"\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=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000001\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u002267295dd820704a76bba92a0f02bdc38e\u0022\u003ETuesday, 15 March 2011\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000003\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022ba7b2f2c92f0439d85315b55d77ba99b\u0022\u003ETuesday, 15 March 2011\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000002\u0022\u003EMr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000004\u0022\u003EPrayers\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000005\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022a7e3e012be844b60a47c7cb6f692b118\u0022\u003EMotions\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000006\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022d4e9c445d7fd426ab175e3d75e8f6c6a\u0022\u003EEarthquake and Tsunami\u2014Japan\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022 data-id=\u0022d3666112ea8f432bbf38fd8ae318dc76\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000007\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d3666112ea8f432bbf38fd8ae318dc76\u0022\u003ERt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister):\u003C/span\u003E I seek leave to move a motion without notice on the devastating earthquake and tsunami in Japan.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000008\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac169d29-4849-42c2-a4a7-f344fd416503\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226e502cbb279c4466949f6f55574e3e7e\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There is none.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000009\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022365a3014126b46cd8b95ff5e130ccd75\u0022\u003ERt Hon JOHN KEY\u003C/span\u003E: I move, That this House express its condolences to the people of Japan for the losses they have suffered as a result of the recent earthquake and tsunami. A magnitude 9 earthquake struck northern Japan on Friday, 11 March at 6.46 p.m. New Zealand time. The earthquake caused a huge tsunami, which has devastated parts of Japan\u2019s north-eastern coast. It was also felt, to a lesser extent, around the Pacific. Thousands of people in Japan\u2019s north-east are dead or missing. The extent of the number of casualties is only just becoming clear. There are no reports, so far, of New Zealand casualties, but our authorities are continuing to work hard to establish whether any New Zealanders have been caught up in this disaster. Aftershocks of a magnitude greater than 5 are continuing, and there are concerns related to damage at the Fukushima nuclear plant. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000010\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003EAs the extent of this terrible tragedy unfolds, I wish to express to Japan the deepest sympathy and condolences of the New Zealand Government. Our hearts go out to all those affected, especially those who have lost loved ones or are waiting to hear news of loved ones. I particularly acknowledge all New Zealanders who are in Japan. We are thinking of them. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000011\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003ENew Zealanders have watched in horror and disbelief the scenes of destruction in Japan following the earthquake and tsunami. We have recently experienced our own deadly earthquake, so it was with very raw emotion that we heard of the devastation and loss in Japan. Unfortunately, we know all too well the pain, stress, and heartbreak that can be caused by a natural disaster such as this. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000012\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003ELast night I spoke to the Prime Minister of Japan. I have met Prime Minister Kan on a number of occasions, most recently at the APEC summit in Yokohama last November. It was good to speak to him on the phone and personally convey my sympathies. I asked Prime Minister Kan to pass on to the people of Japan the thoughts and condolences of New Zealanders. He explained to me the enormous devastation that Japan is facing, and he said that the Japanese Government and people are united in dealing with the situation. He passed on Japan\u2019s sincere appreciation for New Zealand\u2019s support, including the swift dispatch of a New Zealand urban search and rescue team, which is in Japan now. Prime Minister Kan also renewed his condolences for the people of Christchurch, following the February earthquake. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000013\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003ENew Zealand and Japan are great friends. Japan is our fourth-largest trading partner. Many New Zealanders have lived in or visited Japan, and many Japanese people have lived in or visited New Zealand. We value the strong relationship between our two countries, and I know the recent tragedies here and in Japan will bring our people even closer. When Christchurch was devastated by an earthquake just 3 weeks ago, Japan was one of many countries that offered immediate assistance. We were delighted to accept Japan\u2019s offer of urban search and rescue personnel to assist in our rescue and recovery operation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000014\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003E New Zealand will help in any way we can as Japan seeks to overcome this tragedy. Japan stood by us in our time of need, and we will stand by Japan in its time of need. Our urban search and rescue team is now deployed in the field in Japan, alongside the Australian team. We are grateful to Japan and the United States for supporting this deployment. In addition to this team, we will be happy to provide whatever assistance we can in the days and weeks ahead. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000015\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003EOur heartfelt thoughts are with the people of Japan as they come to terms with this disaster, and mourn the loss of so many lives.