would wish that delegation to be welcomed.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022\u003EBills\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000461\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u00228becc8f4060b47c6938bb4135561032f\u0022\u003EForeshore and Seabed Bill\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000462\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u00224ee5147887a4454386de8fc9e1bd04c0\u0022\u003EIn Committee\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000463\u0022\u003EDebate resumed.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000464\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u00229c3d3d7e9c5e472fa28217294d36192d\u0022\u003EPart 2 Public foreshore and seabed (continued)\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022 data-id=\u0022e526eb1326b54ec8a4d406ee878b17cb\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000465\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022e526eb1326b54ec8a4d406ee878b17cb\u0022\u003EHon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister):\u003C/span\u003E Let me just try to respond as best I can to that sort of farrago of paranoid nonsense, because that is what it actually was.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000466\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022df788c48-b9be-42fd-b8f2-76629a5572b8\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228255270e3e6c47cfb57bb18c969877b9\u0022\u003EDr Wayne Mapp\u003C/span\u003E: The Prime Minister said so.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000467\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220cc8646ac2ed4042a0c88f8ef2199446\u0022\u003EHon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN\u003C/span\u003E: No, the Prime Minister did not say that. The member really has got to stop misquoting people in the House in that way. Clause 11 says that the public foreshore and seabed is vested in the Crown. That then has to be judged against another constitutional fact in New Zealand, which is that Parliament is sovereign, and no Parliament can bind its successor. [Interruption]\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000468\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003EI do not see much point in laughing about that. Some of us believe it is a fairly important principle of our constitution. I invite the member to shut up for a minute\u2014if he does not listen at home, he at least should listen here\u2014and listen to what would happen if clause 12 did not say that alienation cannot occur except by a special Act of Parliament or under section 355 of the Resource Management Act. What does the member think would happen? Under this bill, if there was no mention in clause 12 of that, the Crown could alienate public foreshore and seabed by means simply of agreement or sale. All that subclause (2) of clause 12 says is that the only mechanism by which that can be done is under section 355\u2014and, as the member will note, that is subsequently actually amended in a very significant manner so that the only alienation that can occur is in terms of a perpetual leasehold, as opposed to a freehold title\u2014or by Act of Parliament.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000469\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003EBut our saying that actually does not change the fact that an Act of Parliament could change that provision in clause 11, in any case. If clause 12 did not exist\u2014and this is where it is a paranoid farrago of nonsense\u2014the reality would be that there would be less protection for Crown ownership. The law is as simple as that on this point. Why members of the National Party keep going into these issues in that form, I do not know. They are actually making fools of themselves amongst the general public who understand some of these things.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000470\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003ETwo members are moving entrenching clauses. The point I would make first of all is that this Parliament has only ever passed entrenching clauses on matters where it is actually determining the interests of its own members, and the reason for the entrenching clause is to prevent a simple majority affecting the rights of the minority in that respect in certain parts of the Electoral Act. They are very specific, and they themselves, of course, have been there for a long time, and have acquired a strong conventional status in that respect. We have done it nowhere else, and I do not believe we should start going down the route of entrenching clauses in general. I think they are bad law and should be confined to cases such as the Electoral Act.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000471\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003EIn the case of the Green amendment, I am particularly opposed because it distinguishes between a super majority required for an alienation generally, and a simple majority required for an alienation in the context of a Treaty of Waitangi settlement. It does seem to me that that would open up the bill to very strong accusations of having, effectively, an ethnic-based or racist-based element within it. It would have to be across the board, as Mr Baldock\u2019s amendment is across the board. But the Government cannot support that amendment, and, of course, as I am sure the member realises, to pass a 75 percent entrenching clause requires 90 members of the House to vote for it, and therefore, of course, that amendment will actually fail.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022fce185df-f325-4a5a-a850-52fb6b2b918d\u0022 data-id=\u002290f416fa11af4dbcbba310f7fdd9b3cb\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000472\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fce185df-f325-4a5a-a850-52fb6b2b918d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002290f416fa11af4dbcbba310f7fdd9b3cb\u0022\u003EBILL GUDGEON (NZ First):\u003C/span\u003E T\u0113n\u0101 an\u014D t\u0101tou katoa i huihui mai nei i roto i t\u0113nei o \u014D t\u0101tou whare. Greetings to all of us who are gathered here today.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000473\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022803002d1-e810-4bd8-b8e7-2e97d0d6f626\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f1a094ae6f124f67a9425fd394d44e9c\u0022\u003ESimon Power\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. Just as a matter of clarification as we head into Part 2, I ask whether it is your intention to have two calls in a row for parties that support the bill, or do you intend to follow the convention of having a speaker who opposes the bill following one from a party that supports it. I would be interested in your view on that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000474\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fae7af0d-c48d-4dd4-88f3-928ccaa3a984\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a5136b02347f411992ca4d502178d8a4\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley)\u003C/span\u003E: The member is quite correct. I did make a mistake. The speaker should have been from the opposing side. I will certainly make sure that that will happen.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000475\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022fa51a91ebaf64315a57267c32c3505ec\u0022\u003EDail Jones\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I am sorry to interrupt the New Zealand First member. When the Rt Hon Winston Peters was speaking, he was interrupted five times on points of order by the National Party and the ACT party. I would ask that if National members wish to raise a point of order on a matter of procedure, they do that either before a speech begins or after a speech ends. It is simply a matter of courtesy, and I hope that those members would bear that in mind in future, rather than interrupting us all the time.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000476\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fae7af0d-c48d-4dd4-88f3-928ccaa3a984\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002254e2ffa8ddf04e32861edf413990ff1f\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley)\u003C/span\u003E: The point of order was a correct point of order and it was correctly called at the time. It was also my error.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000477\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fce185df-f325-4a5a-a850-52fb6b2b918d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022fae1e4400f524faf8e9585327360d25f\u0022\u003EBILL GUDGEON\u003C/span\u003E: For the Committee, I would like to go back a little in history. It might refresh the minds of some of us who are in the older age bracket, and some of those in the younger age bracket might learn something today. To an almost purely M\u0101ori audience at Whangara on 25 April 1946, Anzac Day, Ngata stated in plain terms his loyal attitude, and also M\u0101ori indebtedness, to the British Crown and Commonwealth of Nations. In a speech considered by many to have been one of the most significantly effective of his career, he declared and maintained that although the M\u0101ori people had suffered from many injustices inflicted in the past, they as an indigenous race were fortunate indeed to have come into the membership of the British Commonwealth. Although insistent upon the recognition of rights as British subjects that were guaranteed to his race by the Treaty of Waitangi, he never spurned cooperation with the P\u0101keh\u0101. His life was, and had been, devoted to the preparation of his people for full responsibility as citizens. British authority was accepted by our forefathers, and it has given M\u0101ori the rights they would not have been accorded under any other.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000478\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fce185df-f325-4a5a-a850-52fb6b2b918d\u0022\u003ENew Zealanders will own the foreshore and seabed. If we are building a road to somewhere, let us build it together. The road to nowhere is achieved by divisive tactics, choices, and policies. New Zealand First has advocated, and will continue to advocate, policies for one law for all, in order to build nationhood rather than no good. Is that really too much to hope for? The question was asked in this Chamber on 10 November 2004 by New Zealand First leader, Winston Peters. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000479\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fce185df-f325-4a5a-a850-52fb6b2b918d\u0022\u003EThe beach will not, cannot, and never will be sold to foreign interests. Customary rights for New Zealanders will be protected. Policies of irreversible damage over the past two decades have led us to a constitutional crisis as to who owns our foreshores, seabed, and all their other resources. Those policies were created by former Governments. If we follow along those lines, it will support and confirm the ideological thinking of the leader of the National Party, Dr Brash, that racism exists. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000480\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fce185df-f325-4a5a-a850-52fb6b2b918d\u0022\u003EOn 27 March 1995 the New Zealand Herald reported Dame Whina Cooper\u2019s concerns about Aotearoa. The view that Dame Whina Cooper had campaigned for all her life, was to bring New Zealand together. All this talk of sovereignty and separatism is contrary to her vision for New Zealand. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000481\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fce185df-f325-4a5a-a850-52fb6b2b918d\u0022\u003EThe object of this act is to preserve the public foreshore and seabed in perpetuity as the common heritage of all New Zealanders, in a way that enables the protection by the Crown of the public foreshore and seabed on behalf of all the people of New Zealand, including the protection of wh\u0101nau, hap\u016B, and iwi. It amazes me that as soon as the words wh\u0101nau, hap\u016B, and iwi are brought out, we are accused in this Chamber of being racist. If I said family, extended family, and the greater extended family, would that change the issue? Would that say that we are not racist?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000482\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fce185df-f325-4a5a-a850-52fb6b2b918d\u0022\u003EPort companies will get certainty of tenure. We are confident that with the outcome we have secured, that provision will go ahead. I am confused about where the National Party is coming from. One minute they are telling us of divisiveness that exists, and now that New Zealand First is promoting the law, National is opposing it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00221e93d9c8-b183-40db-b200-833697df066c\u0022 data-id=\u0022de5c09422f434c92b2c8bd1a8771edca\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000483\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221e93d9c8-b183-40db-b200-833697df066c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022de5c09422f434c92b2c8bd1a8771edca\u0022\u003ELARRY BALDOCK (United Future):\u003C/span\u003E I rise to speak on Part 2, and in my first call on the part to address the issue of my amendment on the table with regard to the entrenchment of clause 12(2)(a). After the speech of Dr Wayne Mapp, I am almost certain that we will have National Party support for that amendment, because he made it very clear that National wants to prevent any future alienation of the foreshore and seabed. So we shall look forward to National\u2019s vote when the vote is taken at the end of this debate. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000484\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221e93d9c8-b183-40db-b200-833697df066c\u0022\u003EAfter the presentation by the member from New Zealand First, I am almost certain that that party, too, will be supportive of the amendment, because its members are known to have been going around the country for some time talking about not selling off the silver in New Zealand. The Rt Hon Winston Peters already said in his speech: \u201CWe can\u2019t, we won\u2019t, we will not sell the beach in New Zealand.\u201D So we look forward to New Zealand First\u2019s support, also. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000485\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221e93d9c8-b183-40db-b200-833697df066c\u0022\u003EMy amendment is simply to alter clause 12(2)(a), so that instead of the clause saying that any part of the public foreshore and seabed can be sold only by a special Act of Parliament, it will require that that special Act is passed by a majority of 75 percent of all members of the House of Representatives. Although it is true\u2014and I agree with the Hon Dr Michael Cullen\u2014that no Parliament can bind a future Parliament, a Parliament can make it more difficult for a future Parliament to alienate the foreshore and seabed. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000486\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221e93d9c8-b183-40db-b200-833697df066c\u0022\u003EThat is something that many submitters throughout the submission process asked the committee to look into. There was a great deal of suspicion for different reasons on different sides of the issue, and a great deal of suspicion about the Crown\u2019s intentions in taking ownership\u2014suspicion that in future the Crown may be tempted to flog it off for short-term gain. I believe that the amendment I am proposing is clearly in response to that request, and is a reasonable one. I was hopeful that the Government might have seen that also, because the suspicion still remains. If the Government doesn\u2019t support this amendment, then people will be wondering whether it intends to do some backroom deals in terms of treaty settlements.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000487\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221e93d9c8-b183-40db-b200-833697df066c\u0022\u003EUnited Future has no problem with what is now emerging in the bill\u2014the opportunity for a foreshore and seabed reserve to be placed on top of Crown title in order to give a recognition to a territorial customary right\u2014but we would have a concern if a freehold title were being given to M\u0101ori, because we have made it very clear that no one is to own the foreshore and seabed. So it would certainly send a very clear signal to New Zealanders if the Government supported this amendment and entrenched that particular clause. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000488\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221e93d9c8-b183-40db-b200-833697df066c\u0022\u003EAnother part of my amendment would create new clause 114(aa), which concerns the issue of double entrenchment. We would like to get really tough on a future Parliament by not only stating in the Act that the provision has to have 75 percent support, which we all know can be amended by simple majority, but by also supporting clause 114(aa). That would mean that whatever the majority was passing that clause\u2014and I tell Dr Cullen that I understand from my advice from the Clerk it does not have to be 75 percent\u2014the initial clause of 12(2)(a) would be entrenched to that level. The majority could be 60 percent, 70 percent, 90 percent, or perhaps in this Parliament it could be as much as 100 percent, because we have all been hearing speeches\u2014except, perhaps, from the ACT party\u2014that here there is no intention ever to see the foreshore and seabed alienated.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000489\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221e93d9c8-b183-40db-b200-833697df066c\u0022\u003ESo as this amendment is put on the Table, I hope the Government might reconsider its position. I am confident of the support of National and New Zealand First, and also the Green Party. The Green Party certainly would not want to see the foreshore and seabed sold off, in any shape or form. In fact, it has a similar amendment although, as Dr Cullen pointed out, it allows for a treatment different to mine under the treaty clauses.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000490\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221e93d9c8-b183-40db-b200-833697df066c\u0022\u003EI am hopeful we may see my amendment pass. It will mean a great deal. I do not think we need to be hung up on the fact that we are setting a precedent, because this Parliament sets precedents all the time. In fact, we do that any time we really want to; it is just a question of whether we see the matter as being important enough to do so. If we do not pass the amendment, then that raises issues with clause 15, which I will deal with in my next call.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00221a705910-5320-43bf-aa82-027a761519f6\u0022 data-id=\u00226f581cb35a194f2db5f5175cdb647d9e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000491\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221a705910-5320-43bf-aa82-027a761519f6\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00226f581cb35a194f2db5f5175cdb647d9e\u0022\u003ERUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour\u2014Napier):\u003C/span\u003E I rise to speak against the last speaker\u2019s proposal that we entrench clause 12 by requiring a different level of voting in this Parliament. That argument has to be opposed for two reasons. The first is that it misunderstands parliamentary sovereignty and the fact that the Government is answerable to the electorate every 3 years. This Government knows that by election time the electorate will appreciate the wisdom of this legislation, and the fact that it is an effective and elegant resolution of a difficulty raised in the Court of Appeal last year.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000492\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221a705910-5320-43bf-aa82-027a761519f6\u0022\u003EThe second reason why I oppose any such amendment is that traditionally in our Parliament, entrenchment provisions are left for matters of high constitutional significance. The fact that the member suggests this matter is of high constitutional significance reveals a basic misunderstanding of the purpose of the legislation. This is not legislation that deals with deep-seated constitutional principle; it is legislation that clears up the uncertainties in the queries created as a result of the Ng\u0101ti Apa decision. That decision, simply, was the expression by the Court of Appeal of the confluence or intersection of the developing aboriginal customary rights law in international common law with our own common law, and with the failure of the Te Ture Whenua Maori Act to provide adequately for where that intersection should occur. This bill is no more than that and no less than that. It clears up those uncertainties in a very fine form, without addressing basic constitutional principle.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000493\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221a705910-5320-43bf-aa82-027a761519f6\u0022\u003ETherefore, to entrench clause 12 would be to perpetuate the myth and mistake that many make\u2014that this is major legislation that overturns many constitutional rights and freedoms. We saw that time and time again at the select committee, where many submitters spoke of the Crown not as being the collective body of leadership in this country\u2014the administrative, executive, and political will embodiment of this country\u2014but as being a partisan party to the treaty, as one part in a two or more party debate. So many submitters came to the select committee with the Crown as the other side of the debate. In terms of some discussions, and in litigation, that is correct: the Crown is a multifaceted thing, and in this legislation, as in much legislation, it means more than the bipartisan debate of a court room. The Crown is all of us\u2014all New Zealanders.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000494\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221a705910-5320-43bf-aa82-027a761519f6\u0022\u003EThat takes to me to clause 11(1), which is perhaps the fundamental premise of the whole bill. Dr Mapp spoke about this clause in his speech. The clause is there to resolve the uncertainty discovered by the Court of Appeal judges in the Ng\u0101ti Apa case. They pointed to legislation and referred to the eight or so Acts whereby previously it had been understood that the foreshore was vested in the Crown. But because the terms were not precise and absolute enough, the Court of Appeal considered there was an ambiguity as to the effect of the legislation, which did not relieve the Crown of the burden of aboriginal customary rights.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000495\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221a705910-5320-43bf-aa82-027a761519f6\u0022\u003ESo clause 11(1) answers the concern expressed by the Court of Appeal. It reinforces what every person in this country knows is the law, except those who are trying to gain an unfair advantage over others. It is what every person last Christmas would have said was the position, and what every person 10 Christmases ago would have said was the position, as they walked along the foreshore. It is a simple statement of understood fact; it is now a legal clarity; and it is a legal, simplistic statement of what the position was always intended to be, and will be hereafter. So it is a statement, not radical in nature but confirming the understandings of lay people, lawyers, and judges.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000496\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221a705910-5320-43bf-aa82-027a761519f6\u0022\u003EIf I were thought to be wrong on that, one would have to ask where the argument and debate was before June of last year when the Court of Appeal decision was released. No one discussed this matter then, because we all understood what the law was to be. We all understood what the eight Acts referred to in the Court of Appeal decision intended to achieve. We all understood what the Te Ture Whenua Maori Act meant to achieve when it referred to land. We all understand that that legislation referred to land and not to seabed and foreshore\u2014otherwise, it would have been the \u201CTe Ture Whenua and Moana Act\u201D, perhaps. So this bill sets right that which the Court of Appeal discovered was wrong.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e4030eb1-1b72-4bc3-b00d-7126013abc01\u0022 data-id=\u0022878c874749f547778c8ca41e7777c6ca\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000497\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4030eb1-1b72-4bc3-b00d-7126013abc01\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022878c874749f547778c8ca41e7777c6ca\u0022\u003ESTEPHEN FRANKS (ACT):\u003C/span\u003E This part of the bill that the chairman of the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee has just been explaining does, to some extent, reflect existing law. But it goes further. Indeed, Dr Cullen\u2019s intervention, when he tried to explain why a provision stated not only the obvious but in fact cast doubt on the obvious, I think exaggerated the problem that has been created. Some poor judge some day will probably pour through that contribution to this debate in an attempt to work out whether in fact there was an assumption by the drafters or by this Committee that clause 12(1) did prevent, or tried to affect, a subsequent Parliament and that we wanted to make it clear, or whether there was some sort of developing doctrine that Parliament could bind future Parliaments. I am sure that Dr Cullen\u2019s address on the matter will have helped. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000498\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4030eb1-1b72-4bc3-b00d-7126013abc01\u0022\u003EBut what is not clear is why this part then goes on and tries to trample all over the idea that the Crown\u2019s ownership is normal, full, absolute ownership by cancelling the Crown\u2019s computer-generated titles. The Minister in the chair, the Hon Dr Michael Cullen, could, I am sure, explain just what is intended by that. Is it some kind of vandal\u2019s assurance\u2014some notion that if we cancel the computer entries that show the boundaries of what the Crown owns, which is just what a title is\u2014that it is a deeply emphatic statement that the Crown never intends to do anything with it? If that is the case, then New Zealand as well as M\u0101ori are losing badly by this move. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000499\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4030eb1-1b72-4bc3-b00d-7126013abc01\u0022\u003EThere is a great temptation in this House to make bold statements about the seabed and foreshore never being available for any kind of alienation. In fact, every community in this country will have projects that will require them to come to this House and get a special Act of Parliament to allow them to finance and achieve outcomes on what is currently public foreshore. The reason is that most of New Zealand\u2019s coast is not the kind of iconic beach that this debate focuses on. It does not provide great fishing spots. Much of it is land that is eroding. Much of it is land where people will want to protect existing boundaries. They will have works that are not just breastworks for marinas or ports; there will be roads to quarry and all kinds of works to undertake that this will complicate\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000500\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229c0eba1d-17a6-44e2-a9b3-2e2535339570\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ef176f40e1c7434a912cb7f48c42193f\u0022\u003EHon Pete Hodgson\u003C/span\u003E: Below the low-tide mark?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000501\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4030eb1-1b72-4bc3-b00d-7126013abc01\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ff7de4edd7f746debff7813c67cda121\u0022\u003ESTEPHEN FRANKS\u003C/span\u003E: Below the mean height\u2014of course there are. I can think of an area very close to my place in the Wairarapa where the legal road has disappeared into the sea but the actual road being used gets moved probably every 3 or 4 years. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000502\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4030eb1-1b72-4bc3-b00d-7126013abc01\u0022\u003EThis bill states that even legal roads will disappear if they are not used. It does not state for how long. A road could be blocked for a week. According to this, the Crown could say: \u201CSorry, you\u2019re trumped\u2014off you go.\u201D Why does the bill not define how long the period of disuse is\u2014because this is a great, fat confiscation to make a political statement?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000503\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4030eb1-1b72-4bc3-b00d-7126013abc01\u0022\u003E The Minister in the chair, Dr Cullen, is leaning back looking amused by this\u2014probably because he is thinking: \u201CThese are the arguments I made to my colleagues but they were too stupid to listen.\u201D He is probably thinking that this sounds very similar\u2014[Interruption] I see we have stirred Mr Peters into action. He is saying: \u201CThese are the arguments that Dr Cullen was making to me but I was too politically cunning to pay any attention because they are simply rhetorical.\u201D \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000504\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4030eb1-1b72-4bc3-b00d-7126013abc01\u0022\u003EPart 2 is going to be very expensive for communities all over New Zealand. Part 2 states that not only does the Crown own it absolutely but, in response to Nanaia Mahuta, it does not have to have regard to any fiduciary interests. I could not understand Nanaia Mahuta\u2019s speech earlier today when she said that the Crown held as a fiduciary. This bill expressly states that it does not hold as a fiduciary. It holds absolutely as the Crown\u2014in fact, the old-fashioned imperial Crown from the look of it, because I cannot imagine what other purposes it would have held for other than as a fiduciary for the people of New Zealand, but this bill states that it does not. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000505\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4030eb1-1b72-4bc3-b00d-7126013abc01\u0022\u003EThat will make it much easier for the Crown in defeating opportunistic claims, but why is it that the Crown has to grab all of the existing property interests other than those that are expressly private? Why do local authorities have to turn up, cap in hand, and go to the Minister of Conservation? He is not required to pay them proper compensation. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00221c818ce2-6ca3-4c4a-9e6a-2e3a67d070e1\u0022 data-id=\u00223e5375130c764e4fba340ab61465b793\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000506\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221c818ce2-6ca3-4c4a-9e6a-2e3a67d070e1\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00223e5375130c764e4fba340ab61465b793\u0022\u003ESHANE ARDERN (National\u2014Taranaki-King Country):\u003C/span\u003E I have been seeking the call for some time and it is an honour to be given one.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000507\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224a11ce4e-9fb3-4738-b0be-5a9f81d975da\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002279184779115e41429b99e626b68ef701\u0022\u003EHon Maurice Williamson\u003C/span\u003E: Well don\u2019t waste it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000508\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221c818ce2-6ca3-4c4a-9e6a-2e3a67d070e1\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221a44f53eeb3042fc88347a7f4768712c\u0022\u003ESHANE ARDERN\u003C/span\u003E: I certainly will not be wasting it because I have a question for the Minister in the chair, the Hon Dr Cullen, and for the chair of the select committee. Why did they not allow this measure to go through the M\u0101ori Land Court process? The only answer that I can conclude is that they did not trust the lefty activists that they themselves put into that court. Why else was it not allowed to go through the full court process? The chair himself said that this is a very simple amendment and it is not as big as people make it out to be. If that is the case, then why not trust the court process to sort it out? Why are we here today under urgency with this kind of process?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000509\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022efb7e6ef520e4b41a3cc21e1a0f4d6ed\u0022\u003EHon Dr Michael Cullen\u003C/span\u003E: Is that the National Party position? It\u2019s position No. 5 for today.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000510\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221c818ce2-6ca3-4c4a-9e6a-2e3a67d070e1\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221cfe76dc1c734b6083cc562367dd0cca\u0022\u003ESHANE ARDERN\u003C/span\u003E: The Minister can criticise the National Party, but he has not answered that basic question. Why is it that M\u0101ori in New Zealand, who have blindly followed this Labour Government and other Labour Governments for the last 100 years, were not given a simple answer to that question? The Minister in the chair will not answer, but we know what the answer is. It is because it was politically too difficult for them to handle. I remind those members of the old saying: \u201CYou can please some of the people some of the time, but you can\u2019t please all the people all the time.\u201D \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000511\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221c818ce2-6ca3-4c4a-9e6a-2e3a67d070e1\u0022\u003EThe Labour Government has tried to have a bob both ways and it has failed. If it were not for Winston Peters and the New Zealand First Party, this legislation would have fallen over because the M\u0101ori members of the Labour caucus have been jumping out of the waka so quick it has tipped over, as well. If it had not been for the support of New Zealand First, this bill would not have proceeded. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000512\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221c818ce2-6ca3-4c4a-9e6a-2e3a67d070e1\u0022\u003EI say to the Minister and to those other members, if it is a very simple amendment, why is it that we had hui up and down New Zealand for months and months, then we had a select committee process that went on for months and months, then a 67-page Supplementary Order Paper that was introduced yesterday afternoon at 5.30 p.m.\u2014[Interruption] The Minister is disputing what I am saying about the Supplementary Order Paper but I have a copy here and there are exactly 67 pages. I was absolutely right. The Minister does note even know how many pages there are in his own Supplementary Order Paper. Why was that Supplementary Order Paper introduced at 5.30 yesterday afternoon without Parliament being given the proper chance to go through it in the way that it should? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000513\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221c818ce2-6ca3-4c4a-9e6a-2e3a67d070e1\u0022\u003EI say to the members of the M\u0101ori caucus that they have been duped and their electorates will point that out to them. It will not happen for a while\u2014probably not for a couple of years. I forecast that the real problems hidden in this divisive legislation will not surface for a couple of years, but, when they do, they will remember who it was who allowed this to go through Parliament. I say to them that they still have a chance. One of their colleagues has jumped out of the waka and there is still time for the rest of them. They can jump out of this waka, tip it over, sink it, and finish it. This legislation is not in the best interests of their own people and I appeal to their better judgment to do what is right and hang out for their own people. They sent them here, they elected them, and those M\u0101ori members should not let themselves be swept along with the rest of the socialists who are trying to sweep them under the carpet with this legislation. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000514\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221c818ce2-6ca3-4c4a-9e6a-2e3a67d070e1\u0022\u003EThere are 18,000 kilometres of coastline in New Zealand. As the chair of the select committee said, everybody in New Zealand had an expectation in mind as to who had access. It came about as a result of Queen Victoria saying to Governor Hobson in 1843 that the people of New Zealand, whether they be M\u0101ori or European, should have access to the seabed, foreshore, and coastlines, and that has been the case ever since. There is no dispute about where that started; it is absolutely well and truly recorded in the history of New Zealand. Why is it then that at this point in time, because of an oversight in the Resource Management Act\u2014it was not a deliberate misleading of Parliament or of the people of New Zealand\u2014we are here today in urgency debating what the chair of the select committee himself says is a very minor, technical amendment, when really it is just an amendment to the Resource Management Act to prohibit M\u0101ori from having what they always thought they had? Why are we doing that? Perhaps the Minister or any other Government member could take a call and clear this up. Why was there not just a simple amendment to the Resource Management Act to stop that from happening?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e3dc3d88-a571-4ed7-a4b4-b66dedd6134b\u0022 data-id=\u002260aa9f872d5e40438a9adbefb2d887cd\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000515\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e3dc3d88-a571-4ed7-a4b4-b66dedd6134b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002260aa9f872d5e40438a9adbefb2d887cd\u0022\u003EPETER BROWN (Deputy Leader\u2014NZ First):\u003C/span\u003E I will endeavour to help out the member who has just resumed his seat, Shane Ardern, because he has asked a number of questions that I thought would be self-explanatory. If he looks at clause 11, \u201CPublic foreshore and seabed vested in the Crown\u201D, it will tell him, if he is not already aware, that the vast majority of New Zealanders\u2014I would say almost 99.9 percent; obviously there will be one exception\u2014want the foreshore and seabed to be in public Crown ownership. [Interruption] The member is contesting that, but I can tell the Committee that if one goes out and talks to New Zealanders they say they want the seabed and foreshore in Crown ownership. This bill delivers that, and that makes common sense to most New Zealanders, who are supportive of that position. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000516\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e3dc3d88-a571-4ed7-a4b4-b66dedd6134b\u0022\u003EPart 2 determines the rights of access. I ask honourable members whether they disagree with the right to be on the public foreshore and seabed and the right to enter, remain in, and leave the public foreshore and seabed; the right to pass and re-pass in, on, over, and across the public foreshore and seabed; the right to engage in recreational activities in or on the public foreshore and seabed; and that every natural person has access rights in, over, or across the public foreshore and seabed. That is what this bill is endeavouring to deliver, and will deliver by the time it is passed through the House under urgency. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000517\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e3dc3d88-a571-4ed7-a4b4-b66dedd6134b\u0022\u003EIt is regrettable that the select committee could not find the time to overcome the difficulties and report the bill back. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000518\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219386ba0-5a6e-485e-abc0-5a3128b4e1f6\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220d44fc41fbcd49d8b29cb8e88a1ccd3c\u0022\u003EHon Ken Shirley\u003C/span\u003E: The member obviously wasn\u2019t there.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000519\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e3dc3d88-a571-4ed7-a4b4-b66dedd6134b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228e013388a4eb4e83a5292583d9d0f1e2\u0022\u003EPETER BROWN\u003C/span\u003E: I was not on the select committee\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000520\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219386ba0-5a6e-485e-abc0-5a3128b4e1f6\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022434004a14c8a4828b5104c0d5c3870f6\u0022\u003EHon Ken Shirley\u003C/span\u003E: You don\u2019t know what you are talking about.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000521\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e3dc3d88-a571-4ed7-a4b4-b66dedd6134b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002219550b82317a426cb4a646368442a50d\u0022\u003EPETER BROWN\u003C/span\u003E: I know what I am talking about. I think the select committee members should have got their heads around this bill in a far better way than they did. I am well informed on this bill. I have to compliment my colleague Dail Jones, who has done an awful lot to put common sense into it. On top of that, Dail Jones has done an awful lot to appraise his colleagues of the concerns related to it. Maybe I should use the word \u201Cawesome\u201D as that is the modern language. I personally compliment my colleague. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000522\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e3dc3d88-a571-4ed7-a4b4-b66dedd6134b\u0022\u003EI have to dwell on clause 7A, \u201CExisting fishing rights preserved\u201D because at least one member is confused. It means that any individual can go along and fish to his or her heart\u2019s content. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000523\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c2dfe169-d946-4f87-8d43-0bcdb7d8bebc\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002292115ff9075b481ba709987762f3c447\u0022\u003ETariana Turia\u003C/span\u003E: Can\u2019t they do that now? What\u2019s changed?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000524\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e3dc3d88-a571-4ed7-a4b4-b66dedd6134b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220867990748bf43d3b3302f5dd661973c\u0022\u003EPETER BROWN\u003C/span\u003E: Exactly! What has changed? So why are members standing up and saying that this will not occur? This protects it in legislation. This bill also outlines the rights of navigation over the seabed\u2014[Interruption] My colleague asked about navigation. How ridiculous would it be if we had a ship that could not navigate over a piece of\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000525\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228bd17c7d9c5d4c22a9289118b9c57cfb\u0022\u003EHon Dr Michael Cullen\u003C/span\u003E: Seabed\u2014not foreshore.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000526\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e3dc3d88-a571-4ed7-a4b4-b66dedd6134b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ed721aaba65f4b24850db9b45d7fb69c\u0022\u003EPETER BROWN\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014seabed and water? I do not think any members in this Chamber would claim ownership of the water, would they? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000527\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002240aec9607f324eba8596c3af3acf1371\u0022\u003EDail Jones\u003C/span\u003E: Yes.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000528\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e3dc3d88-a571-4ed7-a4b4-b66dedd6134b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229d38fb77b81141b0832cdabc17111bd8\u0022\u003EPETER BROWN\u003C/span\u003E: They might, yes. Effectively, one could not claim ownership of the water because it is ever-changing. It is logical that ownership cannot be claimed of the land that is beneath the water, which is there for the common good. I am surprised that National members have not got their heads around this bill and are not supporting it. I really am. One has only to look\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000529\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224b9453223ece44d98a8f532074055faa\u0022\u003EHon Dr Nick Smith\u003C/span\u003E: We only got it yesterday.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000530\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e3dc3d88-a571-4ed7-a4b4-b66dedd6134b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c66906cf39e74fa0868da1de73c0e362\u0022\u003EPETER BROWN\u003C/span\u003E: The member is indicating that he needs a little bit more time and then he would support it. Am I taking that from the member\u2019s words?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000531\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022489b185843ba497abdef3cf82937f80f\u0022\u003EHon Dr Nick Smith\u003C/span\u003E: Answer our questions.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000532\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e3dc3d88-a571-4ed7-a4b4-b66dedd6134b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022033cc0b3952b4c94876c9757835c5f2d\u0022\u003EPETER BROWN\u003C/span\u003E: I think he is getting umpteen answers. I suggest to honourable members that they go and read this bill and get their heads around it. I can tell them that it sits very comfortably with some of the statements that they have been making about Crown ownership of the seabed and foreshore.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000533\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022fe732afbf9174da992fa2c40c124e093\u0022\u003EHon Dr Nick Smith\u003C/span\u003E: It\u2019s a parliamentary outrage.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000534\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e3dc3d88-a571-4ed7-a4b4-b66dedd6134b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022069c43b71e634782bf3283832dd798ed\u0022\u003EPETER BROWN\u003C/span\u003E: The member says that it is a parliamentary outrage. I suggest that he reads this a little bit more thoroughly than he has done thus far. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000535\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002226273b46799b42d8a269871192bcf013\u0022\u003EGerry Brownlee\u003C/span\u003E: We only got it yesterday.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000536\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e3dc3d88-a571-4ed7-a4b4-b66dedd6134b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022554ad75428cc4c0db01a2babb0b41ac6\u0022\u003EPETER BROWN\u003C/span\u003E: I can only conclude that we have some part-time MPs sitting alongside us, on the National Party benches.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022 data-id=\u0022800e238c9cfc40e69f37bc49f44d551c\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000537\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022800e238c9cfc40e69f37bc49f44d551c\u0022\u003EMETIRIA TUREI (Green):\u003C/span\u003E The Green Party also has a number of amendments to Part 2. One amendment is to alter clause 12 and, like United Future, to put in place an entrenchment clause. We will be supporting United Future\u2019s amendment, and hope that if that fails, United Future will support our amendment. However, our amendment has a significant difference, in that it excludes any agreements or special legislation for the transfer of title for treaty settlements. The whole point of this bill has been to completely reconfigure the way that customary rights and potential title in the spectrum of title are available to M\u0101ori. Treaty settlements may be appropriate in this area, and therefore we have an exclusion in our entrenchment clause for that. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000538\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003EAnother of our amendments is to clause 28. Clause 28 has been changed by Supplementary Order Paper 304. The changes that have been negotiated to that clause\u2014we understand by New Zealand First\u2014have meant that the territorial customary rights for M\u0101ori will be virtually impossible to get. The changes have significantly confined the criteria that M\u0101ori will have to meet in order to get a territorial customary right. There are two criteria that render this clause effectively useless. The first is that the exclusive use and occupation has to have happened substantially without interruption between 1840 and now. It would be almost impossible to show that those uses and occupations have occurred to the exclusion of all others. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000539\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003EIf everyone in the whole country has been working on the basis that they can go anywhere, anytime they want, then it will have been impossible for anyone to have kept people from general access to those areas of land. Yet M\u0101ori have to prove that not only have they continued to use and occupy that same area for the same purposes since 1840, but that they have been able to exclude others from it. It is an extremely high test. There is no justification for that, and it will be virtually impossible to prove. So it is making it very, very difficult for M\u0101ori to get through that particular hurdle. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000540\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003EThen, of course, that same little subclause restricts the activity to what was happening in 1840. The select committee heard evidence from iwi and hap\u016B who talked about the kinds of sharing, manaaki, processes that have happened over time where coastal iwi would grant certain rights to inland iwi for the purposes of customary activity on the foreshore and seabed. If, under tikanga M\u0101ori, those processes have happened since 1840, then the people who have those customary M\u0101ori tikanga rights will not be able to exercise them because New Zealand First wants to keep M\u0101ori static as they were in 1840. New Zealand First and its M\u0101ori MPs want to keep M\u0101ori as savages\u2014as natives\u2014in their own land. Tikanga M\u0101ori is entitled to as much development and progression as any other culture in this country. New Zealand First is keeping us from being able to develop our customary rights, to develop our tikanga M\u0101ori, to engage in the customary tikanga processes that we have been engaging in since mai r\u0101no, yet it continues to keep us down. New Zealand First wants us still in grass skirts and in the museum. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000541\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003EIf the concern is to make sure that those customary rights are legitimate, there are other ways of making sure. M\u0101ori do not need to be continually confined to the existence we had in 1840. What is the point? We are continually told that we have to be modern people in this new technological age. We are doing that all the time. We are meeting those expectations. We are managing ourselves in those ways. We are achieving and excelling in the modern world, yet New Zealand First and the Labour Government want to keep us static and stuck in 1840. This clause is an absolute disgrace. It is fundamentally racist. New Zealand First and the Labour Government are complicit in keeping us stuck in 1840. The Green Party will ask for the removal of that clause.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022022cfe6b-bae4-4028-b68a-ccffb4269442\u0022 data-id=\u0022bfb1274d93d847f7bd35c114c2ee82e1\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000542\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022022cfe6b-bae4-4028-b68a-ccffb4269442\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022bfb1274d93d847f7bd35c114c2ee82e1\u0022\u003EHon MARGARET WILSON (Attorney-General):\u003C/span\u003E I rise to address the point raised by the previous speaker from the Greens relating to proposed new clause 28 and territorial customary rights. Her presentation of the issue expressed a common, fundamental misunderstanding about what issue this bill addresses. The bill, in fact, addresses the issue that was before the Court of Appeal: the nature of common law customary rights. The basis on which the Ng\u0101ti Apa people brought their application to the Court of Appeal was common law customary rights. The Court of Appeal addressed those common law customary rights, not treaty rights. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000543\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022022cfe6b-bae4-4028-b68a-ccffb4269442\u0022\u003EThe difficulty has been that most people do not understand the nature of common law customary rights. That is why the Court of Appeal said that it felt that, in the circumstances of New Zealand\u2014even though it called into question whether the foreshore and seabed had been vested in the Crown, and therefore quite legitimately there was a right to pursue whether the common law customary title still prevailed\u2014there would be few cases where, under the common law test, there would be proof that customary title still prevailed. In most instances under that test, it had been extinguished by events since 1840. The way in which those issues of extinguishment have been dealt with in this country\u2014if they were not done in the correct way of redress\u2014has been through the Treaty of Waitangi. That is why the 1840 date becomes of such significance. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000544\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022022cfe6b-bae4-4028-b68a-ccffb4269442\u0022\u003EI perfectly accept that sovereigntists on all sides of the argument wish that we did not have the Treaty of Waitangi, because their argument would then prevail. But the fact and reality with which we deal is that we do have the Treaty of Waitangi, and this issue cannot be considered without putting it into the context of the treaty.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000545\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac23eedf-0a53-4d88-a49b-d5b440483616\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b5d334efcef64e8a9b09e64c74a2688d\u0022\u003EDr Lynda Scott\u003C/span\u003E: Why not?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000546\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022022cfe6b-bae4-4028-b68a-ccffb4269442\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a4ae0236279d467cbdbadfb5c0f8f12c\u0022\u003EHon MARGARET WILSON\u003C/span\u003E: Because the common law customary rights have been addressed by the Treaty of Waitangi. Where they have not been addressed by the Treaty of Waitangi, then the common law test prevails. It is a misunderstanding as to what the common law test for customary title is that has been an obscuring factor throughout this entire debate. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000547\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022022cfe6b-bae4-4028-b68a-ccffb4269442\u0022\u003E For those who have bothered to read new clause 28\u2014and I say as an aside to those who think there is no explanatory note that there is, and members should read it if they cannot be bothered to read the whole provision\u2014the important point to note is that the definition of the criteria to establish a territorial customary right is founded in the common law jurisprudence. The clause reflects an analysis of both the Canadian and Australian jurisprudence, and also takes into account the local context since the 1840 date. If we look through the provisions relating to exclusive use and occupation, we see that they are the essence of the common law test. The fact that we have contiguity is an essence of a common law test. It has been, if one likes, widened and broadened through the inclusion of words like \u201Csignificant\u201D, which means that the contiguous area does not have to be made up of exactly the same amount of land. We have tried to take account of the local circumstances so that we get a law that can work. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000548\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022022cfe6b-bae4-4028-b68a-ccffb4269442\u0022\u003EThe people who bring claims under this provision will know precisely what the criteria are and what factors they have to address to be able to go to court to get an order that a territorial customary right exists. Once that order is made\u2014if it is\u2014on the facts set out in the claim, then the provisions provide for redress. I know that members will discuss that redress in the debate on another part. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022 data-id=\u0022efb3c3dd873c4b1db175e6dc715a9462\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000549\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022efb3c3dd873c4b1db175e6dc715a9462\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH (National\u2014Nelson):\u003C/span\u003E That was an extraordinary contribution from Margaret Wilson, a person who used to give law lectures about unbridled power\u2014[Interruption] Old Winston Peters here changes his tune to suit himself. He gets to his feet and cries constitutional outrage when it suits him, but suddenly he is in the club. He is in bed with Margaret Wilson, trying to push this legislation on to New Zealanders without any sort of proper public process. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000550\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003EI refer, in particular, to proposed new clause 7A, which shows how this Government talks with a forked tongue. On the one hand\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000551\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fae7af0d-c48d-4dd4-88f3-928ccaa3a984\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022edc87b05a2114e99b2506bb56bd655c4\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley)\u003C/span\u003E: I ask the member to please be seated. We had a ruling on that this morning. \u201CThe Government\u201D and \u201Ca member\u201D mean the same thing. I ask the member not to use that phrase.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000552\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f295965ecd7048e8891ad9e494cac2e4\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH\u003C/span\u003E: I wish to say that there are two different songs being sung. The M\u0101ori caucus is telling its constituency not to worry, because 10 percent of New Zealand\u2019s coastline will be set up in special foreshore and seabed reserves. That is what it is saying. That means that the control of 2,000 kilometres will be transferred from democratically elected local and regional councils to iwi. Iwi will be running it. On the other hand, others are saying that it will be so difficult to get a foreshore and seabed reserve through the legal tests that Local Government New Zealand and other New Zealanders should not worry, because there will be a negligible number of reserves. Which view is correct?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000553\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224029b198-a7b2-4eea-867c-79ef46cafeb9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228e47fab7d5274b40b10da25d03e6b11e\u0022\u003EHon Dover Samuels\u003C/span\u003E: So what?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000554\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a47b23a85856430eb87109ca708b131b\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH\u003C/span\u003E: I ask Dover Samuels whether he has been given a reassurance that 10 percent of the coastline will be in foreshore and seabed reserves. Could some other Labour member tell me whether what is on the front page of the New Zealand Herald, which states that 10 percent of the coast will be in foreshore and seabed reserves, is correct? Is what Labour\u2019s M\u0101ori caucus saying correct?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000555\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f3c03a98e51e45789be75b91bd0b7a9e\u0022\u003EHon Dr Michael Cullen\u003C/span\u003E: They did not say that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000556\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022078df35289674b539d4e60a315be95cc\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH\u003C/span\u003E: Let us read it, then. It states: \u201CThe M\u0101ori caucus believes \u2026\u201D that the foreshore and seabed reserves \u201C\u2026 could yet cover more than 10 percent of the coastline.\u201D Is that what New Zealand First members understand? There is silence. They do not know. We are, under urgency, being asked to introduce a completely new concept\u2014foreshore and seabed reserves\u2014and we have been told by the M\u0101ori caucus that they will make up 10 percent of our coastline. That is hugely significant. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000557\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022330c030b-99be-4461-8aaa-9a10ee5bd889\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022565a2893cbf34cfab6c88f0533af88d1\u0022\u003EHon David Benson-Pope\u003C/span\u003E: The member has been drinking that V stuff again.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000558\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ab5d68e8124043ab821eaa67e8c69696\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH\u003C/span\u003E: Can Mr Benson-Pope answer me? Can he simply answer the question? Will those areas make up 10 percent? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000559\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022330c030b-99be-4461-8aaa-9a10ee5bd889\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225c1153e79f304f5a832c26dd42e037cc\u0022\u003EHon David Benson-Pope\u003C/span\u003E: Calm down.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000560\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022bb7b151128bc4af097e677c574005768\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH\u003C/span\u003E: He simply will not answer the question. He wants to make all sorts of personal accusations and irrelevancies, but he is not prepared to debate the bill. The Labour Party is delivering a con job. It is telling M\u0101ori one thing and the rest of New Zealand something different. That will not do. I will give a very practical example. This bill states that, somehow, fishing rights will not be affected. Let me give members a practical example. In my area, Nelson, M\u0101ori who claim ownership of the Wakapuaka estuary have erected a gate. That is perfectly possible under these new provisions for foreshore and seabed reserves. It is quite possible.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000561\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022267e9ad12e8a4b6786cad5454ee384d5\u0022\u003ERt Hon Winston Peters\u003C/span\u003E: Under the water?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000562\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223163e3cd56d64a5da1eb992b1ac2bcf8\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH\u003C/span\u003E: The member here is chipping in. He would not know. As a consequence of stopping people from being able to launch their boats at that site, those M\u0101ori effectively stop fishing rights. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000563\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022284768439d504af58b2db184beb1094e\u0022\u003ERt Hon Winston Peters\u003C/span\u003E: So it\u2019s on land?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000564\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f8d69655b4184283a448c7fe5402b48c\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH\u003C/span\u003E: Winston Peters does not know where Wakapuaka is, and he does not know about the erection of the gate. The issue has been on TV and is the subject of a petition. If the member cannot sort that out, I cannot solve his problems. The fact is that if one can erect a gate and stop people from launching their boats, that will control their fishing rights. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000565\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003ESo this new clause 7A, which states that nothing in this legislation will affect people\u2019s recreational fishing rights, is not worth the paper it is written on. Of course, people will be able to erect gates, control who gets the key, and indirectly control the fishery. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000566\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a0b48c91abcf4d02b0a1fa05ba59e216\u0022\u003EGovernment Member\u003C/span\u003E: That\u2019s not correct.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000567\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b5965f81a5f04451a2a6dffcd278ab3d\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH\u003C/span\u003E: Why is that not correct? Members opposite cannot explain, because they are wrong.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022 data-id=\u0022e9a12c8e5dc246debbc9c06de54a8820\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000568\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022e9a12c8e5dc246debbc9c06de54a8820\u0022\u003ERt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader\u2014NZ First):\u003C/span\u003E What a sad, mindless, leaderless rabble the National Party has become. Right there, we heard Nick Smith and the National Party supporting the \u201CFreedom to Roam Bill\u201D. One can walk on anybody\u2019s land\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000569\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022fed6dd69b6ca48f7b4d3b6ab45c1a263\u0022\u003EHon Dr Nick Smith\u003C/span\u003E: Foreshore!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000570\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221608c98d1bc448ec85fdbb739b357fca\u0022\u003ERt Hon WINSTON PETERS\u003C/span\u003E: No, that gate is not underwater. That gate is on riparian land. [Interruption] I ask him to sit down. Madam Chairperson, he cannot do that. Can I start again? I started, and the member stood there and shouted at me. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000571\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fae7af0d-c48d-4dd4-88f3-928ccaa3a984\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226f0f87ead9bc4ac0859fb5e283441463\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley)\u003C/span\u003E: Carry on.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000572\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a76a5dcae770477c8eef94bfb61d9da4\u0022\u003ERt Hon WINSTON PETERS\u003C/span\u003E: What a mindless, leaderless rabble the National Party has become. Nick Smith got up. He would not tell us whether the gate was underwater.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000573\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002250c5d608affa4f24bc047c9bea8f72bb\u0022\u003EHon Dr Nick Smith\u003C/span\u003E: It\u2019s on the foreshore.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000574\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a370b47907174d289e113f2d6d20d72b\u0022\u003ERt Hon WINSTON PETERS\u003C/span\u003E: Oh, it is on the foreshore. No, it is not. It is on riparian land; it is not part of this bill. I tell members not to trust the National Party when it comes to land.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000575\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022afddf9c1872a4ee2a2cb81282faac1bb\u0022\u003EGerry Brownlee\u003C/span\u003E: I think the speech is ridiculous, but my point is that we are not able to stand up in the Chamber and say that a member is lying. That would be unparliamentary and out of order. How can it be in order for a member to so distort the contents of this bill to make his points? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000576\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fae7af0d-c48d-4dd4-88f3-928ccaa3a984\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002224b8053feace4df5bd1057c3d0484bd3\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley)\u003C/span\u003E: The member will be seated.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000577\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223d443637e5e1435b87a381293dc45909\u0022\u003EGerry Brownlee\u003C/span\u003E: Mr Peters knows full well that the foreshore goes to the mean high-tide mark\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000578\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fae7af0d-c48d-4dd4-88f3-928ccaa3a984\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022826a1c7d93b241d081a213946350edfb\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley)\u003C/span\u003E: The member will be seated.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000579\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227adc2d415dd242c79a4bb127bb9b0270\u0022\u003EGerry Brownlee\u003C/span\u003E:\u2014and there are months in the year when it is dry land. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000580\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fae7af0d-c48d-4dd4-88f3-928ccaa3a984\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d9145b1840f54f5786116094c8a14dc8\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley)\u003C/span\u003E: The member will be seated.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000581\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229b85ec887254473b83ab6ba281ff9c99\u0022\u003EGerry Brownlee\u003C/span\u003E: There are thousands of kilometres on the foreshore, and if he has not worked that out, he should get out of the Chamber and read the bill he is supporting. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000582\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fae7af0d-c48d-4dd4-88f3-928ccaa3a984\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220a81302dd10b4a45abad1a4d2c94e4ed\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley)\u003C/span\u003E: The member will now leave the Chamber. He was told to sit down three times. He will leave the Chamber now. He was ordered to resume his seat. I was ruling on that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000583\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fae7af0d-c48d-4dd4-88f3-928ccaa3a984\u0022\u003EGerry Brownlee withdrew from the Chamber.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000584\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022803002d1-e810-4bd8-b8e7-2e97d0d6f626\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002284bbc4763a354ac2b48ade04d7db4485\u0022\u003ESimon Power\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. We find ourselves in a difficult position at this point, for this reason: during the course of Mr Brownlee\u2019s point of order\u2014and I am not disputing your ruling\u2014prior to you asking the member to resume his seat, Mr Brownlee was met with a number of comments from New Zealand First members. You have ruled on several occasions since the Committee stage commenced that points of order are to be heard in silence. When Mr Brownlee was interjected upon during his point of order, he retaliated in sort. He has now been asked to leave the Chamber. We do not dispute that ruling, but we now find ourselves in difficulty as to what members who take points of order are to do in future if they are interjected upon by other members of Parliament contrary to your initial ruling. I seek your advice on that matter.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000585\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002231bd7421b888458293a932642ba1a160\u0022\u003EDail Jones\u003C/span\u003E: Madam Chairperson, I have raised this issue before, and it is appropriate to this case. The last time the Rt Hon Winston Peters was speaking, just before 1 o\u2019clock, he was interrupted five times by National and ACT members. This time he got up to take a call and had barely started when he was interjected upon by a member, Nick Smith, who was at the Table. He had barely continued his speech when Gerry Brownlee interrupted him. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000586\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022\u003EMadam Chairperson, Gerry Brownlee was on at least his fourth card from you today when he was finally sent out. He should not be allowed to vote on this legislation if this sort of thing continues. I ask you to get the National Party under control. They are leaderless in this House, they are clearly a rabble, and they should not be allowed to continue in this way. That is why we have disorder\u2014[Interruption] The member Ken Shirley is interjecting on me as I am speaking on a point of order.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022fae7af0d-c48d-4dd4-88f3-928ccaa3a984\u0022 data-id=\u0022ca279e2390b744a39c8cc30d840b7e51\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000587\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fae7af0d-c48d-4dd4-88f3-928ccaa3a984\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022ca279e2390b744a39c8cc30d840b7e51\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley)\u003C/span\u003E: I warn members again about speaking during points of order. Mr Brownlee was warned several times to sit down. He never raised a point of order. He was being brought to order by the Chair. It was nothing to do with a point of order; that is why he was sent from the Chamber. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000588\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fae7af0d-c48d-4dd4-88f3-928ccaa3a984\u0022\u003EI will also rule on Mr Jones\u2019 contribution. I warn all members about interrupting members\u2019 speeches with points of order that are not points of order. That was a debatable point. I warn members again about that. Dail Jones is quite correct in his point of order\u2014that has happened throughout this debate.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022 data-id=\u00228844911658cd4cd594751726f5de8ad1\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000589\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00228844911658cd4cd594751726f5de8ad1\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH (National\u2014Nelson):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That the Speaker be recalled.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u00225d25af32a702438f9fbaadd87f8c3c84\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the Speaker be recalled.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 107\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Progressive 2; M\u0101ori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 13\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand First 13.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to, and House resumed.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000590\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022b4b78900a6904f76a8c44f53cae29cd1\u0022\u003ESpeaker Recalled\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022fae7af0d-c48d-4dd4-88f3-928ccaa3a984\u0022 data-id=\u0022510e373307fa4cc49aec6cab03805a1a\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000591\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fae7af0d-c48d-4dd4-88f3-928ccaa3a984\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022510e373307fa4cc49aec6cab03805a1a\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley)\u003C/span\u003E: Mr Speaker, you have been recalled to rule on a matter regarding points of order and the Chairpersonship. I sent Mr Brownlee from the Chamber because of his continual disobedience of the Chair\u2019s ruling. He had been asked to sit down several times. He raised a point of order that was not a point of order. He interrupted a member\u2019s speech with a point of order that, again, was not a point of order, and he continued to disobey my instruction to be seated.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022 data-id=\u00223cc8671adf8d4f1f876619c242a0b6d8\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000592\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00223cc8671adf8d4f1f876619c242a0b6d8\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH (National\u2014Nelson):\u003C/span\u003E The debate in respect of the bill has been contentious. The deputy leader of the National Party, Gerry Brownlee, raised a point of order. During the course of his point of order there was a whole series of quite loud interjections, on which no action was taken. When Mr Brownlee eventually saw that the Chair was standing, he resumed his seat. It seems to me that the action taken by the Chair of the Committee to eject the lead spokesperson for the National Party on a bill that is being considered under urgency is quite an extreme measure. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000593\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003EI note that the speaker who was interrupted\u2014which gave rise to this incident\u2014was the leader of New Zealand First, Winston Peters. I could list at least 10 instances in recent weeks in which Mr Peters himself raised points of order that were no more than political points that interrupted the flow of speeches or questions, and you have tolerated those. I think that the judgment to exclude the deputy leader of the National Party, our lead spokesperson, is excessively harsh in the circumstances and that, for that reason, he should be allowed to return and continue to participate in this debate.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022 data-id=\u0022b20c9de0247f404db50d453aaed6d37a\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000594\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b20c9de0247f404db50d453aaed6d37a\u0022\u003ERt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader\u2014NZ First):\u003C/span\u003E The true facts are these. In my last speech before the lunch break I was interrupted five times. In my latest speech I was interrupted three times in the first 20 seconds\u2014once by Nick Smith, who was standing at the Table and shouting a barrage of statements from there. I do not know what they meant, but he was doing that and he knows it. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000595\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003EThen a further point of order came from Mr Brownlee. There was no interruption of his point of order until, having been asked\u2014for the longest time that I think I can remember\u2014by the Chair of the Committee to sit down, he refused to do so. He just went on and on. The members on that side know it; we all saw it. At that point, yes, there was interruption from our side, but Mr Brownlee invited it upon himself in an outrageous act of contempt towards the Chair.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022c437bda8-4741-4ac5-89ab-b0818e1ab9fa\u0022 data-id=\u0022ba76fc4dd047446380131d8c1e095d2b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000596\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c437bda8-4741-4ac5-89ab-b0818e1ab9fa\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022ba76fc4dd047446380131d8c1e095d2b\u0022\u003EDARREN HUGHES (Junior Whip\u2014Labour):\u003C/span\u003E Mr Speaker, you have been recalled on the motion of Dr Nick Smith. With respect to the Rt Hon Winston Peters, I do not think that the Chair took the action because it was Mr Peters speaking. All through the Committee stage on this bill, Mr Brownlee has raised points of order\u2014at least half a dozen that I can think of\u2014that were not points of order; they were points of debate. They were not terse points of order, either. The Chair had warned Mr Brownlee about that. Mr Brownlee saw that the Chair was on her feet calling for order. He turned his back on the Chair and started addressing New Zealand First members in a way that was clearly going to incite their response. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000597\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c437bda8-4741-4ac5-89ab-b0818e1ab9fa\u0022\u003EThe senior Opposition whip accepted the decision of the Chair to eject Mr Brownlee. The senior Opposition whip did say, though, that New Zealand First members should not have been interjecting on a point of order. That is probably correct. With no explanation to the Committee, Dr Smith then took it upon himself to move that you be recalled. The Government supported that, as is parliamentary convention, but I am at a loss to know exactly what the National Party is opposing, given that Mr Brownlee was warned several times. The Chair acted on that, and I think the action she took was entirely appropriate.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022803002d1-e810-4bd8-b8e7-2e97d0d6f626\u0022 data-id=\u00226a95d3b8e52e4dafa75bd14f31eff5ff\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000598\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022803002d1-e810-4bd8-b8e7-2e97d0d6f626\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00226a95d3b8e52e4dafa75bd14f31eff5ff\u0022\u003ESIMON POWER (Senior Whip\u2014National):\u003C/span\u003E I rise to add further to the explanation offered by the junior Government whip in respect of the incident currently before us. Mr Brownlee\u2019s reaction to the comments made by New Zealand First interjectors came about from a series of interjections that were, from my recollection, directed towards Mr Brownlee prior to the Chair ruling on whether he had correctly raised a point of order in the terms laid out in the Standing Orders. It was those interjections that then created an unruly atmosphere, in which Mr Brownlee strongly responded. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000599\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022803002d1-e810-4bd8-b8e7-2e97d0d6f626\u0022\u003EMr Speaker, if you are ruling on conduct in the Chamber, I would also urge you to make clear to the Committee what is expected when a point of order is initially taken and, prior to the point where the Chair has ruled on whether it is a point of order, that interjections are not allowed at that point, as well.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b0d8b0e0-3ece-4865-9145-5eb5983fc54c\u0022 data-id=\u0022b83ce129b7f84348938648b7f06d7284\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000600\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b0d8b0e0-3ece-4865-9145-5eb5983fc54c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b83ce129b7f84348938648b7f06d7284\u0022\u003EHon RICHARD PREBBLE (ACT):\u003C/span\u003E Mr Speaker, I think that we all know what your ruling has to be, but I want to make the point to you that Mr Peters\u2019 suggestions with regard to Mr Brownlee\u2019s conduct are not fair. It is correct that before the lunch break he had three points of order, but two of them were from me, and the Chair upheld me both times. I will not go into what Mr Peters was saying, but for him to suggest that Mr Brownlee was interrupting his speech is just not correct. Those points of order were raised by me.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000601\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b0d8b0e0-3ece-4865-9145-5eb5983fc54c\u0022\u003EHaving said that, I do not quite know why you have been called back, because obviously you have to support the Chair. But I suggest to you\u2014and perhaps, through you, it will go back to the Chair\u2014that it would be most unfortunate to have a debate on a major matter when the deputy leader of the National Party, who has been the Opposition\u2019s senior spokesperson on this matter and who was on the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee, is not in the Chamber. My suggestion to the Chair is that perhaps after we have the vote on this part Mr Brownlee might return, because without him we cannot hold a proper debate.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022 data-id=\u002220580457fc804c9e89072647d5a48bb0\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000602\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002220580457fc804c9e89072647d5a48bb0\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: I thank the member for his contribution, nearly all of which I agree with absolutely, except for the last point. Members make their own decisions on what they do, and they have to live by the results of them. I was listening to the incident, and I thought that the Chairperson was incredibly generous in allowing the member to continue four or five times when he would not sit down when she was on her feet. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000603\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022\u003EMembers cannot challenge the Chair. It is a frivolous use of the right to move to recall the Speaker, unless there is a genuine matter of order on which the Speaker can rule. Members cannot criticise the Chair. They can ask the Speaker to review an interpretation of the Standing Orders\u2014that is what this procedure is all about. The Chair is the sole judge on matters of keeping order, and the Speaker will not review such a decision. As far I am concerned, I abhor the thought that when a presiding officer is ruling, anybody else is interjecting. I heard it quite clearly. It was for that reason that the member was asked to leave, and it was a decision that I absolutely uphold. I declare the House in Committee.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000604\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022a2b12bc21fff4773be35fa6e831564e8\u0022\u003EIn Committee\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000605\u0022\u003EDebate resumed.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000606\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u00222ed49354caf44e7db88f65ae4a9f9e94\u0022\u003EPart 2 Public foreshore and seabed (continued)\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022 data-id=\u0022221edda5ddf64b77af35e72a1f059861\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000607\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022221edda5ddf64b77af35e72a1f059861\u0022\u003ERt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader\u2014NZ First):\u003C/span\u003E Can I start again? That is the fourth interruption. [Interruption]\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000608\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222dcfa6f0e8454c9d952ac17676b91080\u0022\u003EHon Dr Nick Smith\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I just heard an interjection made by Mr Paul Swain, in which he referred to the deputy leader of the National Party by using a totally unparliamentary phrase. I ask that he be asked to withdraw it. [Interruption] Whoever it was directed at, it was totally unparliamentary.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000609\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fae7af0d-c48d-4dd4-88f3-928ccaa3a984\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221c3553f30a014b1fa784de8be8c94999\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley)\u003C/span\u003E: The member will stand, withdraw, and apologise.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000610\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ba6fde7e-93f4-4636-9ce2-02c07007973a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c0799241fd5a4da5b8b6cba4ec21cdde\u0022\u003EHon Paul Swain\u003C/span\u003E: I withdraw and apologise.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000611\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e392d08b86ba465fa0fdd89a67733ffb\u0022\u003ERt Hon WINSTON PETERS\u003C/span\u003E: Can I start again?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000612\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bb158206-360b-4757-8d72-f7d0994e1fb3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022bbb815f495c543d782da4ed3436dd0e3\u0022\u003EHon Bill English\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. This is with no reference to the member who wants to speak. Two things have happened at once. One was the use of unparliamentary language by Mr Swain, and I presume your request for a withdrawal and an apology was for that. The other thing that occurred was that Mr Swain continued to talk while you were on your feet and dealing with the point of order. That is the matter that the Speaker has just backed up your previous ruling on, and I suggest that you deal with that situation, as well.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000613\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fae7af0d-c48d-4dd4-88f3-928ccaa3a984\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022335c047d98a641f5b69ff005aaa0edf5\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley)\u003C/span\u003E: The member has withdrawn and apologised. I would say to all members that during the time that I am speaking, there must be silence.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000614\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221bf9e8c0596d45cfa7a1b5d179cff952\u0022\u003ERt Hon WINSTON PETERS\u003C/span\u003E: Can I start again?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000615\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fae7af0d-c48d-4dd4-88f3-928ccaa3a984\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a210b19a1a6f4cca8a1daf0baf9fffad\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley)\u003C/span\u003E: Yes.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000616\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022657b10828b1546f2b0ad0c1685c96f2f\u0022\u003ERt Hon WINSTON PETERS\u003C/span\u003E: As I was saying before I was so rudely interrupted, never has the National Party been such a mindless\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000617\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219386ba0-5a6e-485e-abc0-5a3128b4e1f6\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022400d5e5f37ed406eae6879b1af634307\u0022\u003EHon Ken Shirley\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. This is a procedural matter. When you said the member could start again, does that mean he can start his content from the beginning, or does the clock start again?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000618\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fae7af0d-c48d-4dd4-88f3-928ccaa3a984\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c32632000461450ebecd40cecb60114b\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley)\u003C/span\u003E: It is at the Chairperson\u2019s discretion to rule on that. I have ruled that the member will start again.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000619\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225e013fe486e54758b518e628907bec02\u0022\u003ERt Hon WINSTON PETERS\u003C/span\u003E: After six interruptions, I want to say that the National Party is a mindless, leaderless rabble\u2014and that demonstrates it. A famous American jurist said that it was an offence to cry fire in the theatre when there was no fire. Today and yesterday the National Party has been making all sorts of allegations, and not one of them is remotely correct. Nick Smith, of all people, puts up a gate that is apparently underwater, and it stops people from gaining access to the water. That is really appalling. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000620\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003EI say to the Greens that for the first 6 years they were here in Parliament, they had no M\u0101ori member. That is how much they thought of the M\u0101ori people, and what occurs to me is that they still have not got one. Up got that member, and she said that she wants to add an entrenchment clause to clause 12, \u201CPublic foreshore and seabed not to be alienated\u201D\u2014the non-alienation clause. That is illusory. It is a mirage, and it is hallucinatory. It is ersatz law. It is Clayton\u2019s legislation. It is placebo politics\u2014that is what it is. It is the kind of thing that one has when one does not have anything. The Green member wants to have an entrenchment clause, so she proposed an entrenchment clause to make it two-thirds or three-quarters of Parliament. Everybody will feel very safe, will they not? All of M\u0101oridom and all of New Zealand will feel very safe. She said that the area would not be able to be alienated if there was an entrenchment clause\u2014except that any fool knows that one first of all attacks the entrenchment clause with a bare majority of Parliament, which is 50 percent plus one. Out it goes, and there goes one\u2019s protection\u2014it is all over in the space of an hour. That is the kind of assurance that she gives to M\u0101ori\u2014those who are on the dope, of course; the ones who are not working. But the M\u0101ori who think and work, and who have slaved in this country for a long time, will not be fooled by that. It is of no comfort to them whatsoever to argue for an entrenchment clause, and I am ashamed to think that a lawyer would put it up as a proposal.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000621\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022330c030b-99be-4461-8aaa-9a10ee5bd889\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022eaaa39ed97234eaa8dc67a26e8ae3751\u0022\u003EHon David Benson-Pope\u003C/span\u003E: Didn\u2019t go to Otago.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000622\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022579de14a1b0d4f8e8fbe4288b6e4007f\u0022\u003ERt Hon WINSTON PETERS\u003C/span\u003E: No, I think she was at Waikato University. I could not help but comment, when I saw the protest during the speech of the Hon Margaret Wilson, that another European was flying a flag up there in protest, in support of M\u0101ori. It is a sort of modern style of the white man\u2019s burden in 2004. The sign that the protestor had stated: \u201CAnother colonial land grab.\u201D So sea is now land, and land is sea\u2014members should try sailing on that! This country needs to be given better than that. It does not need to have stupid people out there misleading M\u0101oridom or, for that matter, the rest of the country. The National Party is on one side, scaremongering and making all sorts of allegations, not one of which is true, and on the other side are M\u0101ori radicals who are making extremist plans, not one of which is true, either. So where were they at lunchtime? I wanted those two groups of people\u2014the Green Party and the M\u0101ori Party, and the National Party\u2014to get together, because they cannot go on arguing around New Zealand. On the one hand, National argues that M\u0101ori have everything, and on the other hand the M\u0101ori Party says that they have nothing. We are bigger than that, surely. Surely, when we were at the battle of Monte Cassino, not one veteran would have ever thought that we were dying for exclusive rights in our own country. That is the reality. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000623\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003EI am sick and tired of M\u0101ori who have a record of selling land in their background coming along to those of us who do not, and preaching to us about keeping our whenua and our rights to our property. It is an outrage that those people get away with it because there are journalists who know no better. It can only be out of ignorance that those people get so much coverage\u2014because journalists do not understand their background. Well, we are not taking it\u2014not from them. New Zealand First is a party that produced six of 13 members of Parliament, not because they are M\u0101ori or anything else but because we believe in one law for everyone. We believe in fair representation. We do not just talk about it; we do it\u2014unlike the Green Party, which could not find a M\u0101ori for 6 years, and then found that member. I mean, that is the point. Does she stand up for M\u0101ori? No. The most grievous thing that is upsetting the M\u0101ori people today is drugs, and what does the Green Party have to say about drugs? Well, the Greens are for them. They are for the legalisation of drugs.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002219386ba0-5a6e-485e-abc0-5a3128b4e1f6\u0022 data-id=\u00221462e0bf99e94d1b8637dc95113ab82e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000624\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219386ba0-5a6e-485e-abc0-5a3128b4e1f6\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00221462e0bf99e94d1b8637dc95113ab82e\u0022\u003EHon KEN SHIRLEY (ACT):\u003C/span\u003E I will endeavour to bring this debate back to Part 2, which we are intended to be debating. Part 2, which includes clauses 6 to 27, concerns the rights of access. Clause 6 itself provides for a very qualified access, and states that: \u201C \u2018access rights\u2019 means\u2014\u201D etc., but then it goes on to state in subclause (3) that: \u201CThe access rights conferred by subsection (2) may be exercised subject to any authorised limits, including prohibitions, on access that are imposed by or under an enactment, including a notice in the Gazette\u201D issued under these provisions. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000625\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219386ba0-5a6e-485e-abc0-5a3128b4e1f6\u0022\u003ESo what we have is the illusion of access. Of course, that is what the Labour Government has been selling this legislation on. It has been saying that it is all about certainty and access. There is no certainty, there is a lot of uncertainty, and access is not guaranteed. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000626\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219386ba0-5a6e-485e-abc0-5a3128b4e1f6\u0022\u003EAgain, the new clause 7A, \u201CExisting fishing rights preserved\u201D, provides that: \u201CNothing in this Act affects any rights of fishing recognised, immediately before the commencement of this section, \u2026\u201D. But, as every Kiwi knows, it is not just the action of fishing; one has to gain access to one\u2019s fishing spot. If one cannot get on to the beach because a w\u0101hi tapu has been declared, or one cannot go to a particular rock, then one cannot fish. So access is denied, and it is quite wrong to imply in clause 7A that all existing fishing rights are preserved, because they are not. Under this bill, they are not preserved.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000627\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219386ba0-5a6e-485e-abc0-5a3128b4e1f6\u0022\u003EOn the front page of this morning\u2019s New Zealand Herald, the Labour M\u0101ori caucus tells us that up to 10 percent of the coastline\u2014and that is just their first bid\u2014will be in those foreshore and seabed reserves, with committees of guardians and wardens guarding spiritual beliefs on our foreshore and seabed. Who believes for a moment that ordinary New Zealanders will have unrestricted access to go fishing in their preferred spot under that sort of regime? They will certainly not, and 10 percent is just the first bid on day one.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000628\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219386ba0-5a6e-485e-abc0-5a3128b4e1f6\u0022\u003EWe then turn to clause 13C, which states that all lands reclaimed are to be vested in the Crown. I would like the Minister in the chair to tell us the logic of that. Land is reclaimed for only one purpose, and let us be quite clear that there is a very difficult statutory process to go through to get permission to reclaim land. One does not get it just like that. One would have to apply for a resource consent and get all sorts of dispensations. It takes several years, and some people take up to 10 years, to get consent to do a reclamation. So one runs the gauntlet. Reclamation is done for a specific purpose, whether permission is sought for a marina, for a port company, or for some other legitimate use. But once reclamation has been approved, it is land. So why, henceforth, vest that title in the Crown? What is the point of that? There is just no sense in it at all. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000629\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219386ba0-5a6e-485e-abc0-5a3128b4e1f6\u0022\u003EEqually, I would like to see our port companies with their own clear title. They are commercial businesses. As a trading nation, they are the access to our nation for our imports and also the exit point for our exports. We want good commercial businesses running our ports. We do not want them run by the Department of Conservation, but that is really what this bill is proposing. Of course, the Greens were arguing that we should have free access round our ports. What a load of nonsense! We would be in breach of international covenants following 9/11, where we must specifically exclude free access and fence our ports so that we can guarantee the security of our containers. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219386ba0-5a6e-485e-abc0-5a3128b4e1f6\u0022\u003ESo there are very good commercial reasons why we need clear title, clear property rights, and to be able to exclude access in the foreshore and seabed for specific areas. But, no, this legislation states that it will all be vested in the Crown, and that the Department of Conservation can look after that. What absolute nonsense! So it is not just M\u0101ori rights that have been trampled here. There are other clear commercial property rights that are being denied and stripped away. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000631\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219386ba0-5a6e-485e-abc0-5a3128b4e1f6\u0022\u003EI would also like the Minister in the chair to explain the bit about accretion, because it is not clear what the intention is there. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00226984d661-9f65-4ed6-b29c-3285b598582d\u0022 data-id=\u00229f48df00a1494a9cab31ea6ca0ac03d6\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000632\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226984d661-9f65-4ed6-b29c-3285b598582d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00229f48df00a1494a9cab31ea6ca0ac03d6\u0022\u003EJOHN CARTER (National\u2014Northland):\u003C/span\u003E I want the Committee to reflect on this. The Minister in charge of the bill, Michael Cullen, has said that this is a very simple issue. He said that members should read clause 11(1), and he quoted part of it, which provides that: \u201Cthe full legal and beneficial ownership of the public foreshore and seabed is vested in the Crown, \u2026\u201D. The Minister said: \u201CIt\u2019s as simple as that, folks. That\u2019s what we are doing here today.\u201D Winston Peters then got on to his feet and said: \u201CWe have saved the country. We have brought everybody together, and what we have done is we have vested the foreshore and seabed in the Crown.\u201D \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000633\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226984d661-9f65-4ed6-b29c-3285b598582d\u0022\u003EWell, I ask Parliament and the people who are listening to this debate today to reflect on this: if it is that simple and takes just those few words, then why are we dealing with a bill that was initially 69 pages, another 67 pages of a Supplementary Order Paper, another eight pages of another Supplementary Order Paper, some notes that go for 138 pages, and then also some explanatory notes that take up a further 59 pages? Why does it take that much paper, that many words, that many clauses, and that many issues in order to vest the foreshore and seabed in the people? If it were just that simple, I would have thought it would be only one clause. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000634\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226984d661-9f65-4ed6-b29c-3285b598582d\u0022\u003EThe problem we have is that, again, this Parliament is doing to itself and the country what it never should have done. It has written a whole lot of legal jargon to put in place something that is simple but will become so complicated, that we will spend years and years unravelling what this Government, the Labour Party, and New Zealand First are doing to this country today. I say to the people to look at this legislation and at all the clauses in this bill, and worry about how complicated it is. The bill is seriously complicated and divisive. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000635\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226984d661-9f65-4ed6-b29c-3285b598582d\u0022\u003EIt is not just a simple vesting of the foreshore and seabed in the people. If it were only that, we certainly would not be here today opposing this bill. It is all the add-ons and the hidden stuff in the Supplementary Order Papers\u2014the 67 pages of add-ons that have come back from the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee\u2014that the Labour Party, Winston Peters, and New Zealand First are foisting on this country that we need to be worried about today. They have created such a complicated law around such a simple issue that we will be fighting this all over the place\u2014in the courts, out in the public, in the pubs, and on the beaches\u2014for years to come. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000636\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226984d661-9f65-4ed6-b29c-3285b598582d\u0022\u003ELet me say this to my colleague from the north Dover Samuels. He knows\u2014as I do\u2014that there are already some people up in the north who want to exclude people from the beaches. Already we have seen it happen, and I bet members and wager that this summer there will be more instances where non-M\u0101ori people are excluded from the beaches, because\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000637\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022df788c48-b9be-42fd-b8f2-76629a5572b8\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226baad277b5df4dd18993e3f6602145b3\u0022\u003EDr Wayne Mapp\u003C/span\u003E: Karikari.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000638\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226984d661-9f65-4ed6-b29c-3285b598582d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227faad6a184bf4b23bbc0b657bfef0416\u0022\u003EJOHN CARTER\u003C/span\u003E: At Karikari Peninsula, it is happening right now. White people\u2014non-M\u0101ori people\u2014cannot drive up to Karikari Peninsula. They are excluded from it. It is a public beach and they are not able to go on it. They are shunted off, bullied off, and railroaded off. Believe me, that will happen more and more as this issue starts getting debated over Christmas and as M\u0101ori people\u2019s expectations start getting more and more heightened. When they look at this bill they know that the Government is giving them something extra over and above non-M\u0101ori. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000639\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226984d661-9f65-4ed6-b29c-3285b598582d\u0022\u003E I say to the public, to the Labour Party particularly, and to Winston Peters and his caucus that they should not be doing this to New Zealand. It is wrong. I know a number of the New Zealand First members will have genuinely tried to get it right. I accept that. Unfortunately, they have missed the bus, they will cause strife across the country, and they will cause us to have issues whereby non-M\u0101ori people will be excluded from their luxuries.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00224029b198-a7b2-4eea-867c-79ef46cafeb9\u0022 data-id=\u0022ab791d78f40c4286bba472cb871f04fa\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000640\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224029b198-a7b2-4eea-867c-79ef46cafeb9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022ab791d78f40c4286bba472cb871f04fa\u0022\u003EHon DOVER SAMUELS (Minister of State):\u003C/span\u003E I heard my name mentioned by my colleague John Carter, in terms of some of his concerns that perhaps somebody, foolishly, would seek to block access to the beaches when, in fact, public access is provided for. He knows very well that if there is public access to the beach, anybody who blocks that access breaks the law and could be, in the case of Northland, one of the first invitees to the Ng\u0101wh\u0101 prison. Let me make it quite clear. This bill provides for public access for all New Zealanders, M\u0101ori, P\u0101keh\u0101, or whoever, to go down to the beach at Christmas time with their families and do the things they have been doing for the last 140 years. That member knows that if there is public access, then any clown\u2014and I have a few of them up there in Northland\u2014who wants to block public access to the beach will be removed by the police, as they should be. I warn them of that. My colleague John Carter used to be the clerk of the Hokianga County Council and we go back a long way in terms of by-laws. We know that if anybody blocks access along a public road, it will be p\u014Dkarekare ana for them.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000641\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224029b198-a7b2-4eea-867c-79ef46cafeb9\u0022\u003EI want to bring up a couple of things. Ken Shirley talked about 10 percent. I am glad he knows his figures. I say to Mr Shirley that determination of territorial customary rights will be done by the High Court. The High Court will determine whether a M\u0101ori wh\u0101nau or hap\u016B is entitled to an aboriginal title that may reflect territorial customary rights, and the negotiations that go on from there are spelt out in terms of the redress in the bill. It is not for anyone to say whether they will get 10 percent, five percent, or two percent. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000642\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002267b4ab46088947a2a8a905736045b39e\u0022\u003EHon Dr Nick Smith\u003C/span\u003E: What do you say about this in the newspapers?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000643\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224029b198-a7b2-4eea-867c-79ef46cafeb9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a733e4ee288b4de9a910232660defd21\u0022\u003EHon DOVER SAMUELS\u003C/span\u003E: Perhaps the member should read the births and deaths column instead of reading the front page. He might understand a little bit more. There is a births and deaths column on the back page of the New Zealand Herald. He should read that and he will find out a little bit more; he will be educated.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000644\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224029b198-a7b2-4eea-867c-79ef46cafeb9\u0022\u003EMembers of the National Party who have been defrosted on coming out of the mortuary always froth a bit at the mouth when it comes to things to do with M\u0101ori, especially when it is to do with recognition of M\u0101ori customary rights. All of a sudden their gums begin to froth up. Some people begin to defrost and some do not; some are probably there forever.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000645\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224029b198-a7b2-4eea-867c-79ef46cafeb9\u0022\u003EWhen one is talking about M\u0101ori customary rights, one is actually recognising a covenant\u2014something that has been recognised right around the country. Members are jumping up and down, and I hear members of the Green Party complaining about thresholds and benchmarks in terms of being able to obtain a customary rights order. I tell them that the issue is one that relates to wh\u0101nau and hap\u016B who have had a traditional and customary relationship with the foreshore and seabed for a long, long time. It does not relate to M\u0101ori who have been sleeping under the marijuana plants and smoking a bit of hooch, and who do not know what they are talking about. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000646\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002277359ad0b27f4c31892b68230f563724\u0022\u003EMetiria Turei\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000647\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224029b198-a7b2-4eea-867c-79ef46cafeb9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f8033db4a8084f72810c6416c3893494\u0022\u003EHon DOVER SAMUELS\u003C/span\u003E: I am not referring to anybody in this Chamber.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000648\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224a66efa97fed47fc9438e2f0843d087a\u0022\u003EMetiria Turei\u003C/span\u003E: I take personal offence to the reference about people sleeping under marijuana trees, which was a reference to the Greens. I ask that the member be required to withdraw and apologise for that unnecessary and very derogatory slur, both against us and against those who may be homeless and sleeping under trees. It shows his clear disregard for the people of this country.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000649\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220ed9ad81-05c1-4171-80c6-24fa02cade42\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229583e1f7e48144b2b657d55a48aa5dbd\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich)\u003C/span\u003E: I thank the member for raising that. I did not take it that that was a reference to anyone in the Chamber, or to any group in the Chamber.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000650\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224029b198-a7b2-4eea-867c-79ef46cafeb9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a59ef1cbbfff45d4bc1382b2f8aa8508\u0022\u003EHon DOVER SAMUELS\u003C/span\u003E: I can assure the member that if I had referred to the Greens, it would have been clear. I was not referring to the Greens. If they have a conscience about that, it is their problem.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000651\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224029b198-a7b2-4eea-867c-79ef46cafeb9\u0022\u003EThose who live beside the sea have a genuine right of application to the M\u0101ori Land Court and the High Court to have their territorial customary rights recognised. Someone living in Australia who has become Ng\u0101ti R\u0101nana\u2014\u201CNg\u0101ti Australian\u201D\u2014has no right at all. They have no basis for rights. I make that point loud and clear. Those rights are not de facto territorial customary rights. There are people who are genuine, the wh\u0101nau and the hap\u016B who have held those customary rights mai r\u0101 an\u014D. They have to be given opportunities under this legislation\u2014and the opportunities are there.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000652\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224029b198-a7b2-4eea-867c-79ef46cafeb9\u0022\u003EThe legislation gives access, and that is not only to the M\u0101ori Land Court. I hear some of these bush lawyers saying that there is no judicial process open to M\u0101ori. What is the M\u0101ori Land Court? That is part of the judicial process. Genuine people have to be given access not just to the M\u0101ori Land Court, but also to the High Court. They also have that avenue for obtaining territorial customary rights.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000653\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224029b198-a7b2-4eea-867c-79ef46cafeb9\u0022\u003EI say again to those who think they can go along with a bus ticket and get a territorial customary rights order, to forget it. People have to be genuine; they have to have ties to the land. There are benchmarks and thresholds they have to prove, and if they prove them they will get their territorial customary rights.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220bd5aa67-2f2b-4a13-a2b4-21a392396f11\u0022 data-id=\u0022ebafbdd09e994533ba4b6f9f51c01ea0\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000654\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220bd5aa67-2f2b-4a13-a2b4-21a392396f11\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022ebafbdd09e994533ba4b6f9f51c01ea0\u0022\u003EHon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National):\u003C/span\u003E This debate is on Part 2\u2014which is something we may or may not know from the rhetoric coming from on the other side of the Chamber\u2014and it deals with rights of access. First, I will comment on something that Russell Fairbrother said earlier in the day. He said that everybody believed that the foreshore and seabed was vested in the Crown. I do not know whether a significant number of M\u0101ori would support him on that contention, because their reaction to the Government\u2019s response to the Court of Appeal decision suggests they had always thought otherwise. However, as I have said, this part deals with rights of access, and it is the part in which the minority Labour Government and New Zealand First are trying to convince New Zealanders that their rights to our beaches are confirmed, now and into the future. I ask the Hon Dover Samuels whether that will apply to the beach up at Matauri Bay, and the Rt Hon Winston Peters whether it also applies to his beach at Whananaki. Perhaps those members will give their answer in their contributions further along the way. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000655\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220bd5aa67-2f2b-4a13-a2b4-21a392396f11\u0022\u003EAs I said yesterday, the Government cannot have this both ways. It cannot on the one hand say to M\u0101ori people that they should not worry and that their mana is protected, then on the other hand say to all other New Zealanders that their access to beaches will be free and unimpeded. That cannot hold. That is not a sustainable proposition. If it is, then I would like Mr Peters to explain\u2014because I do not think the Minister in the chair, the Hon Paul Swain, will tell me\u2014how that position or postulation can be sustained. I do not see how it can be. As further evidence of that\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000656\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002243569b4efaf4406e808c00a8e2c45331\u0022\u003ERt Hon Winston Peters\u003C/span\u003E: What about Lake Taup\u014D?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000657\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220bd5aa67-2f2b-4a13-a2b4-21a392396f11\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f2be56e6513a4d4ebbbfc797ca1d70be\u0022\u003EHon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU\u003C/span\u003E: Everybody can go to the beach. The bed is vested in Tuwharetoa, but everybody has access to the beach. There is no problem whatsoever. But we are not talking about Taup\u014D, we are talking about Whananaki and Matauri Bay. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000658\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220bd5aa67-2f2b-4a13-a2b4-21a392396f11\u0022\u003EHowever, I do have a question that revolves round the assurance that the access that the Government and New Zealand First are trying to give New Zealanders will be unimpeded. I ask how that lines up with new clause 115A set out on Supplementary Order Paper 302\u2014a clause that I think could equally be called the \u201CTainui clause\u201D. It states: \u201C(1) To avoid doubt, nothing in this Act (a) limits or otherwise affects the validity of an agreement entered into between the Crown and a claimant group to settle an historical Treaty of Waitangi claim; or (b) fetters the ability of the Crown to enter into any agreement with a claimant group in the future to settle an historical Treaty of Waitangi claim.\u201D \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000659\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220bd5aa67-2f2b-4a13-a2b4-21a392396f11\u0022\u003EIn new clause 2A, \u201CObject\u201D, the Government is saying to New Zealanders that they should not worry and everything will be OK, mate. Clause 6 states something similar, and new clause 12 states: \u201C(1) Despite any enactment to the contrary, no part of the public foreshore and seabed may be alienated or otherwise disposed of.\u201D What do those provisions mean in the context of new clause 115A? On the face of it, it looks from this clause as though there are instances where the foreshore and seabed will be disposed of, and will be disposed of in this instance in pursuance of the settlement of claims. That in itself may be OK, but it shows the cynicism of this Government and of New Zealand First, when they say: \u201CEverything will be OK, mate.\u201D What is it Mr Peters says? \u201CWe fixed it.\u201D? Is that what he says? Well, actually, it has not been fixed. When the Court of Appeal decision came out, the public reaction was that it expects the foreshore and the seabed to be vested in the Crown.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220e7e8da2-a6a1-41bb-aeb0-a49be255a293\u0022 data-id=\u00227918bf7070f34ec8b5ec5c15e069dc54\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000660\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220e7e8da2-a6a1-41bb-aeb0-a49be255a293\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00227918bf7070f34ec8b5ec5c15e069dc54\u0022\u003ENANAIA MAHUTA (Labour\u2014Tainui):\u003C/span\u003E All I can say to the member preceding me is that she should read the fine print. If she goes on to read clause 6, \u201CRight of access\u201D, she will see the specified limits in new subclauses (3) and (4). She has raised a whole lot of issues about hidden, secret, access agreements. The limits are not secret. They are upfront in those subclauses. If she reads the clause, she will see that access is granted to all New Zealanders to be able to go to the beaches. However, the fine print in the subclauses sets out justified limitations in terms of that access. So it is no secret. It is right there in the bill. Clauses 6 and 7 are really the points of agreement that all New Zealanders, M\u0101ori and P\u0101keh\u0101, came to: that we should all have access to our beaches and that navigational rights should be protected. That is what clauses 6 and 7 are about. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000661\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220e7e8da2-a6a1-41bb-aeb0-a49be255a293\u0022\u003EOne of the members spoke earlier about new clause 7A, \u201CExisting fishing rights preserved\u201D. The point about new clause 7A is that it makes it absolutely clear that all the issues concerning fish, under other bits of legislation, still stand. Nothing in this bill affects that. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000662\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220e7e8da2-a6a1-41bb-aeb0-a49be255a293\u0022\u003EThe substantial part of my small contribution on this part relates to clause 11\u2014and the point was made by John Carter under subclause (1). Clause 11 is the clause that, for many submitters, provided a bit of tension. It is worth reading out: \u201COn and from the commencement of this Act, the full legal and beneficial ownership of the public foreshore and seabed is vested in the Crown, so that the public foreshore and seabed is held by the Crown as its absolute property.\u201D The submissions contain views that this should not be the case. However, again\u2014I made the point earlier in the debate\u2014\u2014the natural extension of that argument is that the Crown would not be able to uphold any fiduciary obligation to any citizen in New Zealand, including M\u0101ori. It follows, therefore, that this is a necessary part. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000663\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220e7e8da2-a6a1-41bb-aeb0-a49be255a293\u0022\u003EThis is not the first time Parliament has addressed the issue. In fact, in the first reading debate Dail Jones raised the issue that the Foreshore and Seabed Endowment Revesting Act actually attempted to do this, but it did not do it properly. He said at the time that no M\u0101ori member participated in that debate. I went through the contributions, referring also to the submissions on the bill. Notably, three M\u0101ori groups made a submission on the Foreshore and Seabed Endowment Revesting Bill: the New Zealand M\u0101ori Council, Awaroa ki Manuka, and the Huakina Development Trust. All the submissions from those M\u0101ori groups actually agreed with Crown ownership. However, they said that then sets up the opportunity for M\u0101ori to legitimately argue their treaty claims or treaty issues. There was some reflection in their submissions on the hope that at some point an opportunity would arise whereby the Government would recognise their customary interests in full, and see the return, perhaps, of parts of their tribal domain where they exercised their customary interests. Notably, Awaroa ki Manuka and the Huakina Development Trust raised those types of issues. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000664\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220e7e8da2-a6a1-41bb-aeb0-a49be255a293\u0022\u003ESo clause 11 is an important clause. It is probably the most lucid part of this bill. We all need to be clear about why there is provision for other parts in recognition of customary rights. Basically, subclauses (2) and (3) make it important to ensure that if one is going to have full, legal, and beneficial ownership in the Crown, one must make provision for M\u0101ori customary rights. It has long been my view that vesting ownership in the Crown would enable the radical title of the Crown to coexist with a native customary title in accordance with tikanga M\u0101ori. That has long been my view. Since this debate has emerged, my thinking on that has developed further. This part contains a number of important clauses that affect M\u0101ori, \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000665\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220e7e8da2-a6a1-41bb-aeb0-a49be255a293\u0022\u003EIn finishing my small contribution, I refer to new clause 12, \u201CPublic foreshore and seabed not to be alienated\u201D. I think that is a clear affirmation of the Government\u2019s intent, and it is a good part of the legislation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022 data-id=\u00224c0da8b638d94d8b8cbcf7a2df6abbb0\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000666\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00224c0da8b638d94d8b8cbcf7a2df6abbb0\u0022\u003EMETIRIA TUREI (Green):\u003C/span\u003E The Greens have proposed two major amendments to Part 2, the first being to clause 12, the entrenchment clause. New Zealand First will not be supporting this clause, because it is not that concerned with the potential sale of land\u2014in particular, the sale of seabed and foreshore land. One of the criticisms that Winston Peters has made of the entrenchment clause is that it will not have any effect. I say to him that it may be that entrenchment is largely symbolic in the minds of New Zealanders\u2014that it is a symbolic gesture showing that this Parliament takes the restriction on the sale of foreshore land seriously, and that it is prepared to use all its mechanisms to make sure that it cannot happen. I have no doubt that we cannot stop a Government in the future from doing whatever it wants, but even if, at worst, it is a symbolic gesture, it is critical for New Zealanders to know that this Parliament will not sell-on any of the foreshore and seabed. New Zealand First\u2019s refusal to support this clause clearly demonstrates that it is not prepared to support even a symbolic act that will enable New Zealanders to feel confident that this Parliament, including New Zealand First, does not want the foreshore and seabed to go into foreign ownership. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000667\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003EThe Greens, of course, have been very clear to follow their principle with practice. We have petitions in place at this very moment to stop the sale of land to foreign interests, because we believe that our land is finite and that it needs to be protected and kept in New Zealand hands for New Zealand people. This entrenchment clause will make that clear to the public of New Zealand. Clearly, New Zealand First is simply not prepared to put its money where its mouth is and support the absolutely best possible protection that this Parliament can provide in order to make sure that our foreshore and seabed cannot go into private hands. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000668\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003EThe other major amendment we are proposing is to clause 28. Margaret Wilson said that the contiguous land test in clause 28 is when one can get a territorial customary rights order only if one has ownership of the land that borders the foreshore and seabed, as is part of the common law. She knows she is wrong about that. It is not in the common law. Paul McHugh, who gave evidence for the Crown at the Waitangi Tribunal, said at the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee that it is something the court should take into account and that it is a consideration it will have regard to, but that it is not necessary to make it a condition of providing a territorial customary rights order. He never said at all in the select committee that it was part of the common law. He never said it was absolute that one had to own the land bordering the foreshore and seabed before one could make a claim of customary exclusive use and possession over the foreshore and seabed itself. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000669\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003EThis provision is a clear deception. It is not right that it is in this bill; it is absolutely unnecessary. This bill could make the court give consideration to contiguous land ownership. It does not need to make it a condition. Making it a condition means that very few\u2014perhaps two or three\u2014iwi throughout this whole country will be able to get a territorial customary rights order. It will be virtually impossible for iwi, wh\u0101nau, and hap\u016B across this country to meet those tests, because they are so stringent and unnecessary. It is unbelievable that that clause could have been put forward by Dail Jones, who himself has some legal knowledge, who heard and understood the submissions from Paul McHugh in the select committee, and who recognised that contiguous land ownership might be a factor to take into account, but that it certainly should not, and did not, have to be an absolute. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000670\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003EThere is a whole list of other real problems with the way that clause 28 has been reconstructed after the negotiations between Labour and New Zealand First. The real difficulty is around the proof needed to show that one can exclude others and could exclude others. It was argued in the select committee, as well, that one did not need proof that one did exclude people, but proof that one had the right to exclude. Those are two different things. We live in a colonised land. M\u0101ori will find it extremely difficult to show that they have had any control over other people using their land\u2014particularly the foreshore and seabed\u2014over time, when the whole of the country has been under the misapprehension that it has been open ground, owned by the Crown, for so long.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002225f8c78b-f301-4aca-a936-366f00a26bc9\u0022 data-id=\u0022722e606f3d334c76b1ef36038f52a3af\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000671\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002225f8c78b-f301-4aca-a936-366f00a26bc9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022722e606f3d334c76b1ef36038f52a3af\u0022\u003ESANDRA GOUDIE (National\u2014Coromandel):\u003C/span\u003E In listening to the debate\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000672\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221e93d9c8-b183-40db-b200-833697df066c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224ad950cff20d405dbe890213616c4b6f\u0022\u003ELarry Baldock\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I just respectfully point out that this debate is a bit like watching a ping-pong game, with the calls going from one side of the Chamber to the other and back. As a member of the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee\u2014and I also represent our party, which is small in number\u2014I do want to make a number of calls on this important part of the bill. I would just ask for your consideration in that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000673\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220ed9ad81-05c1-4171-80c6-24fa02cade42\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022281453e2f8a0403180b924b15869ea08\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich)\u003C/span\u003E: I am quite aware of that. Proportionately, if I had called the member, United Future would have been way ahead of any other party. The member\u2019s time will come.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000674\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002207dc4112-8a19-4dd6-a57c-878b47f8a9b6\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022dc8ecb76f3aa47ac911a21534e80c0c4\u0022\u003ERon Mark\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I thought I would take this point of order now, so that I would not interrupt the member\u2019s speech. I also respectfully inform you that some members who have been seeking the call have not had the opportunity to speak on this bill at all, yet other members have had numerous calls.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000675\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220ed9ad81-05c1-4171-80c6-24fa02cade42\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d16e0f5c203f470082bde4448c0ebd2e\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich)\u003C/span\u003E: I am quite aware of that. I thank the member for raising it. There will be opportunities to seek the call. Just to put the member in the picture, if I had taken his call, then I would have needed to give National the next five calls.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000676\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002225f8c78b-f301-4aca-a936-366f00a26bc9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002201059755b1b442e5b67c8cdb86b5a21d\u0022\u003ESANDRA GOUDIE\u003C/span\u003E: I was in my office listening to the debate, and I was very interested in the comments raised by the Hon Georgina Te Heuheu, my very esteemed colleague. I also raise the points she referred to about access, and of course I endorse the comments made by the honourable John Carter. If this was simply a matter of the Crown preserving the right of access of all New Zealanders, then why is there so much paper and so many clauses? We have so much to contend with. This legislation is not simple. I find it incredible that the Government, with the support of New Zealand First, is trying to whitewash the New Zealand public into thinking that this legislation is simple, when it certainly is not. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000677\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002225f8c78b-f301-4aca-a936-366f00a26bc9\u0022\u003EThere is absolutely no way that access is guaranteed through this bill. I ask members to look at new clause 115A, and then refer that back to clause 6, \u201CRights of access\u201D. I recall Nanaia Mahuta saying we should read the fine print. Well, have I read the fine print. Clause 6(4) states: \u201CUnless the enactment or other instrument that authorises a limit of the kind described in subsection (3) otherwise provides, the limit may be applied\u2014\u201D. So I would strongly recommend that those guys read the fine print. If we relate that to new clause 115A, \u201CStatus of existing and future agreements between Crown and claimant groups\u201D, we find there is every chance that so-called M\u0101ori reserve areas in the foreshore and seabed can accrue freehold title and access can be denied. I take great exception to the New Zealand public being misled on that score. That is an absolute tragedy, when the New Zealand public relies on this Parliament to have representation. I absolutely abhor that. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000678\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002225f8c78b-f301-4aca-a936-366f00a26bc9\u0022\u003EThe New Zealand public relies on this Parliament to represent its interests. There is also the Waitangi Tribunal to represent the interests of some other members of the New Zealand public called M\u0101ori, but New Zealanders, generally, do not have the opportunity to take their grievances to the Waitangi Tribunal. They are denied that opportunity, so where else would they go for the settlement of the grievances that are established? The foreshore and the seabed has been vested in the Crown since the 1890s, and that is the understanding that many New Zealanders have had\u2014that that has been their common law right established for over 100 years, and that access is part of their common law right to the foreshore and seabed. So who is actually representing their right? I absolutely abhor the way that this Government, supported by New Zealand First, thinks it represents the rights of all New Zealanders. In my view, this bill quite categorically does not do that. If members do refer to clause 6(4), they will see that access can be denied once any other interest for M\u0101ori has been established over special reserves made under new clause 115A. The Government needs to look very, very closely at that. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000679\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002225f8c78b-f301-4aca-a936-366f00a26bc9\u0022\u003EEven with regard to access, the precedent given to M\u0101ori in legislation is chronically out of control in this country. That is an absolute disgrace to the representation that this Parliament is supposed to provide to the New Zealanders of this great nation. Certainly, they are not getting that representation here today from either the Government or New Zealand First. That is a disgrace. I have had family who have been fishing off the beaches and who have been jostled by people who think that they have a greater claim to this country than my family has, in spite of the many, many generations of our presence here in this country. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000680\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002225f8c78b-f301-4aca-a936-366f00a26bc9\u0022\u003EOnce again, I reiterate that this bill is an absolute disgrace. We are meant to be protecting New Zealanders\u2019 rights in respect of the foreshore and seabed, and this legislation in no way does that, in spite of all the work and all the claims made by the Government, supported by New Zealand First. Then, on top of that, to add insult to injury, after reading the document, we have a substantial Supplementary Order Paper tabled that no one had previously seen.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00221e93d9c8-b183-40db-b200-833697df066c\u0022 data-id=\u00224e1ffae1c2404b2f89b74c9dbda727a4\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000681\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221e93d9c8-b183-40db-b200-833697df066c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00224e1ffae1c2404b2f89b74c9dbda727a4\u0022\u003ELARRY BALDOCK (United Future):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Mr Chairperson. I appreciate your understanding. Perhaps I was a little hasty in taking a point of order earlier. However, this is an important debate, and I am keen to make a contribution on behalf of United Future. In my last call I was making concluding remarks about\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000682\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a0d6dff4ac504bf2bb6a3910f9c58ca1\u0022\u003ERt Hon Winston Peters\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I apologise to Larry Baldock for interrupting him, but my point is this. Mr Baldock is voting against the legislation, and so was the last speaker. On the breakdown of the speaking time that is going this way, I point out that one side will get far more time than the other side, and that is not fair. I thought the debate went from the pro argument to the anti argument. There are plenty of people on the pro side. We are not short of people to speak for the bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000683\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220ed9ad81-05c1-4171-80c6-24fa02cade42\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226cf893c3504a49f09d5233e24306d18a\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich)\u003C/span\u003E: I thank the member for raising that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000684\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221e93d9c8-b183-40db-b200-833697df066c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022cfe71bf145c043d4aebe72739962acc3\u0022\u003ELARRY BALDOCK\u003C/span\u003E: Speaking to the point of order, Mr Chairperson\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000685\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220ed9ad81-05c1-4171-80c6-24fa02cade42\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220a349762fd7d438f98bf1ce28f5d9e98\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich)\u003C/span\u003E: No, I do not need any assistance on that. Quite frankly, I cannot read people\u2019s minds as to whether they are pro or against this legislation. They may change their minds during the course of this Committee.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000686\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b0d8b0e0-3ece-4865-9145-5eb5983fc54c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002293241d32b0f6402cbf1cd8368c587997\u0022\u003EHon Richard Prebble\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I do want to draw your attention to this disturbing fact. Prior to the last call you drew it to our attention that if you had called Mr Baldock, that would have meant that the United Future party was getting more calls than any other party. Presumably, that is now the situation. I just say\u2014without criticising people who are not here\u2014to those members who are in the Chamber that one can tell the amount of attention the United Future party gives to this matter by the fact that Mr Baldock is the only member of that party who is here. The ACT party has nearly half its membership here in the Chamber. We have a member who has been calling right since this matter started, who has an amendment down\u2014she has taken sufficient care about this matter to put an amendment down. Yet Deborah Coddington has been unable to get a call. In fairness to Mr Baldock and in reply to Mr Peters, I note the United Future party has voted both for and against this legislation, as it has on other matters. We now learn that Mr Baldock, even though he is the only representative of the United Future party here in the Chamber, has the call. Why should he be entitled to extra calls, just because he complained? When you are looking around the Chamber for members who are calling, I hope you will bear in mind the fact that Deborah Coddington has put an amendment down, has gone for the call, and has not had a call. I hope that will be taken into consideration.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000687\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220ed9ad81-05c1-4171-80c6-24fa02cade42\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002283b4ef89ef1e4d299d36ad057feac9b8\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich)\u003C/span\u003E: I thank the member for raising that. I will certainly give those matters consideration.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000688\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221e93d9c8-b183-40db-b200-833697df066c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228410332214874eb287938b378346e012\u0022\u003ELARRY BALDOCK\u003C/span\u003E: We were discussing the issue of entrenchment, which is part of the amendment I have on the Table, and which has been dismissed by some members of the Committee as being irrelevant or only symbolic. That may be the case in terms of single entrenchment, but I ask the Rt Hon Winston Peters to look more seriously at the amendment that provides for double entrenchment, which would make it impossible to alter the clause 12 provision by a simple majority. If his party and other members of the Committee supported that, a clear signal would be sent and the measure would be more than just symbolic, in terms of making it more difficult for future Parliaments to alienate the foreshore and seabed. I appreciated Metiria Turei\u2019s offer to support my amendment if I reciprocated by supporting hers, but I am sorry to disappoint her by not being able to do that. One of the reasons we want the entrenchment provision is to ensure there is no opportunity to transfer title of the foreshore and seabed as part of any treaty settlement. We believe that the area ought to remain in the ownership of the Crown, for and on behalf of all New Zealanders, as we discussed earlier. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000689\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221e93d9c8-b183-40db-b200-833697df066c\u0022\u003EThat brings me to clause 15, which gives the Crown the right to \u201Cpurchase or otherwise acquire the whole or part of a specified freehold interest in any land that is wholly or partly within the foreshore and seabed.\u201D This is something that I believe many New Zealanders are concerned about, because we as a country do not take to double standards very easily. Although there has been an intervention by the Government to ensure that there is no future alienation of the foreshore and seabed, we all know that there are parcels of land in private title that involve the foreshore of our coastline. I want to read from the Land Information New Zealand report that was given to the Minister for Land Information in December, just to put on the record of our debate how many parcels of land are involved, and in whose ownership they are. If the report is correct, there are 16 parcels, in total, that are surveyed to below the mean high-water mark. Eleven of those parcels are general land, and five parcels are M\u0101ori land. There are 32 parcels of seabed in private title that are covered by the sea. Of those, 27 parcels are general seabed parcels, and five parcels are M\u0101ori-owned seabed parcels. There are 12,243 parcels surveyed to the mean high-water mark, 9,403 of which are general land parcels and 2,840 M\u0101ori land parcels. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000690\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221e93d9c8-b183-40db-b200-833697df066c\u0022\u003EWhat is important, I believe, is that the Government is silent about what steps it will take to recover those parts of the foreshore that are in private title. The bill clearly gives it the power to do so, but United Future would have been much more encouraged to hear from the Government a strategy it would engage in to recover those titles. We firmly believe that once those titles have been issued they are property rights, and there should be no confiscation without compensation. We believe that negotiation needs to be undertaken between the Government and private property owners who now have title that goes into the foreshore. But we would like to know how that would be done, so that in the near future New Zealanders can have the satisfaction of knowing that the public foreshore and seabed encompasses the complete coastline of our country, and that there is no inconsistency and injustice whereby some people hold a title simply because they got it through erosion in the past, because the survey marks were not accurately done in the beginning, or because under different legislation 50 to 100 years ago they were able to secure a title that they would not be able to acquire today. That is an issue I would like the Minister to take a call on, so that he can give us an understanding of what the Government plans to do\u2014because it is of interest. Many, many submitters came before the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee and complained about the inconsistency and the seeming injustice of some people being allowed to own freehold title to the foreshore and seabed, while in the future others will be denied that opportunity. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000691\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221e93d9c8-b183-40db-b200-833697df066c\u0022\u003EWhen it comes to local government holding freehold title, the Crown makes it very clear that it will simply take that. I am pleased to see that the Minister\u2019s amendment will now allow not just relief for that but redress. It is acceptable that if a title is in the foreshore area that area would simply become Crown-owned under the legislation, because it is the foreshore. But it is unclear to me\u2014and I ask the Minister to explain this to us all\u2014what the case is with regard to reclaimed land that is not yet in title.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022cb5e591b-8ffc-4539-a900-1ee22224f7d7\u0022 data-id=\u0022134321e9df0f402388f8f3e5b280b0f9\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000692\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb5e591b-8ffc-4539-a900-1ee22224f7d7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022134321e9df0f402388f8f3e5b280b0f9\u0022\u003EDEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT):\u003C/span\u003E We have come to a pretty pass when territorial customary rights are referred to as \u201CTCRs\u201D. What an insult it is to reduce them to what is not even an acronym. Winston Peters should get his quotes right. The American jurist did not say it was an offence to shout \u201CFire!\u201D in a crowded theatre; he said that freedom of speech does not mean one can shout \u201CFire!\u201D in a crowded theatre.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000693\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb5e591b-8ffc-4539-a900-1ee22224f7d7\u0022\u003EWhen we look at new clause 9A, we see that this is very much racist legislation. It directs that when customary rights claims are lodged in the High Court, the High Court is to take only one of three courses of action\u2014that is, kill all the claims. We know that all of those 80 cases are M\u0101ori cases. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000694\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb5e591b-8ffc-4539-a900-1ee22224f7d7\u0022\u003EI now refer to the Minister\u2019s amendment on Supplementary Order Paper 302 to clause 15, \u201CExtension of public foreshore and seabed by acquisition of land in private title\u201D, and say that I have tabled an amendment to this amendment. The Minister\u2019s amendment omits subclause (1) and substitutes a new subclause (1), which states: \u201CThe Crown may purchase or otherwise acquire the whole or part of a specified freehold interest in any land that is wholly or partly within the foreshore and seabed.\u201D My amendment adds the words \u201Cby agreement\u201D after the word \u201Cacquire\u201D. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000695\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb5e591b-8ffc-4539-a900-1ee22224f7d7\u0022\u003EAs the Minister\u2019s amendment stands at the moment, this is simply a land grab. We do not know what it means. No agreement is stated. It means that the Government can go out and just take whatever it likes. It does not state that it would do that under the Public Works Act; it just states \u201Cor otherwise acquire\u201D. No mention is made of compensation. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000696\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb5e591b-8ffc-4539-a900-1ee22224f7d7\u0022\u003EIf we look at the situation, we see that this provision has been drawn up by people who have never studied, lived, or been by the foreshore for any number of years. If they had, they would see that the foreshore\u2014the land between the high-water mark and the low-water mark\u2014does change over the years. It goes up and it goes down. Sometimes the change is very dramatic, such as in the case of the Napier earthquake. If we look at the Napier airport, we see that hectares and hectares of land were created by the sea retreating. Under this legislation, that land could be privately owned. But as the legislation is worded at the moment, the Government would be able to acquire that land without paying any compensation at all. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000697\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb5e591b-8ffc-4539-a900-1ee22224f7d7\u0022\u003EWhere I live in the Marlborough Sounds, the foreshore area changes considerably, not just from decade to decade but from year to year. New land is created, not by reclamation but by the shifting of the tides and by the foreshore changing every year. The way the legislation is worded at the moment gives the Government the right to go and just take it away. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000698\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb5e591b-8ffc-4539-a900-1ee22224f7d7\u0022\u003EIt concerns me that this clause is a sweetener to further land grabs. My colleague the Hon Ken Shirley had a slip of the tongue when he referred to the Department of Conservation as the \u201CDepartment of Confiscation\u201D. It was more than just a Freudian slip. As I said, it concerns me that this clause is a sweetener to a further land grab. First, it is the foreshore and seabed. What will be next? Will it be the riverbeds? Will the Government be able to just acquire freehold title of private land without there being any compensation at all? The Minister is shaking his head. Does that mean he will agree to my amendment? Does it mean he will get up and explain what this clause means? The way it is drafted at the moment shows that it is clearly just a land grab, and it is a way for the Crown, the Government, to just go in and take whatever it likes\u2014not just from M\u0101ori but from all New Zealanders. All New Zealanders will be disadvantaged by this clause. As I said, I would like the Minister to take a call and explain what he means. He is indicating that he might. Is that a yes, or is it a no?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000699\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a78dd31da2f649fa9970995f693e1069\u0022\u003EHon Dr Michael Cullen\u003C/span\u003E: It\u2019s Delphic.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000700\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb5e591b-8ffc-4539-a900-1ee22224f7d7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a041bbaa6357424090822c64b0ebc677\u0022\u003EDEBORAH CODDINGTON\u003C/span\u003E: It is Delphic.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000701\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b0d8b0e0-3ece-4865-9145-5eb5983fc54c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222ef2e8d1bcf247a6a34febe6ad176e80\u0022\u003EHon Richard Prebble\u003C/span\u003E: He doesn\u2019t know himself.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000702\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb5e591b-8ffc-4539-a900-1ee22224f7d7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e6eedfd1bee14060931cac5c0335d21e\u0022\u003EDEBORAH CODDINGTON\u003C/span\u003E: Well, maybe he will support the amendment I have tabled.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002207dc4112-8a19-4dd6-a57c-878b47f8a9b6\u0022 data-id=\u00223060ab2b5501494193d971bef3009527\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000703\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002207dc4112-8a19-4dd6-a57c-878b47f8a9b6\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00223060ab2b5501494193d971bef3009527\u0022\u003ERON MARK (NZ First):\u003C/span\u003E Is this it? It is all over. The debate on the Opposition side of the Chamber has died. If we listen to the arguments from National members now, we hear them say they are so concerned about the bill that their biggest objection is that it has too many pages, has too many words, and is hard to read. That is the truth. The essence of the objection to this bill by Sandra Goudie and John Carter was that the bill has too many words\u2014it is too long\u2014and that they do not understand it. Gerry Brownlee got it right. He was smart. He could see National was going nowhere. How could he argue against Crown ownership? Sandra Goudie said she would vote against the bill because it puts the area into Crown ownership, and she has always believed it was in Crown ownership\u2014therefore, she will vote against it. Does that make sense? It does not make sense. But, no, the National members are to vote against this legislation. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000704\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022016e2ef0c4a742a79ef159fc18aae9e7\u0022\u003EHon Dr Nick Smith\u003C/span\u003E: What about these new foreshore reserves?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000705\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002207dc4112-8a19-4dd6-a57c-878b47f8a9b6\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221f0af7bc384e49a9990fd7697cfb4c17\u0022\u003ERON MARK\u003C/span\u003E: I will get to Nick Smith in a minute, because there is a beauty in two-talk. Sandra Goudie is voting against the bill because it puts the foreshore and seabed in Crown ownership and she has always believed it was in Crown ownership. But now that this legislation puts it there, she is voting against it because she had always thought it was there. I am confused; so is she. Gerry Brownlee could see the writing on the wall, so he deliberately got himself thrown out of the Chamber. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000706\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002207dc4112-8a19-4dd6-a57c-878b47f8a9b6\u0022\u003EI come back to the arguments that were put up. Nick Smith is really good on the access clause. He is the same Nick Smith who was on television over the Christmas period, bleating on about M\u0101ori locking a gate and stopping people from going across their own land in order to go fishing. Excuse me? It seems to me that the National Party, which reveres the philosophy of one law for all, wants one law for all\u2014except when M\u0101ori get in the way. Nick Smith now wants access across everybody\u2019s private land. But what does David Carter say? He is out there saying that the \u201Cfreedom to roam\u201D bill is an intrusion on property rights, and that farmers like him will not stand for it. I guess that means farmers like him will not stand for it unless those brown fellas get in the way, and then they will stand for it. Nick Smith says that every M\u0101ori should open the gate on his or her private property, to give access across that land to the foreshore.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000707\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228edb7016b9fa48e99287e01f01f6edd0\u0022\u003EHon Dr Nick Smith\u003C/span\u003E: On the foreshore!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000708\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002207dc4112-8a19-4dd6-a57c-878b47f8a9b6\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229ae0709ec6d54d7999b25e499b35b9e8\u0022\u003ERON MARK\u003C/span\u003E: Mr Smith is very confused, and we have all known that for quite some time.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000709\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ca308c2edd144f3dbe81773c8a9f8609\u0022\u003EHon Dr Nick Smith\u003C/span\u003E: Point of order\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000710\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002207dc4112-8a19-4dd6-a57c-878b47f8a9b6\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227923d653478a43bf85a1e9712f7fd83c\u0022\u003ERON MARK\u003C/span\u003E: He always does it. When we hit him, he takes a point of order.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000711\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022eef58bfc88eb43049f4f2db66e904ca8\u0022\u003EHon Dr Nick Smith\u003C/span\u003E: I seek leave to table a document showing the gate on the foreshore at Wakapuaka estuary, so that I can solve the member\u2019s confusion.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000712\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220ed9ad81-05c1-4171-80c6-24fa02cade42\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220724e1aec7974fe0931a0a3383ab19f9\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich)\u003C/span\u003E: The member can seek leave for that, but he should not interrupt the member\u2019s speech to do so. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000713\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222119b5fc2c9547c4ab5a73464d3857de\u0022\u003ERt Hon Winston Peters\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. This is a disgraceful further interruption by a member who, frankly, should go away and take a pill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000714\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220ed9ad81-05c1-4171-80c6-24fa02cade42\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220f42b4e0c775417c9f2989cae4497721\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich)\u003C/span\u003E: We will not have any of that. I have noted it. The member would have been pleased with the way\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000715\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022df788c48-b9be-42fd-b8f2-76629a5572b8\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002274a74f3fbb224ed889d8de73b5dc5764\u0022\u003EDr Wayne Mapp\u003C/span\u003E: Point of order\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000716\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220ed9ad81-05c1-4171-80c6-24fa02cade42\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223a734ee50cce466799e70d5f6faeaf1b\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich)\u003C/span\u003E: Is this a new point of order, Dr Mapp?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000717\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022df788c48-b9be-42fd-b8f2-76629a5572b8\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002228dcfbaa1af34102b613c5aa06fd88af\u0022\u003EDr Wayne Mapp\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, it is a new point of order, Mr Chairperson. There was an imputation and a reflection, in what was said to be a point of order, that was completely out of order. Frankly, I take offence at that kind of implication about members. It is outrageous that points of order are used as a means of abuse and division. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000718\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220ed9ad81-05c1-4171-80c6-24fa02cade42\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f9cc4996db454dd5974f5d9e19a3493a\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich)\u003C/span\u003E: It did not pass by me. I thank Dr Mapp.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000719\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b18a747effe14ced8ff07113966d40cf\u0022\u003ERt Hon Winston Peters\u003C/span\u003E: I will withdraw and apologise, but let me tell the Committee that the National Party did that last night. I warn the National members that if they do that one more time, I will nail one of them\u2014not physically; verbally. They have one last chance. They are being too smart. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000720\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d0abdfecdaa64a22b039d69478617a5e\u0022\u003EHon Dr Nick Smith\u003C/span\u003E: Just take another bribe, Winston.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000721\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228771e1d890f3474a99edd96c98733fcd\u0022\u003ERt Hon Winston Peters\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I will not withdraw this one. The member has just made an allegation. He said: \u201CJust take another bribe, Winston.\u201D The member should withdraw and apologise, and if he does not do that he should be thrown out of the Chamber. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000722\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228f7940e2f2ba4982a29d65ef482a98ed\u0022\u003EHon Dr Nick Smith\u003C/span\u003E: The Committee will be aware that in court proceedings between Mr Winston Peters and my colleague Mr Carter on this very issue, Winston Peters was cleaned out. He lost, and the case was thrown out. I cannot see how the interjection in respect of Mr Simunovich and the allegations of him receiving a large amount of money in an envelope is in any way different from the interjections that Mr Peters has made. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000723\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220ed9ad81-05c1-4171-80c6-24fa02cade42\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022aacdc8fcfd114b76907da1b960534232\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich)\u003C/span\u003E: That is not a point of order. What was the matter that you raised before, Mr Peters?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000724\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220f6d51e186e643289485dfe00d7e9921\u0022\u003ERt Hon Winston Peters\u003C/span\u003E: He accused me of taking a bribe. He has now compounded that by saying that I was cleaned out in court. That, of course, is not true. My lawyer was invited by the judge to set up a new chain of pleadings. That is the fact, and every lawyer knows it\u2014and the member should take a pill. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000725\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220ed9ad81-05c1-4171-80c6-24fa02cade42\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223d953e7178ee46b1b3a9a83534ff8ab3\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich)\u003C/span\u003E: You have already apologised for that, Mr Peters. If that is what Dr Smith said, and if that implication was in respect of Mr Peters, I ask him to withdraw, please.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000726\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225da69895f58b49e08cd9a9bfaa082eb0\u0022\u003EHon Dr Nick Smith\u003C/span\u003E: I withdraw, just to be kind. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000727\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ec79d8c8088542f4b8d6cc6fc25cb7e8\u0022\u003EHon Dr Michael Cullen\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. It is not good enough to withdraw and then to add further words afterwards. It really is time for members to withdraw and apologise properly, and to move on. This is not doing the Committee any good, at all. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000728\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220ed9ad81-05c1-4171-80c6-24fa02cade42\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002287bf0d9ea3ad4e4689b523b9dde23a79\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich)\u003C/span\u003E: I thank Dr Cullen, and I ask the member to do a succinct withdrawal.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000729\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002212c5929f887e4047b5423f88c3cbadb8\u0022\u003EHon Dr Nick Smith\u003C/span\u003E: I withdraw.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000730\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002207dc4112-8a19-4dd6-a57c-878b47f8a9b6\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002296211ee9e4a14a66a5473e3a5c30bf9e\u0022\u003ERON MARK\u003C/span\u003E: New Zealand First said it would fix this issue. Our leader, the Rt Hon Winston Peters, said right at the start of this debate that at the end of the day the situation will be what people always believed it to be, and that ownership will return to the Crown. That is precisely where the foreshore and seabed will be vested, as everybody believed it was in the first place. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000731\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002207dc4112-8a19-4dd6-a57c-878b47f8a9b6\u0022\u003EIt is interesting that the National Party, in trying to deal with the debate right now, is showing all the signs of a party that is in total disarray. Its members are very confused, and have to resort to being smart alec little schoolboys to make points. That is interesting, because when the National members have to resort to those sorts of tactics it proves that they have no basis for their argument, and nothing valid to say. I notice that Don Brash has not made one speech in the many long hours we have been here. Gerry Brownlee rightly thought that if Don Brash was not going to be here, nor would he. So he got himself thrown out of the Chamber, and he is not here either. We are left with schoolboy drivel. Parliament deserves better than that, and the country deserves better than that. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000732\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002207dc4112-8a19-4dd6-a57c-878b47f8a9b6\u0022\u003ENew Zealand First said that it would fix this problem, and it has. We will fix the leadership of the National Party, too. We will make sure that it has a complete restructuring at the next election and, when National members come back, they may ask whether they can be a junior coalition partner in some form of Government.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022 data-id=\u002285cac851191e415caabfedfaacd78679\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000733\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002285cac851191e415caabfedfaacd78679\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH (National\u2014Nelson):\u003C/span\u003E The member Ron Mark had the cheek to ask the Committee what we were doing debating a 135-page Supplementary Order Paper introduced only this very day.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000734\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221de1fdf7403c4588ba5f587484f96927\u0022\u003EHon Dr Michael Cullen\u003C/span\u003E: It was yesterday.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000735\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022fd524a450a1444249b6cae36ee9c1bda\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH\u003C/span\u003E: What is the date on the wall of the Chamber? On the same parliamentary day that a Supplementary Order Paper is being introduced that is 135 pages long, the members from New Zealand First say that this legislation will not affect access and that public access is guaranteed. I want to go right back to the core of this issue, because it started in my electorate of Nelson. It started with the erection of a sign on the foreshore that stated \u201CNo access\u201D and that one needed to get the consent of the local iwi in order to be able to go into those areas. The effect of that gate is to control public access for boating along about a 60-kilometre area of coastline. Who has the key to that gate is critical to access. [Interruption] A moment ago Ron Mark told me to make a contribution, and to talk about the issues. When I then talk about the issues, he tries to shout me down. I want to know whether this bill will guarantee my constituents access to that 60 kilometres of coastline. The answer is no, it does anything but that. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000736\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003EThis bill sets up an idea that just came into the public arena in the last 24 hours, which is the provision for foreshore and seabed reserve.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000737\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226de7f1d9-7be9-468a-b27c-06000416b96a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223f5405bc18bd45a282de411211034f73\u0022\u003EJohn Tamihere\u003C/span\u003E: It\u2019s not about the coastline.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000738\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227789103de4194895a14862ae315e54fb\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH\u003C/span\u003E: We should not believe anything that Mr Tamihere says. He is the member who told the public one thing, and was sacked for doing the opposite of that. He was the Minister for Land Information who said that there were thousands of kilometres of privately owned foreshore, and was then found to be fibbing. He was saying the exact opposite of what the department had said. That is an absolute fact.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000739\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022396567b3c6c9422fb3698ab6b5bc7bfe\u0022\u003ERt Hon Winston Peters\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. The member may say that another member is mistaken, has misrepresented the facts, or does not have the facts right, but he cannot say that a member is fibbing or lying. Dr Smith needs to take a good, long look at himself.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000740\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220ed9ad81-05c1-4171-80c6-24fa02cade42\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e1eedfac43d24b3a889c3f54d49fc893\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich)\u003C/span\u003E: The member has made his point.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000741\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d67480d905504f5e9a7dc77e29a58f47\u0022\u003ERt Hon Winston Peters\u003C/span\u003E: Well, I am worried about him.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000742\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220ed9ad81-05c1-4171-80c6-24fa02cade42\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ae7de802af804580af599574e29c8d1d\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich)\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, I can see the concern there. \u201CFibbing\u201D means the same as \u201Clying\u201D, albeit at a lower level.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000743\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a53831ac9ef1484988345e1c7987f16f\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH\u003C/span\u003E: I withdraw and apologise. It is a matter of public record that John Tamihere, as Minister for Land Information, said that there were thousands of kilometres of privately owned foreshore in the very week that his own department had written a report that stated there were only a few kilometres. It is little wonder that he was fired or had to resign as a Minister, because he has difficulty with the truth. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000744\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003EI also want to come back to the issue of public access. New Zealand First says that it is all guaranteed. It is not, at all. In the new amendments this bill provides for w\u0101hi tapu to be created, for wardens to be appointed, and for those wardens to have the power to exclude people from those areas. Does that guarantee public access to the foreshore? Of course it does not. We know that in areas such as Tauranga, where w\u0101hi tapu have been broadly described as areas of hundreds of hectares, we will now be opening up the w\u0101hi tapu industry and extending it into the foreshore and seabed, with new instruments to remove public access. So how can Winston Peters and his crew of fools from New Zealand First stand up in this Chamber and pretend that public access will be guaranteed?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000745\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002207dc4112-8a19-4dd6-a57c-878b47f8a9b6\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228ef6951ecea04891b34aca07e48091c7\u0022\u003ERon Mark\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I have seen about three or four people stand up in this Chamber and describe how mortally wounded and offended they were by some of the statements that were made. I have also suffered endless interjections from Dr Nick Smith on points of order. Being called a fool has mortally wounded me; it has offended me most sincerely. I would like him to withdraw that. Otherwise, I will just think he is a bigger idiot than we already know he is.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000746\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e8156a50ac3245f59145fbf94b3adeb5\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. My colleague Gerry Brownlee was thrown out of the House for raising spurious points of order. Can you explain to me the specific point of order Ron Mark has made that means he should not suffer the same fate as Gerry Brownlee?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000747\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220ed9ad81-05c1-4171-80c6-24fa02cade42\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002214a0c2d7971d418295bcfd2558b66633\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich)\u003C/span\u003E: He was trying to explain to me why he thought he was offended. I did not accept that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000748\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226d8ddbe62e444cdcb082e78791936008\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH\u003C/span\u003E: It is an absolute disgrace that a 135-page-long Supplementary Order Paper, which is very complex and concerns very important legislation, has been dropped on this Committee, and that we are expected to ram this legislation straight through under urgency. It is a disgrace that New Zealand First is part of that con job. It is a disgrace that members of the Labour Party are prepared to do that in this Parliament. We see in this part of the bill, and from New Zealand First\u2014[Interruption] Well, it will be a damned good job. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000749\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002221ed2f97a62745439d9fdf1037f88d91\u0022\u003ERt Hon Winston Peters\u003C/span\u003E: When will you retire?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000750\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022daa43c35103a49cdadc0f8b04870f8e4\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH\u003C/span\u003E: We will not have to retire Winston Peters, because we know from the polls that the new National candidate, Bob Clarkson, will take him out in Tauranga. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000751\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220ed9ad81-05c1-4171-80c6-24fa02cade42\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022600743cfb20043d587a8a661f0f507a8\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich)\u003C/span\u003E: There should be fewer interjections, please.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000752\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002229fc713914314d4a93253a611cec54f9\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH\u003C/span\u003E: The issue for Mr Peters is how he can possibly justify saying to the public of New Zealand that this bill guarantees public access, when we know that there is nothing in it that will take away the sort of gates that I have seen erected to remove public access on the foreshore of my electorate. Furthermore, the provisions for special foreshore reserves, for w\u0101hi tapu, and for people to be excluded from that area of foreshore mean that the guarantees of access are not worth a grain of salt. I challenge Winston Peters to resign when the first person is excluded from the beach and the foreshore in my electorate.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220e7e8da2-a6a1-41bb-aeb0-a49be255a293\u0022 data-id=\u00226ac67805eb2441d3bf55d2180db36c23\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000753\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220e7e8da2-a6a1-41bb-aeb0-a49be255a293\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00226ac67805eb2441d3bf55d2180db36c23\u0022\u003ENANAIA MAHUTA (Labour\u2014Tainui):\u003C/span\u003E I rise to make a contribution to the debate on clause 28 and the meaning of territorial customary rights. I think that this is a part of the bill that may cause a lot of difficulty in terms of defining customary property rights. In itself the title should be quite clear\u2014territorial customary rights should state that it is a customary title. However, that is not achievable in this bill and I do not think that the clause goes far enough. The issue arose from one of the comments that Dr Paul McHugh raised. He emphasised that tikanga would undoubtedly play a part in the development of the common law of New Zealand. It seems to me that if territorial customary rights or customary titles are to be provided for, it is important that the contiguous land test is one that takes into account tikanga, the 1840 principle, and contiguous land ownership. But the way in which the bill has been written puts too much weight on the contiguous land issue. That may be something that may be revisited. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000754\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220e7e8da2-a6a1-41bb-aeb0-a49be255a293\u0022\u003EIt is important, throughout the initial clauses of the bill, that tikanga should be an upfront consideration of how to determine a territorial customary right, because then all the considerations about how land transactions occurred along the coast could be better taken account of. I brought a submission to the select committee. I am from one of those groups that are not coastal tribal dwellers. In fact, I have more of an association with a river, so I make no secret about that and I am not an expert in this area. However, I recognise that under tikanga the transference of land to kin network groups so that they are able to exercise a right along the coast is something that is well established over a long period of time. So when we are looking at the evidence that will be considered to determine whether a territorial customary right could be awarded, those types of issues need to be taken into account if there is to be a real attempt to try to address this issue. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000755\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220e7e8da2-a6a1-41bb-aeb0-a49be255a293\u0022\u003EWhat happens if the test is so high that no territorial customary right can be awarded? How long do we wait? We have already seen, under the fisheries legislation, that getting the issue of m\u0101taitai reserves through has quite a long gestation period. The legislative process has not really applied its thinking to trying to improve that. I do not really think that we should let that happen in this instance. It seems to me that clause 28 is problematic, but we will never know until we try it, and we have to start somewhere. I accept that. However, it does not go far enough. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000756\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220e7e8da2-a6a1-41bb-aeb0-a49be255a293\u0022\u003EThere were points within this issue that I think were raised before the select committee, and during the discussions by many M\u0101ori submitters who said that if we were to have a test it must take into account their own tikanga. I do not know how this can be reflected in law, but I think that the way in which it is written in clause 28 is a bit convoluted and we should simplify it a bit more. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000757\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220e7e8da2-a6a1-41bb-aeb0-a49be255a293\u0022\u003EIn fact, the M\u0101ori Land Court really has the expertise in this area and has already made provision for determining issues of tikanga. Perhaps that may be an avenue that may assist the High Court in its determination. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000758\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220e7e8da2-a6a1-41bb-aeb0-a49be255a293\u0022\u003EThe other point about the tikanga test is this: will it be clear, when evidence is presented to the High Court, that those matters can be considered before the court? I am not sure. I hope that it can be, and if it cannot it should be fixed at some later date. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000759\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220e7e8da2-a6a1-41bb-aeb0-a49be255a293\u0022\u003EClause 28 is a bit convoluted, as I have already said. The contiguous land issue, although it seems that the clause is written as a determining factor, should be balanced off against other interests. The points were raised with the select committee, I understand, that other considerations should be taken into account. We hope that when M\u0101ori take the path of determining their territorial customary right to gain a customary title, the test applied will achieve that. I am not sure that it will.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b0d8b0e0-3ece-4865-9145-5eb5983fc54c\u0022 data-id=\u002235f8909ce0904a979ae74a7f164d7b6f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000760\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b0d8b0e0-3ece-4865-9145-5eb5983fc54c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002235f8909ce0904a979ae74a7f164d7b6f\u0022\u003EHon RICHARD PREBBLE (ACT):\u003C/span\u003E I want to raise a matter with the Minister. I concede immediately that I am not sure about the matters I am raising. The reason is that the Supplementary Order Paper has come in so late, and there is no explanatory note. Let me say what I think the situation is. When I am looking at the position for the granting of a territorial customary right, I see that it appears that the test to the High Court is a high one, and is the test that the Court of Appeal would have applied but for this bill. New clause 28(2)(a) states: \u201Cthat area was used and occupied, to the exclusion of all persons who did not belong to the group, by members of the group without substantial interruption in the period that commenced in 1840 and ended with the commencement of this Part;\u201D. When we look at that provision, we can see that there are very few parts of the foreshore of New Zealand that M\u0101ori can say they have occupied to the exclusion of all others. That is what the common law is. That is the nature of a customary right. If one does not use it, one loses it. The Government could say that it is reinstating the law. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000761\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b0d8b0e0-3ece-4865-9145-5eb5983fc54c\u0022\u003EI have no difficulty with that, except when I come to new clause 34A, \u201CIf no finding made, application may in appropriate cases be considered under Part 3 or Part 4\u201D. It states: \u201CIf the High Court does not make a finding under section 29 but considers that any rights identified in the application are rights of a kind that are more appropriately considered under Part 3 or Part 4, the High Court may do whichever of the following is appropriate: (a) treat the application as an application under Part 4: (b) refer the application to the M\u0101ori Land Court for consideration under Part 3.\u201D \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000762\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b0d8b0e0-3ece-4865-9145-5eb5983fc54c\u0022\u003EThe point I make to the Government is that this is an example of why the Parliament is saying that M\u0101ori are both losing and gaining. On the face of it, the provision appears to be tough, but it then states that even if a group does not have a customary right, it can send its application off to the M\u0101ori Land Court to create one. I cannot go into Part 3\u2014[Interruption] No, in the debate on Part 3 I will say that M\u0101ori are most certainly given that right. If I have interpreted it correctly, firstly, it explains why the bill is so complicated, and secondly, the bill is an outrage. This Parliament should not be taking away citizens\u2019 property rights, but it should not be creating them, either. Here is a situation whereby the Government is taking away property rights from M\u0101ori\u2014and that makes it racist\u2014and, it appears to me, it is creating some other, possibly inferior, property rights for M\u0101ori, and only M\u0101ori, which is also racist. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000763\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b0d8b0e0-3ece-4865-9145-5eb5983fc54c\u0022\u003EI would like the Minister to explain, firstly, whether I am right in my explanation, and, secondly, what possible justification there is to say to people who no longer have a customary right and no longer own the foreshore that, presumably because they once did\u2014and because they feel affectionate towards it\u2014they will have special rights under the Resource Management Act. I ask the Minister where the justification for that is. What possible legal principle is behind that? It seems to me to explain why this bill is so complicated. The Government wants to hide from ordinary New Zealanders that this is what it is doing. It seems to me to be stuck in the swamp of the politics it has got itself into. This is what happens when a Government moves away from clear statements of principle. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000764\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b0d8b0e0-3ece-4865-9145-5eb5983fc54c\u0022\u003EAs I read the first part of the provision, it seems to me to be a clear statement of the law. Some people may not like it, but that is the statement of the law. If one has a customary right and has not exercised it, one loses it. One must use it or lose it. Now the Government is saying that even when the High Court finds that the parties have not used the customary right, and that usage has not been exclusive, it will refer them to the M\u0101ori Land Court to find new rights. I ask the Minister where the justification for that is. How can the Government possibly justify new clause 34A, where, if the court does not find that there is a customary right\u2014where a group has lost the property\u2014the application should be considered under Part 3?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022fd427be0-7196-4605-b39e-d665553240b0\u0022 data-id=\u0022a78c4204964b49cfb60d0839633c1c26\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000765\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fd427be0-7196-4605-b39e-d665553240b0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a78c4204964b49cfb60d0839633c1c26\u0022\u003ELYNNE PILLAY (Labour\u2014Waitakere):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That the question be now put.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022 data-id=\u00226b2430bc370c4c6f88f71e67eacf940c\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000766\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00226b2430bc370c4c6f88f71e67eacf940c\u0022\u003EGERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader\u2014National):\u003C/span\u003E The points that Mr Prebble made\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000767\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f9c512a8-d532-4ef9-ad51-0fe8d752a893\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ed78372b6f104dea990703325f05be6d\u0022\u003EClayton Cosgrove\u003C/span\u003E: Old Lazarus!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000768\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022750d4cbf44e14f1e8c7e0915de023601\u0022\u003EGERRY BROWNLEE\u003C/span\u003E: It is interesting to hear Mr Cosgrove quoting the Gospel. It must be the influence of sitting next to Mr Tamihere. The point that Mr Prebble made was, to say the least, an interesting one. It takes us back to new clause 29, \u201CHigh Court may find that a group held territorial customary rights\u201D, which refers to groups that, had it not been for the passing of this bill or for the foreshore and seabed having passed into Crown ownership, might have been able to claim a territorial right. The Minister in the chair, Michael Cullen, may want to tell us what are the limits and constraints on that. Surely, most M\u0101ori communities around the countryside would, at some time, have been on land contiguous with the foreshore and seabed\u2014certainly, some inland, we know that. Many around the coastline have not been there for many, many years. In my own city of Christchurch, I can think of those sorts of communities, but, when the Canterbury Association ships arrived in 1850 and the Deans\u2019 lease was renegotiated and became a lease deal, many of those communities moved. Had they not moved, then clearly they would have held, according to this bill, the territorial right to those seas. I simply ask what the constraint is that the court is under when considering applications under clause 29. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000769\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022787383d66391417891f4ac4db4c0977e\u0022\u003EHon Dr Michael Cullen\u003C/span\u003E: Contiguous now.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000770\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224095222cb385493e88cad4d7115abc56\u0022\u003EGERRY BROWNLEE\u003C/span\u003E: Although Dr Cullen says: \u201CContiguous now.\u201D, the point is that the bill is saying that had those groups held the land, they would not have lost the territorial title. Surely there has to be some better answer than that it applies only now. It may well mean that those iwi groupings and small hap\u016B around the country are able to go back many, many years to a time when they were in possession of those properties. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000771\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003EI need to make a few comments about new clause 12, because when I last spoke on this bill, we were debating up to that clause. There has been a lot of discussion this afternoon\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000772\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022fa8136c98a1a45a6b064d221ed0205a0\u0022\u003EHon Dr Michael Cullen\u003C/span\u003E: It\u2019s called reasonable continuity.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000773\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a0509e591eb4472f9201c4dd54b87ea5\u0022\u003EGERRY BROWNLEE\u003C/span\u003E: It indicates that we have a long way to go in debating this part. It has taken about an hour to get from clause 12 to clause 34, and we have some considerable distance to go before we get to Part 3. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000774\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003EMy real point is that a number of people have asked this afternoon what clause 12 is all about. Essentially, it is about empowering the Government to do deals in treaty settlements, in order to see the transfer of foreshore and seabed ownership passed to M\u0101ori. We might well decide that this is the Tainui clause, or the Hauraki clause\u2014two groupings that the Government is currently negotiating with. [Interruption] The Minister of M\u0101ori Affairs has confirmed across the Chamber that that is exactly what the purpose is. The Minister is able to tell his people to go along with this bill, because, where it counts, the Government will do a deal with them and will pass over the ownership of those seabed and foreshore areas in the rohe. It is quite a simple thing, in actual fact. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000775\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003EI do not think the other parts of this bill are really adequate enough to fully distinguish in the public\u2019s mind the difference between a territorial customary title and a customary right. It seems to me that the two have been confused, not only by commentators but particularly by the Government throughout the passage of this bill. Indeed, I think it was around the issue of customary rights that ancestral connection hit the rocks. It has been moved out of this bill, and the proposal has come forward that it be placed into resource management legislation. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002276e4b8b7-c205-49d8-a21e-5d7a3ddf1330\u0022 data-id=\u0022937f3b26862043018250f89a38e55ecf\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000776\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002276e4b8b7-c205-49d8-a21e-5d7a3ddf1330\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022937f3b26862043018250f89a38e55ecf\u0022\u003EMARK PECK (Labour\u2014Invercargill):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That the question be now put.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00221e93d9c8-b183-40db-b200-833697df066c\u0022 data-id=\u00228c862917ad4c4021aab0488bbbdfcc9b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000777\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221e93d9c8-b183-40db-b200-833697df066c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00228c862917ad4c4021aab0488bbbdfcc9b\u0022\u003ELARRY BALDOCK (United Future):\u003C/span\u003E I will continue on from where I left off in my last call, by asking the Minister to give an explanation to the Committee\u2014and I think it would be beneficial to people in local government around the country\u2014of the loss of title by local government to the foreshore and seabed. We understand the reason for that if it concerns the wet part of the foreshore and seabed, but can the Minister explain whether compensation will be paid if it is reclaimed land that has not yet gone into private title? In fact, can he explain what the bill states about that particular part of the former foreshore and seabed? There is a weird bit of policy running through the bill that has nothing to do with the Ng\u0101ti Apa issue, whereby land that is no longer foreshore and seabed will now be claimed by the Crown, and the issuing of private title to it will be prevented. Could the Minister give an explanation of how that will affect local government\u2014even if just for my sake, in order to give me an understanding of that? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000778\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221e93d9c8-b183-40db-b200-833697df066c\u0022\u003EIn this call I want to speak mostly on clause 34B, \u201CPurposes and status of foreshore and seabed reserve\u201D. That is a very interesting and late development in the whole process. It may become contentious in the future, not for any negative reason in terms of M\u0101ori being able to establish foreshore and seabed reserves in areas where territorial customary rights are established but because other New Zealanders will become pretty jealous of that model. That model seems like a pretty good idea to many people who are concerned about the management of the inshore area\u2014the foreshore and seabed\u2014particularly out to the 4-mile or the 12-mile area. They too would like to be involved in management committees or guardianship roles in that area. We have the precedent of the Guardians of Fiordland\u2019s Fisheries and Marine Environment, an excellent model established over the last 3 or 4 years. I know that many people, particularly recreational fishers, are interested in seeing that model expanded around the country. Here we find it expanded under the provisions of this bill, and I think that is good. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000779\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221e93d9c8-b183-40db-b200-833697df066c\u0022\u003EI would just like to mention a couple of points. It is reassuring that clause 34B(2) states very clearly: \u201CNeither the guardians of a foreshore and seabed reserve nor the applicant group nor the board is entitled to charge or collect fees or other form of payment from any person or body for the use or occupation of the reserve.\u201D I think that is wonderful; that is the way it ought to be. But then, when we go to clause 34C(1)(c), we find that when a board is being set up, the persons or bodies to be represented on it must determine \u201Cthe resources required for the operation of the board and how its costs will be met.\u201D It is very clear that the boards are prohibited from charging people. That is good and reassuring, but clearly costs will be involved in the setting-up and ongoing operation of the guardian boards. In fact, if we go to clause 34D(1)(v) we see that there is a requirement to set up a policy outlining \u201Cthe remuneration of members and the payment of members\u2019 out of pocket expenses;\u201D. That begs the question of who will be paying for that. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000780\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221e93d9c8-b183-40db-b200-833697df066c\u0022\u003EI think local government will be interested in that issue. It seems to be made the responsibility of regional councils, as under clause 34C(2) it is \u201Cthe regional council with responsibility under the Resource Management Act 1991 for the area to which the High Court finding relates;\u201D that will have the guiding role in it all. I am sure regional councils will be interested to know whether they will have to pay for the costs, which will then come from the ratepayers. While I understand the need for flexibility, it is not clear who will pay those costs. I do not see why, if we are to give M\u0101ori the opportunity to establish those reserves at their request, the costs ought not to be borne by M\u0101ori. If the policy here is intended to state that M\u0101ori must make it clear how they will pay those costs, I think that will be acceptable to most New Zealanders. But if, in fact, the costs are to be paid by ratepayers\u2014if the costs are to be shared by all the residents of the area\u2014then I think local government will be looking very carefully at the make-up of the boards or the guardian entities, in order to see that there is fair and equal representation. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000781\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221e93d9c8-b183-40db-b200-833697df066c\u0022\u003EI do not make these comments to suggest that the foreshore and seabed reserves are in any way a bad thing. I think they are a very positive step, particularly if that model enables more local control over the establishment of marine reserves. Those reserves are causing huge contention around New Zealand, and I think the answer is to allow local people to have local management of such areas.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022893adc11-ce4e-419c-a079-08f04b3d75f5\u0022 data-id=\u00226e996c4ae6c64524901d95d0a2ed01be\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000782\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022893adc11-ce4e-419c-a079-08f04b3d75f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00226e996c4ae6c64524901d95d0a2ed01be\u0022\u003ELINDSAY TISCH (Junior Whip\u2014National):\u003C/span\u003E I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I note that the Government is moving closure motions on a very important part of this bill, Part 2. We have now been going for 3 hours on this part, and 25 calls have been taken. I ask you to compare that with Part 1, on which we spent over 3\u00BD hours and had 36 calls. Some National spokespeople want to speak, and they have been seeking the call. Dr Wayne Mapp, who was on the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee, has been seeking a second and a third call for the last couple of hours. I ask that you take that into consideration before you consider the closure motion.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022 data-id=\u00225e5f3cf16aca461b9b9872cbbd3893bd\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000783\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00225e5f3cf16aca461b9b9872cbbd3893bd\u0022\u003EHon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House):\u003C/span\u003E Madam Chairperson, I will not try to influence you one way or the other; I simply point out that it is totally improper, by way of point of order or otherwise, to try to influence the Chair on the taking of a closure motion. It should not be done.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022fae7af0d-c48d-4dd4-88f3-928ccaa3a984\u0022 data-id=\u002200c25f805a9643d6838f81445920b6fa\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000784\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fae7af0d-c48d-4dd4-88f3-928ccaa3a984\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002200c25f805a9643d6838f81445920b6fa\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley)\u003C/span\u003E: I thank the member. We have spoken about this a couple of times during the debate and say to Mr Tisch that points of order on this have been answered.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022f9c512a8-d532-4ef9-ad51-0fe8d752a893\u0022 data-id=\u0022a1f87f58a1f742b6a06d71b524a56806\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000785\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f9c512a8-d532-4ef9-ad51-0fe8d752a893\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a1f87f58a1f742b6a06d71b524a56806\u0022\u003ECLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour\u2014Waimakariri):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That the question be now put.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022df788c48-b9be-42fd-b8f2-76629a5572b8\u0022 data-id=\u002249c4b7ba2d9a4f9fb2096fbea0ec7383\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000786\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022df788c48-b9be-42fd-b8f2-76629a5572b8\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002249c4b7ba2d9a4f9fb2096fbea0ec7383\u0022\u003EDr WAYNE MAPP (National\u2014North Shore):\u003C/span\u003E I want to talk\u2014[Interruption]\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000787\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c695a7bd4140478e9514cd9cb121944b\u0022\u003EGerry Brownlee\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I do hope that Dr Mapp\u2019s time has not commenced.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000788\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fae7af0d-c48d-4dd4-88f3-928ccaa3a984\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221decadc8388242c5bb14e68adccb61e6\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley)\u003C/span\u003E: No.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000789\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b72f19a7ae8d40769a0b4e040b523835\u0022\u003EGerry Brownlee\u003C/span\u003E: I also suggest that had such behaviour occurred on this side of the Chamber, we might have ended up with someone being ejected from the Chamber. But I suppose you have to make exceptions when people are as remedial as Mr Cosgrove.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000790\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fae7af0d-c48d-4dd4-88f3-928ccaa3a984\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f42c5d8030e14bc6897c2a3c0b505243\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley)\u003C/span\u003E: That was not a point of order; it only leads to disorder. I had called for order.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000791\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022df788c48-b9be-42fd-b8f2-76629a5572b8\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221e26e9d663c54d55ad700b7947a73256\u0022\u003EDr WAYNE MAPP\u003C/span\u003E: I want to talk about two issues. The first is the claim that New Zealand First members have been making, which is that they believe in one law for all. Their leader said that in his contribution. In fact, he has been going around the whole country making that claim, and he gets a certain number of votes for it. Today he is doing precisely the opposite. He is not just voting for the legislation; he actually participated in its drafting. Mr Dail Jones and Mr Winston Peters have been working together with the Government to build separatist law. That is what has happened. I see headlines alleging that New Zealand First believes in one law for all. In reality they provide divisive law. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000792\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022df788c48-b9be-42fd-b8f2-76629a5572b8\u0022\u003EIf we look at the territorial customary rights rules, we see they can be claimed only by M\u0101ori. That is the first point. No one can reasonably dispute that fact. How can that possibly fit within the rubric of one law for all? There are two separate bodies of law; there is simply no doubt about that fact. The second point is that New Zealand First claims to be providing Crown law and Crown ownership for all New Zealanders.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000793\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002225c22a83-ff2c-474c-a092-883be2dd63d3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227c6d35ef848940d4ac5891b8053cf55e\u0022\u003EDave Hereora\u003C/span\u003E: That\u2019s right.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000794\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022df788c48-b9be-42fd-b8f2-76629a5572b8\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225e665795174d4e69b39363395a378c31\u0022\u003EDr WAYNE MAPP\u003C/span\u003E: The member says: \u201CThat\u2019s right.\u201D Territorial customary rights cut right across that. They will restrict the ability of the owner, the Crown\u2014on behalf of all New Zealanders\u2014to freely exercise its ownership. Why do I say that? We have only to look at clause 6, the purported access provision, to see why. Such provisions are typically drafted so that the first part of the clause is a general proposition\u2014in this case it is that there shall be a complete right of access across the public foreshore\u2014and then the devil is in the detail. We have only to go to clause 6(3) to see all the provisos. [Interruption] In that instance, access rights can be restricted and limited, and that is exactly what has happened. So right through this legislation, one gets the general proposition, then the provisos. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000795\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022df788c48-b9be-42fd-b8f2-76629a5572b8\u0022\u003EI want to provide another example for members of New Zealand First, who clearly do not understand this, and they have only to look at clause 11, \u201CPublic foreshore and seabed vested in the Crown\u201D. Again, in subclause (1), is the general proposition that ownership is vested in the Crown absolutely. Almost immediately below that, subclause (3) provides: \u201CSubsection (1) does not affect customary rights that are able to be recognised and protected under Part 3 and Part 4.\u201D Those parts, of course, are the very areas where we get the territorial customary rights and the customary rights orders, which then provide limitations to the general ownership provisions. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000796\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022df788c48-b9be-42fd-b8f2-76629a5572b8\u0022\u003ESo there are general, grand-sounding principles that are then shot through with all sorts of exceptions that serve to limit the public interest. New Zealand First claims to protect the public interest, but I will not ascribe even that to the Labour Government. Those Labour members know what they are doing. They know they are setting up separatist law and are proud of it. In the New Zealand Herald today we read that the M\u0101ori members expect 10 percent of the coastline to be subject to those territorial customary rights orders. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000797\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228ec0b313c48342238d0ed895565fc708\u0022\u003EGovernment Member\u003C/span\u003E: Ah!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000798\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022df788c48-b9be-42fd-b8f2-76629a5572b8\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223dbe1a0dafae4f2a8a32f26c40a56999\u0022\u003EDr WAYNE MAPP\u003C/span\u003E: Those members might groan, but I believe what I read in the papers\u2014[Interruption] When journalists quote or refer to the views of the M\u0101ori caucus, it is because they have spoken to its members. Those members know that reality. Those members opposite spoke to the journalist and told her that it was exactly their expectation. They told the New Zealand Herald that they expect the percentage to be 10 percent, and that is what they will demand. Dover Samuels cannot possibly deny that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022263be082-dd01-4ef1-9c19-d546d0174793\u0022 data-id=\u00220ca7283eed0d4bdd913bfb460de51f9c\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000799\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022263be082-dd01-4ef1-9c19-d546d0174793\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00220ca7283eed0d4bdd913bfb460de51f9c\u0022\u003EHon MARK GOSCHE (Labour\u2014Maungakiekie):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That the question be now put.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u00224f6acb4ea7e94bf58723d92021b967ee\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the question be now put.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 66\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 52\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 27; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000800\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the following amendment in the name of Metiria Turei to clause 10 be agreed to:\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000801\u0022\u003Eto omit this clause.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u00227a439adb4290446d8aac1892ca718a5b\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 10\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EGreen Party 9; M\u0101ori Party 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 109\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000802\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the following amendment in the name of Metiria Turei to clause 11 be agreed to:\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000803\u0022\u003Eto omit subclause (1).\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022f86b4eddbf4d4febbfea423f59706511\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 10\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EGreen Party 9; M\u0101ori Party 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 109\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000804\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the following amendment in the name of Metiria Turei to clause 11 be agreed to:\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000805\u0022\u003Eto omit from subclause (2) the expression \u201CSubsection (1)\u201D.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u00226bc68d9ced8f46cfae932cd3b97a6d4b\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 10\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EGreen Party 9; M\u0101ori Party 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 109\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000806\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the following amendment in the name of Metiria Turei to clause 11 be agreed to:\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000807\u0022\u003Eto omit from subclause (3) the expression \u201CSubsection (1)\u201D.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022c16d255355c84ad598c354860a7052cc\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 10\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EGreen Party 9; M\u0101ori Party 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 109\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000808\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the following amendment in the name of Metiria Turei to clause 21 be agreed to:\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000809\u0022\u003Eto insert in subclause (2), after the words \u201Cor subclause (1A)\u201D; the words \u201Cor subclause (1B)\u201D.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u002217549f49a28c448bb2376f31ec9f9c95\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 10\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EGreen Party 9; M\u0101ori Party 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 109\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000810\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the following amendment in the name of Metiria Turei to clause 29 be agreed to:\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000811\u0022\u003Eto omit the words \u201C, but for the vesting of the full legal and beneficial ownership of the public foreshore and seabed in the Crown by section 11, have held\u201D, and substitute the word \u201Chold\u201D.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022168535265ac8456786612469bdec1e1d\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 10\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EGreen Party 9; M\u0101ori Party 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 109\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000812\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the amendment in the name of Metiria Turei to clause 9 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 302 in the name of the Hon Dr Michael Cullen be agreed to:\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000813\u0022\u003Eto omit proposed new subclause (1).\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022fb521d0de80746e8b6f730eaf74bd9b9\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 10\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EGreen Party 9; M\u0101ori Party 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 109\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment to the amendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000814\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the following amendment in the name of Metiria Turei to proposed new clause 9A set out on Supplementary Order Paper 302 in the name of the Hon Dr Michael Cullen be agreed to:\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000815\u0022\u003Eto omit the words \u201Cmust not take any action other than one of\u201D, and substitute the words \u201Cmay take any action it sees fit, including but not restricted to\u201D.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u00223dcde2f9ddff49c2b847517a2e55def6\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 10\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EGreen Party 9; M\u0101ori Party 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 109\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Progressive 2; \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment to the amendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022fae7af0d-c48d-4dd4-88f3-928ccaa3a984\u0022 data-id=\u0022ae9b248089594764a520186ed11edad6\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000816\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fae7af0d-c48d-4dd4-88f3-928ccaa3a984\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022ae9b248089594764a520186ed11edad6\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley)\u003C/span\u003E: The next amendment is to clause 12 in the name of Larry Baldock. I ask members to note that this proposal for entrenchment requires the agreement of 90 members.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000817\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fae7af0d-c48d-4dd4-88f3-928ccaa3a984\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the following amendment in the name of Larry Baldock to proposed new clause 12 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 302 in the name of the Hon Dr Michael Cullen be agreed to:\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000818\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fae7af0d-c48d-4dd4-88f3-928ccaa3a984\u0022\u003Eto omit paragraph (a) of subclause (2) and substitute the following new paragraph:\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000819\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fae7af0d-c48d-4dd4-88f3-928ccaa3a984\u0022\u003E(a)\tby a special Act of Parliament:\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000820\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fae7af0d-c48d-4dd4-88f3-928ccaa3a984\u0022\u003E(i) passed by a majority of 75% of all the members of the House of Representatives; and\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000821\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fae7af0d-c48d-4dd4-88f3-928ccaa3a984\u0022\u003E(ii) enacted after the commencement of this Act; or.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u002224fdf4a1e7234346a64aceeaa946078b\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 17\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EGreen Party 9; United Future 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 102\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Progressive 2; M\u0101ori Party 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment to the amendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022fae7af0d-c48d-4dd4-88f3-928ccaa3a984\u0022 data-id=\u002281875d41f87a41c0a6bf8fba29e31023\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000822\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fae7af0d-c48d-4dd4-88f3-928ccaa3a984\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002281875d41f87a41c0a6bf8fba29e31023\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley)\u003C/span\u003E: The next amendment is to clause 12 in the name of Metiria Turei. It is an entrenchment clause and was different in element from the previous amendment, and that is why it was allowed.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000823\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fae7af0d-c48d-4dd4-88f3-928ccaa3a984\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the following amendment in the name of Metiria Turei to proposed new clause 12 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 302 in the name of the Hon Dr Michael Cullen be agreed to:\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000824\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fae7af0d-c48d-4dd4-88f3-928ccaa3a984\u0022\u003Eto add the following new subclauses:\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000825\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fae7af0d-c48d-4dd4-88f3-928ccaa3a984\u0022\u003E(3)\tNo special Act of Parliament to which subsection (2)(a) applies may be passed unless the proposal for the Act\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000826\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fae7af0d-c48d-4dd4-88f3-928ccaa3a984\u0022\u003E(a)\tis passed by a majority of 75% of all the members of the House of Representatives; or\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000827\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fae7af0d-c48d-4dd4-88f3-928ccaa3a984\u0022\u003E(b)\thas been carried by a majority of the valid votes cast at a poll of the electors of the general and Maori electoral districts:\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000828\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fae7af0d-c48d-4dd4-88f3-928ccaa3a984\u0022\u003E\tprovided that this subsection does not apply to the repeal of subsection (1) or (2) by a consolidating Act in which that provision is, or those provisions are, re-enacted without amendment and this subsection is re-enacted without amendment so as to apply to that provision or those provisions as re-enacted.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000829\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fae7af0d-c48d-4dd4-88f3-928ccaa3a984\u0022\u003E(4)\tSubsection 3 does not apply where special legislation is proposed for the alienation of the foreshore and seabed for the purposes of any treaty settlement legislation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022d2cb32681a4e4f21a4c8fe3958181ae3\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 10\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EGreen Party 9; M\u0101ori Party 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 101\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAbstentions 8\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EUnited Future 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment to the amendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000830\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the following amendment in the name of Metiria Turei to proposed new clause 14 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 302 in the name of the Hon Dr Michael Cullen be agreed to:\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000831\u0022\u003Eto omit proposed new paragraph (a) of subclause (2).\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u00227bc1610af840426cad5217283d6df6ab\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 10\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EGreen Party 9; M\u0101ori Party 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 109\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment to the amendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000832\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the following amendment in the name of Deborah Coddington to clause 15(1) be agreed to:\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000833\u0022\u003Eto insert, after the words \u201Cacquire\u201D, the words \u201Cby agreement\u201D.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022c540f17bc4db4d44bc61301088d17e42\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 43\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 76\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; Progressive 2; M\u0101ori Party 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000834\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the amendment in the name of Metiria Turei to proposed new clause 19 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 302 in the name of the Hon Dr Michael Cullen be agreed to:\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000835\u0022\u003Eto omit this clause.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u002246f8aeb879664e70ad8b47f36fd3ef85\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 10\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EGreen Party 9; M\u0101ori Party 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 109\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment to the amendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000836\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the following amendment in the name of Metiria Turei to the amendment to clause 21 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 302 in the name of the Hon Dr Michael Cullen be agreed to:\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000837\u0022\u003Eto add the following new subclause:\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000838\u0022\u003E(1B) If, a holder of customary rights order, or a territorial customary rights order, makes a written application to the Minister of Conservation and to the Minister of Maori Affairs, those Ministers may, to the extent that they consider it necessary to protect the relevant wahi tapu, by notice in the Gazette, prohibit or restrict access over any area of the public foreshore and seabed.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022c9f5b2e35c024aecb412912a6e27a31a\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 18\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EGreen Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8; M\u0101ori Party 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 101\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment to the amendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000839\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the following amendment in the name of Metiria Turei to proposed new clause 28 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 302 in the name of the Hon Dr Michael Cullen be agreed to:\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000840\u0022\u003Eto omit this clause.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u002292328c298e084b95a274f01a9becbb24\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 11\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EGreen Party 9; M\u0101ori Party 1; Other: Nanaia Mahuta.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 108\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment to the amendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000841\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the following amendment in the name of Metiria Turei to the amendment to clause 33(1) set out on Supplementary Order Paper 302 in the name of the Hon Dr Michael Cullen be agreed to:\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000842\u0022\u003Eto omit the word \u201Ceither\u201D, and to substitute the word \u201Cany\u201D.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u002224a162226f4d476d9759bb30b03fbc20\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 10\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EGreen Party 9; M\u0101ori Party 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 109\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment to the amendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000843\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the following amendment in the name of Metiria Turei to proposed new clause 33 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 302 in the name of the Hon Dr Michael Cullen be agreed to:\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000844\u0022\u003Eto add the following new paragraph:\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000845\u0022\u003E(c)\tany other orders or findings as it considers appropriate under its inherent jurisdiction.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u00223c3098ed8fca471e94c79bc9dd9dd13f\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 10\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EGreen Party 9; M\u0101ori Party 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 109\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment to the amendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000846\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the following amendment in the name of Metiria Turei to proposed new clause 33A set out on Supplementary Order Paper 302 in the name of the Hon Dr Michael Cullen be agreed to:\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000847\u0022\u003Eto add to subclause (4) the words \u201Cor (c)\u201D.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022db0b1fa052724036bf956f7e3e0d69ac\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 10\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EGreen Party 9; M\u0101ori Party 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 109\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment to the amendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000848\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the following amendment in the name of Metiria Turei to proposed new clause 34 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 302 in the name of the Hon Dr Michael Cullen be agreed to:\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000849\u0022\u003Eto omit this clause.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u00220b26a7d7febe4d9bb02c5678b08425c8\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 10\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EGreen Party 9; M\u0101ori Party 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 109\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment to the amendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000850\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 302 and Supplementary Order Paper 304 in the name of the Hon Dr Michael Cullen to Part 2 be agreed to.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022a9704253e6184b7e903f1f3ff3d4df15\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 74\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 45\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 27; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8; M\u0101ori Party 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendments agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022366caacd447841efa80b3efc20b20452\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That Part 2 as amended be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 66\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 53\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 27; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; M\u0101ori Party 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EPart 2 as amended agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000851\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022448aad0183744f65b4302ea79ce3e3c6\u0022\u003EPart 3 Provisions relating to M\u0101ori Land Court and orders it may make\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000852\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fae7af0d-c48d-4dd4-88f3-928ccaa3a984\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002211226b700192477da2680cf4b25c394f\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley)\u003C/span\u003E: The debate on Part 3, clause 35 to 56, includes debate on schedule 1. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022 data-id=\u0022f516e3a1275941cf8fcea0c482c3deac\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000853\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022f516e3a1275941cf8fcea0c482c3deac\u0022\u003EGERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader\u2014National):\u003C/span\u003E I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I just want a clarification. I am looking through the redline copy, which I know is not official but is there to help us. I notice that clauses 38 to 40 seem to be struck out. In actual fact, it would appear that the sequential numbering will go from clause 37 straight to clause 41. Is that caused by hurried preparation, or do I have a copy with some bits missing? My pages are sequentially numbered, if that helps. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000854\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fae7af0d-c48d-4dd4-88f3-928ccaa3a984\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227e5fbe7de2ec40e3b5d7da0d52634483\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley)\u003C/span\u003E: Would the member please repeat that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000855\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022711362a2dfec4280b9e805aa56b724d7\u0022\u003EGERRY BROWNLEE\u003C/span\u003E: If you go to page 46 of that document, Madam Chairperson, you will see that the last clause there is clause 37, \u201CApplications for orders\u201D. There is a small clause remaining there, but virtually from there on, the clauses\u201438, 39, 40 and 41, 42, and 43\u2014are all removed. When it comes to the content going back into the bill, on page 50 we start with clause 41, so it is just a question of what has happened to clauses 38, 39, and 40.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229fbe781c622649adb9040f7e1f28bf4e\u0022\u003EDail Jones\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. Whilst the Minister is perhaps getting some more information, I note, on just having a quick look at it, that that legislation relates to ancestral connection, does it not? That has been deleted, hence it is not in the bill any more.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000857\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fae7af0d-c48d-4dd4-88f3-928ccaa3a984\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a1989274fa3b417b9330ddc279d20d8f\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley)\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, but I did not hear fully what the member said.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000858\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ccd0eb34c24c41bb897e45c17cbaf4c3\u0022\u003EDail Jones\u003C/span\u003E: I believe that those deletions relate principally to ancestral connection, and there have been some further matters tidied up, as well. Perhaps the Minister could take another call, because I was doing something else when the point of order was raised. But if we look at the redline version, we see that it is principally ancestral connection matter that has been deleted, I think, and matter linked to it, to some extent. The Minister can confirm whether I am right.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000859\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022022cfe6b-bae4-4028-b68a-ccffb4269442\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ecce40eb3f214b5cbcc6e74b26e7d536\u0022\u003EHon Margaret Wilson\u003C/span\u003E: As I read it, both members are right. The numbers do not run sequentially, and that is because the ancestral connection clauses have been removed\u2014those three\u2014so the bill needs to be renumbered. As the member Mr Brownlee quite rightly noted, this redline version is here to assist; it is not the official version. It will be changed.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000860\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223e35161007f74f848ec6f1232130f3d9\u0022\u003EGERRY BROWNLEE\u003C/span\u003E: Well, I think that that just serves to show how difficult it is to deal with this bill. I am very pleased that the New Zealand First member Dail Jones is in the Chamber. He should be sitting in the Minister\u2019s chair. That little explanation from him certainly confirms that this Supplementary Order Paper, which is effectively an amendment bill, by and large, is his work. The country will not thank him for that. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000861\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003EThe interesting thing about this part, we would contend, is that in many ways clause 35 is what the Government should have done\u2014or the essence of it is what it should have done\u2014right from the start, to make it clear that the Te Ture Whenua Maori Act did not give jurisdiction to the M\u0101ori Land Court to deal with the foreshore and the seabed. That should have happened right upfront, and the rest of it should have been taken from there.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000862\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003EThe fascinating thing about this whole part is that it will empower the M\u0101ori Land Court to decide who has customary rights and who does not. It would seem to me that if an iwi grouping, a hap\u016B grouping, or even a wh\u0101nau grouping has a customary right, then it has it. So why does it have to go to the M\u0101ori Land Court to have that right sorted out?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000863\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003EIn the South Island\u2014and Dover Samuels will be able to attest to this because he is a beneficiary\u2014there are arrangements for a particular customary right on the Crown\u2019s T\u012Bt\u012B Islands, the mutton birding islands, that is a long established customary right. Not any M\u0101ori can go there; only certain families can go there. That right has been passed down from generation to generation, and I expect that it would not change if there were some application to have it further ratified by going to the M\u0101ori Land Court.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000864\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003EOur view quite simply, when it comes to customary rights, is that those recognitions should be made as part of treaty settlements\u2014as they have been frequently up to now, as they were under the National Party, and as they will continue to be under the National Party. Those areas in question are not huge; they are relatively discrete areas around the country where undeniably there has been an exercise of a customary right for many, many generations.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000865\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003EWhat is, perhaps, most offensive about this piece of the bill is that it assumes, and works from the premise, that no customary right can be established post-1840. That has to be an utter nonsense. A good part of the country was completely desolate of human habitation in 1840. There have to be hundreds of thousands of people who have taken up residence around this country and engaged in activities that could be considered customary only for them. But this bill will not recognise that. I think particularly in the South Island, where it was so sparsely populated and where new communities have sprung up, that no matter whether people are M\u0101ori or non-M\u0101ori this legislation will be a denial of customary rights that they should be able to exercise. I think it is also amazing that where we can say there has been a customary practice\u2014obviously in this case for more than 160-odd years, or whatever\u2014suddenly the Minister of Conservation will be brought in on top of that, and he will make the determination, for example, of how many mutton birds Dover Samuels and his colleagues can take from the Crown\u2019s T\u012Bt\u012B Islands in any particular year\u2014[Interruption] I only said Dover Samuels because he told me that he has access rights.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000866\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022aae12237741e495ca058dc5be16c8839\u0022\u003EHon Member\u003C/span\u003E: I would not believe him.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000867\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227708c1e706c84164a3e86b3444352002\u0022\u003EGERRY BROWNLEE\u003C/span\u003E: Oh, has he not? He has led me up the garden path. Well, why is that a surprise! \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000868\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003EThe point is that there are people who have had those access rights and who have been carrying out that activity for many, many years, and it does not appear that they have carried out that activity in a way that has destroyed the resource. But it would appear that we are still going to have the M\u0101ori Land Court ratify that. Then, despite treaty settlements we are going to have the Minister of Conservation inserted into the process as well. We know that the current Minister of Conservation is, in fact, more like a \u201CMinister of Preservation\u201D, because he just does not want anything to be touched, anywhere, so I wonder whether members on the other side of the House or the Minister considers that these provisions in actual fact do cut across and place unnecessary constraint on those who hold the customary right.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022 data-id=\u002287a2d2e640fc4e148253be4d06d82eb6\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000869\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002287a2d2e640fc4e148253be4d06d82eb6\u0022\u003EDAIL JONES (NZ First):\u003C/span\u003E Mr Brownlee has raised a point that suggests he has not understood the importance of 1840, and Dr Mapp, in supporting Mr Brownlee in that comment indicates that he has not understood the importance of 1840 either, and neither have the M\u0101ori Land Court judges. As Dr McHugh said to us, and I refer to the Executive Summary\u2014and I will quote just a small part of it, because this is only a 5-minute speech: He said: \u201CIn clarifying that, the High Court will have to develop a legal test and in doing so it will probably combine factual use and occupation (the Canadian factual-basis test) and the continuity of Maori custom (the Australian normative-basis test). Under both tests the crucial date is that of Crown sovereignty (1840).\u201D \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000870\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022\u003EWe have to have a fixed date. It is the common law, for goodness\u2019 sake! How many times do we have to tell the National Party? It is the common law on which the Ng\u0101ti Apa decision was based, and which Dr McHugh spoke to us endlessly about. Dover Samuels understands. He is a practical man of the land and the sea. But these National Party people with PhDs and such like just do not get it. We have to have a fixed date. If one does not have a fixed date, the M\u0101ori Land Court can keep changing the date to suit whoever comes along to it in accordance with whatever their tikanga just might have to be on the day. We could have transfers from 1840 to 1850 to 1870 to 1910 to 1980 to 2000. There could be endless movement, and that is why there has to be a fixed time of 1840. That is what I proposed when the Labour Party made the suggestion in all good faith, because it was with departmental support. It has to be 1840. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000871\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022\u003EI am appalled at the interference by the judiciary in this legislation, with particular reference to the M\u0101ori Land Court. There is a clear constitutional convention that Parliament and the judiciary do not mix. There has been a breach of that convention by the judges of the M\u0101ori Land Court. I am concerned that some of those M\u0101ori Land Court judges might have a personal interest in this matter, again, making that breach of the constitutional convention even greater. No judge should come before a select committee as having made submissions. That is understood by everybody but, it seems, the M\u0101ori Land Court. The M\u0101ori Land Court has tried to influence Parliament by making a submission to change the 1840 rule. I want to know, because I have been informed by a member sitting across there that one of those M\u0101ori Land Court judges\u2019 tribes will benefit by a movable 1840 rule. M\u0101ori Land Court judges have no right to make a submission, and clearly, if they do, they should disclose their personal interest.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000872\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229672e06ccfe14942ad36806d5e929191\u0022\u003EHon Dr Nick Smith\u003C/span\u003E: What are you going to do about it?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000873\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226984eeb33445400391059d874256ee9e\u0022\u003EDAIL JONES\u003C/span\u003E: We had it taken out. Those members want it in. We do not want a movable feast. We could not want M\u0101ori Land Court judges having a conflict of interest and influencing the decision. The National Party seems to want that. I will be writing to the Chief Justice and to the Attorney-General. I believe that there has to be clear investigation of the M\u0101ori Land Court and its view of having a movable 1840. It is like a computer programme, to put it in current terms. If one has a software programme, one must not have a virus. But to move the date from 1840 onwards, would be like a computer virus. At the end of the day, the programme would be corrupted and it could come to a halt. One must have a fixed date. That is the point I made. That is the point made by Dr McHugh. It has to be certain. Mr Fairbrother made that point earlier on, as well. There has to be a certain date, and that is the answer also to the member for the Tainui area, Nanaia Mahuta. There has to be a fixed date, otherwise all sorts of people will be going to their cuzzies in the M\u0101ori Land Court and saying: \u201CHey bro, we\u2019ve done a deal with so and so and there\u2019s a continuity.\u201D, and it will just go on forever. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000874\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022\u003EThe whole idea of this is a certain date, 1840, and I am absolutely staggered that M\u0101ori Land Court judges, who also raised questions of judicial appointments, want more jobs for the boys and girls. I have never heard of a judicial officer saying to a select committee that they want more jobs, better conditions, better pay, and all those things that flow from it. That is unheard of. The matter should be considered at an executive level. Whoever is in charge of the M\u0101ori Land Court should be speaking to the Attorney-General or to the Chief Justice. He or she should not be coming to Parliament. He or she should not be talking about legal aid, for example. That is a separate, political matter. It is a policy matter, and not a matter for the M\u0101ori Land Court. It is suggested that it wants more work, to feather its own nest, and make sure that it continues forever and a day. This is an absolutely appalling and disgraceful situation. The M\u0101ori Land Court needs to be fully investigated.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022 data-id=\u0022a4e6b36812d04bc7aabab8390730a9a6\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000875\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a4e6b36812d04bc7aabab8390730a9a6\u0022\u003EMETIRIA TUREI (Green):\u003C/span\u003E The Green Party has a large number of amendments on Part 3 as well\u2014[Interruption]\u2014and we are looking forward to that, are we not! A number of amendments refer to the provisions about how applications for customary rights orders will be decided. One of our amendments deletes clause 42 and replaces it with something that is substantially simpler, easier to manage, and more accessible, but that also acknowledges that any customary rights have to be exercised in accordance with the law, and that the law does apply to those areas. So it does not give complete free rein.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000876\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003EClause 42 as set out in Supplementary Order Paper 302 is a real concern. During the select committee hearings a lot of people were very worried about the possibility that resource consents could prevent M\u0101ori from getting a customary rights order, because of the way that the tests for getting them were structured. It still is a serious concern. Will a resource consent for a very short period of time\u2014perhaps 5 years\u2014or even for 30 years, disrupt, interfere, and effectively extinguish a customary right that has been in practice and in existence, effectively, for the last 500 or 800 years? The answer remains that, yes, a resource consent will do that, even though officials assured us that resource consents would be excluded, and that they would make sure that resource consents could not affect a customary rights order.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000877\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003EThe way that the clause has been structured to allow that to happen is by providing a myriad of little tests that M\u0101ori will have to meet. First, they have to have been exercising the customary right since 1840; like Dail Jones said, that makes perfect sense given that we are talking about customary rights here. Also, the customary activity has to have been exercised on a particular piece of foreshore and seabed; of course, that makes sense, too.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000878\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003EOne criterion is that the customary right is not to have been prohibited by any enactment or rule of law; that is in clause 42(1). Resource consents are specifically excluded from affecting that. That means that a resource consent is not an enactment or rule of law that would prohibit the exercise of a customary right. On the face of it, it looks like customary rights orders are protected from resource consents, but, in fact, the test that the customary right has to have been exercised substantially uninterrupted since 1840 will be subject to resource consents, and that means that resource consents can substantially interrupt the practice of that customary right. It does not matter whether the wh\u0101nau, the hap\u016B, or the iwi have been trying to exercise their right during the period that a resource consent has been in place, and it does not matter that they had no control at all as to whether the resource consent would be approved by the local council\u2014they could have had no culpability at all in that resource consent having gone ahead, no responsibility for it, and no capacity to stop it\u2014that resource consent, whether it be for 5, 10, or 20 years, can substantially interrupt their ability to carry out their customary right that they have been carrying out for 200 or 500 years, and can prevent them from ever being able to get a customary rights order.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000879\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003EIt is an anomaly in the process. I do not know whether the Government intended it to be the case. The officials at the select committee clearly said that they did not want resource consents to interfere with customary rights orders, but the way that the bill is structured means that they can interfere if they have physically prevented the carrying out, in some form or another, of that customary right in the form that it was carried out in 1840. If there was the capacity for that customary right to be broadened in some way, or the rules around substantially the same exercise of that right, or if there was allowance for periods of time when there was a lacuna in the exercise of that right because of external events occurring to that land or to that hap\u016B, then maybe this rule would not be such a problem. But with the way that it is structured now, if a resource consent has stopped a hap\u016B from getting access\u2014even if it is only access to that land; even if it is not a resource consent over the foreshore and seabed itself, but over access ways to it\u2014they will not be able to get their customary rights order.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000880\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003EResource consents are prolific in this country. They are a critical environmental management tool that is used in all sorts of ways in all sorts of places. Hundreds and hundreds of wh\u0101nau and hap\u016B will not be able to get their customary rights, because a resource consent has interrupted them. It is unjust.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00226de7f1d9-7be9-468a-b27c-06000416b96a\u0022 data-id=\u0022e59242b2a0fc48b49b05db192a78b241\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000881\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226de7f1d9-7be9-468a-b27c-06000416b96a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022e59242b2a0fc48b49b05db192a78b241\u0022\u003EJOHN TAMIHERE (Labour\u2014Tamaki Makaurau):\u003C/span\u003E With regard to Part 3, I make the following observations. I disagree quite vigorously with the New Zealand First member with regard to the criticism of the M\u0101ori Land Court bench. The jurisdiction of the M\u0101ori Land Court bench has increased somewhat in recent years. That bench, rightly or wrongly, has a very specific oversight requirement in terms of a totally different form of land tenure that is held in this country. As a consequence, it is a court of special character, and it does have some very special skills on board it. It has made a number of submissions in a number of areas, as judges often do. I did want to stand and say that it is a very fine bench. It works under some significant constraints, and I reject the way that it has been criticised in the Committee this afternoon. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000882\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226de7f1d9-7be9-468a-b27c-06000416b96a\u0022\u003EI shall move on to the jurisdiction of the court. The jurisdiction of the court has been clearly constrained in Part 3, relevant to customary rights orders. As to the point made by the Green member who has just resumed her seat, I have struggled with the Green member\u2019s contributions all the time in the Committee on this matter. The reason why I struggle is that I do not understand, by example, what she is actually talking about. Extant rights are protected\u2014existing rights have to be protected. The reality is that if there are Resource Management Act consent issues in the foreshore and seabed domain, so be it. Two wrongs do not make a right. The reality is that this particular part of the bill goes directly to the recognition of customary rights orders by way of orders from the M\u0101ori Land Court. On that particular basis I want to indicate that the underpinning benchmark, if one likes, for the finding of a customary rights order is the tikanga test. The tikanga test folds back also into Part 2\u2014the territorial customary rights orders. One cannot have a territorial customary rights order unless there is a tikanga test that underwrites it. Every piece of land in this country that was not confiscated and handed back by way of Crown grant has a whakapapa that goes back to the Native Land Court, and that whakapapa is determined solely on tikanga rights. What are some of those rights? They are: te take m\u0101taotao, te take o te ahi k\u0101, te take m\u0101rena, and te take raupatu, and so on and so forth. So M\u0101ori tikanga has actually founded the title system upon which many Kiwis hold their own land. The reality is that tikanga underwrites the customary rights orders. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000883\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226de7f1d9-7be9-468a-b27c-06000416b96a\u0022\u003EThe fact that we have not had the opportunity to explore customary rights because of the finding in the Court of Appeal case that led to this legislation is a worry and a regret. But, like all good Governments, we have to bring certainty and closure. We have to put a process in place that will achieve a fair and just outcome in the event that common law rights do exist. Where they do exist, this legislation puts in place a process that allows M\u0101ori to go to the M\u0101ori Land Court and to continue to explore whether their rights can be crystallised and whether they can provide the evidence to achieve that. So it is a very simple, very clear process, and it has a significant precedent base in the M\u0101ori Land Court. I support the M\u0101ori Land Court bench determining that matter. Because of its special character, its special institutional memory, and its special recording capability in respect of who holds mana in certain areas and how people actually achieved that mana, that is how we can find a faster way of identifying and crystallising whether indeed customary rights continue to exist, notwithstanding that the fall of law may have extinguished them. I do not know whether that is so, because we have not carried on with that inquiry. So I commend this part of the bill to the Committee, because it is a two-part process: territorial customary rights, and customary rights orders. Having customary rights orders is obviously a significant plank and a base that can lead one into a territorial customary rights regime. That is part of the evidential track that we have here. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000884\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226de7f1d9-7be9-468a-b27c-06000416b96a\u0022\u003EI conclude by restating the points I wanted to make\u2014that one cannot escape the tikanga test in asserting either a territorial customary right or, in this instance, a customary rights order. One cannot escape it. It actually underwrites the whole bedrock upon which M\u0101ori land law applies. I look forward to us asserting those rights as we continue to roll them out and evidence them.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00225cee6a89-68e3-40fd-b2d8-d8adb0ba5da0\u0022 data-id=\u002290cfac9b973e4e14b960eb1b03947063\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000885\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225cee6a89-68e3-40fd-b2d8-d8adb0ba5da0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002290cfac9b973e4e14b960eb1b03947063\u0022\u003EGORDON COPELAND (United Future):\u003C/span\u003E I would like to take a brief call on proposed new clause 41, \u201CLimits to jurisdiction of M\u0101ori Land Court under this Part\u201D. Before I go on with my remarks, I would like to say that the wording under the proposed new clause 41 is identical to the wording in new Part 2A, except that in that context it refers to the High Court. The point I want to talk about is therefore not limited to the M\u0101ori Land Court but applies with equal force to the High Court itself. Subclause (2) of the proposed new clause states: \u201CA customary rights order must not be made in respect of an activity, use, or practice on the basis of a spiritual or cultural association, unless that association is manifested by the relevant wh\u0101nau, hap\u016B, or iwi in a physical activity or use related to a natural or physical resource.\u201D \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000886\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225cee6a89-68e3-40fd-b2d8-d8adb0ba5da0\u0022\u003EI would like to compliment the Government on that particular clause. It is a model clause that, in my opinion, should also be reflected in the Resource Management Act. I have been putting that proposal to the Government for some time, and I understand that it may have a look at it. I hope the Government will choose to adopt it, because it is a very important clause and a very important take on what can otherwise lead to quite unacceptable legal outcomes. I believe that Simon Upton, the person who steered the Resource Management Act through the House, has admitted that that Act is quite defective in terms of the way it deals with spiritual matters. The reason it does not work is that if we say the court can decide something, taking into account a spiritual connotation, then we immediately go off into the metaphysical. The question I raised earlier was this: how can any court, any human jurisdiction, possibly decide whether the spiritual truths\u2014the metaphysical matters\u2014that are being presented to the court are true? By definition, they are totally subjective. They are personal to the beliefs of the particular applicants to the court. By the way, when it comes to M\u0101ori applicants let us be quite clear that wh\u0101nau and M\u0101ori in this country belong to a variety of different religions, including some who adhere to traditional M\u0101ori beliefs. But M\u0101ori in their spirituality are by no means limited to those beliefs. Obviously, there are many, many M\u0101ori who are Christians, Islamic, and so on. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000887\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225cee6a89-68e3-40fd-b2d8-d8adb0ba5da0\u0022\u003EThe issue just comes down to the absolutely common-sense conclusion that we must try to reflect adequately in law anything that relates to the spiritual. I am not denying the spiritual for one moment\u2014to the contrary. I am saying that we can ask a court to take a spiritual matter into account only if it is manifested in some physical or natural way. I am very, very pleased to see that that wording has now been adopted. To give an example, we can talk about a place of worship. A place of worship, obviously, has a physical presence of some sort\u2014it is on the ground\u2014so it can be taken into account in establishing a customary right, and can therefore lead to a customary right order. If there is something physical\u2014something natural\u2014in existence, we can do that. I want to commend the Government for picking that up. As some other people have said earlier in this debate, in some ways in this bill we are amending the Resource Management Act, because essentially a lot of this issue is about the management of resources on the foreshore and the seabed. So I do express the hope that clause 41 will set a good precedent and that we will see the same wording picked up in the forthcoming review of the Resource Management Act.