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022c699e7c6-53b9-470c-a14a-378cb6fc8a04\u0022 data-id=\u002206dd571283884e098a7c1f27a5ecf2cc\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000016\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c699e7c6-53b9-470c-a14a-378cb6fc8a04\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002206dd571283884e098a7c1f27a5ecf2cc\u0022\u003EHon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition):\u003C/span\u003E Since Friday night all of New Zealand has watched in horror and with dismay the consequences of the huge earthquake in Japan, of the tsunami that followed it, and now of the three explosions in nuclear reactors and the threat of meltdown of those reactors. It is a disaster on a massive scale: some 20,000 people are now thought to have died. Whole communities and villages have been wiped out. People are homeless, and millions of people are without basics such as heating, water, and power supply at a time when temperatures are freezing. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000017\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c699e7c6-53b9-470c-a14a-378cb6fc8a04\u0022\u003EWe know that Japan\u2019s earthquake standards were higher than those of any other country in the world. Japan had the ability to withstand the earthquake, but there was no way that it could protect its citizens against a 10-metre wall of water in the form of a tsunami, which was the consequence of the quake. We know that nuclear radiation has been released into the atmosphere. The American naval ships have moved 160 kilometres offshore because they are detecting radiation there, and half a million people have been evacuated. No nation understands better than Japan the lethal consequences of nuclear radiation. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000018\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c699e7c6-53b9-470c-a14a-378cb6fc8a04\u0022\u003EWe join together in the House today to express our concern and our condolences to the people of Japan and to offer them whatever help we can. Just 3 weeks ago we suffered the tragedy of the Christchurch earthquake. Among the people affected were Japanese students. Japan immediately rallied to our support and dispatched an urban search and rescue team. I am pleased that we have been able to reciprocate with our own team of 52 urban search and rescue workers, and I know that our country would be pleased to offer any other assistance that might be needed by Japan in its time of need. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000019\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c699e7c6-53b9-470c-a14a-378cb6fc8a04\u0022\u003ETo the people and the Government of Japan, New Zealand offers our sympathy and our support, and we offer our hopes and prayers for the rescue and recovery operation and for Japan\u2019s efforts to prevent further release of nuclear radiation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022 data-id=\u0022a3b6fbbcf800434a98d7f141782ab44a\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000020\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a3b6fbbcf800434a98d7f141782ab44a\u0022\u003EMETIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader\u2014Green):\u003C/span\u003E I will first acknowledge how terrible it is to have to stand for the third time in 6 months to acknowledge again the loss, the fear, and the destruction caused by an earthquake\u2014the third time in 6 months. That destruction has affected not only our people; globally, across the world, we are seeing people suffer in the same way. The Green Party, too, sends all our aroha to the Japanese people for the devastation that they have suffered at the hands of the earthquake and the terrible tsunami that followed it. We want to send our support to the workers from the nuclear power plant and the families located nearby in northern Japan, who are undergoing their own form of terror there, as well. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000021\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003EAfter the terrible events in Christchurch in February, the Japanese people were very quick to respond to our needs and sent a team of some 66 rescue personnel to help us when we needed it in Christchurch. The Green Party is very supportive of Government moves to respond in kind to their need now. After the Christchurch earthquake we saw a great outpouring of goodwill from the international community as a whole, and it is fitting that we should do our best to support the Japanese people and Japanese Government in their hour of need, as well. It is good that in times like these, when communities and nations are faced with devastation on such a huge scale, we see people from around the world working together to help each other out.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000022\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003EThe Green Party\u2019s thoughts and our prayers are with the Japanese community here in Aotearoa, for the fears that they have and the losses that have been suffered in their own country, and with all of the wh\u0101nau living here who have friends and wh\u0101nau in Japan, and who are so very concerned about what is happening to those people. Kia ora. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bc1e9f65-e08b-4939-867c-22ef093e2a4e\u0022 data-id=\u002250e2f01b0bf74a078a19445f5e71cfea\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000023\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bc1e9f65-e08b-4939-867c-22ef093e2a4e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002250e2f01b0bf74a078a19445f5e71cfea\u0022\u003EHon RODNEY HIDE (Leader\u2014ACT):\u003C/span\u003E I rise on behalf of the ACT Party to support the Prime Minister\u2019s motion. Here in New Zealand we have suffered a terrific tragedy and have had to deal with its aftermath, so as a people we empathise enormously with the people of Japan: the families who have lost loved ones and the families whose children and family members are missing\u2014who knows where\u2014presumably never to be found. We also know that the Japanese people are now struggling with what it all will mean for them in the months and years ahead. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000024\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bc1e9f65-e08b-4939-867c-22ef093e2a4e\u0022\u003EWe are also very conscious as a nation that Japan was one of the first countries to send aid to this little country down at the bottom of the Pacific for our fair city of Christchurch. More particularly, we are conscious that the Japanese urban search and rescue teams quickly won our hearts through the care, professionalism, and diligence with which they went about their work, risking their own lives to save Kiwi lives. We now realise that there is so little between us, in our humanity. With this tragedy we feel very close to the people of Japan. I know from Japanese efforts here in New Zealand, in Christchurch, what high regard they hold us in, and I know that the thoughts and the prayers of the New Zealand people, in this troubled time, will bring some comfort to them. Thank you. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022c2dfe169-d946-4f87-8d43-0bcdb7d8bebc\u0022 data-id=\u00229958c314812d4764b3e96c00517b9cb5\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000025\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c2dfe169-d946-4f87-8d43-0bcdb7d8bebc\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00229958c314812d4764b3e96c00517b9cb5\u0022\u003EHon TARIANA TURIA (Co-Leader\u2014M\u0101ori Party):\u003C/span\u003E T\u0113n\u0101 t\u0101tou katoa. The poet Henry Longfellow once said: \u201CThere is no grief like the grief that does not speak.\u201D The M\u0101ori Party stands today to support the Prime Minister\u2019s motion, and to join in the grief that has overshadowed the world in the light of the disasters that have taken place in Japan over the last 5 days. As others have said before me, the horrific spectacle of the wall of water swallowing whole towns in its path left us all without words. How can we provide an explanation or comfort at a time of such horror?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000026\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c2dfe169-d946-4f87-8d43-0bcdb7d8bebc\u0022\u003EAs a Parliament we stand united today, offering our most sincere condolences to the people of Japan, to the Japanese citizens who live here in Aotearoa, and to those New Zealanders far from home who have made a life for themselves in Japan. We express our deepest sympathies to the families who have lost loved ones, and to the people who have lost so much\u2014their homes, their businesses, and their sense of security.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000027\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c2dfe169-d946-4f87-8d43-0bcdb7d8bebc\u0022\u003EI was extremely moved by the sight of those brave search and rescue teams from Japan who flew to our land standing side by side with us in Christchurch in the rescue and recovery mission after our recent earthquake. We are humbled by their generosity and we express our utmost appreciation and aroha to them as they now return to their homeland, some of them knowing the extent of their own personal loss, yet committing to take up the vital work of search and rescue. In the true expression of manaakitanga, New Zealand has quickly responded to the disaster in Japan by sending a team of 52 New Zealand urban search and rescue personnel, some having had only a matter of hours\u2019 rest after 3 weeks of searching through the rubble in Christchurch.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000028\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c2dfe169-d946-4f87-8d43-0bcdb7d8bebc\u0022\u003EThis event, hot on the heels of our own disaster in \u014Ctautahi, is a powerful reminder of the devastation that can be wreaked by natural disasters. As with any such crisis, it has provoked many searching questions about the impacts of the way in which humanity interferes with nature.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000029\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c2dfe169-d946-4f87-8d43-0bcdb7d8bebc\u0022\u003EI looked at the incredible footage of Saito, the village that was virtually obliterated from the map by the tsunami that swept up close to 300 people and 70 or so houses in its wake. The barren landscape now littered with debris provides a gruesome image of the phenomenal destruction that this earthquake has caused.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000030\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c2dfe169-d946-4f87-8d43-0bcdb7d8bebc\u0022\u003EOf course, the terrifying aftermath of nuclear disaster is another tragic factor in this event. It is far too early to consider what impact, if any, the nuclear blasts will have had, and it would be inappropriate to do that without the full information before us. But there is one salutary lesson to be taken from these last few days, and that is to highlight the significance and integrity of the decision by the Lange Government for a nuclear-free Aotearoa.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000031\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c2dfe169-d946-4f87-8d43-0bcdb7d8bebc\u0022\u003EThe disasters we have endured in Christchurch and Japan have immediately been part of our every waking thought through the power of modern media. They have been in our hearts, our minds, and our prayers. The M\u0101ori Party expresses our deepest sympathies, and at this time we join together with our global neighbours to provide the support we all need to rebuild and restore lives. Kia t\u016B tahi, kia kaha, kia manawa nui.