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022022cfe6b-bae4-4028-b68a-ccffb4269442\u0022 data-id=\u0022743c2e2ece184eb9b7e69a0d58ca1c65\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000888\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022022cfe6b-bae4-4028-b68a-ccffb4269442\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022743c2e2ece184eb9b7e69a0d58ca1c65\u0022\u003EHon MARGARET WILSON (Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations):\u003C/span\u003E I rise to support this part of the bill and also the amendments on the Supplementary Order Paper. I feel it may be useful to go over again the origins of this part of the legislation, which have already been touched on by my colleague John Tamihere. The essence of the action to the Court of Appeal was to establish a route whereby M\u0101ori customary rights could be determined and recognised formally by the court, and specifically by the M\u0101ori Land Court. Although those who have read the judgment know that there were eight or nine questions, the Court of Appeal really only addressed itself to the question of the appropriateness of the M\u0101ori Land Court to be the jurisdiction to determine M\u0101ori customary rights. On that question, it was quite clear. Therefore, the question as to why that is happening would seem to me to be obviously answered by the fact that the Court of Appeal directed that there should be an increase in the jurisdiction of the M\u0101ori Land Court in that respect. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000889\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022022cfe6b-bae4-4028-b68a-ccffb4269442\u0022\u003EOnce that was to be actioned through legislation, the question became one of how one would express M\u0101ori customary rights. Proposed new clause 42, referred to by the member from the Green Party, sets out the test as it is understood and accepted in the common law world. I know there has been a tendency to try to change that test, and as such to move away from the origin of those rights, which are firmly based in common law customary rights. But the fact remains that their legitimacy and their recognition in the law has to go back to that origin. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000890\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022022cfe6b-bae4-4028-b68a-ccffb4269442\u0022\u003EIt is true, as the members of the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee have indicated in their various contributions in the Committee, that there is some difference as to the exact criteria used in determining customary rights in the various jurisdictions, and particularly in Canada and Australia, from which we take our precedents. The reason why we do not have a strong jurisprudence on customary common law rights is, of course, due to the Treaty of Waitangi. In fact, most of the rights pursued have been founded upon breaches of the treaty. However, that has not meant that there have not always been in existence, as a residual right, the customary common law rights. This legislation is a recognition of those rights for the first time, as M\u0101ori colleagues have repeatedly said, within the context of legislation passed by this Parliament. In that context they do get an added recognition. They get a formality and a clarity, and they get a process for enforcement in way that is understood by all parties who will be affected by them. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000891\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022022cfe6b-bae4-4028-b68a-ccffb4269442\u0022\u003EThe reason why there is the reference to 1840 is almost so obvious that one is embarrassed to actually restate it. I am constantly amazed\u2014and I know I will apologise for this comment\u2014as to how that member wishes to share his ignorance in this area with more people than perhaps is decent. It just seems that 1840 was, in fact, the significant time. It was at that time that the agreement was reached that did affect the nature of the customary common law rights. By definition, without the treaty the whole of the jurisprudence in this country for M\u0101ori, in terms of addressing breaches, would have been based on common law customary right. But because of the treaty and because of the process of extinguishment, that in fact is a residual, if one likes, category for legal action. However, it has been seen and is perfectly understood as being a whole new source of jurisprudence that we can recreate in our likeness, without any reference back to its common law roots. This legislation says no, its legitimacy must be founded in those roots, and that is why those criteria are set there, and the essence of those criteria is tikanga M\u0101ori. One cannot in fact establish the nature of a common law customary right without reference to tikanga M\u0101ori, and that is why that is explicitly stated within the bill. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000892\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022022cfe6b-bae4-4028-b68a-ccffb4269442\u0022\u003EOn another matter that the member for the Greens raised I also am puzzled, because it seemed to me that clause 42A(3) would address her point.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bc1e9f65-e08b-4939-867c-22ef093e2a4e\u0022 data-id=\u002208c2eeb693774262b48571946e8d9b6c\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000893\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bc1e9f65-e08b-4939-867c-22ef093e2a4e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002208c2eeb693774262b48571946e8d9b6c\u0022\u003ERODNEY HIDE (Leader\u2014ACT):\u003C/span\u003E That was the former dean of Waikato law school who was speaking. It has puzzled us that\u2014we could not understand why\u2014Hamilton law graduates could not get jobs outside the grievance industry, but now we understand it, given that legal reasoning. As I listened to Mr Copeland, I found myself in strange agreement with him. He was complaining about the fact that this bill puts the metaphysical dimension into legislation and that the law should not rule on that. I found that to be absolutely true. Of course, I found it interesting that that view came from Mr Copeland, who I understood was here in Parliament in order to put the metaphysical dimension into our legislation and into Government policy\u2014as long as it is the right metaphysics, I guess. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000894\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bc1e9f65-e08b-4939-867c-22ef093e2a4e\u0022\u003EI go back to Mr Tamihere\u2019s speech. It is very, very clear that that member focused at university on tax law, rather than on any jurisprudence or constitutional principles, because how wrong could a man get? If the Government was proud of this legislation, why did it present the Supplementary Order Paper just yesterday? Why is the Government racing this legislation through under urgency in a couple of days? If the Government believes that this legislation will withstand scrutiny, why not take the time for that? It is because the Government knows it does not withstand scrutiny. I know that Nanaia Mahuta agrees with me on that; she is not going to vote for this bill at the third reading.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000895\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220a553dacd7db4d22944ae700a1fb592c\u0022\u003ERt Hon Winston Peters\u003C/span\u003E: She is.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000896\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bc1e9f65-e08b-4939-867c-22ef093e2a4e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c5fa2cc141b3487d9e71112f4687158c\u0022\u003ERODNEY HIDE\u003C/span\u003E: No, no. She is a person of principle. We know that she will not vote for it. We know that John Tamihere does not agree with this bill. He is just voting for it\u2014[Interruption] What does he say?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000897\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226de7f1d9-7be9-468a-b27c-06000416b96a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223496a478899b47dc8b585c43271c8e9b\u0022\u003EJohn Tamihere\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019m voting for it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000898\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bc1e9f65-e08b-4939-867c-22ef093e2a4e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022796ddce9e2d04d829834afaa6c5b4da0\u0022\u003ERODNEY HIDE\u003C/span\u003E: Oh, he says he is going to vote for it\u2014just as he said he would not take the golden handshake. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000899\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bc1e9f65-e08b-4939-867c-22ef093e2a4e\u0022\u003EWe have not changed our view of this legislation, and what we need to do is to draw the dots together. Let us take all the dots, join them together, and see what is going on here. The reason that M\u0101ori people are upset over this bill is a sound one. They were going through a process, through the courts of New Zealand, to determine what their customary rights were. They were absolutely entitled to do that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000900\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224029b198-a7b2-4eea-867c-79ef46cafeb9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022908443fb2e5d400587f8e279a2e23efb\u0022\u003EHon Dover Samuels\u003C/span\u003E: They can do it under this bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000901\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bc1e9f65-e08b-4939-867c-22ef093e2a4e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a572709ef76c4b28b2275fb4ccd34e46\u0022\u003ERODNEY HIDE\u003C/span\u003E: No, they cannot do that. If they could still do that, why does it need legislation? They were denied the opportunity to do that, and the ACT party says that is wrong. We felt that the rights of M\u0101ori, as the Court of Appeal stated, were quite circumscribed\u2014the odd reef, and the odd burial site. We see no objection to M\u0101ori exercising their rights. We see no reason why they should be denied that opportunity. So M\u0101ori are upset that the Government came along and denied them their right to have their day in court. [Interruption] Dover Samuels is yelling out, and New Zealand First is yelling out, that M\u0101ori do have those rights. Let us just see in this legislation what their rights are. Well, they can go to the M\u0101ori Land Court, and they can go to the High Court and the court can determine\u2014what are they called\u2014customary right orders. [Interruption] I have to tell that member\u2014what is his name? Darren Hughes. I have to tell Darren Hughes that when people go off to the court to have their customary rights determined, they do not get a customary rights order. They get the customary rights they are entitled to. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000902\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224029b198-a7b2-4eea-867c-79ef46cafeb9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226f91bb4bbda748dfaaca6f982de30437\u0022\u003EHon Dover Samuels\u003C/span\u003E: Did you get a customary rights order?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000903\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bc1e9f65-e08b-4939-867c-22ef093e2a4e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221632f1fccaeb447c8d0854980bc4775e\u0022\u003ERODNEY HIDE\u003C/span\u003E: I know that Dover Samuels does not like to hear the truth about this bill. M\u0101ori can go to court, and the M\u0101ori Land Court and the High Court are to determine customary rights orders.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000904\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224029b198-a7b2-4eea-867c-79ef46cafeb9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022370c59d51b80497eb9643542563d6834\u0022\u003EHon Dover Samuels\u003C/span\u003E: Blowhard!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000905\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bc1e9f65-e08b-4939-867c-22ef093e2a4e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002291f364d288e1476cab74458583beef0e\u0022\u003ERODNEY HIDE\u003C/span\u003E: He says I am a blowhard. Let me ask Mr Samuels this: how much of the foreshore and seabed, in his view, will be subject to a customary rights order?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000906\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224029b198-a7b2-4eea-867c-79ef46cafeb9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a7485df56bed485ea71de7c520c38c5b\u0022\u003EHon Dover Samuels\u003C/span\u003E: It depends on how many wh\u0101nau and hap\u016B take their applications to the M\u0101ori Land Court and the High Court.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000907\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bc1e9f65-e08b-4939-867c-22ef093e2a4e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022adc4b38bccc74cfe9015acdc0a008755\u0022\u003ERODNEY HIDE\u003C/span\u003E: Oh! So that is the answer. And if M\u0101ori apply, do they automatically get a customary rights order? I am asking Mr Samuels. If a wh\u0101nau, hap\u016B, or iwi applies, does it automatically get one? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000908\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224029b198-a7b2-4eea-867c-79ef46cafeb9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002260f1601a6c644bec94d336ca872dc713\u0022\u003EHon Dover Samuels\u003C/span\u003E: It has to go to the court.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000909\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bc1e9f65-e08b-4939-867c-22ef093e2a4e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229dc8e632b60047aaa410af5420d118b3\u0022\u003ERODNEY HIDE\u003C/span\u003E: How much of the foreshore and seabed could that apply to?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224029b198-a7b2-4eea-867c-79ef46cafeb9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002244682cf78f9e4c308c7b19f30f878056\u0022\u003EHon Dover Samuels\u003C/span\u003E: I can\u2019t determine that. It has to go to the court.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000911\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bc1e9f65-e08b-4939-867c-22ef093e2a4e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228428af90b9a54934bd28c040c2c26165\u0022\u003ERODNEY HIDE\u003C/span\u003E: He cannot determine that. Exactly! Is that not the point? We know Mr Tamihere is on record as saying it could be up to 10 percent of the foreshore and seabed of New Zealand. I say, and John Tamihere says, it could be a lot more. That is the problem with regard to this bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00221a705910-5320-43bf-aa82-027a761519f6\u0022 data-id=\u002229cdb166b4ad4c538a4e03bfac2783de\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000912\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221a705910-5320-43bf-aa82-027a761519f6\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002229cdb166b4ad4c538a4e03bfac2783de\u0022\u003ERUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour\u2014Napier):\u003C/span\u003E That was a most interesting exposition of one of ACT\u2019s views on this bill. The other ACT view I quite like is contained on page 15 of the report of the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee, where it states: \u201CIt is our view that this bill insults the rule of law by failing to uphold the sanctity of property rights \u2026\u201D. Well, what is a customary rights order? It is bundle of rights. A customary right is a bundle of rights that varies from hap\u016B to hap\u016B, from use to use. It is a bundle of rights that is non-exclusive and not necessarily territorial, that does not require contiguous land, and that requires physical activity as well as, maybe, a spiritual connection. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000913\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221a705910-5320-43bf-aa82-027a761519f6\u0022\u003EThe rights are, in fact, rights that exist and that have existed since at least 1870 in the case decided by Chief Judge Fenton in the Kauwaeranga case. Unfortunately, by a drafting accident, it seems, in 1909 they were removed from legislation, and in 1993 they were even further blocked by yet another drafting mistake.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000914\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221a705910-5320-43bf-aa82-027a761519f6\u0022\u003ESitting suspended from 6 pm to 7 pm\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000915\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221a705910-5320-43bf-aa82-027a761519f6\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226a643646f014490f8a21751de913bf4d\u0022\u003ERUSSELL FAIRBROTHER\u003C/span\u003E: On 4 November this year, which is almost 14 days ago, the National Party was, in effect, supporting this part. In case members opposite have forgotten, as one would expect from listening to the leaderless debate in this Chamber, I take them to page 12 of the select committee report, which states: \u201CNew Zealand National supports the recognition of customary rights. However, such rights should not be allowed to impinge unduly on other rights and activities in the foreshore and seabed.\u201D That is exactly what a customary rights order is. It is non-territorial and non-exclusive. It is a bundle of rights\u2014rights that have been in existence since before 1840, that are at present in existence, and that will continue to be in existence under this bill. So it is no wonder that National is without leadership on this issue, because 14 days ago that party put its position in writing and, of course, today no leader will speak in favour of that remote position. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000916\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c2f598d0c1d647c8a5b709333efe7e02\u0022\u003EHon Dr Nick Smith\u003C/span\u003E: It has been completely changed.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000917\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221a705910-5320-43bf-aa82-027a761519f6\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a0065e858ccb49ebbafb801b5f9c68c9\u0022\u003ERUSSELL FAIRBROTHER\u003C/span\u003E: They have completely changed, yes. They are worried about gates under the sea, when the issue here is really about a bundle of property rights. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000918\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221a705910-5320-43bf-aa82-027a761519f6\u0022\u003EACT says that property rights are sacred. I have to say that \u201Csanctity\u201D is an unusual word to use in association with property rights. This bill absolutely delivers on property rights, because a customary rights order is precisely that. It is a bundle of rights that attaches to land, that is not exclusive, that is non-territorial, and that does not require contiguity but does require continuity. They are property rights that have been recognised by our courts from way back in 1870, but that by some omission were left out of the 1993 Act. That was pointed out to us by the judges in the Ng\u0101ti Apa case. We have now put them back in this bill, reinforced and accepted quite clearly by the National Party in their view on page 12 of the select committee report. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000919\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221a705910-5320-43bf-aa82-027a761519f6\u0022\u003ESo we are wondering what this debate can really be about. Is it about ACT\u2019s contention that the rights are M\u0101ori rights? But then again, how could a customary rights order that has been in existence since before 1840 be other than a M\u0101ori order, a M\u0101ori right? In case there is that possibility, the bill provides for it to be also for non-M\u0101ori. So, logically, there should not be any criticism from either the ACT party or from our leaderless friends across the Chamber in the National Party. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000920\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221a705910-5320-43bf-aa82-027a761519f6\u0022\u003EWhat this bill does do, of course, is to open the route for a conventional customary right to be easily investigated at less cost. It takes it back to the M\u0101ori Land Court, and that satisfies the constant plea from so many submitters who came before the committee saying: \u201CNo Parliament should tell us what our tikanga is.\u201D Of course, no Parliament will tell iwi, hap\u016B, or wh\u0101nau what their tikanga is, because the M\u0101ori Land Court will decide that on the basis of the facts advanced by each individual iwi, hap\u016B, or wh\u0101nau. So this Parliament is not determining what a M\u0101ori tikanga is, in this instance. It is that very tikanga that determines the customary rights order that can now be determined in the M\u0101ori Land Court. This legislation puts the world back in order. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022df788c48-b9be-42fd-b8f2-76629a5572b8\u0022 data-id=\u002227df4f91cd064589bfaa1d04d0415a30\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000921\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022df788c48-b9be-42fd-b8f2-76629a5572b8\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002227df4f91cd064589bfaa1d04d0415a30\u0022\u003EDr WAYNE MAPP (National\u2014North Shore):\u003C/span\u003E It is certainly true that National does recognise a place for customary rights. The deputy leader of the National Party set out the circumstances in which they should be granted. He said specifically that it should be through the process of treaty settlements. National has used that process in the past, in the Ng\u0101i Tahu settlement. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000922\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022df788c48-b9be-42fd-b8f2-76629a5572b8\u0022\u003EI want to turn to a particular point, which is the provision in the bill that these customary rights are to be considered through the M\u0101ori Land Court. That is the vehicle that is supposed to determine whether customary rights are to be granted. I have to ask whether that is the right vehicle. The M\u0101ori Land Court was set up for very specific purposes. In fact, I am aware that members of the New Zealand First Party know that in detail. The M\u0101ori Land Court was set up specifically to deal with M\u0101ori land, thus, essentially, to deal with disputes between M\u0101ori and M\u0101ori as to who are landowners and who have various rights, and more recently, to deal with mandating issues under section 30. It is all well understood and accepted, and that is precisely the purpose of the M\u0101ori Land Court. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000923\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022df788c48-b9be-42fd-b8f2-76629a5572b8\u0022\u003EIn this instance, however\u2014and the Government would say this itself\u2014we are talking about the public estate for all New Zealanders; the foreshore and seabed owned by the Crown on behalf of all New Zealanders. National does not have any dispute with that proposition. We support it. So the question is whether a court that is set up essentially to deal with M\u0101ori issues, as between M\u0101ori and M\u0101ori, should then be vested with a general power to deal with matters between the wider public\u2014of which M\u0101ori are a subset\u2014and specific M\u0101ori issues. I say, no, it should not. That is not the right vehicle. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000924\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022df788c48-b9be-42fd-b8f2-76629a5572b8\u0022\u003EIf this is the intent of the Government in dealing with this issue, then the right vehicle would have been the High Court. The reason for choosing the High Court is that it is the court that acts for and is available to all New Zealanders. We can see this in the processes set up in the various schedules in relation to the M\u0101ori Land Court. Only persons who have specific interests\u2014and that primarily will be M\u0101ori\u2014will in fact be able to appear before it. I guess, realistically, that that will also include district and regional councils. The general public is effectively excluded. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000925\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022df788c48-b9be-42fd-b8f2-76629a5572b8\u0022\u003ESo we say that at a fundamental and principled level\u2014and this is not a comment about individual judges, or anything of that nature\u2014the M\u0101ori Land Court is simply the wrong court. If the Government was determined to go down that path, it should have chosen the High Court. That is proven by the fact that only the High Court can deal with the territorial customary rights orders set out in Part 2, and there is a reason for that. It was recognised that the High Court had that broader general expertise and interest to deal with those issues. In some respects, I think that the chair of the select committee acknowledges that fact. Similarly, of course, in terms of general customary rights orders under clause 61\u2014the only one we have an example of, apparently, is the Auckland anniversary regatta, as if that protection were actually needed\u2014they would also be dealt with by the High Court. It seems to me that on a principled basis, we should have a seamless jurisdiction for that kind of thing. The High Court, as has been noted, with its inherent jurisdiction and interest for all New Zealanders, and with its particular expertise established in that regard, should be the court for dealing with these matters\u2014if one is to choose a judicial approach to these issues. It has the right expertise. Issues have been raised by members on the other side of the Chamber. What about the issues of tikanga M\u0101ori?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022 data-id=\u0022b948946fea3246ceb9c81ee22d6ecb5a\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000926\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b948946fea3246ceb9c81ee22d6ecb5a\u0022\u003EHon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister):\u003C/span\u003E I had not realised that during one of my very frequent absences from the Chamber today, the deputy leader of the National Party had unburdened himself of a legal opinion\u2014that customary rights should be dealt with through the Treaty of Waitangi claims settlement process. I have to say that if that assertion were made, and it was certainly made on his behalf by his legal counsel Dr Wayne Mapp, then it is perhaps the most peculiar assertion made so far in this extraordinarily peculiar debate. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000927\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003E The treaty claims settlement process is, as its name suggests\u2014even to members of the National Party\u2014about the settlement of treaty claims. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000928\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022fba7706f8b704e16aa842e08b0a222b8\u0022\u003EHon Member\u003C/span\u003E: No!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000929\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228e0104b3f126420394f9abd0797b170e\u0022\u003EHon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN\u003C/span\u003E: Yes! Treaty claims arise from treaty grievances. The treaty grievance that would arise in the instance of customary rights is that they had been abolished at some point in the past by improper action on the part of the Crown. If they have been abolished they are no longer customary rights, because an essential test of a customary right is that it endures to the present day reasonably uninterrupted. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000930\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003EIt is certainly a potential treaty claim if the Crown has acted in an improper way that has interrupted people\u2019s ability to claim customary rights\u2014the member is absolutely right on that\u2014but the process of the recognition of existing customary rights cannot possibly be via the treaty claims process. If that is what the National Party\u2019s great cogitations about the legal basis of this has led to, then Dr Mapp should definitely stick to tax law and not get into those kinds of areas at all. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000931\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003EA customary right is a common law right that existed in 1840 at the time of the assumption of sovereignty and has continued reasonably uninterrupted down to the present day. That is the great issue of moment for the National Party, and we finally come down to what its core problem is: it believes that customary rights orders in relation to M\u0101ori should be applied for through the High Court rather than through the M\u0101ori Land Court. That is what the die-in-the-ditch fighting of this bill has all been about to this point. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000932\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003EThe issue there is that in the previous part, the National Party opposed the fact that the High Court can go to the M\u0101ori Appellate Court for a ruling on tikanga matters. If the High Court cannot go to the M\u0101ori Appellate Court for a ruling on tikanga matters, it would be extraordinarily difficult for the High Court to have the expertise to deal with applications for M\u0101ori customary rights orders. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000933\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003EI suggest that the National Party goes back to the drawing board again and thinks about some kind of reasoned-principle objection to this bill. At least the ACT party has one: it is purely to allow current processes to run around the relationship to property rights. That at least is a reasoned process. I think it is wrong, but the National Party has yet in this entire debate over many, many hours to put up any sensible argument at all\u2014not at any single point.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b0d8b0e0-3ece-4865-9145-5eb5983fc54c\u0022 data-id=\u0022cf266e7be11d439d9773b75c632b4e4d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000934\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b0d8b0e0-3ece-4865-9145-5eb5983fc54c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022cf266e7be11d439d9773b75c632b4e4d\u0022\u003EHon RICHARD PREBBLE (ACT):\u003C/span\u003E I agree with the Minister that the National Party\u2019s attitude towards this bill has some inconsistencies, and that has come through in some of its speeches. However, it is the National Party\u2019s problem\u2014it is in Opposition. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000935\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b0d8b0e0-3ece-4865-9145-5eb5983fc54c\u0022\u003ELet me turn the Committee\u2019s attention to what is really the heart of the difficulty with this bill. I could take as an example any one of the clauses that include the phrase \u201Ctikanga M\u0101ori\u201D. For instance, new clause 42(1)(b)(ii) states: \u201Chas been carried on, exercised, or followed in accordance with tikanga M\u0101ori \u2026\u201D. We then have to ask what \u201Ctikanga M\u0101ori\u201D means. To do this we have to go to different legislation, where we find that those words simply mean \u201CM\u0101ori customary values and practices\u201D. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000936\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b0d8b0e0-3ece-4865-9145-5eb5983fc54c\u0022\u003EThe Committee should realise how uncertain that phrase is. I do not want to be politically incorrect, but let us point out that M\u0101ori customary values with regard to property in 1840, and for some time afterwards, meant that one could acquire property by conquest. Are we really passing a bill that says that is the way to decide on who has the foreshore? Under that argument, M\u0101ori could say that they went back and conquered Takapuna Beach last week. That is a M\u0101ori customary value, and that is what the law will now say\u2014[Interruption] \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000937\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b0d8b0e0-3ece-4865-9145-5eb5983fc54c\u0022\u003EThey have done it since 1840. The member says \u201Csince 1840\u201D. That is true, but the point I make is this\u2014and I say it to Mr Dail Jones quite seriously: 4 years ago when Parliament was looking at different land legislation, some High Court judges appeared in front of the M\u0101ori Affairs Committee. They said they would interpret anything, but if Parliament put into legislation phrases like that one, difficulties arose. The particular example then had to do with the Otago Harbour Board, which had a foreshore problem because of a claimant who said that his ancestor had literally urinated over the area, and that had given him some cultural claim. The court said that the difficulty was that the legislation Parliament had given it was so vague that the case had cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000938\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b0d8b0e0-3ece-4865-9145-5eb5983fc54c\u0022\u003EMembers have probably forgotten the case, but I now hear some members say that we cannot put into law what M\u0101ori customary values are. That is an arrogant piece of nonsense. Why do I say it is arrogant? We took the common law principles\u2014members should go back and look at them; in fact, I quoted them to the Committee earlier with regard to clause 21\u2014one of which is that one has to have exercised a customary activity continuously. If we as a Parliament are capable of doing that, we should be capable of setting out in law what the customary values will be. Why should we do that? The reason is that we cannot have certainty\u2014we cannot have the rule of law\u2014unless everyone knows what it is. We are now passing a law whereby no one knows what it is\u2014no one. There are even M\u0101ori members getting up and boasting about the fact that no one knows what the law will be. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000939\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b0d8b0e0-3ece-4865-9145-5eb5983fc54c\u0022\u003EWe also know\u2014and I agree with Mr Dail Jones on this\u2014that the M\u0101ori Land Court has become highly politicised. It is not really the court\u2019s fault; I think it was a mistake to put those judges on to the Waitangi Tribunal. But M\u0101ori Land Court judges now make political speeches. They make speeches that make the M\u0101ori Party look moderate. We are handing to that group of activist judges, who make the word \u201Cactivist\u201D seem passive, a clause that will mean\u2014and we all know this\u2014whatever those judges decide it to mean. Then the judge will say that the right has to be exercised if the customary activity is \u201Csubstantially\u201D uninterrupted. What does that mean? I can hear somebody say: \u201CWell, in M\u0101ori terms, 150 years is nothing.\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022 data-id=\u0022818b31a6139446b08ac1386e0669203c\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000940\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022818b31a6139446b08ac1386e0669203c\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH (National\u2014Nelson):\u003C/span\u003E I will follow on in the same vein with the points made by Richard Prebble, but with regard to clause 43B. This is a completely new clause. In all the debate around the Foreshore and Seabed Bill, the whole issue of w\u0101hi tapu has not yet been introduced. Clause 43B includes the capacity for the M\u0101ori Land Court to declare areas of the foreshore and seabed as w\u0101hi tapu, and then\u2014going back to an earlier part\u2014to provide for the exclusion of the public from those areas, and for the appointment of wardens. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000941\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003EThe first thing I say to the Committee is that it is a complete tragedy for this Parliament, and it shows the arrogance of this Government, that it would impose under urgency a provision that was tabled only last evening, which will be law before the end of the week. That is an absolute\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000942\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224bf39275d37d4408a9c69267fdd54936\u0022\u003EDail Jones\u003C/span\u003E: That is not correct.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000943\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022178e8ea708c341f6aa50667dafd4ae41\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH\u003C/span\u003E: Clause 43B is a new clause, I say to Mr Jones, and it provides for w\u0101hi tapu. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000944\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003EW\u0101hi tapu is defined in the Historic Places Act, which gives it a definition that we could drive a bus through. It is as broad as one would like. I think New Zealanders have a common-sense respect for burial grounds. But let us be realistic. Will there be burial grounds in the foreshore and the seabed? The seabed is a particularly difficult place in which to have burial grounds.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000945\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002205bf0ce43d094a6c8d5dd7c6a0aaa5a1\u0022\u003EHon Member\u003C/span\u003E: Not for whales.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000946\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d0cd2e23c13046c6b201ebc3bb9b9bae\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH\u003C/span\u003E: Because those provisions are so riddled with politically correct phrases around M\u0101ori spiritual values, maybe whales can be imposed within them. However, where there are burial grounds\u2014w\u0101hi tapu\u2014in the foreshore and seabed, it will enable the public to be excluded. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000947\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003EThe leader of New Zealand First came down to the Chamber and said that there would be absolute right of access everywhere in respect of the foreshore and seabed. That is not true. There is very specific provision in the bill against it. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000948\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E I would simply like the Minister in the chair to answer the question of how it is possible to have a w\u0101hi tapu\u2014based on the definition provided by Waikato University\u2019s M\u0101ori affairs department that refers quite specifically to it being a burial ground of human remains\u2014in the foreshore or seabed. There is absolute silence. He has no damn idea, at all. Yet, again, we are being asked\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000949\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222431421f508b442d86ae6938c8ab045a\u0022\u003EHon Dr Michael Cullen\u003C/span\u003E: Swearing, little man!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000950\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b28f2a35a55347bd813107e3373e68ec\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH\u003C/span\u003E: The Minister in the chair expects Parliament to ram through this legislation that will introduce w\u0101hi tapu into the foreshore and seabed and will specifically exclude the public. [Interruption] I say to Mr Jones that it will exclude the public. The provisions are very clear about that. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000951\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003EWith such a wide definition of w\u0101hi tapu, how do we know what its extent is? How wide is it? We know from our experience with the Historic Places Act that there have been problems all over New Zealand with w\u0101hi tapu. Areas of hundreds and hundreds of hectares have been set aside as w\u0101hi tapu, so much so that the Government has announced a review. Yet the Government is relying on the definition of w\u0101hi tapu on land that it has got itself in trouble over to be the definition in this Foreshore and Seabed Bill, which will see the public excluded. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000952\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003EI simply want some member of the Government to explain why the M\u0101ori Land Court will determine w\u0101hi tapu in the foreshore and seabed. We already have a process whereby the Historic Places Trust is able to declare w\u0101hi tapu. Why do we want a dual process?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000953\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c437bda8-4741-4ac5-89ab-b0818e1ab9fa\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223c0adc1744c0461ba6647b0184e07b67\u0022\u003EDarren Hughes\u003C/span\u003E: We already know it\u2019s w\u0101hi tapu.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000954\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002256d2925f02bb46749586915d995d3c63\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH\u003C/span\u003E: The chippy member from, I think, Otaki\u2014I cannot remember his name\u2014says that that is intended. He says that it was always the plan to have those two different forms of w\u0101hi tapu: one through the Historic Places Trust and the other through the M\u0101ori Land Court. I do not see any logical reason for doing that. I think it will simply add to the confusion. I do not know why it was not in the original bill. It involves the specific exclusion of the public from areas. Certainly, the new wardens that will be involved will have the power to exclude the public. I say that there is no case that can be made for w\u0101hi tapu in the foreshore and seabed.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00224029b198-a7b2-4eea-867c-79ef46cafeb9\u0022 data-id=\u00226f6ee4951316466e909322fc36375dfb\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000955\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224029b198-a7b2-4eea-867c-79ef46cafeb9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00226f6ee4951316466e909322fc36375dfb\u0022\u003EHon DOVER SAMUELS (Minister of State):\u003C/span\u003E To enlighten some of those members across the floor about w\u0101hi tapu, perhaps I can share a couple of things with them. First of all, I have just finished watching what was the Holmes show. John Tamihere and Ken Shirley were on that show. I acknowledge my colleague John Tamihere, because he put the facts of the bill before the New Zealand public. Ken Shirley, who was somehow in his fantasy land, started talking about taniwha. He said that the New Zealand public could expect taniwha running up and down the beach without any clothes on. He said there would be taniwha all over the place, sitting on the rocks, and running up and down the beach. He said that that is included in the bill. I relay to the member Nick Smith that the clause protects, and gives M\u0101ori protection for, w\u0101hi tapu that are already established on the foreshore and seabed. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000956\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022eff21996462549feb87bf8fff227c275\u0022\u003EHon Dr Nick Smith\u003C/span\u003E: Where?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000957\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224029b198-a7b2-4eea-867c-79ef46cafeb9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220408b4db2dca44f2b89ddb86f438dacc\u0022\u003EHon DOVER SAMUELS\u003C/span\u003E: There are a number. If the member listens and wants to know, I make an offer that I can reserve a space for him in some of the w\u0101hi tapu that I know. There are very old burial grounds that have been subject to accretion. They have been subject to the tide movement. The tide at the beaches has come on to many w\u0101hi tapu right around this country. Those w\u0101hi tapu need protection. They need recognition. The protection offered to them in this bill means that people cannot just run over them with their four-wheel drives. I know that that member would probably take a four-wheel drive bulldozer to dig some pipis or something like that. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000958\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224ac911a197dd4530841b141729a81238\u0022\u003EHon Dr Michael Cullen\u003C/span\u003E: Or take his tractor.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000959\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224029b198-a7b2-4eea-867c-79ef46cafeb9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225f32ab8c609d4a96bf84fe6fde7fb68f\u0022\u003EHon DOVER SAMUELS\u003C/span\u003E: That will prohibit him from taking his tractor with a trench digger to dig up some pipis. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000960\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224029b198-a7b2-4eea-867c-79ef46cafeb9\u0022\u003EIn my view, this is very practical and very simple. I cannot understand that when we start talking about w\u0101hi tapu, every party starts frothing at the mouth. The member over there jumps up and down about it. I put it this way: if there were a P\u0101keh\u0101 w\u0101hi tapu, we would support that. [Interruption] I suggest that perhaps the member wants to go out and find the origins of his ancestors, instead of this jumping up and down about w\u0101hi tapu and taniwha\u2014having a k\u014Drero and a fit about what M\u0101ori spiritual and cultural values mean. Good God! We are in New Zealand. We M\u0101ori respect some P\u0101keh\u0101 spiritual values\u2014Merry Christmas, Happy New Year, and Father Christmas. We respect that. I know that that member always sits at the bottom of the chimney waiting for Santa Claus to come down and fill his stocking. We acknowledge that. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000961\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224029b198-a7b2-4eea-867c-79ef46cafeb9\u0022\u003EBut when we as M\u0101ori people ask members to think about the things we hold dear in terms of spiritual values, that is shocking! They talk about taniwha running up and down the beach, and all that type of stuff. Let us get real, if we are to have a debate about this bill. I know that, underneath it all, some of those members\u2014at least, those who have been defrosted\u2014actually support this bill. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000962\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224029b198-a7b2-4eea-867c-79ef46cafeb9\u0022\u003EI know that Georgina te Heuheu is very lonely sitting at the back of the Chamber. There is a word for that. It is called mokemoke\u2014loneliness. \u201CLoneliness is a time in your life.\u201D I feel sorry for Georgina te Heuheu, because I see that she is lonely. Do members know why? It is because her people, Ng\u0101ti T\u016Bwharetoa, support this bill. It gives them the right and the recognition. I say to the member across the floor that even Ng\u0101ti T\u016Bwharetoa have w\u0101hi tapu. We have to protect them, even though the w\u0101hi tapu are beside their lakes. We give recognition to them. We go to the M\u0101ori Land Court. It is not a humbug w\u0101hi tapu. It is not a Clayton\u2019s w\u0101hi tapu. We go to the M\u0101ori Land Court to prove that a place is a genuine w\u0101hi tapu, so that it can be given the appropriate recognition under this bill. What is wrong with that?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022d21515bb-0193-4167-a21d-982058b53604\u0022 data-id=\u00224489b614d47340479dc4813e0dd22a7c\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000963\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d21515bb-0193-4167-a21d-982058b53604\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00224489b614d47340479dc4813e0dd22a7c\u0022\u003ERICHARD WORTH (National\u2014Epsom):\u003C/span\u003E When the tumult has died I will talk about Part 3 of the Foreshore and Seabed Bill. I will not join with others in expressing the justified outrage at the process that has been followed, but, wow, do we see it writ large in Part 3! Here is a part of 22 clauses; 15 of them have been repealed, and there has been no public process leading to that outcome. It is absolutely lamentable. It is a reflection on Dr Cullen, who sits in front of us now for interrogation. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000964\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d21515bb-0193-4167-a21d-982058b53604\u0022\u003EI ask the Minister two things and invite him, if he can, to respond to them. There is nothing like a challenge, perhaps, to set the good doctor\u2019s brain in action. The first issue I raise with him relates to new clause 35. Why does clause 35(1), which deals with the jurisdiction of the M\u0101ori Land Court, refer to the public foreshore and seabed? Should we not be talking about the public foreshore or the seabed? The Minister should surely be aware that when we are talking about the seabed, we are talking about areas that go way out to the very edge of the territorial sea, and maybe beyond. That is the first question. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000965\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d21515bb-0193-4167-a21d-982058b53604\u0022\u003EMy second question relates to new clause 41, \u201CLimits to jurisdiction of M\u0101ori Land Court under this Part\u201D. Clause 41(2) states, in respect of customary rights orders, that the physical activity or use must be related to \u201Ca natural or physical resource.\u201D I was lucky enough to hear the comments Dr Cullen made tonight in the context of the launch of a new New Zealand dictionary. It would be helpful if we had some explanation as to why it is necessary to use the phrase \u201Cnatural or physical resources\u201D. Is it not the case that all physical resources are natural? These issues emerge in hurried drafting of legislation. In the Resource Management Act, where these concepts are well articulated, such foot faults do not occur to the same extent. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000966\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d21515bb-0193-4167-a21d-982058b53604\u0022\u003EFor those who listen on the radio to what is going on in relation to the foreshore and seabed, I say this legislation is convoluted and complex. The exact scope of the arguments that can be made in respect of it are probably not yet identified. An issue in Part 3 is who should own and control the foreshore and seabed. The foreshore, as others have explained, is that area of beach covered and uncovered by the tide. So owners who have riparian rights down to the tidemark are unaffected by what the Government proposes in this legislation. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000967\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d21515bb-0193-4167-a21d-982058b53604\u0022\u003EBut I believe\u2014and I am certain I am right\u2014that many in the community are now wholly confused about what the Government is trying to do. If they are concerned, then they certainly should be. It is estimated by others, including the honourable John Tamihere, that about 10 percent of the coastline will be affected by far-reaching proposals that could give management responsibilities to iwi and hap\u016B groups. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000968\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d21515bb-0193-4167-a21d-982058b53604\u0022\u003EIn essence, it is proposed that the Crown own the foreshore and seabed, subject to M\u0101ori custom. There are two basic concepts. M\u0101ori can claim territorial customary rights. That is outside this part, so I do not take the issue further. The second concept, which is directly at issue in connection with Part 3, is that M\u0101ori can secure customary rights orders based on tangible activities on the seashore. I say to members of this House that all of this overlooks the reality of a community where M\u0101ori and non-M\u0101ori have substantially intermingled.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00226de7f1d9-7be9-468a-b27c-06000416b96a\u0022 data-id=\u0022e0322634b30f4f8e98e353525499ac41\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000969\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226de7f1d9-7be9-468a-b27c-06000416b96a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022e0322634b30f4f8e98e353525499ac41\u0022\u003EJOHN TAMIHERE (Labour\u2014Tamaki Makaurau):\u003C/span\u003E I want to make a few observations by way of edification, to teach the Opposition a few lessons about why w\u0101hi tapu exist and how they exist in this country. It is a shame that, in 2004, members opposite have not taken the time to be respectful, tolerant, and knowledgable enough to identify with the M\u0101ori population. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000970\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226de7f1d9-7be9-468a-b27c-06000416b96a\u0022\u003EI turn to w\u0101hi tapu. Much ado was made, as usual, by the Hon Dr Nick Smith in regard to w\u0101hi tapu, using an instrument called the Historic Places Trust. In this piece of legislation, we are, as usual, bringing certainty, stability, and closure. A very certain process has been put in place to investigate a whole range of these issues. Why w\u0101hi tapu? In terms of the peoples whom I whakapapa to on the coast around this country, always before Christianity applied we buried our people in and around the coastline, particularly in the sands. Every one of us who whakapapa back to one of those beaches has a sacrosanct w\u0101hi tapu. I would not go into a white community\u2019s cemetery and walk over the headstones of its people. I would not do that, and I do not expect you to walk over the top of our people when I can actually identify where we buried them.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000971\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b62240ad-adda-430d-887a-8f999ef4bbc4\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221069a22d6c3e4b6ab4ef2759d19b09cc\u0022\u003EDr Muriel Newman\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I think you were being brought into that debate in rather a negative manner.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000972\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002270fa4cbd-9380-4916-9f2a-78da059d220e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002205b3fec0e66b40fe98794140409a4ce4\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson)\u003C/span\u003E: I thank the member for drawing it to my attention. I am sorry; I was otherwise engaged. If Mr Tamihere brought me into the debate, then he will desist.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000973\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022803002d1-e810-4bd8-b8e7-2e97d0d6f626\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002251db8cf7ad2b4db993c8e1be3c06e52e\u0022\u003ESimon Power\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I say this because the debate has been interrupted. We had an incident earlier this evening when a long and protracted discussion occurred around interruptions and interjections whilst people were taking points of order. We have just seen a recurrence of that from Government members whilst Muriel Newman was on her feet taking a point of order. I ask you to make sure that the groans and yells from the Government when someone takes a legitimate point of order under Standing Orders are kept in check.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000974\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002270fa4cbd-9380-4916-9f2a-78da059d220e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022bc32162129a843199717a5a7bc64a97a\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson)\u003C/span\u003E: If that is the case, then it is unacceptable. I caution members and ask them to desist.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000975\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226de7f1d9-7be9-468a-b27c-06000416b96a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c70f6a86f1934dc0a56d8c98f0a83bea\u0022\u003EJOHN TAMIHERE\u003C/span\u003E: Is it not a great statement in this Chamber, and is it not interesting, that Muriel Newman got to her feet and took a point of order while we are dealing with a very important issue on which her party continues not just to confuse but also to absolutely, consciously, and in a premeditated way, override M\u0101ori rights? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000976\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226de7f1d9-7be9-468a-b27c-06000416b96a\u0022\u003EI turn now to conclude on w\u0101hi tapu, which is a very important issue. Inland tribes have either caves, special trees, or special areas where they have interred their people. In our people\u2019s way we have a hahunga, which is when we go and lift up the bones of our people and take them to another w\u0101hi tapu area. That is the reality with the w\u0101hi tapu of the coastland peoples, as with T\u016Bwharetoa\u2014it resonates around that lake, as it does around the coastline. The fact that Muriel Newman does not want to acknowledge them, tolerate them, or accept them is bad news for the ACT party. This legislation brings in a process of identification for the first time, if M\u0101ori desire to come before it. They are not being forced to if they do not want to. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000977\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226de7f1d9-7be9-468a-b27c-06000416b96a\u0022\u003EI turn now to new clause 41, which puts it beyond all doubt. Subclause (2) states: \u201CA customary rights order must not be made in respect of an activity, use, or practice on the basis of a spiritual or cultural association, unless that association is manifested by the relevant wh\u0101nau, hap\u016B, or iwi in a physical activity or use related to a natural or physical resource.\u201D How much more constrained and defined do we M\u0101ori people have to be before we have to prove our rights? People rock up here every day and hear the Speaker give a wonderful karakia, a wonderful piece of Christianity. The fact that we might not be able to see, hear, or understand these things does not make us all animists, as we are blamed for being by the ACT party, and it does not make us lesser peoples. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000978\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226de7f1d9-7be9-468a-b27c-06000416b96a\u0022\u003EIt is about time we started to tolerate and respect one another. I just ask members opposite to start to do that. This is a great nationhood story and it should not be destroyed tonight by lack of tolerance of, lack of respect for, and lack of acknowledgment of members\u2019 M\u0101ori brothers and sisters. I say to Muriel Newman that by the year 2080 there will be few full-blooded P\u0101keh\u0101 left. All of the P\u0101keh\u0101 will be beneficiaries of this legislation\u2014and God bless them.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220bd5aa67-2f2b-4a13-a2b4-21a392396f11\u0022 data-id=\u0022ece437b996184ee8895c9d4beada1f85\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000979\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220bd5aa67-2f2b-4a13-a2b4-21a392396f11\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022ece437b996184ee8895c9d4beada1f85\u0022\u003EHon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National):\u003C/span\u003E Part 3 deals with the jurisdiction of the M\u0101ori Land Court in relation to customary rights. It is part of the problem that I referred to in an earlier contribution. We could say that this is very simple legislation. It upholds the mana of M\u0101ori\u2014which is the way Mr Winston Peters described it\u2014and it also gives all New Zealanders unimpeded access to the foreshore and seabed. That is fine. It would be great if that was how the bill stood. But we see the reality once we get into the detail of the legislation. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000980\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220bd5aa67-2f2b-4a13-a2b4-21a392396f11\u0022\u003EWe dealt with the High Court earlier, and now we are discussing the M\u0101ori Land Court. When I look at some of the detail, I have to ask\u2014and perhaps Dr Cullen might answer this\u2014how we can reconcile the issue extant in clause 6, which confirms people\u2019s rights to come and go on the foreshore and seabed, with the fact that provision has been made in Part 3 for M\u0101ori to prove their customary use and customary rights. It looks good on paper\u2014although, having said that, I do not think that is a correct assertion, anyway; it still looks complex and mangled on paper. But I ask Dr Cullen how we really reconcile those two overriding principles. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000981\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220bd5aa67-2f2b-4a13-a2b4-21a392396f11\u0022\u003EOne or two people have already rung me this afternoon to comment on the provision that John Tamihere has just commented on. It looks as if M\u0101ori could get customary rights orders, but when we look at the limitations in the provision, we see that it is very questionable whether they would get them. When we consider the overriding principle of the bill, which is to give confirmation to New Zealanders that, through the Crown, they own the foreshore and seabed and have access to it, then I think it becomes very difficult to see how this will all work out on the ground. I just wonder whether the Government has thought clearly about that. We have already heard this afternoon about M\u0101ori up north, and no doubt it will happen in other places. They will say: \u201CWe have customary rights here. We might not have been to the court to get them proven yet, but we have them.\u201D So maybe we will see some blocking of that access as time goes on. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000982\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220bd5aa67-2f2b-4a13-a2b4-21a392396f11\u0022\u003EI still have a real problem with how we reconcile the overriding principle set out in new clause 2A, clause 6, new clause12, and some of the other clauses in Part 2 with provisions that look as though they will freely recognise M\u0101ori customary rights, yet when we look at the limitations and the detail of them, we see that that will not be so. If the Hon Dover Samuels takes another call, which I hope he does, I want to ask him\u2014as I asked before\u2014about Matauri Bay. It is part of his whenua and is where, no doubt, a lot of customary activity, in accordance with the way he sees it, was carried on. Will access by the public be unimpeded in that area? I think that the provisions in Part 3 would apply specifically to that area. It does make me wonder whether there would be a proper reconciliation, so that when other New Zealanders go up to Matauri Bay, they will go into that lovely settlement and feel absolutely confident they can use the foreshore and seabed that adjoin the land that, I think, the honourable member owns. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000983\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220bd5aa67-2f2b-4a13-a2b4-21a392396f11\u0022\u003EI say to Dr Cullen that that is my difficulty. I think that the Minister in the chair should give some reassurance that the orders the M\u0101ori Land Court will be able to grant will not impede access for other New Zealanders.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022 data-id=\u002214aab2bc9a9f44e9b95c50ce8fffb164\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000984\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002214aab2bc9a9f44e9b95c50ce8fffb164\u0022\u003EMETIRIA TUREI (Green):\u003C/span\u003E One of the Green Party amendments is to insert a new clause 43AA into this part. That clause proposes that the rights are inalienable, and that no person can: \u201Calienate or cancel any interest in an ancestral connection order, customary rights order, or territorial customary rights.\u201D We were very concerned\u2014and we raised this at the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee, as well\u2014that customary rights orders can be very easily cancelled. The bill provides that once cancelled, they are extinguished forever. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000985\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003ECustomary rights are very difficult to get, of course. One has to pass very high thresholds. One effectively has to have carried out an activity since 1840 that has not in any way been interrupted or interfered with by any enactment or rule of law, or interrupted by anything as simple and fleeting as a resource consent. Once one has passed those high thresholds to get the customary rights order, one can then go through a very easy process to cancel it. Basically, if the holder of the order is an authorised person\u2014and that person\u2019s name is on it\u2014has given notice to the other people who are affected by that order, has held a hui about it, and there are no meritorious objections, that order can be cancelled very easily. The application the holder must make has to include the reasons for the cancellation, what process the holder wants to carry out for consultation, and some statement indicating how much support the holder may have from the community affected by the customary rights order. That is so easy to do with very, very few people in support. One has only to look at how few people can support and vote for treaty settlements and governance entities that are accepted by this Government, and one will see just how easily the numbers can be managed in such a way that very few people who are affected by and entitled to the exercise of that customary right need to be involved in order to cancel it forever. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000986\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003EA customary rights order sets out the customary rights that those people, their children, their grandchildren, and generations to come are entitled to exercise by right of their whakapapa, from their tipuna, from mai r\u0101no. They have those rights, and it is not appropriate that they can then be so easily, on a simple application to the court, cancelled and extinguished forever. There are no provisions in this bill to protect that customary rights order. There are no provisions even to indicate whether anyone can object to its cancellation after it has happened and reinstate it\u2014those processes would not work and would not be effective. I imagine that those people would have to take judicial review action in the High Court for that change to occur. The people who will get customary rights orders\u2014if they can get them\u2014will not be people who have the resources and who can spend money on a High Court action in order to reinstate the customary rights that they have already spent so much time, money, and effort getting. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000987\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003EThere is a series of Green Party amendments. They delete the capacity to cancel customary rights orders in the bill entirely, and they make sure that none of those rights can be cancelled or extinguished once they have been identified. If John Tamihere is right that the Government\u2019s intention in this bill is to protect customary rights, there is no justification for enabling their cancellation and extinguishment forever by a means as simple as a written application to the court\u2014a process that does not even have a voting requirement in it. There are no numbers in the bill\u2019s provisions to state that there would have to be more than 50 percent support for the cancellation. It could even be the case that those orders could be bought out. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000988\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003EThat is not the whole point. If one wants to trust the Government on this bill, one can listen to its members, who say that the whole point of the bill is to protect those rights and to identify and keep them extant through common law provisions\u2014but clearly that is not the case. The Government has made those rights exchangeable and tradable, and that goes directly to the heart of the bill. The whole point is to protect the foreshore and seabed from being tradable and saleable, and to protect customary rights from being extinguished, so as to enable M\u0101ori to continue their activities and engage with their customary activities over time, but this bill fails us.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022fc82cea8-c84d-4ab7-8597-31916dbedc43\u0022 data-id=\u0022566fe76425c543d1a62052d7b98da235\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000989\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc82cea8-c84d-4ab7-8597-31916dbedc43\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022566fe76425c543d1a62052d7b98da235\u0022\u003EEDWIN PERRY (NZ First):\u003C/span\u003E With regard to my hap\u016B in the Wairarapa, Ng\u0101i T\u016Bmapuhia Arangi, which is based on the Wairarapa coast, I believe that their time has come to be able to identify their customary rights to their coastline. Most M\u0101ori and most hap\u016B on the coast do know their boundary lines. In the Wairarapa, quite clearly, Ng\u0101i T\u016Bmapuhia\u2019s boundary line is from the Whareama River to the Awhea River, which is just south of Carterton on the coast. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000990\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc82cea8-c84d-4ab7-8597-31916dbedc43\u0022\u003EPrior to this bill their rights in respect of their customary right was just an airy-fairy agreement, quite frankly. I am now endorsing this bill, which will be able to identify the hap\u016B\u2019s right to the coastline. It will be no different from the Scottish side of my ancestry, which can identify the clan side of my heritage. [Interruption] I am quite happy to tell the National Party members who are being disorderly, who endorsed the mess-up of this whole thing. I have a property at the beach, and last Christmas I put up a sign that said: \u201CReturn the foreshore and seabed to the Crown.\u201D It was no different from what the National Party was saying. People were going past, honking their horns. Even tangata whenua were coming and saying: \u201CYes, Edwin, we agree with you because some of our people, if they got hold of it, would be selling it off.\u201D This is no different from what happened to our t\u016Bpuna 100 to 150 years ago, who did sell off a lot of the land along the Wairarapa coast. Quite frankly I feel ashamed that from Castlepoint, right round to Turakirae Head here in Wellington, the Wairarapa M\u0101ori own very little of the land that runs down to the foreshore and seabed, because it has been sold off. I want to say to M\u0101oridom that they are still doing it, and they will still do it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000991\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a963a05247a949ea89ccd95b2d980e56\u0022\u003EOpposition Member\u003C/span\u003E: That is good!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000992\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc82cea8-c84d-4ab7-8597-31916dbedc43\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229074d5780499426991372ff9d4554d09\u0022\u003EEDWIN PERRY\u003C/span\u003E: Well, that is fine, but what happens now when they have nothing left? I have sat here all day, today, listening to the drivel from the National Party and the Green Party. I say to National members that their resource management legislation of 1991 caused this mess. I want to tell them that their party members are coming to see me, and ringing me, asking why the National Party is not supporting this bill. National members are not supporting it because it is not their bill\u2014it is sour grapes. They have twisted the whole thing round to a racist issue around New Zealand First. That is the only thing they have done. Actually, it is a disgrace that National members have taken this angle. If it had been their bill, they would have been right with it. It is the sour grapes that have got those folks, and that is it. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000993\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc82cea8-c84d-4ab7-8597-31916dbedc43\u0022\u003EI want to talk about access, because I am talking about my hap\u016B here. I heard today that certain M\u0101ori people are going to stop people going to the beach this summer. I tell members that I have had more P\u0101keh\u0101 come to see me in my office in the Wairarapa, saying they have been stopped going to the beach by their own people, but they have never ever been stopped by M\u0101ori. [Interruption] Yes, I agree that there will be some M\u0101ori who will do that, but in the Wairarapa, in my own area, it has not happened with M\u0101ori. I will give an example. There is a block of land, a prime beach site resort on the Wairarapa coast at Riversdale, and my local people, my hap\u016B, were conned out of it because of collusion between the local farmer and the county council. The local hap\u016B were told that they would never be able to build on that land and that they needed to sell it. As a result of collusion between the county and the farmer the land was bought off the hap\u016B, and now there is a $500,000 home on that land. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000994\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc82cea8-c84d-4ab7-8597-31916dbedc43\u0022\u003EMembers talk about M\u0101ori people stopping people going to the beach, but P\u0101keh\u0101 are just as bad in the Wairarapa. What did Mr Riddiford do? He was charging the cray fishermen a fee to cross M\u0101ori land to launch their boats. Members want to talk about access\u2014I have given two good examples. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000995\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002252f198bb5d4542cf8f95b7c767164864\u0022\u003EHon Dr Michael Cullen\u003C/span\u003E: And he was a good Tory!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000996\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc82cea8-c84d-4ab7-8597-31916dbedc43\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022265f4c9ff2e742f587ea967dc9aeaf5b\u0022\u003EEDWIN PERRY\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, it is a good story. The member is dead right.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002219386ba0-5a6e-485e-abc0-5a3128b4e1f6\u0022 data-id=\u0022231a9e4485194f2fad685b1969cc9913\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000997\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219386ba0-5a6e-485e-abc0-5a3128b4e1f6\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022231a9e4485194f2fad685b1969cc9913\u0022\u003EHon KEN SHIRLEY (ACT):\u003C/span\u003E I want to address Part 3, and in particular clause 35, which is about the jurisdiction of the M\u0101ori Land Court in respect of Te Ture Whenua Maori Act. I would like to respond to some comments made by John Tamihere and Dover Samuels in this debate, because they claimed that ACT was saying that taniwha and tikanga M\u0101ori would be abused. I take the point that John Tamihere made. I would like to think that all New Zealanders were respectful of genuine urup\u0101 sites. They are real, they do exist; and it behoves us all to be respectful of them. I agree that many New Zealanders are not as respectful as they should be. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000998\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219386ba0-5a6e-485e-abc0-5a3128b4e1f6\u0022\u003EThe difficulty is that when we pass general laws like this, which are essentially an amendment to the Resource Management Act and give wide powers, we should not be surprised when they become a moving feast. I ask members opposite how they explain the taniwha that held up Transit New Zealand on State Highway 1 at Meremere. How do they explain that? These same provisions of acknowledging M\u0101ori spiritualism etc., were abused, grossly abused, and how many people in the Chamber know how much Transit New Zealand had to pay to make that taniwha go away? The interesting thing about taniwha is that if one pays enough money they will go away. One pays a bit of money here and they go away, but then they pop up somewhere else. That is the problem with this sort of legislation. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83000999\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219386ba0-5a6e-485e-abc0-5a3128b4e1f6\u0022\u003EI believe that spiritualism should be respected, and in a tolerant society everybody\u2019s spiritualism should be protected. But it is not the role of the State to try to define and codify spiritualism, including tikanga M\u0101ori, and that is what this bill is all about. That is why every iwi that came to the Fisheries and other Sea-related Legislation Committee was so offended by the temerity and the arrogance of this controlling Government to define and set limits on tikanga M\u0101ori. We have Father Christmas, the Easter bunny, leprechauns, and hobgoblins, but we do not legislate for them. We do not legislate for the tooth fairy, nor should we, because they are moving feasts. That is the problem with the Resource Management Act today. It is meant to be the sustainable management of natural and physical resources, but all of a sudden we have all these unnatural and metaphysical nebulous things that we have to bear in mind. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001000\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219386ba0-5a6e-485e-abc0-5a3128b4e1f6\u0022\u003ENow we are setting up foreshore and seabed reserves, and the Labour M\u0101ori caucus members told us in the New Zealand Herald this morning that it will be 10 percent of our foreshore and seabed. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001001\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c598ffd3-4771-4027-a15f-5d1f643631e0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002297a0b7789fb043feb168b0d0300c6dd8\u0022\u003EBrian Connell\u003C/span\u003E: How much?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001002\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219386ba0-5a6e-485e-abc0-5a3128b4e1f6\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224c76411901994b5da66748ef26348587\u0022\u003EHon KEN SHIRLEY\u003C/span\u003E: Ten percent, and that is on day one\u2014that is just for openers. Members should not be surprised when we have nonsense legislation like this, and provisions that are based on spiritualism, that some people\u2014not all people\u2014will abuse it. We had the w\u0101hi tapu at Welcome Bay in Tauranga, which I am very familiar with. The matter involved private property, and a local group claiming guardianship, imposed a wahi t\u0101pu through the Historic Places Trust. They claimed urup\u0101. The urup\u0101 turned out to be an old 1920 fence line, but it was very convenient for that particular group to try to restrict and control the use of that private property. That is the sort of thing that this nonsense legislation invites. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001003\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219386ba0-5a6e-485e-abc0-5a3128b4e1f6\u0022\u003EThe ACT party asks why M\u0101ori are denied due process through the courts to get a real property right, because that was what was really at stake. The Court of Appeal indicated that this situation would not be widespread, that it was rare. M\u0101ori should, at least, have retained the right to establish a full and proper property right, which the ACT party would have supported. But it is this nebulous, ill-defined property right that caused the problems. It is things like the Resource Management Act, which is socialist legislation for confiscation on nebulous concepts. No one knows what it means. It can mean whatever we want it to mean. However, property rights are clear and can be respected. If there were specific important urup\u0101 sites, then I would like to see them in a clear, protected property right. That is how they would be properly protected.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022c598ffd3-4771-4027-a15f-5d1f643631e0\u0022 data-id=\u00224e1922edfcca4f9f9a03da7374cf483b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001004\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c598ffd3-4771-4027-a15f-5d1f643631e0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00224e1922edfcca4f9f9a03da7374cf483b\u0022\u003EBRIAN CONNELL (National\u2014Rakaia):\u003C/span\u003E I say to the laird of Riversdale, Mr Edwin Perry, that his speech had passion in it, if nothing else. It was in stark contrast to the speech that I had to sit through and listen to when Mr Dail Jones took a call just prior to the dinner break. It was so dull that I now know why Rip van Winkle went to sleep for 100 years. This guy would have us believe that the only reason that 1840 is the date that everything must work off is because it is the law. I ask Mr Jones why we do not just think about having law that evolves to reflect the make-up of our society now. That is what we should be doing. I say to Mr Dover Samuels, while I am at it, that non-M\u0101ori New Zealanders do have some spiritual beliefs, but the difference between the way we want to practise those and the way he articulates the case for M\u0101ori is that he wants every day for M\u0101ori culture to be Christmas Day. We do not buy that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001005\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c598ffd3-4771-4027-a15f-5d1f643631e0\u0022\u003E I have to say, also, that when Dr Cullen was on his feet, he asserted that the problem with the National Party is that we do not know what our argument is. I respond to Dr Cullen by telling him that the real core problem is that he is rushing through this House legislation that has the potential to disenfranchise 90 percent of New Zealanders from their traditions. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001006\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c437bda8-4741-4ac5-89ab-b0818e1ab9fa\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002206db2acf7f394542b004589f1f644b22\u0022\u003EDarren Hughes\u003C/span\u003E: How?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001007\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c598ffd3-4771-4027-a15f-5d1f643631e0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f3f249b3e23b4ca89af2fe0e9dee6e1c\u0022\u003EBRIAN CONNELL\u003C/span\u003E: Mr Hughes is calling out. I suggest he goes outside, puts on his first pair of long trousers, and then comes back. Then we will take him seriously. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001008\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c437bda8-4741-4ac5-89ab-b0818e1ab9fa\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022889f013c1ea24f108e61e2f531b4b2f8\u0022\u003EDarren Hughes\u003C/span\u003E: Answer my question! How?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001009\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c598ffd3-4771-4027-a15f-5d1f643631e0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b398bb0b30264c4e8e31b5f7e14a4d51\u0022\u003EBRIAN CONNELL\u003C/span\u003E: The member should go away and come back, and then we will take him seriously. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001010\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c437bda8-4741-4ac5-89ab-b0818e1ab9fa\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220bf0492719354a999d79ee795dd59b71\u0022\u003EDarren Hughes\u003C/span\u003E: How?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001011\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c598ffd3-4771-4027-a15f-5d1f643631e0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022fa6837889c714805a6fea9ab112ba58f\u0022\u003EBRIAN CONNELL\u003C/span\u003E: The member is yelling out: \u201CHow?\u201D He is telling us now, through this legislation, that ancestral connection will disappear, but on closer scrutiny\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001012\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219386ba0-5a6e-485e-abc0-5a3128b4e1f6\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225e0fddc6a5634a66a2c60c7b7691b896\u0022\u003EHon KEN SHIRLEY\u003C/span\u003E: Clause 31.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001013\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c598ffd3-4771-4027-a15f-5d1f643631e0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d5f26ea89c95475696a96bbf05d8a5af\u0022\u003EBRIAN CONNELL\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014yes, clause 31, as one member has called out\u2014it is not disappearing at all. All he has done is a sneaky, back-door deal with New Zealand First somewhere around Courtney Place. They certainly work\u2014they might miss their meal breaks but they never miss their drink breaks. When they were working through that, they failed to tell us that they have put the ancestral connection through the Resource Management Act process. What it means is that they will be able to bring that provision in the back door any time they want. The M\u0101ori caucus has already accepted that premise, as recently as last night. The caucus said it \u201Cwill provide stronger recognition of the traditional association of wh\u0101nau, hap\u016B and iwi with the coast than the ancestral connection orders initially provided for in the legislation.\u201D It is coming from the M\u0101ori caucus. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001014\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c598ffd3-4771-4027-a15f-5d1f643631e0\u0022\u003EThe great pity of all of this is that I do not believe any of it had to happen. If cooler heads had prevailed and people had taken time to read the appeal decision, they would have seen that it did not state anywhere in that decision that M\u0101ori would get ownership of our foreshore and seabed. It never stated that anywhere. But rather than wait for due process, the poll-driven Government, which is now in cahoots with New Zealand First, decided to legislate because it thought it would get some cheap votes as a consequence. But boy, has that cost the Government dearly! The M\u0101ori caucus members know exactly what I am talking about. Their heads have gone down now and they are not so chipper. They know it has cost them dearly, and it will probably cost some of them their seats. I hope it does.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022 data-id=\u00222d75d1116d194d4e8ba4208e0c91afa8\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001015\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00222d75d1116d194d4e8ba4208e0c91afa8\u0022\u003EDAVID PARKER (Labour\u2014Otago):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That the question be now put.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00221e93d9c8-b183-40db-b200-833697df066c\u0022 data-id=\u00227e199e189ec7471d8765b206e3406a4a\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001016\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221e93d9c8-b183-40db-b200-833697df066c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00227e199e189ec7471d8765b206e3406a4a\u0022\u003ELARRY BALDOCK (United Future):\u003C/span\u003E First of all, I will make a few comments in regard to Mr Ken Shirley\u2019s earlier speech, in which he clearly confused the Resource Management Act with this legislation. I do not disagree that there are still problems in the Resource Management Act regarding its application of the metaphysical\u2014[Interruption] Yes, we understand that, but this is dealing with the problem the member raised, because the clauses that have been read out several times, for the member to pay attention to, state that customary rights orders must not be made in respect of an activity, use, or practice on the basis of spiritual or cultural association unless that association is manifested by the relevant hap\u016B or iwi in a physical activity or use related to a natural physical resource. That has been read to Mr Shirley a number of times. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001017\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221e93d9c8-b183-40db-b200-833697df066c\u0022\u003EWe are grateful that that provision is in there but it is ridiculous to take it too far. It is right that we respect the spiritual values of M\u0101oridom in this country when it comes to their burial sites and the things that relate to physical resources. That point has been made very clearly. It is interesting that the Minister in the chair, David Benson-Pope, is the Minister responsible for the Resource Management Act reform, because United Future is concerned about the unresolved issues around the Resource Management Act when it deals with the metaphysical. But we will have that debate on another day. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001018\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221e93d9c8-b183-40db-b200-833697df066c\u0022\u003EI will address the rest of my comments to the points that have been raised by Metiria Turei from the Green Party in regard to clause 49, \u201CApplication to vary or cancel orders\u201D. I challenge members of the M\u0101ori caucus to respond to the points she made, and the ones that I will raise, also, because they are good examples of the problems with the process. These are large alterations to the legislation. Quite frankly, I would rather have heard from submitters on the issues rather than having them debated in the Chamber in this manner, but since we are having the debate I think it behoves the M\u0101ori caucus members to respond to the concerns. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001019\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221e93d9c8-b183-40db-b200-833697df066c\u0022\u003EThe Hon Dover Samuels will remember that when we were together in the select committee, we discussed these issues. We were concerned about how easy it was for a member of a hap\u016B or iwi, or even a wh\u0101nau, to be able to present themselves to the M\u0101ori Land Court and trade away customary rights orders without necessarily having the correct mandate. When we worked together on the previous legislation in the specially convened committee, in regard to the M\u0101ori Fisheries Act, it was the view of Mr Samuels\u2014and I supported him in it\u2014that we needed to make much tougher conditions on various mandated iwi organisations around the country before they could trade away their rights in terms of their allocation of fishery assets and so on. We made the conditions much more onerous, because we wanted to protect as much as possible for future generations. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001020\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221e93d9c8-b183-40db-b200-833697df066c\u0022\u003EI concur with and have sympathy with the points Metiria Turei raised. It still seems far too easy for someone to appear before the M\u0101ori Land Court and see those customary rights orders\u2014which will take considerable effort to obtain\u2014cancelled and traded away. I do not see why they need to be traded away, at all. I do not see why they cannot enter into an agreement with someone who wants to carry out an activity that may have an impact upon their customary rights order without necessarily trading the order away completely. Surely it would be possible for there to be a recognised legal agreement to enable an activity to carry on for the length of a consent period without necessarily removing it for all time. Therefore, if the activity ceased at some stage, or the resource consent that was granted for the activity expired, then the customary rights order would return to the hap\u016B, the iwi, or the wh\u0101nau, and they would be able to exercise it again. I ask a member from the M\u0101ori caucus to take a call in the debate\u2014we are far from the end of the debate on this part, I hope\u2014and respond to those concerns, because if there is a need for further amendments, I believe now is the time for us to address them.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00221772e9f5-5379-4bfe-9d9b-eaffb4c61b02\u0022 data-id=\u0022c566732f74f742eca7baf62a0ad57afc\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001021\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221772e9f5-5379-4bfe-9d9b-eaffb4c61b02\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c566732f74f742eca7baf62a0ad57afc\u0022\u003EHon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Minister for Transport Safety):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That the question be now put.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002225f8c78b-f301-4aca-a936-366f00a26bc9\u0022 data-id=\u002264d36847b81e42d193d9f80b58e5329e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001022\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002225f8c78b-f301-4aca-a936-366f00a26bc9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002264d36847b81e42d193d9f80b58e5329e\u0022\u003ESANDRA GOUDIE (National\u2014Coromandel):\u003C/span\u003E I have been attempting to take a call since 7 o\u2019clock this evening. I want to take up the point raised earlier in regard to tikanga M\u0101ori. New clause 42, \u201CDetermination of applications for customary rights orders\u201D states in subclause (1) that an order may be made \u201Cin accordance with the provisions of section 42A\u201D if the activity, use, or practice: \u201C(i) is, and has been, since 1840, integral to tikanga M\u0101ori; and (ii) has been carried on, exercised, or followed in accordance with tikanga M\u0101ori\u201D, and \u201C(iii) continues to be carried on, exercised, or followed in the same area of the public foreshore and seabed in accordance with tikanga M\u0101ori;\u201D, and so on. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001023\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002225f8c78b-f301-4aca-a936-366f00a26bc9\u0022\u003EI share the same concerns that were expressed previously. I think it is inappropriate to have the words \u201Ctikanga M\u0101ori\u201D here, because the definition of tikanga in the Historic Places Act, which is being referred to, is \u201CM\u0101ori customary values and practices\u201D. Those values can mean any number of things. We explored the definition of tikanga M\u0101ori during the passage of the Building Bill. In that legislation a building consent can be assessed in accordance with tikanga M\u0101ori if someone appeals and wants a redetermination of somebody else\u2019s consent. In my view, that was absolutely inappropriate. Given the broad definition for tikanga M\u0101ori meaning \u201CM\u0101ori customary values and practices\u201D, which will have precedence? Will \u201Ctikanga M\u0101ori\u201D have precedence over those matters referred to in new clause 41, given that if it is integral to tikanga M\u0101ori that is part of the determination for a customary rights order? Given the breadth of what that could mean, I firmly agree with the views expressed earlier that it is absolutely inappropriate for the term to be in a legislative document that the nation will be subjected to. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001024\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002225f8c78b-f301-4aca-a936-366f00a26bc9\u0022\u003EI also refer people to new clause 43, which talks about the effects of a customary rights order and identifies that a commercial benefit from carrying out a recognised customary activity under the order is able to be entered into. So a commercial benefit can be gained from that customary activity under the order. Perhaps the Minister would take a call and explain what that actually means, and how other people will be affected. Certainly, it is interesting to note that a commercial benefit can be undertaken. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001025\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002225f8c78b-f301-4aca-a936-366f00a26bc9\u0022\u003EIn terms of the protection of w\u0101hi tapu, I certainly agree that there needs to be respect for w\u0101hi tapu in some instances. However, it is of concern when people in their largesse insist upon a w\u0101hi tapu of metaphysical form and impose that cultural belief upon others in the exercise of their private property rights through a resource consent\u2014and make claims against their private property rights in the exercise of a resource consent, costing those people thousands of dollars, with no real justification other than that a song may have been sung on that site. A private individual was just about bankrupted from going about his lawful business because of a song, claimed as a w\u0101hi tapu. It is absolutely abhorrent to this nation that cultural beliefs are being imposed upon people who do not share those beliefs. It is an absolute travesty that is being perpetrated in law by this Government, and being constantly imposed on private property owners going about their lawful business. That has happened a number of times and has substantially affected people. I do not support having people\u2019s cultural beliefs imposed on others. If people do not share them, they should not have them imposed on them. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001026\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002225f8c78b-f301-4aca-a936-366f00a26bc9\u0022\u003EIn talking to new clause 43B with regard to w\u0101hi tapu, I point out the provisions in subclause (3).\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022 data-id=\u002255af80c58a924f178161483580f25a07\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001027\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002255af80c58a924f178161483580f25a07\u0022\u003EGERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader\u2014National):\u003C/span\u003E I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I just wondered whether you had been able to see all the way to the back of the Chamber. Mrs Wong has been trying to take a call for quite some time. She does represent a specific constituency in this country, and I think her contribution on this part should be on the record. I know it is usual for the call to alternate from one side of the Committee to the other, but, given the make-up today, with all parties contributing, I do not think it would hurt to give two calls to this side, then perhaps conclude the debate on the part.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b0d8b0e0-3ece-4865-9145-5eb5983fc54c\u0022 data-id=\u0022780edc20427549ca896d338388eaba65\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001028\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b0d8b0e0-3ece-4865-9145-5eb5983fc54c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022780edc20427549ca896d338388eaba65\u0022\u003EHon RICHARD PREBBLE (ACT):\u003C/span\u003E I think Mr Brownlee actually makes a very good point, and of course, this bill, in terms of its Supplementary Order Paper, is really a new bill. There is a solution, of course, and that is for the Chair to allow more speeches. I have to say, now that Mr Brownlee has raised the point, that Dr Muriel Newman has been in the Chamber all evening, as well. She also has a point of view to make and has not had an opportunity to speak. Of course, there is one solution that is quite obvious, and it would be a very parliamentary one\u2014that this debate be allowed to continue and not cut off by the Government.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022c437bda8-4741-4ac5-89ab-b0818e1ab9fa\u0022 data-id=\u00221ca6a1790a784736a54b9fd5b0dc2271\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001029\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c437bda8-4741-4ac5-89ab-b0818e1ab9fa\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00221ca6a1790a784736a54b9fd5b0dc2271\u0022\u003EDARREN HUGHES (Labour\u2014Otaki):\u003C/span\u003E Mr Chairperson, you decide on who gets the call at the conclusion of a speech by a member standing up and seeking the call, and by you recognising that person. You do not determine who gets the call by way of points of orders from members who give an opinion on who they think you should call next. Members should now seek the call and you should decide on who gets it in that way, not by points of order.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022 data-id=\u00225824d6f6b2d14425adeef69b145f7cff\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001030\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00225824d6f6b2d14425adeef69b145f7cff\u0022\u003EGERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader\u2014National):\u003C/span\u003E Mr Chairperson, we have every faith in your ability to make decisions. Mr Hughes needs to recognise that yesterday, at a particular meeting that takes place around here, a very senior presiding officer indicated that extra time would be given on all these bills. So we are a little perplexed that the Government has decided to move to shut down the debate at such an early stage.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001031\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002270fa4cbd-9380-4916-9f2a-78da059d220e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002299d22e9820f5426d88a8c248119fed0d\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson)\u003C/span\u003E: I thank members for their contributions. I will decide when I take the closure motion. There are a number of guidelines I can use to make a judgment, and one of them is Standing Order 102.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022f9c512a8-d532-4ef9-ad51-0fe8d752a893\u0022 data-id=\u0022c0074595c8e04395a782c6783dadb1e8\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001032\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f9c512a8-d532-4ef9-ad51-0fe8d752a893\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c0074595c8e04395a782c6783dadb1e8\u0022\u003ECLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour\u2014Waimakariri):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That the question be now put.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002280b11f68-6b57-4b8b-8922-aecd1d471975\u0022 data-id=\u0022e4cafee991254737a5d03a57ad9f0492\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001033\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002280b11f68-6b57-4b8b-8922-aecd1d471975\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022e4cafee991254737a5d03a57ad9f0492\u0022\u003EPANSY WONG (National):\u003C/span\u003E I would like to continue the theme that was brought up by my parliamentary colleague Sandra Goudie on the issue of customary values and practices. I guess, nowadays, a great number of New Zealanders do have respect for each other\u2019s customary values and practices. But it does get difficult when it starts to form part of the legislative process. I was just reflecting on the Minister who is in charge of this bill, the Hon Michael Cullen, who, on the 150th anniversary of the New Zealand Parliament, criticised judicial activism. He was lamenting how Parliament passed legislation and the judges used their initiative to extend into areas that were beyond the intention\u2014[Interruption] I suggest the Labour MPs will soon become Opposition members as soon as the election is held, and if they have something worthwhile to say they should take a call and explain that to the public. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001034\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002280b11f68-6b57-4b8b-8922-aecd1d471975\u0022\u003EI was just saying how the Hon Michael Cullen was concerned about judicial activism, and those who would not carry out the intention of the New Zealand Parliament after we pass legislation. But when we start to incorporate terms like \u201Ccustomary values and practices\u201D that is when we actually start to relegate Parliament\u2019s responsibility to the courts and let the courts make those decisions. Of course, customary values and practices are really difficult. I used to be in Canterbury, and I can assure members that Ng\u0101i Tahu has certain perspectives of their values and practices, which will probably be different from some of the North Island M\u0101ori iwi or h\u0101pu. So who, in effect, is going to determine that when it comes to incorporating terms such as \u201Cpaying respect\u201D, and \u201Cadhering to customary values and practices\u201D? It is the courts. Is the judicial process going to be resourced to interpret that? What will happen if these customary values and practices change over time? We are raising very serious issues. Maybe the Minister in the chair, David Benson-Pope, would like to take a call and explain to the public whether the courts have developed enough common law cases to interpret and pay due respect. If we incorporate something in the law, can that be objectively implemented?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001035\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002280b11f68-6b57-4b8b-8922-aecd1d471975\u0022\u003E There may be grievances. When judges try to interpret the legislation, they may have more than one way of interpreting it. They may turn down a customary rights order and say: \u201CThat is not in accordance with that.\u201D [Interruption] I suggest that the member take a call. I am not belittling M\u0101ori customary rights and practices. I am just commenting on how the law works when it is codified. Today we are incorporating that in our legislation, but what messages and what guidance will we give to our judges so that they will not interpret that contrary to the intention of the Parliament? How can anybody actually codify a set of customary values and practices? Do we have judges who are so learned? Do we have judges on the select committee?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001036\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224029b198-a7b2-4eea-867c-79ef46cafeb9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e4382e0443e945e1905ecdb4882fa1ef\u0022\u003EHon Dover Samuels\u003C/span\u003E: Why don\u2019t you import some from China?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001037\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002280b11f68-6b57-4b8b-8922-aecd1d471975\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a4a50bdb49a44e5bbfe67f68fceffe5f\u0022\u003EPANSY WONG\u003C/span\u003E: Here we go! Once again, whenever members cannot use the power of logic to debate the issues, they attack people by saying how recently they have come here.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00221fb8d8db-3e96-49c7-ab1c-b7916a50e30e\u0022 data-id=\u00229d9b6fb71aaa48b79f41289557550108\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001038\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221fb8d8db-3e96-49c7-ab1c-b7916a50e30e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00229d9b6fb71aaa48b79f41289557550108\u0022\u003ESTEVE CHADWICK (Labour\u2014Rotorua):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That the question\u2014.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b0d8b0e0-3ece-4865-9145-5eb5983fc54c\u0022 data-id=\u00226eaa73979c254208ae92ee9f852260db\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001039\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b0d8b0e0-3ece-4865-9145-5eb5983fc54c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00226eaa73979c254208ae92ee9f852260db\u0022\u003EHon RICHARD PREBBLE (ACT):\u003C/span\u003E I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I am not disputing in any way that decisions on closure are yours, but nothing in the Standing Orders states that members cannot draw things to your attention. I would like to have a reassurance from you that before you take a closure motion you will look at Speaker\u2019s ruling 85/2, which is a ruling of our present Speaker and one I am sure you are aware of. Speaker Hunt states: \u201CThe form of drafting of a bill is a matter that the chairpersons should take into account in committee in deciding when to accept a closure motion.\u201D The explanatory note states that a \u201CConsiderably longer debate would be permitted on a part with numerous subparts than would otherwise be the case.\u201D \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001040\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b0d8b0e0-3ece-4865-9145-5eb5983fc54c\u0022\u003EIf you look at the literal meaning, Mr Chairperson, you will see that it is stating that chairpersons should take into account the drafting. I say to you that in my experience\u2014and I have been here a little longer than most\u2014I have never seen a bill that has been drafted in this way, where we have had a fundamentally new bill suddenly presented to us and then have been put into urgency. It would appear to me that Speaker Hunt\u2019s ruling is a guide to the Chair that in this sort of circumstance there should be considerably longer time given than is usually given. I want an assurance from you, Mr Chairperson, that you accept that that is the way the Chair ought to deal with this debate.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001041\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b0d8b0e0-3ece-4865-9145-5eb5983fc54c\u0022\u003EI say that, partly to protect the rights of the minority, and partly to protect the rights of this Committee. It is undesirable that bills go through in this sort of way, and one way of making sure it does not happen again is by making sure that the Government does not save any time by cutting out the rights it otherwise would be able to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001042\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002270fa4cbd-9380-4916-9f2a-78da059d220e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b1db5eb751784a1f874a36b6a3d3b66f\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson)\u003C/span\u003E: I thank the member for that consideration. I have looked at every issue. I have also considered the issue under Speaker\u2019s ruling 58/8. I take the point; however, the ruling relates to a number of subparts.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00221fb8d8db-3e96-49c7-ab1c-b7916a50e30e\u0022 data-id=\u00228481f29d694a4737894429535537a9f3\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001043\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221fb8d8db-3e96-49c7-ab1c-b7916a50e30e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00228481f29d694a4737894429535537a9f3\u0022\u003ESTEVE CHADWICK (Labour\u2014Rotorua):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That the question be now put.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u002240fc83396b7f40a69ab9665927dee816\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the question be now put.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 66\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 54\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 27; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; M\u0101ori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001044\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the following amendment in the name of Metiria Turei to clause 39 be agreed to:\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001045\u0022\u003Eto omit paragraph (b) of subclause (1). \u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022a36032bde0b748bc804181557fc2e4e8\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 10\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EGreen Party 9; M\u0101ori Party 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 110\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Independent: Awatere Huata.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001046\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the following amendment in the name of Metiria Turei to clause 48 be agreed to:\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001047\u0022\u003Eto omit this clause. \u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022ab3ab7ccfff24fd6a6d364b698cc0276\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 10\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EGreen Party 9; M\u0101ori Party 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 110\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Independent: Awatere Huata.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001048\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the following amendment in the name of Metiria Turei to clause 50 be agreed to:\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001049\u0022\u003Eto omit from the heading the words \u201Cor cancelling\u201D. \u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u00221ffa04442ad74399ac40fa8a52c17588\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 19\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EGreen Party 9; United Future 8; M\u0101ori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 101\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001050\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the following amendment in the name of Metiria Turei to clause 50 be agreed to:\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001051\u0022\u003Eto omit the words \u201Cor cancel an order under section 48\u201D.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022a223854c859e446fa5719ef86d0ef7af\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 19\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EGreen Party 9; United Future 8; M\u0101ori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 101\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220ed9ad81-05c1-4171-80c6-24fa02cade42\u0022 data-id=\u0022aa2faa6ea29540a6bfb1b818add278e8\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001052\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220ed9ad81-05c1-4171-80c6-24fa02cade42\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022aa2faa6ea29540a6bfb1b818add278e8\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich)\u003C/span\u003E: We now come to the amendments to the Minister\u2019s amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 302.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022 data-id=\u0022e86f2d06b439427abddf8c3179eb7118\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001053\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022e86f2d06b439427abddf8c3179eb7118\u0022\u003EMETIRIA TUREI (Green):\u003C/span\u003E I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. There are a number of amendments on the Green Party sheet that is available to members. Are the questions on those amendments to the amendments on the Supplementary Order Paper to be put before the question on the Minister\u2019s amendments on the Supplementary Order Paper?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001054\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220ed9ad81-05c1-4171-80c6-24fa02cade42\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b90c892c2e964c02a9d0fe50e6410ac8\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich)\u003C/span\u003E: That is exactly what we are doing. These are amendments to the Minister\u2019s amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 302. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001055\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220ed9ad81-05c1-4171-80c6-24fa02cade42\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the following amendment in the name of Metiria Turei to proposed new clause 35 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 302 in the name of the Hon Dr Michael Cullen be agreed to:\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001056\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220ed9ad81-05c1-4171-80c6-24fa02cade42\u0022\u003Eto omit proposed new subclause (2).\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022166b179d120e4cb7aa8cf55c7eea0c42\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 11\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EGreen Party 9; M\u0101ori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 109\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment to the amendment not agreed to. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001057\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the following amendments in the name of Metiria Turei to the amendments to clauses 39 and 40 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 302 in the name of the Hon Dr Michael Cullen be agreed to:\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001058\u0022\u003Eto omit the omission of these clauses.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022eb98713fdbb5423b8e6b6a44bc2df9c6\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments to the amendments be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 11\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EGreen Party 9; M\u0101ori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 109\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendments to the amendments not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001059\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the following amendment in the name of Metiria Turei to proposed new clause 41 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 302 in the name of the Hon Dr Michael Cullen be agreed to:\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001060\u0022\u003Eto omit proposed new subclause (2).\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u00229640e520ca9349c382f0cbf2a47a9f3d\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 11\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EGreen Party 9; M\u0101ori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 109\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment to the amendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001061\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the following amendment in the name of Metiria Turei to proposed new clause 42 and 42Aset out on Supplementary Order Paper 302 in the name of the Hon Dr Michael Cullen be agreed to:\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001062\u0022\u003Eto omit these clauses and substitute the following new clause:\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001063\u0022\u003E42\tDetermination of applications for customary rights orders\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001064\u0022\u003EThe Maori Land Court may make a customary rights order only if it is satisfied that\u2014\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001065\u0022\u003E(a)\tthe order applies to an established and identifiable group of Maori whose members are whanaunga; and\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001066\u0022\u003E(b)\tthe activity, use, or practice for which the applicant seeks a customary rights order is integral to tikanga Maori and continues to be carried on, exercised, or followed in the same area of the public foreshore and seabed in accordance with tikanga Maori.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022d3fde635d10f46e5bdb786a32f808476\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 11\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EGreen Party 9; M\u0101ori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 109\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment to the amendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001067\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the following amendment in the name of Metiria Turei to proposed new clause 43 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 302 in the name of the Hon Dr Michael Cullen be agreed to:\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001068\u0022\u003Eto omit proposed new subclause (3) and substitute the following new subclause:\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001069\u0022\u003E(3)\tHowever, the exercise of a recognised commercial activity to which subsection (2) applies is subject to any conditions or limits imposed by or under any enactment or rule of law.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u00223da535b4ae76442396125057cd0a70ba\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 11\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EGreen Party 9; M\u0101ori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 109\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment to the amendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001070\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the following amendment in the name of Metiria Turei to insert new clause 43AA after the amendment to insert new clause 43A set out on Supplementary Order Paper 302 in the name of the Hon Dr Michael Cullen be agreed to:\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001071\u0022\u003Eto insert the following new clause:\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001072\u0022\u003E43AA\tRights are inalienable\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001073\u0022\u003ENo person has the capacity to alienate or cancel any interest in an ancestral connection order, customary rights order, or territorial customary rights.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u002263d58e3ac0a149479b89e018decc0649\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 19\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EGreen Party 9; United Future 8; M\u0101ori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 101\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment to the amendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001074\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the following amendment in the name of Metiria Turei to proposed new clause 43B set out on Supplementary Order Paper 302 in the name of the Hon Dr Michael Cullen be agreed to:\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001075\u0022\u003Eto insert in paragraph (a) of proposed new subclause (1), after the word \u201Corder\u201D, the words \u201Cor an order under section 37(i)(c)\u201D.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u002209b5218539a047cbb12a9b66fa2263f4\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 11\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EGreen Party 9; M\u0101ori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 109\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment to the amendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001076\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the following amendment in the name of Metiria Turei to proposed new clause 43B set out on Supplementary Order Paper 302 in the name of the Hon Dr Michael Cullen be agreed to:\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001077\u0022\u003Eto omit proposed new subclause (2) and substitute the following new subclause:\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001078\u0022\u003E(2)\tThe order takes precedence over the provisions of sections 6 and 7 and must be referred by the Maori Land Court to the Minister of Maori Affairs and the Minister of Conservation (the relevant Ministers).\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u002271d3ab23002d428e8790c6581ffe11ae\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 11\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EGreen Party 9; M\u0101ori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 109\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment to the amendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001079\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the following amendment in the name of Metiria Turei to proposed new clause 43C set out on Supplementary Order Paper 302 in the name of the Hon Michael Cullen be agreed to:\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001080\u0022\u003Eto insert in proposed new subclause (1), before the word \u201CThe\u201D, the words \u201CExcept as provided in section 43B,\u201D.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022b284ee8a90604194a7c8f3659012f47f\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 11\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EGreen Party 9; M\u0101ori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 109\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment to the amendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001081\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the following amendment in the name of Metiria Turei to proposed new clause 49 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 302 in the name of the Hon Dr Michael Cullen be agreed to:\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001082\u0022\u003Eto omit from the proposed new heading the words \u201Cor cancel\u201D.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u00226130cea79c684d519e2d16715a973f6a\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 19\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EGreen Party 9; United Future 8; M\u0101ori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 101\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment to the amendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001083\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the following amendment in the name of Metiria Turei to proposed new clause 49 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 302 in the name of the Hon Michael Cullen be agreed to:\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001084\u0022\u003Eto omit from the proposed new subclause (1) the words \u201Cor cancel\u201D.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u00228bd1ea76ee854db3832184fc4570d227\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 19\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EGreen Party 9; United Future 8; M\u0101ori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 101\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment to the amendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220ed9ad81-05c1-4171-80c6-24fa02cade42\u0022 data-id=\u0022f7053d52ee4f4486aa35a6bf8714991d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001085\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220ed9ad81-05c1-4171-80c6-24fa02cade42\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022f7053d52ee4f4486aa35a6bf8714991d\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich)\u003C/span\u003E: The next amendment is to clause 49 and is in the name of Metiria Turei. It is an amendment to omit words from the amendment to subclause (2), set out on Supplementary Order Paper 302 in the name of the Hon Michael Cullen. This amendment is out of order because a previous amendment was not agreed to. There is a further amendment to clause 49. It is also in the name of Metiria Turei. It is an amendment to omit words from the amendment to subclause (3), set out on Supplementary Order Paper 302 in the name of the Hon Michael Cullen. It is also out of order because a previous amendment was not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001086\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220ed9ad81-05c1-4171-80c6-24fa02cade42\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the following amendment in the name of Metiria Turei to the amendment to clause 50 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 302 in the name of the Hon Michael Cullen be agreed to:\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001087\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220ed9ad81-05c1-4171-80c6-24fa02cade42\u0022\u003Eto omit from proposed new paragraph (a) the words \u201Cor cancellation\u201D.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022cec9a2b9a5044b0b8bfd02ea903bd878\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 19\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EGreen Party 9; United Future 8; M\u0101ori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 101\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment to the amendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001088\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 302 in the name of the Hon Dr Michael Cullen to Part 3 be agreed to.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u00227ccffb8042684551a170c51ac978010c\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 74\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 46\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 27; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8; M\u0101ori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendments agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u00220f0ef0ae5fdd435b98fff78096f7f160\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That Part 3 as amended be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 66\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 54\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 27; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; M\u0101ori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EPart 3 as amended agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001089\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022ca0fb2b79bac4d6c8e0404cfdd8fdfd2\u0022\u003EPart 4  High Court jurisdiction in relation to customary rights orders\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220ed9ad81-05c1-4171-80c6-24fa02cade42\u0022 data-id=\u0022ced4a72f257b45be85f92f8377a6c21e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001090\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220ed9ad81-05c1-4171-80c6-24fa02cade42\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022ced4a72f257b45be85f92f8377a6c21e\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich)\u003C/span\u003E: This part includes debate on schedule 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022 data-id=\u00222ddcd38daed44c7988e130761c630970\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001091\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00222ddcd38daed44c7988e130761c630970\u0022\u003EGERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader\u2014National):\u003C/span\u003E This is the part that, no doubt, New Zealand First members will claim as their triumph. This is the part that supposedly allows those New Zealanders who hold some property contiguous to a sea space and who have held that property continuously since 1840, and have undertaken activities within that foreshore and sea space of the same nature, pretty much without change, since 1840, the opportunity to go to the High Court and have a customary use right registered. There will be, perhaps, one or two families in New Zealand who might meet the criteria of still holding in 2004 the land that they held in 1840 or before that time. There will be, perhaps, one or two, maybe a few more, but certainly not hundreds, not thousands, and not tens of thousands\u2014just a few.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001092\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E Very few, and perhaps none, of those groups of natural persons\u2014an interesting way in which to be described\u2014will be able to demonstrate continuous use since that time. I have no doubt that Mr Jones will say that that will enable the committee that organises the Auckland regatta to go to the High Court to have that activity registered as a customary use of the area. But unfortunately for Mr Jones, the fact is that one cannot make application to the High Court for a customary right, or be granted such a right, under the bill as he has restructured it, if there is an aspect of commercial gain or activity inside what is claimed as a customary right. So the Auckland regatta, with its various sponsorships and attempts to recover costs, would in our view be caught by that restriction. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001093\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003EBut if that does not catch them, the other clause in this part talks about having exclusive use for an activity in an area, and the right to deny others access for that purpose. Well, they cannot do that. Everyone knows that sailing on the Auckland harbour is a free-for-all. If Mr Jones is going to stand up and tell us that the High Court is about to change that, he is a much bolder man than I am. So what we have here is a very large number of clauses that in fact will probably achieve absolutely nothing for anyone. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001094\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003EI invite the Minister in the chair, Dr Cullen, to give us some practical examples of groups of New Zealanders, by name\u2014we can go around the countryside and name the M\u0101ori groupings who will be able to go to the M\u0101ori Land Court and get their rights granted. I will guarantee that the Government does not have a clue who others might be, but in these conditions it has simply made sure that there will be very, very few of them. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001095\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003ESo this is really just a \u201Cplacate the white folks\u201D series of clauses here. It does not set out to give any rights whatsoever, because the reality is that the vast majority of people in this country have ancestors who arrived post-1840. When we look at the general processes that have to be gone through under the legislation, I think that it would be difficult for any group to assert that it was a group of natural persons for the purposes of representing themselves under the conditions of this bill. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001096\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003EI have to say, though, that it is difficult to follow the process. We notice that the numbering in the so-called redline document does not follow the numbering we have in the Supplementary Order Paper, and that we have to search very hard through the bill itself to find the relevance of the Supplementary Order Paper, given the very considerable number of additional bits and pieces that have been added on. I cannot help thinking that the Government might have got its members together in a back room somewhere, and said: \u201CHeck, if we don\u2019t tighten this thing up, goodness knows who might try whatever on with the courts.\u201D So they went to Mr Jones, who is a naturally cautious and suspicious man, and they asked him what he would recommend. He came up with just putting in a clause 65A, B, and C, etc. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022 data-id=\u00221abcfedc87de417a8fd5e5065dc4ffbd\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001097\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00221abcfedc87de417a8fd5e5065dc4ffbd\u0022\u003EDAIL JONES (NZ First):\u003C/span\u003E New Zealand First has made it clear that there should be one law for all. This bill is an effort to provide for one law for all, and the party that went to \u014Crewa and talked about one law for all, is going to oppose a clause that provides that. To put it very, very simply, that is what this clause is all about\u2014one law for all New Zealanders. It does not matter whether a person is white, brown, recently arrived Asian, or, like myself, of American parentage on one side\u2014and like Tariana Turia; we both have American fathers\u2014it is one law for all, and the National Party opposes it. What a bunch of sour grapes from that party! Its members are really whingeing and whining on a clause that gives one law for all. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001098\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022\u003EThe Rt Hon Winston Peters, in his first statement on this issue in June last year, made it clear that we would have a law on this bill, irrespective of race. Here we have the clause that provides that provision\u2014irrespective of race there is one law for all\u2014and the National Party just cannot come to grips with the fact that New Zealand First has not only talked about one law for all but has acted and got a result. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001099\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022\u003EI would like to thank the Labour Party for taking us on board. It might have upset one or two of them to think that they had to do that, but in an MMP environment we all have to realise that sometimes we have to work with one another. It has been very good working with Dr Cullen and other Labour members of Parliament. Of course, we in New Zealand First know from our experience with the National Party that that party is extremely difficult to work with, and at the end of the day we had to walk out on the National Party, because it wanted to sell off New Zealand\u2019s assets. But this is a \u201Cone law for all\u201D bill. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001100\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022\u003EThe first point about the Auckland anniversary regatta that Mr Brownlee raised\u2014whether it could make a profit\u2014is a matter of sour grapes. I presume that the anniversary regatta organisation is an incorporated society. Therefore, as a non-profitmaking organisation, that particular bunch of sour grapes on the part of Mr Brownlee is dead\u2014drowned and buried at the bottom of Davy Jones\u2019 locker. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001101\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022\u003EAs far as the other provisions of this bill are concerned, the bill is a first for New Zealand, I think, and New Zealand First is proud to be part of it. We know that this is not a common law right; it is a statutory right. So we can forget about McHugh and the rest. This is a statutory right\u2014perhaps the first in the world. It may not be absolutely perfect, because it is the first ever in the world. One does not actually need to have contiguous land, in the way I read the bill. That, again, is something Mr Brownlee is unaware of and has not grasped. He should \u201Cread it and weep\u201D, as we used to say in the old days in the men\u2019s common room when playing cards. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022\u003EMr Brownlee is just not aware of the situation, at all. I accept that he has had trouble reading it, and I will give him another helping hand. Schedule 2 has been incorporated in these particular clauses, so that is why schedule 2 has been deleted. That will help him understand why there are so many clauses about contents of applications and directions for service. But it gets down to Dr Mapp at the select committee. He thought he would be very clever and prove to officials that this type of provision could not work for the anniversary regatta. He must have spent about 5 or 10 minutes grilling the officials on this particular provision, and all an official could say, based on the wording in the legislation, was: \u201CYes, there is a possibility, I would not say a probability,\u201D\u2014officials are very cautious\u2014\u201Cthat the Auckland anniversary regatta could go ahead.\u201D \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001103\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022\u003EOf course one could say that they do not need it. They do not have to do that if they do not want to, but the option is there. That is what life is about\u2014the option for equality for all New Zealanders is in this bill. The Weymouth boating club came to us as a submitter. That club is going to apply for a customary rights order. A very smart young man, who turned out to be a Labour supporter, gave Dr Wayne Mapp and Ken Shirley a real telling off. But that boating club is going to go for that order. As far as this legislation is concerned, it is a very simple test put out by the committee: the order applies to a group of natural persons whose members share a distinctive community of interest, and they have to have been carrying out the practice since 1840. The Auckland anniversary regatta has been going since at least September 1840, and probably since before that. It has to be a practice that is integral to the distinctive cultural practices of a group, and in those days, sailing was how one got to New Zealand\u2014one sailed here. There is nothing more integral to the British settlers of New Zealand than the fact that they sailed here. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022 data-id=\u0022ad4c9952189d461581b9d211d4f5ca72\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001104\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022ad4c9952189d461581b9d211d4f5ca72\u0022\u003EMETIRIA TUREI (Green):\u003C/span\u003E The Greens are opposed to this whole provision and we have put forward a number of amendments to the bill to get rid of it. It is not that we do not acknowledge and understand that the community as a whole has practices and activities in place that it considers are really, really important and wants to enable those to be protected. The fact is that there are already mechanisms to enable protection of those sorts of activities. We do not need to abuse and redefine in this deceptive way the customary rights of the indigenous people to whom this bill is supposed to be directing itself. It is a misconception and a complete deception to say that those who have come here after the process of colonisation and who are not indigenous to this land are entitled to customary rights. A customary right is a legal concept that applies to the indigenous people. It means the rights that they held in their customs, the rights that they exercised, and the things that they did before colonisation occurred. The customary rights provisions in the common law are a protection mechanism for those practices, once colonisation has occurred. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001105\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003ETo then say that all people in the country are entitled to those rights, is wrong. It is wrong in law and it is wrong as a concept. In fact, it distorts things for the community, which wants to have its special activities protected. It gives the community false hope. There has already been enough palaver coming from New Zealand First and Labour about the undue expectations M\u0101ori have of what they could get in the courts. Clearly the officials have said, and even the bill itself acknowledged when it first came to the House, that no one will get these. No one will qualify for them, because they are so ridiculous. People will think they can get access to the courts. They will spend money trying to do this and it will be a waste of time because, in effect, the customary rights are useless. No one will be able to get them. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001106\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003EThis part is a smokescreen of equality in order to hide New Zealand First\u2019s complicity in the theft of M\u0101ori land. It unjustly raises the expectations of the community, which does want to have its needs met. But there are existing forms for this. For example, the Historic Places Trust will purchase, and assist people in purchasing, property that is considered to be significant for the community as a whole. There is no structured M\u0101ori form of the Historic Places Trust. No organisation is provided for, in the way that the Historic Places Trust is, to purchase and protect sites of historic or cultural significance for M\u0101ori in this country. The Historic Places Trust forms a really important part of the structure of protection and is there for the community as a whole. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001107\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003EIn this bill there is some\u2014slightly corrupted, in my opinion\u2014form of protection for M\u0101ori customary rights. But New Zealand First wants to further corrupt those and steal the protections to make them apply to everyone when, in fact, those protections already exist. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001108\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003EAnother clear example in terms of the importance of these things is the white crosses on highways. The Greens were the first to come out and defend those crosses on the highways and to say that Transit had no right to take them down. It was unjustified and incredibly mean because those areas were significant to the people who placed those crosses there. They were spiritually significant. Those areas do not have a physical manifestation for the people who placed the crosses there. They are spiritual for them and it is important that they are recognised, accepted, acknowledged, and understood by the whole community. They form an important tool for the community as a whole and they need to be protected. We have been the first to say that they should be. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001109\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003EBut these are not things that customary rights can be claimed for. There are other forms of protection that Parliament and other structures can provide to enable those kinds of values to be enshrined in our culture. The provisions that are set out in this part, which New Zealand First has been so intent on making sure are there, are symbolic at best. New Zealand First recognises that it will be very difficult for people to get these rights. It recognises, at least in some part, that the provisions are likely to be symbolic and provide the veneer of equality. Yet when asked to support the entrenchment clauses to protect the foreshore and seabed from sale into foreign hands, New Zealand First refused. It refused because it did not want to support something that it considered to be only symbolic. Yet it has spent important and scarce negotiating time with the Government to put forward provisions in law that are nothing if not symbolic and useless.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00221a705910-5320-43bf-aa82-027a761519f6\u0022 data-id=\u0022edb0fe38cfcc4e1cb8a46c297786abf5\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001110\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221a705910-5320-43bf-aa82-027a761519f6\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022edb0fe38cfcc4e1cb8a46c297786abf5\u0022\u003ERUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour\u2014Napier):\u003C/span\u003E Customary rights orders are not defined, as people who listened to the last speaker would believe, by the existence of other customary rights orders; customary rights orders are defined by the practice of a group. Under this part a group is a group that shares a distinct community of interest. This area of customary rights is not a development of aboriginal customary rights, but a natural consequence of the codification of the law as a whole. This Parliament cannot try to guess who may have that distinctive community of interest, who may have held it since 1840, and what practices are integral to the distinctive cultural practice of the group. That is not the point. The point is that when we codify the common law we seek to bring consistency.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001111\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221a705910-5320-43bf-aa82-027a761519f6\u0022\u003EThe applicants under this issue need not be P\u0101keh\u0101. They could be M\u0101ori, if they wanted to align themselves in that way. This measure provides an alternate, and a logical extension, in a multicultural society, to the aboriginal customary rights that this bill codifies. No one at all needs to feel threatened by it, because if there are no groups that seek to be included, there is no problem; if there are groups that seek to be included, then, of course, there will be no problem because they can be so accommodated. It would be totally unfair to present this bill as one that panders to just one race. The aim of this bill is to codify the law in respect of customary practices and rights as they relate to the foreshore and seabed.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001112\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221a705910-5320-43bf-aa82-027a761519f6\u0022\u003ESo it is not appropriate to say that because this measure may not apply to M\u0101ori, it should not be in the bill. It is in the bill in order to achieve a consistent codification, a logical examination of all options, so that when an option is put to the court that reflects the growing diversity of culture in this community, and the recognition of those practices, then any group, no matter what its racial background, will find a space within the bill to give expression to that laudable aim of a maintained, historic customary right\u2014not a new one, but one that is currently in existence; not a recent invention but one that has been in existence since 1840. So the tests that apply to customary rights orders under this part of the bill are similar in many regards to those taken from the aboriginal rights that give rise to the customary rights orders that we have dealt with in Part 3.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001113\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221a705910-5320-43bf-aa82-027a761519f6\u0022\u003EThis simple measure gives completeness to the bill. It makes it a bill, and, ultimately, an Act, that applies to the face of New Zealand as we all know it\u2014a multifaceted, multicultural, varied face that no one in Parliament should endeavour to prescribe or exclude. It is as simple as that. It is a nice, elegant addition to the common law. It will present no complications and all speakers in this Chamber should endorse it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b0d8b0e0-3ece-4865-9145-5eb5983fc54c\u0022 data-id=\u00229dd6cc1a6c1e4a08a666d7f0852601ca\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001114\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b0d8b0e0-3ece-4865-9145-5eb5983fc54c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00229dd6cc1a6c1e4a08a666d7f0852601ca\u0022\u003EHon RICHARD PREBBLE (ACT):\u003C/span\u003E This is the part of the bill that is designed to protect the Auckland regatta. It was not until Mr Peters made his statement that the organisers of the Auckland regatta realised that it was in any way under threat. There is no evidence that the Auckland regatta organisers will apply, despite Mr Peters having provided this whole part for their benefit. What on earth would they apply for, and who, apart from Mr Peters, thinks the Auckland regatta is under threat?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001115\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b0d8b0e0-3ece-4865-9145-5eb5983fc54c\u0022\u003EThis part brings MMP into disrepute, because New Zealand First has said: \u201CLet\u2019s go back far enough, then say that we\u2019re applying the law to everyone.\u201D, and it picked on 1840. I ask Mr Dail Jones why 1840. If he was to look at the Canadian experience, he would see that the Canadians have gone back to first contact. The reason they did that was that they said that once two cultures clash, each culture changes. We know that\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001116\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002223849164d4c249abaee43f4c1dfabe19\u0022\u003EDail Jones\u003C/span\u003E: Ask me. I have given you the answer.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001117\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b0d8b0e0-3ece-4865-9145-5eb5983fc54c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002243b79dab30e7453eb3cf4f76e9516759\u0022\u003EHon RICHARD PREBBLE\u003C/span\u003E: I listened to Mr Dail Jones properly; now he does not want to hear me. We know that when Captain Cook first arrived he had considerable impact. But the Australians have gone the other way. They have said it should date from the point of sovereignty. Mr Dail Jones, if he had been in New Zealand a bit longer, would know that New Zealand did not get sovereignty in 1840. I tell Mr Jones that New Zealand did not get sovereignty until 1948, when we signed the Statute of Westminster. That is when we got full sovereignty. If Mr Jones\u2019 logic was to be followed, if he really wanted the same law to apply to all New Zealanders, he would change the year from 1840 to 1948. No one believes that he will do that, because Mr Jones is not actually interested in providing protection to every New Zealander; he just wants to make a simple slogan statement that New Zealand First is applying the same law to everyone. He has admitted that that is all he is doing. Why not be safe and date it from first contact\u2014go back to 1642, when Abel Tasman turned up? That would be a good date. Then Mr Jones could really say that he was acting on behalf of every New Zealander, and that this is one law for all. It is a nonsense.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001118\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b0d8b0e0-3ece-4865-9145-5eb5983fc54c\u0022\u003EI draw the Committee\u2019s attention to another matter, and invite Mrs Donna Awatere Huata to take a call. I was in the High Court of New Zealand when I heard her lawyer say that she would vote with the ACT party. Because she has now discovered that she will hear the court\u2019s decision tomorrow, I heard her decide to start to vote with the Green Party. On the political spectrum, we could not get two parties that were further apart. I would like her to explain to us how a person elected on the ACT party list can suddenly decide tonight that she is a Green MP. I would like her to take a call and explain that. It would be her valedictory. She could get up and explain how a person can tell the High Court that she is an ACT MP and that she will vote with the ACT party, then, when she finds out that tomorrow she will be going out of Parliament, votes with the Greens, the socialists in this Parliament. She could not vote more differently.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001119\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b0d8b0e0-3ece-4865-9145-5eb5983fc54c\u0022\u003EThere is a word for that; it begins with \u201Ch\u201D, but we are not allowed to use it. However, I am perfectly entitled to invite Mrs Donna Awatere Huata to explain her vote to this Committee and to the 160,000 people who voted for ACT and put her into Parliament. They voted for property rights and one law for all, only to find that tonight, at 9 o\u2019clock, she has suddenly discovered that she is a Green MP. I think that is such an extraordinary conversion that the whole Committee should hear about it. Let us have an explanation of the amazing voting that we are now getting from the member.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001120\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c2dfe169-d946-4f87-8d43-0bcdb7d8bebc\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221675fd2abbc442bdb0ceffe7d43087e7\u0022\u003ETariana Turia\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I ask what relevance this speech has to the bill. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001121\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b0d8b0e0-3ece-4865-9145-5eb5983fc54c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228ae91cd921fe4aea965a8e2acbe58876\u0022\u003EHon RICHARD PREBBLE\u003C/span\u003E: Speaking to the point of order\u2014which I am quite happy to speak to\u2014I say that the relevance is that one can ask any member to explain his or her vote. Perhaps the member who made the interjection might be able to explain it, because Mrs Huata is also now voting with the M\u0101ori Party. That is quite an extraordinary conversion, 24 hours before she will probably be told she is no longer a member. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001122\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d52e59e3-2195-4c95-a654-665c11b39b63\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222e9fdcdeae254b158ecbc2e972c3edb3\u0022\u003EHon Parekura Horomia\u003C/span\u003E: Good on them.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001123\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b0d8b0e0-3ece-4865-9145-5eb5983fc54c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223914077b1e684815acf2f5de50832975\u0022\u003EHon RICHARD PREBBLE\u003C/span\u003E: The member says \u201CGood on them.\u201D The Government has been telling us that people will behave honourably, under this bill. Where is the evidence for that?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022df788c48-b9be-42fd-b8f2-76629a5572b8\u0022 data-id=\u0022020d5c72ed6d4a32bcb6a743fc3a2e47\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001124\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022df788c48-b9be-42fd-b8f2-76629a5572b8\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022020d5c72ed6d4a32bcb6a743fc3a2e47\u0022\u003EDr WAYNE MAPP (National\u2014North Shore):\u003C/span\u003E I will talk about new clause 61, \u201CDetermination of applications for customary rights orders\u201D. This clause is, as Mr Jones is wont to tell members and the media whenever he has the opportunity, the Auckland Anniversary Regatta clause\u2014as if the Auckland Anniversary Regatta needs it. For the last 164 years, I guess the organisers have been in doubt in about November of each year, wondering: \u201CAre we going to be able to hold this regatta? Will people stop us having our races on the harbour?\u201D. In reality, the member well knows that that simply is a nonsense.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001125\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022df788c48-b9be-42fd-b8f2-76629a5572b8\u0022\u003EYes, it is true that I asked officials of the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee whether the regatta met the criteria, and we went through them. Had it been going before 1840? Yes, it had. Did it involve particular people with cultural practices? Yes, it did\u2014they all wore white flannel, and so forth. Were the people in clubs? Yes, they were. Yes, it meets the criteria. The question is what is the point. Why are we passing law to allow that group to go to the High Court, at the cost of tens of thousands of dollars, to get an order to do something that that group always could do, and always will be able to do? That group does not need the assistance of the New Zealand First - Labour cabal; it does not need it to deliver some sort of benefit that is completely unnecessary. I concede the point that the regatta fits the criteria; I ask the question: so what? This truly is an example of the time of Parliament being wasted to provide rights that are completely\u2014[Interruption] On this particular part, we are wasting the time of Parliament. The Government, with its New Zealand First allies, is trying to put in place something that is unnecessary.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001126\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022df788c48-b9be-42fd-b8f2-76629a5572b8\u0022\u003EIt had other choices, and Mr Brownlee has put those extremely well. There are a large number of New Zealand families who are not M\u0101ori and who have had long-established relationships with the coastline over many generations, but they will get no advantage from this bill. Yet surely they have established customary rights. The Government\u2019s answer will be that 1840 is a magical date, but what that does, in practice, is provide a benefit to M\u0101ori only. It has come up with this, in essence, fiction about the Auckland Anniversary Regatta, to justify that principle. That is what it is all about. It is a fiction to justify separatist and sectional law.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001127\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022df788c48-b9be-42fd-b8f2-76629a5572b8\u0022\u003EIf the Government were honest, it would provide a more realistic date that recognised the true history of our country. That date would, obviously, be quite a long time ago, because it is the nature of customary rights to be established by families over generations, but it would recognise the reality of this country. By and large, the modern country of New Zealand was settled by M\u0101ori prior to 1840, and by those from Britain post-1840, by and large, with the great core of that settlement occurring in the 19th century. That is the fundamental core of our nation. Those peoples have been added to in more recent times\u2014and, indeed, were added to in the 19th century\u2014by peoples from all over the world. For all I know, the Chinese community may well be able to establish customary rights in parts of Dunedin, for instance. We have to have a date that truly and realistically accommodates the breadth of New Zealanders, if these kinds of clauses are to have real life, force, and meaning.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001128\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022df788c48-b9be-42fd-b8f2-76629a5572b8\u0022\u003ESurely the Government, which says it wants to reach out to all New Zealanders and embrace them in some kind of inclusive law, should have a proposition that actually does that. This provision totally fails. When Mr Jones uses the example of the regatta, he actually brings these proposals into some kind of disrepute. He knows that it is not an issue. He knows that the Auckland Anniversary Regatta did not ask for it, because it did not need it. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022 data-id=\u0022051ba2d375d444299ce261068f76fdfe\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001129\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022051ba2d375d444299ce261068f76fdfe\u0022\u003EDAVID PARKER (Labour\u2014Otago):\u003C/span\u003E The debate on this part shows the arrant nonsense that the National Party has been speaking for weeks. Only last week, Mr Brownlee showed his misunderstanding of these issues by denying the need to deal with the High Court jurisdiction if we were dealing with the M\u0101ori Land Court jurisdiction. The National Party agrees that the foreshore and seabed should be Crown land. The National Party says it agrees that the jurisdiction of the M\u0101ori Land Court had to be truncated so that alienable title could not be created; freehold title could not be created and sold. It failed to realise, and fails even now to acknowledge, that closing that particular door and not dealing with the High Court jurisdiction would be to deal with only one side of a two-sided coin. The inherent jurisdiction of the High Court also includes the power to award, in some situations, alienable title, and to exclude the public from parts of customary title that could otherwise be granted by the High Court. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001130\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003E That also exposes the Greens\u2019 lack of logic. The Greens in their report back on the bill say that access to the foreshore and seabed should be provided for all people. The Green Party recommends that: \u201Cthere should be no saleable private and exclusive title granted over the foreshore and seabed to anyone, New Zealanders in general, tangata whenua, or overseas interests.\u201D Yet it opposes the limitation of the jurisdiction of the High Court. That is effected by clause 62C, which provides that the High Court cannot make customary rights orders that restrict access rights. If that provision was not in the legislation, the 80 or so applications presently before the M\u0101ori Land Court, covering just about the whole foreshore of New Zealand, would very quickly migrate to the High Court forum. That avenue would be open, that divisive issue would be out there for years to come, and it would not be fixed. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001131\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EOnly through addressing the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court as well as the jurisdiction of the M\u0101ori Land Court can this be fixed. The ignorance of the National Party was shown by Mr Brownlee during question time last week. Even after 19 months National does not understand that simple point. Mr Mapp has just shown his ignorance by saying that the defining date at which customary rights are assessed should be later than 1840, when the very basis of the court\u2019s common law jurisdiction to find customary rights relates to the date of the assumption of sovereignty by the Queen. That, again, shows how poor the National Party\u2019s understanding of these issues is, even after 19 months. If we deal only with the M\u0101ori Land Court, which National and the Greens say should be the case, but disregard the jurisdiction of the High Court, then we do not cure the underlying mischief, which is the risk of freehold title, alienable title, being sold off or created and used to prevent other people from getting access. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001132\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EI want to deal with one more point. The Greens say that Crown ownership does not protect the foreshore and seabed from being sold off and that there is some hidden agenda to sell off the foreshore. What arrant nonsense! Who owns New Zealand\u2019s national parks? The Crown owns them. Does anyone feel that the national parks are at risk of being flogged off? I certainly do not. The foreshore and seabed will be in exactly the same situation. Indeed, they will have even greater protection, because the provisions in this legislation say that they should be held for all the public and should be inalienable. This debate on Part 4 shows that the National Party does not understand the issue. This legislation is needed. Part 4 is as important as the limitations on the M\u0101ori Land Court jurisdiction, and it should be passed.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022cbb83aab-9566-44c4-9029-8bda4aaca7f2\u0022 data-id=\u0022eda58e5b6d7a41a6b41c264c3b2c44bb\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001133\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbb83aab-9566-44c4-9029-8bda4aaca7f2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022eda58e5b6d7a41a6b41c264c3b2c44bb\u0022\u003EPHIL HEATLEY (National\u2014Whangarei):\u003C/span\u003E I would like to put on record a thankyou from the National Party to the member from Otago. That is another thousand votes for Jackie Deans, to add to the thousand she got today door-knocking in Otago while the member spent 8 hours writing that 5-minute speech, so we thank the member for Otago.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001134\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbb83aab-9566-44c4-9029-8bda4aaca7f2\u0022\u003EPart 4, as the deputy leader of the National Party, Gerry Brownlee, said, is all about placating the white folks. I can tell the House what happened in relation to that. Part 3, which we debated earlier, deals with the customary rights orders the M\u0101ori Land Court gives to M\u0101ori when they come to that court, cap in hand. Part 4 is supposed to mirror that for the white folks, and to give the High Court a jurisdiction similar to that of the M\u0101ori Land Court in giving those customary rights orders.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001135\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbb83aab-9566-44c4-9029-8bda4aaca7f2\u0022\u003EI know what happened. There was a big stir in New Zealand because M\u0101ori were getting something for free\u2014arguably, something they were not entitled to\u2014in such a blanket way across the country, and the New Zealand public got quite upset. Dr Cullen went to see Winston Peters and said: \u201CWinston, with about 10 percent\u2014no, 7 percent; no, 5 percent\u2014of voters, you seem to cross the great divide. Granted, they are all over 67 but you have crossed the great divide between M\u0101ori and P\u0101keh\u0101. What shall we do to fix this?\u201D. In his wisdom Winston Peters said: \u201CDr Cullen, throw the white folks a bone.\u201D, and here we see it in Part 4.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001136\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbb83aab-9566-44c4-9029-8bda4aaca7f2\u0022\u003EI want to bring members\u2019 attention to clause 56A, because that clause gives a definition to the white folks they are throwing the bone to: \u201Cgroup of natural persons with a distinctive community of interest \u2026\u201D. That is who the group is. The definition goes on to state that the group does not include \u201Cpersons whose only connection to the group is as successors in title \u2026\u201D. In other words, succession through the family line is not included for the white folks. How can that be?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001137\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbb83aab-9566-44c4-9029-8bda4aaca7f2\u0022\u003EWhen it comes to M\u0101ori customary rights, an association with a coastal marae generally means a customary right through whakapapa and relationships. But a non-M\u0101ori with an ancestral line through succession, through relationships, is not included. In other words, if grandad owns a place by the beach and has had undisturbed customary use of that beach for a period of decades, his daughter is not included, his grandson is not included, and his grandson\u2019s daughter is not included. But for M\u0101ori, whakapapa is included for generations upon generations.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001138\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbb83aab-9566-44c4-9029-8bda4aaca7f2\u0022\u003EWhy is relationship succession, which generally leads to inherited title, and which is generally passed on through family lines, generation after generation, not included in clause 56A for white folks but is included for M\u0101ori? There is a huge distinction between Part 3, where the M\u0101ori Land Court grants customary rights, and Part 4, which we are debating, where the High Court gives much more limited customary rights for everyone else.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00226de7f1d9-7be9-468a-b27c-06000416b96a\u0022 data-id=\u0022069c3a0352d84369bd41e093ac90cab9\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001139\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226de7f1d9-7be9-468a-b27c-06000416b96a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022069c3a0352d84369bd41e093ac90cab9\u0022\u003EJOHN TAMIHERE (Labour\u2014Tamaki Makaurau):\u003C/span\u003E I rise to support Part 4 of the bill, and to make the following observations, particularly in light of some of the comments made by the member who just resumed his seat. The member reflected on clause 56A: \u201CIn this Part, group of natural persons with a distinctive community of interest and group does not include persons whose only connection to the group is as successors in title to any land.\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001140\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226de7f1d9-7be9-468a-b27c-06000416b96a\u0022\u003EHe went on to talk about \u201Cthe white folks\u201D; I am sure I heard that terminology. Does Pansy Wong have anything to say about what that member just said about her? Is she excluded? Are the Chinese populations that came to this country to mine in Otago and the South Island, and to work in this country, excluded just because they are in the National Party? Is that what that member said to Pansy Wong?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001141\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226de7f1d9-7be9-468a-b27c-06000416b96a\u0022\u003EI ask him about Georgina te Heuheu, who is another member of the National Party. Is she a white folk? Has she been classified in that regard by the member from the National Party who just resumed his seat? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001142\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226de7f1d9-7be9-468a-b27c-06000416b96a\u0022\u003EBut there is an even worse aspect. A \u201Ccommunity of interest\u201D is what the National Party used to be, but it is all over the place now. Those members are all rising to take a call in this debate. There is no discipline, no argument, and no substance\u2014it is outrageous!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001143\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226de7f1d9-7be9-468a-b27c-06000416b96a\u0022\u003EI rise to support this part, which is actually the New Zealand First part. It is the \u201CWe love all Kiwis\u201D part. It means that under this legislation there is one rule for all Kiwis\u2014for everyone. It is called the 1840 rule. If one cannot hit the 1840 rule, and if one cannot ensure succession and assignation through the 1840 rule, one gets nowt. It does not matter whether one is white folk, brown folk, yellow folk, or any folk. The reality is that under Part 4, by care of New Zealand First, 1840 is the deadline. It is the cut-off point.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001144\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226de7f1d9-7be9-468a-b27c-06000416b96a\u0022\u003EGerry Brownlee stands up in this Chamber as a fifth generation Kiwi and says: \u201COh, I don\u2019t make the cut because of the 1840 rule, and I don\u2019t like it.\u201D That is what Gerry Brownlee says. He says: \u201CI\u2019m a greedy little fellow and I want a part of the action.\u201D But New Zealand First says: \u201CSorry, Gerry. You haven\u2019t made the cut-off date.\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001145\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002270fa4cbd-9380-4916-9f2a-78da059d220e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228016da8cd439497ba1cab1f8c7b5d70a\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson)\u003C/span\u003E: The member\u2019s full name is to be used.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001146\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226de7f1d9-7be9-468a-b27c-06000416b96a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226ba7cac19c1345048343cc175e6ac028\u0022\u003EJOHN TAMIHERE\u003C/span\u003E: Of course. He is the honourable Gerry Brownlee, and Gerry Brownlee cannot make the cut-off date. Why? Because New Zealand First has said that 1840 is the date. If one does not make the date, it does not matter whether one is black, white, or brindled, or whether one is white folk or brown folk. If one does not make the cut-off, one does not make the cut-off.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001147\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226de7f1d9-7be9-468a-b27c-06000416b96a\u0022\u003EPart 4 is for all those folk over on the Opposition benches, and for most of my colleagues on the Government benches, and I say that that is great. I say that it is one rule for everyone.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001148\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226de7f1d9-7be9-468a-b27c-06000416b96a\u0022\u003EI have to acknowledge Dail Jones and his colleagues from New Zealand First. There are six M\u0101oris in New Zealand First and they have all lined up and accepted it. We M\u0101oris are real M\u0101oris, too. [Interruption] Yes, that is right. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001149\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f210b607ac694c18b47021becfd1f47e\u0022\u003EOpposition Member\u003C/span\u003E: We will watch them.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001150\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226de7f1d9-7be9-468a-b27c-06000416b96a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224faf08ca29c940b280da7c35fdc66c7b\u0022\u003EJOHN TAMIHERE\u003C/span\u003E: There are a few of them around, even though Georgina te Heuheu has been made an honorary white folk by the member for Whangarei\u2014but he is good at handing out honorary titles and degrees. I came down to the Committee today to honour and accept the New Zealand First position, even if for no other fact than they have thirteen votes\u2014and we need them!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001151\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226de7f1d9-7be9-468a-b27c-06000416b96a\u0022\u003EHowever, putting that to one side, I acknowledge that we now have those rights, and as we move forward as a disciplined, wonderful nation, forging ourselves together with great tolerance and respect towards one another, I say to Mr Brownlee that this is the \u201CSave Gerry Brownlee\u201D provision. The reality is that Mr Gerry Brownlee cannot make the 1840 rule\u2014[Interruption] Well, he should not sit here with a vested interest in an attempt to blackguard everybody else and the justifiable rights that have been expressed in this document within this particular legislation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001152\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226de7f1d9-7be9-468a-b27c-06000416b96a\u0022\u003EI put it to members of the Opposition that the safeguard is here as one rule for all people. There is no doubt about that\u2014absolutely no doubt about that\u2014but we all have to hit the 1840 rule. If one cannot hit that 1840 rule, it will not matter whether one has five generations of succession. Now, Gerry Brownlee is getting very upset. We can save the whale and save Gerry Brownlee, but this bill does not do that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001153\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226de7f1d9-7be9-468a-b27c-06000416b96a\u0022\u003EI also wanted to indicate a couple of other matters that are very important to do with the jurisdiction of the whole bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022 data-id=\u0022c5a0e3bebad343f59cfe78981df03de5\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001154\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c5a0e3bebad343f59cfe78981df03de5\u0022\u003EGERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader\u2014National):\u003C/span\u003E I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. No, there is no point of order. The member is running out of steam and I thought that I would give him a break.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001155\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002270fa4cbd-9380-4916-9f2a-78da059d220e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f54c4c6d018545b88330fe6cc9f98b49\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson)\u003C/span\u003E: That is not a point of order.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bb158206-360b-4757-8d72-f7d0994e1fb3\u0022 data-id=\u0022f3874d5e8869478981c49072b21cc36c\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001156\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bb158206-360b-4757-8d72-f7d0994e1fb3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022f3874d5e8869478981c49072b21cc36c\u0022\u003EHon BILL ENGLISH (National\u2014Clutha-Southland):\u003C/span\u003E This is easily the most cynical part of this legislation, and the fact that we are debating it does an injustice to this Committee. This whole business of the foreshore and seabed is being taken seriously by everybody in New Zealand who knows that it is going on. Fifteen thousand M\u0101ori appeared on the front lawn of Parliament because they took the issue so seriously. But in Part 4 there is the ultimate expression of political cynicism, in a deal that has been cooked up between Dr Cullen and Mr Peters. This part is no more than playground politics. We all know that, as we sit here in the Chamber and read through it in order to try to understand why there is a jurisdiction of the High Court in respect of customary rights, and when members have just finished the debate about the jurisdiction of the M\u0101ori Land Court. It is for the very simple reason that our favourite political show pony, Mr Peters, will be able to stand up in front of his Grey Power audiences and say: \u201COne law for all.\u201D That is the only reason for this part. There is no other reason. As the ACT MP Mr Prebble pointed out, the Auckland regatta does not need this part; it never has needed it, and it never will need it. Dr Cullen put this part in as a show of the desperation that the Government had about getting the numbers for this legislation, did he not? He must have been really pushed if he had to introduce a whole new jurisdiction that, to all intents and purposes, will never be used. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001157\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bb158206-360b-4757-8d72-f7d0994e1fb3\u0022\u003EI did, though, wonder about one opportunity to use it with regard to sites of significance. There are any number of burial places around New Zealand that have been used consistently by communities since 1840. I would be interested in whether the Minister in the chair, Dr Michael Cullen, can tell us whether, for the purpose of protecting such a site, a community could go to the High Court for a customary rights order equivalent to what would apply to w\u0101hi tapu. My guess is that one can do that, so that is one way in which the part could possibly be used. However, we are casting around and trying to find ways to use this part to do things that we have always done without any question over their legality or probity. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001158\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bb158206-360b-4757-8d72-f7d0994e1fb3\u0022\u003EThere is another aspect of this part that I think is worth commenting on. The clauses in this part outline the conditions under which a customary rights order may be issued. As I looked through and checked it out, I found that they match pretty much the clauses under the M\u0101ori Land Court jurisdiction and that the hurdles in the part are fairly high. In order to get one of those orders, one has to demonstrate continuous activity, and that will be difficult. When I listened to Mr John Tamihere\u2019s jocular explanation of the whole thing, I wondered whether he was underestimating the seriousness of his position, because there is absolutely no doubt that the M\u0101ori MPs in Labour have utterly failed to meet the expectations of the 15,000 people who turned up at the h\u012Bkoi. I do not think that there is any doubt about that. As I read through this part, it struck me pretty forcefully that that is the reason Dr Cullen did the deal. He wants Winston Peters, as well as John Tamihere, to go out there and sell this legislation,. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001159\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bb158206-360b-4757-8d72-f7d0994e1fb3\u0022\u003EThere is no doubt that Labour let the genie out of the bottle over M\u0101ori expectations on ancestral connection. Those expectations have been running wild for the last 6 or 9 months among M\u0101oridom, and the Labour M\u0101ori MPs have delivered nothing like the expectations of their supporters. That is why Tariana Turia does not have to take a call tonight. She knows that she is winning huge ground over this legislation. [Interruption] That member should know, if he did not know this already, that he is losing huge amounts of ground over it. I challenge the M\u0101ori MPs to get up in the Chamber and say the same things that they said in front of the h\u012Bkoi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022605133aa-6c88-4150-82dd-7d9fcf1824b4\u0022 data-id=\u002227852a585044482b96b16b9df237bac5\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001160\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022605133aa-6c88-4150-82dd-7d9fcf1824b4\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002227852a585044482b96b16b9df237bac5\u0022\u003EHon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister for Social Development and Employment):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That the question be now put.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022d21515bb-0193-4167-a21d-982058b53604\u0022 data-id=\u002234080187ea5744a4a3a6b264a386fcad\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001161\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d21515bb-0193-4167-a21d-982058b53604\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002234080187ea5744a4a3a6b264a386fcad\u0022\u003ERICHARD WORTH (National\u2014Epsom): \u003C/span\u003EThis legislation must surely be politically correct madness. Part 4 is all about that. I guess it is a pathway, one might unkindly say, for \u201Cwhite honkies\u201D. I listened to what the honourable John Tamihere said when he seriously suggested that different ethnic groups may take advantage of Part 4, and I thought he must be dreaming. We did not have Chinese settlement in New Zealand until 1860. The only possible ethnic groups that may be considered as coming under this umbrella are M\u0101ori and, I guess we would say, European or Caucasian interests. It seems to me that this debate is rapidly developing into a farce. It is a farce created by the Government, driven by political correctness and an apparent desire for all New Zealanders to be seen to be equal, when the reality of that desire is wholly illusory. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001162\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d21515bb-0193-4167-a21d-982058b53604\u0022\u003EWhat is implicit in Part 4 is that a concurrent jurisdiction is given to the High Court to make customary rights orders under Part 4, and that is underscored by provisions in the part. It is a jurisdiction that is shared with the M\u0101ori Land Court. Under Part 3 it is quite clear, by dint of clause 60, that the M\u0101ori Land Court is to have primacy in determining issues of customary rights. I just note that there are subtle wording differences between Part 3 and Part 4. That will, in the result, doubtless cause confusion and assertions of injustice and inequality of treatment. That could all have been avoided. Did the Government seek to do that? No! Why not? Maybe it was pressure of time; maybe it was just simple ineptitude. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001163\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d21515bb-0193-4167-a21d-982058b53604\u0022\u003EI would like to draw two points to members\u2019 attention, before I make the substantive point that I seek to make. The first concerns clause 62(1). Under the heading \u201CEffects of customary rights order\u201D, that clause makes the point that a customary rights order may entitle a group on whose behalf the order is made to derive a commercial benefit from carrying out a recognised customary activity. It was never intended in the context of the common law that customary rights should be exploited for commercial gain. The same provision occurs, of course, in Part 3. It shows a misunderstanding of what the whole concept of customary rights was about, is about, and will be about. The second point I note is that, in a fit of generosity or perhaps foolishness, under clause 58 we all have until 31 December 2015\u2014yes, 10 years\u2014to make application to the High Court for one of those orders. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001164\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d21515bb-0193-4167-a21d-982058b53604\u0022\u003EI have said that there is an air of unreality about this part. In fact, there is an air of unreality about the bill. It overlooks the simple fact that in the New Zealand community today M\u0101ori and non-M\u0101ori have substantially intermingled. The legislation assumes that M\u0101ori tribal groupings are substantially untouched by civilisation. It is a throwback to the idea of the \u201Cnoble savage\u201D\u2014the romantic iwi groupings on the coast, and the idea of flesh pots and cooking pots. That is absolutely ridiculous, because M\u0101ori and non-M\u0101ori have moved on from that. Let us just say we have a New Zealand community. [Interruption] I would just like to say to the members who are shouting across the Chamber the stupid comments that they are so inclined make that it is appropriate in the context of this bill\u2014if for just a moment they would listen\u2014to reflect on the whole issue of what it means to be a M\u0101ori in 2004 and what it means to be a non-M\u0101ori. Mr Maharey, even with the flights of imagination that he is given to, could not cross that intellectual gap, but some members may be able to. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00221fb8d8db-3e96-49c7-ab1c-b7916a50e30e\u0022 data-id=\u002293f156d8bad94a2e82a575fe8746cabd\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001165\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221fb8d8db-3e96-49c7-ab1c-b7916a50e30e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002293f156d8bad94a2e82a575fe8746cabd\u0022\u003ESTEVE CHADWICK (Labour\u2014Rotorua):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That the question be now put.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bc1e9f65-e08b-4939-867c-22ef093e2a4e\u0022 data-id=\u0022d02ce3ac858f460ea436b65177255f65\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001166\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bc1e9f65-e08b-4939-867c-22ef093e2a4e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d02ce3ac858f460ea436b65177255f65\u0022\u003ERODNEY HIDE (Leader\u2014ACT):\u003C/span\u003E We are debating Part 4, and in particular the Winston Peters clause. I ask the Minister in the chair, Dr Michael Cullen, to name just one activity\u2014he is yawning because he cannot\u2014that this clause will apply to. Can he call one out? Can anyone hear the Minister calling out one activity that will be protected by Part 4? Not one! This is the most useless legislation that we have seen in this Parliament for years and years. We hear Mahara Okeroa calling out. This just shows a Government\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001167\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002270fa4cbd-9380-4916-9f2a-78da059d220e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a048c43dc4f14fca8f56649fa4c664d2\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson)\u003C/span\u003E: I am sorry to interrupt the member. I know it is a robust debate, and I enjoy passionate and vigorous debate. But I have to say to members on my right that I have difficulty in hearing even Mr Hide. I caution the members now: whakarongo; turituri.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001168\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bc1e9f65-e08b-4939-867c-22ef093e2a4e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f9a151a70a7540a7993f8c11ff3f0a1c\u0022\u003ERODNEY HIDE\u003C/span\u003E: What is clear is that the Government wants the legislation to go through Parliament as quickly as possible. Why? Because the Government is embarrassed by it, and even when Opposition members get up to speak about it, Government members try to drown us out. They do not want New Zealanders to know the truth. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001169\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bc1e9f65-e08b-4939-867c-22ef093e2a4e\u0022\u003EPart 4 achieves nothing. It is race-based legislation on speed\u2014that is what we have. Michael Cullen looks confused\u2014and well he may be. How do M\u0101ori go about getting their customary rights orders? How do they do it? They go off to the M\u0101ori Land Court, and they get\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001170\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002287e4092089134b368377addc6a1cfa84\u0022\u003EDail Jones\u003C/span\u003E: They can use this process.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001171\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bc1e9f65-e08b-4939-867c-22ef093e2a4e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221beab155df4a4067a322b9704b9900c3\u0022\u003ERODNEY HIDE\u003C/span\u003E: Well, why would they use this process and not the other one? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001172\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c44a6f5dd25549089ffa47ef3b1ff7f9\u0022\u003EDail Jones\u003C/span\u003E: Why not?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001173\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bc1e9f65-e08b-4939-867c-22ef093e2a4e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224c4a49fa87e04dcfa558db7dbc016b67\u0022\u003ERODNEY HIDE\u003C/span\u003E: The point is that M\u0101ori were here before 1840. I know that Mr Jones is a recent immigrant and that he is embarrassed about that fact, being a New Zealand First member. M\u0101ori were here before 1840, and they can use the other process. What advantage does that give them? That gives them the M\u0101ori Land Court. Let us remember that this Government did not trust the M\u0101ori Land Court to deal with the original case. The Government did not trust it, nor did Parekura Horomia and John Tamihere. So the M\u0101ori Land Court will decide M\u0101ori claims for customary rights, but everyone else will go to the High Court. Here is another difference: M\u0101ori can claim spiritual connection\u2014tikanga M\u0101ori. I ask Mr Jones where that is for everyone else. Where is the spiritual connection in this part? [Interruption] Oh, it does not have one. That is the point. We have legislation that in the other part deals with spiritual connection, but in this part does not. Why? Because there are two separate processes in here: one for M\u0101ori, and one for non-M\u0101ori. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001174\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bc1e9f65-e08b-4939-867c-22ef093e2a4e\u0022\u003EThe solution was quite simple. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001175\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d52e59e3-2195-4c95-a654-665c11b39b63\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226d9aa568c923433ba36ee741c3037228\u0022\u003EHon Parekura Horomia\u003C/span\u003E: Merry Christmas.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001176\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bc1e9f65-e08b-4939-867c-22ef093e2a4e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f0b3a3f76d7445ca9611ae97ddf3b8c3\u0022\u003ERODNEY HIDE\u003C/span\u003E: Well, even Parekura Horomia has woken up. That is a first. It is past his bedtime, and Parekura Horomia is awake. He normally nods off at question time, and does not come round until lunchtime the following day. We should do the obvious thing, and let M\u0101ori simply have their day in court. I ask Mr Horomia and Mr Tamihere what was wrong with that. What is wrong with letting M\u0101ori have their day in court? Then Mr Horomia could say that everyone is equal before the law, because M\u0101ori and non-M\u0101ori could go to court and have that tested. [Interruption] Parekura Horomia, the Minister of M\u0101ori Affairs, is calling out that M\u0101ori should not be able to have their day in court. That is why that Minister will be toast at the next election. He is voting tonight for two laws for New Zealanders, one for M\u0101ori and one for non-M\u0101ori, and he is saying to M\u0101ori that they cannot have their day in court. That is what Mr Horomia is saying. He is saying that M\u0101ori cannot have their day in court. They are second-rate citizens\u2014[Interruption] Parekura Horomia says we should read Hansard.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001177\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bc1e9f65-e08b-4939-867c-22ef093e2a4e\u0022\u003ETariana Turia says I am right. I may check my assumptions, but I think she is right about that. [Interruption] \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002270fa4cbd-9380-4916-9f2a-78da059d220e\u0022 data-id=\u00221d433f34956145ed894b23efce7829ef\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001178\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002270fa4cbd-9380-4916-9f2a-78da059d220e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00221d433f34956145ed894b23efce7829ef\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson)\u003C/span\u003E: Members should take a big, deep breath, and then breathe through their noses.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022 data-id=\u0022d468d7e1c95741a8a94a04233c8de9c4\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001179\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d468d7e1c95741a8a94a04233c8de9c4\u0022\u003ERt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader\u2014NZ First):\u003C/span\u003E I seek leave for Rodney Hide to have an extension of time of another 5 minutes, on the basis that New Zealanders love a joke.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002270fa4cbd-9380-4916-9f2a-78da059d220e\u0022 data-id=\u0022dbb5c44b9d9f45e1bb1ffa3a2083a9a8\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001180\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002270fa4cbd-9380-4916-9f2a-78da059d220e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022dbb5c44b9d9f45e1bb1ffa3a2083a9a8\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson)\u003C/span\u003E: No, the member knows\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001181\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022343a525930544de58f1d22c367200786\u0022\u003ERt Hon WINSTON PETERS\u003C/span\u003E: I am seeking leave.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002270fa4cbd-9380-4916-9f2a-78da059d220e\u0022 data-id=\u0022875182b1981b4f018511be4c780ae8a4\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001182\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002270fa4cbd-9380-4916-9f2a-78da059d220e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022875182b1981b4f018511be4c780ae8a4\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson)\u003C/span\u003E: The member cannot seek leave on behalf of someone else.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bc1e9f65-e08b-4939-867c-22ef093e2a4e\u0022 data-id=\u0022f83eafbec9034cb7bc43a078a8c8276b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001183\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bc1e9f65-e08b-4939-867c-22ef093e2a4e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022f83eafbec9034cb7bc43a078a8c8276b\u0022\u003ERODNEY HIDE (Leader\u2014ACT):\u003C/span\u003E On the basis of Mr Peters\u2019 kind invitation, I seek leave for another 5-minute call.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002270fa4cbd-9380-4916-9f2a-78da059d220e\u0022 data-id=\u002226bde9618a9b48d2a221223c17c5d5e5\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001184\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002270fa4cbd-9380-4916-9f2a-78da059d220e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002226bde9618a9b48d2a221223c17c5d5e5\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson)\u003C/span\u003E: The Committee is the master of its own destiny. Is there any objection? There is objection. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022 data-id=\u0022fcd6a41cdf8a4fdbb934f520d48f1226\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001185\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022fcd6a41cdf8a4fdbb934f520d48f1226\u0022\u003EGERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader\u2014National):\u003C/span\u003E I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. You have just asked members to calm down and take a deep breath. All that members are doing\u2014and there are considerable numbers of them\u2014is trying to get a call. They sense that the Government, eager to get off this very embarrassing part, is about to start bombarding the Committee with closure motions, and that at some point, no doubt, you will refer to a bit of paper, see that the clock has reached a particular point, and accept a closure motion. That is just not fair.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002270fa4cbd-9380-4916-9f2a-78da059d220e\u0022 data-id=\u002221c8eac2b0f3407da4109a45ab3ebb87\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001186\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002270fa4cbd-9380-4916-9f2a-78da059d220e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002221c8eac2b0f3407da4109a45ab3ebb87\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson)\u003C/span\u003E: Mr Brownlee has made his point. The Chairperson is the sole judge as to whether the closure will be taken, as per Speakers\u2019 ruling 58/8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022 data-id=\u0022ff9cc74e8fd7485292f14071e905d0f5\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001187\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022ff9cc74e8fd7485292f14071e905d0f5\u0022\u003EGERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader\u2014National):\u003C/span\u003E I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002270fa4cbd-9380-4916-9f2a-78da059d220e\u0022 data-id=\u0022e93a80a4f2124a409352f1b886ad6dcf\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001188\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002270fa4cbd-9380-4916-9f2a-78da059d220e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022e93a80a4f2124a409352f1b886ad6dcf\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson)\u003C/span\u003E: I have already ruled. It had better be something new.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001189\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002269f6a92279824fe3982d3dd48d3df692\u0022\u003EGERRY BROWNLEE\u003C/span\u003E: It is. I just want to let you know that while we accept\u2014[Interruption] \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002270fa4cbd-9380-4916-9f2a-78da059d220e\u0022 data-id=\u0022bc207e10f58549b988ff196816014665\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001190\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002270fa4cbd-9380-4916-9f2a-78da059d220e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022bc207e10f58549b988ff196816014665\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson)\u003C/span\u003E: Points of order are to be heard in silence. I now ask the member, who is a longstanding member, to withdraw and apologise\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001191\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b21d5240808344faa362a5ca9435c224\u0022\u003ERt Hon Winston Peters\u003C/span\u003E: I withdraw and apologise for that outrageous comment.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001192\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d1c9a1fc642e44e796235636f300d882\u0022\u003EGERRY BROWNLEE\u003C/span\u003E: If anyone wanted to have proof that there are two standards of citizenship in this country, I am a living example of that. What I want to say to you is this. [Interruption] \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002270fa4cbd-9380-4916-9f2a-78da059d220e\u0022 data-id=\u00225e04e27334c744adbafb0649e66e30d9\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001193\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002270fa4cbd-9380-4916-9f2a-78da059d220e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00225e04e27334c744adbafb0649e66e30d9\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson)\u003C/span\u003E: The member over there will take down the visual aid. That is outside the Standing Orders. The member will remove it. He has his first yellow card. He knows what that means.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001194\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220e2b59bf0c904a8b9d0b0c105b66150e\u0022\u003EGERRY BROWNLEE\u003C/span\u003E: I am on a point of order. It happens to be an Opposition point of order, so the rules change. We noticed that the last time the closure was taken the Government whip, Mr Hughes, got himself in quite a flap. He was running around the Chamber, saying that we had spent 2 hours on a part and that it was time we shut it down. We noticed that immediately after that, the debate ceased. That worries us, because this, as has been pointed out numerous times, is a very complex bill. The substantial Supplementary Order Paper, which is effectively an amendment bill and will soon be titled as such, was seen by us for the first time yesterday. It deserves a little more scrutiny than is usually the case.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002270fa4cbd-9380-4916-9f2a-78da059d220e\u0022 data-id=\u002275f7962472564141a3ac5ee4eb023858\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001195\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002270fa4cbd-9380-4916-9f2a-78da059d220e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002275f7962472564141a3ac5ee4eb023858\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson)\u003C/span\u003E: I thank the member. I understand the point that is being made. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022 data-id=\u002255cd5bdd9723402aaf38ab4fdf411234\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001196\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002255cd5bdd9723402aaf38ab4fdf411234\u0022\u003EHon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House):\u003C/span\u003E I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I suggest that we are starting to get back to a habit we had for some time previously in this Parliament, when continual points of order were taken by members of the National Party to try to influence you on the issue of the acceptance or otherwise of a closure motion. The Speakers\u2019 rulings on that are very clear, and had to be re-emphasised at one point in the past in order to cease that practice. Mr Brownlee is clearly now beginning to re-enter that practice. He knows very well the indications given at the Business Committee yesterday. So far today, in nearly 11 hours of debate, we have completed only three questions, which is an unusually long debate by the standards of the Committee. I do not make that point in order to try to influence you at all. I merely say that you make the final decision, and there is no question that your decision, in my view, is one that sometimes upsets members on the Government side of the Chamber, as well as on the Opposition side. That is the nature of being a referee in this place.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002270fa4cbd-9380-4916-9f2a-78da059d220e\u0022 data-id=\u00229982f9de1dcb4c238b8954eae8094eed\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001197\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002270fa4cbd-9380-4916-9f2a-78da059d220e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00229982f9de1dcb4c238b8954eae8094eed\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you. I have heard what the member said.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022471dee54-f59e-4497-b3d3-c39044ce7169\u0022 data-id=\u00227b1f0b554801457f9f4f84ec94c3be8c\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001198\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022471dee54-f59e-4497-b3d3-c39044ce7169\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00227b1f0b554801457f9f4f84ec94c3be8c\u0022\u003EHon DAMIEN O\u0027CONNOR (Minister for Racing):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That the question be now put.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022 data-id=\u00221881a6d2bc5c4a4aa900c113b0f84e67\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001199\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00221881a6d2bc5c4a4aa900c113b0f84e67\u0022\u003EMETIRIA TUREI (Green):\u003C/span\u003E I urge the Committee to support the Green Party\u2019s amendments to Part 4. A number of the Opposition parties have joined the Greens in criticising it for being unnecessary, a smokescreen, raising expectations on the part of the community that will not be able to be met, and, in effect, a fallacy. I hope those other parties will support the amendments of the Green Party to delete the provisions in Part 4 from the bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001200\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003EIn an earlier call I raised the issue of the white crosses on the highways, which have recently come into the news because of Transit New Zealand wanting to take them down. Of course, the Greens joined the community in expressing outrage about that, because we recognise the significance of those crosses. We understand why it is important for people to have a physical manifestation to remind them of what happened in those places; we understand that those manifestations\u2014those crosses\u2014are an emotional and spiritual expression of what happened there. They are significant to the community. The practice of placing crosses on the highway has become common in the whole of our country, by the whole of our community. That common practice needs to be acknowledged and protected, and there need to be ways of making sure that the needs of the people are protected in some form. It needs to be recognised that those crosses on the highway form an important community function in terms of safety, in terms of reminding us, as we drive around, that lives are put at risk. That is extremely important.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001201\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003EIf New Zealand First\u2019s clauses made a difference to those white crosses\u2014if they protected them\u2014then this part might be useful. But there is no way that Part 4 will protect those white crosses, because unless something has been a common practice since 1840 it has no protection under the bill. Part 4 provides nothing for the community, because Dail Jones has the very strange idea that the best way to protect the values that people place on things like those white crosses is to apply some strange, blanket rule across everything. He thinks that everything will then fall into its place and be protected equally.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001202\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003EHe has failed to come up with any examples other than the Auckland regatta. Even in the select committee, when he and the officials were asked for other examples he was never able to come up with a single other example of what these clauses would protect, yet on something as significant, as valued, as spiritual, and as emotional as the white crosses, Dail Jones\u2019 amendments fail. They fail the community. They raise expectations that things like that will be protected, but we know that, in fact, they will not be. So these clauses are a fallacy. They are deceptive. They distort the beliefs, the understandings, and the values that are held by our community. They raise expectations; the community thinks its values will be protected, but they will not be. They are absolutely unnecessary.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001203\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003ESome of us here who try to be good lawmakers take the point of view that we are in a privileged position here in this House, and that we are required, as part of our service to the community, to make sure that when we enact law it is good law, it has a good effect for the people of our communities, and it makes a positive contribution to their lives. None of us should be supporting this ridiculous part. It is just one of a number of fallacies in the bill, but none of us should support it. It is not good law. Even Labour members, including Russell Fairbrother, have made it very clear that Labour acknowledges that it has no use whatsoever. It is so simplistic that it will have no effect whatsoever, anyway. I guess, in part, that is why those members do not mind putting it in the bill\u2014because it has no effect. But this is law, and one does not mess around with it. It is a privilege to be in this House. We need to make sure that what we pass here is good law, that it does protect our citizens, and that it does provide them with some positive outcomes. Yet here we are debating a whole part of a bill that is meaningless.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002272e48ab0-e7ae-427f-bedc-793b7a91adba\u0022 data-id=\u00220ab0c7b15eea48c2bc153160f875cb74\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001204\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002272e48ab0-e7ae-427f-bedc-793b7a91adba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00220ab0c7b15eea48c2bc153160f875cb74\u0022\u003EHon MARK BURTON (Minister of Defence):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That the question be now put.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220bd5aa67-2f2b-4a13-a2b4-21a392396f11\u0022 data-id=\u0022c3490b8a4af14e0eaf30d7cbab62da8f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001205\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220bd5aa67-2f2b-4a13-a2b4-21a392396f11\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c3490b8a4af14e0eaf30d7cbab62da8f\u0022\u003EHon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National):\u003C/span\u003E I am very grateful for the opportunity to take a call, because I want to say I am very pleased to see people sitting in the gallery, and they ought to know and be aware that this part purportedly gives all other New Zealanders\u2014who perhaps have not had the opportunity under previous parts\u2014the opportunity to apply to the High Court for various orders. But, as previous speakers have said, it is a sham.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001206\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220bd5aa67-2f2b-4a13-a2b4-21a392396f11\u0022\u003EI would like to ask the Minister in the chair, first of all, what a natural person is. Is that meant to distinguish people who are unnatural? Is it some cunning attempt to bar or block out, say, my colleague Maurice Williamson? Because I really take umbrage at that. I have not been present in the Chamber the whole of the evening, but if the Minister has not explained the meaning of a natural person as opposed to an unnatural one, then I think he should. If one is a person, surely one is a natural person, and, presumably, one has the right to apply for these customary orders. But to whom, and in what circumstances, does this provision apply? I do not think anybody\u2014certainly not anybody on this side of the Chamber, and I do not think anybody on the other side of the Chamber, either\u2014actually understands whom it applies to, and in what circumstances. I think John Tamihere implied that I can apply under this part. Well, thank you very much, but why would I go to the court, expend precious money, then spend more money giving public notice of my application to do something that I probably could do anyway, and that probably most New Zealanders could do? It is just a sop. It is a sham.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001207\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220bd5aa67-2f2b-4a13-a2b4-21a392396f11\u0022\u003EIn contrast to others who say that this part is a Winston Peters\u2019 part, I say that in reality the whole bill is a Winston Peters\u2019 bill, because without him that side could not put it into effect. It is no credit to him or his band of 13 happy people, I might say. But the whole thing is so that Winston Peters can go up and down the country saying to M\u0101ori: \u201CYour mana is protected.\u201D, and saying to all other people: \u201CYour mana is protected, too.\u201D It is meant to be protected in this part. How can that be? This part is absolutely complex. Nobody knows whom it is meant to apply to, and in what circumstances. The Minister will not tell us. He should at least take notice of the fact that there are people sitting in the gallery who have a right to know whether they can go to the court and have their customary practices recognised. The Minister is nodding to the group sitting up in the centre of the gallery, but, despite his having given them a sign, I do not know whether those people are any the wiser.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001208\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002270fa4cbd-9380-4916-9f2a-78da059d220e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002230f8d998913747eeb74c2737c35b405c\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson)\u003C/span\u003E: The debate is inside the Chamber.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001209\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220bd5aa67-2f2b-4a13-a2b4-21a392396f11\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002206ee6111239441019d9b24302c9b82d5\u0022\u003EHon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU\u003C/span\u003E: I am speaking on this part of the bill, Mr Chairperson. What activity might those fine gentlemen sitting up there\u2014those great New Zealanders\u2014apply to the court for recognition of, and why would they bother?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002270fa4cbd-9380-4916-9f2a-78da059d220e\u0022 data-id=\u0022c382f64bc94049599817309d85af9868\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001210\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002270fa4cbd-9380-4916-9f2a-78da059d220e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c382f64bc94049599817309d85af9868\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson)\u003C/span\u003E: The member must address the Chamber.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001211\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220bd5aa67-2f2b-4a13-a2b4-21a392396f11\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002281b0e7fe38e64899a2a53c135a9aaeff\u0022\u003EHon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU\u003C/span\u003E: And at what cost are they meant to do that? This is a cynical provision from this Government to allow Winston Peters to go up and down the country saying: \u201CThere is one law for all. We are all equal. Here you are, M\u0101ori; you can apply under these parts. Here you are, all the rest of you, you go under these parts.\u201D I think that, in any event, no matter what John Tamihere says, the limitations clause in this part probably blocks M\u0101ori out anyway. I cannot imagine the Government would give them two bites out of the cherry, no matter what my colleagues might say.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002275a05f96-2474-4c90-a6ea-cf7b5798e03e\u0022 data-id=\u0022dcc318ec944744a2842d6017f72ec668\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001212\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002275a05f96-2474-4c90-a6ea-cf7b5798e03e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022dcc318ec944744a2842d6017f72ec668\u0022\u003EHon RUTH DYSON (Minister for ACC):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That the question be now put.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u00223723c347a14943868b90194f69299d78\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the question be now put.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 66\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 54\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 27; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; M\u0101ori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001213\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the following amendment in the name of Metiria Turei to clause 57 be agreed to:\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001214\u0022\u003Eto omit subclause (1).\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u002266d70a90db564bb09f5c2aae65693d8e\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 11\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EGreen Party 9; M\u0101ori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 109\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001215\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the following amendment in the name of Metiria Turei to clause 65 be agreed to:\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001216\u0022\u003Eto omit this clause.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022b603e5d80b49453f86baeb678eb6633b\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 11\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EGreen Party 9; M\u0101ori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 109\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001217\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the following amendment in the name of Metiria Turei to clause 67 be agreed to:\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001218\u0022\u003Eto omit paragraphs (b), (c), and (d).\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022d689a85b419946b18fc95df243fd2fee\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 11\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EGreen Party 9; M\u0101ori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 109\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001219\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the following amendment in the name of Metiria Turei to clause 71 be agreed to:\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001220\u0022\u003Eto omit subclauses (1) and (2).\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022645e932790c742ef8eb8b4470a949393\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 10\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EGreen Party 9; M\u0101ori Party 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 110\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Independent: Awatere Huata.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001221\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the following amendment in the name of Metiria Turei to proposed new clause 58 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 302 in the name of the Hon Dr Michael Cullen be agreed to:\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001222\u0022\u003Eto omit this clause.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u002258ad22d89e554e67b2ce8fb3bbda9375\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 10\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EGreen Party 9; M\u0101ori Party 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 110\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Independent: Awatere Huata.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment to the amendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001223\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the following amendment in the name of Metiria Turei to proposed new clause 60 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 302 in the name of the Hon Dr Michael Cullen be agreed to:\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001224\u0022\u003Eto omit this clause.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022ef4c450906fa4f50b77edf39917dbdba\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 10\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EGreen Party 9; M\u0101ori Party 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 110\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Independent: Awatere Huata.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment to the amendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022 data-id=\u002204997f90b1934214b035d15eae1911a1\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001225\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002204997f90b1934214b035d15eae1911a1\u0022\u003EGERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader\u2014National):\u003C/span\u003E I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. It is relevant to the vote. Can you just clarify for us this relatively minor point, perhaps, as far as the results are concerned. With regard to the Progressives, I thought the Progressive Party had to have one member in the Chamber in order for its vote to be cast.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001226\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e491d95bb7564dd49094b555f42bca69\u0022\u003EHon Dr Michael Cullen\u003C/span\u003E: In the precincts.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001227\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d48f799b751d4e3fa3271c07e37fbb45\u0022\u003EGERRY BROWNLEE\u003C/span\u003E: Precincts of Parliament. Well, that does immediately present a little bit of a problem, I might say, given our intelligence on this particular issue, and it is not one, perhaps, that we want to be pushed too far. I know that the matter was brought to the Business Committee. However, I do recall that our view was that if the Progressives wanted to cast its two votes it had to have one member here\u2014certainly, in the precincts of Parliament, and we do not have a problem with that. Perhaps the whip casting the vote could stand on the floor of the House and give us that assurance.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001228\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002270fa4cbd-9380-4916-9f2a-78da059d220e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222dbd079830964b24a825cf2a15c9830f\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson)\u003C/span\u003E: All I can say to that is that all members are honourable members.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022 data-id=\u0022d37ffdd069a447b3b276cd938aff31ea\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001229\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d37ffdd069a447b3b276cd938aff31ea\u0022\u003EHon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House):\u003C/span\u003E I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. It has been ruled on a number of occasions by previous Speakers and Chairs that the integrity of the voting cannot be questioned in the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001230\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002270fa4cbd-9380-4916-9f2a-78da059d220e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b5617b5ffdd04ebfa3d4a5dfce27eb61\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson)\u003C/span\u003E: Can I just say that all members are honourable members. Their word is their bond, and if it is found to be otherwise, they will suffer the consequences.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001231\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002270fa4cbd-9380-4916-9f2a-78da059d220e\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the following amendment in the name of Metiria Turei to proposed new clause 61 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 302 in the name of the Hon Dr Michael Cullen be agreed to:\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001232\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002270fa4cbd-9380-4916-9f2a-78da059d220e\u0022\u003Eto omit this clause.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u00226d877e5f444541738e137e1301b68ed2\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 11\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EGreen Party 9; M\u0101ori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 109\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment to the amendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001233\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the following amendment in the name of Metiria Turei to proposed new clause 62 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 302 in the name of the Hon Dr Michael Cullen be agreed to:\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001234\u0022\u003Eto omit this clause.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u002280dd494842f1482ab98ba9e6cb29176e\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 11\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EGreen Party 9; M\u0101ori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 109\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment to the amendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001235\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the following amendment in the name of Metiria Turei to the amendment to clause 66 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 302 in the name of the Hon Dr Michael Cullen be agreed to:\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001236\u0022\u003Eto omit subclause (1).\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u00220b488ec59b014004bc778e8e09ef28af\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 11\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EGreen Party 9; M\u0101ori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 109\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment to the amendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001237\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the following amendment in the name of Metiria Turei to proposed new clauses 66A and 66B set out on Supplementary Order Paper 302 in the name of the Hon Dr Michael Cullen be agreed to:\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001238\u0022\u003Eto omit these clauses.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u00220ce954fb3c2a431ca55800cfc4bb80de\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 11\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EGreen Party 9; M\u0101ori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 109\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001239\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the following amendment in the name of Metiria Turei to the amendment to clause 67 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 302 in the name of the Hon Dr Michael Cullen be agreed to:\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001240\u0022\u003Eto omit paragraph (a).\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u002239acf49d99d84f48b3cb6752de41dc39\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 11\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EGreen Party 9; M\u0101ori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 109\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment to the amendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001241\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the following amendment in the name of Metiria Turei to the amendment to clause 71 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 302 in the name of the Hon Dr Michael Cullen be agreed to:\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001242\u0022\u003Eto omit subclause (3).\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022847ac206c57b4743a0e4422ccbb4912d\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 11\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EGreen Party 9; M\u0101ori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 109\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment to the amendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001243\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the following amendment in the name of Metiria Turei to proposed new clause 71A set out on Supplementary Order Paper 302 in the name of the Hon Dr Michael Cullen be agreed to:\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001244\u0022\u003Eto omit this clause.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u00220308ef90aa3d40b384e6607f3b7b0683\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThat the amendment to the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 11\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EGreen Party 9; M\u0101ori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 109\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment to the amendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001245\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001246\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 302 in the name of the Hon Dr Michael Cullen to Part 4 be agreed to.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u00220bd446bf2b74466887942674118f0bed\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 66\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 54\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 27; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; M\u0101ori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendments agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u00228d770302a0f34f4fab600709c0bcba08\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That Part 4 as amended be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 66\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 54\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 27; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; M\u0101ori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EPart 4 as amended agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001247\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u00221d7fad59449c481c92c28541b5b29fb7\u0022\u003EPart 5  Amendments to Resource Management Act 1991\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022 data-id=\u0022f751754d048546609b9a2bacef8d87cc\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001248\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022f751754d048546609b9a2bacef8d87cc\u0022\u003EGERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader\u2014National):\u003C/span\u003E Part 5 is where Mr Dail Jones of New Zealand First has truly excelled himself in the subterfuge he has attempted to put around the real meanings of this part. Essentially, this is the part that imposes various aspects of the bill on to the Resource Management Act. In every sense, the veto powers that National members spoke of right from the time the bill was first read in the House are back and reinforced. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001249\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003EWhat do we mean by that? We mean that where a group of natural New Zealanders\u2014most likely M\u0101ori\u2014have a customary use right, then that group will be able to exercise that right in a way that will be very, very restrictive on district plans and on the interpretations the Environment Court can put on consent applications, should they get that far. In fact, it seems to us that if one of those reservations that New Zealand First wants to set up for M\u0101ori is established, then that reservation will have its governance board, and the board will produce a plan for how the various rights they have in that area are to be dealt with. That plan will end up being lodged with the local environment council or the district authority\u2014whichever the case may be\u2014and those provisions will then, by default, be required to be considered when it comes to any consent applications on adjacent land. It will not be hard for people to have those various rights. We should remember that we are talking about 10 percent of the coastline of this country being covered by this. John Tamihere, the previous Minister for Land Information, has been able to confirm how much of the coastline is involved. Those areas will be subject effectively to M\u0101ori veto when it comes to resource consent applications. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001250\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003EWe would have thought that this Government might listen to the many thousands of New Zealanders who are saying already that the Resource Management Act is difficult to deal with, and that it is a massive brake on the capacity for the New Zealand economy to move even faster than it is at the moment. One might have thought that the Government would learn from its own experience in trying to deal with the issue of roading in Auckland\u2014something, frankly, that in our view it has paid a little bit of lip service to and has no intention of doing anything serious about. But one would have thought that Government members might have learnt that the Resource Management Act is a very difficult process as it exists. They might have been saying: \u201CWell, let\u2019s see if we can get some streamlined approaches to the way in which resource consents are dealt with in this country.\u201D But, no, a Resource Management (Foreshore and Seabed) Amendment Bill is being split out of this bill, somewhere. At some point in the debate we might find out what the intentions are\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001251\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e31e4422f7e543f085ddda25f848e4e1\u0022\u003EHon Dr Michael Cullen\u003C/span\u003E: In the dead of morning.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001252\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222a1734effe074a298fe4e708b5f1a0cd\u0022\u003EGERRY BROWNLEE\u003C/span\u003E: No doubt it will be in the dead of morning, in the middle of the night, the day before yesterday. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001253\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003EThe point is that the provisions in these clauses will simply make it more difficult for anyone to undertake reasonable activity in the areas that are covered either by those reservations or perhaps separately by the customary rights orders issued by the High Court or the M\u0101ori Land Court. What is the necessity of that? Surely the Resource Management Act currently protects those areas from adverse effects. Is that not its purpose? Why do we have to have particular provisions for M\u0101ori in that Act? I think it goes right to the nub of the problem when it comes to dealing with this bill. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001254\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003EOn a number of occasions during the select committee process I asked submitters who were making pleadings on behalf of M\u0101ori groups whether they considered themselves to be part of the Crown in this country. Repeatedly, the answer was: \u201CNo. The Crown is something else. M\u0101ori is us. We are separate from the Crown, and the Crown is something that owes us an obligation.\u201D As long as that is the thinking, and as long as we have a Government that allows that thinking to be perpetuated through this sort of legislation, we are in trouble.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022 data-id=\u0022b1528845c3f94e53bd03dc891c6fd2e6\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001255\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b1528845c3f94e53bd03dc891c6fd2e6\u0022\u003EHon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister):\u003C/span\u003E The amendments in this part very largely reflect the departmental report to the select committee. Very little in this is a reflection of any subsequent negotiations, other than the usual governmental machinery processes that occur after a select committee report back. I think we ought to put it in context, and it is important to remember that when we are dealing with the foreshore and seabed reserves, we have to start from the fact that there is a high test for entry into those reserves. There is a test of continuity\u2014[Interruption] I ask the member whether we can just speak for a bit on what I was talking about first\u2014in fact, two things one after the other. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001256\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003EWith a foreshore and seabed reserve there is a high test. There is a test of continuity, a test of contiguity, and a test of exclusive use and occupation. A moment\u2019s deliberation around that will immediately suggest to members, if they care to think about it, that these are not areas where there are likely to be a very large number of developmental proposals occurring. Almost by definition that is not likely to be the case. So members\u2019 concerns around there being heaps of developmental issues occurring within them are actually not well placed. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001257\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003ESecondly, of course, when the reserve is set up, the reserve board is not the consenting authority. The board must draw up a management plan, and that management plan is, in effect, incorporated into the coastal plan, but the district regional authority, and in some cases the unitary council, remains the body that is responsible for the Resource Management Act procedures within that, in terms of consenting procedures. So it is not a veto power at all. In so far as there is some consideration of veto power, it is where there is a question of a severe adverse impact upon the ability to continue to operate a customary right. That is perfectly appropriate. A customary right is a property right. It is perfectly appropriate, if somebody proposes to do something that has a severe adverse impact upon a property right, for the holder of that property right to be entitled to say no unless there is some form of agreement between that holder and the person making the proposal. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001258\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003EIf parties on the right say they stand for property rights, they cannot then turn round and say that somebody else can trample over those property rights without due regard for the interests of the people who hold those property rights. This, I think, comes back to the sneakiness of the Opposition. Their real position with this\u2014as they know, and we know in the Government\u2014is that the vast majority of people who will hold these customary rights in terms of usage, which are likely to be quite limited in addition to the fishing rights already protected, will be M\u0101ori. The main objection from National and ACT is that we are actually protecting rights that will largely be held by M\u0101ori. Their view is actually quite clear. Their view is that if that is the case, then for some peculiar reason that I do not understand, to protect those rights is racist, whereas to override rights that are overwhelmingly held by M\u0101ori is not racist. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001259\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003EI think that is just about PC in reverse. It is about as silly as one could go, in terms of logic around those kinds of issues. I think that emphasises once again the shallowness of the arguments put forward by National and ACT right the way throughout this debate.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022 data-id=\u00225606764c301746859cc53c76d0e3e397\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001260\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00225606764c301746859cc53c76d0e3e397\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH (National\u2014Nelson):\u003C/span\u003E The Minister in the chair, the Hon Dr Michael Cullen, is one who has been part of a Government making a commitment to simplify the Resource Management Act, because even in the Government\u2019s own commissioned reports that Act has been identified as a major bureaucratic cost for business and a major difficulty for addressing New Zealand\u2019s infrastructure problems. The difficulty with the contribution we just heard from the Minister is that it is completely divorced from reality.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001261\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003ELet me advise the Minister of the sort of nonsense that is going on in my area. Port Nelson Ltd reclaimed an area of just 4 hectares. Local iwi objected, and because they could hold up a port company that is so critical to the wealth of my district, that company was forced into doing a deal with iwi whereby 49 percent of the shares in the reclaimed land was vested in a company with themselves\u2014that is, there was a transfer of wealth, estimated to be worth $2 million, from the general public of Nelson to iwi. That was on the basis of a claim of customary rights in an area that is only 1 percent of the Nelson haven.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001262\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003EThis is exactly the sort of consequence that will come out of the provisions of this Government in this part, and let me set out why. Iwi have a veto right over resource consents in those areas, even though their right may be only as big as: \u201CWe launched the waka in that bay 150 years ago.\u201D, \u201CWe might have collected some hangi stones in that area.\u201D, or \u201CWe might have collected the odd pipi.\u201D But suddenly iwi are able to use that right and expand it into a multimillion-dollar right.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001263\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003EIf members think the situation in Nelson is unique, they need look only at the situation of Fergusson Wharf in Auckland. That concerns a reclamation that is worth over $100 million where, equally so, those customary rights and powers that are being transferred into the Resource Management Act will result in a huge transfer of wealth.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001264\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003EIt is interesting that the new Minister in the chair, Damien O\u2019Connor, is one of the people whose constituents have been deprived of value through this very measure. He has been able to avoid questions in the local media, but let me put them to him again today: is it fair that his Tasman constituents have wealth worth over a million dollars transferred to 920 people who affiliate to eight iwi? Is that fair, and is that what he stands for? He indicates that his answer is \u201CNo.\u201D Well, why in heck is he supporting the provisions in this bill that will give that sort of leverage to the John Mitchells of the world who advance those sorts of arguments?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001265\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003ENeither the Minister in the chair nor members opposite can pretend for a moment that they are going to sort out the problems of the Resource Management Act\u2014all the spiritual nonsense and all the ways in which M\u0101ori are able to use the Act to gain huge commercial advantage. They cannot say that to their business audiences, and in the next moment pass provisions like the ones in this part that give such enormous leverage to those who gain customary rights.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001266\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003EIf I were iwi, I would be in there, boots and all. I would be claiming those very customary rights in every nook and cranny of New Zealand as would iwi\u2014not because they want to launch the waka, not because they want to pick up the odd hangi stone, and not because they want to take the odd pipi, but because by gaining those customary rights they will be able to hold the wider community to ransom and make a fortune.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001267\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003EIt is a very sad situation indeed. This is a country that should be proud of its lack of corruption. We have long sat right up in the top ranks of countries, yet what we see in this part is nothing less than a vehicle for corruption in terms of the way in which resource consents are granted. We will have iwi, with their hands out, saying to companies that are trying to do reclamations, like supports, and to Transit that is trying to build roads: \u201CThere will be no resource consent unless you pay us off.\u201D I want to hear from members opposite why on earth we would want to make worse the already serious problems we have with the Resource Management Act.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bc1e9f65-e08b-4939-867c-22ef093e2a4e\u0022 data-id=\u002200f15f3937d349588bc9411e0187c965\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001268\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bc1e9f65-e08b-4939-867c-22ef093e2a4e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002200f15f3937d349588bc9411e0187c965\u0022\u003ERODNEY HIDE (Leader\u2014ACT):\u003C/span\u003E I rise to support the comments made by the Hon Dr Nick Smith. This is the part for graft and corruption in New Zealand. I want the record to show that New Zealand First voted for this bill, which will see large parts of the foreshore and seabed in New Zealand being contested by M\u0101ori groups who can then demand money. We heard that from the Minister in the chair a little while ago, Dr Cullen. He said that once they have that, it is \u201Ca property right\u201D and it is only fair and reasonable that hap\u016B, wh\u0101nau, and iwi get paid for any diminishing of that right. This is the part that will see large chunks of the foreshore and seabed with M\u0101ori having a veto right over any development.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001269\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203bc0052-6dd8-4807-998a-4768a4732e0b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227ee83a2a058e4de2ac360583808dbe15\u0022\u003EHon Rick Barker\u003C/span\u003E: Rubbish!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001270\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bc1e9f65-e08b-4939-867c-22ef093e2a4e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d37e626b6c85439c9a07da0894cb7308\u0022\u003ERODNEY HIDE\u003C/span\u003E: Mr Barker calls out that it is rubbish, but that is exactly what the Minister, Michael Cullen, said.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001271\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219386ba0-5a6e-485e-abc0-5a3128b4e1f6\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223a4d17b79e124152a1d26089a0a67b81\u0022\u003EHon Ken Shirley\u003C/span\u003E: But he\u2019s right; it is rubbish.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001272\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bc1e9f65-e08b-4939-867c-22ef093e2a4e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022cd2dc7c966044b928ff3f15e509ae85f\u0022\u003ERODNEY HIDE\u003C/span\u003E: It is rubbish. The whole bill is rubbish, but Michael Cullen just said that. And we know this: the honourable John Tamihere, when he was Minister for Land Information, said he felt that something like 10 percent of the foreshore and seabed would be subject to this. He went on TV tonight and said: \u201CWell, who knows? It could be a lot more.\u201D And this is what New Zealand First is voting for, and this is what this Government is voting for. Rick Barker calls that \u201Crubbish\u201D. Well, hang on! Once there is a customary right in the Resource Management Act and someone wants to create an aquaculture farm and someone else to have a development on the foreshore and seabed, whose permission do they have to get? They have to get the permission of the council\u2014the territorial authority\u2014and the permission of the iwi, hap\u016B, or wh\u0101nau who have that customary title. That is what the Minister said, I tell Mr Barker, who would have heard that if he had been paying attention. Then Michael Cullen said that it was only right and proper that money changed hands as a consequence. That is what he said. But that is extortion; that is graft; that is what this bill opens up the foreshore and seabed to. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001273\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bc1e9f65-e08b-4939-867c-22ef093e2a4e\u0022\u003EI say that Michael Cullen stood up in this Parliament and said that it was about property rights. Members should ask themselves what possible property rights are protected or enshrined by the Resource Management Act. That Act is all about undermining people\u2019s property rights. That is what the Resource Management Act is about\u2014and about setting up a political process to control and dictate, with interest groups being able to lobby and extort money from legitimate property-right holders. It is not about property rights, and I again ask the Government what was wrong with letting M\u0101ori have their day in court and stopping all this nonsense of opening up the foreshore and seabed to graft and corruption. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001274\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bc1e9f65-e08b-4939-867c-22ef093e2a4e\u0022\u003EI want to draw members\u2019 attention to clause 74, \u201CMatters of national importance\u201D. It states: \u201CSection 6 of the principal Act\u201D\u2014that means the Resource Management Act\u2014\u201Cis amended by adding, after paragraph (f), the following paragraph: (g) the protection of recognised customary activities.\u201D That is a stand-alone clause in the very important Resource Management Act section that deals with matters of national importance. I ask the Minister in the chair, Damien O\u2019Connor, whether that provision is confined to the foreshore and seabed. I ask the Minister to wake up. I know that it is late for the member, but I ask whether clause 74, \u201CMatters of national importance\u201D\u2014by which \u201Cthe protection of recognised customary activities\u201D is inserted into the Resource Management Act\u2014applies solely to the foreshore and seabed, or is generic. \u201CYes\u201D or \u201CNo\u201D? The answer is \u201CYes\u201D.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022df788c48-b9be-42fd-b8f2-76629a5572b8\u0022 data-id=\u0022208ed82687bc444e8797abcbf9ce4ceb\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001275\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022df788c48-b9be-42fd-b8f2-76629a5572b8\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022208ed82687bc444e8797abcbf9ce4ceb\u0022\u003EDr WAYNE MAPP (National\u2014North Shore):\u003C/span\u003E I want to pick up on a point that was dealt with by the Hon Dr Nick Smith. He noted the circumstances at Port Nelson. As a result of the use of the Resource Management Act, the local iwi got 49 percent of the shares within a reclamation. That happened under the existing Resource Management Act. The money was paid because the port simply could not tolerate the problems of delay. It was cheaper, in fact, to pay the money and get the consent. What this bill will do is expand that tenfold. There are vastly greater prospects of that happening now under clause 93, which inserts new section 107A\u2014hugely more prospects. In fact, the Minister, for the first time in this Parliament, had the decency to admit it. There is actually a veto right contained in that clause. It is not a question of balancing interests; it is an actual veto right. The customary rights holder can simply say: \u201CNo\u201D, and that is it\u2014no resource consent can be granted. Well, of course, we all know that a \u201CYes\u201D can be obtained. A \u201CYes\u201D will cost money. We know that it will cost a great deal more than the sort of thing that has happened at Port Nelson. It will happen many, many more times. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001276\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022df788c48-b9be-42fd-b8f2-76629a5572b8\u0022\u003EI particularly noted that Mr Hide spoke of 10 percent of the coastline. A minimum of 10 percent of the coastline, according to the M\u0101ori caucus, will be subject to customary rights orders. That will include ports. It will also include pipelines, cables, and all sorts of developments like marinas, crossing points for launching ramps, and jetties\u2014we can name them, and they will be caught. In each and every case where there are customary rights holders, those holders could have the right to say no. When they have that right, the only way it can be changed is by the exchange of money. That is the reality. Now, at the select committee\u2014and the chair of the committee knows this to be true\u2014Transpower and Telecom, companies that had spent a large sum of money with their lawyers because their submissions were legally presented, were deeply concerned. There is no exemption for them in this clause, and that was the point that was reasonably asked for. There is no exemption for strategic works. I know there have been some minor amendments to the legislation, but at the end of the day under new section 107A, there is still that veto. So what we have the spectre of now is\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001277\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022075eff2f-7904-4500-8339-3972160a627f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222b77ed5d1344484b85f66afa875230a6\u0022\u003EJim Peters\u003C/span\u003E: Where is the veto?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001278\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022df788c48-b9be-42fd-b8f2-76629a5572b8\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223816df08acd84467be75d6fef02f4270\u0022\u003EDr WAYNE MAPP\u003C/span\u003E: New section 107A, dealing with customary rights. And I add for the benefit of members of New Zealand First, that a previous Minister in the chair, Dr Cullen, who no doubt has been dictating the terms of the deal with those fellows in New Zealand First, said so in the Chamber. Those are the words he used, so I do not want to hear any cant from his allies. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001279\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022df788c48-b9be-42fd-b8f2-76629a5572b8\u0022\u003EIn strategic works, companies could be totally paralysed. This country already has problems around infrastructure\u2014serious problems. We cannot afford to have those kinds of hold-ups imposed on an already complicated and difficult statute, the Resource Management Act, by this Government. On the one hand, the Government says it supports the development of the country and says it is business-friendly, and so on and so forth\u2014I have heard that many times\u2014but on the other hand, at the same time, it is passing legislation that works right against that. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001280\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022df788c48-b9be-42fd-b8f2-76629a5572b8\u0022\u003EAt the absolute minimum, we would expect that there would have been an exemption for nationally important strategic works. Actually, what the Government did was the complete opposite, because in clause 74, under the Resource Management Act customary rights orders are noted as being the issues of national importance. It is kind of like putting the thing on its head\u2014rather than the strategic works being of national importance to the benefit of all the people of New Zealand, M\u0101ori and non-M\u0101ori alike, we have elevated the position of the customary rights orders as the items of strategic importance. The Prime Minister said that it was just about hangi stones and things of that nature, but it is a lot more.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00221a705910-5320-43bf-aa82-027a761519f6\u0022 data-id=\u00223ad2cfe6342142d5baead5c00104502f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001281\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221a705910-5320-43bf-aa82-027a761519f6\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00223ad2cfe6342142d5baead5c00104502f\u0022\u003ERUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour\u2014Napier):\u003C/span\u003E I have listened with increasing incredulity to the last three submissions from the other side, and it can be only the lateness of the hour that is compounding an ill-informed view of the bill now before us. Essential to the concern of Mr Rodney Hide and Dr Wayne Mapp is the fact that a customary right order is extant at this moment. It was in existence last year, the year before, and right back to 1840. So we are talking about existing rights that pre-date the Resource Management Act. What this part of the bill does is simply create the provision for an adverse effects report if those existing customary rights undermine the national interest. So, in a funny sort of way, if we invert what Dr Wayne Mapp and Mr Rodney Hide were saying, they are effectively agreeing with the bill. The \u201CAlice in Wonderland\u201D argument being put up by the Opposition is surely a reflection of the late hour, dinner time, and a lack of sustenance since, because there is no logic or sense to their provisions. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001282\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221a705910-5320-43bf-aa82-027a761519f6\u0022\u003EBut they may be explainable for a more simple reason, other than the lateness of the hour. Take, for example, the challenge issued by Mr Rodney Hide. In his normal bullying manner, he went for a Minister in the chair who is not primarily responsible for this bill, and demanded a yes or no answer, when the answer itself was contained not in clause 74, which he spoke about, but in clause 73(1). If he had bothered to read that, he would not have wasted the time of the Committee for 5 minutes by bellowing in the eardrums of all those people at home trying to get to sleep by listening to this beautiful soporific voice and the lulling tones that most of us bring to this Chamber. He was bellowing them awake with great horror and shock at the tone of voice of someone in a debating chamber, demanding an answer from the Minister when all the member had to do was cast his eyes over the bill in front of him. I guess that might be asking too much, as it is asking too much of members opposite to get their heads around a concept, which is essentially very, very\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001283\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002225f8c78b-f301-4aca-a936-366f00a26bc9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002246672d8f7f3a4714b2cdfae4f8043a2e\u0022\u003ESandra Goudie\u003C/span\u003E: Concept?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001284\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221a705910-5320-43bf-aa82-027a761519f6\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002292180108377c4aceb30fac667b5b7ecf\u0022\u003ERUSSELL FAIRBROTHER\u003C/span\u003E: I said \u201Cconcept\u201D, not \u201Cconception\u201D. The member should not prick up her ears. I am not offering anything. I am talking about a simple fact of the matter; a concept of something that has been in existence since before any P\u0101keh\u0101 were here, since 1840; something that has been practised continuously on a very, very small area of New Zealand\u2014the foreshore and seabed. It is something that is happening right now, before the bill passes. When the bill is passed, it will continue to happen. If it does clash with the principles of national interest and the Resource Management Act, then the adverse effects provisions arise and they protect the aims of that Act and the national interest. It is simple, and perhaps that is what is so deceptive. It is not complicated, and that is why people cannot understand it. If members opposite read the bill and spent less time sounding off, we would all get home much earlier, and this bill would be passed. This is a commendable part of the bill. The amendments to the Resource Management Act make entire sense, and are deceptively simple, and that is why members opposite cannot get their heads around it. I commend it to the Committee.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b0d8b0e0-3ece-4865-9145-5eb5983fc54c\u0022 data-id=\u0022fa8c074418034820a79258470fc33a5e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001285\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b0d8b0e0-3ece-4865-9145-5eb5983fc54c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022fa8c074418034820a79258470fc33a5e\u0022\u003EHon RICHARD PREBBLE (ACT):\u003C/span\u003E The member says that the bill is deceptively simple. Well, I most certainty agree with the \u201Cdeceptive\u201D part, and I think I agree with the \u201Csimple\u201D part. The reality of this bill is that it is fundamentally racist. What is being proposed is that the Resource Management Act be changed so that all councils are required to protect recognised customary activities. We know from having read through the bill and having gone through the bogusness of \u201Cone law for all\u201D that in fact they will all be M\u0101ori customary activities. The point I would like to make to our provincial lawyer is that he ought to know that under the common law, before the Resource Management Act and before its previous planning Acts, every New Zealander had the right to do any activity, providing it did not cause a nuisance to his or her neighbour. That was the fundamental right of every New Zealander. Now, I would not mind if the chairman of that select committee had stood up and said: \u201CLet\u2019s have an amendment to the Resource Management Act so that everybody\u2019s customary activities can be protected, providing they do not cause nuisance to others.\u201D \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001286\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221a705910-5320-43bf-aa82-027a761519f6\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b865a6352d9942afbdf5e78fc8353344\u0022\u003ERussell Fairbrother\u003C/span\u003E: It does.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001287\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b0d8b0e0-3ece-4865-9145-5eb5983fc54c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002299283a48df6742858fe8c3542d0a718b\u0022\u003EHon RICHARD PREBBLE\u003C/span\u003E: The member says it does\u2014for everybody. Well, that is sophistry, because we have already established that the only customary activity is one that goes back to 1840, and, apart from one regatta, we have not yet discovered a single activity\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001288\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221a705910-5320-43bf-aa82-027a761519f6\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ec0b7d1e5be44b679b3898f949010e55\u0022\u003ERussell Fairbrother\u003C/span\u003E: On the foreshore.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001289\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b0d8b0e0-3ece-4865-9145-5eb5983fc54c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223fe143795c5e446094f226177cb1c9bb\u0022\u003EHon RICHARD PREBBLE\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014on the foreshore, or anywhere else\u2014that is non-M\u0101ori that is actually going to be covered by this clause. That is why it is fundamentally racist. That is a simple proposition, and it is deceptive because the honourable member is not prepared to stand up and admit it. He would be a better member if he was prepared to get up and say, as the chairman of that select committee: \u201CWell, we have got racial seats. We hold them all, and we have decided to introduce a racial bill so that we can go on holding them.\u201D That is why we have these amendments to the Resource Management Act. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001290\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b0d8b0e0-3ece-4865-9145-5eb5983fc54c\u0022\u003EI make this statement, as well. I repeat that ordinary M\u0101ori will not see as much as pipi out of this foreshore bill. They will not get a grain of sand. But this clause will enable the honourable member\u2019s legal friends to get many, many grains of gold from this bill. This is a gold-digger\u2019s bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001291\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d52e59e3-2195-4c95-a654-665c11b39b63\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022494d8da60696448c94521be3bbcb2e04\u0022\u003EHon Parekura Horomia\u003C/span\u003E: Pipis!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001292\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b0d8b0e0-3ece-4865-9145-5eb5983fc54c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229a58d340317741c884e06c803d998ac2\u0022\u003EHon RICHARD PREBBLE\u003C/span\u003E: Now the Minister of M\u0101ori Affairs interjects. I just say to him that in a year\u2019s time, when ordinary M\u0101ori discover that they have received nothing from this bill\u2014no benefits whatsoever\u2014that will be one of the reasons they\u2014[Interruption] Well, they all had a vote, and that is one of the reasons why he is toast. He is absolutely toast. He is not like our friend Dover Samuels, who is already looking at his place in Surfers\u2014he knows he is going. I think that the Minister of M\u0101ori Affairs is still under some sort of illusion that he might be able to recover his position in a year. There is not a chance because this bill is deceptively simple, as the chairman of the select committee explained. It is deceptive all right, and it is simple racism. He will discover that even his constituents are not in favour of that. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001293\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b0d8b0e0-3ece-4865-9145-5eb5983fc54c\u0022\u003EThis bill is an absolute disgrace. The only people who will benefit are the only people who have benefited from the Waitangi grievance industry\u2014the lawyers, the accountants, the white shoes brigade, or as Mr Peters likes to call it, the \u201CBrowntable\u201D. They will all benefit from this bill. They think it is wonderful. Maybe they will give him a campaign contribution, but how many votes will they deliver to the member in 12 months\u2019 time? I say to the Minister that he deserves to go. He should have made a stand against this bill. He should have said to his colleagues that a real Labour Government would not introduce a racist bill, a real Labour Government would have allowed M\u0101ori their day in court, and a real Labour Government would not introduce to the Resource Management Act a provision for the protection of recognised customary activities.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022075eff2f-7904-4500-8339-3972160a627f\u0022 data-id=\u002283a2e967e2a047009d89bc14e7151482\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001294\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022075eff2f-7904-4500-8339-3972160a627f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002283a2e967e2a047009d89bc14e7151482\u0022\u003EJIM PETERS (NZ First):\u003C/span\u003E It is unfortunate that Part 5 has not already been incorporated into the Resource Management Act, as it will be. If it had been, then some of the erroneous comments that have already been made by various members of the Committee would have been seen in context. In that regard we should think about the comments made by Mr Fairbrother, which place Part 5 in the straight Resource Management Act framework. If we do that, the first thing that Opposition members ought to realise is that this so-called important provision in clause 74, which adds a paragraph to section 6 of the principal Act : \u201C(g) the protection of recognised customary activities.\u201D, is only one matter of national importance under section 6 in Part 2. There is no hierarchy. There is no ranking order under Part 2. They are all matters of national importance. Case law will say that over and over again, and it has said so. Regional plans, district plans, and other plans say just that, and to imply that part of this bill selectively elevates this matter to a height that the other matters of national importance do not have is misleading. It is mischievous to make that assumption. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001295\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022075eff2f-7904-4500-8339-3972160a627f\u0022\u003EIf one does that, then one can move very, very quickly to the matter of the so-called veto, which has been mentioned by various Opposition members. If those members present had read the bill and carefully read the so-called veto clause, clause 93, which inserts new sections 107A to 107D, they would see, as Local Government New Zealand said, a good set of criteria to guide decision making. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001296\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022075eff2f-7904-4500-8339-3972160a627f\u0022\u003ESecondly, that final decision does not constitute a veto, because that decision does the following. First of all, it goes through, provision by provision. If we look very carefully at section 107A(2), we see the matters that the relevant authority must look at. It must consider the effects, the area, the degree to which the recognised customary activity must be carried out to the exclusion of other activities, whether that customary activity can be exercised only in a particular area, and whether it can be mitigated. In other words, at the end of those considerable paragraphs, (a) to (g), an authority considering the percentage\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001297\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbb83aab-9566-44c4-9029-8bda4aaca7f2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022234a9bb0ceae45a88e127798d072b9a8\u0022\u003EPhil Heatley\u003C/span\u003E: This man was a regional councillor.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001298\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022075eff2f-7904-4500-8339-3972160a627f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002213a32c277f474a3b82d0080102171479\u0022\u003EJIM PETERS\u003C/span\u003E:\u2014that is right\u2014and a regional council hearings committee or a district council committee would be doing just that. They would make a decision that, if there were no longer any significant adverse effect\u2014[Interruption] After consideration of each of the items listed there, a final decision would be made by the consent authority. Where is the veto that has been mentioned by Mr Hide? Where is the veto that has been mentioned by other members? In actual fact, there is no such veto there, implied, or in any other way. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001299\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d73bea5c6b2e4449ae91bbd702cda582\u0022\u003EHon Dr Nick Smith\u003C/span\u003E: Of course, there\u2019s subsection (1).\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001300\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022075eff2f-7904-4500-8339-3972160a627f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022609843abeb6d4f7daf0b20f31464c5d0\u0022\u003EJIM PETERS\u003C/span\u003E: I say to the Hon Dr Smith that when one reads it, one takes in the context of the provision relating to matters of national importance, and one then takes the application that is before the hearings committee, and carefully and selectively works through the criteria set there. That committee, exhibiting balance, will finally consider and make a decision. There is no implied veto. There is no alternative, other than a proper and considerate decision being made. [Interruption] If Mr Heatley were the applicant, it could be made on his behalf, the same as it could on anyone else\u2019s behalf. It ill behoves members to come to this Chamber, to go through the National Party\u2019s 1991 Resource Management Act, and to say otherwise. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022075eff2f-7904-4500-8339-3972160a627f\u0022\u003EThe other part of this bill that is highly significant is this: the select committee heard representations made by various national concerns and bodies, particularly with regard to the vision of certain infrastructure and related operations. I am very pleased to say that the alarmist fears that were heard around the country and retailed over and over again about reclamations, port operation, and utilities not being able to go about their tasks were never ever realised. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001302\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022075eff2f-7904-4500-8339-3972160a627f\u0022\u003EIn actual fact, if members concerned look very carefully at the whole of proposed new section 107B, they will see the guidance, the direction, and the clarity. What does it say? It says, contrary to the alarmist fears that were aired by certain members of this Committee, that whether in Northland or Southland, Timaru or Bluff, this applies: \u201C(2) In this section, infrastructure work and its associated operations is limited to any infrastructure works and associated operations that are owned, operated, or carried out by 1 or more of the following:\u201D. And who are they? They include the Crown, a local authority, a network utility operator, and an electricity generator. I can recall numerous comments made by members of the National Party about Transpower and other utilities that would be severely compromised by this bill. In actual fact, they even implied that wholesale government would stop. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001303\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022075eff2f-7904-4500-8339-3972160a627f\u0022\u003EWhat does this provision state? It includes a port company or a port operator as defined by section 65OJ, which covers one or two, such as Northport, and the Maritime Safety Authority. All those bodies will be able to carry on exactly as they did yesterday. If they have a work that has been planned and that has gone to the first consent stage, they will be able to carry on as they did yesterday. In other words, as the Rt Hon Winston Peters has already said very clearly, what was there yesterday will be there tomorrow, just as we knew it would be. The limitations are those that are considerably exercised in law, and which are clearly outlined here. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001304\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022075eff2f-7904-4500-8339-3972160a627f\u0022\u003ESo my advice to members of the Opposition is please to read, if only for the first time, the language of the bill, and then come to the Chamber and make their statements in the full light of the bill. They will be able to talk not about the past, the present, or something imagined, but about the strict and express language that this bill uses. That strict, express language will enable development to take place as it did yesterday. It will enable each one of those bodies to carry through. I am very pleased to acknowledge that New Zealand First has helped to make that possible. In other words, this party supports commercial development. It supports the development of an infrastructure. This express provision allows just that to continue as it did yesterday, and as it will do today and tomorrow.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022cfdabe42-521a-4dca-afab-3e781731a130\u0022 data-id=\u0022a4acad7b41b34714ac28396df3f88765\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001305\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cfdabe42-521a-4dca-afab-3e781731a130\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a4acad7b41b34714ac28396df3f88765\u0022\u003EDr PAUL HUTCHISON (National\u2014Port Waikato):\u003C/span\u003E I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on Part 5, \u201CAmendments to the Resource Management Act 1991\u201D. To think that the Hon Michael Cullen and his Government said that they would simplify the Resource Management Act! Fortunately, the member from the West Coast is here. His electorate has one of the longest stretches of coastline. The Resource Management Act has to be one of the most difficult processes, as it stands, particularly after the amendments of the Labour Government. What has the Government done to the people of New Zealand? It has put this Part 5 in the bill. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001306\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cfdabe42-521a-4dca-afab-3e781731a130\u0022\u003EThe really basic test behind this bill is whether it would be simpler just to stick with the Court of Appeal\u2019s Ng\u0101ti Apa decision or to go down the line that the Labour Government has gone down. On just about every criterion\u2014confusion, complexity, cost, and many others\u2014there is absolutely no doubt that it would have been much simpler to stick with the Court of Appeal\u2019s decision. After all, yesterday this document that I am holding\u2014which is the redline edition, according to Michael Cullen\u2014was red-hot off the press. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001307\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e50fcea1588b482eab7fa96867966a4c\u0022\u003EHon Dr Nick Smith\u003C/span\u003E: He\u2019s gone home to sleep.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001308\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cfdabe42-521a-4dca-afab-3e781731a130\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022878da7cd088042f293e95ed212f73821\u0022\u003EDr PAUL HUTCHISON\u003C/span\u003E: He probably has gone home to sleep. Yesterday, it was red-hot off the press. We notice in this redline edition that huge parts of the bill have already been deleted. I will speak on clauses 85 and 86. In the redline edition, there is indeed a clause 85 and 86. But if we look at the Supplementary Order Paper, we see that there is no clause 86. Where is it? I hope the Minister in the chair, the Hon Damien O\u2019Connor, can explain to us where the missing clause 86 is. That clause happens to be, of all things, about the imposition of coastal occupation charges. I hope the Minister will take a call to tell us where clause 86 of the redline edition has gone to in the definitive Supplementary Order Paper, because we do not see it there. Maybe the Government is just trying to deny the existence of the imposition of coastal occupation charges, which, to most New Zealanders, is hugely important. Judging by those criteria of whether this bill of the Labour Government is more complex, more confusing, and more costly than if the Ng\u0101ti Apa decision had been upheld, here we have, again\u2014as it looks in the redline edition supplied to us yesterday by Michael Cullen\u2014a complete cover-up. It is an absolutely classic example of why the Labour Government should not be passing this bill under urgency. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001309\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cfdabe42-521a-4dca-afab-3e781731a130\u0022\u003E The Labour Government has, in the secret of the night, one of the most important bills on the parliamentary calendar, which is being done under urgency, and it gets it wrong. It gets it absolutely wrong. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001310\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cfdabe42-521a-4dca-afab-3e781731a130\u0022\u003ELet us just have a look at clause 84, \u201CMatters to be considered by regional council\u201D. Once again\u2014[Interruption] Well, the M\u0101ori members opposite might be looking jocular, but it was they who suggested that 10 percent of the coastline is likely to be involved in these reserves. What else is the Labour Government doing? It is putting 10 percent of the coastline in marine reserves by 2010. That is 20 percent of the coastline. Now those members have suddenly gone quiet. Dover Samuels has suddenly gone quiet. [Interruption] It is up to 50 percent now. Whatever the figure is, there is no doubt that the Labour Government is imposing on New Zealand complexity, confusion, and considerable cost. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001311\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cfdabe42-521a-4dca-afab-3e781731a130\u0022\u003ELet us just look at matters to be considered by the regional council. \u201CA regional council, when preparing or changing a regional policy statement, must \u2026 take into account any relevant planning document \u2026\u201D.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022 data-id=\u0022235537f5244245709f833f34f0f48b4e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001312\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022235537f5244245709f833f34f0f48b4e\u0022\u003EDAVID PARKER (Labour\u2014Otago):\u003C/span\u003E Two speakers previously, we saw the Hon Richard Prebble get to his feet and say that prior to the passage of the Resource Management Act \u201Canyone could do anything so long as it did not cause a nuisance to others.\u201D \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001313\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b0d8b0e0-3ece-4865-9145-5eb5983fc54c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a47e1c74ecfc497ba131a43042ba4ea1\u0022\u003EHon Richard Prebble\u003C/span\u003E: Prior to any planning law.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001314\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e66a490b0ef44cfa8a57ef6229d2a2e0\u0022\u003EDAVID PARKER\u003C/span\u003E: Oh, the member is saying now \u201Cprior to any planning law\u201D, because he actually said \u201Cprior to the Resource Management Act\u201D. He obviously forgot about the Town and Country Planning Act. He obviously forgot about the Water and Soil Conservation Act. What nonsense! The reality is that customary use rights that are protected under this legislation have existed since 1840. What this provision says is that those rights ought not to be undermined by new Resource Management Act consents. That is no different from the principle that applies to existing uses under the Resource Management Act. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001315\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EWhen the Act came into effect, some people already had rights to do things. Those things were called existing uses. No one could get a Resource Management Act consent if I had an existing use to do something that would be rendered nugatory by that Resource Management Act consent. Part 5 of the bill does no more than protect the existing use rights of those customary uses under the Resource Management Act. Indeed, it does not actually afford them quite as much protection as is afforded to existing use rights, because there are limited circumstances where the Minister can say: \u201CThis adverse effect, this undermining of the customary use right, because of national considerations, ought to be permitted.\u201D But the general proposition here is that Part 5 does not add lots of complexity\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001316\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022df788c48-b9be-42fd-b8f2-76629a5572b8\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e4f42ca99a544a6c85f688cb72f732c0\u0022\u003EDr Wayne Mapp\u003C/span\u003E: The member has misinterpreted the law. He is a lawyer who doesn\u2019t know the law.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001317\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e8653799b4214e5f9b521e4eb243b304\u0022\u003EDAVID PARKER\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, I am a lawyer and I have appeared in the Planning Tribunal, the Environment Court, the High Court, and the Court of Appeal on Resource Management Act matters, so I do claim to have some understanding of these matters. It is true that all this is doing is effectively giving customary use rights, existing use rights, under the Resource Management Act.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00221e93d9c8-b183-40db-b200-833697df066c\u0022 data-id=\u002239b17641917b40f9a3e618012f76089f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001318\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221e93d9c8-b183-40db-b200-833697df066c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002239b17641917b40f9a3e618012f76089f\u0022\u003ELARRY BALDOCK (United Future):\u003C/span\u003E In my comments on Part 5 I will talk, first of all, about the Resource Management Act review process that is under way. Most members will know that United Future is working closely with the Government, the Minister for the Environment, and the Associate Minister for the Environment on a review of the Resource Management Act. Most members of the business community and Resource Management Act practitioners are aware of it, because the Minister has been going around the country saying that we are focusing in this review mostly on process and not on substance. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001319\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221e93d9c8-b183-40db-b200-833697df066c\u0022\u003EWe have been very careful to tell people that we are not touching Part 2 of the Resource Management Act, because it would be difficult if we did. So members can imagine my surprise when I found that, through clause 74, \u201CMatters of national importance\u201D, we are actually putting into Part 2 of the Act the issue of customary rights orders. We have to ask why we are doing that when we find already under section 6, \u201CMatters of national importance\u201D, reference to \u201CThe relationship of Maori and their culture and traditions with their ancestral lands, water, sites, waahi tapu, and other taonga.\u201D \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001320\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221e93d9c8-b183-40db-b200-833697df066c\u0022\u003EWhy is it necessary to add another category of ancestral connection orders? The answer is very simple. It is because New Zealand First and the Government are playing the game of trying to make out that these customary rights orders are for everybody, when everyone knows they will actually be only for M\u0101ori. The idea that the Auckland regatta could get one, which was debated a lot in the debate on Part 4, is absolutely ridiculous. We believe that it would be better if the Government and New Zealand First were simply honest\u2014because honesty is always the best policy\u2014and just told everyone that only M\u0101ori will get customary rights orders. That is OK with us in United Future, because M\u0101ori are entitled to them where customary rights are legitimately proved to have been in existence from 1840. We are quite comfortable with that. But the sham of trying to pretend that customary rights orders will be applicable to P\u0101keh\u0101 New Zealanders is totally dishonest. It leads to having to insert this extra category under \u201CMatters of national importance\u201D, which could lead to some complications in the implementation of the Resource Management Act. We are trying to avoid that; we are trying to get it simplified. I make the point that the Government and New Zealand First would do best just to admit tonight in all honesty that this provision is only for M\u0101ori and remove it from the legislation, so that we do not have any complications with the Resource Management Act. Then we could all get on with recognising genuine rights. I believe that most good New Zealanders would be happy to do so. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001321\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221e93d9c8-b183-40db-b200-833697df066c\u0022\u003EI will make some comments about the new clause 100, \u201CVesting of reclaimed land\u201D. When the original version of the clause first appeared in the bill, representatives from ports all around the country queued up before the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee, because they were obviously very concerned about what was being taken away from them. A strange policy was emerging\u2014a policy that had nothing at all to do with the Ng\u0101ti Apa case\u2014whereby henceforth the Government would not allow anybody who had reclaimed land, raised it from the foreshore and seabed, and made it into dry land that could be walked on, driven on, and built on to have private title to it any more. Yet it has been fine in all previous years for that title to be issued. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001322\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221e93d9c8-b183-40db-b200-833697df066c\u0022\u003EIn fact, it is just and right for it to be issued. If someone applies for a resource consent and pays all the costs of reclaiming the land, building the retaining walls, filling it all in, and everything else, why ought that person not then be able to claim private title to it? If the resource consent has been given, it would seem entirely logical that a fee simple title to that land should be allowed. But, no, in the initial bill along came the land-grabbing Department of Conservation, which thought that this legislation was a way in which it could hang on to some more land and only allow for 50-year leases in the future. That was totally unacceptable to the port companies. They all appeared before the select committee. The Timaru port people, who have their own Act\u2014a very good Act, which they are very lucky to have\u2014complained because they were going to see this removed.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001323\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221e93d9c8-b183-40db-b200-833697df066c\u0022\u003EIt is good to see that many of those issues are being addressed in the amendments the Minister is now proposing, except that there will be only a small window of opportunity for someone to sneak through and still get, perhaps, a title or at least a protectoral lease.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022cbb83aab-9566-44c4-9029-8bda4aaca7f2\u0022 data-id=\u002273a8c197ec104fa0983cb46561d648f8\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001324\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbb83aab-9566-44c4-9029-8bda4aaca7f2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002273a8c197ec104fa0983cb46561d648f8\u0022\u003EPHIL HEATLEY (National\u2014Whangarei):\u003C/span\u003E I too would like to address these amendments to the Resource Management Act. I do so because I am intrigued by the changes\u2014the extreme amendments, I have to say\u2014the Government wants to make on behalf of M\u0101ori in order to appease them in some way. I do so also because I am on the Primary Production Committee considering the Aquaculture Reform Bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001325\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbb83aab-9566-44c4-9029-8bda4aaca7f2\u0022\u003EMembers will recall that that bill also deals with amendments to the Resource Management Act. The Labour Government has given M\u0101ori 20 percent of marine space as some sort of horse-trading action for silence on the foreshore and seabed legislation. It is interesting to me because we see, particularly in these amendments to the Resource Management Act, as has been pointed out by Richard Prebble of ACT, that the only winners in Part 5 are the lawyers, the accountants, and that industry\u2014that gravy train. That gravy train is pushed on by the Resource Management Act, at present. It is also fed by the Treaty of Waitangi industry, and is now being given an extra boost through this legislation, particularly Part 5. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001326\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbb83aab-9566-44c4-9029-8bda4aaca7f2\u0022\u003EWe know that the quid pro quo deal\u2014the 20 percent of aquaculture space given to M\u0101ori\u2014has not shut them up. They are not satisfied with that deal. They have horse-traded, and have come back and said: \u201CNo, 20 percent isn\u2019t enough, and we\u2019re not going to be silent.\u201D They are not happy with this bill, Part 5, and these Resource Management Act amendments. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001327\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbb83aab-9566-44c4-9029-8bda4aaca7f2\u0022\u003EClause 100, \u201CVesting of reclaimed land\u201D, for a start, deals with an issue that our port companies around the country are having to grapple with. M\u0101ori are not satisfied with even that side of it. They will find themselves in court seeking their justice, and so will everyone else. Every New Zealander is dissatisfied with this legislation, because when it comes to deciding customary rights, ownership, access, and issues to do with the Resource Management Act, no one in the courts or outside the courts will get any satisfaction, at all. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001328\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbb83aab-9566-44c4-9029-8bda4aaca7f2\u0022\u003EI would particularly like to bring to members\u2019 attention the restrictiveness of clause 100 and the clauses following it that deal with the issue of reclaimed land. There has been a lessening of some restrictive provisions that originally related to the reclamation issue. We know that representatives from port after port filed into the select committee, and they also put their case forward as a group. They were concerned that they needed a right in perpetuity, or at least to have some sort of right of renewal or right of first refusal process, to have certainty for the future. They have put in extreme expenditure and effort, through years of going through the Resource Management Act process, to get original consents to reclaimed land. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001329\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbb83aab-9566-44c4-9029-8bda4aaca7f2\u0022\u003EMarsden Point port is a case in point. I was interested to listen to the member Jim Peters, who is a shareholder on my behalf and on Dover Samuels\u2019 behalf, as Northland MPs, because he draws a salary from the regional council. He draws a salary from the taxpayer and from the ratepayer, and he is sitting in this Chamber, as a shareholder, putting forward the case that will undermine his port. That reclamation at Marsden Point will undermine Dover Samuels\u2019 port and it will undermine my port. So there we have it. The member paid by the Northland ratepayer is fighting the Northland ratepayer.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002203bc0052-6dd8-4807-998a-4768a4732e0b\u0022 data-id=\u0022f0ea2581b5aa4d1695842b252a2b3209\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001330\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203bc0052-6dd8-4807-998a-4768a4732e0b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022f0ea2581b5aa4d1695842b252a2b3209\u0022\u003EHon RICK BARKER (Minister for Courts):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That the question be now put.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022d21515bb-0193-4167-a21d-982058b53604\u0022 data-id=\u0022403ffc258d7b41bd88eeeac027d4ef8e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001331\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d21515bb-0193-4167-a21d-982058b53604\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022403ffc258d7b41bd88eeeac027d4ef8e\u0022\u003ERICHARD WORTH (National\u2014Epsom):\u003C/span\u003E What a great choice and a privilege it is to be able, at 11.20 p.m. on 17 November, to talk about this really critical part. As I look across a crowded debating chamber to the M\u0101ori members on the Government benches, I can so easily reflect that some members have made no contribution at all to this debate. I would like to hear from Mahara Okeroa. He has strong views on these issues. What has Dave Hereora, who is with me on the Justice and Electoral Committee, said on these issues? Absolutely nothing! What can he contribute? It may be the same answer\u2014absolutely nothing. But he should be given the opportunity to contribute. That is why I encourage those who are present in the debating chamber to make a contribution. In this call, which I hope may be one of many that I make as this debate runs on into late tomorrow afternoon, I would like to comment on two particular things. Those two particular things concern clause 83. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001332\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d21515bb-0193-4167-a21d-982058b53604\u0022\u003EClause 83 is concerned with the contents of New Zealand coastal policy statements. It is a sadness about the Resource Management Act that we have a great plan for national policy statements, but what has happened to them? They were reduced to only one, which was a New Zealand coastal policy statement full of fudge and waffle. So in clause 83 there are provisions that add further statutory criteria relating to the protection of recognised customary activities. But worse still is an old issue that bedevils the Resource Management Act\u2014which has, in my view, unnecessarily delayed the Local Government and Environment Committee\u2014concerning iwi planning documents. I am sure that members of the committee will be very much aware that there are iwi planning documents of incredible variety, ranging from the sophistication of Ng\u0101i Tahu to the poor work that Tainui has done recently. There should be an opportunity taken in this legislation to correct those issues, so that iwi planning documents have a credibility and a power that enable them to have a real role in the context of the issues that regional councils and territorial authorities have to deal with. I look at the young Minister David Benson-Pope who is seated opposite me, and who has some great charge from the present Government to revamp the Resource Management Act. I ask what he is doing about that. We know the answer to that. Sadly, it is nothing much. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001333\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d21515bb-0193-4167-a21d-982058b53604\u0022\u003EIn the course of this debate, I have touched on an issue that I think members need to reflect more fully on. It is that although issues of M\u0101oriness were very relevant in 1840 and remained relevant for many years, they are of much less significance now. They are of much less significance for a number of reasons, but maybe the most significant of those reasons is the fact that M\u0101ori and non-M\u0101ori have intermingled. Whereas it was possible at one stage to talk in New Zealand of M\u0101ori and P\u0101keh\u0101, there is an uneasiness about using those classification tags now. A happier way to describe those issues in a country that is now blessed with a strong ethnic and cultural diversity is perhaps to talk about M\u0101ori and non-M\u0101ori. It is appropriate in the context of this part particularly, with the emphasis on the Resource Management Act and the issues in that significant statute that touch on iwi consultation, iwi planning documents, and those things, to talk for a moment about what a M\u0101ori may be. I raised this in the debate on an earlier part, and I think that I attracted a good deal of interest from members like Mahara Okeroa, who are the new philosophers who are leading M\u0101oridom through 2004. It certainly will not be into the new Government that will sit in Parliament in 2005, because those who currently sit on the Government benches will be sitting over here in Opposition, and those who are on the Opposition benches will be sitting quite determinedly over there in Government.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022330c030b-99be-4461-8aaa-9a10ee5bd889\u0022 data-id=\u00225247a3bd069c4c46bc1c2b562eeaa5ca\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001334\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022330c030b-99be-4461-8aaa-9a10ee5bd889\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00225247a3bd069c4c46bc1c2b562eeaa5ca\u0022\u003EHon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister of Fisheries):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That the question be now put.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022 data-id=\u00227d1199dcd24b4cb4b8624979deed8365\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001335\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00227d1199dcd24b4cb4b8624979deed8365\u0022\u003EMETIRIA TUREI (Green):\u003C/span\u003E I am very pleased that we have managed to get a call on Part 5, since the Greens have a large number of amendments to it\u2014and I am sure members are all pleased to hear that. I want to describe those amendments to members, so that they can be clear about the changes the Greens want to see in Part 5. We are making an amendment to the new clause 79, which concerns section 33 of the Resource Management Act. That deals with the transfer of powers, and effectively it allows local government to delegate decision-making authority to a variety of organisations, including iwi authorities. The power contained in section 33 to delegate authority has never in the history of the Resource Management Act ever been used to delegate any authority of any description to any M\u0101ori organisation\u2014not one single local authority has ever used that provision to delegate decision-making authority to M\u0101ori. That is an absolute disgrace. There are many M\u0101ori organisations that have expertise, and that know and understand the locality, to which a variety of decisions could be delegated, but never has a local authority used that delegating power. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001336\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003EWe have made amendments to make sure that not just iwi authorities but the holders of customary rights orders, the holders of territorial customary rights orders, iwi, and hap\u016B, are able to have any delegated authority given to them from the local authority. Really, it is about trying to encourage a cultural change in local government in order to recognise that M\u0101ori can be trusted\u2014although, of course, this Government fails to provide any kind of good model for that, because this whole bill is about how M\u0101ori cannot be trusted. The M\u0101ori MPs in Labour and in New Zealand First, clearly understand that this bill is about the failure to trust M\u0101ori to do the right thing, and to share their resources with the rest of the country. Even given the fact that M\u0101ori have been sharing their resources with the whole of the country for the last 150 years\u2014so many of our national parks, our national heritage of maunga and lakes, directly benefit the community and the nation as a whole because of M\u0101ori generosity\u2014this Government fails to provide any kind of model of trust. Local authorities, I guess, can be excused to a very minor extent for not having any guidance, certainly from central government, as to how to trust M\u0101ori to make decisions about those issues for themselves. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001337\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003EWe have suggested an amendment to clause 86, which concerns the coastal occupation charges. Our amendment would ensure that a territorial customary rights holder would take a share of any coastal occupation charges over any area to which that order applies. It is perfectly reasonable for customary rights holders to have a share in those resources, given the limited capacity that any M\u0101ori will have to exercise any kind of control over those areas under the new provisions for a territorial customary rights order. Our amendments to clause 89 through to clause 104 will ensure that the holders of customary rights orders and territorial customary rights orders will be taken into account if, for example, there is a plan change or a resource consent application. Our amendments remove the requirement that it is the council that has the discretion to determine whether a resource consent or plan change will have a significant adverse effect on customary rights. We have taken out that discretion, and made it a matter of fact. We have taken out the requirement that it be a significant adverse effect; rather it can simply be an adverse effect. That will ensure that the apparent protection in this bill for customary rights\u2014which are being traded for the customary rights that M\u0101ori will get in the courts\u2014actually do have some kind of effect in the Resource Management Act, and that councils have to advise the holders of those customary rights orders. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001338\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003EThey should have to tell them if things are happening in the areas to which those orders apply, and that does not have to be a significant effect. A significant adverse effect is actually a very high threshold, especially if it is left to the local authority to make that decision. If councils are failing to transfer powers under section 33\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00221fb8d8db-3e96-49c7-ab1c-b7916a50e30e\u0022 data-id=\u00229e5d9ad3ea1c412e9bfb0006bec793bf\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001339\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221fb8d8db-3e96-49c7-ab1c-b7916a50e30e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00229e5d9ad3ea1c412e9bfb0006bec793bf\u0022\u003ESTEVE CHADWICK (Labour\u2014Rotorua):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That the question be now put.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022c541b98bcef14146ab9a17d3a9c760c1\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the motion be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 66\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 51\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 27; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8; M\u0101ori Party 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001340\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the following amendment in the name of Metiria Turei to clause 86 be agreed to:\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001341\u0022\u003Eto omit the words \u201Cfollowing subsection\u201D, and substitute the words \u201Cfollowing subsections\u201D.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u002215d0be8cc0b84bdfa6d4ff16edd540f8\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 10\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EGreen Party 9; M\u0101ori Party 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 107\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001342\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the following amendment in the name of Metiria Turei to clause 86 be agreed to:\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001343\u0022\u003Eto add the following new subsection:\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001344\u0022\u003E(4B)\tA regional council must, in relation to any coastal marine area that is subject to a territorial customary rights order, share equitably, by agreement with the holder of the order, revenue received from a coastal occupation charge.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u00223d556d844cdb4f6c897e96bab0aed977\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 10\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EGreen Party 9; M\u0101ori Party 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 107\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001345\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the following amendment in the name of Metiria Turei to clause 90 be agreed to:\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001346\u0022\u003Eto omit from new subsection (4) of section 94B of the principal Act the words \u201C, in the opinion of the consent authority,\u201D.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022e5772ba3bece4d06bf18c8692c633a05\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 10\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EGreen Party 9; M\u0101ori Party 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 107\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001347\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the following amendment in the name of Metiria Turei to clause 90 be agreed to:\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001348\u0022\u003Eto omit from new subsection (4) of section 94B of the principal Act the words \u201Cmay adversely\u201D, and substitute the word \u201Cwill\u201D.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u002280b070ce4e8c41fc89eb1cbe10f313f8\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 10\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EGreen Party 9; M\u0101ori Party 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 107\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001349\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the following amendment in the name of Metiria Turei to clause 91 be agreed to:\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001350\u0022\u003Eto omit from new subsection (4) of section 94D of the principal Act the words \u201C, in the opinion of the consent authority,\u201D.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022eb6aac99f3504868be522408fc11e18d\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 10\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EGreen Party 9; M\u0101ori Party 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 107\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001351\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the following amendment in the name of Metiria Turei to clause 101 be agreed to:\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001352\u0022\u003Eto insert in new clauses 2(2)(c), 3(1)(e), 5(4)(g), and 20(4)(g) of the First Schedule of the principal Act, after the word \u201Corders\u201D in each case, the words \u201C, customary rights orders, or territorial customary rights orders\u201D.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u00225c70db10fc734c76b1de4b23fc52c8f7\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 10\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EGreen Party 9; M\u0101ori Party 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 107\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001353\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the following amendment in the name of Metiria Turei to clause 104 be agreed to:\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001354\u0022\u003Eto omit from proposed new regulation 10(2)(h) the words \u201C, in the opinion of the consent authority, may be adversely\u201D, and substitute the word \u201Cis\u201D.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u00225941b247801a4ed18dbfe7390e32ea1c\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 10\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EGreen Party 9; M\u0101ori Party 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 109\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001355\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the following amendment in the name of Metiria Turei to the amendment to clause 79 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 302 in the name of the Hon Dr Michael Cullen be agreed to:\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001356\u0022\u003Eto omit the proposed omission of words from this clause.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u00227213d718c27047f8a8d90df69be4194e\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 10\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EGreen Party 9; M\u0101ori Party 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 107\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment to the amendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001357\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the following amendment in the name of Metiria Turei to the amendment to clause 79 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 302 in the name of the Hon Dr Michael Cullen be agreed to:\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001358\u0022\u003Eto insert, after the word \u201Creserve\u201D, the words \u201Cholder of a customary rights order or territorial customary rights order, iwi, hapu, \u201C.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u002266ae1e9f00754b4eacf65b0277875ccc\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 10\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EGreen Party 9; M\u0101ori Party 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 107\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment to the amendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001359\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the following amendment in the name of Metiria Turei to the amendment to clause 89 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 302 in the name of the Hon Dr Michael Cullen be agreed to:\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001360\u0022\u003Eto omit from new section 85A of the principal Act the words \u201Ca significant\u201D, and substitute the word \u201Can\u201D.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u002295c06be572a2431c8509756410371466\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 10\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EGreen Party 9; M\u0101ori Party 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 107\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment to the amendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001361\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the following amendment in the name of Metiria Turei to the proposed new clause 93 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 302 in the name of the Hon Dr Michael Cullen be agreed to:\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001362\u0022\u003Eto omit from proposed new section 107A(1) of the principal Act the words \u201C, or is likely to, have a significant\u201D, and substitute the words \u201Chave an\u201D.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022b4d69d50629b4059a06e40d10aafaafe\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 11\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EGreen Party 9; M\u0101ori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 107\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment to the amendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001363\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the following amendment in the name of Metiria Turei to proposed new clause 93 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 302 in the name of the Hon Dr Michael Cullen be agreed to:\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001364\u0022\u003Eto omit from proposed new section 107A(2) of the principal Act the words \u201C, or is likely to, have a significant\u201D, and substitute the words \u201Chave an\u201D.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022252c4164b2fb4c1e8854f90eaafb6e3a\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 11\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EGreen Party 9; M\u0101ori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 107\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment to the amendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001365\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the following amendment in the name of Metiria Turei to the amendment to proposed new clause 93 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 302 in the name of the Hon Dr Michael Cullen be agreed to:\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001366\u0022\u003Eto omit proposed new section 107B of the principal Act.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022289cf0e03426450881634a8eaa1f2b24\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 11\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EGreen Party 9; M\u0101ori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 107\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment to the amendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001367\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the following amendment in the name of Metiria Turei to the amendment to clause 101 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 302 in the name of the Hon Dr Michael Cullen be agreed to:\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001368\u0022\u003Eto omit the proposed omission and substitution of new clauses 2(2)(c), 3(1)(e), 5(4)(g), and 20(4)(g) of the First Schedule of the principal Act.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022fad6bd0f4268484c8d4465015fcca261\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 11\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EGreen Party 9; M\u0101ori Party; 1 Independent: Awatere Huata.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 107\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment to the amendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001369\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 302 in the name of the Hon Dr Michael Cullen to Part 5 be agreed to.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u00227226fc853c38433f93112322c0b7415d\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 74\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 44\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 27; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 6; M\u0101ori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendments agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u00225d65415de75d44708f4812ebea61bd8d\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That Part 5 as amended be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 66\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 52\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 27; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8; M\u0101ori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EPart 5 as amended agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001370\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022edf2a8c0c3dc4f418e52edabdd95dc52\u0022\u003EPart 6  Provisions relating to public foreshore and seabed register, recognition agreements, and other matters\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002219386ba0-5a6e-485e-abc0-5a3128b4e1f6\u0022 data-id=\u00223f887e4c20464eb78b261998a8c3802e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001371\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219386ba0-5a6e-485e-abc0-5a3128b4e1f6\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00223f887e4c20464eb78b261998a8c3802e\u0022\u003EHon KEN SHIRLEY (ACT):\u003C/span\u003E I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I did not raise this point of order and contest your decision prior to taking the vote we have just completed, but I point out to you that I have been calling for an hour and a half. I was the ACT party\u2019s member on the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee, but it appears to me that you studiously avoided acknowledging my call. As the person who represented ACT right through the select committee process, I would like some assurance that I will get a call on Part 6, having been denied one on Part 5.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001372\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220ed9ad81-05c1-4171-80c6-24fa02cade42\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022eb810518827348d0b893b4e849366693\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich)\u003C/span\u003E: I thank the member for raising that. He has that assurance. I shall do my best to be fair.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022 data-id=\u00227ad27c24124d4cb893cc48a3d4d64db9\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001373\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00227ad27c24124d4cb893cc48a3d4d64db9\u0022\u003EGERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader\u2014National):\u003C/span\u003E This clause is a piece of work on which Dail Jones really should be patting himself on the back. This part is an amazing piece of work. These clauses are absolutely amazing, and Dail Jones will forever be walking around in white shoes with a gold dangly around his neck, known as the man who came to town with the chequebook to buy off all the applicants to the territorial title claims and territorial rights claims to the seabed and foreshore.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001374\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003EWhen one reads through the bill, one sees that it starts off very gently and makes comments about the chief executive of the Ministry of Justice having to register all these titles, rights, agreements, and various other things. But then when we look at the actual meat and potatoes of the part\u2014that is right around clause 112, which I know a lot about, and clause 115, which I think is now called clause 115A\u2014we see a picture, especially if we go to the latter clause 115, whereby there is nothing in this bill to stop any appropriately appointed Government Minister doing a deal with M\u0101ori treaty claimants to give them title, full beneficial ownership, to the seabed and foreshore. That Government Minister would most likely be the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001375\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003EAs we spoke of before in another clause\u2014because it is in the bill twice just to make sure that Tainui know it is in there\u2014this is the \u201CTainui, get us off the hook.\u201D clause, the \u201CWelcome back to the camp, Nanaia Mahuta!\u201D part of the bill. We know that Raglan Harbour is very shortly to be signed over\u2014the Minister of M\u0101ori Affairs has just confirmed it\u2014lock, stock, and barrel to Tainui, supposedly as a treaty settlement. This bill that is to protect the seabed and foreshore and to put it into public ownership, is going to allow just that. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001376\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003EThen when we look back in the bill to the changes that were made around clause 112, we see that the Minister of M\u0101ori Affairs and the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations can go to\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001377\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d52e59e3-2195-4c95-a654-665c11b39b63\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e6fa4735c311475d9bf1abbec9c12ab7\u0022\u003EHon Parekura Horomia\u003C/span\u003E: I will go to the High Court!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001378\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002219f03a3e881e4e6181f31261a3e19571\u0022\u003EGERRY BROWNLEE\u003C/span\u003E: I will tell them that; the poor fellow has not read the bill!\u2014a M\u0101ori claimant group, a group claiming a territorial right or a customary right on a stretch of coastline, and can say: \u201CAll right, we\u2019ll negotiate with you. We will get all this done, we will ratify it, but you\u2019ll guarantee to hand the title back to the Crown\u2014and we\u2019ll give you a cheque.\u201D That is what clause 112 states. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001379\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003EI am fascinated that Mr Jones is sitting there, wondering what he has done. His colleagues are sitting next to him, saying: \u201CNo, he can\u2019t have.\u201D Well, he has. Clause 112(1) is very simple: \u201CThe Attorney-General and the Minister of M\u0101ori Affairs may enter into an agreement with a group to recognise that, but for the vesting of the full legal and beneficial ownership of the public foreshore and seabed in the Crown \u2026\u201D and so on. Once they have agreed, the applicant group simply takes the affidavit, the bit of paper signed by those two Ministers, that says clauses 28 and 31 have been satisfied. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001380\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003EWell, when we go back and have a look at those clauses, we see that they will be given just a bit of a cursory glance. The Ministers do not have to prove a darn thing, as they would in a court. Oh, the thumbs are up over there; they know it; they do not have to prove a thing. They will get the affidavits and do the little sweetheart deal, and the High Court will have no choice other than to give the rights. Then they will go back into the backroom and work out just how the cheque\u2014it will already have been negotiated how big it is\u2014will be paid over.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001381\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003EI can see the Minister in charge of the bill shaking his head. Well, I tell Mr Cullen that I am sorry, but throughout the day\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022 data-id=\u0022f00cc7c9d7f3472aa4bacdfbb1b464d9\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001382\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022f00cc7c9d7f3472aa4bacdfbb1b464d9\u0022\u003EHon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister):\u003C/span\u003E The member has become visibly deflated during the day. As the debate has gone on, the arguments have got thinner and thinner and more tenuous from the Opposition. Let us just try and deal with what on earth the member has been trying to make out of the bill, this time.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001383\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003EClause 115A assures M\u0101ori that this bill does not affect existing or future treaty settlements, so what does that mean? What it means is this: if some Government\u2014as the National Government did in 1996\u2014entered into a treaty agreement to hand over the foreshore and seabed, it would have to pass an Act. What does a Government have to do now? It has to pass an Act. In other words, nothing changes at all. Again, I say that nothing changes at all.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001384\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003EBut that member will lie awake at night worrying that that beach where he is the most famous surfer\u2014a man who comes in day after day amazing everybody with his skill\u2014might pass into private M\u0101ori ownership. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411169edefb30248a46248b5e1deefd9a6a83001385\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003ESitting suspended from 12 midnight to 9 a.m. (Thursday)\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000001\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u002270c6d5071dd94b1bbf86a1e8fc5a9170\u0022\u003ETuesday, 16 November 2004\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000002\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u002259c579016c4246378993a0da9c0f47cb\u0022\u003E(continued on Thursday, 18 November 2004)\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022\u003EBills\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000003\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022e37369ed0ac343e0b388855907d08863\u0022\u003EForeshore and Seabed Bill\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000004\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022d93bfcae85bf4eb3bfea7f75663450a6\u0022\u003EIn Committee\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000005\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u00229fc9c968df6f4e0db95022dec0e22712\u0022\u003EDebate resumed.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000006\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022bca974d564f54945aaf54fdd5cc6978c\u0022\u003EPart 6  Provisions relating to public foreshore and seabed register, recognition agreements, and other matters (continued)\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022 data-id=\u00224334b7a6d2204f438d37ac890adbebec\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000007\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00224334b7a6d2204f438d37ac890adbebec\u0022\u003EHon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister):\u003C/span\u003E I shall make a very brief extension to what I was saying last night, just to indicate to the Committee that, on Supplementary Order Paper 306, my colleague Helen Duncan in particular, Metiria Turei, and also Dr Wayne Mapp have raised with me the issue in relation to the Bayswater Marina. The Supplementary Order Paper in that respect deals with that particular issue. It is narrowly cast to make sure it does not get a lot of other things into the net that I think the select committee itself was clear should not be brought into the net in that case.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022df788c48-b9be-42fd-b8f2-76629a5572b8\u0022 data-id=\u00223f386f0f2d314bda9ed98198895f2c61\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000008\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022df788c48-b9be-42fd-b8f2-76629a5572b8\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00223f386f0f2d314bda9ed98198895f2c61\u0022\u003EDr WAYNE MAPP (National\u2014North Shore):\u003C/span\u003E I shall deal with two issues in this part. The first issue I will deal with is in relation to North Shore City.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000009\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022df788c48-b9be-42fd-b8f2-76629a5572b8\u0022\u003EIt became evident in the select committee some weeks ago that there was an enormous risk that North Shore City would be denied the fruits of the results of the High Court decision. The facts are these. Bayswater Marina was established 10 years ago. At that time, access provisions were done by Resource Management Act consents. In recent years there has been an ongoing battle, I guess, between the city and the marina over a whole range of things. That culminated in litigation over the marginal strip. North Shore City, acting on behalf of the residents, particularly the Ng\u0101taringa Bay Society, won a case that, yes, there shall be a marginal strip 20 metres wide, and there was a very, very fully argued judgment in the High Court to that effect. That went on appeal to the Court of Appeal.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000010\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022df788c48-b9be-42fd-b8f2-76629a5572b8\u0022\u003EThen the Government puts out its Foreshore and Seabed Bill, and that decision has stayed. But the legislation would have had the effect of cutting right across the decision of the High Court, with no other remedy. The whole case of the Government in relation to this bill is that it is the alternative remedy to the Ng\u0101ti Apa case. Whether or not people accept that, that is the Government\u2019s argument. In the North Shore instance, however, the bill would simply cut across the decision and there would be no remedy. Effectively, the Government was saying that the Bayswater Marina had won by legislative fiat. Public access would not have been as certain, because Resource Management Act consents are not the same as marginal strips.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000011\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022df788c48-b9be-42fd-b8f2-76629a5572b8\u0022\u003EThat seemed to me to be wrong. I dealt with that issue extensively at the select committee, and Dail Jones in particular would know that. I have spoken at length to the North Shore City Council, and I know that it has made long and urgent representations. So I do want to acknowledge that finally that issue has been recognised\u2014only yesterday, I might add\u2014by Supplementary Order Paper 306. Unfortunately, of course, that would have been completely unnecessary if this matter had been dealt with properly at the outset. Alternatively, if this bill had never existed, this issue would never have arisen. So in many ways the Supplementary Order Paper is there because of the Government\u2019s own negligence in relation to this matter. At best, it is fixing up its own negligence.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000012\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022df788c48-b9be-42fd-b8f2-76629a5572b8\u0022\u003EFrankly, I am not sure whether I need to give any credit to New Zealand First in relation to this issue. Its members will have their own views. Certainly, I know that the mayor of North Shore City, acting on behalf of the residents, and the deputy mayor, and Councillor Darby in particular, have gone to enormous efforts with the Government to have what would have been an enormously serious anomaly removed. What will happen now, as I understand it, is that the cases will proceed and, one way or the other, one of the two parties will win. The Court of Appeal will decide whether the North Shore City Council or Bayswater Marina will win. That is, of course, a reasonable outcome. As I say, unlike the rest of the bill, which is the Government\u2019s alleged response to the Ng\u0101ti Apa case, this aspect of it would simply have had a nugatory effect without the Supplementary Order Paper. So I do acknowledge that point.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000013\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022df788c48-b9be-42fd-b8f2-76629a5572b8\u0022\u003EThe second, broader point in Part 6 is, of course, about Tainui. We all know that, and I know that in particular, as some people may well imagine. Clause 115A allows those treaty settlements. This is the whole point, I say to New Zealand First. It says it has guaranteed Crown ownership on behalf of all New Zealanders. Right at the very time this bill is in the House, the Government is negotiating with Tainui and others up and down this country. I predict that it will transfer, in the same manner as with the Rotorua lakes, to those claimants the fee simple\u2014and I want to be very clear about that\u2014to the West Coast harbours and perhaps other parts of New Zealand.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000014\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022df788c48-b9be-42fd-b8f2-76629a5572b8\u0022\u003EThe whole idea of Crown ownership being guaranteed is shot through with that exception. We on this side of the House know that that is the deal the Government has struck with its own M\u0101ori caucus. That is why those members are coming down here and meekly voting for the legislation. We will be very interested indeed to see what Nanaia Mahuta\u2019s vote on this legislation is. One wonders whether that was how her vote was procured, as well.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000015\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022df788c48-b9be-42fd-b8f2-76629a5572b8\u0022\u003EThis is a very important issue. The trouble is that it is double-dealing. At the very time that the Government says it is guaranteeing Crown ownership, it is doing that deal behind closed doors to sell off Government ownership. Its claim will be, of course, that it is a separate Act of Parliament. We know that it will just trot across to the Green Party, the M\u0101ori Party, and possibly even New Zealand First, to get support for that kind of deal. National has drawn a line in the sand.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022 data-id=\u002204f76770876b4093923768d8d2b2884d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000016\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002204f76770876b4093923768d8d2b2884d\u0022\u003EDAIL JONES (NZ First):\u003C/span\u003E It is refreshing that the National Party will support this bill. The National Party will be supporting the Government\u2019s and New Zealand First\u2019s amendment to clause 117, so we will be getting National Party support for this legislation\u2014at least, for part of it. It is unfortunate that the National Party did not support the moves to protect reclamations and suchlike. It is unfortunate that the National Party could not support the clause that vested ownership of the foreshore and seabed in the Crown. What is the difference between supporting the Bayswater Marina situation and opposing the foreshore and seabed belonging to the Crown? The logic fails me entirely. The National Party could have voted for the clauses that did away with the amendment to Te Ture Whenua Maori Act and the 1991 legislation, but, no, it voted against all those clauses. It is good to see that we are getting the National Party to have some slight degree of sense.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000017\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022\u003ENew Zealand First is delighted with this provision. We were informed on only 16 November by the North Shore City Council that something needed to be done, and today, 18 November, amending legislation is being passed through the House, with the initial support of New Zealand First to make sure it happened. Up until now the National Party has voted against every provision of this bill, and we are only too delighted to help out the court process, which is being allowed to continue in this case.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000018\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022\u003EOf course, the major aspect of this bill for New Zealand First is clause 112. It never occurred to the National Party at any stage that if clause 112 went through in its initial form, it would have allowed the Government secretly to enter into any type of agreement with anyone, and no one would ever have known what had happened in that decision. There could have been an arrangement between the Government and any person, any M\u0101ori tribe or whatever, wh\u0101nau, hap\u016B, or iwi, with regard to the foreshore and seabed, and no one would have known the outcome of it. Fortunately, the New Zealand Law Society\u2019s submission indicated that that issue needed to be resolved, and New Zealand First has taken up that suggestion, which we would expect the National Party to support. Will the National Party support the New Zealand First amendment, or new clause 112, which makes it clear that any agreement entered into between the Government and wh\u0101nau, hap\u016B, or tribe must be registered in the High Court? There must be an application and affidavits in support, and the High Court is required to check off the requirements of section 28 to make sure that they have been fulfilled, so that the matter is open and above board, for the protection of, shall we say, European New Zealanders but also M\u0101ori New Zealanders, who then can see what other tribes have been doing.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000019\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022\u003EAs far as Dr Wayne Mapp\u2019s comment about clause 115A is concerned, the effect of this legislation is that in any treaty settlement there will be two pieces of legislation\u2014one for the treaty settlement, and one for any transfer of the foreshore and seabed. Of course, nothing at law, or in parliamentary practice, or in constitutional practice prevents a Government from passing a bill that allows the Government to do anything it likes, including transferring ownership of land. [Interruption] The previous National Government did that time and time again for Taup\u014D. National members just do not understand the constitutional requirements and the situation in New Zealand. At any time a Government can sell anything. The National Government did that in the 1990s, the Labour Government did it in the 1980s, and New Zealand First is making sure by means of clause 12 that such issues must come before Parliament for a decision to be made, rather than a Nick Smith hocking off and flogging off parts of the country, as his National Party did when it was in office in the 1990s. This bill, clause 12 in particular, makes it clear that any sale of foreshore and seabed land must come before Parliament\u2014as Larry Baldock has indicated, as well. In terms of clause 12, Parliament must enact a special separate Act on anything to do with the foreshore and seabed\u2014including any settlement provision. That is an extra requirement of this legislation\u2014two pieces of legislation. There will not be the secret type of deal that the National Party Government used to get up to, then rush one set of legislation through the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000020\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022\u003EI thought Dr Wayne Mapp understood this matter. It was told to him time and time again in the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee that a Government\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000021\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224ad02d80-0242-43c0-a0b6-862d72b3f978\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022fd3979341479489387fc5b76dbe893bf\u0022\u003EBrent Catchpole\u003C/span\u003E: It\u2019s too difficult for him.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000022\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228ff8d94dc12d4a55b875b0f1eccba667\u0022\u003EDAIL JONES\u003C/span\u003E: It is too difficult for Dr Wayne Mapp to understand. He was informed time and time again that this bill requires two sets of legislation to give effect to a treaty settlement that involves the foreshore and seabed. At law, constitutionally, a Government can do anything it likes, provided that it passes the measure through Parliament. That is the right of a Government. No Act can bind a subsequent Government. That is why one has to vote for New Zealand First\u2014to make sure that what used to happen does not happen in the future.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002219386ba0-5a6e-485e-abc0-5a3128b4e1f6\u0022 data-id=\u0022fcfc3c7db68e4c138d17b5f88ddf4525\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000023\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219386ba0-5a6e-485e-abc0-5a3128b4e1f6\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022fcfc3c7db68e4c138d17b5f88ddf4525\u0022\u003EHon KEN SHIRLEY (ACT):\u003C/span\u003E We have just seen another expression of why the New Zealand First Party should be thoroughly ashamed of itself. This legislation is being passed through Parliament today only because of the support of that party. I think Michael Cullen is chuckling to himself because he knows he has duped New Zealand First. We heard yesterday in the debate on Part 5 that United Future had been duped. Larry Baldock made the point that he had had an undertaking from the Government that the review of the Resource Management Act would not intrude into Part 2, and he was somewhat aghast when he found that this measure is intruding into a review of Part 2. He felt duped, and so he should. The funny thing is that Winston Peters and his merry band have not realised they have been duped. They are complicit in having this bad legislation rammed through Parliament, and do not realise what they have agreed to. That has been obvious from all the contributions we have had from the members of that party.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000024\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219386ba0-5a6e-485e-abc0-5a3128b4e1f6\u0022\u003EI acknowledge the efforts of \u201CCaptain Wayne Mapp\u201D in the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee. Certainly, with regard to the Bayswater Marina he put up a valiant argument on behalf of his constituents. But, of course, that is just one small example of where due process has been utterly denied by this arrogant legislation. The whole of the legislation is all about riding roughshod over due process. That is one of the worst aspects of it. Indeed, it will be the basis of a new round of grievance that we will see within M\u0101oridom, triggered from this legislation. From the day it is passed and gets its royal assent, be it today or tomorrow, there will be a legitimate new grievance in this country, because of this Government\u2019s failure to follow due process. That is what we have seen in respect of the Bayswater Marina. With one stroke this bill effectively takes away rights that were won in court\u2014strips them away from the party that was to benefit.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000025\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219386ba0-5a6e-485e-abc0-5a3128b4e1f6\u0022\u003EBut when we look at Part 6 we see that it is where all the regulations are. With all legislation, we have to appreciate that the devil is in the detail. We are going to have all these new regimes. We will have public foreshore and seabed reserves, and, of course, they will all come with their own little management plans. We will have Department of Conservation officers up and down the country preparing little management plans. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000026\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b0d8b0e0-3ece-4865-9145-5eb5983fc54c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e888ffdb47f7471aa3cfd2dc16ef84ed\u0022\u003EHon Richard Prebble\u003C/span\u003E: They will love it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000027\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219386ba0-5a6e-485e-abc0-5a3128b4e1f6\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002208e7d74b38944137938e4f7abfa62f04\u0022\u003EHon KEN SHIRLEY\u003C/span\u003E: They will. It will be like the Department of Conservation is on steroids. Its staff love these new activities where they can fiddle. It is just unbelievable. Of course, the Minister of Conservation is becoming tsar-like in his powers in this country. It is quite extraordinary. He assumes the sorts of absolute powers of the tsar as he takes over more and more of this country. As well as being tsarist, the department is also Stalinist, with its heavy emphasis on rules, regulations, and control. It is extraordinarily bad legislation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000028\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219386ba0-5a6e-485e-abc0-5a3128b4e1f6\u0022\u003EI draw the Committee\u2019s attention to clause 114, where we see some of the detail of the new regulations and rules\u2014another layer that we can expect. What has not been mentioned in this debate to date is the impost that this legislation will be on local government. It is crumbling under the burden of all these additional tasks, and the demands for endless consultation. It is under incredible strain. The Government blithely legislates, but where is the rubber going to hit the road? It will be at the local government level. It has responsibility for administering the Resource Management Act. We have another layer of these sorts of nebulous spiritual references, which local government\u2014with hearings and consultations\u2014will be drawn into and involved with. Communities up and down the country will realise very soon that this legislation is an absolute crock of the proverbial.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000029\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219386ba0-5a6e-485e-abc0-5a3128b4e1f6\u0022\u003EMichael Cullen sits there and smiles and smirks. He is quite self-assured that he has duped United Future and New Zealand First. He will get this legislation through Parliament, it seems, but that does not make it good legislation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00221e93d9c8-b183-40db-b200-833697df066c\u0022 data-id=\u00229b1ac6a64b8e49f5910c1e8474628410\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000030\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221e93d9c8-b183-40db-b200-833697df066c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00229b1ac6a64b8e49f5910c1e8474628410\u0022\u003ELARRY BALDOCK (United Future):\u003C/span\u003E I would like to address some comments to clause 112, which is the clause that allows for agreements directly between the Minister and claimants\u2014we assume, M\u0101ori groups\u2014who are seeking a territorial customary right under the court process.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000031\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221e93d9c8-b183-40db-b200-833697df066c\u0022\u003EThe bill in the form it was introduced and referred to the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee contained a clause 112 of about five or six lines that provided quite wide scope for Ministers\u2014it did not identify which ones\u2014to \u201Center into an agreement with a group to recognise that, but for the vesting of the full legal and beneficial ownership of the public foreshore and seabed in the Crown by section 11, that group would have held territorial customary rights over a specified area of the public foreshore and seabed.\u201D Understandably, this provision caused a great deal of concern because it raised the issue of backroom deals whereby the Government, in order to try to calm down many of the objections to this legislation, might dish out lollipops, to some extent, to try to gain back favour amongst, particularly, the M\u0101ori community.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000032\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221e93d9c8-b183-40db-b200-833697df066c\u0022\u003EI think many people have called for M\u0101ori to have their day in court over this issue. Although many people in the land do not necessarily believe that M\u0101ori should have the right to foreshore and seabed title, they have been upset by the cutting across of due process, which would have enabled M\u0101ori to go to court to check it out. Clause 112 was a complete contradiction to that. Rather than their being given the right to go to court, they would have the right to go to the Minister and perhaps seek a backroom deal. It is good to see that there is an amendment that makes it a lot more transparent. I do not think it goes the whole way to answer some of the critics, but it makes some improvement.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000033\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221e93d9c8-b183-40db-b200-833697df066c\u0022\u003EBut I want to say first of all that although many have called for M\u0101ori to have their day in court, I believe that what ought to have happened in the very beginning was that the Crown should have had its day in court. When the Court of Appeal made its decision, it ought to have been the Crown, first of all, that went off to the Privy Council to have that decision tested thoroughly at the highest court in the land at that particular time. The ruling of the Court of Appeal that overturned the long-held understanding under the Ninety Mile Beach case would have been tested out thoroughly, and then the Government, having established that fact clearly in law, could have proceeded to introduce legislation if it needed, based upon the fact that everyone had had his or her day in court. Really, the Crown was the one that should have led that case. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000034\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221e93d9c8-b183-40db-b200-833697df066c\u0022\u003E Many of us were under the impression, or at least I was, that the appeal by Port Marlborough to the Privy Council was going to give some satisfaction in that regard, until during the select committee I learnt that its basis for appeal to the Privy Council was not as clear as many had understood it to be, and that it would test only a small part of the Court of Appeal decision. Had that appeal gone to the Privy Council and a decision been made, it still would have left some unanswered questions. Many submitters to the select committee urged the committee to wait until 15 or 16 November, when the first hearing was to be held\u2014and it possibly would have been 6 weeks after that before any ruling was given\u2014but then we found, even before we got to 15 or 16 November, that Port Marlborough had withdrawn its application to the Privy Council.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000035\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221e93d9c8-b183-40db-b200-833697df066c\u0022\u003ESo these questions will never be answered. I think one of the concerns about the legislation is that there are some unresolved questions around the country that people will not get satisfaction over, and they will, therefore, make up their own minds and draw their own conclusions about the justice of this issue. I think that is regrettable. This issue is important. We are seeing already, as was mentioned in the news this morning, that people are taking crazy action over this legislation. United Future is very concerned that, because of the process, some people may do some very foolish things around this country that cause all of us to suffer as a result. The only way to have really dealt with this issue was to have taken some more time to make sure that everybody\u2014or, at least, as many people as possible\u2014was on board with the real facts. I think that the case going to the Privy Council would have helped that process.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000036\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221e93d9c8-b183-40db-b200-833697df066c\u0022\u003EHowever, we are faced with this legislation today. We see that the Minister\u2019s amendments that have been put before us make some improvement to clause 112 whereby at least there will be some transparency.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022 data-id=\u00221ed9d2a153154d9c904eacd912585c9a\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000037\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00221ed9d2a153154d9c904eacd912585c9a\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH (National\u2014Nelson):\u003C/span\u003E I want to expose some of the real hidden agenda in Part 6.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000038\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b0d8b0e0-3ece-4865-9145-5eb5983fc54c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022266274c7f6594a4a801869fbf6909d46\u0022\u003EHon Richard Prebble\u003C/span\u003E: You will need an extension of time\u2014there\u2019s so much of it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000039\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c230465ac7dc40da9a369fd8e17f44e3\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH\u003C/span\u003E: There is so much of it, as Richard Prebble quite rightly says; there is a huge amount. The first issue I want to draw attention to is the cunning little exercise from Dr Cullen in respect of the Resource Management Act and the issue of ancestral connection orders. The New Zealand First Party quite rightly has sympathised with this side of the House in respect of reform of the Resource Management Act, and therefore it was not prepared to be part of the nonsense provisions in the original bill that would have given even more leverage to iwi. So those provisions have been dropped, except we are now told they are to be rolled out in a resource management amendment bill to be introduced next month\u2014and no doubt to be supported by the United Future Party. This is the sort of \u201Ca-b\u201D game that is going on in this Parliament between New Zealand First, the Greens, and United Future, by which Labour is able to get its wicked way in terms of legislation that will take New Zealand backwards.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000040\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003EWe also had the contribution from Dail Jones, and he was quite correct when he said we cannot bind a future Parliament. The Government can, quite rightly, enter into any treaty settlement it seeks, and it must come back and legislate.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000041\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c437bda8-4741-4ac5-89ab-b0818e1ab9fa\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ae762a14feb940208002a3b79a96ff39\u0022\u003EDarren Hughes\u003C/span\u003E: Is that right or wrong?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000042\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022753897fdba1645d8b39a794000ac4688\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH\u003C/span\u003E: That is quite correct. But then why on earth, I ask the member for Otaki, do we need these provisions, which are an invitation to the Government to go down this road? I will say why. It is because this Government has done a sneaky deal. On the one hand it is able to put hand on heart and say all the foreshore and seabed are going to be vested in the Crown, but there are these sneaky little invitation clauses that will\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000043\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c437bda8-4741-4ac5-89ab-b0818e1ab9fa\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b8eae59e7e0948f0a40f1426a859df74\u0022\u003EDarren Hughes\u003C/span\u003E: We\u2019re not like that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000044\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c6888dbac7e54da4895e33013225fa93\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH\u003C/span\u003E: Well, Government members are not like that! I guess we have to take their word, like we take John Tamihere\u2019s word about his not taking golden handshakes. That is the full integrity that we have from members of the Labour Party! They have a track record of saying one thing and doing the opposite, and we see so much of it in this bill. I simply ask Mr Darren Hughes whether he can give me an absolute reassurance that there will be no deals with Tainui in respect of the harbours on the west coast of the North Island.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000045\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002226e4d7a7e13347eaa277d8593e741b20\u0022\u003EHon Dr Michael Cullen\u003C/span\u003E: We have scarcely begun negotiations yet.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000046\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c437bda8-4741-4ac5-89ab-b0818e1ab9fa\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220f12f393aefc4b3aa6fa07c7e6cab448\u0022\u003EDarren Hughes\u003C/span\u003E: What did the High Court judge say about this man?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000047\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022be948da03b3f445fa73046a8009b75f2\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH\u003C/span\u003E: Mr Darren Hughes simply gets into some completely irrelevant issue, and Dr Cullen is even more revealing in his out of order interjection. But he is even more revealing when he says it is all subject to negotiation. Does that give New Zealanders great reassurance that the foreshore and seabed will be vested in the Crown? All we get from Dr Cullen is that it is all open to negotiation. We know, indeed, the route that we are heading down in that respect, because these provisions are the entr\u00E9e for the transfer to respective iwi of those harbours and significant areas of foreshore and seabed.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000048\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003EI also want to deal with the issues around the bureaucratic nonsense. My greatest frustration in this debate is the lack of speeches that have been focused on what is a really sensible set of legislation under which New Zealand manages its foreshore and seabed in the interests of all New Zealanders. We have not had anything of that sort from this Government. All we have had is slick political deals that are designed to solve a political problem. In fact, what we see in this Part 6\u2014and it really does come into focus in it\u2014is the absolute mess we are creating in the law in respect of the management of the foreshore and seabed. We will have these new foreshore reserves. They were publicly announced on only Tuesday of this week, but they will be law by the end of today. Then we are to have, under the Resource Management Act, a different set of plans. I simply ask why, for goodness\u2019 sake, we would want to have a foreshore reserve alongside marine reserves, alongside tai\u0101pure reserves, and alongside m\u0101taitai reserves, as well as having another set of plans under the Resource Management Act that are required by law. What sort of mishmash mess are we creating in terms of sensible management of our foreshore and seabed? This part will create a huge challenge for a future Government to clean up the confused laws we have created for the management of our foreshore.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220e7e8da2-a6a1-41bb-aeb0-a49be255a293\u0022 data-id=\u002240a72f33736b4c2f8fb81bc0a06d786b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000049\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220e7e8da2-a6a1-41bb-aeb0-a49be255a293\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002240a72f33736b4c2f8fb81bc0a06d786b\u0022\u003ENANAIA MAHUTA (Labour\u2014Tainui):\u003C/span\u003E I want to take a call on Part 6 and comment on a couple of points\u2014firstly, in respect of some issues raised by the member who has just spoken. There has been some concern throughout the whole debate that a foreshore and seabed reserve, in itself, could prevent a marine reserve or a m\u0101taitai, but in fact if a management committee, within its management plan, decided it wanted a marine reserve or a m\u0101taitai, then under this part of the legislation it could indeed provide for and apply for these. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000050\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220e7e8da2-a6a1-41bb-aeb0-a49be255a293\u0022\u003EI say to the speaker before me that after the whole process of establishing our foreshore and seabed reserves has been gone through, a management committee that wanted a marine reserve could itself make an application under the Marine Reserves Act to redesignate its reserve as a marine reserve. I think it could achieve aims that are not too different from those of all New Zealanders in terms of protecting the marine biodiversity of our foreshores and seas. So it is all possible. The point here is that it is a decision that can be made entirely within the foreshore and seabed reservations provided for in this bill. I think it is a bit of game-playing to say it cannot happen, because it can. It is all within the possibility of the decision making of the management board and the management plan. We should embrace the kind of ability that restores decision making back to local peoples and their communities\u2014local decisions made by local peoples and their communities. That is important. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000051\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220e7e8da2-a6a1-41bb-aeb0-a49be255a293\u0022\u003EThe clause in Part 6 that I want to talk to in particular is clause 115, which will be no surprise to members. It is worth reading. The proposed new heading is \u201CProvision saving M\u0101ori reservations\u201D. The clause has some direct relevance to areas along the Manukau Harbour and, in particular, to Whatapaka Marae. Subclause (1) states: \u201CThis section applies if, before the commencement of this section, any land that is in the public foreshore and seabed has been set apart as M\u0101ori reservation\u2014(a) by the Chief Executive of Te Puni K\u014Dkiri under section 338 of Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993: (b) on application of the Minister of M\u0101ori Affairs under section 339 of Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993: (c) upon the express recommendation of the M\u0101ori Land Court under section 340. (1A) A M\u0101ori reservation referred to in subsection (1) must be treated as if it were a specified freehold interest for so long as it is set apart under section 338, or section 339 or section 340 of Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993.\u201D \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000052\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220e7e8da2-a6a1-41bb-aeb0-a49be255a293\u0022\u003EWithin the clarification of that, there is a place along the Manukau Harbour\u2014a place called Whatapaka Marae. Prior to the introduction of this bill that marae was able to extend its reservation out into the Manukau Harbour. That happened after quite an extensive tribunal hearing for the Manukau Harbour following the Foreshore and Seabed Endowment Revesting Act. It enabled the marae to extend its reservation in order to look after its flounder and oyster beds. Kaitiaki from the marae ensure\u2014they do not patrol\u2014that the resources there are continually replenishing, and that there are enough to feed the marae. All types of fishermen go into the reserve\u2014M\u0101ori, P\u0101keh\u0101, whoever. The point is that when it comes to regulating to ensure that the resources are continually replenishing and that people are respecting the values of the marae, a couple of the marae kaitiaki go out and say: \u201CNot today, mate.\u201D , and everybody knows why\u2014it is not a good time; there are not enough flounders around just then. It is pretty well respected. If people would like to go out to that marae and have a look at how it actually happens, they will see that a lot of cooperation exists amongst all peoples in the area, M\u0101ori and P\u0101keh\u0101 alike, and that they are able to manage what is happening in the reserve. The reserve goes into the Manukau Harbour quite well, in fact. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000053\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220e7e8da2-a6a1-41bb-aeb0-a49be255a293\u0022\u003ESo again I think that clause 115 is a clause that will be embraced, certainly in terms of the particular example I have cited. I would like to comment on the origin of that because there has been some lack of historical recollection in the Committee about these types of issues.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002209278070-a54a-41e9-8a27-45166301277e\u0022 data-id=\u00220a809f521db9482aa6dd2e4d5d1e0bba\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000054\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002209278070-a54a-41e9-8a27-45166301277e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00220a809f521db9482aa6dd2e4d5d1e0bba\u0022\u003EJEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader\u2014Green):\u003C/span\u003E The real purpose of this bill is finally revealed in clause 112. This is the clause that accepts there will be cases where this bill confiscates title and rights from M\u0101ori. It acknowledges that this bill is a confiscation, and then it attempts to provide some redress for that confiscation. Subclause (1) states: \u201Cbut for the vesting of the full legal and beneficial ownership of the public foreshore and seabed in the Crown \u2026 that group \u2026 would have had a claim for territorial customary rights over a specified area \u2026\u201D. The redress that it provides is a negotiation process, at the discretion of the Crown, with no requirement for any outcome, no requirement for any redress, but there is a negotiation process. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000055\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002209278070-a54a-41e9-8a27-45166301277e\u0022\u003EBut, worse than that, there is no requirement for any public notification of who is being negotiated with, so the Crown can simply talk to the largest group in the area, conduct a private negotiation with them, and reach a conclusion. There are to be no ancestral connection orders to identify which iwi and hap\u016B have an interest in particular areas of coast. We have seen already from the treaty settlement process that there are often smaller hap\u016B who are left out of the process, and the agreements are made without their participation or inclusion. These negotiations may go on without involving all possible claimants. People may wake up the next morning to find that an area of the coast in which they believe they have a very strong interest is subject to a territorial customary rights agreement between somebody else and the Crown. It is particularly likely in areas of\u2014[Interruption] \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000056\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b0d8b0e0-3ece-4865-9145-5eb5983fc54c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022404fb61226ed40b5bee9d8c0a94d6aff\u0022\u003EHon Richard Prebble\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I was trying to listen to the member and there was a very loud\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000057\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002240e652f2b36f4174ab1964b2c51f6da9\u0022\u003ERt Hon Winston Peters\u003C/span\u003E: Why would you want to?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000058\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b0d8b0e0-3ece-4865-9145-5eb5983fc54c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e24e0ad2f59f482db165cb84c0ff0f38\u0022\u003EHon Richard Prebble\u003C/span\u003E: I think it is very offensive for the leader of the New Zealand First Party to come over and stand just behind me, and then hold a loud conversation with Mr\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000059\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002232d9758775b14630bd83ad04048e43da\u0022\u003ERt Hon Winston Peters\u003C/span\u003E: I did not.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000060\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b0d8b0e0-3ece-4865-9145-5eb5983fc54c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002264ec0fba3abb4d6aa904e8ff5108d573\u0022\u003EHon Richard Prebble\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, the member did.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000061\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002270fa4cbd-9380-4916-9f2a-78da059d220e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022db9a642047ef4bea82f5f454cc36f0d5\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson)\u003C/span\u003E: I can deal with this. It is a longstanding convention in the Chamber\u2014Speaker\u2019s ruling 57/5\u2014and [Interruption] I say to Mr Jones that I am on my feet.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000062\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002251d18edf21024da89eeb06df95cc8ebd\u0022\u003EDail Jones\u003C/span\u003E: I wanted to apologise. It was me who was doing the talking.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000063\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002270fa4cbd-9380-4916-9f2a-78da059d220e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022646b32d0282b4b6e83b01c130a25ff6e\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson)\u003C/span\u003E: It is understood that there is no comment in that part of the Chamber because of the muffling effect it has on the microphones. I notice that the member has desisted, and I thank him for that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000064\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002209278070-a54a-41e9-8a27-45166301277e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022542fc55beca9487a822712e5f65057ab\u0022\u003EJEANETTE FITZSIMONS\u003C/span\u003E: The Green Party amendment to this clause tries to address this situation. It is in the name of Metiria Turei, and it requires notification to and consultation with other potentially interested parties that these negotiations are going on, so that they may register their interest, and I commend the amendment to the Committee. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000065\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002209278070-a54a-41e9-8a27-45166301277e\u0022\u003EThe second amendment removes the requirement to go back to the court in order to have these agreements ordered by the court. There is no particular reason to add this requirement. It causes delay and cost after the agreement has been reached, when there has already been a negotiated process, and there is already requirement elsewhere that a copy of the agreement should be served on other interested parties, Ministers, and local authorities. There is no particular reason why the applicant should have to go back to the court to get it all ordered there. All of this, of course, could have been\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000066\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224e45fc64b2794ddda91c3f30c180486b\u0022\u003ERt Hon Winston Peters\u003C/span\u003E: Why go to court? Why have the costs of going to court? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000067\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002209278070-a54a-41e9-8a27-45166301277e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221998937eef734a6cad718e15b4e34c7c\u0022\u003EJEANETTE FITZSIMONS\u003C/span\u003E: This is an entirely different situation from an applicant going to court under the original situation\u2014to the M\u0101ori Land Court. This is after the Crown has taken away that right and reached a negotiated agreement for something else. One does not, at that stage, apply to the court to settle something that has already been settled. All of that, of course, could have been avoided had the Greens\u2019 policy of recognising M\u0101ori underlying customary ownership been adopted with an amendment to Te Ture Whenua Maori Act, that where customary title was found, it could not be turned into freehold saleable title, and that public access would be negotiated on that title. Every M\u0101ori leader whom I have spoken to about this bill was in favour of that outcome and was prepared to accept it. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000068\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c8d289684b374157bb9ef72e75da34b0\u0022\u003ERt Hon Winston Peters\u003C/span\u003E: Name one.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000069\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002209278070-a54a-41e9-8a27-45166301277e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022742ae40839d34c22b8b57ce191e51096\u0022\u003EJEANETTE FITZSIMONS\u003C/span\u003E: I can name lots of them.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220bd5aa67-2f2b-4a13-a2b4-21a392396f11\u0022 data-id=\u002223b17cab4a5e41fea94e74e31de533f1\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000070\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220bd5aa67-2f2b-4a13-a2b4-21a392396f11\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002223b17cab4a5e41fea94e74e31de533f1\u0022\u003EHon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National):\u003C/span\u003E I want to make some comments on this part. To start with, I will make a couple of observations on the comments made by Dail Jones. He raved on about the National Government selling things off in the 1990s, but, of course, he failed to say that quite a lot of New Zealand assets started being sold off in the 1980s when Labour was in power. But having said that, I just do not know how any of that is relevant to now, because, quite frankly, at that point there was not a Government saying to the public of New Zealand: \u201CDon\u2019t you worry. You\u2019ve got ownership of the foreshore and seabed through Crown ownership, and you have it in perpetuity.\u201D That provision was not around at that earlier time, so I do not see the relevance of the member\u2019s remarks. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000071\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220bd5aa67-2f2b-4a13-a2b4-21a392396f11\u0022\u003EI refer now to clause 112. Despite the comments of Larry Baldock and the fact that he felt heartened because there have been some amendments to that clause, it is clearly still open to the kind of negotiation that the public of New Zealand have grown weary of\u2014the backroom stuff, and deals going on. It is still open to the charge of backroom dealing. Quite frankly, I am surprised that Mr Peters supports this. I thought that he did not like this kind of carry-on either, where things are done behind closed doors. If that is not the case, maybe he will explain it to me but, on the face of it, that is how it looks to me. Under clause 112, the Attorney-General\u2014whoever that might be; I have to hope it will be someone else\u2014and the Minister of M\u0101ori Affairs may enter into an agreement. So all that kind of carry-on goes on behind closed doors. If they come to some agreement that, but for the vesting of the foreshore and seabed in the Crown, M\u0101ori would have had, basically, a freehold title, then that shall be confirmed by the High Court. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000072\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220bd5aa67-2f2b-4a13-a2b4-21a392396f11\u0022\u003EThere are two points to be made. The first point, which Jeanette Fitzsimons referred to, is an acknowledgment, of course, that M\u0101ori would probably have had freehold title issued to them. That also flies in the face of all of those who were going along nicely and thinking, wrongly, that the Crown already owned the foreshore and seabed. So it is no wonder M\u0101ori were up in arms\u2014and still are. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000073\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220bd5aa67-2f2b-4a13-a2b4-21a392396f11\u0022\u003EThe other part of this is that this backroom talking having gone on, and the Ministers having reached some agreement with a M\u0101ori grouping, they will then have to go to the High Court. That raises for me the issue that this bill\u2014this framework being set up\u2014is not only complex but also has built into it the capacity for endless court applications to be made. I want to ask whether the courts will be properly resourced to deal with all that additional work. In particular, how will the applicants be expected to have their customary rights recognised? Will there be legal aid? Is that another cost that will be piled on top of this legislation? I would like Dr Cullen, the Minister in the chair, or Dail Jones to tell me how people are to file their applications in the High Court without incurring cost. [Interruption] OK. So this is just building up expectations without giving the proper means for people to get their customary rights recognised?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000074\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227e8ccf40931a44f3ab3f39423d9c8265\u0022\u003EDail Jones\u003C/span\u003E: This is not a National Party gravy train. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000075\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220bd5aa67-2f2b-4a13-a2b4-21a392396f11\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b83cda68c3f940ca8dc27396d5f2a103\u0022\u003EHon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU\u003C/span\u003E: OK. It is a New Zealand First gravy train. Right, great! It is not a National Party gravy train; it is a New Zealand First gravy train. I turn to clause 115A\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000076\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229a92cc817f72423c807e0ab336a19f9d\u0022\u003ERt Hon Winston Peters\u003C/span\u003E: No gravy train!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000077\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220bd5aa67-2f2b-4a13-a2b4-21a392396f11\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223d0fa277bc7d4e07bbd554dc12af4ecc\u0022\u003EHon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU\u003C/span\u003E: I tell the member that there will be a gravy train. I am sorry but this will create another gravy train\u2014it will. As long as people have to go to the courts, there will be a gravy train. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00226c1d5df8-ac1d-4ce1-a778-202845cfc69f\u0022 data-id=\u0022218c97afd8594c2681e0802c4e52fbac\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000078\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226c1d5df8-ac1d-4ce1-a778-202845cfc69f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022218c97afd8594c2681e0802c4e52fbac\u0022\u003EHEATHER ROY (ACT):\u003C/span\u003E I rise to speak to Part 6 of the Foreshore and Seabed Bill, and I would like to reiterate what my colleague Ken Shirley said. This part really is about regulation and, of course, the devil is in the detail. It warrants very close reading. There is any number of things that I could talk about, but I want to draw the Committee\u2019s attention, in the first instance, to clause 114, \u201CRegulations\u201D, which in particular talks about the role in the regulations surrounding wardens. Clause 114 states: \u201CThe Governor-General may, by Order in Council, make regulations for any of the following purposes:\u201D. So there will be no discussion about that, and no parliamentary debate. The clause provides for the appointment of wardens, it prescribes additional functions of wardens, and it prescribes any duties or powers to be exercised by wardens. Clause 114(bd) prescribes \u201Cthe means, (including, without limitation, identity cards or badges, or both) \u2026\u201D. So here there is in legislation regulations that prescribe identity cards and badges for the wardens who will patrol the beaches, up and down, up and down\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000079\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221ccfc4224e404d4a8ae52d7182dc191c\u0022\u003ERt Hon Winston Peters\u003C/span\u003E: They\u2019ve got them now.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000080\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226c1d5df8-ac1d-4ce1-a778-202845cfc69f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229655880b9a5845c7ba6798bcb7b97e62\u0022\u003EHEATHER ROY\u003C/span\u003E: But I tell the member that they will be very different, will they not? Those will be wardens, the legislation implies, of the Minister and Department of Conservation, not of local bodies. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000081\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226c1d5df8-ac1d-4ce1-a778-202845cfc69f\u0022\u003EIf we look back to Part 2, we see that it gives us the detail for that. I say to people like Mr Peters, who are sitting here and saying that I am wrong, that it does not concern just the Minister of Conservation. There will be conversations all over the place. There will be consultation, because this Government believes so fervently in listening to people\u2014and then completely ignoring what they think and say. But this is actually a case of \u201Cthe Minister and the Department of Confiscation\u201D. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000082\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226c1d5df8-ac1d-4ce1-a778-202845cfc69f\u0022\u003EWhen I put my children in the car this summer and take them to the beach, just like the other hundreds of thousands of families in New Zealand who are used to hopping in the car and taking their children to the beach\u2014[Interruption] Ms Dyson is laughing away over there, but I tell her that my children actually like going to the beach. In fact, in the recent 150-year celebrations earlier this year, when every MP was given a camera to take photos of constituents, and so on, I took my children to the beach at Lyall Bay. They had a wonderful afternoon, and I am pleased I took a photo of them. It was hanging in the portrait gallery before the poor old gallery had to leave the temporary debating chamber. Mr Cullen might well hold his head in his hands, but my children like going to the beach. Hundreds of thousands of families this year will arrive at the beach to find that they can no longer go on to and be on the beach, because there will be wardens patrolling up and down with their identity cards and badges and saying that they are sorry but they are going to limit people\u2019s access, or, worse still, prohibit access. They will say: \u201CIf you don\u2019t leave, we\u2019re going to fine you $5,000.\u201D Well, New Zealanders do not appreciate that. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000083\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e9ad9864d3314135a0159a72179ae591\u0022\u003ERt Hon Winston Peters\u003C/span\u003E: Where does it say that?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000084\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226c1d5df8-ac1d-4ce1-a778-202845cfc69f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022adae1595de8d4de98e194b2a2a68f1b2\u0022\u003EHEATHER ROY\u003C/span\u003E: Has that member not read it? Mr Peters has not even read the bill! He does not know about that $5,000 fine. Yet he is happy to subject New Zealanders to those fines and to having their access to beaches limited. He is supporting this bill without even knowing the detail. I suggest to that member that he go away to the lobby, sit down, and carefully read this bill, because it is not too late to withdraw his support. We are not finished. We have the third reading to come, and Mr Peters can change his mind so that the provisions New Zealanders currently enjoy, the hundreds of thousands\u2014[Interruption] That is right. He is thinking of withdrawing. He is signalling to Dr Cullen now that he has changed his mind because he had not read the detail and did not realise what this bill would actually mean for New Zealand families. Well, I say to Mr Peters: \u201CShame on you for making such a very ill-informed decision.\u201D Mr Jones is now having to rush over to Mr Peters to advise him about what to say next, and to him also I say: \u201CShame on you.\u201D Hundreds of thousands of New Zealand families will be affected by this legislation and they will not appreciate it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022 data-id=\u00224751d63c127c453ea2a97fddae67905f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000085\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00224751d63c127c453ea2a97fddae67905f\u0022\u003ERt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader\u2014NZ First):\u003C/span\u003E I have been listening to ACT party members this morning, and I have come to the conclusion that they are a miserable, sad lot. There they are. They put up one of their junior members, who said she would not be able to go to the beach this Christmas. That is an extraordinary claim. Then she started to talk about a group called the M\u0101ori wardens, whom she clearly understands nothing about\u2014nothing whatsoever. [Interruption] Yes, she did. They say that the malady of the ignorant is to be ignorant without knowing it. But there they are, knowing full well that there has to be somebody who is policing the law. That is the way the law works. [Interruption] No, no. Some will be M\u0101ori and some will not be M\u0101ori\u2014OK? Members should just relax. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000086\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E That party\u2019s members are getting up and making extraordinary claims, not one of which is true. I will recap\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000087\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222cdc8bda52b8416d9de8f7dfd3331065\u0022\u003EHon Dr Nick Smith\u003C/span\u003E: They must have learnt a few.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000088\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ca7e5ea348ac41538591611bc117e7a8\u0022\u003ERt Hon WINSTON PETERS\u003C/span\u003E: Young Nick Smith is at it again. He cannot keep his mouth shut. He has a penchant for saying the most idiotic things and not being able to handle issues when he is under pressure.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000089\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4030eb1-1b72-4bc3-b00d-7126013abc01\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002226e411195f8d4b9b883a6ba59fc4d9eb\u0022\u003EStephen Franks\u003C/span\u003E: Tell us about the $5,000.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000090\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e5e0ae2409ef46ee9887c91d3a3e7710\u0022\u003EOpposition Member\u003C/span\u003E: Caught out!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000091\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d2701892b58446b5b19717119916fd1e\u0022\u003ERt Hon WINSTON PETERS\u003C/span\u003E: No, no. What was said by the member was that, whereas in the past she used to be able to go to the beach, this year she will not be able to. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000092\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002273f60731-048d-4a21-81c5-52d588de2325\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223cf457d591ca4eaab0b08cf0aae47ebd\u0022\u003EMita Ririnui\u003C/span\u003E: Rubbish!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000093\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223bd98f604db243f1bdb1e357ecb94319\u0022\u003ERt Hon WINSTON PETERS\u003C/span\u003E: It is worse than rubbish; it is disingenuous nonsense, it is deceit, it is misleading people, and it is designed to get a vote that it will not get. That is why that party is going to the floor. It will not be back in 2005\u2014it will be gone. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000094\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b0d8b0e0-3ece-4865-9145-5eb5983fc54c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b70f2574b27d4e3e9acbe278661baa5e\u0022\u003EHon Richard Prebble\u003C/span\u003E: Will you resign if anyone is denied access this summer?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000095\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c544f585a1df40dbb41f3d4cbed52407\u0022\u003ERt Hon WINSTON PETERS\u003C/span\u003E: How can anybody be denied access to public property? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000096\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b0d8b0e0-3ece-4865-9145-5eb5983fc54c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a51fdfde881645698a0ce840f9cc66be\u0022\u003EHon Richard Prebble\u003C/span\u003E: Why don\u2019t you read the bill, then?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000097\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224d2cfe8123264c0bb8336bf9fc9c95f8\u0022\u003ERt Hon WINSTON PETERS\u003C/span\u003E: I have the read the bill. In fact, New Zealand First was largely responsible for drafting many parts of it. That is why the country can have enormous confidence that this will be right\u2014because we have been involved in the drafting of the bill. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000098\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003EA previous speaker said that there will be a gravy train. Quite the converse is true. Georgina te Heuheu must know that we deliberately did not allow for the provision for legal aid in this bill. So how can there be a gravy train? These are not the bad old days of National. These are not the bad old days of the Labour Party\u2014ACT in the old days. There is no gravy train at all. But here is the most amazing thing. Which one of the members from ACT raised any concern about the sale of Westhaven Marina by the former National Minister John Banks? Did we hear a murmur or mutter from National? No. Did we hear a murmur or mutter from the ACT party? No. The Westhaven Marina was being offered to the whole world and neither ACT nor National would say a word about that when their old mate John Banks was about to flog it off to foreigners. The Government had to intervene and buy it in order to keep it in New Zealand ownership. The ACT party did not say a word about Westhaven Marina. The National Party would not say a word at all. It should have because it might have saved John Banks\u2019 skin. He might still be the mayor had he not been so foolish. So when we talk about preserving these assets and resources in the name of New Zealanders, parties should have a care for their own record. In the case of the National Party, it ain\u2019t got one\u2014it has an appalling record.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000099\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002244429ea3a9a546839473fddb2dc892cb\u0022\u003EHon Dr Nick Smith\u003C/span\u003E: What about the member\u2019s policy on Auckland airport?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000100\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ae3625350f324dfeb9bd2772ba3c00b6\u0022\u003ERt Hon WINSTON PETERS\u003C/span\u003E: New Zealand First\u2019s policy is not to sell our resources to foreigners. When the Auckland airport was sold, 82 percent of it was sold to New Zealanders. That is way above the 24.9 percent rule. But Nick Smith sold Paraparaumu Airport to one of his mates. That is what he did. Why does he bring out an example that makes him look stupid? One would not use an example that makes one look stupid, unless one\u2019s name is Nick Smith. The Auckland airport went to New Zealanders, without debt to New Zealanders. At 82 percent, it could be said that it was the only privatisation that ever worked, and I was responsible for it. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000101\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002211dc4d39a0f6416bae150638857546a7\u0022\u003EHon Dr Nick Smith\u003C/span\u003E: In favour of privatisation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022df6dad01e3274274a64220eb1821bfe2\u0022\u003ERt Hon WINSTON PETERS\u003C/span\u003E: But I did not sell it to foreigners.