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000032\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c2dfe169-d946-4f87-8d43-0bcdb7d8bebc\u0022\u003E[Stand together, be strong, be stout of heart.] \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022f555a23a-d230-4f03-80ba-a44e6ec8bd29\u0022 data-id=\u00221b685cb4e84c45ab971412064471a4df\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000033\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f555a23a-d230-4f03-80ba-a44e6ec8bd29\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00221b685cb4e84c45ab971412064471a4df\u0022\u003EHon PETER DUNNE (Leader\u2014United Future):\u003C/span\u003E When we gathered in this Chamber 3 weeks ago in the immediate aftermath of the Christchurch earthquake, we were all filled with a sense of shock and disbelief at the destruction that had been wrought in that city and with the incomprehensibility of what had taken place. Over the last 3 weeks, as we have started to come to grips with that reality and the process of recovery has got under way, we have begun to understand a little more about nature\u2019s forces and the circumstances that give rise to these events. But nothing could have prepared us to imagine that last Friday evening an earthquake 8,000 times more powerful than Christchurch\u2019s would inflict such horrendous damage, and that its accompanying tsunami would obliterate so much of north-eastern Japan. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000034\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f555a23a-d230-4f03-80ba-a44e6ec8bd29\u0022\u003EAlthough we properly mourn for the people who died in Christchurch and those who have suffered loss, we find it hard to comprehend the scale of the figures being talked about in the Japanese case\u2014tens of thousands of people potentially killed, landscapes devastated, and thriving cities and towns turned into wastelands very reminiscent in their appearance of Hiroshima and Nagasaki after 1945. Then there are the things that really bring it home to us\u2014the fact that the urban search and rescue teams who struggled so valiantly in Christchurch are now, without respite, doing precisely the same task in Japan. I remember reading many years ago a book by a country general practitioner in Central Otago that had the evocate title Growl You May But Go You Must. It is about people being called out at all hours of the day and night to respond to patients. I thought of that title in the context of these urban search and rescue personnel, who have had no chance to recover from their exigencies in Christchurch but who are now facing a much graver situation in Japan. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000035\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f555a23a-d230-4f03-80ba-a44e6ec8bd29\u0022\u003EI join with others in expressing sympathy to the Government and the people of Japan in their sad loss, expressing gratitude to the Government of Japan for its help to New Zealand in our hour or need, and expressing the hope that our personnel who are now helping in Japan can effect some small area of progress in what will be a massive battle to restore normality and the usual way of life to the people of Japan. Our thoughts are very much with them at this tragic time.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000036\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f555a23a-d230-4f03-80ba-a44e6ec8bd29\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000037\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022f54fc19e65f54b92bf04efe4e3587108\u0022\u003EMinisterial Statements\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000038\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u00221d455cc6872445dab59236b2f2b021e8\u0022\u003EEarthquake, Christchurch\u2014Extension of State of National Emergency\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00226984d661-9f65-4ed6-b29c-3285b598582d\u0022 data-id=\u0022e996639d14bf4e40a2c28675f4fab1b4\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000039\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226984d661-9f65-4ed6-b29c-3285b598582d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022e996639d14bf4e40a2c28675f4fab1b4\u0022\u003EHon JOHN CARTER (Minister of Civil Defence):\u003C/span\u003E I wish to make a ministerial statement, under Standing Order 347, in relation to the fourth extension of the state of national emergency over Christchurch City. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000040\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226984d661-9f65-4ed6-b29c-3285b598582d\u0022\u003EOn Sunday, 13 March I further extended the duration of the state of national emergency over Christchurch City under section 71 of the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act 2002. This was the fourth extension of the state of national emergency since it was first declared on 23 February. I consider the extension necessary to enable the Director of Civil Defence Emergency Management to continue exercising his powers and functions under the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000041\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022ea8553c63f3046439369246f8c24924a\u0022\u003EQuestions for Oral Answer\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000042\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022c3572586ef014971b4e36a05cce2f457\u0022\u003EQuestions to Ministers\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000043\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022e25cc504017d4331b0325197942939bf\u0022\u003EEarthquakes, Canterbury\u2014Predicted Number of Earthquake Commission Claims\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022dc6c0f88-e781-476d-bca1-d1bf9b69302b\u0022 data-id=\u0022dfdd470912b8432fa775cd8a1fa2dad2\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000044\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022dc6c0f88-e781-476d-bca1-d1bf9b69302b\u0022\u003E1. \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022dfdd470912b8432fa775cd8a1fa2dad2\u0022\u003EAMY ADAMS (National\u2014Selwyn)\u003C/span\u003E to the Minister of Finance: How many claims does the Earthquake Commission expect to receive as a result of the earthquakes in Canterbury since 4 September 2010?