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022cfdabe42-521a-4dca-afab-3e781731a130\u0022 data-id=\u0022c6f861ce8b9040d69f68f2b1b60ded35\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000103\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cfdabe42-521a-4dca-afab-3e781731a130\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c6f861ce8b9040d69f68f2b1b60ded35\u0022\u003EDr PAUL HUTCHISON (National\u2014Port Waikato):\u003C/span\u003E Part 6, \u201CProvisions relating to public foreshore and seabed register, recognition agreements, and other matters\u201D, absolutely depicts the point that Heather Roy was making about the uncertainty this bill creates for all New Zealanders. I was very interested to hear Nanaia Mahuta talk about the sort of decision making that is being given back to local communities, and that is no more poignant than in the case of the fate of the west coast harbours Wh\u0101ingaroa harbour\u2014or Raglan Harbour, as many people know it\u2014Aotea Harbour, and K\u0101whia Harbour. What is the fate of those harbours? We just do not know what backroom deals the Labour Government is doing with Tainui. One moment Nanaia Mahuta is leaving for the M\u0101ori Party. and the next moment she is back in the fold. There is no doubt that one way or another this Labour Government is conniving to do a deal behind the backs of ordinary New Zealanders. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000104\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cfdabe42-521a-4dca-afab-3e781731a130\u0022\u003EOnly 2 or 3 years ago I wrote to the then Minister of Fisheries, Pete Hodgson, asking how we could sensibly organise an arrangement whereby those with interests in Wh\u0101ingaroa harbour\u2014the local commercial and amateur fisheries, local M\u0101ori, and the local people in that area\u2014could come to an agreement and a sensible plan. He said that all we had to do was write to him and he would organise it. We did that, but there has been stalling year after year, month after month, because, as we know, the Labour Government is conniving behind closed doors with Tainui to do a special deal. There is absolutely no doubt about that. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000105\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cfdabe42-521a-4dca-afab-3e781731a130\u0022\u003EI see Dr Cullen shaking his head. I ask him this: is this bill making things simpler, less confusing, less complex, or less costly than would have been the case had the Court of Appeal ruling been upheld? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000106\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022671c9d99f0bc406982f6000533477ead\u0022\u003EHon Dr Michael Cullen\u003C/span\u003E: Now you\u2019re getting on to that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000107\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cfdabe42-521a-4dca-afab-3e781731a130\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e34708b3c5724fcd9be89ac0fea55e24\u0022\u003EDr PAUL HUTCHISON\u003C/span\u003E: Too right I am getting on to that, because National would have produced a certain, simple, and elegant bill. Instead, Labour has come out with one of the most confusing, complex, uncertain, and costly bills this nation has ever seen. That is really the ultimate test of this legislation before us. It engenders uncertainty, cost, and complexity in every aspect and every part of it, including Part 6, which is before us. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000108\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cfdabe42-521a-4dca-afab-3e781731a130\u0022\u003EWhat happened this morning, for instance, when the Prime Minister\u2019s electorate office was stoned? I have just had reports back from the Port Waikato electorate office that staff there are concerned, because there have been threats against that office and, I understand, against offices up and down the country. This is the sort of reaction that this legislation\u2014legislation that Dr Cullen and his merry crew from Labour are forcing upon the people of New Zealand\u2014is engendering. There is utter confusion, utter uncertainty, and utter complexity, and we have no idea how high the costs may be. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000109\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cfdabe42-521a-4dca-afab-3e781731a130\u0022\u003EAfter all, local government, the Resource Management Act, and regional councils are all brought into this through this most uncertain and complex planning, which we still do not know about in terms of the legislation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000110\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227fa1c346e96d4855bf76c658bd2e7a14\u0022\u003EHon Dr Michael Cullen\u003C/span\u003E: Read the bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000111\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cfdabe42-521a-4dca-afab-3e781731a130\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f25656d2c88e4bb78c09bb6a14da0e12\u0022\u003EDr PAUL HUTCHISON\u003C/span\u003E: I have read the bill many times and, again, I ask what the costs will be\u2014as my colleague Georgina te Heuheu has asked. How will some of the costs in the High Court be paid for? What is the limit? We hear that New Zealand First has said that there will be no legal aid. Thank goodness for that, because we know that whatever happens, this will be another gravy train.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220e7e8da2-a6a1-41bb-aeb0-a49be255a293\u0022 data-id=\u0022cbc401d2f8ac45c487422a6bb041372e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000112\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220e7e8da2-a6a1-41bb-aeb0-a49be255a293\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022cbc401d2f8ac45c487422a6bb041372e\u0022\u003ENANAIA MAHUTA (Labour\u2014Tainui):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That the question be now put.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00221e93d9c8-b183-40db-b200-833697df066c\u0022 data-id=\u00226e55ddf63f4e47398c44e4ad9f64da46\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000113\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221e93d9c8-b183-40db-b200-833697df066c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00226e55ddf63f4e47398c44e4ad9f64da46\u0022\u003ELARRY BALDOCK (United Future):\u003C/span\u003E I will follow on from my comments earlier about how I was heartened by the Minister\u2019s amendments to clause 112. I take the gentle rebuke from the National member, Georgina te Heuheu, that that might indicate United Future is now satisfied with it, but that would not be the case. When something is black and one sees it lightening a little, it is possible to be heartened by it. That would explain why, throughout the voting in the Committee stage, members will find that United Future members have been supporting the Minister\u2019s amendments, because they do make improvements to the bill. However, we have been voting against the parts, because they are not yet perfect. There are still things that we are concerned about within each part. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000114\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221e93d9c8-b183-40db-b200-833697df066c\u0022\u003EWe are pleased to see that there is a little more openness with regard to this negotiation process for agreements to recognise territorial customary rights, but it is not enough. The Green member, Jeannette Fitzsimons, has made a good point, that we would like to see more openness with regard to whom the Government is negotiating with. I think it would be fair for everybody to know. We do not want to see things going on in backroom deals in this country. We will be looking at what results from clause 113, when we see the list finally published of who has received a deal from the Government. We assume that that will be prior to the election next year. We will see who has been given what, in order to take the heat out of this situation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000115\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4030eb1-1b72-4bc3-b00d-7126013abc01\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225131c9e8e6384a31855cbb6097a2827a\u0022\u003EStephen Franks\u003C/span\u003E: What about 115A?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000116\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221e93d9c8-b183-40db-b200-833697df066c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222bb1130c9a9a48c6b1c6fbe09711157c\u0022\u003ELARRY BALDOCK\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, I will come to new clause 115A in a moment. I mentioned earlier that at the beginning of this process the Crown really should have had its day in court at the Privy Council, so that the decision of the Court of Appeal could have been tested properly. I think, though, that most New Zealanders could assume that because the Crown did not go there, the legal advice was that it would have not have been able to overturn the Court of Appeal decision, and we probably would have found that the Privy Council upheld the overturning of the Ninety Mile Beach case. Although we do not have that certainty from having seen that case have its day in court, I think that is probably the reality of the situation. That law had been changed, therefore something needed to be done about New Zealanders\u2019 rights to public access across our foreshore and seabed. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000117\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221e93d9c8-b183-40db-b200-833697df066c\u0022\u003EWith regard to new clause 115A, \u201CStatus of existing and future agreements between Crown and claimant groups\u201D, we have heard lots of claims about what that is. I accept the Minister\u2019s explanation yesterday that it is a very simple clarification, and that it does not change anything with regard to what is taking place in treaty negotiations. I think that is what the clause is intended to do. It does raise the issue as to why, when National has made so much about this clause, it did not support my amendment yesterday to entrench clause 12(2)(b), in order to make it more difficult for a future Parliament to transfer the title of the foreshore and seabed to any other entity. It just does not make sense. National has been going on and on about what could happen, and then when it had a chance to do something about it, it completely backed down and did not support it. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000118\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221e93d9c8-b183-40db-b200-833697df066c\u0022\u003EI understand the reason for the Government not supporting my amendment. It has made it very clear that it just does not see it as being an issue of constitutional significance. But we never heard that from the National Party. All we heard from it was that nothing should happen that could alienate the foreshore and seabed in the future. New Zealand First\u2019s position is even more confusing. Even this morning Mr Dail Jones came in and said that his party would make sure that alienation could never happen in the future. Yet it did not vote for the entrenching amendment, either. It did not even consider the fact that we could have doubly entrenched it, so that it was not able to be overturned by a simple majority in the future. That is the kind of doublespeak we get used to on this issue. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000119\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221e93d9c8-b183-40db-b200-833697df066c\u0022\u003EAs a result of all that, New Zealanders have no assurance that, in the future, Parliament could not by a simple majority transfer the title of the public foreshore and seabed either to foreign ownership or to a M\u0101ori tribal group who claim for that under the treaty clauses. We continue to get doublespeak from New Zealand First and we continue to get a lack of action from the National Party, when we could have taken some steps in this debate to achieve something.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002275a05f96-2474-4c90-a6ea-cf7b5798e03e\u0022 data-id=\u00222c8d18d422584a0b8dc1b13c41b56f55\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000120\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002275a05f96-2474-4c90-a6ea-cf7b5798e03e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00222c8d18d422584a0b8dc1b13c41b56f55\u0022\u003EHon RUTH DYSON (Minister for ACC):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That the question be now put.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022e8606e7ac9cc4309a03d36b1bf571c90\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the question be now put.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 66\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 54\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 27; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; M\u0101ori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022 data-id=\u00221c14b736bddd435a911638430b5fa8bb\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000121\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00221c14b736bddd435a911638430b5fa8bb\u0022\u003EGERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader\u2014National):\u003C/span\u003E I speak in relation to the amendment to clause 117(3) on Supplementary Order Paper 306 in the name of the Hon Dr Michael Cullen. Although it is not mentioned specifically there, it is a clause inserted by the Deputy Prime Minister to deal, in particular, with the difficulty, or the situation that has arisen, around the Bayswater Marina on the North Shore. I seek the leave of the Committee to have that subclause voted on separately from the whole Supplementary Order Paper.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000122\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002270fa4cbd-9380-4916-9f2a-78da059d220e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022dc3846aa287b4b4f91d7f315dda11a9e\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson)\u003C/span\u003E: The member is quite entitled to seek leave for that. Is there any objection to that course of action? There is. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000123\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002270fa4cbd-9380-4916-9f2a-78da059d220e\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the following amendment in the name of Metiria Turei to clause 111 be agreed to:\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000124\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002270fa4cbd-9380-4916-9f2a-78da059d220e\u0022\u003Eto insert, after subclause (1), the following new subclauses:\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000125\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002270fa4cbd-9380-4916-9f2a-78da059d220e\u0022\u003E(1A)\tUpon beginning discussions with a view to an agreement under subsection(1), the Ministers must, as soon as practicable, advise any\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000126\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002270fa4cbd-9380-4916-9f2a-78da059d220e\u0022\u003E(a)\tholders of ancestral connection orders; and\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000127\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002270fa4cbd-9380-4916-9f2a-78da059d220e\u0022\u003E(b)\tholders of customary rights orders; and\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000128\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002270fa4cbd-9380-4916-9f2a-78da059d220e\u0022\u003E(c)\tholders of territorial customary rights orders; and\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000129\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002270fa4cbd-9380-4916-9f2a-78da059d220e\u0022\u003E(d)\tiwi; and\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000130\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002270fa4cbd-9380-4916-9f2a-78da059d220e\u0022\u003E(e)\thapu\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000131\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002270fa4cbd-9380-4916-9f2a-78da059d220e\u0022\u003E\twho may have an interest in the specified area that an agreement is under discussion.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000132\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002270fa4cbd-9380-4916-9f2a-78da059d220e\u0022\u003E(1B)\tBefore an agreement is entered into under subsection (1), the Ministers must take into account any issues raised by the interested parties specified in subsection (1A).\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u00229d345c2f406e477088bfdd08e9bb47d0\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 11\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EGreen Party 9; M\u0101ori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 109\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002270fa4cbd-9380-4916-9f2a-78da059d220e\u0022 data-id=\u0022ca0c2b76c2b24239b52951d626a0074e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000133\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002270fa4cbd-9380-4916-9f2a-78da059d220e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022ca0c2b76c2b24239b52951d626a0074e\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson)\u003C/span\u003E: There is an amendment in the name of the honourable member Larry Baldock to insert new clause 114AA. Briefly, the proposal does not specify a majority by which the entrenchment provision must be carried. That provision will be dealt with as an ordinary amendment. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000134\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002270fa4cbd-9380-4916-9f2a-78da059d220e\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the following amendment in the name of Larry Baldock to insert new clause 114AA be agreed to:\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000135\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002270fa4cbd-9380-4916-9f2a-78da059d220e\u0022\u003Eto insert, after clause 114, the following new clause:\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000136\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002270fa4cbd-9380-4916-9f2a-78da059d220e\u0022\u003E114AA  Restriction on amendment or repeal of certain provisions\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000137\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002270fa4cbd-9380-4916-9f2a-78da059d220e\u0022\u003E(1)\tSubject to subsection (3), this section applies to the following provisions (the reserved provisions):\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000138\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002270fa4cbd-9380-4916-9f2a-78da059d220e\u0022\u003E(a)\tsection 12(2)(a), which provides that no part of the public foreshore or seabed may be alienated except by a special Act of Parliament:\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000139\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002270fa4cbd-9380-4916-9f2a-78da059d220e\u0022\u003E(b)\tthis section.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000140\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002270fa4cbd-9380-4916-9f2a-78da059d220e\u0022\u003E(2)\tNo reserved provision may be repealed or amended unless the proposal for the amendment or repeal\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000141\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002270fa4cbd-9380-4916-9f2a-78da059d220e\u0022\u003E(a)\tis passed by a majority of votes proportional to the number of votes cast for the Ayes at the third reading of the Bill that became this Act; or\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000142\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002270fa4cbd-9380-4916-9f2a-78da059d220e\u0022\u003E(b)\thas been carried by a majority of the valid votes cast at a poll of the electors of the General and Maori electoral districts:\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000143\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002270fa4cbd-9380-4916-9f2a-78da059d220e\u0022\u003E(3)\tThis section does not apply to the repeal of any reserved provision by a consolidating Act in which that provision is re-enacted without amendment and this section is re-enacted without amendment so as to apply to that provision as re-enacted.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022f8a6b8ce41304c5c84cec8c535920425\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 18\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EGreen Party 9; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 101\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000144\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the following amendment in the name of Metiria Turei to the proposed omission of clause 111 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 302 in the name of the Hon Dr Michael Cullen be agreed to:\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000145\u0022\u003Eto omit the omission of this clause.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022b834d9fced744d85847d57967bedc1e7\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 19\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EGreen Party 9; United Future 8; M\u0101ori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 101\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment to the amendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000146\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the following amendment in the name of Metiria Turei to proposed new clause 112 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 302 in the name of the Hon Dr Michael Cullen be agreed to:\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000147\u0022\u003Eto omit subclauses (2) and (3).\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u00222d0df375aace46d99a43d54fc6a85279\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 11\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EGreen Party 9; M\u0101ori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 109\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment to the amendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002270fa4cbd-9380-4916-9f2a-78da059d220e\u0022 data-id=\u002232de600b56144608a4c7e55ef6a2e379\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000148\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002270fa4cbd-9380-4916-9f2a-78da059d220e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002232de600b56144608a4c7e55ef6a2e379\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson)\u003C/span\u003E: We now move to clause 113, with an amendment in the name of the honourable member Metiria Turei to subclause (2)(b)(iii) set out on Supplementary Order Paper 302 in the name of the Hon Dr Michael Cullen. I have just been instructed that that amendment is out of order as it is inconsistent with the previous decision on the amendment.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000149\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002270fa4cbd-9380-4916-9f2a-78da059d220e\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the amendments in the name of the Hon Dr Michael Cullen set out on Supplementary Order Paper 304 to the amendments to clause 107 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 302 in his name be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022b0e8b7ed9d3d439d845cde70fab894e8\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments to the amendments be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 74\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 46\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 27; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8; M\u0101ori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendments to the amendments agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000150\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the amendments to Part 6 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 302 in the name of the Hon Dr Michael Cullen as amended and the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 306 in his name be agreed to.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u00229bf976ac60ec4578b00a835e843f89fe\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments as amended be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 74\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 46\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 27; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8; M\u0101ori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendments as amended agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022714ff9ae67fe4cd686869637c64f5a25\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That Part 6 as amended be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 66\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 54\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 27; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; M\u0101ori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EPart 6 as amended agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000151\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022a5860fc14d3e43dcbadd5bffc2daf1a9\u0022\u003ESchedules\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000152\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 302 in the name of the Hon Dr Michael Cullen to schedule 1 be agreed to.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022282348223d6f4ea9834d35209b3cbb92\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 74\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 46\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 27; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8; M\u0101ori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendments agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022611b7d624d7d4061875d0d469a59c935\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That schedule 1 as amended be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 66\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 54\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 27; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; M\u0101ori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESchedule 1 as amended agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002270fa4cbd-9380-4916-9f2a-78da059d220e\u0022 data-id=\u0022ea7218f055294f8780ae14f11565d5bf\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000153\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002270fa4cbd-9380-4916-9f2a-78da059d220e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022ea7218f055294f8780ae14f11565d5bf\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson)\u003C/span\u003E: The Deputy Prime Minister\u2019s amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 302 to schedule 2 indicates his intention to vote against the schedule standing part.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000154\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002270fa4cbd-9380-4916-9f2a-78da059d220e\u0022\u003ESchedule 2 not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000155\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002270fa4cbd-9380-4916-9f2a-78da059d220e\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the following amendment in the name of Metiria Turei to schedule 3 be agreed to:\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000156\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002270fa4cbd-9380-4916-9f2a-78da059d220e\u0022\u003Eto omit the item relating to section 24 of the Conservation Act 1987.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u00221309598926c94267809badaa4a10a71a\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 11\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EGreen Party 9; M\u0101ori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 109\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000157\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the following amendment in the name of Metiria Turei to schedule 3 be agreed to:\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000158\u0022\u003Eto omit the item relating section 4 of Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022a468b34c41e24096bede0409562ac6f6\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 11\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EGreen Party 9; M\u0101ori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 109\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000159\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 302 in the name of the Hon Dr Michael Cullen to schedule 3 be agreed to.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022f977f4618b5a4dc881fa014946ab76a1\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 74\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 46\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 27; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8; M\u0101ori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendments agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022c3203308b194480e920c7e08b2a92d87\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That schedule 3 as amended be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 66\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 54\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 27; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; M\u0101ori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESchedule 3 as amended agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000160\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 302 in the name of the Hon Dr Michael Cullen to schedule 4 be agreed to.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022e7a4b4c26f1c4f7e8642a60a69dbbc23\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 74\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 46\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 27; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8; M\u0101ori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendments agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022119f3989b627432d8307b5e40fcdfb6f\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That schedule 4 as amended be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 66\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 54\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 27; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; M\u0101ori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESchedule 4 as amended agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000161\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022ff52541305394c288c713716bd842764\u0022\u003EClauses 1 and 2\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220ed9ad81-05c1-4171-80c6-24fa02cade42\u0022 data-id=\u0022363704f7059b457d808edeba3c458acc\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000162\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220ed9ad81-05c1-4171-80c6-24fa02cade42\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022363704f7059b457d808edeba3c458acc\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich)\u003C/span\u003E: There will be one debate on clauses 1 and 2, but each clause will be voted on separately.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022 data-id=\u0022dcc94616233a417aa0edadc8a933f84c\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000163\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022dcc94616233a417aa0edadc8a933f84c\u0022\u003EGERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader\u2014National):\u003C/span\u003E This is the title debate in the Committee stage, and I think the interesting point to be made is that at the end of this stage, the Leader of the House will move to divide the bill to give it two titles: the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004 and the Resource Management (Foreshore and Seabed) Amendment Act 2004.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000164\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003EI cannot help thinking that those two names are somewhat inadequate in the first case, and quite misleading in the second case. The Foreshore and Seabed Bill should surely be entitled at this stage the \u201CForeshore and Seabed Alienation Empowerment Bill\u201D, in order to become the Act. Effectively, the bill empowers the Government of the day either to hold in perpetuity or to dispose of, and the whim of the Minister of Conservation, in conjunction with the views of the Minister of M\u0101ori Affairs, are what will hold sway at any particular point in this country\u2019s future, if this bill is passed today.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000165\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003EThe Government has reserved for itself the right to dispose of foreshore and seabed, at various times and in various ways, and we will talk further about that in the third reading debate. But a title to a bill should indicate very clearly what it does and what it enables. Without question, this bill enables alienation of the foreshore and seabed\u2014ownership of which so many New Zealanders believed should be held by the Crown, and was held by the Crown, post-1840.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000166\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003EThe second title referred to is the Resource Management (Foreshore and Seabed) Amendment Bill 2004. I think this is an extremely cynical title, because most people on hearing of an amendment to the Resource Management Act will think the Government has listened to what they are saying, and has decided to deal with some of the less helpful aspects of that Act so that many, many developments and improvements around this country that lead to employment opportunities and, most important, to bigger incomes, can be delivered for those who take the risks to set up such enterprises and activities. But no, this amendment, particularly, will make development in land adjacent to the coastline of this country more difficult in many, many cases.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000167\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003EYesterday, in the various debates in the Chamber, we heard that an acceptance has developed that over 10 percent of this country\u2019s coastline is likely to come under some sort of reservation status for M\u0101ori, to be administered by a new group appointed by M\u0101ori, and apparently to look after the customary rights the courts will bestow on M\u0101ori. That is an utter nonsense in the first place, because if M\u0101ori have customary rights, they already have them. They do not need courts to start telling them what the constraints on those rights are. The interesting thing is that from the time this bill receives the royal assent, the Minister of M\u0101ori Affairs, and the Minister of Conservation in particular, will be the Ministers who tell M\u0101ori how, when, and where they can exercise those customary rights. It seems to me that that is not much of a right, at all.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000168\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003EI go back to the point made about the title to the Resource Management (Foreshore and Seabed) Amendment Bill. Most people are going to believe that this bill is about the Labour Government finally waking up and realising what a huge brake the Resource Management Act has been on our economy and, more particularly, on the opportunity to raise incomes in this country. Far from that, this bill is just more of the very heavily layered bureaucracy that that Act already puts upon New Zealanders who are trying to do things for the betterment of this country. The bill has an inadequate title, indeed. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022 data-id=\u0022657e99aa304947c4b3640eb0e79087ee\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000169\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022657e99aa304947c4b3640eb0e79087ee\u0022\u003EHon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister):\u003C/span\u003E I think that speech demonstrated what we have seen throughout this entire debate, which is the shallowness and the confusion in the National Party\u2019s arguments. The member Gerry Brownlee should have been here, perhaps, last night and this morning, when some of his colleagues started to argue that we should allow the current court process to proceed to conclusion. Indeed, Dr Hutchison came perilously close to justifying the violence that occurred overnight, on the basis that the Government provoked it by not allowing that court process to proceed to conclusion. That, of course, would result in the creation of new private title to the foreshore and seabed. That would occur because customary land status granted under Te Ture Whenua Maori Act could then be translated into freehold title by a relatively simple procedure. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000170\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003EThe irony is that only two parties in this House support that, for two opposite reasons: the M\u0101ori Party, because it believes there would be a lot of customary land status granted, and the ACT party, because it believes there would be very little customary land status granted. The Green Party did not support allowing the current court process to proceed through to conclusion; it was going to block it off in a number of different ways. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000171\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002247115282172d44419aba522bc43eae05\u0022\u003EMetiria Turei\u003C/span\u003E: Oh, rubbish!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000172\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221b2c73bc0a9942f788af9f59d0991d45\u0022\u003EHon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN\u003C/span\u003E: Well, blocking off alienation and blocking off other aspects is to interfere in the current court process. The current court process under Ng\u0101ti Apa would lead to the acquisition of alienable private title over the foreshore and seabed, and legislation would be required to overturn and overrule that. If the member has not understood that, she has understood nothing about this issue.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000173\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003EWe then have had this repeated nonsense that, somehow or other, we already know that more than 10 percent of the foreshore and seabed will be in foreshore and seabed reserves. Let me emphasise again that the test for territorial customary rights is a high test, as is the common law test. All that this bill does is to codify in statute what the best received expert advice is on what those common law tests should be, so that they are placed beyond doubt. It will now be for the court to decide how that is interpreted. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000174\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003ETen percent of the foreshore and seabed is owned down to the mean high water spring by M\u0101ori under M\u0101ori title. It is far from true that that necessarily translates to it having foreshore and seabed reserve status, because there are other tests to be met, including that of exclusive use and occupation. So the member is wrong on that. That is in the bill, it is in the Act, and it is clear that the court has to apply that test of exclusive use and occupation. Indeed, Mr Grant Powell has complained today that the test is too high. The irony is that if the tests were properly applied, those who succeeded in the Ng\u0101ti Apa case would have a very low prospect of qualifying, in any case, because they have had continuity interrupted since 1840. That is unlike, say, Ng\u0101ti Porou, Wh\u0101nau-a-Apanui, and people in the north and elsewhere, where that continuity has not been interrupted; they are far more likely to be able to meet some of the tests within this bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000175\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003EWhat the National Party has never managed to explain, having said that customary rights should be recognised, is how they should be recognised. National members have tried to imply that, somehow or other, one can have one\u2019s cake and eat it; that, somehow or other, customary rights can be recognised without our providing for a regime that enables that to be followed through. Of course there is, therefore, some degree of complexity in that respect. The real purpose of their argument throughout has been to create the image that control over the entire foreshore and seabed is being handed over to M\u0101ori, and that the current process is just that in drag. That is merely designed to work up P\u0101keh\u0101 fears. Indeed, we do not yet know whether the axe that went through Helen Clark\u2019s electorate office came from a disgruntled P\u0101keh\u0101 worked up by the National Party, or from a disgruntled M\u0101ori worked up by the M\u0101ori Party. We have not yet managed to work out whose fingerprints were on the axe, as I understand it, and it is pretty hard to tell from fingerprints whether it was a M\u0101ori or a P\u0101keh\u0101 who threw it in the first place. Let us not jump to conclusions in that particular respect, because that party as well has been pretty keen to wind up hatred and violence within society around this particular issue. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000176\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003EI congratulate New Zealand First, and, indeed, United Future, although we could not agree in the end. We have all tried to seek a solution to this situation that recognises the rights of all New Zealanders. This party and this Government are proud to be presenting a bill that does that. At the end of the day, people will find that nothing actually changes dramatically compared with where they are at the present time. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022 data-id=\u0022bb714b9681134dee85939c9f9dc09d24\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000177\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022bb714b9681134dee85939c9f9dc09d24\u0022\u003EGERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader\u2014National):\u003C/span\u003E I do hope that subsequent speakers will be allowed to speak in as wide ranging a capacity as Dr Cullen just has. I seek the leave of the Committee to have a second turn, given that I stuck so closely to the debate on the title.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000178\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220ed9ad81-05c1-4171-80c6-24fa02cade42\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227e82966ddc91444bbc5aafc3b23333b6\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich)\u003C/span\u003E: Of course speakers will be able to range very widely. It is not only a title debate; it is a wide-ranging debate and, indeed, is a summary of events over the last day or so.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022df788c48-b9be-42fd-b8f2-76629a5572b8\u0022 data-id=\u0022681b0418039d46ef8e4dfd2a10c4ae5b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000179\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022df788c48-b9be-42fd-b8f2-76629a5572b8\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022681b0418039d46ef8e4dfd2a10c4ae5b\u0022\u003EDr WAYNE MAPP (National\u2014North Shore):\u003C/span\u003E The Government claims in this bill to be protecting the foreshore and seabed on behalf of all New Zealanders. In fact, what we have is a device to alienate the foreshore and seabed. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000180\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022df788c48-b9be-42fd-b8f2-76629a5572b8\u0022\u003ENew Zealand First has failed on two counts. Firstly, it does not have one law for all. Secondly, it has not stopped the Government from transferring title to the foreshore and seabed to settle claims. The extraordinary thing about it is that the Government is perfectly upfront that that is its intent. It intends to transfer the title, just as it transferred Lake Rotorua and the other lakes to Tainui and other claimants. We heard it from the Minister today when he referred to Te Wh\u0101nau-a-Apanui, Ng\u0101ti Porou, Tainui, and so forth. That is the Government\u2019s intent, and New Zealand First is conniving at it. It does not matter what New Zealand First members say. I am sure Mr Peters will say that they have protected the foreshore and seabed on behalf of all New Zealanders. That is completely false. New Zealand First members have betrayed their own principles by voting for the bill, and they will be judged on that fact. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000181\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022df788c48-b9be-42fd-b8f2-76629a5572b8\u0022\u003EI draw attention to these points. Why is it that they have failed on the grounds of \u201Cone law for all\u201D? They have set up a structure of customary rights that are for M\u0101ori only. It does not matter what they say about the Auckland anniversary regatta, or anything of that nature. The Minister in the chair, Michael Cullen, knows, because it was stated in the explanatory note of the original bill, that only M\u0101ori will get them. That is the belief of the Government. Straight away we have divisive law, not one law for all. Sure, it might be one bill, but that bill has separatist law\u2014law for non-M\u0101ori, law for M\u0101ori, M\u0101ori get customary rights, and everyone else fails because of the date chosen. On that point alone, New Zealand First has fundamentally failed. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000182\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022df788c48-b9be-42fd-b8f2-76629a5572b8\u0022\u003EThe second point, which is in many ways even more serious, is that they are now allowing alienation of the foreshore and seabed in settlements. That is how the Government got the votes of the M\u0101ori caucus and, quite likely, that of Nanaia Mahuta as well. A transfer of that title will now be allowed, \u00E0 la the Rotorua lakes. Members should remember that they have been in Crown ownership for the last 100 years, almost, on behalf of all New Zealanders. The Government\u2019s intent is to transfer the lakes to Te Arawa, and the foreshore and seabed in the West Coast harbours, much of the East Cape and eastern Bay of Plenty, and much of the far north to the M\u0101ori claimants. Those are the facts. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000183\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022df788c48-b9be-42fd-b8f2-76629a5572b8\u0022\u003EWe know that even when symbolic transfers take place, the people assert claims. That has already happened. There are problems around Lake Taup\u014D. That is clear in the evidence on the case involving Lake Rotorua. There will be greater problems around Lake Rotorua. We have learnt those lessons, unlike New Zealand First. We intend to have a simple rule, which is that the foreshore and seabed will be in Crown ownership on behalf of all New Zealanders, with no exceptions whatsoever. That is very clear. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000184\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022df788c48-b9be-42fd-b8f2-76629a5572b8\u0022\u003EI turn to a final point. The National Party specifically sought leave to vote for subsection 3 in relation to Bayswater Marina. We sought leave to do that because we wanted to support it. Do members know what the Government did, in its arrogance? The Government stopped it. That is typical of the whole process of the last 2 days, which included tabling a 67-page document and saying that we should read it over dinner time and then we would know all about it. The media do not get to know. The public do not get to know. The submitters do not get to know. It is typical of the arrogance of the Government. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000185\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022df788c48-b9be-42fd-b8f2-76629a5572b8\u0022\u003EIt is a sad day when we have to conclude the Committee stage of this day, when there are many other members who want calls, by referring to the process. The process has been so deeply flawed that Parliament has been denied a proper debate. How can we have a proper debate when immediately before it starts, a 67-page document is tabled?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022 data-id=\u00229f00796729994889bfd3c717fe510d8b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000186\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00229f00796729994889bfd3c717fe510d8b\u0022\u003ERt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader\u2014NZ First):\u003C/span\u003E The last speaker has been on his feet, with other colleagues, because the leader of their party is incapable of sustaining an argument on the issue any more. [Interruption] I say to Mr Franks that that was my first sentence. The member should show a bit of tolerance. Why is he so sad about it? It is because he is a loser and he is locked into a loser. That is why he is not patient. He will not even hear my first sentence before he starts shouting.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000187\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003EIf those members had any argument, then Mr Brash would be here. If they had any substance\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000188\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220ed9ad81-05c1-4171-80c6-24fa02cade42\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b4f04424bff64377ac6cd48cb1db19ae\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich)\u003C/span\u003E: That is a reference to the non-presence of a member. The member was phrasing it correctly before but\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000189\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002232b2cf3759004f099ed23530a6d2f422\u0022\u003EGerry Brownlee\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Is it appropriate for a member to stand up and directly say to another member of Parliament that he is a loser? It should have been picked up, because comments like that are directed towards the Chair, which is not good, but also I do not think it is good to say that other members are losers. Members have been pulled up in this debate\u2014indeed, one of them was slung out of the Chamber, without any justice whatsoever\u2014for doing far lesser things.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000190\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220ed9ad81-05c1-4171-80c6-24fa02cade42\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b7fa7769445341ad9afd608145549788\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich)\u003C/span\u003E: I thank the member for raising that issue. The member who has the call was getting a little loose.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000191\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002226189191586b4daea55a381700479cbe\u0022\u003ERt Hon WINSTON PETERS\u003C/span\u003E: How sensitive people have become when they cannot even take that criticism! They rise and seek the Chair\u2019s defence. The National Party has lost all shred\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000192\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220ed9ad81-05c1-4171-80c6-24fa02cade42\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002248dc31f25967488381c41e7ecb07ef67\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich)\u003C/span\u003E: The Chair must not be brought into this argument.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000193\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e1f983c0b0fb4c819787d694b4a6095c\u0022\u003EGerry Brownlee\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I rose to defend a much smaller party, not the National Party. If Mr Peters wants to point to the National Party and say \u201CLoser\u201D, that is OK; he would clearly be looking in the mirror and seeing what has happened to him since 1992.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000194\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220ed9ad81-05c1-4171-80c6-24fa02cade42\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222da151a595a6484698ea0895caadf4f8\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich)\u003C/span\u003E: Again I thank the member. It did not even occur to me that he was seeking the defence of the Chair.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000195\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002207dc4112-8a19-4dd6-a57c-878b47f8a9b6\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d182d9de28774a309980636eafb2a4c1\u0022\u003ERon Mark\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. We are in danger here, and I really would like a considered opinion on this. I never ever thought I would hear the sensitivities of the National Party being expressed in this way. Are we now to say, as has often been touted by the Labour Government, that there are no winners, no losers, every one is a participant and should be treated fairly and gently, and we should not prick people\u2019s sensitivities? Because debate in this Chamber will be restricted if we go down the National Party line here now.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000196\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220ed9ad81-05c1-4171-80c6-24fa02cade42\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e22ff4d6d0674f12b5d0020576cc8c49\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich)\u003C/span\u003E: I would appreciate it if there are no further points of order along those lines, because they are not, in fact, points of order. I was enjoying listening to the Rt Hon Winston Peters.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000197\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226837e396f99c45c8b9faacb47405a2f6\u0022\u003ERt Hon WINSTON PETERS\u003C/span\u003E: My point is, though, that the reason why the National Party and ACT party have been so venomous is that what is clearly emerging from this bill and this debate is the fact that there is only one party that has always stood for one law for everybody, and that party is New Zealand First. That is why they have been so bitter, so twisted, and so venomous. Their track record is absolutely contrary to what they say. The idea that they could actually claim this issue, as Dr Brash sought to do in \u014Crewa, and ever sustain it was never going to happen, and it is back now where it belongs\u2014it is back home with New Zealand First where it always was. That has always been the case with our party. We were founded on it, unlike that party over here.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000198\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003EI believe that the reality is that when Judge Hingston made a decision that water and land are the same thing, he never ever thought that the Court of Appeal would accept it. He never believed that the Court of Appeal would accept it. The Court of Appeal actually did not accept it. What it said was one can go to the M\u0101ori Land Court but one\u2019s chances of winning are virtually nil. So, pray tell me, how did M\u0101ori go from that decision to start believing, as some extremists did, that they owned the foreshore and the seabed?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000199\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224029b198-a7b2-4eea-867c-79ef46cafeb9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002264e6c92eaa5f4522b2e8562925b3ea2e\u0022\u003EHon Dover Samuels\u003C/span\u003E: Somebody told them that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000200\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c9d646a2324c4293aba1999b9b6adb3c\u0022\u003ERt Hon WINSTON PETERS\u003C/span\u003E: I am telling that member this: the media in this country have a lot to answer for because they helped plant that totally extravagant supposition in M\u0101oridom\u2019s ears and in their mind. And they have sustained it all these months, although the Court of Appeal said nothing of the sort. The Court of Appeal could not conceive of any M\u0101ori group winning\u2014not just Ng\u0101ti Apa. That is a fact.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000201\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003EThere was Tariana Turia, out there on a march, saying: \u201CWe own the foreshore and the seabed.\u201D Well, let me tell members that we never did, because 170 miles of it was given to us by international treaty. That is what nationhood is about\u2014not making extravagant claims that we cannot sustain, and that, frankly, are embarrassing. It is embarrassing to a people who believe in independence and self-worth\u2014this hugging mentality that somehow we will have conveyed upon us something that does not belong to us. We do not ever bow down, in respect of where we come from, to those M\u0101ori who think somehow we are being treacherous. I have never heard so much bunkum in all my life.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000202\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003EBut my point to her is this. What is her record when it comes to keeping land? What is her party\u2019s record, her management committee\u2019s record, about selling M\u0101ori land? What is it? Because ours is intact. Dover Samuel\u2019s record is intact. She should not criticise us M\u0101ori and say we are less M\u0101ori than her. She makes extravagant claims that are totally and utterly unsustainable. If we want to be fair about this, we know full well that what is being said by a number of people is utter drivel.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000203\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003EThe sad aspect, in particular, is this. I heard people talk about w\u0101hi tapu yesterday as though that issue was of no moment whatsoever. I could not believe it. Who brought Christianity to this country? Who adopted Christianity? The M\u0101ori did. And here they are, believing in these traditions and believing that they are important. To have Europeans in this Chamber, such as those from the National Party whom I heard say that, stomping all over a tradition brought here, adopted here, and acclimatised here\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000204\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b3a7671465124f1ab40b9ebf8191533a\u0022\u003EHon Dr Nick Smith\u003C/span\u003E: It\u2019s as broad as a bus; it\u2019s this wide.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000205\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022cba105f3b57043a3bc4bfd41e032fa42\u0022\u003ERt Hon WINSTON PETERS\u003C/span\u003E: Oh, there you go, you see. Like Ninety Mile Beach is a w\u0101hi tapu? That is rubbish.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022d52e59e3-2195-4c95-a654-665c11b39b63\u0022 data-id=\u00228dfb371076a64d5fa38fd724c35e98b5\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000206\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d52e59e3-2195-4c95-a654-665c11b39b63\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00228dfb371076a64d5fa38fd724c35e98b5\u0022\u003EHon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Minister of M\u0101ori Affairs):\u003C/span\u003E I sat here last night in amazement. I totally reiterate and support what my tuakana from Ng\u0101ti Wai said about the differences amongst us that pervade this land, and that this humbug of trying to ensure there is generic understanding and practice in the sense of tikanga is put asunder by people on the other side there who were talking about white people, forgetting that there were other people, and talking about brown people. This is about all New Zealanders, and the conflict in my mind is the extremes of the rednecked racists and the crazies in here, who are helped along by the press, which is not doing its homework and is chastising us for doing something that is the best thing for M\u0101oridom in a long, long time, and this bill points that out.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000207\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002273f6c098c359474db96e83fe6ce85374\u0022\u003EGerry Brownlee\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I am sorry to interrupt the member\u2019s speech, but he needs to think a little bit carefully about what he is saying. He referred to rednecked racists who are here. I am not a racist and I am certainly not a redneck. I take deep offence at any suggestion that that might be the case.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000208\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220ed9ad81-05c1-4171-80c6-24fa02cade42\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224bbab76036f94053beb4676628808107\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich)\u003C/span\u003E: I thank the member for raising that. I was just pondering that turn of phrase. Would the member withdraw and apologise.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000209\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d52e59e3-2195-4c95-a654-665c11b39b63\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220142ad5c29d648ad8b1e89e00e1c4a95\u0022\u003EHon PAREKURA HOROMIA\u003C/span\u003E: I apologise. Certainly I am humble enough to withdraw and apologise when I say outrageous things. But I will not stand here and listen to this nonsense of people preaching about tuku-ed whenua, things that we have inherited from our ancestors that are tinged through the history of time in this great country by raupatu, people setting to on us, stealing it, and, most of all, our own people selling it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000210\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d52e59e3-2195-4c95-a654-665c11b39b63\u0022\u003EWe have these extremes going on and on about let us preserve the land. It is at risk out there at the moment. Let me tell members this: the land that is retained the most is within the regulated framework. It has stood the test of time in the sense of local authority interference at times. Certainly, it is about making decisions in contemporary times for our people, and that is right. Being from Ng\u0101ti Porou, I support this stance. I am proud of being from there, and not ashamed\u2014as I am proud of being from Ng\u0101i Tahu. My Ng\u0101i Tahu side were here in the depth of the night in 1992 with the Government then in power, and they signed an agreement about fishing in the customary sense. People appear and make believe that this is brand new. Woe betide those who want to keep us in the dungeons of doom and gloom!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000211\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d52e59e3-2195-4c95-a654-665c11b39b63\u0022\u003EWe have to make decisions for all New Zealanders. We have to protect that strip of land that is from the high-water mark to the low-water mark. Let us get it right about confiscation. Let us get it right about the black market that our people are involved with at the moment. They are t\u0101hae-ing the kai\u2014stealing it. They are selling it up in Auckland, and for what reason? The cupboard is bare, and I want to defend it. What is important to me? It is that we make sure that our young people can hold on to that journey that we made as young persons. I sit here and listen to all this prattle at the extremes by those who are saying: \u201CWe want to leave you there.\u201D Not too long ago, when crayfishing licences were let in this country, our old people told us not to touch them because they were about moni, and kai is tapu. P\u0101keh\u0101 have all the crayfishing licences and they live well off them, as a lot have lived well off the fishing quota, and doing everything except helping our people. Who has imbued and encouraged the gravy train? Those people in that party, and those M\u0101ori who have done very, very well out of it, and have not cared about pulling it down\u2014those people.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000212\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d52e59e3-2195-4c95-a654-665c11b39b63\u0022\u003EI listen and wonder, when all I can hear in the mainstream media and parts of the M\u0101ori media is all this nonsense about taking a position and not caring about the demographic of young M\u0101ori in this country. I want young M\u0101ori to grow up and understand that they can go to the beach and it is there; that when they wake up tomorrow it will still be there. I know right now of properties with the k\u014Diwi of our t\u016Bpuna\u2014the bones of our t\u016Bpuna\u2014that have been sold because that whenua is alienated. Let us go back to what the court said, and let us get it into context and understand what was said. If people want to let that happen, kei te pai, but they should not come and tell me, as a Ng\u0101ti Porou person, and try to invent this generic niceness all around this country\u2014either other iwi, or P\u0101keh\u0101. Because I am very sure of what needs to happen in our rohe. I am very sure, as the Minister of M\u0101ori Affairs, of what I believe is the best position at this time.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000213\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d52e59e3-2195-4c95-a654-665c11b39b63\u0022\u003EWe run all these hui, and we run all these w\u0101nanga courses, and half of them, in my mind\u2014those in the universities\u2014are a lot of nonsense. We get p\u016Bh\u0101; we get diplomas that are not relevant and mean nothing. I say to Mr Brownlee that we should take our kids who are not going to the rocks and teach them about that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022 data-id=\u0022cb0988b6f45f40e899d83a875b5e9e99\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000214\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022cb0988b6f45f40e899d83a875b5e9e99\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH (National\u2014Nelson):\u003C/span\u003E That was an extraordinary contribution from the Minister of M\u0101ori Affairs, and it showed just how confusing this legislation is even after 48 hours of debate on it. I want to cover three particular points, because we are no wiser today than we were on Tuesday evening when the 138 pages of bill plus Supplementary Order Paper were tabled without response.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000215\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003EMy first point is that Labour M\u0101ori caucus members have said to their constituency that the legislation will deliver 10 percent or more of the foreshore and seabed as reserves. That is what they are claiming on the front page of the New Zealand Herald. Either they are telling something different to other New Zealanders\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000216\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022bc840e0cf86b4b7ba0166d4aad5e8243\u0022\u003ERt Hon Winston Peters\u003C/span\u003E: Who would read that?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000217\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002219e08d063e3d4368ad123d806fb0a586\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH\u003C/span\u003E: Well, we are actually believing the Labour M\u0101ori caucus, and what they say comes as no surprise. I come to Winston Peters. He led a very interesting exchange\u2014[Interruption] \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000218\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220ed9ad81-05c1-4171-80c6-24fa02cade42\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002246e5489d6c5541b9a8809f0a56a914b5\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich)\u003C/span\u003E: It is a robust debate. Interjections are welcome, but not of that nature. They will cease now.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000219\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c3158fe8838d4642acaee3e82481404d\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH\u003C/span\u003E: The second confusion is this. I asked a very simple question. In relation to the new idea of foreshore reserves, can there be a marine reserve in the same place as a foreshore reserve? Can there be an aquaculture marine area? Nanaia Mahuta from the Labour Party told us yes. I shall read the transcript. I asked the question: \u201CCan there be a marine reserve and a foreshore reserve in the same area?\u201D. Winston Peters said\u2014and I shall quote from Hansard\u2014\u201COf course not.\u201D That is what he said yesterday. That is what Hansard states in black and white. He went even further. He said I was a fool and an idiot to suggest that they can be in the same area. Yet Nanaia Mahuta has told us the opposite. The man who takes credit for the legislation, who says he has been intricately involved in the drafting of it, says a foreshore and seabed reserve cannot be in the same place as a marine reserve.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000220\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022101c4a196dee40eb9d5886d0225a02a5\u0022\u003ERt Hon Winston Peters\u003C/span\u003E: If the trustees agree.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000221\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a4819c151c154df48d51571e57a21fd8\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH\u003C/span\u003E: Today he says if the trustees agree. Well, that is not what he said yesterday. He should read his Hansard. He has no damn idea of the legislation that he has spoken of.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000222\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022975b7c81a46e4ccea8b582c6736607e3\u0022\u003ERt Hon Winston Peters\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Surely, you cannot allow that member to get away with what he has just done. We know that he is frenetic and sort of hectic, but he cannot get away with throwing papers at another member. I reckon that it is about time his whip got him under control.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000223\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224e8fc7ec034d459d96366a1a1c908b41\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: I thank the member for raising that. That did happen. The paper was partly passed and partly thrown.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000224\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e76d2dbe01bc457a8ddef59010b844f0\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH\u003C/span\u003E: Yesterday he said exactly the opposite. Any member who reads Hansard will know that that member said one thing yesterday and something different today.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000225\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003EWe then come to the issue of w\u0101hi tapu. Members on this side respect the fact that there are burial grounds and other customary rights that need to be recognised. However, this legislation has provisions that are so broad and so wide-ranging that any old thing will get by. We already know that w\u0101hi tapu, under the definition that is provided, are any areas that are of spiritual significance to M\u0101ori\u2014and I tell Mr Samuels that there are M\u0101ori who have said that Ninety Mile Beach is of spiritual significance; they have claimed that\u2014and that will be determined by the M\u0101ori Land Court. Dail Jones gave an extraordinary speech in the Committee stage about the M\u0101ori Land Court. Basically, he told the Committee that we should have no confidence in its capacity to make fair judgments on those very issues. The significance of that is this: those w\u0101hi tapu provisions will see ordinary New Zealanders excluded from those areas of foreshore and seabed.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000226\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003ESo after 2 days of debate, under this appalling process whereby 138 pages of law have been dumped on this Committee, we still do not know for sure what we are passing. We still do not know. One person is saying one thing and another person is saying another thing, in respect of how many areas will be foreshore reserves. It is a completely new concept. I am pretty sure that, before Tuesday, no New Zealander, council, or anybody had even heard of the idea of foreshore and seabed reserves, and the Government will make them law today. The Labour M\u0101ori caucus is saying that they will apply to over 10 percent of foreshore and seabed\u20144 million hectares. I ask Margaret Wilson whether the Labour M\u0101ori caucus is correct in saying that they will cover 10-plus percent. The Minister is absolutely silent. New Zealanders have been told on the front page of the New Zealand Herald that the Labour M\u0101ori caucus is claiming that 10-plus percent will be set aside for foreshore reserves. The Labour M\u0101ori caucus knows, but Margaret Wilson does not.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000227\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003EWe need answers to those sorts of basic questions, and the reason National is opposed to this law is that it is a political con job. It is a political con job that completely fails to provide the sort of framework for all New Zealanders that will ensure our foreshore and seabed are properly managed. We are creating an array of new legal mechanisms that will create confusion and provide a field day for lawyers, and the worst thing is that our foreshore and seabed will not be properly managed as a consequence. It is confusing, contradictory, and an absolute mess. I look forward to the next National Government fixing up this mess, so that we can have foreshore and seabed legislation of which we can be proud.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022 data-id=\u00223eb9833e455b43848a2f3e8501663924\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000228\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00223eb9833e455b43848a2f3e8501663924\u0022\u003EMETIRIA TUREI (Green):\u003C/span\u003E The title of the bill is very bland and boring. It does not actually tell us what this bill does, at all. Over the last day or so it has been very clearly outlined that this bill is about taking. It is about stealing. It has nothing to do with public access. We have seen that, because public access rights are taken away by this bill. It has nothing to do with the protection of the foreshore and seabed from sale. Because of this legislation, freehold titles are still able to be issued for a period. New Zealand First\u2019s refusal to support my entrenchment clause has meant that it will remain an option to continue to sell the foreshore and seabed to foreign ownership. It is not committed to keeping New Zealand land in New Zealand hands, let alone M\u0101ori land in M\u0101ori hands. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000229\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003EThe Minister of M\u0101ori Affairs stood in this House and blamed M\u0101ori for the loss of their own lands. He stood here and said that it is M\u0101ori\u2019s fault that they do not have their land any more. He has denied the history of confiscation in this country, denied the history of legislation that has come out of this House\u2014from which this bill is a direct descendant\u2014and blamed us for the land that was stolen from us. Let us call this bill the \u201CGovernment Says \u2018We Are The Champions\u2019 Bill\u201D, because it has won. It has taken away from citizens of this country the right to go to court. Every person in this country must realise that this is the first step to the abolition of his or her civil rights. Is this what this country wants\u2014a Government that will take away the right of its citizens to go to court because it does not like the outcome of the court decision? Is that what this country wants? No, it is not. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000230\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003EHow about we call the bill the \u201CHa Ha, You Lose, We Win, Bill?\u201D. Again, it is not about protecting public rights, but about taking land because the Government wants complete control of the resources. How about calling it the \u201CTough Titty, You M\u0101oris Bill\u201D? M\u0101ori will lose and lose under this. Nothing in this bill will give them anything. The customary rights orders have been so tightened that they will virtually be impossible to get. Only two or three iwi in the whole country will be able to get a territorial customary rights order, because New Zealand First has put in place provisions that will make it impossible for them to get. [Interruption] \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000231\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220ed9ad81-05c1-4171-80c6-24fa02cade42\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225db909302caa408c80ed801560c7e499\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich)\u003C/span\u003E: The Minister has had his say. Please allow Metiria Turei to have hers.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000232\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b94f29489c7046d5b9f660d67392b954\u0022\u003EMETIRIA TUREI\u003C/span\u003E: The rhetoric contained in the bill is a disgrace. As parliamentarians and lawmakers we need to be committed to making good law that actually means something. This whole House knows that the provisions that New Zealand First has put in about going to the High Court, for various interested groups, mean nothing. It is a deception. It will cheat New Zealanders, because they will believe that they have a right in law that, in fact, they do not have. They will waste their money trying to see those rights achieved in law. They will discover that their efforts have been purposeless and worthless, because New Zealand First wants to make a symbolic point that will render New Zealanders without rights. Is that the kind of law that we as parliamentarians want to enact? Is that the kind of law that New Zealanders want to see on their law books? No, it is not. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000233\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003ENew Zealanders are crying out for just laws that restore justice in our country, protect the rights of all citizens, protect the rights to keep New Zealand land in New Zealand hands, and protect the rights of M\u0101ori to go to the courts, just like every other citizen. Yet very shortly this morning the House will pass a law that will strip away those rights. This Parliament will be in disgrace if we continue to proceed with this bill. But at this moment we are still in a position not to proceed with it. We can take another course. Right now thousands of New Zealanders are out there asking us to do something else\u2014put this on hold and take another path. An unjust law is not in their best interests. They do not want to see the divisiveness that this legislation will permeate through their community.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00224029b198-a7b2-4eea-867c-79ef46cafeb9\u0022 data-id=\u002294d519c84d28429cbbb25a497db99759\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000234\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224029b198-a7b2-4eea-867c-79ef46cafeb9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002294d519c84d28429cbbb25a497db99759\u0022\u003EHon DOVER SAMUELS (Minister of State):\u003C/span\u003E I want to say to 99.9 percent of all New Zealanders in this country that at Christmas they can go down to the beach with their family, with their children, have a barbecue, have a h\u0101ngi, and go fishing. It was amazing to hear a speaker from the ACT party say that when she goes down to the beach with her kids they might be stopped by wardens, and if they do not leave they might be fined. Let me give her some advice. She should take the kids down to the beach, take suntan oil and do the \u201Cslip, slop, slap\u201D so they do not get sunburnt, lie on the beach, have a good time, and build sandcastles. But my advice is: do not go down on the bulldozer, because fisheries officers will be there and wardens will be there to make sure that people use the beach appropriately, for the benefit of all New Zealanders, including M\u0101ori. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000235\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224029b198-a7b2-4eea-867c-79ef46cafeb9\u0022\u003EI heard of a statement made by somebody who sits opposite: \u201CI will oppose this bill with every fibre of my body.\u201D Who said that? I am still trying to identify who said that. But that person has been an apparition\u2014has not been seen, has not turned up here. [Interruption] I am just saying that is what I heard from a person who sits across the other side of the Chamber: \u201CI will oppose the bill with every fibre in my body.\u201D Today we have seen the National Party roll out the dead\u2014a few have come out of the deep freeze. Today they say they will oppose this bill. The reason why they oppose this bill is quite clear\u2014and one thing about the National Party is that they tell the truth, they are clear, they tell the facts. The reason why they oppose the bill is that it provides customary rights for M\u0101ori in this country. That is why the National Party opposes the bill. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000236\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224029b198-a7b2-4eea-867c-79ef46cafeb9\u0022\u003EI turn to the title of this bill. In 1993 the House passed Te Ture Whenua M\u0101ori Act, and the National Party was the Government. I wonder why the National Government did not think perhaps about the implications of a Court of Appeal decision in terms of the jurisdiction of the M\u0101ori Land Court?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000237\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221216e7958219481cade6882b44874cd0\u0022\u003EGerry Brownlee\u003C/span\u003E: Why didn\u2019t M\u0101ori think about it?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000238\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224029b198-a7b2-4eea-867c-79ef46cafeb9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229b008bd56f6942deab39e3f6d87c7e82\u0022\u003EHon DOVER SAMUELS\u003C/span\u003E: Why did the National Government not think about it? The outcome is a sham. That legislation of 1993 empowered the M\u0101ori Land Court\u2014and the National Party was the Government. They never ever mentioned anything; never dreamt about the foreshore and seabed. Yet we have a Court of Appeal. There no M\u0101ori on that court; no M\u0101ori amongst those high-flying judges. They are all P\u0101keh\u0101, and they determined that in fact the M\u0101ori Land Court has the jurisdiction to hear applications not just about land but the foreshore, the seabed, under the water, out to the 12-mile continental shelf. What an absolute sham! \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000239\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224029b198-a7b2-4eea-867c-79ef46cafeb9\u0022\u003EI am saying that if the Parliament had decided that the M\u0101ori Land Court should have jurisdiction, then it would have titled the legislation of 1993 the \u201CM\u0101ori Ture Whenua (Foreshore, Seabed and Land) Act\u201D. But it did not, and here we are, back here today, listening to the claptrap from the other side of the Chamber, from members of a previous Government that was responsible for promoting that Act. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000240\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224029b198-a7b2-4eea-867c-79ef46cafeb9\u0022\u003EI have a vested interest, a conflict of interest, in this foreshore and seabed legislation. I want to say that before Rodney Hide or the ACT party start frothing at the mouth about it. I am a member of the hap\u016B Ng\u0101ti Wai, like my whanaunga the Rt Hon Winston Peters. Ng\u0101ti Wai people are actually by the sea\u2014generations and generations of our tupuna. We have never been accorded any rights or recognition in terms of our customary rights, whatsoever. Today I am proud to stand with my colleagues, and my M\u0101ori colleagues on the other side, to give recognition to the customary rights that our people have had for generations and generations. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000241\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224029b198-a7b2-4eea-867c-79ef46cafeb9\u0022\u003EI say to our people that if they do not want to pick up that opportunity, they do not have to. If they do not want to go to the M\u0101ori Land Court or the High Court they do not have to. This Government is not going to take them around the neck and force them to go to the M\u0101ori Land Court or the High Court. But that is their option. They have the option to codify their rights in the law. So when the local councils come along with some extraordinary or unusual development project, our people can say: \u201CHang on. This is crossing and transgressing the customary rights of our people.\u201D Is that not fair? The lunatics\u2014the people who have been smoking too much puha and are hallucinating\u2014say they represent M\u0101ori. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e4030eb1-1b72-4bc3-b00d-7126013abc01\u0022 data-id=\u002261369f49400345f5b25890fcf0b31a93\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000242\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4030eb1-1b72-4bc3-b00d-7126013abc01\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002261369f49400345f5b25890fcf0b31a93\u0022\u003ESTEPHEN FRANKS (ACT):\u003C/span\u003E I have been in the Chamber now for 3 hours in total since last night, and this is my first call. This bill is being rammed through. The title should not be \u201CSeabed and Foreshore\u201D it should be the \u201CBeach Trolls Empowerment Bill\u201D. Dover Samuels just mocked the idea that there would be fees, and that wardens would be enforcing fees. I tell Mr Samuels that the Spirit of New Zealand trust that takes kids on sail training all around the country has had to drop Mayor Island off its agenda, because every time the kids wanted to swim ashore from the boat, beach trolls emerged from the rocks and tried to charge every one of them a fee, and the trust could not afford it. What is the Government going to do about that? That is the sort of thing that these beach wardens will be doing. This is formalising kaitiaki-ship\u2014although no one knows what that means\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000243\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002254a239e7149048b795bd953466e94165\u0022\u003EHon Member\u003C/span\u003E: Guardianship.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000244\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4030eb1-1b72-4bc3-b00d-7126013abc01\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f416f8b695da47169f14cdb679acfc4e\u0022\u003ESTEPHEN FRANKS\u003C/span\u003E: Guardianship? No, guarding the koha. That is what it is all about. This bill is just a grab for power from a Government that is willing to give it, by setting up a false form of ownership where the real control goes to a race-selected minority. This is absolutely a dishonest piece of law. We are opposing this, somewhat to the surprise of many decent members of ACT, National, and other parties, because they have a view that the Government must be doing something right, if M\u0101ori are jumping up and down so much. That is the only way they can judge it, because there has been no truthful information about this bill for months. There has been nothing. This bill comes back, full of new clauses, and we are told we have an hour and a half to read it. No wonder New Zealanders can judge only on the basis that M\u0101ori are jumping up and down, and Tariana Turia does not like it! \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000245\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4030eb1-1b72-4bc3-b00d-7126013abc01\u0022\u003EWhat it has actually done is very simple: it has taken the beaches from the control of local communities and local authorities and vested it in the Minister of Conservation. It is telling M\u0101ori that they can then front up and ask for guardianship rights in respect of customary activities that the bill does not define. It pretends to say that it does not cover spiritualism, and then does. So there will be taniwha around every headland, because it will be in the interests of people to invent them. Because it also expressly provides that when people want to do something on their beaches, when they want to do something with a piece of coastline, they can get the M\u0101ori people\u2019s deeply, deeply felt love for customary activity waived\u2014as long as M\u0101ori sign the application to the court, it can be waived. There is money in this, but it is only negative. It puts M\u0101ori in a position of being always negative. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000246\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4030eb1-1b72-4bc3-b00d-7126013abc01\u0022\u003E There is no real property right under this bill. If this bill were really conferring proper property rights, M\u0101ori could be positive about it. They would be looking to see the useful things they would be doing with this land. Instead, the only value they can extract is by being a pain in the neck to their neighbours. The only value they can extract is through extortion payments\u2014through holding to ransom and then signing the application to the court. Then the court can accept that the customary activity is not being infringed. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000247\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4030eb1-1b72-4bc3-b00d-7126013abc01\u0022\u003EThis bill also exempts these areas under guardianship from the provisions of the Resource Management Act\u2014the only justifiable provisions in the Resource Management Act. These are the ones that say we cannot pollute, and we cannot trash the flora and fauna. The Act exempts them from that. There is no explanation from the Ministers as to why there should be an exemption from the 10 most critical sections of the Resource Management Act. It is obvious. What was done here is a set of trade-offs. They were not going to provide real property rights to M\u0101ori, on the very small areas that the courts would have found they were entitled to. Instead, they create this shared management\u2014and no man can serve two masters happily\u2014across all of New Zealand potentially. We are aware from what the M\u0101ori caucus members themselves are saying, it is at least 10 percent. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000248\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4030eb1-1b72-4bc3-b00d-7126013abc01\u0022\u003EThis bill will live with as much infamy in New Zealanders\u2019 memories in 10 years\u2019 time as section 9 of the State Owned Enterprises Act. This deal has been trumpeted as simply the status quo. That is what David Lange told his Cabinet colleagues in 1986-87: \u201CThis is just the status quo; it does not mean anything.\u201D This bill means a great deal. This is an entrenchment of racism in this country. There is nothing to justify the creation of these rights, other than ethnic inheritance.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022075eff2f-7904-4500-8339-3972160a627f\u0022 data-id=\u00229fca5be2631a4cf8b3edfc3dcc4e1e3a\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000249\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022075eff2f-7904-4500-8339-3972160a627f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00229fca5be2631a4cf8b3edfc3dcc4e1e3a\u0022\u003EJIM PETERS (NZ First):\u003C/span\u003E It would be well to remind us all what New Zealand First stands for, in respect of this bill. I want, therefore, to speak to the short title and to the amendments. Just to reiterate, we began with Crown ownership as a guaranteed component. We talked about guaranteed access, customary rights for all New Zealanders, and one law for all, under the legal process. That is where we stood in June, and we stand there today. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000250\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022075eff2f-7904-4500-8339-3972160a627f\u0022\u003EWe hear some of the imagined posturings around the House, and I am very sorry to say that the Green member seems somehow to be grounded in urban grievances of about 50 years ago. That member has no understanding of those of us who have a conflict of interest because we have been coastal dwellers, along with many other thousands of M\u0101ori and P\u0101keh\u0101 New Zealanders. We understand exactly what the foreshore is. We understand the seabed, and we also understand the legal process implicit in this bill. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000251\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022075eff2f-7904-4500-8339-3972160a627f\u0022\u003EThat brings me to the second point. Last night, and today by implication, there seems to be some ability in this Chamber to go all around in a wide-ranging debate and forget what the amendments and the bill stand for. Let us look at it very, very quickly. Part 2 concerns the Resource Management Act, and on matters of national importance we have already heard an allusion last night, and again today, to the relationship of M\u0101ori and their culture and traditions with the ancestral lands, water, sites, w\u0101hi tapu, and other taonga. That is the law now, and what will be added to that law is the protection of recognised customary activities, forming an addition to Part 6, but one that is for all. Therefore, M\u0101ori, and New Zealanders of European and other backgrounds, will benefit from that inclusion. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000252\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022075eff2f-7904-4500-8339-3972160a627f\u0022\u003ESecondly, in respect of this particular matter, there was misunderstanding last night, either deliberate or unknown, as to where Part 2 stands. All these items are of national importance, and all of them are ranked equally. All of them would be valued for themselves in any jurisdiction or any consent hearing. After proper weighting had been given to the value, then and then only would the jurisdiction hearing an application, at the ground level as it were, start to assign due consideration to it. That is one law for all, and all are equally matters of national importance. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000253\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022075eff2f-7904-4500-8339-3972160a627f\u0022\u003ELast night I heard comment made that suggested very strongly that this new addition was somehow outstanding and was going to have prior importance. That is just not so, and anyone here who understands case law and has been involved in any consent hearing knows exactly what is true. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000254\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022075eff2f-7904-4500-8339-3972160a627f\u0022\u003EThe third matter I wish to turn to is that of veto. It was much discussed in the course of the earlier debate. I reiterate that no veto was implicit or expressed in the language of this amendment to the bill\u2014none at all. In actual fact, as I said last night, any consent hearing or any body, must have regard to this suite of guidance, these very clear criteria, step by step, that affect the area\u2014the actual history of it, the alternative, which are all part of such a discussion\u2014and in the end, after all of those carefully delineated steps in the criteria, if there is no significant adverse effect, then and then only will the consent body make the decision. There is no veto there, just a proper and normal legal process. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000255\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022075eff2f-7904-4500-8339-3972160a627f\u0022\u003EThe last thing I want to say concerns those bodies that came to the select committee and expressed their concerns, quite rightly\u2014and I am talking about the utility groups and the various other concerns of groups such as Transpower and the port companies. Despite the comments made by National Party members last night, their certainty and their rights to perform are absolutely guaranteed in these amendments and in this bill. They are there. If members wish to read carefully the constructions placed there, they will see just that. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000256\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022075eff2f-7904-4500-8339-3972160a627f\u0022\u003EWe should be able to go out of this Chamber at the end of the day and assure all of those groups that normal business is as it was yesterday, and as it will be tomorrow, and that up until the point of the commencement of this Act all the rights that had accrued and all the developments that had been properly processed and the procedures adhered to will take place\u2014there is no limitation whatsoever. On behalf of New Zealand First, I am pleased to be able to stand and support again this part of the bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00221e93d9c8-b183-40db-b200-833697df066c\u0022 data-id=\u002288341ce1c11247dabce989ffae6e5bd7\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000257\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221e93d9c8-b183-40db-b200-833697df066c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002288341ce1c11247dabce989ffae6e5bd7\u0022\u003ELARRY BALDOCK (United Future):\u003C/span\u003E We have come to the final part of the Committee stage debate, and I am pleased finally to get to a part that United Future can support. We will agree that the title, \u201CForeshore and Seabed Act 2004\u201D, is a good one and we will be happy to vote for it. But up until this point, as we have been going through the debate, there has not been a single part that we have been able to support entirely, because there are still many things that ought to be addressed in this legislation. We have, however, supported the Minister\u2019s amendments throughout this process because we are engaged constructively in trying to make this bad bill a better bill. We are of the opinion that these amendments are accomplishing that. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000258\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221e93d9c8-b183-40db-b200-833697df066c\u0022\u003EWinston Peters may be able to travel around New Zealand and claim that he has fixed it and that everything is now OK, but we would not take that opinion. He will try to take all the credit for all of these amendments, but many of them were discussed by the select committee in its deliberation and consideration, and there are more than just New Zealand First that can claim credit for this. Winston Peters\u2019 response to all the legitimate questions that people have around New Zealand is that we should trust him. He is the white knight in shining armour who will solve all our problems, if we will just trust him.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000259\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022743cf36d021c47c689003f3b0b703838\u0022\u003ERt Hon Winston Peters\u003C/span\u003E: What\u2019s your poll?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000260\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221e93d9c8-b183-40db-b200-833697df066c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022854af273a4044a50b6c3318f3506e281\u0022\u003ELARRY BALDOCK\u003C/span\u003E: I say to Mr Peters that I am afraid that when we look at his recent polls at 5 percent he has to understand that he has a long way to go before a majority of New Zealanders will trust him again. United Future has been involved in a constructive engaged process to try to make this bill the best it can be, and we have been listening to the concerns of submitters throughout this process. We have not supported any other parts in this legislation so far, and I will give members a quick summary of the reasons. Part 1\u2014the discussion surrounding public domain versus sole Crown ownership\u2014meant that we could not support that part. Part 2 concerns the issues around the entrenchment of clause 12(2)(b), which we hoped this Parliament would do in response to the concerns about the future alienation of the foreshore and seabed. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000261\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221e93d9c8-b183-40db-b200-833697df066c\u0022\u003EPart 3 is concerned with the applications for cancellation of a customary rights order. It is certainly not clear enough, nor prohibitive enough, to protect M\u0101ori from losing their interests in that regard. Regarding Part 4\u2014it is a complete sham to try to make out as though anyone other than M\u0101ori could get a customary rights order, and we had a robust debate about that last night.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000262\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221e93d9c8-b183-40db-b200-833697df066c\u0022\u003E In Part 5 there are the issues around putting it into the matters of national significance, and there is also clause 100, which contains the crazy idea that once one reclaims some land and turns it into dry land, one cannot ever get title to it. In Part 6 there are the issues around clause 112. There is still insufficient transparency about the deals that will go on between the Government and applicants. Clause 2 is another reason we cannot support it. We support the title issue but unfortunately we will not be able to support clause 2 in terms of the commencement date for this legislation, because there is a problem with it, and I will address the rest of my comments to that. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000263\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221e93d9c8-b183-40db-b200-833697df066c\u0022\u003EBecause most of this legislation will come into effect on the day after the date on which it receives the royal assent, there will not be sufficient time for many people around New Zealand to approach the Minister of Conservation, as is set out in section 355AA(2)(b), in new clause 100A, in order to get a written agreement with an applicant to vest a right, title, or interest in the relevant land. I imagine that the Minister of Conservation\u2019s mailbox will be chock-a-block in the next couple of days as port authorities and people like the Wellington Reclamation Society, the Waterfront Society, and others seek to get a written agreement with the Minister of Conservation so that they may be able to get fee-simple title to the land they have paid for to get reclaimed, which is going to be prohibited to them unless they have already got this written agreement. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000264\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221e93d9c8-b183-40db-b200-833697df066c\u0022\u003ESo I believe that the commencement date should be extended at least a couple of months to enable that process to occur. For that reason we will not be able to support the current commencement date, which will probably be today or tomorrow after this bill is rushed through Parliament under urgency. The continued concerns we have expressed over the process of this legislation and the need for urgency this week has never been justified, and the people of New Zealand ought to have been able to contemplate the massive number of amendments proposed in this legislation while they sat on the beach, all through the summer. It would have been a great setting for further discussion and consultation on the beach, under their umbrellas, with their suntan lotion on. Therefore, we could have resolved it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00221a705910-5320-43bf-aa82-027a761519f6\u0022 data-id=\u00220c3d3bb94a114e09a2d4b3fa8263eeeb\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000265\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221a705910-5320-43bf-aa82-027a761519f6\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00220c3d3bb94a114e09a2d4b3fa8263eeeb\u0022\u003ERUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour\u2014Napier):\u003C/span\u003E I am delighted to have this chance to speak, particularly when Ngahiwi Tomoana, the chief executive officer of Ng\u0101ti Kahungunu, is in the Chamber. Ng\u0101ti Kahungunu, of course, have responsibility for a huge part of New Zealand\u2019s coastline, and this bill affects very much tribal M\u0101ori in my electorate and its environs.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000266\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221a705910-5320-43bf-aa82-027a761519f6\u0022\u003EI want to discuss the title of the Foreshore and Seabed Bill. That title, of course, is a code. The real title should be the \u201CProperty Rights Recognition Regime Bill\u201D, but if it were called that, we would not know what property rights we were talking about. So it has to be boiled down to foreshore and seabed property rights, because this bill is entirely concerned with a property rights regime relating to the foreshore and seabed.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000267\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221a705910-5320-43bf-aa82-027a761519f6\u0022\u003EI find it surprising that ACT is critical of that property rights regime, and even criticises the w\u0101hi tapu aspects, because in the report of the select committee ACT described the sanctity of property rights. Of course, sanctity is holiness. It is a spiritual concept, so ACT must therefore endorse the w\u0101hi tapu aspects of this bill, which has exactly those aspects. But logic has never been part of ACT philosophy.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000268\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221a705910-5320-43bf-aa82-027a761519f6\u0022\u003ELogic has also evaded all the speeches from National members, particularly when they resort to that fatuous label of racism. The use of that term shows either their inability to read the bill and understand its concepts, or a basic dishonesty in the way they approach their arguments. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000269\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221a705910-5320-43bf-aa82-027a761519f6\u0022\u003EThe characteristic of property is that there is a degree of exclusivity\u2014a degree of ownership and control. What are the property right regimes in this bill? The property rights characteristics are that the rights must have been in existence in 1840. There is some exclusivity. They must have been in continuous existence and have been controlled by the same group since 1840, and they must have continued in that way to the present time. That is the determination of the property right.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000270\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221a705910-5320-43bf-aa82-027a761519f6\u0022\u003EBecause that right may apply more to M\u0101ori than P\u0101keh\u0101, or only to M\u0101ori and not to P\u0101keh\u0101\u2014no one can say which\u2014it does not make it racist. It makes it no more racist than to say that the children of the rich who fund the coffers of some of the parties in this House are not entitled to that money because they inherited it. The elitism that comes by the old-school network in this country, and that is perpetuated by the bandwagons it pushes, is no worse than the property rights M\u0101ori are entitled to because they were here and exercised those rights from pre-1840 to the present time.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000271\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221a705910-5320-43bf-aa82-027a761519f6\u0022\u003EProperty rights are colourless. Property rights are not morally bound. Property rights are not determined by the colour of one\u2019s skin, one\u2019s secular orientation, or even one\u2019s gender. Property rights are neutral on all those issues. The fact that some people qualify for property rights over others is part of the sanctity of property rights that ACT proclaims, and in that respect this bill and ACT have something in common, and ACT still has time to recognise that publicly in this Chamber.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000272\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221a705910-5320-43bf-aa82-027a761519f6\u0022\u003EWe have heard from the Green Party, and we have heard some interjections from the M\u0101ori Party\u2014and I must say \u201Cinterjections\u201D because that party has refused to take calls to explain its position on this bill. It claims that this is confiscation, but it cannot be confiscation if it is codification of an existing property right. I think the argument that it is confiscation goes one step back and says: \u201CAh! We had rights once to property, which have now gone. This Act does not now deliver on them, therefore it is confiscation.\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000273\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221a705910-5320-43bf-aa82-027a761519f6\u0022\u003EThe M\u0101ori Party is really saying that this bill should include a grievance process such as in the Waitangi Tribunal. Well, the bill does make reference to that, because it states that it does not interfere with any rights to claim under the Treaty of Waitangi through the Waitangi Tribunal. So any rights that are no longer in existence today but will be in existence tomorrow and were valid once, become a matter of grievance claim under the Treaty of Waitangi. There is no confiscation. The words codification and confiscation have similarity only in the first two letters. Other than that, they are different concepts and have different uses. To confuse codification with confiscation is at best laziness, and at worst a lack of candour.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000274\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221a705910-5320-43bf-aa82-027a761519f6\u0022\u003EI want to talk about Mr Nick Smith\u2019s hysterical contribution to this debate. Someone said he does not need a judge, he needs a doctor, but I am not sure\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000275\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220ed9ad81-05c1-4171-80c6-24fa02cade42\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022bdc910ef9d4148e1a2a9c8187e0459d5\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich)\u003C/span\u003E: The member will withdraw that remark.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000276\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221a705910-5320-43bf-aa82-027a761519f6\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022159b9012b34e4175bf04c26800e4539b\u0022\u003ERUSSELL FAIRBROTHER\u003C/span\u003E: I withdraw. It seems to me that if the man would take some method to calm down and consider the concepts, then he would realise that Part 17 of Te Ture Whenua Maori Act is what is reflected in the reserve provisions in this bill. It is a well-established regime.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220bd5aa67-2f2b-4a13-a2b4-21a392396f11\u0022 data-id=\u00225ad8c53ff66b44c58fec051a596a9827\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000277\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220bd5aa67-2f2b-4a13-a2b4-21a392396f11\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00225ad8c53ff66b44c58fec051a596a9827\u0022\u003EHon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National):\u003C/span\u003E I shudder to think what New Zealanders are thinking about Parliament this morning. They look to this place for leadership, and I guess they just keep on looking\u2014they will always keep on looking. In my view, leadership has not been demonstrated by this minority Government, not in the way it has put this whole process together and not in terms of the substance of the bill. This bill sets up a hoax. It is a cruel hoax. It promises everything to everybody, then sets up a convoluted framework that will have people involved in judicial processes that will go on and on. At the end of the process, the expectations that have been raised for all New Zealanders will surely not be realised. That is why I say it is not leadership. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000278\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220bd5aa67-2f2b-4a13-a2b4-21a392396f11\u0022\u003EThe main bill is called the Foreshore and Seabed Bill. It should be called\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000279\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224029b198-a7b2-4eea-867c-79ef46cafeb9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022324bccdc8aa84209ab30d5a203c9b055\u0022\u003EHon Dover Samuels\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I seek leave for the leader of the National Party to take a call.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000280\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220ed9ad81-05c1-4171-80c6-24fa02cade42\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002282816236dbe840a988854d24d2a62bc1\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich)\u003C/span\u003E: No, I do not want any points of order along those lines. That was actually out of order.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000281\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022cfbffee65fe9422e98d90dfa929a39b3\u0022\u003ERt Hon Winston Peters\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I seek leave to take a call on behalf of the leader of the National Party. That is in order. It is!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000282\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220ed9ad81-05c1-4171-80c6-24fa02cade42\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002267c4b60342694be2acb3c0d362ac707d\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich)\u003C/span\u003E: I know that the member\u2019s comment is closer to being in order, but I really do not want to hear any more points of order along those lines. [Interruption] I am not giving an actual warning, but it will be pretty sudden when I do. I do not want to hear such points of order.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000283\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002254947fee1ca24475abb008c6d1438323\u0022\u003EHon Dr Nick Smith\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. There have been two points of order that were totally out of order. Georgina te Heuheu should have her time from the beginning of her speech.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000284\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220ed9ad81-05c1-4171-80c6-24fa02cade42\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022fdd922ec5cc44d62bbc7c3a4d28954d7\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich)\u003C/span\u003E: I accept that, and I am well aware of it. She will have ample time.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000285\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220bd5aa67-2f2b-4a13-a2b4-21a392396f11\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ef6f8088d0ba4248b14e6b38ecbd2633\u0022\u003EHon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU\u003C/span\u003E: Mr Samuels has just demonstrated the kind of lack of leadership I was referring to. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000286\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220bd5aa67-2f2b-4a13-a2b4-21a392396f11\u0022\u003EThis bill is a hoax. On the one hand, Winston Peters says to M\u0101ori: \u201CDon\u2019t worry, your mana\u201D\u2014I am not sure how he sees that, but I will give him the benefit of the doubt\u2014\u201Cwill be upheld.\u201D Gosh, he should tell that to all those M\u0101ori who are already planning to disrupt things this Christmas. On the other hand, he says to all New Zealanders: \u201CDon\u2019t you worry. Your access to the beaches will be unimpeded, because this foreshore and seabed will be in Crown ownership in perpetuity, for your benefit, forever and a day.\u201D Clearly, that is not true. He was wanting to be able to talk in that way before we knew that Nanaia Mahuta was going to support the bill, anyway. Whereas Winston Peters kept saying that New Zealand First would fix it, in the end his support probably was not required. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000287\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220bd5aa67-2f2b-4a13-a2b4-21a392396f11\u0022\u003EThis is all politics, and we should not deny that. Politics have ruled this whole process, and this bill, since the Court of Appeal decision last year. A more appropriate title for Dr Cullen\u2019s monument\u2014this will be his monument, no doubt; a bit of a cruel monument, his epitaph\u2014would be the \u201CForeshore and Seabed (\u2018We won. You lost. Eat that!\u2019) Bill\u201D, because that is how he is treating New Zealanders in the bill he is presenting to Parliament and overseeing the passing of into law today. Shame on him! \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000288\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220bd5aa67-2f2b-4a13-a2b4-21a392396f11\u0022\u003EI am pleased that the Hon Dover Samuels can stand and give such confident assurance to New Zealanders: \u201CDon\u2019t worry. This Christmas you can go down to the beach, take your slip-slop\u201D\u2014or whatever he said\u2014\u201Cand your barbie. Everything is OK.\u201D There is a report out this morning that Anaru Kira of Ng\u0101ti Kura plans to block Dover Samuels\u2019 own beach in Matauri Bay, so that when he goes home, either today or tomorrow, he will somehow have to find access to his own beach. If that is a warning of things to come, then this bill has failed badly in what it purports to do. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000289\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220bd5aa67-2f2b-4a13-a2b4-21a392396f11\u0022\u003EI refer to the contribution from the Minister of M\u0101ori Affairs, because he is the leading M\u0101ori. He holds the highest position on behalf of M\u0101ori, and somewhere in his speech I think I was able to pick out one or two things. I could not understand most of it, but I think he was alluding to the fact that all our young and bright M\u0101ori are developing and coming through. That is the one thing I do agree with him on. I do not know that there was much leadership shown there. However, that is what we are stuck with. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000290\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220bd5aa67-2f2b-4a13-a2b4-21a392396f11\u0022\u003EI say again to M\u0101ori people: \u201CDon\u2019t get angry! Don\u2019t give them the benefit of seeing you get angry.\u201D There is no point in that for our young people. I want young M\u0101ori in our schools and colleges to take hope, because there is a whole side of M\u0101ori activity that is never talked about or proclaimed. I congratulate the entrepreneurs, particularly M\u0101ori women in business and young M\u0101ori in business. I congratulate the Federation of M\u0101ori Authorities, which oversees over a thousand economic entities, some of them significant undertakings in managing multimillion dollar assets and in contributing to our economy. Members can see in this morning\u2019s Dominion Post, if they have not already seen it, a picture of a whole group of people having lunch on the side of Lake Taup\u014D in a huge glasshouse. That trust, the Tuaropaki Trust, generates power and contributes to the national grid by supplying power to 30,000 users. That is where M\u0101ori are at.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022c5b3ede3-ae58-4862-b45d-b4c8f3280960\u0022 data-id=\u0022279bee2e504446c9a0fa4f7e7e6853a2\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000291\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c5b3ede3-ae58-4862-b45d-b4c8f3280960\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022279bee2e504446c9a0fa4f7e7e6853a2\u0022\u003EMAHARA OKEROA (Labour\u2014Te Tai Tonga):\u003C/span\u003E It is with some pride that I stand here. However, there will be people who disagree with that position. I want to explore further the quotation that Dover Samuels used. This is what was said by Dr Brash in his interview with Paul Holmes: \u201CWe will oppose it with every fibre of our being.\u201D\u2014n\u0101, kat\u016B kaha mai te tangata; with every fibre of our being. I want to explore further the fact that this Parliament was denied that extraordinary experience and spectacle\u2014because it did not happen. We did not see that \u201Cfibre\u201D; we did not see the t\u016B kaha o te t\u0101ngata. We saw nothing. Although that sounds hugely Churchillian, at least Sir Winston Churchill, that great statesman of the 20th century, stood on the beaches and fought. Maybe that is a classic example for the Leader of the Opposition, who denied us the opportunity to see that incredible spectacle. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000292\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c5b3ede3-ae58-4862-b45d-b4c8f3280960\u0022\u003EThe other unusual thing was what we heard from the honourable member Wayne Mapp yesterday, when he said he believes in what he reads in the newspaper. What an astounding public announcement that was to make in this Chamber! How could he do that? Why does he take the New Zealand Herald as the basis for his belief? M\u0101ori are criticised because they have a spiritual belief, long held over many generations, yet there is Wayne Mapp, saying he believes in what he reads in the newspaper. That is astounding. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000293\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c5b3ede3-ae58-4862-b45d-b4c8f3280960\u0022\u003EAnother thing that I heard last night refers to w\u0101hi tapu. It came from the member for Coromandel. I cannot quote it exactly, but this is what it meant. In a sense, the member said that she would not tolerate any customary value other than what was imposed on her. Yet M\u0101ori have a whole history of being imposed on. What this bill does is to recognise the customary rights and usages of M\u0101ori\u2014as we should do. How can someone come from Coromandel and have that kind of attitude? If we are to talk about this bill being racist, what do we have a demonstration of in that comment? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000294\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c5b3ede3-ae58-4862-b45d-b4c8f3280960\u0022\u003EAnother point came from the Hon Dr Nick Smith. He had something to say about w\u0101hi tapu. There are degrees of w\u0101hi tapu, for sure. If he is talking about the Wakapuaka tai\u0101pure estuary, then he should know he is the person who generated all the opposition to it. On that estuary there is a w\u0101hi tapu, and it is an urup\u0101. I have been led to respect non-M\u0101ori w\u0101hi tapu like churches, museums, or whatever non-M\u0101ori see as significant. We have been brought up to respect those places, so I would not drive my four-wheel drive vehicle over a non-M\u0101ori cemetery just in order to get to the beach. How can the provisions that we are making in our bill be racist? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000295\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c5b3ede3-ae58-4862-b45d-b4c8f3280960\u0022\u003EThis bill is not about land; it is about the foreshore and seabed. It is not about people throwing toys out of cots, or about political point-scoring. It is not about taking emotive positions that are not based on the facts of the matter. As a member of the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee, I was appalled at one of the submitters, a young person who gave us a co-submission in which she said categorically that she would not be able to go to the beach to get kai for her koro and kuia. How can the Opposition be responsible for transmitting a message of that nature? How can it do that? That is totally immoral. I have to ask where that comes from, in terms of propaganda and misinformation. How can that be so? New Zealand First and this Government are accused on the one hand of alienating the foreshore and seabed, and on the other hand of stealing them. We are not stealing the foreshore and seabed.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002285712e72-b25f-4850-b4d9-90035064fde3\u0022 data-id=\u00221f708e489d0c45b6879a3958fa4d10bd\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000296\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002285712e72-b25f-4850-b4d9-90035064fde3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00221f708e489d0c45b6879a3958fa4d10bd\u0022\u003ENANDOR TANCZOS (Green):\u003C/span\u003E We, of course, have seen all this before. That is why we believe that this bill should be called the \u201CJust One More Rip-off in a Long History of Them Bill\u201D. The tragedy is that this mean-minded approach was unnecessary, and is unnecessarily destructive. There is a simple solution to this issue, and the Greens have been saying that from the beginning. It is to allow M\u0101ori to proceed to the court\u2014allow their customary property rights to be recognised, and allow them due process\u2014but to amend Te Ture Whenua Maori Act to allow customary rights to be recognised without a transfer to fee simple title, and to require negotiation over rights of reasonable public access. In that way we could recognise mana whenua, guarantee public access, and meet the needs of all New Zealanders. I would be more confident that public access would remain, and that the foreshore and seabed would remain in New Zealand hands, if it is left in M\u0101ori collective ownership rather than in the hands of the Crown. We only have to remember the fourth Labour Government to know what happens to national assets that are left in the hands of the Crown. We all know what is going on. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000297\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002285712e72-b25f-4850-b4d9-90035064fde3\u0022\u003ERussell Fairbrother told us that this legislation is not a land confiscation, and that it is just a codification of customary rights. I believe that the member was being duplicitous when he said that, because it is pretty obvious that a whole heap of M\u0101ori land was stolen by the use of \u201Clegal codification\u201D in the past. That loss of M\u0101ori land is not, and cannot be, rectified by tossing the tangata whenua a few crumbs. Dover Samuels said that if Parliament had intended the M\u0101ori Land Court to look at the foreshore and seabed, it would have called Te Ture Whenua Maori Act the \u201CTe Ture Whenua M\u0101ori Foreshore and Seabed Act\u201D. But I am surprised that the member seems to have the view that only those rights defined by the Crown are legitimate rights. I would not have thought that the member would take that kind of view. I would have thought he would recognise that one of the important points of the Court of Appeal decision was its recognition of customary rights that pre-existed the assertion of the right of governorship by the Crown. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000298\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002285712e72-b25f-4850-b4d9-90035064fde3\u0022\u003ERussell Fairbrother also said that property rights should not be determined by the colour of one\u2019s skin, and other things. That is quite right. What we are talking about is property rights that are determined by kinship. We all recognise that. I have a right to inherit property that my parents leave to me, and that is a property right determined by kinship. We are talking about a similar kind of thing, but this bill removes property rights on the basis of ethnicity. As the Hon Richard Prebble and other members of this Committee have said, this bill removes property rights from M\u0101ori on the basis that they are M\u0101ori. It takes away customary property rights under common law, but it leaves untouched property rights under the Torrens fee simple title system, which pertains to land owned by P\u0101keh\u0101 and others. So, as has been said, this is a racist law. It is specifically designed to target M\u0101ori and no other people. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000299\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022edab7326393b462ca62e30b2f559efcb\u0022\u003EHon Dr Michael Cullen\u003C/span\u003E: Rubbish!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000300\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002285712e72-b25f-4850-b4d9-90035064fde3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002276f30d37f0a14167abb311722495ed88\u0022\u003ENANDOR TANCZOS\u003C/span\u003E: Of course it is. This is really about the inability of the Crown to deal with the concept of collective ownership based not on Crown grant but on tikanga M\u0101ori. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002285712e72-b25f-4850-b4d9-90035064fde3\u0022\u003EIt is curious that other countries seem to be able to deal with that issue. Canada has jurisprudence around indigenous forms of collective ownership, but in this country we seem to be simply incapable of dealing with the issue because the Crown is absolutely paranoid about losing control and power. Exactly the same desire to maintain control has been behind the Government\u2019s attacks on the Supreme Court. We saw the comments by Trevor Mallard that were reported in the newspaper today, criticising the merit of the judges who sit on the Supreme Court. I think that the Court of Appeal decision on the case that resulted in this legislation, made when those same judges were on the Court of Appeal, is exactly what is behind those comments. We have the courts making decisions that are uncomfortable and inconvenient for the Government. The only recourse that the Government has is to attack their credibility\u2014to undermine the courts, and to question their merit and competence. That behaviour is totally opposed to the conventions we have on the separation of powers. It is totally unacceptable. The Government needs to have a good, hard look at itself.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00224ad02d80-0242-43c0-a0b6-862d72b3f978\u0022 data-id=\u0022e4ce3bad9c424802bf1dc19f47d7bae9\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000302\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224ad02d80-0242-43c0-a0b6-862d72b3f978\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022e4ce3bad9c424802bf1dc19f47d7bae9\u0022\u003EBRENT CATCHPOLE (NZ First):\u003C/span\u003E I rise to take a call on the title of the Foreshore and Seabed Bill. This is a bill that vests the foreshore and seabed in the Crown in order to give all New Zealanders the right of access to the foreshore and seabed. It is clearly a means of protecting the rights of all New Zealanders. New Zealand First has shown leadership and strength on this issue, and I must congratulate my colleague Dail Jones on that. He has done a lot of work and spent many, many hours, through to midnight and beyond, working on it. New Zealand First has ensured that there is one law for all New Zealanders, and that everyone in New Zealand has the right of access to the foreshore and seabed. It is in Crown ownership for that very reason. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000303\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224ad02d80-0242-43c0-a0b6-862d72b3f978\u0022\u003EI have sat in the Chamber and listened to National Party and ACT members waffle and dribble on about what is wrong with this bill. There have been desperate attempts by them to try to discredit it. But every time that those members have stood up, they have illustrated that they do not understand this bill. They have got up and tried to discredit it simply because they do not understand it. How many times over the 48 hours that we have been debating this bill has the bill been described to them in one-syllable words? And yet they still do not understand it; they have not been able to get to grips with it. I would like to make sure that the lights are turned on as it is a wee bit dim over the National Party members, who have failed to understand this bill. Either they have not bothered to read it or they do not understand the way it is written and the way it protects the rights of all New Zealanders to have access to the foreshore and seabed. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000304\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224ad02d80-0242-43c0-a0b6-862d72b3f978\u0022\u003ENational has continued in a desperate attempt to try to find something wrong with the bill, but it has come up with weak, flimflam examples. When National had an opportunity to show that it really supported the foreshore and seabed, and particularly the Bayswater Marina, it voted against the Supplementary Order Paper that came before the Committee to protect and support the Bayswater Marina decision. Therefore, National has shown that it has no interest in anything whatsoever except to sell up the foreshore and seabed. National wants the Bayswater Marina to be in private ownership. It wants to sell it off to anybody, and particularly to overseas buyers. That does not help anybody, and it certainly does not help M\u0101ori. All that National wants to do is to help the wealthy, and to sell that marina to them\u2014particularly to overseas investors. Therefore, M\u0101ori and all New Zealanders would lose everything. This bill has ensured that the marina will not be sold to anyone\u2014it will not be sold either overseas or locally. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000305\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022dde0d40ccf4d4bfba23073b1f6a89b99\u0022\u003ERt Hon Winston Peters\u003C/span\u003E: It\u2019s a great bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000306\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224ad02d80-0242-43c0-a0b6-862d72b3f978\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ad1caf92f9d14299a0b40caff219a194\u0022\u003EBRENT CATCHPOLE\u003C/span\u003E: It is a great bill, and New Zealand First is proud that we have spent so much time on getting it right. We have shown leadership\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000307\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c297ebb2d1bc4269940281f7133f2a25\u0022\u003EDail Jones\u003C/span\u003E: Can we fix it?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000308\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224ad02d80-0242-43c0-a0b6-862d72b3f978\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226ded680ba371469097ce4a2064c45f98\u0022\u003EBRENT CATCHPOLE\u003C/span\u003E: I am being asked whether we could fix it. We have shown that we could fix it, and New Zealand First has fixed it. Yes, we can fix it. New Zealand First has fixed it; we have shown that we can fix it. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000309\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224ad02d80-0242-43c0-a0b6-862d72b3f978\u0022\u003EOn another note, I want to make sure that National understands that the part of the bill that deals with the Resource Management Act has clearly made decisions under that Act a lot clearer.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022fae7af0d-c48d-4dd4-88f3-928ccaa3a984\u0022 data-id=\u00229fd416f147e147ba8caec40a3a957dbd\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000310\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fae7af0d-c48d-4dd4-88f3-928ccaa3a984\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00229fd416f147e147ba8caec40a3a957dbd\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley)\u003C/span\u003E: Before I call the next member, I have a correction to make to votes. I advise that the results were not correctly announced on the votes on the questions that Part 6 as amended be agreed to, that schedule 1 as amended be agreed to, and that schedule 4 as amended be agreed to. In each case, the result was Ayes 66 and Noes 54, not Ayes 76 and Noes 44.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022c598ffd3-4771-4027-a15f-5d1f643631e0\u0022 data-id=\u002284fe15b3a72a471e9a07b3710292a862\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000311\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c598ffd3-4771-4027-a15f-5d1f643631e0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002284fe15b3a72a471e9a07b3710292a862\u0022\u003EBRIAN CONNELL (National\u2014Rakaia):\u003C/span\u003E This will be good. Members have asked for the great debater to come to the Chamber. I have heard the call, and here I am. Mahara Okeroa took a call; at last he has found his tongue. Unfortunately, he is a lion in the Chamber, but on the marae he is a mouse. Where was he when his people really needed him? Where was he when his people were asking for due process? He was not at home then. The great shame about this whole bill is that it did not have to happen. It is all premised around a Court of Appeal decision that led some people to say that M\u0101ori would have ownership of the foreshore and seabed. If cool heads had prevailed, and if people had taken the time to read that judgment, they would have understood that that was never stated in the first place. But we have a poll-driven Government that thought, because that was the public perception, it would sneak this bill through Parliament in undue, rude haste. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000312\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c598ffd3-4771-4027-a15f-5d1f643631e0\u0022\u003EI say to the M\u0101ori caucus that it has changed its tune now. I can remember when the Labour M\u0101ori MPs were out on the streets of this country, saying that they would not vote for this legislation and would not do dirty backroom deals. That is the great shame of the M\u0101ori caucus. That is the way history will remember those members. That is the way they will be reported on the streets of this country today, tomorrow, next week, and the weeks and years after that. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000313\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c598ffd3-4771-4027-a15f-5d1f643631e0\u0022\u003EThe great shame of it all is that people like Winston Peters have put their name to this deal. Winston Peters is a man who was nourished in the bosom of the National Party. He did all his training with it. He spent the formative years of his political career in the National Party, being groomed for bigger and better things. And what has he done? Winston Peters has ruined that distinguished career by having this millstone around his neck. He will have on his tombstone the words: \u201CHere lies a politician who sold the farm for a few cheap votes.\u201D I can understand people like Michael Cullen doing that, because that is all he has ever known. But guys like Winston Peters and the New Zealand First members, whom I have some respect for, ought to know better than to do that. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000314\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c598ffd3-4771-4027-a15f-5d1f643631e0\u0022\u003ENew Zealanders are being dispossessed by stealth. [Interruption] The member will get his chance. They are now being told that everything is OK, because the issue has been fixed. Well, it has not been fixed. Naughty, dirty, backroom deals have been done so that New Zealanders can be dispossessed. We are told that ancestral connection has been taken out of this bill. That is an absolute nonsense. Those words may have been taken out\u2014they were too controversial for the Government and the weak members of the M\u0101ori caucus. But members of the National Party who have read the bill\u2014who have looked at what has taken place\u2014know that put into the Resource Management Act now is a sneaky, dirty little process whereby people can be dispossessed at will. And the Government does not even have to go to the public. It can just sign away, by cheque after cheque, people\u2019s traditions and ancestry. People in this country deserve better leadership and better governance than they are getting from the likes of Michael Cullen and his cohorts. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000315\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c598ffd3-4771-4027-a15f-5d1f643631e0\u0022\u003EI can tell members something else. Everyone talks about the Port of Timaru people being happy. Well, new clause 100 does not take care of that issue. People from the Port of Timaru have called me and said they still worried about it. They have said the Government has not thought the issue out, at all, and have asked me how they can grow the port if they do not have certainty.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00226f6e1ae1-8aa5-4f71-8e73-30bb378026c4\u0022 data-id=\u0022bc2a9522d80b41fb82674e2e20b830e2\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000316\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226f6e1ae1-8aa5-4f71-8e73-30bb378026c4\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022bc2a9522d80b41fb82674e2e20b830e2\u0022\u003EGEORGINA BEYER (Labour\u2014Wairarapa):\u003C/span\u003E It is a privilege to take a brief call on the provisions we are debating, which are the title and commencement clauses. I dare say that members will be aware that I have been listening to this debate since it began earlier this week, but I have decided now that I should make my contribution and have it recorded. My prevarications at the very beginning of this process some months back may have had people wondering what I was up to and whether I would change my mind again. The answer is yes to the latter.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000317\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226f6e1ae1-8aa5-4f71-8e73-30bb378026c4\u0022\u003EThis is one of those bills that has sorely tested many, if not all, members of this Parliament. It has altered the landscape of personal relationships, in some respects, between members of this Parliament. I acknowledge that in some instances I, too, have felt that way.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000318\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226f6e1ae1-8aa5-4f71-8e73-30bb378026c4\u0022\u003EI expressed to my caucus earlier in the year that I wished to abstain on the first reading of the bill. I had reservations then, but I was not quite sure exactly what they were. They revolved around the issue of access to the judicial process that M\u0101ori in this instance had pursued\u2014which, of course, ended up in a Court of Appeal decision. I have now accepted that the Government was put between a rock and a hard place on a decision it had to make about fee simple title, particularly regarding the foreshore and seabed, that was not encompassed within Te Ture Whenua Maori Act or the ambit of the M\u0101ori Land Court\u2014which could really grant only fee simple title if any grant were to be made at all.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000319\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226f6e1ae1-8aa5-4f71-8e73-30bb378026c4\u0022\u003EIf we are to be a nation that is proud of moving forward like two people but as one, then that has to be practised through important, founding, leading legislation such as this. In my support for this bill, I acknowledge the contributions I have heard so far from all sides of the Chamber\u2014yes, we still have a third reading debate to occur\u2014that outline members\u2019 particular arguments and points of view. But I have to say that it has been absolutely disappointing to hear the shallow, fact-less arguments that have come from the Opposition with regard to this legislation. After 18 months of going through the legislation, one would have thought that although Opposition members claimed they had had only an hour or two to get their heads around the Supplementary Order Papers, etc., they might have come up with more substantial arguments.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000320\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226f6e1ae1-8aa5-4f71-8e73-30bb378026c4\u0022\u003EI am proud of the Labour Party and its M\u0101ori caucus. I am certainly grateful and proud that the Rt Hon Winston Peters and New Zealand First have shown leadership in this debate and in this argument. They have made a decision that will provide greater certainty than we ever would have had if any from other than this Labour Government were sitting on the Treasury benches.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000321\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226f6e1ae1-8aa5-4f71-8e73-30bb378026c4\u0022\u003EGiven the circumstances under which we had to work, the country can be grateful that we have come to what I think is an amicable conclusion in order to bring the country to rest on this important and vital issue. I do not believe, as a M\u0101ori, that we will be completely written off, as some in this Committee have purported will be the case. The facts do not stack up when we hear the arguments from this side of Chamber compared with the arguments from the opposite side. We are moving in the right direction. I have only great credit to bestow upon the members of both my caucus and the New Zealand First caucus, who have seen fit to progress this legislation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000322\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226f6e1ae1-8aa5-4f71-8e73-30bb378026c4\u0022\u003EIt must be noted that the National Opposition has been caught on the back foot. It would have been really good to have heard something from its leader. Unfortunately, we were not privileged to hear that\u2014it was given to the mouthpieces. National members have done an awful job so far of defending their point of view, but I respect that that is all they are capable of. God help us if they return to this side of the Chamber after the next election.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00221e93d9c8-b183-40db-b200-833697df066c\u0022 data-id=\u002270123c38664044f5bfe3d547210333a2\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000323\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221e93d9c8-b183-40db-b200-833697df066c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002270123c38664044f5bfe3d547210333a2\u0022\u003ELARRY BALDOCK (United Future):\u003C/span\u003E I rise to take a short call to give my last comments in this debate\u2014comments on clause 2, which relates to what will be the commencement date of this legislation if it passes through its third reading today. Before I do so, I offer a few comments of caution to New Zealand First and, in particular, to Brent Catchpole. He made his last speech with a great, euphoric rush of blood to the head in being able to say: \u201CWe fixed it.\u201D I say some words of caution: if the member claims credit for fixing it, he will not be able to get away from taking responsibility for things if they go wrong.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000324\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221e93d9c8-b183-40db-b200-833697df066c\u0022\u003EThis morning there has already been a violent attack upon the Prime Minister\u2019s electorate office. Many in New Zealand hope and pray that that is the extent of what will take place around the country. We condemn that action, we believe there is no excuse for it, and we urge New Zealanders to show restraint and patience on this issue. But it is an indication of the depth of feeling that exists over this legislation, and of the amount of concern about the process. New Zealand First should be very cautious about taking all the credit, because the blame in that regard will rest squarely with its members if they do so.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000325\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221e93d9c8-b183-40db-b200-833697df066c\u0022\u003EI suggest the commencement date be postponed to some extent, because there is a need\u2014and I again urge the Government to take my suggestion\u2014for communication to go out to the four corners of our country to explain the changes that have occurred in this legislation, so that people may get on board with what the legislation is really doing, and may not get caught up in all the mistruths and half-truths that have been shared around.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000326\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221e93d9c8-b183-40db-b200-833697df066c\u0022\u003EI also want to make some comments, as local government spokesperson for United Future, about the effects of this legislation on local government, particularly in regard to the new statutory right of access. I think we all welcome the fact that that right is now being enshrined in our statutes, but I have some concerns about it. I asked questions in the select committee and I did not get a full response. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000327\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221e93d9c8-b183-40db-b200-833697df066c\u0022\u003EFirstly, I hope there is no need for a mad scramble by our local authorities to review their by-laws in regard to access to foreshore and beaches over the summer because of this new statutory right, which is much broader than what has been in place or been understood prior to this legislation. I just hope local governments are not suddenly thrown into a flap by having to review their by-laws in order to contain issues that may arise from this new statutory right for all New Zealanders\u2014issues not just of foot access but also of four-wheel drive access and everything else that may flow from that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000328\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221e93d9c8-b183-40db-b200-833697df066c\u0022\u003ESecondly, local authorities will of course have a lot more work to do in order to handle what is coming through in this legislation. I hope they are given time to completely absorb it all and prepare for it. I therefore suggest that a deferment of the commencement would be wise, to give the Government an opportunity to take up my suggestions for communication and to give local government some respect as well as an opportunity to get ready to handle this legislation as it comes through. Local authorities were put under incredible pressure when the Prostitution Reform Act was passed and they had to go into a mad flap over by-laws and so on. I hope that will not be the case under this legislation. With that, I conclude my comments in this debate, which has been robust and enjoyable. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022d52e59e3-2195-4c95-a654-665c11b39b63\u0022 data-id=\u002216f8ab7281b64a24a26cfdcbe38c7a3b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000329\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d52e59e3-2195-4c95-a654-665c11b39b63\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002216f8ab7281b64a24a26cfdcbe38c7a3b\u0022\u003EHon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Minister of M\u0101ori Affairs):\u003C/span\u003E It has been quite interesting listening to the last few speakers. I was thankful that the bloke with the nice-looking hat came in to support our tuahine, because she has been here by herself. But he has gone away again, like the leader of that group, who is not here. It was fascinating in the sense of\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000330\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d1abc9d794eb489b831735bc5941bde9\u0022\u003EMetiria Turei\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I understand that members cannot refer to whether other members are here in the Chamber. I ask the member to withdraw that remark.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000331\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fae7af0d-c48d-4dd4-88f3-928ccaa3a984\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223d6bcfd4560c43c8b3a8340bcd77cf3b\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley)\u003C/span\u003E: The member is correct. Certainly, one cannot refer to members being absent. I ask Mr Horomia to withdraw that remark.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000332\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d52e59e3-2195-4c95-a654-665c11b39b63\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e7cb85ec0f8f479fa980e9a440f785ce\u0022\u003EHon PAREKURA HOROMIA\u003C/span\u003E: I withdraw and apologise. The member\u2019s overview was fascinating in the context of how this is relevant to overseas countries that have different treaties, a different economy, and different circumstances\u2014such as what happened in Canada. The myth of trying to correlate that with what is happening here\u2014with the doom merchants and the people at the extremes believing that international practices will save us\u2014is a whole lot of hogwash. It is fascinating to those who know the history of what happened in the settlements in Canada. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000333\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d52e59e3-2195-4c95-a654-665c11b39b63\u0022\u003EI listened to the mumbling muppet who mentioned issues around a weak Labour M\u0101ori caucus. I will tell members about the M\u0101ori caucus in this Government; I will tell them about the courage of this M\u0101ori caucus. We are at an all-time low in unemployment. Who did that? This country did. If members want to talk about other countries, why has our ranking in the OECD accelerated? Who did that? This country did. We have got M\u0101ori Television going. Who did that? The M\u0101ori caucus did, along with this Government. In the last 5 years we have doubled tertiary education participation by M\u0101ori people. Who did that? We did it, along with the w\u0101nanga, the universities, and, especially, our young demographic. That is the reality that is happening around all of this. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000334\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d52e59e3-2195-4c95-a654-665c11b39b63\u0022\u003EEvery reasonable historian knows that, after 200 years as a settled society, a clanking happens\u2014a hump starts to appear in terms of the tensions and strains of contemporary times. That is what is happening here. Who created the impact and effects of the labour market? Our party did, along with the M\u0101ori caucus. Who has a M\u0101ori language strategy with the aim that within 25 years every M\u0101ori wh\u0101nau in this country will speak their language well? This M\u0101ori caucus has. Who amended the legislation on tax issues around lands? This Government did. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000335\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d52e59e3-2195-4c95-a654-665c11b39b63\u0022\u003EI do not hear about all of that. We hear all about the extremes. People want to lock us down in the dungeons of doom and gloom and keep us in the deficit and dependency mode. That is the great thing that is coming out of the prattle from those on the opposite side of the Chamber. They say: \u201CI have M\u0101ori friends, and\u201D\u2014some of them\u2014\u201CI actually married one of them, but don\u2019t give them any more than what they\u2019ve ever had. Don\u2019t dare do that, because we\u2019re used to conquest, we\u2019re used to controlling, and we\u2019re used to utilising power at the negative extreme.\u201D That member knows about that. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000336\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d52e59e3-2195-4c95-a654-665c11b39b63\u0022\u003EI say with great pride that this Government has made some of the most dramatic changes and turn-rounds in M\u0101ori development in this period of time. That is why I am here being counted. I will be counted against all those things. As that member reminds me, it is no fun sitting in front of the h\u012Bkoi, going around the hui and getting chastised for it, and knowing that my wh\u0101nau name will be alongside this. But at least I will stand up and with pride say that it is the right thing to do at the right time. In contemporary times, this is the way to go forward. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000337\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d52e59e3-2195-4c95-a654-665c11b39b63\u0022\u003EMy friend here talked about Churchillian issues. This is Herculean; it is enormous. We have made the right decision. My learned friend the chairman of the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee and those who were honest enough to stand the heat took it on the chin. We will be here and we will be counted, along with New Zealand First. I am really thankful that those members have come in at this stage to help us finish passing the legislation. I respect that, so kia ora to them.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000338\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219386ba0-5a6e-485e-abc0-5a3128b4e1f6\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002246edc2e453624d3da7515c181b072740\u0022\u003EHon Ken Shirley\u003C/span\u003E: You\u2019re desperate!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000339\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d52e59e3-2195-4c95-a654-665c11b39b63\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224766ace659cf4981ae66bae8faf8f988\u0022\u003EHon PAREKURA HOROMIA\u003C/span\u003E: If we are desperate, then I do not know what it is like to be polling at 1 percent. We know where we are. I understand if the member translates that into desperateness.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000340\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d52e59e3-2195-4c95-a654-665c11b39b63\u0022\u003EThe Resource Management Act is a fascinating thing. Where I come from, people could dig a long drop. That is the fascinating thing. A lot of our young people do not even know what a long drop is anymore. People did not have to go to the council and ask for permission; they dug the hole, they moved the toilet, and they had it there. Now they have to go to the council and ask: \u201CCan I please build a long drop?\u201D. What a load of nonsense!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002219386ba0-5a6e-485e-abc0-5a3128b4e1f6\u0022 data-id=\u00220332fea0f590463da8f6f3003eba23ce\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000341\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219386ba0-5a6e-485e-abc0-5a3128b4e1f6\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00220332fea0f590463da8f6f3003eba23ce\u0022\u003EHon KEN SHIRLEY (ACT):\u003C/span\u003E That was a very interesting speech from the Minister of M\u0101ori Affairs. I am very pleased that he is proud of what he sees as his achievements. That is important in Parliament. We as a nation want our Minister of M\u0101ori Affairs to do well, but he cannot be the judge of the outcome. The people in our democracy will judge that outcome. His people will weigh up the merits of what they think he has delivered on the one hand and what he has cost them on the other hand. When every iwi that came to the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee gave a very clear position of what they expected, when hui after hui around the country\u2014I was at the first one, the Hauraki declaration, and the Minister was there, too\u2014gave a very clear message, he did not listen. He and most of the M\u0101ori Labour caucus members did not listen. Their people will judge them for that. Their constituents will judge them for that. That is the great advantage of our open democracy. It is no good members coming here, proclaiming their achievements, beating their chests, and saying how great they are. It is the people who will make that judgment. I believe they will judge the Minister of M\u0101ori Affairs very harshly, because he has certainly been found wanting.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000342\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219386ba0-5a6e-485e-abc0-5a3128b4e1f6\u0022\u003E The comment has been made in this debate that the Government was between a rock and a hard place. Those members are trying to say that they had no choice. That is simply not so. The Government had numerous alternative options it could have proceeded with that would have delivered a far more harmonious outcome for this country. Let us review some of those options. Firstly, if the Government was not happy with the Court of Appeal judgment, it could have appealed. It was a very clear judgment that said in terms of Te Ture Whenua M\u0101ori Act, which was passed by the National Government in 1993, the right for the M\u0101ori Land Court, with extended jurisdiction, to issue title over the foreshore and seabed to M\u0101ori applicants, did exist\u2014possibly, in rare and remote instances. So it was not as if there was a great big threat. The judgment said that it may exist, based on customary rights and customary title. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000343\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219386ba0-5a6e-485e-abc0-5a3128b4e1f6\u0022\u003EWhat the Government could have done, if it believed in due process\u2014and there were two options, actually, with due process\u2014was appeal that decision to the Privy Council. Did it? No, it did not. Why? Because the Government was so determined to do away with the Privy Council\u2014there was a lot of rhetoric about doing away with the Privy Council\u2014it could not bear the shame and embarrassment of taking a case to the Privy Council. So it did not pursue that option. The Government claims that it was surprised by the Court of Appeal decision. That claim does not stand up to scrutiny, either. Judge Heta Hingston had made his decision on the Marlborough case\u2014the Ng\u0101ti Apa case\u2014some 5 or 6 years earlier. It had been running through all the court processes in the High Court and the Court of Appeal, and the Government knew it was coming. Was it so arrogant that it just assumed it would win, even though the initial decision clearly said that there was serious doubt? Yes, the Government was that arrogant, and when it received that decision, what did it do? It just cancelled due process before our courts. That is a very serious issue. The Government did not even take it to the Privy Council. Perhaps it should at least have taken that step, but it did not do that. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000344\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219386ba0-5a6e-485e-abc0-5a3128b4e1f6\u0022\u003ESo the Government could have taken the case to the Privy Council. Alternatively, it could have just said: \u201CYes, let\u2019s look at this. What sorts of situations are we talking about where property rights might exist on the foreshore and seabed based on customary title?\u201D. Those situations would be rare and remote. If the Government wanted to acknowledge that that was the due process but, in the public good, then chose to expropriate that, that is always a Government\u2019s right. Governments expropriate private property all the time, and they always have. We have a Public Works Act, mostly for good reason\u2014not always, but mostly\u2014but, of course, the Government has to pay compensation. That would have been a due process. If the Government had gone through the courts and found that, yes, indeed, based on customary title, a very few clear M\u0101ori titles did exist, the Government could have stumped up.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220daaf9fb-1a1f-4d31-848a-fd13cb1a2c5a\u0022 data-id=\u00229c95d74422e24a6088d905f405191a0a\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000345\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220daaf9fb-1a1f-4d31-848a-fd13cb1a2c5a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00229c95d74422e24a6088d905f405191a0a\u0022\u003EBARBARA STEWART (NZ First):\u003C/span\u003E What a pleasure it is to follow a member like Ken Shirley! He is erudite, he is intelligent, and he is totally wrong when he comes to interpreting this legislation. What an interesting debate members have had. In this House, there are the two extremes, yet neither leader of those parties has taken a call. It is very important that the leader of the National Party has not come and taken a call, and the leader of the M\u0101ori Party has not taken a call, either. Both members have sat very, very quietly. However, I will go back to the title. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000346\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220daaf9fb-1a1f-4d31-848a-fd13cb1a2c5a\u0022\u003EA title should always leave the reader in no doubt as to what this legislation is about, and this title definitely leaves the reader in no doubt. This bill sets out to vest ownership of the foreshore and the seabed in the Crown, on behalf of all New Zealanders, and it protects customary rights for everyone. This legislation achieves what New Zealand First set out as our position in June last year. It is fair to all New Zealanders, irrespective of race, and all are treated equally before the law\u2014not like some of the speeches we have heard here today and last night. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000347\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220daaf9fb-1a1f-4d31-848a-fd13cb1a2c5a\u0022\u003ENobody is disadvantaged with this legislation, and M\u0101ori have lost nothing. This new law confirms what everybody has already believed\u2014that the Crown owns the foreshore and the seabed, and the existing situation is exactly how it should be. It means that the foreshore and seabed can never be sold off to anybody. It is really important too that the customary rights of all New Zealanders are protected. That is significant, and only New Zealand First has pushed for that. The process is outlined to ensure that that is very clear. This legislation ensures that all New Zealanders are treated equally. There has been a lot of grandstanding over this particular legislation, and that is really sad. The other parties should put aside their perceived differences and act in the interests of all New Zealanders. By the time the Christmas and the New Year holidays come, all New Zealanders will still be enjoying the beaches and the sea with their children and their families\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000348\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022421cb4f145ac4de9aaef85666d2ac2fb\u0022\u003EHon Member\u003C/span\u003E: And their grandchildren.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000349\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220daaf9fb-1a1f-4d31-848a-fd13cb1a2c5a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223296b718d4e44fedb092eff338c64211\u0022\u003EBARBARA STEWART\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014and their grandchildren\u2014in exactly the same way that we have done for many, many years, and they will be wondering what all the fuss was about. We will be supporting this legislation totally, and we cannot see what all that fuss is about.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022 data-id=\u0022292d09c6daa54738b8bc2cefc9768efd\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000350\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022292d09c6daa54738b8bc2cefc9768efd\u0022\u003EGERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader\u2014National):\u003C/span\u003E I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. We are interested to know what the proportion situation is with regard to speeches at the present time. We know that the Chair keeps good records. It is of interest to us, because we have noticed that normally after this period of time, the Government starts moving closure motions. But for some reason, it has been strangely silent, although it has put up two members, it would appear, to filibuster its own bill. Can you give us an indication of how many\u2014[Interruption] \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000351\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fae7af0d-c48d-4dd4-88f3-928ccaa3a984\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229dd6d56b307c4b6990026e5c6b50490d\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley)\u003C/span\u003E: I remind the member that the member on his feet is raising a point of order. There will be silence. [Interruption] Does the member want to speak to the point of order?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000352\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022327f8404cee1477bb9e0ddb5b874b237\u0022\u003EGERRY BROWNLEE\u003C/span\u003E: I have not finished.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000353\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fae7af0d-c48d-4dd4-88f3-928ccaa3a984\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f99a8df13ccf42f3919943f932eae339\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley)\u003C/span\u003E: The member has made his point.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000354\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002268bba90f2ab443ceaafa7bf7e95e7a27\u0022\u003EGERRY BROWNLEE\u003C/span\u003E: No, I have not made my point.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000355\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fae7af0d-c48d-4dd4-88f3-928ccaa3a984\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022287b442d0ddd452ebc44b443f71b4586\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley)\u003C/span\u003E: I say to Mr Brownlee that I have ruled that he has made his point.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022 data-id=\u002205426e469f1e4ef4a0bb9ae21ee69497\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000356\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002205426e469f1e4ef4a0bb9ae21ee69497\u0022\u003ERt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader\u2014NZ First):\u003C/span\u003E I understand the member\u2019s point of order to be that he wants to know when the Government will move the closure motion\u2014despite the fact that those members were going to fight this with all the fibre of their being.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000357\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fae7af0d-c48d-4dd4-88f3-928ccaa3a984\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223f25faa5a09a456b861f2aa98cb73eee\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley)\u003C/span\u003E: No\u2014 \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000358\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f888c5c67352498a8808bf06eb4d6211\u0022\u003ERt Hon WINSTON PETERS\u003C/span\u003E: I am signifying that we have members who are yet to speak. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000359\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fae7af0d-c48d-4dd4-88f3-928ccaa3a984\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224aaef63bde834940bebde02afcbc850a\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley)\u003C/span\u003E: What I would say to the member is that there are many criteria the Chairperson takes into account. One of them is obviously proportionality. That will be dealt with as it is always dealt with\u2014in a proper and fair way.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022 data-id=\u002261ab2840fa894749b2016c788a36f45a\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000360\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002261ab2840fa894749b2016c788a36f45a\u0022\u003EGERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader\u2014National):\u003C/span\u003E I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000361\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fae7af0d-c48d-4dd4-88f3-928ccaa3a984\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c1d49911a7e34bb18ee18274869f9363\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley)\u003C/span\u003E: I have answered the member\u2019s question.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000362\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229748bc1476274deba479275986efb3d3\u0022\u003EGERRY BROWNLEE\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, you have\u2014I accept that, and that is fine. I am asking for further clarification. It is interesting to know whether that proportionality, or the decisions of the Chair, are affected by the ongoing contributions from the Government. It was surprising to us that, having spoken very early in this part, the Hon Parekura Horomia, just two speeches ago, decided to give another contribution that brought in, I have to say, quite new material. I want to know whether the opportunity to respond to that in a proportionate way will be part of the Chair\u2019s consideration. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000363\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fae7af0d-c48d-4dd4-88f3-928ccaa3a984\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022195c9586cb5445ee8329f537088dc924\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley)\u003C/span\u003E: I have already answered the question. It is taken into account.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022 data-id=\u0022dfe8b746dc95440e8a3e99ac571be2de\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000364\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022dfe8b746dc95440e8a3e99ac571be2de\u0022\u003EGERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader\u2014National):\u003C/span\u003E I want to respond to the Minister of M\u0101ori Affairs and to some of the outburst that he gave members just before. He spoke about his deep care and concern for M\u0101ori, and about his M\u0101ori caucus\u2019s fearless advocation on behalf of M\u0101ori. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000365\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022bd549e6da9b24b5ea8a42791ac313adf\u0022\u003ERt Hon Winston Peters\u003C/span\u003E: Advocacy.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000366\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002261e50b562d9e449a9cbe71688b59fad8\u0022\u003EGERRY BROWNLEE\u003C/span\u003E: Well, advocacy, then\u2014I thank Mr Peters. In a former life, Mr Peters was a primary school teacher. He has made little progress. We know about those primary school teachers. They always gave that stuck-up, snooty look to old technical teachers like me. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000367\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003EAs for the Labour Party, everyone knows that it has always hated the worker. It has always despised the worker, and I cannot help thinking that that same attitude came through towards M\u0101ori in the speech of the Minister of M\u0101ori Affairs. When I look at this bill, I see the extraordinary constraints that the Government has put round M\u0101ori when it comes to customary rights. I am moved to say\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000368\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c5e10d209556425380f2415d21536883\u0022\u003ERt Hon Winston Peters\u003C/span\u003E: Make up your mind.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000369\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002210d82bdb5a91478ea66a5eb2d58f5a5d\u0022\u003EGERRY BROWNLEE\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014that the only people in this country\u2014I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. Firstly, where is the clock?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022fae7af0d-c48d-4dd4-88f3-928ccaa3a984\u0022 data-id=\u00227cb138ea279748c396790c8d4334a520\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000370\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fae7af0d-c48d-4dd4-88f3-928ccaa3a984\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00227cb138ea279748c396790c8d4334a520\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley)\u003C/span\u003E: Continue with the point of order.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000371\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002274fb79fb94d14fcb9210d6600238dc3c\u0022\u003EGERRY BROWNLEE\u003C/span\u003E: If a person takes a point of order, it should not come off that person\u2019s allocated speaking time.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022fae7af0d-c48d-4dd4-88f3-928ccaa3a984\u0022 data-id=\u0022c6a7404d20834676b3d534111a6e0a36\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000372\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fae7af0d-c48d-4dd4-88f3-928ccaa3a984\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c6a7404d20834676b3d534111a6e0a36\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley)\u003C/span\u003E: We attend to that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000373\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227a91bbbad67d4265a7784b2ef180e772\u0022\u003EGERRY BROWNLEE\u003C/span\u003E: I do hope you will listen very, very carefully to some of the comments made in interjections. I am particularly sensitive about this because of my ejection from the Chamber yesterday over exactly this sort of issue. I do not want to have to go through the same performance to highlight some of the extreme bad manners being exhibited by other members in this Chamber\u2014particularly members who know that they are skating on thin ice, have weak arguments, and have very little else to offer the Committee. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000374\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fae7af0d-c48d-4dd4-88f3-928ccaa3a984\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223ad9b82070c94bb8b2233bff221309b7\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley)\u003C/span\u003E: I thank the member for his point of order. There have been lots of interjections on both sides of the Chamber. Members have indicated that they want a robust debate, and I will rule accordingly. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000375\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220bd99a560c394b4798c7d8bc169c18b2\u0022\u003EGERRY BROWNLEE\u003C/span\u003E: I am taking a very simple position. We notice that in this bill there is now a huge court process around the establishment of customary rights. Something National is very proud of is that, under the National Government, customary rights were those that were accepted to be so because they were demonstrated to be so. We included those in treaty settlements without any difficulty, and I cannot see why M\u0101ori now have to go through this extraordinary proof process around customary rights. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000376\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224029b198-a7b2-4eea-867c-79ef46cafeb9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227280353ab24b43dab04710905eeef81f\u0022\u003EHon Dover Samuels\u003C/span\u003E: Don\u2019t have to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000377\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d7b139fd2a3a400fb1889c92d1c9b632\u0022\u003EGERRY BROWNLEE\u003C/span\u003E: I can see Dover Samuels scratching his head and saying that it is all right, and that they do not have to. M\u0101ori cannot have those rights recognised if they do not do that. I think the problem with this bill is, firstly, that it is unfair to most New Zealanders and is, therefore, racist. It is racist on two counts. It apparently makes M\u0101ori the only people in this country who can have customary rights, but it then states that they can have those rights only if they are ratified by a court. For the rest of us, there is this sham process available that I dare say will never be used successfully\u2014and the Government knows that. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000378\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003EGoing around telling New Zealanders that it has protected the foreshore and seabed in perpetuity is also a gross misrepresentation of the actual truth in this bill. Under clauses 112 and 115, the Government reserves for itself the absolute right to dispose of the seabed and foreshore as it sees fit.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000379\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003EThe worst thing is that the Government has said that it trusts the public\u2019s interest in the foreshore and seabed being in the hands of the Minister of Conservation\u2014and everyone knows that that means it will be in the hands of the Director-General of Conservation. He is an unelected public official who anonymously goes about administering, at this stage, over a third of this country\u2019s land mass. When we add in this new requirement to look after the seabed and foreshore, it is a very substantial increase on that amount. That is just plain unacceptable. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000380\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003EWe are seeing from the Minister of M\u0101ori Affairs this pathetic cry of how well the Government has done for M\u0101ori. We are in some of New Zealand\u2019s best economic times, and that is entirely due to the National Government of the late 1990s. We now have low M\u0101ori unemployment; well, is that not just a core requirement of politicians? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000381\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d52e59e3-2195-4c95-a654-665c11b39b63\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022338dfe7e1a784d4ebf4cba25180f06f7\u0022\u003EHon Parekura Horomia\u003C/span\u003E: Concede it!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000382\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227c0c07b4423b4267836ce5b9cb244007\u0022\u003EGERRY BROWNLEE\u003C/span\u003E: I ask Mr Horomia to take another call. I bet he will not. There is not a chance. He will stay seated on his backside. [Interruption] I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. That was an extraordinary outburst from the other side of the Chamber. Some of what the Minister of M\u0101ori Affairs was saying to me was personally very offensive. Much as the Prime Minister was deeply hurt by the Nuremburg comment the other day, I was too, of course.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000383\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fae7af0d-c48d-4dd4-88f3-928ccaa3a984\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225fa80c93f7634327861cd5c9b16a4c8d\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley)\u003C/span\u003E: The member has taken offence. I ask Mr Horomia to stand, withdraw, and apologise for that remark.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000384\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d52e59e3-2195-4c95-a654-665c11b39b63\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f8d3b71d96f449a582159a1bab1e62c4\u0022\u003EHon Parekura Horomia\u003C/span\u003E: I withdraw and apologise.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002207dc4112-8a19-4dd6-a57c-878b47f8a9b6\u0022 data-id=\u00225bc91e638eca400e9279456bbc48a7a2\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000385\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002207dc4112-8a19-4dd6-a57c-878b47f8a9b6\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00225bc91e638eca400e9279456bbc48a7a2\u0022\u003ERON MARK (NZ First):\u003C/span\u003E I have been sitting here just pondering on the path that this legislation has taken over the past 18 months finally to get to this point. It occurs to me that the real crime, the greatest hoax, the biggest fraud, the most unforgivable act of deception, because it misled, because it promoted a falsity that created a mirage of ownership, and because it tantalised the most vulnerable and the most impoverished with a promise of unlimited wealth, and that was fuelled by underlying greed, wrapped in a pretence of tikanga, and carried on a wave of emotion, was the promotion of the lie that M\u0101ori owned the foreshore and the seabed. Why does that vex me so? Because from that falsity, that misrepresentation, has been born a festering broth that has incited racism from M\u0101ori and toward M\u0101ori that does New Zealand no good whatsoever.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000386\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002207dc4112-8a19-4dd6-a57c-878b47f8a9b6\u0022\u003EPerhaps the thing that hurts the most is that it will all, sadly, end in tears. It may well be that it takes 3 years for some of my extended whanaunga to come to the final realisation that the belief, the trust, and the faith that they have placed in the gravy train conductors of the M\u0101ori Party, the 21st century missionaries of the United Future party, and the intergalactic travellers of the Green Party have led them totally up the garden path. I have to say that probably some of the most\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000387\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fae7af0d-c48d-4dd4-88f3-928ccaa3a984\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227a6b247475f24dbb8636ec8f1d07610f\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley)\u003C/span\u003E: I will remind members again to be silent when a point of order is being heard.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000388\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b79787e193924b2e97487d5b92b947bc\u0022\u003EMetiria Turei\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I take personal offence at being described as \u201Cintergalactic\u201D by that member in his speech, and I ask that he be required to withdraw and apologise for that offensive, derogatory remark.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000389\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c690d41a81974d68bacdac12b55b847a\u0022\u003EHon Dr Michael Cullen\u003C/span\u003E: I think we are starting to get into some difficulty. This is a robust Chamber. There are comments that are offensive, which we all sometimes make, but there is also a level of language that is representative of people\u2019s description of what they think people\u2019s positions and views are. Describing somebody in terms of being an intergalactic traveller suggests he or she is out in some different area of the ether. Whether or not one regards it as offensive, I do not think one can make a case in this House that it is an offensive remark of the sort that requires a withdrawal and apology. We in this Parliament will find ourselves with the shortest Oxford Dictionary in the world, if we are not careful.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000390\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fae7af0d-c48d-4dd4-88f3-928ccaa3a984\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227af5fee07c084c3196f6967009aa8e94\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley)\u003C/span\u003E: I think Dr Cullen is correct, and we have had some marginal calls at times, and Mr Prebble certainly pointed that out yesterday. I really do not think that that comment is one that requires a withdrawal.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000391\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002207dc4112-8a19-4dd6-a57c-878b47f8a9b6\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f28e813660d34dfcacf30f685815769d\u0022\u003ERON MARK\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Madam Chairperson, and thank you, Dr Cullen, for your wisdom. I have to say that many of my whanaunga are going to wake up in 3 years\u2019 time. It may well be that the M\u0101ori Party and even perhaps the Green Party have more representatives here in this House after this next election. That may well be the case. But I predict that the realisation will come home to all New Zealanders, after they have had their holidays in the sun, on beaches and rocky foreshores up and down the country over the next few months, that much of what they have been hearing is lies, deception, and falsity. We as a nation will thank the wisdom, the fortitude, and the determination of the two parties involved who brought this legislation to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000392\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002207dc4112-8a19-4dd6-a57c-878b47f8a9b6\u0022\u003EI say to my colleagues in the National Party that I heard all their arguments here. They complained that there were too many words in the bill, that it had too many pages, that it was too long and too difficult\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000393\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225192f6d3-dca6-43c8-a55e-381e1d7c1225\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002204dff82180004739a076edc727bc11f1\u0022\u003EHon Murray McCully\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I waited for a minute. The member used the word \u201Clies\u201D and I hoped he was not referring to any member in this Chamber, because that would be disorderly, but his subsequent words gave the very clear impression that that expression had been aimed in the direction of members. If so, I believe that offence could be taken, and the member should be asked to withdraw.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000394\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fae7af0d-c48d-4dd4-88f3-928ccaa3a984\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229472cc3634c44dfca0d9f70b0839048d\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley)\u003C/span\u003E: I certainly did not take that remark in that context. It was taken in the context of the member\u2019s description of the legislation. I listened very carefully.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000395\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022827bfdd009ba4e3f8b53f6157d906ed7\u0022\u003EHon Dr Nick Smith\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I just ask for consistency because only yesterday in the Chamber\u2014and I have the Hansard in front of me\u2014you ruled the word \u201Cfib\u201D out of order. That was not said in respect of anybody else. You said it was an inappropriate word. Can you explain to me why, when a National member uses the word \u201Cfib\u201D, it is ruled out of order and I am required to withdraw, but when Mr Ron Mark used the word \u201Clies\u201D, because he happens to be supporting the\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000396\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fae7af0d-c48d-4dd4-88f3-928ccaa3a984\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225093f36cc1324aa2809daa457bf787aa\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley)\u003C/span\u003E: I will explain in simple terms to the member. Very simply, if a member uses that term in relation to another member, it will be ruled out. If a member uses it in relation to legislation, as it has been used throughout the debate\u2014and that has been clarified several times\u2014it is perfectly in order.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000397\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002282a0422e1ad1433e88c9f0672ffaf5ce\u0022\u003EGerry Brownlee\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000398\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fae7af0d-c48d-4dd4-88f3-928ccaa3a984\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a03400a49c85404090683c8bbc36744d\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley)\u003C/span\u003E: Is it a new point of order?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000399\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ac711c7762bc4ef39e4ee368efd24007\u0022\u003EGerry Brownlee\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, it is. I need you to clarify for us whether a member of the National Party talking about the legislation and the way it is being presented, and suggesting that there are fibs being told, is different from a member of the New Zealand First Party, which supports the bill, saying that the Opposition has, at some points, represented the bill in a way that could be construed as lies. It is the same thing.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000400\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a286f846fe654c30b5a77f5cac698492\u0022\u003EHon Dr Michael Cullen\u003C/span\u003E: The distinction is a very simple one. It is a question of who is telling the fibs. If it is a member of this House, then the accusation is out of order. I listened to Mr Mark very carefully, and what he said was not in the context of members of the House. If it had been, it would clearly have been out of order. The comment yesterday was in fact in the context of members of the House, but, in any case, it cannot be relitigated now\u2014it is in the past. I suggest, therefore, that the rule is quite clear. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000401\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002201c72a82d09b4a26af9b3a83ff76d5b3\u0022\u003ERt Hon Winston Peters\u003C/span\u003E: Ron Mark referred to lies and other issues, then said he now wanted to talk to his colleagues in the National Party, which clearly bisected what he was saying before from what he was about to say. They heard that. But my point of order is that I am sick and tired of the number of points of order being raised by this petulant National Party time after time that are without any merit whatsoever. I have never seen such juvenile behaviour in my whole time in Parliament. Those members sit over there, not knowing the Standing Orders or what is right or fair, and raise countless points of order when we are talking. We are totally sick of it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000402\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225192f6d3-dca6-43c8-a55e-381e1d7c1225\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220f2293054d094bae8e1194b1299fcf25\u0022\u003EHon Murray McCully\u003C/span\u003E: Madam Chair, I think I indicated to you in the first place that I had waited because I thought there was some doubt as to whether there was a reference to members. Far be it from me to offer you guidance, but I think the normal course in such circumstances has been for presiding officers to ask the member whether he or she was referring to members of the House, and if an assurance is given that he or she was not, then that is accepted. I was hoping that Mr Mark was not referring to a member of the House. If you were to avail yourself of that facility, Madam Chair, I am sure Mr Mark could put the matter right for us. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000403\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fae7af0d-c48d-4dd4-88f3-928ccaa3a984\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022706c141a6b4f454180593a598d82e658\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley)\u003C/span\u003E: Mr Mark had indicated to me, but that was not required as I had heard it very clearly. I say to Mr Peters, on his contribution to the point of order, that, yes, this has been a robust debate and, yes, there have been a lot of unnecessary calls for points of order that have not been points of order.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000404\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002207dc4112-8a19-4dd6-a57c-878b47f8a9b6\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d45b820b421b4d9fab3ce20f2c7f35fb\u0022\u003ERON MARK\u003C/span\u003E: Given the rather unacceptable and persistent interdictions on my speech, which was clearly hitting a raw nerve in some areas, I seek leave that my time be restarted. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000405\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fae7af0d-c48d-4dd4-88f3-928ccaa3a984\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226aaaf13e9fa44b6285ec17d1334008fc\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley)\u003C/span\u003E: Leave is sought for that. Is there any objection? There is not.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000406\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002207dc4112-8a19-4dd6-a57c-878b47f8a9b6\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002261d5ca8bb7b0469bbff2587dbf7fa098\u0022\u003ERON MARK\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, and I thank members. I have to say that that is the sort of thing one gets when one is rudderless\u2014when one pledges to come and fight a piece of legislation with every sinew of one\u2019s soul, bones, and heart, yet sits in the Chamber and does not take one call. In my time in the military we always taught people a few things, and they have been demonstrated by the courage and fortitude behind the passage of this legislation: firstly, that one leads by example; secondly, that one does not ask soldiers to do anything that one is not prepared to do oneself; and, thirdly, that one always puts one\u2019s troops first, and encounters the most dangerous situations with them, for them, by them, and at precisely the same time that combat has been engaged. I have to say that the reason that certain parties in this House lose their way, get distracted, and end up acting like petulant little schoolboys is that they do not have a leader. I have only one plea for the former great National Party, and that is to \u201CBring back Bill!\u201D\u2014\u201CBring back Bill!\u201D. I know that had Bill English been sitting in that chair, he would have fought this legislation tooth and nail, down to the wire, with every sinew, every fibre, and every drop of blood in his body. But that is not what we have seen here in the last couple of days, is it?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000407\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002207dc4112-8a19-4dd6-a57c-878b47f8a9b6\u0022\u003ETo my colleagues on my left\u2014who are normally, politically speaking, on the right\u2014ACT, I say that I am impressed. The most consistent, competent argument and debate, through these many hours, in opposition to the bill has come from the ACT party. But the tragedy is that that is irrelevant, because ACT will not be here next year.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000408\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002207dc4112-8a19-4dd6-a57c-878b47f8a9b6\u0022\u003EThen I come to my dearly beloved whanaunga in the M\u0101ori Party. There was not one sound, syllable, utterance, murmur, or mutter from that great party, which came to this House with placards and banners waving and flying in the wind, and with 10-foot photographs held high. It was going to fight the bill all the way to its doomy, gloomy grave. Not a sound, not a mutter, not a murmur, not a syllable has passed through its member\u2019s lips, and those lips are being paid $100,000 a year for doing zilch\u2014nothing. Well done!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000409\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002207dc4112-8a19-4dd6-a57c-878b47f8a9b6\u0022\u003ETurning to the United Future party and the Greens, I ask them to spare us the indignity. M\u0101ori have put up with and tolerated the socialist rantings and the favours of missionaries for decades and decades\u2014for 200 years. We do not need any more. The missionaries have had their day. They should go to Africa and find some indigenous people who need their help, because we do not. M\u0101ori are quite capable of articulating for themselves their own views and deciding among themselves what they want. What they want is what is right for all New Zealanders, and they do not want to be misled, they do not want to have their hands held, they do not want warm fuzzies and cuddlies, and they certainly do not need to communicate with outer space on that frequency any more.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000410\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002207dc4112-8a19-4dd6-a57c-878b47f8a9b6\u0022\u003E I am going to deal with a couple of inconsistencies and some of the arguments put up by my National Party friends. I have heard Dr Nick Smith\u2019s arguments regarding access, and I take on board his comments that this issue has affected him in his Nelson area. But I have never heard a word about the travesty that has been going on in Riversdale ever since I was 11 years old. Today, that iron fence that goes right down into the breakers, down to the low-tide mark, that is made out of railway irons, and that was owned and put up by Mr Meredith, still stands there in testament to, as a monument to, the days when he used to stand on that beach, on that foreshore, and stop us, M\u0101ori and P\u0101keh\u0101, from gathering kai moana off that beach. There has not been a word said against him!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022d21515bb-0193-4167-a21d-982058b53604\u0022 data-id=\u00221292c4f47b524dcc9294fa65437ef311\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000411\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d21515bb-0193-4167-a21d-982058b53604\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00221292c4f47b524dcc9294fa65437ef311\u0022\u003ERICHARD WORTH (National\u2014Epsom): \u003C/span\u003EIt is sobering to reflect on how it is that we are debating the Foreshore and Seabed Bill, because it arises out of judicial activism of the Court of Appeal. If the Court of Appeal had followed the course that has been generally followed for judges who seek substantive law change, then these issues that have confronted us in urgency for the last 2 days would never have arisen. What has happened in the past where the judges have found that the law is unsatisfactory, is that they have quite simply said that the law requires change, and that that is a matter for the legislature. But they chose not to exercise that option, and that is why, with others, I have expressed doubt about the wisdom of the new Supreme Court. The new court gives the judges the possibility of yielding to the temptation of judicial creativity. The law had been settled and well known for a number of years. It was crystal clear that the Crown owned the foreshore and the seabed. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000412\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d21515bb-0193-4167-a21d-982058b53604\u0022\u003EThe Court of Appeal sought to meddle in that, unwisely\u2014very unwisely, with the benefit of hindsight, because it has plunged this House and this Committee into turmoil for almost 2\u00BD years. So I say to members that the outcome of a process that we have embarked upon with this bill will be to raise the expectations, both of M\u0101ori and non-M\u0101ori, in such a way that those hopes will certainly not be realised\u2014will certainly be dashed. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000413\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d21515bb-0193-4167-a21d-982058b53604\u0022\u003EWhy do I say that? Well, one looks at the threshold tests in Part 3, which we have debated, clause by clause, in the Committee stage. One looks at Part 4, which reeks of political correctness. This process that the Government has set in Part 4 to allow non-M\u0101ori groups to assert claims for customary rights is impossible. It is impossible of realisation. That is why, as we talk about the title\u2014the \u201CForeshore and Seabed Bill\u201D\u2014I suggest that it would be better named the \u201CFloor Show and Seabed Bill.\u201D, because it is, on any view, a fiasco. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000414\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d21515bb-0193-4167-a21d-982058b53604\u0022\u003ECustomary rights should have been recognised, as they have been, in the context of Treaty of Waitangi settlements. They should not be the subject of a process where the courts of record have to decide tricky and near-impossible issues of tikanga M\u0101ori against the background of showing uninterrupted possession since 1840. It is a wholly unsatisfactory circumstance. It has also, in this Chamber, pitted M\u0101ori against non-M\u0101ori. That is doubly unfortunate, for no one should deny the strength and the need to preserve M\u0101ori culture and language. But we have moved on from that. We have moved on to a position of seeking to codify property rights. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000415\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d21515bb-0193-4167-a21d-982058b53604\u0022\u003EI listened with interest to what the chairman of the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee, Russell Fairbrother, had to say on that issue. He saw this bill as simply being about the codifying of property rights. But it is far more than that. The codification process is not a process that will provide certainty. It will instead provide, I think, for all of us, a degree of division that should surely have been avoided.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022 data-id=\u0022f63f176fd58c4ba4b78be93e5319a40f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000416\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022f63f176fd58c4ba4b78be93e5319a40f\u0022\u003EMETIRIA TUREI (Green):\u003C/span\u003E Perhaps we might like to call this bill the \u201CAnti-democracy Bill\u201D, because if there has been one atrocity committed by the Government in the last 6-8 months, or even 18 months, it is that the democratic process has been fundamentally undermined by everything that it has done to try to justify its enactment of unjust confiscatory legislation. First, the Government went through a process of consultation hui. I went to a large number of those hui, and I saw Michael Cullen treat those people who attended those hui\u2014those large numbers of M\u0101ori who travelled great distances to get there\u2014with absolute disdain. He told them that they were, effectively, ignorant, and that their problem with Government policy was because they just did not understand. That is right. Michael Cullen says that M\u0101ori just do not get it, because we do not know enough about it. He hides behind these great legal principles in trying to justify this wrongful action\u2014in the face of the continual statements from kuia and kaum\u0101tua during the hui process that this was wrong. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000417\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003EWe remembered the previous confiscation. We have seen this all before. We know exactly what this is and we do not want to see it again in the 21st century. But Michael Cullen refused to understand and refused to acknowledge their experience, and instead took an arrogant and paternalistic attitude. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000418\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003EThen, of course, we had Trevor Mallard at one of the hui in Taranaki\u2014one of the places where the worst atrocities in this country have been committed against M\u0101ori\u2014telling them that it is their own fault\u2014like the Minister of M\u0101ori Affairs\u2014that M\u0101ori sell off their land and they need to be protected from themselves. It is an arrogant assumption that somehow we are still natives, we are still savages and undeveloped, cannot be responsible for our own assets and own lands, and we cannot be responsible for the good of the nation. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000419\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003EIn the face of all of the generosity that M\u0101ori have expressed over the last 150 years, and the amount of natural heritage that M\u0101ori have contributed to this country as a whole in that state of generosity, Trevor Mallard stood there and told these people in Taranaki that it was their own fault. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000420\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003EThen we went into the select committee process, which again was an incredible farce. It was amazing that 4,000 people can make submissions, and 2,000 of them wanted to be heard, yet this Government, along with New Zealand First, which trails behind obediently, doing exactly as it is told, refused to allow the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee the time that it needed to hear those submissions. Two thousand people asked to be heard because they had something to contribute to the democratic process of this nation. They were not even written to. They had no response from the select committee, because the Government and New Zealand First members refused to allow them to be written to, and thanked for their efforts to contribute to this country\u2019s democratic process. They did not even get a response. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000421\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003EOf those 2,000 submitters, 200-odd got heard. At one point we had six iwi from the west coast of the North Island, from Taranaki all the way down to \u014Ctaki, who travelled to Wellington to be heard by the select committee, and what did they get? They got 20 minutes between six iwi to hear their very real concerns as coastal people to whom this legislation has a direct effect on their lives. The select committee would not even give them the time to be heard individually. There was 20 minutes between six iwi, and on and on it went.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022fc82cea8-c84d-4ab7-8597-31916dbedc43\u0022 data-id=\u00223378f67317a942998724225d3ee3d1c8\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000422\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc82cea8-c84d-4ab7-8597-31916dbedc43\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00223378f67317a942998724225d3ee3d1c8\u0022\u003EEDWIN PERRY (NZ First):\u003C/span\u003E Te tiamana o Ng\u0101ti Kahungunu iwi, nau mai, haere mai, t\u0113n\u0101 koe, t\u0113n\u0101 koe, t\u0113n\u0101 koe.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000423\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc82cea8-c84d-4ab7-8597-31916dbedc43\u0022\u003E[To the chairman of the Ng\u0101ti Kahungunu people, welcome, welcome, and greetings to you.] \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000424\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc82cea8-c84d-4ab7-8597-31916dbedc43\u0022\u003ESitting suspended from 1 p.m. to 2 p.m.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000425\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc82cea8-c84d-4ab7-8597-31916dbedc43\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e6a07c4d6b8d4600950af9eb24413575\u0022\u003EEDWIN PERRY\u003C/span\u003E: I know this is a wide-ranging debate, and I shall touch on various issues with regard to the legislation. Firstly, I shall talk about access. A lot of comments have been made to the effect that M\u0101ori will stop people from going to the beach this summer. I want to enlighten everybody by saying that in the Wairarapa that is not the case. It has not been the case. A number of P\u0101keh\u0101 have come to my office to tell me that they have been stopped from going to the beach by their own people. M\u0101ori have also been stopped from going to the beach. An example of that is at Riversdale, where I own a beach house. Our people were virtually conned out of some land there. Quite frankly, a reserve was taken from them by using measures such as telling them that the land would be no good to develop. What happened was that the local farmer and the county council at the time colluded, and bought the property off our people. Today, half-million dollar properties are on that land. I talk about a prime piece of coastal land that is now worth a lot of money. Sure, maybe some M\u0101ori may stop people from going to the beach this summer. However, when Mahara Okeroa visits my moana this summer, we will still drive down the beach and enjoy it as every other New Zealander would. I invite members from the National Party, the ACT party, the Green Party, and my whanaunga Metiria Turei from Papawai to experience the true kaitiakitanga put into this legislation by New Zealand First. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000426\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc82cea8-c84d-4ab7-8597-31916dbedc43\u0022\u003EI shall talk briefly about the customary rights of my hap\u016B, Ng\u0101i T\u016Bmapuhiaarangi, on the Wairarapa coast. A USA motivational speaker said at one stage: \u201CYour time has come.\u201D I believe that our hap\u016B\u2019s time has come to identify its customary right to the coastline within its boundary lines, which is from the Whareama river to the \u0100whea river on the Wairarapa coast. What will my hap\u016B have to do in order to be able to identify its customary rights, or its claim, to that piece of coastline? First, it will have to put its claim to the M\u0101ori Land Court, and then to the Minister of Conservation and the Minister of M\u0101ori Affairs. Once it is validated, the hap\u016B will then have the customary right to that piece of coastline. I say to the M\u0101ori people that the Marine Reserves Bill sits somewhere gathering dust in the bowels of this building. But with the passing of this legislation, our hap\u016B will be able to claim its customary rights to the coastal boundary, so now it will be able to quite easily negotiate the placing of marine reserves on a level playing field. Prior to this legislation going through, the hap\u016B really had an airy-fairy agreement for that to happen. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000427\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc82cea8-c84d-4ab7-8597-31916dbedc43\u0022\u003EI shall talk quickly about who started this issue. How did it start? Obviously, it started in the Marlborough Sounds, where there were 19 proposals from an iwi to gain access for mussel farming. In 1991, National included w\u0101hi tapu in the Resource Management Act, as well\u2014that allowed that to happen. In 1993, National passed the Act that enabled M\u0101ori to get fee simple title, and ACT wants that to be kept in. Why? Because it wants to sell the foreshore and seabed off. That is no different from what National will do if it gets its hands on them. I tell Mr McCully that one good thing in this agreement is that New Zealand First has made it quite clear that that land will never be sold. I am happy about that. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000428\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc82cea8-c84d-4ab7-8597-31916dbedc43\u0022\u003EHere is a good one for the National Party. Over the last 18 months this bill went through the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee. What did National Party members say? They said that with Crown ownership and customary rights for M\u0101ori, M\u0101ori did not get anything\u2014M\u0101ori got nothing. What do they say now? There is a racial slur on this issue, now that those members say M\u0101ori are getting everything. What is the problem with National? It has to make up its mind what it is doing. I can tell the National Party what a number of its members in the Wairarapa are saying.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022df788c48-b9be-42fd-b8f2-76629a5572b8\u0022 data-id=\u0022b5b5820545594b02ab679fba5f6aca4a\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000429\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022df788c48-b9be-42fd-b8f2-76629a5572b8\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b5b5820545594b02ab679fba5f6aca4a\u0022\u003EDr WAYNE MAPP (National\u2014North Shore):\u003C/span\u003E I shall talk about the consistency of political parties\u2019 positions on the foreshore and seabed issue. First I shall start with the Labour Party. The Minister in the chair, the Hon Dr Michael Cullen, has claimed that the Labour Party believes in Crown ownership for all New Zealanders, and that access is guaranteed. Of course, we on the Opposition side of the Chamber know that that is not a correct description of what the bill contains. We know that the way that was done was by buying off the M\u0101ori members of the Labour caucus with all kinds of derogations, territorial customary rights orders, customary rights orders, provisions in the Resource Management Act, and, of course, the treaty settlement provisions. I guess we will find out shortly that Nanaia Mahuta\u2019s vote has been bought on the fact that Tainui will be getting title to the west coast harbours\u2014just like the case of Lake Rotorua. National has drawn a line in the sand on this issue, and we believe in a single, simple principle. For the area of the public domain\u2014if one will\u2014that we all use, we believe in Crown ownership on behalf of all New Zealanders. It should not be sold, but should be kept for the public enjoyment of all New Zealanders, irrespective of race. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000430\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022df788c48-b9be-42fd-b8f2-76629a5572b8\u0022\u003EI guess that Labour at least has been honest. It has admitted its inconsistencies. On the other hand, New Zealand First simply does not know that it is being inconsistent. New Zealand First goes up and down the country, and makes a virtue of the fact that it says it believes in one law for all. I suppose that is true to the extent that this Parliament will be passing a single document, so that all this law will be contained in a single Act. The trouble is that that Act will contain two separate laws: one for New Zealanders in general, M\u0101ori and non-M\u0101ori alike, and then a subset for M\u0101ori alone. How can that possibly meet the test of one law for all New Zealanders? I have to go through that issue, because there was a simple approach. In fact, the Prime Minister had it right 18 months ago, as indeed did the Minister of Justice. Their initial reaction was, in fact, the correct reaction. It was to provide a confirmatory statute that would have stated Crown ownership\u2014absolute ownership\u2014on behalf of all New Zealanders. National said that it would support that. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000431\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022df788c48-b9be-42fd-b8f2-76629a5572b8\u0022\u003EThat was the Government\u2019s initial reaction. It was only after the reaction of the M\u0101ori caucus to that position that it was changed. So the legislation went from a simple 1 or 2-page confirmatory bill, which is what the Prime Minister had wanted, to a 117-clause bill that provides Crown ownership, territorial customary rights, M\u0101ori reserves, customary rights to be determined by the M\u0101ori Land Court, customary rights before the High Court, amendments to the Resource Management Act, and of course, specific clauses for treaty settlements. There are so many exceptions to the general principle of Crown ownership on behalf of all New Zealanders that that is now simply a sham. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000432\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022df788c48-b9be-42fd-b8f2-76629a5572b8\u0022\u003EThe Labour Government is quite happy with that\u2014it is proud of it. On the other hand, the New Zealand First Party has been fundamentally duped. When I hear Mr Mark and Mr Perry, or indeed, the leader of New Zealand First, say that they have fixed the problem, I know they have not. They have wrecked the law for New Zealanders.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000433\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221a59d3ae-788b-4b19-b7dd-7d0e29a626fc\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220a40c13f004448018835a86e725b304c\u0022\u003EHon Brian Donnelly\u003C/span\u003E: Who broke it?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000434\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022df788c48-b9be-42fd-b8f2-76629a5572b8\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229ee61f329f024e03af4f51789a0acd95\u0022\u003EDr WAYNE MAPP\u003C/span\u003E: Those guys broke it by passing this law. New Zealand First has broken the law. That is what it has done\u2014it has broken the law. I am sick and tired of hearing its members\u2019 boasts, which are based on a fundamental fallacy that they believe in one law for all. Their vote today will totally vacate that idea. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000435\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022df788c48-b9be-42fd-b8f2-76629a5572b8\u0022\u003EI just want to pass on one point to members. We talked about customary rights, and it is in our minority report. They are referred to in the existing legislation as m\u0101taitai and tai\u0101pure under the Fisheries Act 1996. We have always said that it is around those vehicles that one can protect customary rights, as well as through the treaty settlements.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00221a59d3ae-788b-4b19-b7dd-7d0e29a626fc\u0022 data-id=\u0022a5dc918ecf0243d2a2bea20030306eba\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000436\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221a59d3ae-788b-4b19-b7dd-7d0e29a626fc\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a5dc918ecf0243d2a2bea20030306eba\u0022\u003EHon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First):\u003C/span\u003E I start by paying a special tribute to my colleague Dail Jones, because I believe he has done a tremendous job in working on the details of this legislation. When New Zealanders go to the beach this Christmas and sunbathe on the beach, they will know that New Zealand First has secured that activity for New Zealanders for the rest of their lives, and for the next generation. When New Zealanders collect tuatua from Tokerau Beach they will know that New Zealand First has secured that activity for future generations. When grandparents are down on the beach building sandcastles with their grandchildren, they will know that those grandchildren\u2019s grandchildren will be able to carry out that same activity\u2014it will be uninterrupted\u2014because of the stand that New Zealand First has taken with the Government on this issue. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000437\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221a59d3ae-788b-4b19-b7dd-7d0e29a626fc\u0022\u003EI want to talk about New Zealand First\u2019s position since the Court of Appeal ruling. When that judgment was made, we recognised that it was momentous and would have huge implications for New Zealand and its future. So, firstly, we made a statement of our position. We said that we believed that the foreshore and seabed should be secured for all New Zealanders in the ownership of the Crown, but that customary rights mechanisms should be in place to enable those rights to be applied. I say to the National members that those customary rights derive from common law, which is the \u201Cone law for all\u201D that was brought into this country in 1840. The National members want to have one law for all, but when the results of the application of the principle of one law for all do not suit them, they do not want it\u2014they want some other law. Customary rights come from common law rights, and we need to ensure that within the mechanism of the law a way is found to recognise them. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000438\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221a59d3ae-788b-4b19-b7dd-7d0e29a626fc\u0022\u003ESecond, after the Court of Appeal ruling we made a deliberate decision to shut up. I defy anybody to find any statement made by a New Zealand First member from that time onwards, because we realised that the situation had the potential to inflame the nation\u2014which it did\u2014if people were making statements that were incorrect. There has never been an issue that has been so poorly articulated by the media as this particular issue was. We said nothing, because we knew that to say something wrong would inflame the situation. That was unlike a certain other party, which made a certain speech that set out deliberately to divide this nation. That speech, made at \u014Crewa by the leader of the National Party, set out to divide this nation. New Zealand First said no, that was not the way we would go. We did our homework. We really did some work on the issue. I have to say that reading the appeal court judgment\u2014and I doubt whether many MPs actually did that\u2014was hard yacker for me. Some of the legal concepts in there were unusual for us, and I had to go back to it and back to it, asking myself what it was actually stating. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000439\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221a59d3ae-788b-4b19-b7dd-7d0e29a626fc\u0022\u003EWhat that judgment stated was that the law that was left for us, for all New Zealanders, by National actually meant that Oriental Bay could be sold into foreign ownership. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000440\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022df788c48-b9be-42fd-b8f2-76629a5572b8\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022bf41bb17454946e7904bf64958885e9f\u0022\u003EDr Wayne Mapp\u003C/span\u003E: Nonsense!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000441\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221a59d3ae-788b-4b19-b7dd-7d0e29a626fc\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b4955195152a4e47823c6fcbb5670088\u0022\u003EHon BRIAN DONNELLY\u003C/span\u003E: It could be sold into foreign ownership; that is the law as it stands right here today. We could have had to go down and pay in order to go on to our beaches in New Zealand. Certainly, something had to be done to fix that up. The first point is that Labour came to us and asked us whether we would help it to fix that situation, and we said yes. The other point is that we must ask ourselves who broke it in the first place. National broke it. That is why we have had to come along and fix it. The law that was left behind by National is a law that allows for the alienation of the foreshore and seabed. I ask the Minister in the chair, Dr Cullen, whether I am right.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000442\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022163e029a6d3f4ca79edbebc06ed924f2\u0022\u003EHon Dr Michael Cullen\u003C/span\u003E: That\u2019s right.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000443\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221a59d3ae-788b-4b19-b7dd-7d0e29a626fc\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d685a486d8094e32beb99ee3c6b78334\u0022\u003EHon BRIAN DONNELLY\u003C/span\u003E: That is what stands at the moment. I cannot understand how National members can go out to the people of New Zealand and say they oppose a bill that will overcome that situation, which is intolerable to most, if not all, New Zealanders. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000444\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221a59d3ae-788b-4b19-b7dd-7d0e29a626fc\u0022\u003EThere is the point about people like myself not having the same degree of customary right as the indigenous people of New Zealand. I blame that on my ancestors, because they came to New Zealand. If they had stayed in Ireland, then I would have the same degree of customary right there as M\u0101ori people have in New Zealand. But actually I am glad my ancestors forsook some of that customary right back in Ireland and came to New Zealand, because I would far rather be a citizen of New Zealand than of Ireland. We can still go and visit Ireland, and it is nice to listen to the music. But the fact that has to be recognised is that customary rights come with age.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022d21515bb-0193-4167-a21d-982058b53604\u0022 data-id=\u002239683e6d2b3b49cb81b0d4d35453152b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000445\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d21515bb-0193-4167-a21d-982058b53604\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002239683e6d2b3b49cb81b0d4d35453152b\u0022\u003ERICHARD WORTH (National\u2014Epsom):\u003C/span\u003E The Foreshore and Seabed Bill is one of those pieces of legislation that will raise incredibly the expectations of M\u0101ori, only to see them dashed. It is appropriate in this call, and I hope in the calls I will have as we move into the very late afternoon, to talk briefly about the concept of what it is to be a M\u0101ori. It is not an issue that is easy to talk about; it is the sort of issue that strongly stirs people like Dover Samuels. But if we look at our community today, we see it as one that is substantially intermingled and intermixed.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000446\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d21515bb-0193-4167-a21d-982058b53604\u0022\u003EIn a constitutional setting, the starting point\u2014maybe the finishing point, too\u2014is the definition of M\u0101ori in the Electoral Act. \u201CMaori\u201D means a person of the M\u0101ori race of New Zealand and includes any descendant of such a person. I make the point that that definition was not always the definition. It is a definition from legislation passed in 1993.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000447\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d21515bb-0193-4167-a21d-982058b53604\u0022\u003EPrior to 1986, census definitions were based much more obviously on a concept of ancestry or biological make-up. In general terms, the M\u0101ori population was defined as those with half or more M\u0101ori blood. That was the definition of M\u0101ori, and Parliament enacted legislation to that effect. One such example is the Births and Deaths Registration Act of 1951, and at least in the period from 1951 to 1995, that was the law. The M\u0101ori population was defined as those with half or more M\u0101ori blood, and at the 1981 census, which I understand is the census from which most recent figures were kept, only 6.9 percent of the population had half or more M\u0101ori blood.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000448\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d21515bb-0193-4167-a21d-982058b53604\u0022\u003EI suspect that the number of people now who can properly claim to be M\u0101ori in terms of the biological definition, is perhaps in the order of 2 percent. What is the significance of that? We have heard from people like John Tamihere\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000449\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d52e59e3-2195-4c95-a654-665c11b39b63\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226ec9f3269def4c9297d117b970f3cb5b\u0022\u003EHon Parekura Horomia\u003C/span\u003E: Who is your doctor?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000450\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d21515bb-0193-4167-a21d-982058b53604\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002273f0e45567994f7e962bb47a86d2f922\u0022\u003ERICHARD WORTH\u003C/span\u003E: I will talk about my doctor in a moment\u2014that M\u0101ori, in the context of this bill, seek to lay claim to perhaps 10 percent of the coastline. So 2 percent of the people are laying claim to 10 percent of the coastline; where is the justice in that? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000451\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d21515bb-0193-4167-a21d-982058b53604\u0022\u003ESome of the more noisy claimants for bounty have very strong non-M\u0101ori heritage. There are many examples in this Parliament. John Tamihere might be one. The Hon Tariana Turia is probably a really good example, with her American father. What the Government is doing and what should be of concern to us all\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000452\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c2dfe169-d946-4f87-8d43-0bcdb7d8bebc\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022519faeaddf124ae69d5d9e292827c9c5\u0022\u003ETariana Turia\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I do not think it is for the member on his feet to be defining whakapapa that he knows nothing about.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000453\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d21515bb-0193-4167-a21d-982058b53604\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002230ae72e3e3994397b2125b759ad06b6b\u0022\u003ERICHARD WORTH\u003C/span\u003E: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Chairperson, I point out that that is obviously a debating point and not a point of order. It is an abuse of the process of the Committee to interrupt a member\u2019s speech. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000454\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fae7af0d-c48d-4dd4-88f3-928ccaa3a984\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022369cdd38178f42d6bdc5d6c9e75c5525\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley)\u003C/span\u003E: The member is quite correct; that is not a point of order.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000455\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d21515bb-0193-4167-a21d-982058b53604\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221c361ffae2e8499686cb43c677133022\u0022\u003ERICHARD WORTH\u003C/span\u003E: So where does the Foreshore and Seabed Bill take us? It is better described as the \u201CFloorshow and Seabed Bill\u201D, because an absolute farce is being played out in a number of its parts.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000456\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d21515bb-0193-4167-a21d-982058b53604\u0022\u003EIn Part 4, rights are given to non-M\u0101ori people, Caucasian or European, somehow to advance claims for customary title. How will they do that? I challenge Russell Fairbrother, the chairman of the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee to stand and explain how any group could possibly fit within the statutory test set in that part. The part has been deliberately designed to put up a smokescreen\u2014a real smoke and mirrors deal\u2014with no real possibility of such groups establishing those claims.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000457\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d21515bb-0193-4167-a21d-982058b53604\u0022\u003EI conclude as I started, by saying that we should be truly concerned about this legislation. It has been rushed through Parliament. It has heightened M\u0101ori expectations, and non-M\u0101ori resentment will continue to grow.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000458\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d21515bb-0193-4167-a21d-982058b53604\u0022\u003EIf I have the leave of the House, I am happy to talk about my doctorate and the processes that led to that award. I so seek leave.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000459\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fae7af0d-c48d-4dd4-88f3-928ccaa3a984\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228904a43c43864057a441178c17eea4ce\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley)\u003C/span\u003E: The member is seeking leave for an extension of his speech. Is there any objection? There is objection.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e3dc3d88-a571-4ed7-a4b4-b66dedd6134b\u0022 data-id=\u0022db879688983c4927b3addad8c7b53061\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000460\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e3dc3d88-a571-4ed7-a4b4-b66dedd6134b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022db879688983c4927b3addad8c7b53061\u0022\u003EPETER BROWN (Deputy Leader\u2014NZ First): \u003C/span\u003EAll New Zealanders can go down to the beach this summer, when this legislation has passed, knowing that they will have no problems.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000461\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022656c66ffdbdd4ca88ff37c8fa6f3e64f\u0022\u003EHon Dr Michael Cullen\u003C/span\u003E: Even Arsenal supporters.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000462\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e3dc3d88-a571-4ed7-a4b4-b66dedd6134b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b36df17a2e784cce9c53343c29d17841\u0022\u003EPETER BROWN\u003C/span\u003E: Even Arsenal supporters can go down to the beach and wave the flag for the \u201CGunners\u201D, particularly after they have thumped Spurs 5-4. As a result of this legislation, New Zealanders will sit on the beach, enjoying their barbecues, without this seabed and foreshore issue hanging over them. New Zealand First is exceedingly pleased that this legislation is about to pass. It has largely occurred because this House has gone into urgency. I have to say, though, I wonder why we went into urgency, in that we will finish this afternoon earlier than normal. [Interruption]\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000463\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e3dc3d88-a571-4ed7-a4b4-b66dedd6134b\u0022\u003EI say to the member that we believed National Party members when they said they would fight this bill with every breath in their bodies. We actually believed them. But I say to the member, who wants to keep interjecting, that the more he goes along that line, the more embarrassed he will become. I point out to this Committee that usually the Government does not take terribly many calls when the House goes into urgency. It is usually only Opposition members who speak. Had that been the case with this bill\u2014no calls from the Government, and no calls from New Zealand First to support it\u2014we would probably have finished last night. I can say that the National Party has been hot air and hot wind\u2014but not much of it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000464\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e3dc3d88-a571-4ed7-a4b4-b66dedd6134b\u0022\u003EThere have been some snipes, and I can hear a few now. I personally regret that the leader of the National Party has not seen fit to take a call in this debate. There is a particular reason why the Leader of the Opposition should have taken a call. He has a very calming influence over this House. The last major speech he made in this House on a social issue was exceedingly calming, I can tell members. I say to members that from time to time the National Party could have done with a bit of calming influence.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000465\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e3dc3d88-a571-4ed7-a4b4-b66dedd6134b\u0022\u003ETariana Turia has interjected quite a few times in this debate. She went to the Business Committee and sought an additional call, and I think every party supported that. But I had not heard one syllable from her officially, through the microphone, until she took a point of order a little while ago. Why does the member not take a call? She supposedly represents a lot of M\u0101ori people, and she has not taken one call in the Committee stage of this bill, where possibly she could have had some influence.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000466\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e3dc3d88-a571-4ed7-a4b4-b66dedd6134b\u0022\u003EI would like to refer to United Future. That party, I believe, is fairly close to supporting this bill, and I am disappointed that it could not move that little bit closer. I think United Future\u2019s opposition is hanging on the thread that we did not recognise the concept of public domain. I tell United Future members to go and ask the public what the words \u201Cpublic domain\u201D mean to them. If they ask 20 people, they will get 20 different answers. If they ask any New Zealander what Crown ownership means, they will get one answer that everybody understands and everybody believes in. I am absolutely proud and delighted that my colleagues in New Zealand First supported the Labour Party Government in having Crown ownership thoroughly recognised.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000467\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e3dc3d88-a571-4ed7-a4b4-b66dedd6134b\u0022\u003EI say to National Party members that I have listened to all their public utterances and their statements, and I have come to the conclusion that they like this bill very much but their pride will not let them vote for it. Pride has got in the way of their doing the right thing by all New Zealanders.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000468\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e3dc3d88-a571-4ed7-a4b4-b66dedd6134b\u0022\u003EIf I do have one disappointment about the bill and about the tone of this debate, it is that it has, from time to time, tried to divide this nation\u2014M\u0101ori and non-M\u0101ori. I say to people, and I say this with some sincerity, that if they think we will bridge the differences between M\u0101ori and non-M\u0101ori by being patronising to M\u0101ori, then they are wrong. If they think we will bridge the differences between M\u0101ori and non-M\u0101ori by taking a rebellious attitude, as perhaps the M\u0101ori Party wants to take, then they are wrong. If they think they will bridge the differences between M\u0101ori and non-M\u0101ori in this country by being superior, then they are wrong. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00221e93d9c8-b183-40db-b200-833697df066c\u0022 data-id=\u0022f66b5eb356ec4df8b657e484078b218e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000469\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221e93d9c8-b183-40db-b200-833697df066c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022f66b5eb356ec4df8b657e484078b218e\u0022\u003ELARRY BALDOCK (United Future):\u003C/span\u003E The longer this debate goes on, the more ridiculous it is becoming. I agree with the member who spoke before me, who said that New Zealanders understand Crown ownership. The point he has missed is that the majority of submitters did not like the concept of Crown ownership. They wanted public domain.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000470\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221e93d9c8-b183-40db-b200-833697df066c\u0022\u003EThroughout this debate I have heard the Rt Hon Winston Peters announce on a number of occasions that this legislation is not about people going to the beach. We have heard again and again that this legislation will not affect anybody\u2019s right to go to the beach. Now, at the end of the debate, we have heard the last two speakers from New Zealand First say that when people go to the beach this summer they can thank New Zealand First for it. I ask who is spreading half-truths around the country. Who is creating problems in the way that this debate has been handled?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000471\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221e93d9c8-b183-40db-b200-833697df066c\u0022\u003EI understand that the Labour members are enjoying their time this afternoon, sitting here and watching the National Party members stumble through this debate, and that they are tempted to allow it to continue. But I would like to remind them that that would be at the expense of the New Zealand taxpayers, and I urge someone on that side of the Chamber to please move a closure motion, because this debate has gone on long enough. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002219386ba0-5a6e-485e-abc0-5a3128b4e1f6\u0022 data-id=\u00224eeb358a9a864e7f9d9e7eea1a0b6291\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000472\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219386ba0-5a6e-485e-abc0-5a3128b4e1f6\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00224eeb358a9a864e7f9d9e7eea1a0b6291\u0022\u003EHon KEN SHIRLEY (Whip\u2014ACT):\u003C/span\u003E I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I take this point of order to advise the Committee, more than anything, that the Supreme Court has just brought down its decision, in favour of the ACT party.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000473\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fae7af0d-c48d-4dd4-88f3-928ccaa3a984\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022505bcc009ad64a4f8d059508e079922b\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley)\u003C/span\u003E: That is not a point of order.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022330c030b-99be-4461-8aaa-9a10ee5bd889\u0022 data-id=\u00221ee53b3765714ea480861361f9a912f8\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000474\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022330c030b-99be-4461-8aaa-9a10ee5bd889\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00221ee53b3765714ea480861361f9a912f8\u0022\u003EHon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister of Fisheries):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That the question be now put.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022ef552c0a7995494ebda35726edf345fc\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the question be now put.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 74\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 42\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 27; Green Party 8; ACT New Zealand 6; M\u0101ori Party 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u00220fa3fc2375e5497cb66b095066f32d89\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That clause 1 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 66\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 50\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 27; Green Party 8; United Future 8; ACT New Zealand 6; M\u0101ori Party 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EClause 1 agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000475\u0022\u003EClause 2 not agreed to.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000476\u0022\u003EThe question was put that proposed new clause 2 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 306 in the name of the Hon Dr Michael Cullen be agreed to.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022b7ba771c1a7f4073a2f8c45e691f08fd\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That proposed new clause 2 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 66\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 50\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 27; Green Party 8; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8; M\u0101ori Party 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EProposed new clause 2 agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022 data-id=\u0022f2ac74bbdc1c44f899ce39f19e22fa70\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000477\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022f2ac74bbdc1c44f899ce39f19e22fa70\u0022\u003EHon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That the Committee divide the bill into the Foreshore and Seabed Bill and the Resource Management (Foreshore and Seabed) Amendment Bill, pursuant to Supplementary Order Paper 305.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002219386ba0-5a6e-485e-abc0-5a3128b4e1f6\u0022 data-id=\u002207245a24e39c4058b4aab5e2142b96a5\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000478\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219386ba0-5a6e-485e-abc0-5a3128b4e1f6\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002207245a24e39c4058b4aab5e2142b96a5\u0022\u003EHon KEN SHIRLEY (ACT):\u003C/span\u003E In the circumstances, a number of the ACT party caucus are across the road at the High Court, and I therefore seek the leave of the Committee that, notwithstanding Standing Order 156, we vote to our full strength of eight, shortly to be nine.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000479\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fae7af0d-c48d-4dd4-88f3-928ccaa3a984\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d78395d255e54c88bab3516a0dacce22\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley)\u003C/span\u003E: Leave has been sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is not. Leave is granted.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022 data-id=\u00227c023751974d4f38a79f4333fc7c2bbb\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000480\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00227c023751974d4f38a79f4333fc7c2bbb\u0022\u003EMETIRIA TUREI (Green):\u003C/span\u003E I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. My apologies; I need to seek leave to correct the Green Party votes that have occurred since 2 p.m. this afternoon, from nine votes to eight. My apologies for that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000481\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fae7af0d-c48d-4dd4-88f3-928ccaa3a984\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e463d6e5de04421f9f2d98b29a600e9c\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley)\u003C/span\u003E: That will be corrected. I will read out the new results as soon as they are collated.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022fb646e9fbf7846e18926f1d4eefb42b6\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the motion be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 66\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 52\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 27; Green Party 8; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; M\u0101ori Party 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000482\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fae7af0d-c48d-4dd4-88f3-928ccaa3a984\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022639363baf59a4a008aee100750137a70\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley)\u003C/span\u003E: I will read out the corrected votes. The result for the vote on the closure should have been Ayes 74, Noes 42; the result for the vote on clause 1 should have been Ayes 66, Noes 50; and the result for the vote on new clause 2 should have been Ayes 66, Noes 50. That corrects the Green Party\u2019s votes.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000483\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fae7af0d-c48d-4dd4-88f3-928ccaa3a984\u0022\u003EHouse resumed.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000484\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u00224a6306c2aec644d192e5ebf86453397e\u0022\u003EProcedure\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000485\u0022\u003EThe bill was reported with amendment.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u00222a1e627458ad453b9dc97b5ca1164bab\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the report be adopted.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 66\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 52\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 27; Green Party 8; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; M\u0101ori Party 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EReport adopted.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022 data-id=\u002252e3b39b6e304c8486b58b3b5346c372\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000486\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002252e3b39b6e304c8486b58b3b5346c372\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Before I call on Dr Cullen to move the third reading motion, I advise members that I will put the questions on both bills separately at the end.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000487\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022274cf178520743e5ad7dde923d618c7a\u0022\u003ECommittees\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000488\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022662f2dd5ea1b4f80a5279f077d9723d4\u0022\u003EBusiness of Select Committees\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000489\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022f7dcee02a81c451f9161e16b0e35deee\u0022\u003EReporting Dates\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022 data-id=\u00229da9db9202d74960bade04ea875bb880\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000490\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00229da9db9202d74960bade04ea875bb880\u0022\u003EHon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House):\u003C/span\u003E This is a totally different matter, which has to be resolved before the House rises. I seek leave for the time by which the Social Services Committee must finally report the Disabled Persons Employment Promotion (Repeal and Related Matters) Bill to be extended to 31 March 2005. The bill is due to be reported back next week, and the select committee members this morning, I understand, unanimously resolved that they would like more time to consider the bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000491\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022289a096924834be3a8adc26a0f4bdb09\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is not.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022\u003EBills\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000492\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u002229d4c077808e401a82449f7913a05d30\u0022\u003EForeshore and Seabed Bill\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000493\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u002229d4c077808e401a82449f7913a05d30\u0022\u003EResource Management (Foreshore and Seabed)Amendment Bill\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000494\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u00223b2243afd1dd41ab921d7ed10ce800b7\u0022\u003EThird Readings\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022 data-id=\u002265f68cc9ed7945e681156cdde2f99e78\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000495\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002265f68cc9ed7945e681156cdde2f99e78\u0022\u003EHon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That the Foreshore and Seabed Bill and the Resource Management (Foreshore and Seabed) Amendment Bill be now read a third time. I want to begin by thanking a number of people. I thank my caucus colleagues, and particularly my M\u0101ori caucus colleagues, for their support and their input throughout this process. I particularly thank my colleague Russell Fairbrother for his chairing of the select committee, and Margaret Wilson for her continuous expert advice. Obviously, I also want to thank New Zealand First members for their support, and their careful consideration and advice on a range of issues. I thank United Future. In the end, we could not arrive at an agreement, but I think the differences between us were not very large at the end of day. I thank the officials who worked hard on this legislation, particularly parliamentary counsel, who were placed under enormous pressure in terms of some of the processes around amendments.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000496\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003EThis issue has challenged our sense of nationhood and our ability to encompass all the interests in our country. It has been a true test in this House of where parties stand in terms of New Zealand\u2019s national interest and our ability to cohere as a nation. We need to understand some very simple things about this issue.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000497\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003EThe first is that it is about common law rights as they existed in 1840 at the assumption of sovereignty by the Crown. The fact that New Zealand did not become fully independently sovereign until 1947 is irrelevant in that respect. That is why that date is chosen, and the fact that most of us, who came since 1840, therefore do not qualify is, I am afraid, just our bad luck.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000498\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003ESecondly, it is about the Crown asserting clear ownership, that having been thrown into some doubt, in terms of its full meaning, by the nature of the Court of Appeal decision in the case of Ng\u0101ti Apa and others.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000499\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003EThirdly, the Court of Appeal did not say that M\u0101ori owned the foreshore and seabed, even though that has been repeated any number of times on any number of media programmes that I have listened to and watched since that point. Indeed, to quote the Chief Justice, she said that before any particular group was likely to succeed in establishing customary land status, there were a number of hurdles, in fact, in law to be crossed, and I would assert that, in my view, those who won the Ng\u0101ti Apa decision were much less likely to cross those hurdles than some others in the country. So, in fact, it is much less likely that they will lose anything from this legislation than some others might possibly do.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000500\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003E Fourthly, I think it is clear that this issue arose as an unintended consequence of Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993. Those who were in the House at the time know full well that that Act was never meant to apply to the foreshore and seabed, but was meant to apply to dry land. So in so far as customary land status could be acquired through that Act, it was an unintended consequence.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000501\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003EI have to say I have sat here now for a couple of days, listening to National wax lyrical about the failings in laws, every one of which that party\u2019s Government passed: the Resource Management Act, Te Ture Whenua Maori Act, and the Historic Places Trust Act of 1992, I think it was. So when we come to this House, most parties are not saying that the process should be allowed to continue as it would have done without our changing the law. Even the Green Party says that we should have legislated to block off the possibility of private title, in terms of freehold title, and that we should have legislated in some form for access. Only the ACT party and the M\u0101ori Party have consistently stood for a clear position of allowing the process to go through.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000502\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003EThe territorial customary rights test in the legislation is high\u2014as it should be under the law. What is in this legislation is not an invention of the common law test for territorial customary rights or aboriginal title; it is a codification in statute of the best expert advice we have had as to what those tests should be. In other words, they are the very tests that the High Court should have had to apply if somebody had applied to that court under its inherent jurisdiction, and the very tests, in combination with the tikanga test, that the M\u0101ori Land Court should have had to apply if there had been an application for customary land status. We have not imported anything new in that respect; we have tried, as far as possible, to reflect what the state of the law actually is. In New Zealand, this is largely untested law because, unlike Canada and Australia, we have not proceeded through the common law jurisprudence in these matters in the past. That is why this is different.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000503\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003EWhat the legislation does is remove the avenue of customary title. If we are to do that, particularly in terms of the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court, then there must be redress available to those who could have obtained customary title. It is utterly wrong\u2014as was suggested this morning, and I will come back to that\u2014that the inherent jurisdiction should be abolished without something else being put in its place. So what we have in the legislation are two options for a successful applicant group in that respect. The first is a foreshore and seabed reserve, which is modelled very much upon sections 338 to 340 of Te Ture Whenua M\u0101ori Act\u2014quite deliberately modelled, in that respect. That reserve will enable the successful applicant group to exercise a high degree of influence over the management of that particular area, and the coastal management plan that it draws up will have to be taken account of. Indeed, more than that, it will have to be given regard to in terms of the management plan of the regional authority. Secondly, the applicant group can enter into direct negotiations with the Crown in terms of looking at redress, which is not money as so often the National Party immediately assumes\u2014that there could be only one form of redress that one could ever engage in.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000504\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003EI think it is fair to say there will still be disappointment amongst many M\u0101ori at the passage of this legislation, but that disappointment is based upon a misapprehension of the actual meaning of the law. I want to repeat this, because it is so important: the Court of Appeal did not say that M\u0101ori owned the foreshore and seabed; it said that the status of customary land could be tested before the M\u0101ori Land Court, but that there were very significant hurdles in the way of any area of land being recognised. Indeed, I think the Chief Justice went somewhat further, and indicated that it was likely that only relatively isolated and small areas of land would be encompassed. The fact that 10 percent of the land above the foreshore and seabed is owned by M\u0101ori is relevant to only one of the tests, in terms of territorial customary rights, within the legislation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000505\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003EThe legislation does provide that non-M\u0101ori can test their rights in that respect, as well. Here, we have had the extraordinary argument that if we end up in the position where the people who, at the end of the day, get those rights recognised are M\u0101ori, that makes it racist. That is a most extraordinary argument to put in place. It is rather like saying that the National Party caucus is racist because only one in 27 of its members is M\u0101ori. I would not make that claim, at all; it is an irrelevant kind of claim to make. It just happens that the National Party represents the rich and the powerful, and therefore, no doubt, M\u0101ori are deeply under-represented within the National Party caucus. Equally, P\u0101keh\u0101 need to respect and acknowledge M\u0101ori property rights in the foreshore and seabed. Customary usage rights, the great majority of which are fishing rights, and are unaffected by this legislation because they are already codified\u2014and what we need to do is get on with the implementation of that law\u2014are a form of property rights. The territorial customary rights we refer to are a form of property rights. If the avenue to achieve those is being blocked off, then there should be appropriate redress, as the legislation provides. It needs to be even-handed in that respect. The legislation provides the avenues to explore that possibility.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000506\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003EI have been particularly disappointed at the level of much of the debate from the Opposition throughout this process\u2014in particular, the failure of National to engage at a level that suggests some fitness for governing this multicultural country. The Leader of the Opposition told us he would fight this legislation with every fibre of his body. Well, some people think he did not mean it; I think he did. I think he did fight this legislation with every fibre of his body, up to this point! People realise that he was too busy today reading his two favourite sections of the New Zealand Herald: Situations Vacant, and Help Wanted. But we heard the latest version of National\u2019s position on this legislation late this morning; it changed as the people in the gallery changed. Last night, when it comprised all P\u0101keh\u0101, National\u2019s position was that M\u0101ori were getting everything in this legislation, and it was outrageous. This morning, at a point when we had mainly M\u0101ori in the gallery, National\u2019s position started to become that the process should be allowed to be continued. Now that there is a sort of mix up in the gallery, I am wondering just what the position of the National Party will be as we move into the third reading!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000507\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003EBut the final position this morning, announced on behalf of National by Dr Worth, was Crown ownership and nothing more\u2014that is, no recognition of customary rights not yet recognised, and the abolition of inherent jurisdiction of the High Court without redress or replacement. That would be a constitutional outrage.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022d48244fc-ceef-4ef5-9cee-851e4d439468\u0022 data-id=\u002240cb8c6070db4ff6b85642326e41f086\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000508\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d48244fc-ceef-4ef5-9cee-851e4d439468\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002240cb8c6070db4ff6b85642326e41f086\u0022\u003EDr DON BRASH (Leader of the Opposition):\u003C/span\u003E Finally, we come to the third readings of this legislation, one of the most fateful pieces of legislation ever to be debated in this House. When the Court of Appeal decision was announced in the middle of last year, what we thought was settled law was suddenly overturned. We thought that all New Zealanders, M\u0101ori, P\u0101keh\u0101, Pacific Islanders, and Asians, owned the foreshore and seabed. The Court of Appeal turned that into doubt. What should the Government have done? Well, its initial reaction got it about right. It initially said that it would legislate to ensure that the foreshore and seabed belonged to all New Zealanders. Even Chris Trotter said, on Willie Jackson\u2019s Television One programme, Eye to Eye, on Tuesday night, that what Labour should have done after that Court of Appeal decision was cross the floor of this House and ask for National\u2019s support to pass legislation quickly to re-establish the position in law that we all thought was the case. I have no doubt at all that the National Party would have agreed to do exactly that. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000509\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d48244fc-ceef-4ef5-9cee-851e4d439468\u0022\u003EHad the Government done that, all the drama, all the anguish, all the h\u012Bkoi and demonstrations, and all the anger would have been avoided, because the Government would have moved quickly to re-establish the position we all thought was in fact the case. What did it actually do? It embarked on a fundamentally dishonest process that gave the appearance of listening to the public, of legislating for Crown ownership, of providing strictly limited rights to M\u0101ori New Zealanders, and of adjusting their proposal in the light of submissions but, in reality, it changed nothing of substance. It embarked on a process that involved endless hui with M\u0101ori, long hearings at the select committee stage, further debate and consultation and, now, an unseemly, cynical, rushed process, under urgency, to get this thing off the agenda as quickly as possible before the public learn what is going on, before Christmas, and before the election campaign. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000510\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d48244fc-ceef-4ef5-9cee-851e4d439468\u0022\u003E It has been a process involving secret deals and backroom agreements with anybody and everybody to secure sufficient parliamentary support and to ensure buy-in from M\u0101ori. So we see last-minute compromises with other political parties. \u201CPublic domain\u201D becomes \u201CCrown ownership\u201D. Ancestral connection in; ancestral connection out. We hear hints of secret assurances of special treatment for Tainui to try to guarantee the support of Nanaia Mahuta. We see evidence that Labour has entered into secret negotiations with at least four iwi, aimed at recognising ownership interests. At the end of this process what do we have? We have a fundamentally flawed\u2014[Interruption] \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000511\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225231cf21efe24f608604742a3b4c3248\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: From now on we will hear this debate in relative silence. Dr Cullen was given a good hearing. This is an important debate and there will be very few interjections indeed. Dr Brash\u2019s time has not been affected.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000512\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d48244fc-ceef-4ef5-9cee-851e4d439468\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222f1125870f304c8d8c81bc8b4df61810\u0022\u003EDr DON BRASH\u003C/span\u003E: At the end of the process we have fundamentally flawed legislation that will divide M\u0101ori New Zealanders from non-M\u0101ori New Zealanders for generations to come. Superficially, we have Crown ownership of the seabed and foreshore. Superficially, we have ownership of the seabed and foreshore by all New Zealanders. If that were the reality, the National Party would be supporting this legislation. But it is not the reality. Crown ownership is so heavily qualified that it is meaningless. I take just one example. Ancestral connection has been dropped from the legislation, although the Government has made it clear that ancestral connection orders will be taken into account in the review of the Resource Management Act. The Labour Party M\u0101ori caucus said on Tuesday that the new plans will provide stronger recognition of the traditional association of wh\u0101nau, hap\u016B, and iwi with the coast than the ancestral connection orders initially provided for in the legislation. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000513\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d48244fc-ceef-4ef5-9cee-851e4d439468\u0022\u003EThe Government is making it explicitly clear that it reserves the right to hand over ownership of parts of the foreshore and seabed in the context of treaty settlements\u2014exactly as it did with the Rotorua lakes and Te Arawa. The passage of this legislation will mark the beginning of a process whereby control of large tracts of the New Zealand foreshore\u2014the birthright of all New Zealanders\u2014will be handed over to small groups of unelected, undemocratic tribal elites. They will be people who can claim some M\u0101ori ancestry\u2014often a very small amount. The bill is the result of a Labour Government that is desperate to persuade M\u0101ori that they have some continuing and ongoing involvement in the control of the seabed and foreshore while persuading other New Zealanders that ownership is retained by all of us. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000514\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d48244fc-ceef-4ef5-9cee-851e4d439468\u0022\u003EWhich party has made this deal possible? New Zealand First. What an extraordinary name for a party that has sold New Zealand and New Zealanders down the river. It has sold us into a world of increased racial division, increased racial tension, and increased racial dissent by signing up to this sordid deal. Both Labour and New Zealand First have shown their true colours when it comes to treaty issues. The National Party wants to see all New Zealanders\u2014M\u0101ori, P\u0101keh\u0101, Pacific Island, Asian, young, old, men, and women\u2014treated as equal before the law, with a foreshore and seabed owned by all of us, not by people who chance to have one M\u0101ori ancestor. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000515\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d48244fc-ceef-4ef5-9cee-851e4d439468\u0022\u003EWe have seen an inept response from the Government to a controversial decision by our courts. We have seen no leadership on this issue, just a Prime Minister blowing in the political wind. We have seen no backbone when that is precisely what was required to bring New Zealand forward as a confident and united country moving into the future. National is absolutely and totally opposed to this legislation. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000516\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d48244fc-ceef-4ef5-9cee-851e4d439468\u0022\u003EThe story of Parliament\u2019s management of Treaty of Waitangi issues over the decades has been a saga of neglect and the shirking of responsibility. The important task of spelling out the rights of New Zealand citizens in relation to the treaty has been avoided or, even worse, abdicated to the courts. The Foreshore and Seabed Bill, which now receives its third reading, continues and exacerbates this sad legacy. Yet again, Parliament has decided that the rights of New Zealanders under the laws of the land are to be placed in the too-hard basket and that our courts will be given explicit powers to determine that one group of New Zealanders is more equal than another. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000517\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d48244fc-ceef-4ef5-9cee-851e4d439468\u0022\u003EIn less than 12 months\u2019 time New Zealanders will have the opportunity to elect a Government that will insist that Parliament, not the courts, will determine the framework of our laws, especially as they affect our fundamental rights as citizens. They will have a chance to elect a Government that will insist that laws passed by Parliament will be based on the principle that all New Zealanders, regardless of race, are equal before the law. They will have an opportunity to ensure that this fatally flawed, unprincipled, and unfair legislation will never again darken the Chamber of this Parliament.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022 data-id=\u00229a83e0436c3641559a91d6b2a0efcc77\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000518\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00229a83e0436c3641559a91d6b2a0efcc77\u0022\u003ERt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader\u2014NZ First):\u003C/span\u003E There is a famous saying in the Bible: \u201CIf the trumpet give an uncertain call, who shall prepare himself to the battle?\u201D. I have never seen a more disconsolate and desolate group than the National Party after that speech. Don Brash has been keeping his powder dry, and it is still dry. Unbelievable! That speech was a repeat of his first reading speech\u2014nothing new, nothing learnt, and nothing gained.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000519\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003EThe fact of the matter is that there have been dramatic clauses in this legislation that the mass majority of New Zealanders and M\u0101ori will come to believe in. There is one law for all in access, egress, passage, and every other area of the law.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000520\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4030eb1-1b72-4bc3-b00d-7126013abc01\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002234019d3e712148dfb4ec7556f4de83bb\u0022\u003EStephen Franks\u003C/span\u003E: Name one.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000521\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022546603868cf94c64a62070650ac1086b\u0022\u003ERt Hon WINSTON PETERS\u003C/span\u003E: There is one law for everyone\u2014the same law. I understand why the ACT party would have difficulty with that, because it came here with the strange notion that somehow the right to alienate New Zealand\u2019s foreshore and seabed should be perpetrated in this law. But then we would never know in the end what might happen. That is the kind of anarchy ACT brings to politics.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000522\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003EThat was a first reading speech from the Crimean general. He observed the whole battle from the hillside; at no point did he ever actively participate. He said he would fight this legislation with every fibre of his being. That puts me in mind of Winston Churchill\u2019s famous comment: \u201CSome chicken! Some neck!\u201D Well, in this case it is: \u201CNo fibre! No being! No presence, at all!\u201D. Was the National Party ever in this situation before\u2014a situation where its leader is so bereft of what it takes to be a leader, in every respect?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000523\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003EThere is Pontius Pilate! He went to \u014Crewa and made a speech, which the media grabbed hold of. But who is responsible for bringing this law about? When will some journalist ask Don Brash why he cannot explain his party\u2019s guilt in this matter? Te Ture Whenua Maori Act was National\u2019s Act. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000524\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229c4e7ed62f5242c8b6d8dd72a1054292\u0022\u003EHon Member\u003C/span\u003E: You voted for it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000525\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002256c3f1b4e4474a218b993fd08be17e54\u0022\u003ERt Hon WINSTON PETERS\u003C/span\u003E: No, I did not vote for it. That member should go and get the Hansard, walk back in, and tell the House the truth for the first time. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000526\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E Here is my point. If all the matters after \u014Crewa were looked at, surely some journalist would have asked Dr Brash the following questions: why is he not taking responsibility for the very mess that has been created here? Was it not the National Party, all by itself, that created it back in 1993? How could that party get away with it? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000527\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003EBut the mob was out. With a lack of disciplined analysis from the media, the myth was immediately begun after that day in June that somehow M\u0101ori would own the foreshore and seabed, all the way to the 200-mile limit\u2014and I suppose to the Ross Dependency, as well. But no M\u0101ori leaders could possibly allow that sort of myth to be perpetrated when they knew demonstrably that it was not true\u2014ever.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000528\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003EThe Court of Appeal never said that. Judge Hingston knows that full well\u2014I know this personally\u2014because he never believed that the Court of Appeal would say that sea was land. The Court of Appeal never said that, in the way those M\u0101ori radicals have claimed. It could barely conceive of any group being successful.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000529\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003EThere is no doubt that Ng\u0101ti Porou would be an exception. It has occupied ninety percent of its coast, and has ever since 1840, without European settlement at all in many cases. But where else in New Zealand could any M\u0101ori be successful?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000530\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221a59d3ae-788b-4b19-b7dd-7d0e29a626fc\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d467ee4b1fc34318a3806507b6464bc0\u0022\u003EHon Brian Donnelly\u003C/span\u003E: Karikari Peninsula?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000531\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228ea2e0544e6841c28f273920689125d8\u0022\u003ERt Hon WINSTON PETERS\u003C/span\u003E: Maybe a part of it, perhaps. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000532\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022edd8af6843654fc3b569c3f1e166eed4\u0022\u003EHon Member\u003C/span\u003E: Whananaki South?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000533\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222d599eec0d69488aa856a42d245c990c\u0022\u003ERt Hon WINSTON PETERS\u003C/span\u003E: Or Whananaki South\u2014that is fine. We have been here for a thousand years and we have never denied any access, as any European will tell us, to our foreshore and seabed. We have never ever conceived of having an exclusive right.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000534\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003ESo the mob is out, and there are two extremist positions: one on our right and one on our left. One is saying that when this legislation is passed, M\u0101ori will get everything, and the other is saying that they will get nothing. How can they both be right, or have a petition that says sea will become land?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000535\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003EI want to know how the National Party can get away from its guilt and wipe its hands of that, in the way it has. Does it feel responsible? No. I have never heard one word from National members to say they are responsible for this mess. Do they feel guilty? No. How irresponsible is that? How irresponsible is it for people to come along with all their colleagues, as guilty as sin, and by their behaviour seek to blame someone else? It is always someone else.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000536\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003EMr Brian Connell accused me of being nurtured in the bosom of the National Party. That is what he said. I suppose he means Dail Jones, as well. The trouble with being in the bosom of the National Party is that sooner or later, as one of my colleagues said, one feels a right tit.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000537\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003EThat man, Don Brash, called for this debate; he demanded it happen. He bragged about what he would do. We were promised a right volcano, and all we heard in the end was a little geyser. Because he never took part in the debate, we ended up with Labour and New Zealand First having to engage in a duel of wits with an unarmed opponent\u2014the worst case I have ever seen. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000538\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003EHas National ever said, even today, that it would repeal this legislation? No. Is that not the point? Don Brash has not even said he would repeal the legislation. The reason is that National\u2019s argument is a humbug. It is just a nonsense.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000539\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003EThe National Party launched in \u014Crewa with a borrowed speech. As I said back then, and as I say now, it is one thing to steal a man\u2019s horse, but it is quite something else to stay on its back as one is riding out of town. National members know that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000540\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003ELast Saturday National had no idea whether it would join the constitutional debate. Within 3 days, it was out\u2014and so will ACT be. The National Party, which is bereft of principle and beliefs, has trawled through the speeches of other parties, has looked at the success of other parties\u2019 strategies, and has asked how it can duplicate those and be successful\u2014be believed, maybe, because Don Brash is the anti-politician, except that whenever he is asked about M\u0101ori policy, he never knows. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000541\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003EWhat is really his policy on people standing in the M\u0101ori seats in 2005? He said yes when he was first asked that question. He was then asked: \u201CExcuse me, but aren\u2019t you against the M\u0101ori seats?\u201D. He said yes. He was asked whether he would get rid of M\u0101ori Television, and he said he did not know. When asked about k\u014Dhanga reo, he did not know. It just goes on and on.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000542\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003EThe middle and right of this country really deserve better. They deserve an alternative Government-in-waiting, but they will never get one with that sort of leadership. It is really an abrogation of leadership.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000543\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003ETo close, I remind members that we in New Zealand First promised\u2014and I am grateful for the hard work of my colleague Dail Jones on this\u2014that there would be Crown ownership. We promised that there would be one law. We promised that the customary rights originating from common law would be codified in this legislation. We promised all those things. After this Christmas, every rational, sane New Zealander will ask: \u201CWhat was that all about?\u201D. Thank God people in this country have New Zealand First because, come Christmas, paradise will have been restored. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022 data-id=\u0022fe8d2f85fee542e09f4988d12d333f72\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000544\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022fe8d2f85fee542e09f4988d12d333f72\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH (National\u2014Nelson):\u003C/span\u003E I seek the leave of the House to table Hansard, Volume 538, at page 18,189, showing that when Te Ture Whenua Maori Act was passed through its second and third readings, it was supported by members of every party in the House, including Mr Winston Peters.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000545\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022abb9aa556cd448d6b44eb7cf7a340c88\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Leave is sought to table that. Is there any objection? There is.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022 data-id=\u00222b02e37264d0431d97528d5d9d15c5ce\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000546\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00222b02e37264d0431d97528d5d9d15c5ce\u0022\u003ERt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader\u2014NZ First):\u003C/span\u003E I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That member has just made a statement that he knows full well is not true. I ask you to get him to prove it now. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000547\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226aa3783533ad4d14bbb415c02a9bd238\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: We are in a debating situation. That was not a point of order. The member can have a call in the debate.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022d52e59e3-2195-4c95-a654-665c11b39b63\u0022 data-id=\u00226bbfc172015b41b29475b95a64e9a54f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000548\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d52e59e3-2195-4c95-a654-665c11b39b63\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00226bbfc172015b41b29475b95a64e9a54f\u0022\u003EHon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Minister of Maori Affairs):\u003C/span\u003E E tika ake an\u014D ki te mihi ake an\u014D i a r\u0101tau e tae ake an\u014D i konei, ng\u0101 kanohi M\u0101ori, mai i te motu.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000549\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d52e59e3-2195-4c95-a654-665c11b39b63\u0022\u003E[It is apt that I acknowledge those from M\u0101oridom who are present. Greetings!]\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000550\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d52e59e3-2195-4c95-a654-665c11b39b63\u0022\u003EAnother great Winston said: \u201CWe will fight them on the beaches, fight them in the trenches, and make sure that we go forward.\u201D Another leader in this House said that he would fight against this legislation with every fibre in his body. Quite certainly, the acceleration of osmosis would have to happen, to get through that thick, naive skin. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000551\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d52e59e3-2195-4c95-a654-665c11b39b63\u0022\u003EThis legislation is significant, because it clarifies an issue that has threatened this country for the last 18 months. We have heard all the intellectual debate from the over-endowed academia and those who live off the slush fund. I have sat here and listened to those people talk about white people. That is disgraceful. Those same people are pumped up and pontificating about all New Zealanders. At one extreme we have this belief that there is only one way in this country. Rangatiratanga is not about going one way down a blind alley to a hollow end. Rangatiratanga is about our people\u2019s rights. Those people want everything for the white people and the National Party. How sick can we be in this country? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000552\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d52e59e3-2195-4c95-a654-665c11b39b63\u0022\u003EThis is about protecting M\u0101ori rights. People who understand what goes on in this building, what happens out there, and what the impact of that is on our young people\u2019s lives, have done something about it. I unashamedly stand here today. I will go down in history as being a part of this. I have the burden of knowing that even at this stage some of my wh\u0101nau disagree with me in my view that we have made the right choice. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000553\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d52e59e3-2195-4c95-a654-665c11b39b63\u0022\u003EThat is not the end of the matter. The legislation is also significant because of the recognition and protection it gives to M\u0101ori customary rights. M\u0101ori have rangatiratanga. Out of rangatiratanga is born kaitiakitanga and tikanga. That is not too different from what that Scottish bloke was saying about his clans. He understands it, but he does not want it to happen for the M\u0101ori people. People accept that they marry some of them. They accept that they are friends, because they go to rugby with them and do the haka, but they do not want them to get into a better position. Wake up! They should come down to this House more often, especially the leaders. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000554\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d52e59e3-2195-4c95-a654-665c11b39b63\u0022\u003EThe legislation upholds the mana of M\u0101ori people, and certainly\u2014as the great leader of the New Zealand First party said\u2014we have done something about it. We do not get a fair show from the press at times, because they want to get the No. 1 ranking on the front page without people having to read the detail. I know they will take a lot more time to do it now. But I tell our young demographic again, so we keep this simple, that we\u2014the M\u0101ori caucus in this Government\u2014have done a lot for our people.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000555\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002267cf4e40cec74623a5630c92e9644a30\u0022\u003EGerry Brownlee\u003C/span\u003E: No!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000556\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d52e59e3-2195-4c95-a654-665c11b39b63\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002234ded20ce74e492485525e9898681d83\u0022\u003EHon PAREKURA HOROMIA\u003C/span\u003E: I tell Mr Brownlee we have not shied away from this. We know the tensions, the strains, and the anxiety. But this is good legislation. You own what you did in 1992\u2014the deal signed here in Wellington in this House, in the dark, trading customary fishing rights with no consultation and no hui. That is what they like: the great rubber band stretcher of race\u2014racist comments in \u014Crewa. That is what that was about. It was nothing to do with all New Zealanders. It was nothing to do with this great nation. It was about somebody getting off on himself, trying to believe that he could still control the M\u0101oris. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000557\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d52e59e3-2195-4c95-a654-665c11b39b63\u0022\u003EHe says: \u201CYou can be tangata whenua in this country, but you sit over here, because that is what I said in this great place in \u014Crewa.\u201D We talked about the elite. We talked about where everybody else is. This legislation does the right thing. It allows access, it creates protection, and it creates a regulatory framework. Most of the land that is still held in M\u0101oridom is held in a regulated framework. That land could be alienated, which is one of the principal reasons why the M\u0101ori caucus stepped up to defend it from the outset. Buy a house, buy a car, sell it\u2014kei te pai! Inherit something and get it sold\u2014no! If you want to stretch the truth, sir, be careful, especially when you are talking about tangata whenua. All I have heard is the opposite. The other option would take some thinking about, because you would not do the right thing by M\u0101oridom. I am more than certain of that. We have done the right thing.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022 data-id=\u0022bdeac626d18241cea085e6d4fac2a52d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000558\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022bdeac626d18241cea085e6d4fac2a52d\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: I remind the member to speak in the third person. I was being addressed for most of that debate.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002273f60731-048d-4a21-81c5-52d588de2325\u0022 data-id=\u0022c10a0f4b11fe4937a10a8888f071a2f3\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000559\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002273f60731-048d-4a21-81c5-52d588de2325\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c10a0f4b11fe4937a10a8888f071a2f3\u0022\u003EMITA RIRINUI (Labour\u2014Waiariki):\u003C/span\u003E Given that this is the final reading of this legislation and it will shortly be enacted, it is time for acknowledgments of various participants in this process. As I follow the Minister of M\u0101ori Affairs in this debate, I want to take a few minutes of my speaking time to acknowledge the commitment and the dedication he has shown throughout this very arduous, difficult process. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000560\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002273f60731-048d-4a21-81c5-52d588de2325\u0022\u003ESome months ago, at the beginning of this year, there was a huge call for the Minister of M\u0101ori Affairs to take the rest of his party\u2019s M\u0101ori members across the floor and walk from Parliament. I want to say to this House that that was at times a much-favoured consideration. But we sat down as a M\u0101ori caucus and gave really in-depth thought to it. This is our conclusion. I am sure everybody around the country has now heard the speech by the leader of the National Party, Don Brash. In the light of that speech they must understand why we did not cross the floor and why we did not walk from Parliament\u2014because the alternative was too frightening to think about. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000561\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002273f60731-048d-4a21-81c5-52d588de2325\u0022\u003ESo I want to take the time to acknowledge the Hon Parekura Horomia. I know there has been a round of acknowledgments by Dr Michael Cullen, but I also want to pay tribute to all of those members of Parliament who participated in the processes of the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee, particularly the chair of the select committee, Russell Fairbrother. I had to ask him earlier this year why anybody would want to do it. This is one of those too-hard-basket projects. But he was more than willing to give of his time, and stake his reputation to bring closure to this particular matter. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000562\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002273f60731-048d-4a21-81c5-52d588de2325\u0022\u003EI also thank the Hon Dover Samuels and Mahara Okeroa. I also thank Dail Jones, who represented the New Zealand First Party in the select committee processes. While I say he did play a strong part in bringing the legislation back to the House, that is all I will say about him, because basically the ownership of this legislation sits with the Government. N\u014D reira, Mr Speaker, mihi ake ana ahau ki a r\u0101tau.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000563\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002273f60731-048d-4a21-81c5-52d588de2325\u0022\u003E[And so, Mr Speaker, I acknowledge them.] \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000564\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002273f60731-048d-4a21-81c5-52d588de2325\u0022\u003EThe sad part about this whole process is that the expectations of M\u0101ori have been raised way beyond belief and way beyond what we as a Government or we as a M\u0101ori caucus could deliver. That has left a stench. It is the stench of misinformation and the stench of hypocrisy. Many people out there on the hustings were led to believe that parties within this Chamber could deliver on those expectations. Well, this is the day of reckoning. It cannot be done. The M\u0101ori caucus are very confident that we have protected the interests of all New Zealanders, and particularly M\u0101ori, in terms of customary rights according to common law. Kia ora t\u0101tau.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022 data-id=\u0022b0086e1b879c4897a0ffd184a7102259\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000565\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b0086e1b879c4897a0ffd184a7102259\u0022\u003EMETIRIA TUREI (Green):\u003C/span\u003E Let me first acknowledge all of those who are in the gallery today to witness this travesty; those who are outside the Parliament in protest; those who are listening to this debate in their homes, in sorrow; those who made submissions against the legislation; and those who were part of the amazing h\u012Bkoi to Parliament in May. I also acknowledge Ng\u0101ti Apa, Ng\u0101ti Koata, Ng\u0101ti Kuia, Ng\u0101ti R\u0101rua, Ng\u0101ti Tama, Ng\u0101ti Toa, and Rangit\u0101ne, who all took the Ng\u0101ti Apa case through the Court of Appeal and now are about to have their lawfully acquired rights destroyed by legislation. It is with the deepest sadness that I stand at the third reading of this legislation. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000566\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003EWhen I was given the honour of becoming a member of Parliament, I looked forward to trying to find ways to make real changes that would benefit my people. The tangata whenua in this country have worked incredibly hard to combat the personal and structural racism that has been a blight on the colonisation of this land. Much of that racism has been expressed in legislation like the M\u0101ori Prisoners Act, which dispensed with trials for M\u0101ori prisoners; the New Zealand Settlements Act, whereby 3 million acres of land were confiscated; the Native Reserves Act, which took even more land in confiscation; and the Native Health Act, which made it illegal for M\u0101ori women to breastfeed their babies and adopt under the wh\u0101ngai system. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000567\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003EIn the face of that racism\u2014the legislation that has confiscated our land, undermined our tikanga, and abused our people\u2014we have nonetheless become very successful. We have held on to our tikanga, our values, and our identity. We have advanced and developed them. We have been successful in business, education, law, and politics. We have successfully supported our communities. We have achieved in all walks of life and taken on the challenges levelled against us. Our tenacity in our commitment to the restoration of our rights on our own land is exemplary. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000568\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003EIn attempting to restore our confiscated land rights we have used every forum available to us\u2014every commission and every court since colonisation took place, right up to the present day. We, like other citizens, have relied on the honour of the State. In using the forums of the State to assert our rights, we have relied on the Government to honour its own processes. In the 3rd millennium, after all this work, one would expect that our right to be M\u0101ori in our own land would be undeniable and that our role as parliamentarians now would be to build on that work to advance the social, economic, and constitutional position of the tangata whenua. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000569\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003EBut, no, I find that, in accepting this privilege to be in Parliament, instead of working effectively for the progression of my people I am thrust back in time 150 years and returned to the struggle against colonial power, the struggle to hold up the rights that tangata whenua had even under the colonial common law\u2014fighting the same arguments over the confiscation of land, objecting again to parliamentary sovereignty flexing its muscle against tangata whenua regardless of the justice of the issue, fighting the same manipulation and deception, and fighting the same arrogance and paternalism. No, by this legislation this House is returned to the same indecent fight: the fight to be M\u0101ori in our own land. This legislation is a direct descendant of the racist legislation of our colonial forebears and, to our shame, it is done in the name of all New Zealanders. I know from my travels around this country, from the submissions, from the hui that I have attended, from those who travelled on the h\u012Bkoi, and from those outside and on Parliament grounds right now, that thousands of New Zealanders are crying out: \u201CNot in our name. No raupatu in our time. No raupatu in our name.\u201D I am proud at least to be here on behalf of the Green Party of Aotearoa / New Zealand to join our voices to those of the thousands of New Zealanders who object to this unjust, confiscatory legislation. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000570\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003EThe Greens oppose this legislation because we are committed to justice, and we are prepared to stand up for that principle. We have been tireless in our advocacy for the protection of M\u0101ori customary rights. The Government has tried to justify its abuse by saying that M\u0101ori customary rights are protected, but no amount of intellectual pretzelism, nor media spin, will change the fact that M\u0101ori customary rights are extinguished and that the foreshore and seabed remain under the threat of exploitation, damage, and\u2014still\u2014sale. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000571\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003EWe have been tireless in our advocacy for the protection of the ecology of the foreshore and seabed; our precious coast. This legislation perpetuates bad environmental management of the coast. Raw sewage is still being pumped into the sea; fragile dune ecology, shellfish beds, and nesting grounds remain vulnerable to four-wheel drives and other damaging human activity; and inappropriate sale, coastal subdivision, and commercial development on historical headlands like Tauroa Point still continue. The poisoning of our communities, families, and children continues unabated in places like Whakat\u0101ne, because of the dumping of toxic mill pulp on the foreshore, and the failure of any authorities to take responsibility for cleaning it up. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000572\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003EOur coast is at real risk. We rely on coastal communities of all kinds taking responsibility for their areas, patrolling and protecting the coast, and conserving and replanting. Those communities rely on good relationships and cooperation. How are they rewarded by Parliament? Their communities are divided by racist legislation, their work is undermined, and their commitment is left unacknowledged and uncertain. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000573\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003ESo many hap\u016B and wh\u0101nau take direct responsibility for the awhi of the coast, exercising over decades their t\u016Bpuna-derived kaitiakitanga. How are they rewarded for their work? They are viciously punished for exercising their tikanga, their rights are stripped away, and they are treated as pariahs in their own country. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000574\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003EWe make a final plea to this Government: \u201CJust don\u2019t do it.\u201D This Parliament is at a pivotal moment in our nation\u2019s history: to return to our paternalistic past, or take the path of justice and peace, and we are about to blow it. We will blow it on greed, on the desire for power, on intellectual fallacies, and on political expediency. All New Zealanders will hold this Parliament to account for the wrong that the Government is about to commit. For M\u0101ori, we have been here before and, no doubt, we will be here again, defending our right to be M\u0101ori in our own country. We welcome our P\u0101keh\u0101 friends and colleagues who object to this raupatu in their name, to join us in this struggle. Together, we will continue to seek justice and peace in our country\u2014ka whawhai tonu m\u0101tou ake, ake, ake.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000575\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003E[We will fight on forever and ever.]\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002219386ba0-5a6e-485e-abc0-5a3128b4e1f6\u0022 data-id=\u00226817ec84197d4deaac99ef1e67791527\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000576\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219386ba0-5a6e-485e-abc0-5a3128b4e1f6\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00226817ec84197d4deaac99ef1e67791527\u0022\u003EHon KEN SHIRLEY (ACT):\u003C/span\u003E This legislation is unnecessary, precipitate, an overreaction, fraudulent, and based on smoke and mirrors. It has already been called the \u201CFloorshow and Rocky Bottom Bill\u201D, and that is about the limit of its worth. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000577\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219386ba0-5a6e-485e-abc0-5a3128b4e1f6\u0022\u003EThe ACT position from the outset has been clear, and I think that other parties in the House have had the grace to acknowledge that. Our position has been clear and robust because it is based on the sanctity of property rights and due process of law\u2014which are really what this legislation has overridden. The ACT party convened a high-level seminar shortly after the Court of Appeal decision in 2003, and we had constitutional experts and leading kaum\u0101tua there. We had a full-day discussion that greatly assisted us in coming to what has been a very consistent and robust position. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000578\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219386ba0-5a6e-485e-abc0-5a3128b4e1f6\u0022\u003EWhat we see are the unintended consequences of Te Ture Whenua Maori Act of 1993. We had the Court of Appeal decision after a long process. The Ng\u0101ti Apa case decision from the Court of Appeal was not particularly complicated; it was quite clear. It simply said that in some instances\u2014and it even indicated that they could be isolated and somewhat rare and remote\u2014there may exist a right for some iwi to pursue their right, based on customary rights, to acquire title. It was nothing more and nothing less than that. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000579\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219386ba0-5a6e-485e-abc0-5a3128b4e1f6\u0022\u003EIt is true that at the various hui that were held around the country, various M\u0101ori did overreact, with some believing that they had full, exclusive, and undisturbed possession to the heavens and beyond, and back to Hawaiki. There was a lot of rhetoric, but we should not be surprised by that. Any group would do that. But the point is that this Government has been complicit in the problem in both ways. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000580\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219386ba0-5a6e-485e-abc0-5a3128b4e1f6\u0022\u003EThe remedy was quite simple from the outset. It is contained in the Foreshore and Seabed Bill, in schedule 3, where there is a nice little clause that does it all. It amends Te Ture Whenua Maori Act by repealing the definition of land in section 4 and substituting the following definition: \u201C \u2018land\u2019\u2014(a) means\u2014(i) M\u0101ori land, General land, and Crown land that is on the landward side of mean high water springs; and (ii) M\u0101ori freehold land that is on the seaward side of mean high water springs; but (b) does not include the public foreshore and seabed\u201D. That simple little measure would address this whole mischief of what is widely regarded as the unintended consequences of that Te Ture Whenua Maori Act. Instead, we have gone through this incredible debate, not just in Parliament but countrywide. There was a lot of anxiety and uncertainty associated with that, when that measure is so simple. It is based on property rights and on due process of law. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000581\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219386ba0-5a6e-485e-abc0-5a3128b4e1f6\u0022\u003EThe other action that the Government could have taken was to appeal the Court of Appeal\u2019s decision to the Privy Council. It could have taken it to the Privy Council. We know why it did not like to pursue that option: it was right in the middle of disassociating New Zealand from the Privy Council, and that would have been a bit of an embarrassment and a back-down. So the Government did not pursue that option that was available to it. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000582\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219386ba0-5a6e-485e-abc0-5a3128b4e1f6\u0022\u003EBut the real mischief created in this legislation, and where the angst and anguish will live with us for future generations, is this new regime that it creates. People should be under no doubt or illusion whatsoever that we are creating a new regime to manage the foreshore and seabed. It is racist legislation. It is not racist to uphold M\u0101ori property rights\u2014absolutely not. The ACT party would far rather have seen clear, specific, respected, and clearly understood property rights established. If, in the public interest, the Crown were subsequently to resolve that it needed to expropriate those rights in certain circumstances, it could always do that. The Crown often expropriates private property rights in the public good. It should do so rarely and only when necessary, but it does have that right, and it must pay full compensation when it takes such action. So this Government was not in any form of bind whatsoever. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000583\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219386ba0-5a6e-485e-abc0-5a3128b4e1f6\u0022\u003EWhat it really wanted to do all along was to grab that wonderful socialist tool, the Resource Management Act, and put it on steroids\u2014that is what the Government has done. It has put the Resource Management Act on steroids, and now we have imported a whole lot of spiritual tikanga provisions into what was always intended to be the sustainable management of natural and physical resources. Now it is the confused management of metaphysical and spiritual matters. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000584\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219386ba0-5a6e-485e-abc0-5a3128b4e1f6\u0022\u003EThat is the inherent problem with the Resource Management Act as it exists now, before this amendment is passed. I need only remind members that the hold-up of work on State Highway 1 at Meremere was because of a taniwha. There is endless cost and extortion going on up and down this country by various groups exercising a right and a privilege that has been given to them. That is the basis of the problem. It is racist when a right, or privilege, of control and regulation is conferred on a group of people based on their race or ethnicity\u2014or, more particularly, on the date that one of their ancestors, or possibly more, happened to arrive in this country. That is what we are doing as a nation, and that is deeply racist. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000585\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219386ba0-5a6e-485e-abc0-5a3128b4e1f6\u0022\u003EIt is not racist to recognise customary rights and give proper title where appropriate. That would be a very non-racist policy. But, no, instead we are conferring on a group of people a privilege that gives them extraordinary powers under the Resource Management Act to hold the country to extortion. It virtually invites that extortion, as we have seen for a number of years now under the Resource Management Act. Many New Zealanders find it uncomfortable to talk about that. A lot of developers know that they just have to pay up and shut up, because that has become the norm. But that does not make it right, and that is what we will now see up and down this country. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000586\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219386ba0-5a6e-485e-abc0-5a3128b4e1f6\u0022\u003EI have already mentioned the example of the taniwha at Meremere, which had a lot of publicity. In this debate we have had a lot of reference to the Wakapuaka Estuary in Delaware Bay, which I know very well. I worked there with a bunch of scientists way back in the 1970s doing tidal surveys and aquacultural marine life surveys. It is a marvellous place. There are urup\u0101 there, and we certainly respected them. They are well understood in the local community. But a gate has been put up and access denied over the foreshore and seabed for four-wheel drive vehicles to launch boats. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000587\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219386ba0-5a6e-485e-abc0-5a3128b4e1f6\u0022\u003EThe difficulty is that the local iwi who are denying that access are saying they do not like it because it disturbs their urup\u0101. How does that explain the fact that if one pays $100, one can get a key? That is established fact. That is the problem when there are not clear property rights, and, instead, when there are nebulous powers, privileges, and rights to exercise powers that are not well defined under a tool as deficient as the Resource Management Act. It is that old socialist realisation of the third-way people. One does not have to own it any more in the classical socialist sense; it can be done by control now. That is really what this legislation is all about; the guts of this legislation is an amendment to the Resource Management Act. It is bad legislation, and it will be divisive for New Zealand society. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022f555a23a-d230-4f03-80ba-a44e6ec8bd29\u0022 data-id=\u00224dcefad838fb4346a74caaa46b44a05a\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000588\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f555a23a-d230-4f03-80ba-a44e6ec8bd29\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00224dcefad838fb4346a74caaa46b44a05a\u0022\u003EHon PETER DUNNE (Leader\u2014United Future):\u003C/span\u003E Today is a very sad day for this Parliament, and for this country. It is a sad not just because legislation that is of profound significance is being passed through this House under urgency but because it is being passed by a very slim margin in a hotly divided environment. The tradition in this country has been that where substantive measures of this type, which transcend political party boundaries but go to the heart of our nationhood are being considered, every effort is usually made to reach bipartisan conclusions and to ensure that the progress of that legislation is in a way that is orderly, proper, and unlikely to be the subject of subsequent division and debate. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000589\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f555a23a-d230-4f03-80ba-a44e6ec8bd29\u0022\u003EI look at the great moves in the 1990s, when the National Party was in power, in terms of the Ng\u0101i Tahu and the Tainui settlements and at the work that was done then to bring the Labour Opposition onside, so that the occasions when legislation was debated in Parliament were occasions of celebration and of recognition that something deep and meaningful had been achieved, and that the country, at least to its parliamentary leaders, was standing on the same plane. That is a vast contrast with what we see happening today. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000590\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f555a23a-d230-4f03-80ba-a44e6ec8bd29\u0022\u003EBefore I continue, I want to pay particular tribute, though, to the Deputy Prime Minister who, throughout this process since the Court of Appeal ruling last June, has worked tirelessly and genuinely to seek a resolution. I think that whatever the political difference, Dr Cullen\u2019s contribution needs to be acknowledged. But I am concerned, beyond those sterling efforts, to note that what we have essentially seen on this issue is a failure of leadership. Last November, nearly a year ago, I suggested to both the major parties that this issue was so important they should set aside their differences\u2014particularly as we see them expressed today; not being very greatly different from each other\u2014and work for a common solution. Both parties said that was not possible. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000591\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f555a23a-d230-4f03-80ba-a44e6ec8bd29\u0022\u003EIn the wake of the \u014Crewa speech in March, I raised the issue again. The ground had shifted a little bit. One party said it was not interested, and the other said it was too late for that. Had they put aside their narrow political differences and worked together in harmony, recognising that this was an issue upon which New Zealanders were looking for leadership, we would not have seen the subsequent disharmony, division, and bitterness that has divided our nation unnecessarily. When we look at the positions of the respective parties on this point, there is vast, if not universal, agreement that what we all seek is an assurance that the position that each one of us understood was the actual case prior to the court ruling would be maintained; that there would not be limitations placed on people\u2019s right to access various parts of the foreshore and seabed in the way that they always have done; that those traditional areas where M\u0101ori had special values and special attachments would be recognised, but that fundamentally life would go on pretty much as it had done. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000592\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f555a23a-d230-4f03-80ba-a44e6ec8bd29\u0022\u003ENone of us, I suspect, had heard too much about foreshore and seabed until a year ago. We knew it was there, but perhaps we did not have a great deal of interest in, or appreciation of, its significance. Now that has all changed. The real issue that this Parliament is now having to confront, and our country is having to consider\u2014because this legislation will pass\u2014is: how certain is it? How stable is the environment that has been put in place? What guarantees have we for the future? My colleague Larry Baldock, whose contribution I acknowledge, moved an amendment during the Committee stage seeking to entrench particular versions, or parts, of this legislation, in an effort to give a sense of certainty that the solutions now being put in place had some permanence. That amendment was defeated. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000593\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f555a23a-d230-4f03-80ba-a44e6ec8bd29\u0022\u003EUnited Future parted company with the Government on this legislation earlier in the year over the issue of public domain, again for that same reason. We want people to be absolutely certain that nothing will get in the way of their traditional understanding of access to the foreshore and seabed, and that there will be no uncertainties, ambiguities, or hesitations about future Government action in this regard. Legislation passed under urgency\u2014because the primary reason seems to be to get it out of the way before Christmas\u2014in a hotly divided Parliament, with protesters on the lawn outside, hardly gives an assurance to New Zealanders that this is the end of the matter. I think we now face some serious questions.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000594\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f555a23a-d230-4f03-80ba-a44e6ec8bd29\u0022\u003E It is interesting to note from the Leader of the Opposition\u2019s speech, as Mr Peters pointed out, that there is no commitment to date to repeal the legislation. I suspect that commitment will come at \u014Crewa in January, because that will be much nearer the election. The wry smile gives it all away. But the problem with that is that until we put the issue aside, the uncertainty remains for everybody. At one level people will say, as I heard a commentator say on the radio this morning, that they will still be able to go to the beach this summer. That might well be so, but at another level, we are starting to see sinister and dangerous actions occur. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000595\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f555a23a-d230-4f03-80ba-a44e6ec8bd29\u0022\u003EI deplore the fact that some benighted group of radicals chose to throw an axe into the Prime Minister\u2019s electorate office today. That is despicable and disgraceful, and is up there with that idiot who cut down the tree on One Tree Hill. But the problem is that when people feel disempowered or left out, those sorts of actions become their option. Then it will not be too far away before some other idiot decides that he or she can charge people to come on to a bit of land, or put up a sign with a restriction stating that people are now entering on to M\u0101ori ancestral land, or whatever, and the whole set of tensions, divisions, and bitterness that has been so prevalent over the last 12 months is fuelled once again. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000596\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f555a23a-d230-4f03-80ba-a44e6ec8bd29\u0022\u003EThere is nothing to celebrate today. There is nothing to be proud of or committed about. I guess what we can be rueful of is that this is a lost opportunity. It is an indictment of the failure of the two major parties to get together in the national interest, and it is a sad recognition that when faced with the opportunity to do something constructive in the interests of our people as a whole, we, as a Parliament, have flunked the test, and I regret that bitterly.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022c2dfe169-d946-4f87-8d43-0bcdb7d8bebc\u0022 data-id=\u0022c18091ef058d41a986ffda0d1025348b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000597\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c2dfe169-d946-4f87-8d43-0bcdb7d8bebc\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c18091ef058d41a986ffda0d1025348b\u0022\u003ETARIANA TURIA (Leader\u2014M\u0101ori Party):\u003C/span\u003E First of all, I thank those who have chaired the House and the Committee through what has been a very difficult process, and I acknowledge those iwi in the top end of the South Island who took their case to the Court of Appeal and were then denied justice to go on to the courts. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000598\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c2dfe169-d946-4f87-8d43-0bcdb7d8bebc\u0022\u003EToday we are witnessing the death of democracy through the tyranny of the majority. Over the last few days this Chamber has witnessed some desperate cries for credibility from members of the Government, whose M\u0101ori seats will be sacrificed by the Government to save the general members\u2019 seats. We heard cries of confusion and of complicity, and we heard the plea that we need a vision of what New Zealand is today, not what it was in the 19th century. Yet this legislation takes us right back to those days, a period in the mid-1880s when this Parliament will recall a shameful history where the majority of M\u0101ori males were not then eligible to vote on the general electoral roll, and at that time we were the majority. To be on the electoral roll, males were required to hold a minimum amount of private property, whereas nearly all M\u0101ori then did not own property individually but communally. What I put to all members today is to show me the difference between then and now. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000599\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c2dfe169-d946-4f87-8d43-0bcdb7d8bebc\u0022\u003EThis bill is a discriminatory act. It treats private property rights as more important than customary property rights. When I was a child, other children used to say: \u201CWhat\u2019s mine is my own.\u201D Now what M\u0101ori children will say is: \u201CWhat was mine is everybody\u2019s.\u201D The backroom deal with New Zealand First has made an absolute mockery of the select committee process. Only the privileged were listened to, and that is everyone except tangata whenua. When members try to convince us that the legislation is all about New Zealanders, they seem to forget that tangata whenua are also New Zealanders\u2014a collective group of New Zealanders who have special constitutional status by virtue of the relationship signed up to by all our ancestors, Te Tiriti o Waitangi. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000600\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c2dfe169-d946-4f87-8d43-0bcdb7d8bebc\u0022\u003EWe listened to members desperately trying to convince themselves that the Government is proud of its ongoing fiduciary obligation to tangata whenua. The basis of a fiduciary relationship is that of trust. Does anyone in the House honestly think that tangata whenua will be fooled into thinking that they can trust a Government that has sacrificed, extinguished, and confiscated the last piece of customary land that we held by default? The only fiduciary relationship we believe in is that vested between tangata whenua and the Crown in Te Tiriti o Waitangi. Our position with respect to te tiriti is unequivocal. It is a cornerstone of the constitution of Aoteaora. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000601\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c2dfe169-d946-4f87-8d43-0bcdb7d8bebc\u0022\u003ELet us look instead at what the minority Government is pinning all its hopes on\u2014the fiduciary relationship it will have with tangata whenua, through the establishment of reserves. Prospective groups must, in line with section 34C, make application to the High Court to apply for the establishment of a reserve. If successful in their application, the High Court then directs them to prepare a charter by which the board will administer the reserve. The High Court then directs, as set down in section 34D(a), for the board to be established as a legal entity and then, in section 34D(b), the group has to present a charter to the High Court again, itemising a host of technical specifications for the new legal entity. Such an exhaustive process for compliance hardly represents to me an action of trust. I recall the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations the other night throwing off that in the Court of Appeal case, while there were 34 lawyers acting in the interests of iwi, the Crown needed only four. Of course, she neglected to mention the huge departmental infrastructure available to the Crown, or the unlimited public purse. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000602\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c2dfe169-d946-4f87-8d43-0bcdb7d8bebc\u0022\u003EThis legislation adds further to the labyrinth of legal processes that our people must push through. New Zealand First, the party that has made its name out of criticising the so-called gravy train, is now proudly standing by a legislative sham that sets into play an excessive reliance on lawyers. We have gone from the gravy train, to the whole railway network. If our people are not to be borne down with the weight of compliance costs, the confusion created by this legislation in its use of terminology will be the final straw. The minority Government has tried to mislead our people by promoting the idea that M\u0101ori groups that would have won aboriginal title claims can now opt to be guardians of reserves. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000603\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c2dfe169-d946-4f87-8d43-0bcdb7d8bebc\u0022\u003EGuardianship is about whakapapa. It is about mana. Contrast that with the meaning of guardianship in the Foreshore and Seabed Bill to mean the members of the board of a foreshore and seabed reserve. In other words, a concept that we see as intimately connected to kaitiakitanga is reduced to members of a committee. The terminology promulgated in this legislation for the concept of guardianship is totally devoid of any M\u0101ori interpretation. In this legislation, creating reserves is just another way of trying to influence M\u0101ori into believing that they will have a management right, but all those reserves will be subject to the existing rights of access and other laws, like the Resource Management Act, that protect the coastal areas. The legislation further suggests that kaitiakitanga will be expressed through the review of the Resource Management Act. Given that M\u0101ori consultation has always been so poorly carried out in the context of that Act, what confidence can wh\u0101nau and hap\u016B have in the legislation? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000604\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c2dfe169-d946-4f87-8d43-0bcdb7d8bebc\u0022\u003ELet me get this right. This minority Government, with the full support of New Zealand First, will strip our people of their birthright, their customary property of takutai moana, in exchange for what? It expects us to willingly take on an arduous process of negotiating with local authorities to confirm a management plan. What is even more bizarre is that the members of the board of the reserve, the so-called guardians, are to do so for the benefit of the public. So they are to manage the service, with no capacity to receive any resources or any other form of payment, for any activities undertaken as specified in section 34B(2). We are not only being robbed, but we are also being asked to do community service for the rest of our lives. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000605\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c2dfe169-d946-4f87-8d43-0bcdb7d8bebc\u0022\u003EM\u0101ori have experienced the large-scale legitimised theft of land through the policy of raupatu, yet we punish M\u0101ori and other New Zealanders who steal. Those are the double standards that serve to confuse and enrage our people. Stealing land by Government is accepted as legitimate, whereas theft is punishable by law\u2014the so-called one law for all New Zealanders. This nation is tired of doubletalk, of deliberate confusion, and of unseemly haste. This nation is tired of the divisive intent of this legislation. This legislation never needed to happen. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000606\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c2dfe169-d946-4f87-8d43-0bcdb7d8bebc\u0022\u003EWe are not on about the fences or the gates. Those are the barriers built by this Government, and now New Zealand First, that will remain between the peoples of this land, and our people and their land. The issue was never about contiguous use. The issue is about tikanga, and that is what has been ignored. Two simple changes could have been made to existing legislation\u2014changes to Te Ture Whenua Maori Act to prevent the alienation of land, and changes to the Resource Management Act to give certainty to access. A movement was born of this legislation, and I want to mihi to a movement that looks to reflect the thousands of New Zealanders who marched on Parliament, the thousands who spent more hours writing submissions, and the people who travelled here today to demonstrate their grief. The M\u0101ori Party, on behalf of all those people we represent, and for the sake of all our future generations, vehemently opposes this legislation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022 data-id=\u002275e4288e7d604cb493580d76d2c43086\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000607\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002275e4288e7d604cb493580d76d2c43086\u0022\u003EGERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader\u2014National):\u003C/span\u003E After many, many hours of debate, the House is close to passing this most unfortunate piece of legislation. I say \u201Cunfortunate\u201D because if one looks back over the last 24-25 hours in this House and sees and feels some of the passion and the fire that has gone into the various speeches that have been offered by members in this House, one will see that this is one of the debates\u2014perhaps the debate\u2014of this term of Parliament where members were truly showing why they had come to Parliament. They came here because they are passionate about making this country better, and doing things that are in the best interests of this country. The Government thinks that that is what it has done. A very substantial number of the rest of us think that is exactly what it has not done. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000608\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003EThe National Party does not support this legislation, has not supported this legislation, and will not be supporting this legislation in the future. Is it not an irony that the National Party today finds itself in agreement with the M\u0101ori Party? It is quite an irony. If one looks at the commentary on the bill and sees the report back of the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee, one will notice that the New Zealand National Party put in its minority view that the way to fix this issue was to deal with Te Ture Whenua Maori Act and to take a look at the Resource Management Act. Both of those pieces of legislation were just offered to the House as solutions by Tariana Turia from the M\u0101ori Party. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000609\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003EI say to Parekura Horomia, the Minister of M\u0101ori Affairs, who has not covered himself with a great deal of glory over the process and passage of this bill, that for him to simply point to this side of the House and say that we are the people who dwell in the dungeons of gloom and they are somehow the people of the light, is quite wrong. I would challenge him to go out to the front of Parliament now and tell that to those M\u0101ori who have come here expressing their upset at the way this law is being passed. When it came to Te Ture Whenua Maori Act being passed in 1993, not one submission to that bill mentioned the foreshore or the seabed\u2014not one. Not one speech in the Committee stage, or the first, second, or third readings mentioned the seabed or the foreshore, because the understanding was, as far as all were concerned, that they were owned, administered, and looked after by the Crown. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000610\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003EWhen the Government saw what was happening, as the Court of Appeal moved to its decision last year, it should have talked to all parties in this House to uphold what had been a previously unanimously passed bill. But it did not. It ran off into its corner and decided to take a very partisan position\u2014a partisan position that will come back to haunt it, because this is the first time a Government in New Zealand has passed a law that is as overtly racist as this one. [Interruption] I tell Mr Cunliffe, the outgoing member for New Lynn, that the next irony is that it is racist on two points. It is racist from the point of view that, for the first time ever, M\u0101ori are now going to be able to talk about their customary rights only in the context of what the courts allow. They will be able to exercise those rights only according to the wills, wishes, and whims of the Minister of Conservation. So to just say that there has been no diminishing of those rights is quite wrong. I would ask anybody to tell me where those customary rights around this country\u2014rights that are being exercised now and have been exercised for hundreds of years\u2014have actually caused a problem. That is not where the problems are in this country. The problems occur when Governments start to marginalise people\u2014to, as Mr Fairbrother would say, codify what their rights are. That is where the difficulty comes. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000611\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003EThe legislation is racist on a second count because it tells any New Zealander, no matter how long he or she has been here since 1840, that he or she can never have a right that can be recognised in a customary sense. I have to say that I simply do not understand that. Let us suppose that we are 200 years or 300 years into the future. Will we still be saying that 1840 was a break, that if people are able to claim ancestry pre-1840, they have extra rights, extra opportunities, and extra ability to claim parts of the coastline in this country, and to administer it, but that if one came here after that, one will not? That will not endure. It simply will not endure. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000612\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003EThe other thing that I would like to point out is the two very interesting clauses in the bill that weaken its intent and purpose quite significantly. The first is clause 112, and the second is clause 115. Those two clauses, when taken together, make it abundantly clear that the Labour Government intends still to deal to M\u0101ori an opportunity to hold title to various parts of the foreshore and seabed around this countryside. We know that those negotiations are going on. The Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations has told us. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000613\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003EThe thing that New Zealanders will find hard to understand is that while Labour is claiming to have sorted this out, and while New Zealand First is claiming to have sorted this out, in a very short time we will see areas\u2014perhaps the first will be the Raglan Harbour on the west coast of the North Island\u2014handed back to Tainui as part of their ongoing treaty settlement. We are now seeing the nods from the Tainui representative in the House. That makes the whole thing somewhat of a mockery. That is why, also, New Zealanders will start to turn with a little bit of venom on New Zealand First. They have not thought through their position on this at all clearly. They have not fixed it. They have created an opportunity for significant ongoing grievance. I appreciate that people such as Mr Jim Peters believe that they have done their best, but I want to tell them that they had no obligation to fix what was a mess from the very first time it hit the floor of this House. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000614\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003EMr Dunne made a very impassioned speech to the House suggesting that we should all work together a lot more closely. Well, we all know that Mr Dunne is essentially a man without a uniform strutting around, looking for a parade to lead. Well, this is not the one to lead, because we have a Government that does not like talking to other parties in this House unless it needs a vote.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000615\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E This issue has been out there since August of last year. As Dr Brash said, it would have been very easy for the Labour Party members to say to the National Party, the New Zealand First Party, and every other party in this House: \u201CLet\u2019s have a bit of a behind-the-scenes talk about what we might do.\u201D But there was none of that, because that would be taking too much away from them. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000616\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003EThat brings us to the issue of the special select committee that the Government wants to set up to discuss the constitution. We will not be part of that. Even though we gave the Prime Minister 3 days to send us some information about the terms of reference, nothing turned up. We thought: \u201CWell, if that is the case, and we take the experience of the special select committee looking at the foreshore and seabed legislation, where the Government spent a lot of people\u2019s time listening to New Zealanders and then turned up with what was virtually a rewrite of the bill, without reference to New Zealanders, won\u2019t that be exactly what it will do over constitutional issues as well?\u201D Today this Government has signalled to New Zealanders why it is not fit to govern and why it will not govern beyond the next election.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022022cfe6b-bae4-4028-b68a-ccffb4269442\u0022 data-id=\u00222b3d4d6f94064074b3413083b5f1100b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000617\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022022cfe6b-bae4-4028-b68a-ccffb4269442\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00222b3d4d6f94064074b3413083b5f1100b\u0022\u003EHon MARGARET WILSON (Attorney-General):\u003C/span\u003E It would be an understatement to note that this legislation has provoked considerable debate, both inside and outside this Parliament. However, much of that debate has been about matters not in the legislation. Essentially, the legislation recognises common law customary rights to the foreshore and seabed in the context of vesting full legal and beneficial ownership in the public foreshore and seabed in the Crown, and guaranteeing general rights of access to all peoples. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000618\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022022cfe6b-bae4-4028-b68a-ccffb4269442\u0022\u003EThe Foreshore and Seabed Bill arose out of the decision of the Court of Appeal in the Ng\u0101ti Apa case\u2014a decision that created considerable legal uncertainty, while addressing the longstanding and important issue of the recognition and content of common law customary rights to the foreshore and seabed. In deciding that the M\u0101ori Land Court had jurisdiction to determine common law customary rights, the court opened the opportunity for privatisation of title to the foreshore and seabed, long assumed to have been held in the ownership of the Crown. Given the fundamental responsibility of any Government to provide good order and stability, there was no choice for this Government but to do what it did\u2014that is, to clarify the law. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000619\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022022cfe6b-bae4-4028-b68a-ccffb4269442\u0022\u003EThe object and purpose of the Foreshore and Seabed Bill were set out clearly in clause 2A and clause 3. The object is to preserve the public foreshore and seabed in perpetuity for all New Zealanders, including wh\u0101nau, hap\u016B, and iwi. The purpose is to vest the full legal and beneficial ownership in the Crown, thus guaranteeing public access while recognising and protecting ongoing customary rights. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000620\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022022cfe6b-bae4-4028-b68a-ccffb4269442\u0022\u003EMany in the Opposition have argued that the legislation is racist. That allegation comes from both extremes of the M\u0101ori and non-M\u0101ori opponents of the legislation. Listening to their arguments highlights for me the raison d\u2019etre of the legislation\u2014namely, that it balances and reconciles the interests of all New Zealanders. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000621\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022022cfe6b-bae4-4028-b68a-ccffb4269442\u0022\u003EWhen we step back and look at the legislation as a whole and in its context, it is apparent that essential elements of it synthesise concepts integral to tikanga and to the values shared by other New Zealanders. For example, the notion of a shared common space held in perpetuity in common to both M\u0101ori and non-M\u0101ori alike, is not an unknown concept to all peoples. What M\u0101ori also seek, however, is recognition of their unique tangata whenua status as the guardians of the foreshore and seabed, and that as guardians they have specific rights and interests. This legislation gives that recognition in a tangible way through the customary rights orders. It also goes a step further and recognises that if a wh\u0101nau, hap\u016B, or iwi group establish territorial rights in the High Court, then the claimants are entitled to redress, as set out in the bill. The legislation has then, in effect, incorporated the common law customary rights into statute. This legislation formalises the recognition of common law customary rights and provides a process to determine the nature and extent of those rights, and, if those rights are established, provides a way to enforce them. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000622\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022022cfe6b-bae4-4028-b68a-ccffb4269442\u0022\u003EThroughout the various stages of the legislation much has been made of the argument that due process has been denied M\u0101ori claimants. It has been argued that it should have been left to the M\u0101ori Land Court. Prior to this legislation such a process could have resulted in the privatisation of the foreshore and seabed, which was not wanted by most M\u0101ori or non-M\u0101ori. However, the legislation does not deny due process. It provides for both the M\u0101ori Land Court and the High Court to hear and determine claims brought under the legislation. It is true that the process cannot lead to privatisation of the foreshore and seabed, but it does lead to remedies\u2014those remedies in the form of customary rights orders and territorial customary rights orders. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000623\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022022cfe6b-bae4-4028-b68a-ccffb4269442\u0022\u003EDuring the debate on the Foreshore and Seabed Bill there has been much discussion on the nature of territorial customary rights. This legislation codifies the common law in respect of aboriginal title, or customary title. It replaces the current jurisdictions of the M\u0101ori Land Court and the High Court with new jurisdictions. The common law doctrine provides for a continuum of customary rights. At one end is uses, activities, and practices, and at the other end of the continuum is full customary rights equating to exclusive occupation and possession. The legislation follows the common law in that respect. However, it takes a more liberal position than Australian case law, in that it actually recognises that a form of exclusive ownership rights may exist. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000624\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022022cfe6b-bae4-4028-b68a-ccffb4269442\u0022\u003EIt is important to note in this context that no common law jurisdiction has recognised exclusive customary ownership rights in the foreshore and seabed. In fact, the Yarmirr case in Australia concluded that there could be no such rights over the foreshore and seabed. It would have been interesting if the Court of Appeal had considered the Yarmirr decision in its decision. It is admitted that this is a difficult area of the law, and tribute must be paid to Dr Paul McHugh, a leading international expert, for giving his time and expertise to the Waitangi Tribunal and the select committee. Through his evidence it was possible to develop criteria for a territorial customary title that was consistent with the common law, but relevant to the particular circumstances in New Zealand. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000625\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022022cfe6b-bae4-4028-b68a-ccffb4269442\u0022\u003EFinally, I note that the provision of reserves as a form of redress is based on the notion that in accordance with tikanga, the customary interest that M\u0101ori had in the foreshore and seabed was one of control and management, not ownership as Tariana Turia believes. This remedy then is consistent with common law notions of customary rights and with tikanga, which is why the M\u0101ori members argued so strongly for its specific inclusion in the legislation. This legislation then is a balance between the interests to preserve customary rights and activities, as exercised by both M\u0101ori and non-M\u0101ori. It grapples with an interest that has been around for a long time, and which previous Governments have avoided. The fact that it provoked strong political reaction is not a surprise. However, I trust that when the heat has settled and the remedies in the legislation are pursued, the legislation will be seen for what it is\u2014a reconciliation of differences through respect and tolerance of the interests and the rights of everyone in this country.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022df788c48-b9be-42fd-b8f2-76629a5572b8\u0022 data-id=\u0022df61f472a94648e4a66bf02dea5eb978\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000626\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022df788c48-b9be-42fd-b8f2-76629a5572b8\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022df61f472a94648e4a66bf02dea5eb978\u0022\u003EDr WAYNE MAPP (National\u2014North Shore):\u003C/span\u003E There is only one flaw in the previous speaker\u2019s argument, and it is that it is not what she believed after the case. Two days after the case, she said: \u201CLegislate to confirm the fundamental understanding that has prevailed in this country for 100 years\u2014Crown ownership on behalf of all New Zealanders, M\u0101ori and non-M\u0101ori alike.\u201D She was confirmed in that view by the Prime Minister, and, as we made clear at the time, we would have supported a simple proposition, and that is what the Attorney-General thought was the right answer at the time. What she has now ended up delivering is legislation that is essentially here at the behest of the M\u0101ori members of the Labour Party. That is their clear and deliberate intent. The Deputy Prime Minister knows the truth of it. That is why Nanaia Mahuta, almost certainly I predict, will be voting for this legislation. They have their private deals in this legislation, and the clauses to protect them are buried deep within it. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000627\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022df788c48-b9be-42fd-b8f2-76629a5572b8\u0022\u003ELet us just analyse what the bill actually does\u2014because they have this global idea of Crown ownership on behalf of all, and they want New Zealanders to believe that that in essence is what the legislation does. Certainly, there is a clause to that effect, but it is whittled away in the subsequent 100 clauses by a cheese-paring attack on the rights of all New Zealanders. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000628\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022df788c48-b9be-42fd-b8f2-76629a5572b8\u0022\u003ESo we do have a complex and difficult structure. Let us analyse that. Firstly, we have territorial customary rights granted by application to the High Court. That will lead to M\u0101ori reserves up and down the country. We understand, based on what the M\u0101ori members have said to the New Zealand Herald\u2014they cannot deny this, and they will not deny it\u2014that the area will be 10 percent at an absolute minimum. We know where those places are already\u2014Eastern Bay of Plenty, East Cape, the far north, parts of Taranaki, and, no doubt, other parts of the nation. That is the first point. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000629\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022df788c48-b9be-42fd-b8f2-76629a5572b8\u0022\u003EThe second point is that customary rights orders will come before the M\u0101ori Land Court. Is that the right court to be dealing with something in an area of general interest? This is a very important point. It is intended that the foreshore and seabed belong to all New Zealanders, irrespective of their ethnicity. The M\u0101ori Land Court is specifically set up to deal with land disputes, essentially as between M\u0101ori. There is a huge new jurisdiction where a court, set up for essentially one group of the population, will be resolving issues for all the population. The court simply does not have the experience, the resources, or the background for that role. Those are the sorts of things we would expect at the very minimum to be done by the courts of general jurisdiction\u2014the High Court. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022df788c48-b9be-42fd-b8f2-76629a5572b8\u0022\u003EThe third point is the notional concept of customary rights for all New Zealanders, which was inserted at the behest of New Zealand First. The only example, of course, is the Auckland Anniversary Regatta. I am not aware that there has been any problem that the Royal New Zealand Yacht Squadron has had for the last 163 years. Has it asked for this solution? The answer is no, because frankly there is no particular problem. This is a fallacious approach to legislation. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000631\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022df788c48-b9be-42fd-b8f2-76629a5572b8\u0022\u003EThen we have a whole range of amendments to the Resource Management Act, the effect of which will mean that major strategic facilities that have to be built in places where they do not already exist\u2014and I say that in particular\u2014can now be vetoed. So a particular customary rights holder can veto something to the national benefit for all New Zealanders. That is wrong. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000632\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022df788c48-b9be-42fd-b8f2-76629a5572b8\u0022\u003EFinally, buried in clause 115 is the provision that enables the Crown and this Government\u2014the Government has made it clear that this is its plan\u2014to alienate the foreshore and seabed from the people of New Zealand to particular M\u0101ori claimants. The precedents are already there. They are the Lake Rotorua settlement\u2014an area that was, and is, owned on behalf of all New Zealanders by the Crown since 1922 in a freely negotiated arrangement. This Government in the 21st century is reversing all of that. It is taking it away from the people of New Zealand and transferring it to particular groups. The Government intends to do that on the west coast harbours. Nanaia Mahuta said that in the select committee, Government officials said that in the select committee, the Prime Minister said that in the House, and the New Zealand First Party has conspired in the process. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000633\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022df788c48-b9be-42fd-b8f2-76629a5572b8\u0022\u003EAt least the Government has been upfront. I can only assume that New Zealand First members have been duped\u2014that, I guess, is being charitable to them\u2014because they are betraying their principles. They say they believe in one law for all New Zealanders. Well, the only \u201Coneness\u201D is the fact that it is contained in a single document, but that document now has two laws\u2014customary rights for M\u0101ori and no customary rights for anyone else, other than the Auckland Anniversary Regatta. That is frankly absurd. They have betrayed their own principles. So Mr Winston Peters cannot claim, and should not claim\u2014because it is a falsehood\u2014to have fixed it. What in fact he has done is to participate in the wrecking. He has now got the right appellation of a wrecker, not a fixer. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000634\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022df788c48-b9be-42fd-b8f2-76629a5572b8\u0022\u003EI want to talk about two other issues: first, the matter of customary rights, and, second, a matter important to North Shore City residents. National did say in its report that it supported customary rights, and then it said that there must be a balancing between the interests of the general community and the holders of customary rights. Actually, there are existing mechanisms to do precisely that. They are contained in the 1993 fisheries legislation and are known as the tai\u0101pure and the m\u0101taitai. They do have mechanisms of governance and controls over the use of fishery resources\u2014shellfish, and the like\u2014and, by and large, they work. Similarly, we have the example of the mutton birds in the T\u012Bt\u012B Islands. So we do understand our history, and that was the way the issue needed to be dealt with. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000635\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022df788c48-b9be-42fd-b8f2-76629a5572b8\u0022\u003EI now wish to turn to the issue of the North Shore city residents. I have to acknowledge that their position was finally protected. It took an enormous amount of work by me as the member of Parliament for North Shore to try to get that into the legislation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000636\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022580b5cb2394d4b21a71529e53b9ac1b9\u0022\u003EDail Jones\u003C/span\u003E: You didn\u2019t vote on it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000637\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022df788c48-b9be-42fd-b8f2-76629a5572b8\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022738e3324106b4bbfa485aa856c2c061a\u0022\u003EDr WAYNE MAPP\u003C/span\u003E: It finally came in on the very last day\u2014and I want to address that particular point raised by Mr Jones. The National Party sought to vote on the relevant clause, because there was only one clause on the relevant Supplementary Order Paper. We sought leave from Parliament to vote on that, and we would have voted for that as a separate clause because we recognised the importance of those rights being protected for North Shore residents. Do members know what the Government\u2019s reaction was? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000638\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e3dc3d88-a571-4ed7-a4b4-b66dedd6134b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226a7a3a1756cd4573a72510c985cbb736\u0022\u003EPeter Brown\u003C/span\u003E: Don\u2019t tell me they voted against that?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000639\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022df788c48-b9be-42fd-b8f2-76629a5572b8\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022decebcfd9848490c965328fb990f12a8\u0022\u003EDr WAYNE MAPP\u003C/span\u003E: The Government denied leave to vote separately on that important issue. On that Supplementary Order Paper was a whole range of other measures. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000640\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222ef5da3b56dd45c5a25dedf4c4db8a2a\u0022\u003EDail Jones\u003C/span\u003E: No, no. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000641\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022df788c48-b9be-42fd-b8f2-76629a5572b8\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224db894cf48ee416fb53e7569c68ad77f\u0022\u003EDr WAYNE MAPP\u003C/span\u003E: That is very clear. There was a whole range of other measures, including\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000642\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c248f0d336dd48b5bb3343b5e40d28d7\u0022\u003EDail Jones\u003C/span\u003E: Tell the truth, for once.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000643\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022df788c48-b9be-42fd-b8f2-76629a5572b8\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002273b087ff9d6f45d4ba2e767e44eee3da\u0022\u003EDr WAYNE MAPP\u003C/span\u003E: I have read the Supplementary Order Paper in detail. There was another range of measures, as well, and the Government was expecting us to vote for all of them. So we sought the leave. We said, in the purpose for the leave, that we would vote for it. The Government in its usual arrogance\u2014and this bill is an example\u2014denied that leave. Having said that, I do think that North Shore residents will be well pleased with that result, because their rights have been protected.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022 data-id=\u0022e25ed89542544c24acda3036ba9f7096\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000644\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022e25ed89542544c24acda3036ba9f7096\u0022\u003EDAIL JONES (NZ First):\u003C/span\u003E Perhaps I should start by referring to the last comment of the previous speaker, the National Party member for North Shore, which reflects on the content of that speech. He referred to Supplementary Order Paper 306 in the name of the Hon Dr Michael Cullen as having a raft of other measures on it. It does not. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000645\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022df788c48-b9be-42fd-b8f2-76629a5572b8\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022be48242ca7734333b4a872a0fa235c09\u0022\u003EDr Wayne Mapp\u003C/span\u003E: Three issues.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000646\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002292b17a09aee142a9bb1922280adb912c\u0022\u003EDAIL JONES\u003C/span\u003E: I have it here. It has two measures on it. The first is the commencement date, which is neither here nor there, and the second is the Bayswater Marina - North Shore matter. The amendment to clause 117 of the Foreshore and Seabed Bill amends section 24 of the Conservation Act as set out in schedule 3 of that Act. The member for North Shore has distorted the truth in this House. There were only two issues on that Supplementary Order Paper, and it is very clear that the member for North Shore voted against the interests of the residents of his electorate on that particular issue. He is trying to backpedal now. I have voted in this House against the party I belonged to before today. I have crossed the floor on an issue that was important. The National member for North Shore was not prepared to do that, in the interests of his electorate and its people. He is now trying to come up with some flimsy excuse for not doing that. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000647\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022\u003EIt is a privilege to be a member of Parliament, and especially a New Zealand First member of Parliament, because New Zealand First has shown leadership on this issue to all the other Opposition parties. Obviously, we have the only leader of the Opposition in this House, in the Rt Hon Winston Peters. This has been very interesting legislation. When I was put on the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee, everyone said to me that I would be working terribly hard, and that it would be a difficult job. But then my alternative, on the Justice and Electoral Committee, would have been the Civil Union Bill. I am really delighted to have worked on the Foreshore and Seabed Bill instead of that bill; it has been a real pleasure to do so, in comparison with the Civil Union Bill. I wish the members on the Justice and Electoral Committee very well. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000648\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022\u003EThere has been a lot of talk about racism and one law for all, and this legislation has been described as racist and suchlike. Let us examine where we came from in the Ng\u0101ti Apa case. The New Zealand Court of Appeal, in determining that case, applied English common law, which applies to New Zealand. It is one law for all; English common law is applicable to everybody. The Court of Appeal, in that case, stated that M\u0101ori people in New Zealand had customary rights. Based on what the National Party member has just said, the Court of Appeal must have been racist to suggest that one race had customary rights and the other race did not have any such rights. That is the clear inference of the National Party and other Opposition parties to the House on this legislation. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000649\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022\u003ENew Zealand First and the Labour Party, believing in one law for all, applied the English common law as set out in the Court of Appeal decision, and have given effect to it. New Zealand First made it very clear at the very outset, on 25 June 2003, that it would support any move to ensure that the Crown had legal title to the foreshore and seabed. That is what this legislation does. We said again that M\u0101ori traditional rights of use must be protected, but that those rights could not be extended to property ownership on the basis of race. This legislation protects those rights, based on the decision in the Ng\u0101ti Apa case on the common law protecting M\u0101ori customary rights. That was our policy, and we have carried it out. We also said that all Governments must be fair and neutral on matters of race, and that is really the genesis of Part 4 of the Foreshore and Seabed Bill. We will wait and see in the fullness of time just how effective it is. I believe that it will throw up quite a few surprises for people who have been laughing at it at the present time. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000650\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022\u003EAt no time did the Court of Appeal state that the Crown no longer owns the foreshore and seabed. This legislation has carried out New Zealand First\u2019s policy, and has ensured that the public foreshore and seabed is vested in the Crown, that rights of access and rights of navigation to the public are protected, and that individual fishing rights are protected. That is apart from the Treaty of Waitangi settlements; I am referring to clause 7A of the bill. If someone who is on the side of a wharf wants to throw a line over it, or if someone who is on the beach wants to throw a line into the sea, that person can continue to do so as usual. There was some doubt about it. We heard the submissions, and we put a special clause into the bill, clause 7A, in order to make that clear. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000651\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022\u003EIn keeping with the Court of Appeal decision and with our view, customary rights orders for wh\u0101nau, hap\u016B, and iwi, based on occupation from 1840 in a substantially uninterrupted way, will be available for customary use in the M\u0101ori Land Court. The year 1840 is important because Professor McHugh, who lectured us at the select committee, made it very clear that we had to have a date set out. There was a choice between the Canadian system, which would have taken the date much further back, or the Australian system, in which the date of sovereignty would be 1840\u2014the year in which the Treaty of Waitangi was signed in New Zealand. That date was set, and that is the reason why it is there. Of course, the Court of Appeal also discussed what are now called territorial customary rights. It has set a very high standard, when we look at what Professor McHugh had to say. An extraordinarily high standard is required, and that is why the Court of Appeal stated in its decision that very few cases would be successful in obtaining that type of right. The Court of Appeal gave an example of a few rocky places out at sea that may be successful in that respect. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000652\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022\u003ESome people might have said that because the issue was going to be very difficult, they would ignore it altogether. But New Zealand First wanted to enforce the common law. We have codified the common law in this legislation. I must say that the officials who worked on this legislation\u2014the parliamentary counsel, the members of the staff of the Government departments and suchlike, and our adviser\u2014were of the highest calibre that I have ever seen in my parliamentary career, and this is my fourth term in Parliament, as some members know. I must congratulate them; they were absolutely excellent. They were asked some of the most impossible questions, and they came up with the answers straight away. It was a classic example of how nowadays in New Zealand we have very well-trained people\u2014and, dare I say it, they are all getting younger and brighter. It is really remarkable. It is a great credit to this country and to its future that we have people of that calibre in New Zealand. They helped me immensely during the course of the select committee deliberations. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000653\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022\u003EAs I have said, we also ensured that there were territorial customary rights, and that it was a very strict test. It seems to me, as a lawyer, that if we give people a very difficult hurdle, like having to climb 1\u00BD Mount Everests, and if they climb without oxygen, by the time they succeed they ought to get something at the end of the day. Originally the legislation was vague on that issue, and I discussed that with the other members of the select committee. We heard the submissions\u2014we heard from about 1,000 people, altogether. This legislation is full of answers to the questions raised by submitters up and down the country. We listened to them, and that is why there are so many amendments to the bill. The National Party and other parties have criticised the number of amendments. There are amendments to the bill because we listened to the people of New Zealand who came before the select committee. It would take me at least an hour to go through all the submissions and answer all the questions that were raised. so I just say that in passing. Of course, our staff had to work on the amendments in a way that would make sense. At the end of the day, someone who wins a case ought to get something, and the provisions for foreshore and seabed reserve and guardianship express the view of the committee. And, of course, there can be discussions with the Minister. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000654\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022\u003EThe issue of the foreshore and seabed is very simple. The Court of Appeal made a decision. It set out the common law rights. Parliament took them up. We have made sure that the foreshore and seabed belong to the Crown, because that was always the law. The legislation has included customary rights orders for M\u0101ori groups. It has a territorial customary right order, which is a very, very heavy test to pass. Of course, there is Part 4 of the Foreshore and Seabed Bill that has ensured one law for all. There has been a lot of huff and puff around the whole issue. It is unfortunate that for a while there was a public domain issue. Mr Dunne made a very good point about how people should have got together and discussed the issue. He mentioned the Labour Party dealing with the National Party. But the National Party was not willing to talk, so the Labour Party came to see New Zealand First, as the next-largest party in this House. We had set out our view earlier, and we have maintained that view throughout. We said what we meant in June 2003, and we persisted with it. It is the correct view. There was a problem. We analysed the case and came up with a solution. Could we fix it? Yes, we could\u2014and we did.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220e7e8da2-a6a1-41bb-aeb0-a49be255a293\u0022 data-id=\u0022d816e388f7aa44a1adac3842e83114a4\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000655\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220e7e8da2-a6a1-41bb-aeb0-a49be255a293\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d816e388f7aa44a1adac3842e83114a4\u0022\u003ENANAIA MAHUTA (Labour\u2014Tainui):\u003C/span\u003E \u0100, tuatahi, he mihi maioha ki te koroheke e takoto mai ana i te marae kei T\u016Brangawaewae. Takoto e koro, moe mai, okioki.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000656\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220e7e8da2-a6a1-41bb-aeb0-a49be255a293\u0022\u003E[In the first instance, a loving tribute to the elder lying in state at the T\u016Brangawaewae Marae. May the elder lie there, sleep, rest.] \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000657\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220e7e8da2-a6a1-41bb-aeb0-a49be255a293\u0022\u003EI just wanted to acknowledge the passing of a grand uncle, Tumate Charlie M\u0101huta, who is now lying in state at T\u016Brangawaewae Marae. As his net is cast aside, I guess people are getting ready to cast a new net. When people reflect on this issue of foreshore and seabed, they probably will never appreciate the crossroad that the country had come to in May this year. It was a time when the country had a real opportunity to confront the travesty of its own history, and not to repeat the same mistakes. Instead, fear-driven statements and articles took the headlines and the media. Now it is fish and chip paper. So what will people remember? I think some will think that not enough change has occurred, and some will think that some has today. One has to wonder whether we will ever learn from the mistakes of history. But we all know here today as parliamentarians that politics is the art of the possible.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000658\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220e7e8da2-a6a1-41bb-aeb0-a49be255a293\u0022\u003EThe question of moving common law rights into statute was bound to challenge any Government. The foreshore and seabed legislation has had a tumultuous journey from beginning to end, right up until this point. The level of opposition from M\u0101ori is a concern, and should be an ongoing concern for every member in this House. When we have legislation that protects existing private property interests, compensates local authorities for the removal of their interests, and introduces a protection mechanism for M\u0101ori customary rights that they do not agree with, one can bet these matters will have to be revisited. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000659\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220e7e8da2-a6a1-41bb-aeb0-a49be255a293\u0022\u003EAll that is required to pass this legislation is the consent of M\u0101ori, and that has not occurred when it mattered most. Notwithstanding that, it is no good just to recognise the problem. We have to work in Parliament and in Government to be able to effect some change. I have worked hard through the parliamentary process to try to effect as much change as possible. I will highlight some of the causes that I believe may be opportunities for M\u0101ori in the Government Supplementary Order Paper. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000660\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220e7e8da2-a6a1-41bb-aeb0-a49be255a293\u0022\u003EFirstly, I refer to new clause 2A, the object clause in the Foreshore and Seabed Bill. It provides for the protection of all citizens\u2019 rights, having first provided for and protected M\u0101ori connection to the take tai moana. It is an implicit statement of a fiduciary responsibility on the Crown. Clause 11 makes it absolutely clear that the full legal and beneficial ownership of the foreshore and seabed is confirmed in the Crown, and does not affect the customary rights provided for in Parts 3 and 4 of the Foreshore and Seabed Bill. That again reinforces that there is an inherent fiduciary obligation. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000661\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220e7e8da2-a6a1-41bb-aeb0-a49be255a293\u0022\u003ENew clause 28 in that bill recognises customary rights, which in effect are customary title. It is the clause that may have to be revisited at some point because the test to confer a territorial customary right is based on the contiguous land test, which in itself is a very high threshold. Even Dr Paul McHugh indicated that while contiguous ownership is likely to be necessary, it may not be in itself sufficient. I think that consideration should also be given to tikanga, in fixing the scope of evidence back to 1840 in order to award a territorial customary right. I hope such matters can be taken care of by the High Court, and I believe that, at some point, this matter will need to be revisited. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000662\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220e7e8da2-a6a1-41bb-aeb0-a49be255a293\u0022\u003EThe inclusion of a redress measure is also a positive gain, and many members before me have talked about the provision of a foreshore and seabed reserve. It is largely based on the Okahu Bay model, and more accurately transfers decision making back to local peoples, and that is where it should be. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000663\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220e7e8da2-a6a1-41bb-aeb0-a49be255a293\u0022\u003EThe final clause is the protection mechanism that ensures that all treaty settlements past, present, and future, will not be affected by this legislation. This gives an absolute undertaking to those outstanding claimants that their ability to reach a negotiated outcome, whatever it may be, is protected. There are many outstanding claims throughout the whole of the Tainui electorate. Notably so are the outstanding claims for Hauraki, Waikato, and Maniapoto along their respective coastlines. But there are many more claims in other iwi, so this clause protects all their interests. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000664\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220e7e8da2-a6a1-41bb-aeb0-a49be255a293\u0022\u003EIt is my sincere hope that the territorial customary rights, or customary title as I would call it, can be awarded. Only time will tell. I hope this Parliament does not wait too long to address two fundamental issues to enable access to justice via the mechanisms proposed in this legislation. First is the matter of legal aid. I believe we should support groups, applicants, to take cases to the High Court, and, second, to get a reconsideration of the contiguous land test to establish a territorial customary right, which I commented on earlier. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000665\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220e7e8da2-a6a1-41bb-aeb0-a49be255a293\u0022\u003EI expect that many New Zealanders are listening to this debate. Many will be M\u0101ori, all will be New Zealanders, and many will be disappointed with the lack of progress. This is the world we live in. We can be effective only if we continue to find ways forward that bring peoples together and move them forward together, respecting one another\u2019s difference and diversity and where their starting points are. More needs to be done in this area and it takes the commitment of the whole of this Parliament. Violence simply will not do, neither will a civil war. We already know through world events, that this is not a solution. It is unacceptable, and none of us should tolerate it anywhere on any issue in New Zealand. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000666\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220e7e8da2-a6a1-41bb-aeb0-a49be255a293\u0022\u003EI know that the legislation is not supported by the confederation of iwi in Tainu. Waikato, Maniapoto, Hauraki, and Raukawa do not agree with many of the mechanisms contained in it. They have not really had the chance to hear it. I suspect their path will be one of a negotiated treaty settlement outcome. The door is open for them and I will continue to work hard on behalf of the Tainui electorate to assist and support them. I regret that a better process did not secure a more comprehensive mandate of wh\u0101nau, hap\u016B, and iwi, whose rights this legislation fundamentally affects. It is for this reason that I will not be standing on the Labour Party list, and the electorate will have the final word on this at the next election on my ability to represent them in the Tainui electorate. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000667\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220e7e8da2-a6a1-41bb-aeb0-a49be255a293\u0022\u003EThis bill does not need my support to pass. My decision to support the Government is pure pragmatism, a political judgment, and it seems to me that by taking this step, the door is open for the electorate of Tainui for all constituents, for all iwi, wh\u0101nau, and hap\u016B to work with a Government that is committed to trying to get things right, and we all have to start somewhere.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000668\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220e7e8da2-a6a1-41bb-aeb0-a49be255a293\u0022\u003EN\u014D reira, ko ng\u0101 k\u014Drero whakamutunga mai i t\u014Dku t\u016Bpuna a Mahuta i te w\u0101 i konei ia, \u201CI haere M\u0101ori atu, i hoki M\u0101ori mai.\u201D An\u0101, i te mutunga, ka hoki katoa t\u0101tou ki te k\u0101inga. Ka mutu. Kia ora.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000669\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220e7e8da2-a6a1-41bb-aeb0-a49be255a293\u0022\u003E[So my ancestor\u2019s final words when he was here were: \u201CI went as a M\u0101ori, I came back as a M\u0101ori.\u201D In the end, we will eventually all return home. I end here. Thank you.]\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022 data-id=\u00221561889dea594aa2b45dbb809859c8c8\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000670\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00221561889dea594aa2b45dbb809859c8c8\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: The last call will be split into two 5-minute speeches.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022c5b3ede3-ae58-4862-b45d-b4c8f3280960\u0022 data-id=\u002253a5557d02dc41cebc43aad6f9dec272\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000671\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c5b3ede3-ae58-4862-b45d-b4c8f3280960\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002253a5557d02dc41cebc43aad6f9dec272\u0022\u003EMAHARA OKEROA (Labour\u2014Te Tai Tonga):\u003C/span\u003E Tuatahi kei te k\u014Dpikopiko ai te m\u0101hunga o t\u0113nei n\u0101 te tamaiti o Parihaka ki te tihi o Maunga Taupiri e raukawakawa ana, e piua ai e ng\u0101 hau e wh\u0101.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000672\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c5b3ede3-ae58-4862-b45d-b4c8f3280960\u0022\u003E[Firstly the mind of this child of Parihaka meanders to the peak of Taupiri Mountain, shrouded there by the mantle of grief and the buffeting of the four winds.]\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000673\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c5b3ede3-ae58-4862-b45d-b4c8f3280960\u0022\u003EI stand in the House today to show my support for the third reading of the foreshore and seabed legislation. It is about protecting the rights of my tamariki and my mokopuna, and of everybody else\u2019s mokopuna, because that is the litmus test. It is inevitable that one day they will ask me to tell a story\u2014a story about the foreshore and seabed, and about the challenges that I, my colleagues, and others overcame. They will ask me why people made such a fuss over legislation that cemented M\u0101ori rights in law, and why parties tried to stop the Government from preserving the rights they now enjoy.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000674\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c5b3ede3-ae58-4862-b45d-b4c8f3280960\u0022\u003EMore important, they will say: \u201CE koro, why did you support the foreshore and seabed legislation?\u201D. I will say to them: \u201CMoko, we fought for you. We fought for your rights. We wanted you, too, to enjoy the freedoms we enjoyed when we were growing up. We wanted you to be able to do the things we have always done on the beaches of Aotearoa nui atu without a worry in the world.\u201D I will tell them we supported that legislation so many years ago so that the tikanga of our people would be recognised, acknowledged, and respected.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000675\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c5b3ede3-ae58-4862-b45d-b4c8f3280960\u0022\u003EThey will then ask me: \u201CWhy did other parties try to stop you from protecting our rights to the foreshore and seabed?\u201D. I will tell them: \u201CMy colleagues and I believed in uniting Aotearoa New Zealand. We believed that the foreshore and seabed legislation would enable New Zealanders, M\u0101ori and non-M\u0101ori, to feel a sense of certainty about the use of the foreshore and seabed.\u201D I will tell them that Don Brash and the National Party just did not\u2014could not\u2014understand the significant relationship that we as M\u0101ori, and others, have with the foreshore and seabed. They did not want our rights cemented in legislation; they wanted M\u0101ori rights to disappear altogether. They ignored M\u0101ori rights.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000676\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c5b3ede3-ae58-4862-b45d-b4c8f3280960\u0022\u003EMy mokopuna will then ask me: \u201CE p\u0101, who was Don Brash?\u201D. \u201CWell, moko,\u201D I will say, \u201Che was a man who had one hit, one wonder speech, but you are not to worry too much about the history of Don Brash, because he didn\u2019t do anything special in the short time he spent as leader of the Opposition.\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000677\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c5b3ede3-ae58-4862-b45d-b4c8f3280960\u0022\u003EMy moko will then say to me: \u201CKoro, the kids at our kura asked us who the M\u0101ori caucus was.\u201D I will tell them that the members of the M\u0101ori caucus in the Labour Party were people who fronted up for the rights of M\u0101ori, and also for the rights of non-M\u0101ori\u2014rights that they now enjoy. Those members did not walk away; they did not shirk the huge challenges, both political and personal. The message in that is that if you are to be a politician, stay in the tent and fight the good fight.\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000678\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c5b3ede3-ae58-4862-b45d-b4c8f3280960\u0022\u003EMy moko will also ask me: \u201CWhat was the foreshore and seabed legislation all about?\u201D I will tell them that it was legislation that did more for M\u0101ori than any other legislation could ever do. I will tell them it was about finding a solution that would strengthen the whole nation and take us forward as a country, about giving certainty, security, fairness, and balance, about protecting the customary rights and interests of M\u0101ori in the foreshore and seabed, and about making bloody sure that everyone would still be able to have access to the foreshore and seabed.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000679\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c5b3ede3-ae58-4862-b45d-b4c8f3280960\u0022\u003E Finally, my moko might ask me: \u201CDid you know the Rt Rev. Winston Peters?\u201D, and I would be taken away with a gasp. Some people may see him as that, but I would have to correct my moko and say he was not the right reverend but the right honourable. They might say: \u201CCan you tell us about him?\u201D, and I would say: \u201CI can tell you, moko, that he and his party supported this legislation into law. To say otherwise, moko, would mean another storytelling session about the life of Winitana Peters.\u201D \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00224029b198-a7b2-4eea-867c-79ef46cafeb9\u0022 data-id=\u00222f9a116dfbb245788bf0eec468d930d0\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000680\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224029b198-a7b2-4eea-867c-79ef46cafeb9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00222f9a116dfbb245788bf0eec468d930d0\u0022\u003EHon DOVER SAMUELS (Minister of State):\u003C/span\u003E Kia ora t\u0101tou. There is a proverb in M\u0101oridom that says: \u201CHinga atu te tangata, wh\u0101nau mai te tangata, kei te haruru tonu ng\u0101 ngaru, kei te piki tonu te tai, kei te heke tonu te tai\u2014it does not matter what happens to man. They are born and they die. But you will hear the waves and the tides go back and forward forever.\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000681\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224029b198-a7b2-4eea-867c-79ef46cafeb9\u0022\u003EI will acknowledge some of the comments that have been made by my colleague Mahara Okeroa. A little while ago there was a h\u012Bkoi. It was a time that we had to make a decision. Our people were carried down here on a wave of emotion. A lot of that emotion was innocent, a lot of it was misinformed, and a lot of the people did not know the facts. Some people opted out during that emotional tide and jumped the waka.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000682\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224029b198-a7b2-4eea-867c-79ef46cafeb9\u0022\u003EMy colleagues and I thought about it very deeply because we also were caught up in that emotion and that tide. We sat down and talked together, and had a karakia together, and we made our decision together. To fly the white flag and to surrender was not an option for us. We knew that we had to stay in, fight the good fight, and represent our people. We were not going to surrender. That was not the nature of our t\u016Bpuna who fought in the M\u0101ori Battalion, when they were faced with unbelievable odds. We believed that if we stayed with the Government\u2014if we stayed aboard the waka\u2014we could better the future for our people. For those who decided to jump the waka, kei te pai, that is their business, but for us as a M\u0101ori caucus we were determined to stay, because we understood the political reality of the options.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000683\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224029b198-a7b2-4eea-867c-79ef46cafeb9\u0022\u003EWe heard an option presented by the Leader of the Opposition this afternoon. He said he could have fixed this issue very simply with some sort of bipartisan approach to amendment of Te Ture Whenua Maori Act\u2014that that would have been a simple way to go. I want to reiterate to some of the bush lawyers, members of the Green Party and the M\u0101ori Party, that that was a real option\u2014to have a bipartisan approach to amend Te Ture Whenua Maori Act so that it was clear that the intention of Parliament at that time was that the M\u0101ori Land Court did not have jurisdiction at all to hear the case involving seabed and foreshore.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000684\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224029b198-a7b2-4eea-867c-79ef46cafeb9\u0022\u003EI believe that there was no intention of Parliament at the time that the M\u0101ori Land Court have jurisdiction under the sea and on the seabed. But if that had happened, it would have reconfirmed absolute Crown ownership. That is what would have happened\u2014Gerry Brownlee agrees with that; I can see him nodding his head\u2014because that was deemed to be the situation before the Court of Appeal decision. Three previous pieces of legislation indicated that. We saw that, and we looked at it very carefully, and we said to ourselves that we would not waka-jump, because we would not betray and desert our people in times of need. The rest is history.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000685\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224029b198-a7b2-4eea-867c-79ef46cafeb9\u0022\u003EWe have battled into the late hours. I pay tribute to the Deputy Prime Minister for the way that he handled the negotiations. He knew that we had a different position. I pay tribute to him and to the chair of the select committee, Russell Fairbrother. We took a lot of flack in the select committee. We were called niggers and traitors. One of the female employees working for the select committee, who is employed by the Clerk of the House, was even assaulted by a member of the M\u0101ori Party and supporters of the M\u0101ori Party. It was an insult to the process. And those people talk about karakia, and tangihanga, and the love of the land!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000686\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224029b198-a7b2-4eea-867c-79ef46cafeb9\u0022\u003EI am proud to be part of this Labour M\u0101ori caucus and this Government. I have always believed that it will do the right thing by our people. Tonight I am the final speaker, and I want to thank the Government, the Labour M\u0101ori caucus, Dail Jones, and the New Zealand First Party. N\u014D reira, kei te mihi atu ki a koutou katoa. T\u0113n\u0101 koutou, t\u0113n\u0101 koutou, kia ora mai an\u014D t\u0101tou katoa. Kia ora t\u0101tou.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000687\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224029b198-a7b2-4eea-867c-79ef46cafeb9\u0022\u003E[And so I acknowledge you all. Greetings to you and to us all. Thank you.]\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022165c6a765507421f8d436583808eac1e\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the Foreshore and Seabed Bill be now read a third time.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 66\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 53\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 27; Green Party 8; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; M\u0101ori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EBill read a third time.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022544adb111f644a4bb28d6c9faa65d2cf\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the Resource Management (Foreshore and Seabed) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 66\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 53\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 27; Green Party 8; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; M\u0101ori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EBill read a third time.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000688\u0022\u003EThe House adjourned at 4.50 p.m. (Thursday)\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411161a18ec5e2c4a4bdd942ddf448202dc5e000689\u0022\u003E\u003Cbr\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n  \u003C/body\u003E\n\u003C/html\u003E"