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bb158206-360b-4757-8d72-f7d0994e1fb3\u0022 data-id=\u0022b9d0f00fcfbb4e6486f8639089372f4e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000045\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bb158206-360b-4757-8d72-f7d0994e1fb3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b9d0f00fcfbb4e6486f8639089372f4e\u0022\u003EHon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance):\u003C/span\u003E So far the Earthquake Commission has received 240,000 claims since the earthquake on 4 September: 157,000 claims for the September earthquake itself, 58,000 claims for the 22 February earthquake, and the remainder for earthquakes that occurred between those two major events. Overall, the Earthquake Commission expects to handle more than 300,000 claims. That is a very significant insurable disaster by world standards. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000046\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022dc6c0f88-e781-476d-bca1-d1bf9b69302b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002244d8d5e353484ff2aee75a13b6968809\u0022\u003EAmy Adams\u003C/span\u003E: How does the likely number of claims for the Canterbury earthquakes compare with those for other disasters in New Zealand and overseas?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000047\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bb158206-360b-4757-8d72-f7d0994e1fb3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ebaf1fe40c7240e2b2117a0b2e47fdad\u0022\u003EHon BILL ENGLISH\u003C/span\u003E: The 300,000 claims that are expected from the Canterbury earthquakes far exceed any number that the Earthquake Commission has dealt with before. Previously, the largest number of claims for a single earthquake was the 6,227 claims for the Gisborne earthquake in 2007. We need to bear in mind that the Earthquake Commission was, as recently as September last year, an organisation of about 25 people. It has now expanded to over 1,200, and will probably employ more. By international standards the number of claims is large. For instance, after Hurricane Katrina in the US, one large insurer\u2014State Farm Insurance\u2014handled 400,000 claims. It is worth noting that that company had 68,000 employees to handle that large spike in claims whereas the Earthquake Commission has about 1,200. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000048\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022dc6c0f88-e781-476d-bca1-d1bf9b69302b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022db3f24f51eed47ee91629b1d4f466d8c\u0022\u003EAmy Adams\u003C/span\u003E: What steps has the Earthquake Commission taken to assess damaged properties in a timely manner after the 22 February earthquake?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000049\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bb158206-360b-4757-8d72-f7d0994e1fb3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ab0c8ceae29644c7b6514f3efb67a626\u0022\u003EHon BILL ENGLISH\u003C/span\u003E: The Earthquake Commission understands the need to give people information so that they can make decisions about their accommodation. The commission has already completed about a thousand emergency repairs of Christchurch homes, and has another 1,200 under way. Those are repairs to make homes livable. Last week it announced a new rapid assessment process for all Christchurch houses. About 25,000 houses have been assessed under this process, which is designed to prioritise those that need urgent repairs. The assessment will rank homes into categories of damage and give homeowners a time frame for when they will receive their full Earthquake Commission assessment. The priority is urgent repairs to make houses weathertight and secure. The rapid assessment process started last Friday in the most affected suburbs, including Bexley, Bromley, and Aranui. The Earthquake Commission expects to have completed a rapid assessment of every house in metropolitan Christchurch, including Lyttelton, within 8 weeks. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000050\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022dc6c0f88-e781-476d-bca1-d1bf9b69302b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a0511fae2bbc42138496e38a4ec581a6\u0022\u003EAmy Adams\u003C/span\u003E: How has the Earthquake Commission performed in paying contractors repairing earthquake damage in the Christchurch area?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000051\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bb158206-360b-4757-8d72-f7d0994e1fb3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c037ba5d6e60403cb7f7b4f7f84ae9a5\u0022\u003EHon BILL ENGLISH\u003C/span\u003E: I followed up on some publicity that the Earthquake Commission was being slow in paying its contractors. Of course, the Government would want the commission to pay them as quickly as possible. As of last Friday, I am advised that there are 475 unpaid invoices and none of these is more than a week old. On 22 February, the date of the second large earthquake, there were 205 invoices in the Earthquake Commission\u2019s system, and the oldest invoice was dated 16 February. We will keep monitoring the situation, but I think there has been some confusion because there are contractors operating in Christchurch who are not, in fact, contractors for the Earthquake Commission. I myself have come across examples where excessive charges have been made or bills have not been paid, but they are actually private arrangements and not to do with the Earthquake Commission.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000052\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022af23fd9f08d54a59987e5a5b49905b5d\u0022\u003EEarthquake, Christchurch\u2014Government\u2019s Plans for Rebuilding City\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022c699e7c6-53b9-470c-a14a-378cb6fc8a04\u0022 data-id=\u00223578f84344964d228a2708e8f179e04f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000053\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c699e7c6-53b9-470c-a14a-378cb6fc8a04\u0022\u003E2. \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00223578f84344964d228a2708e8f179e04f\u0022\u003EHon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition)\u003C/span\u003E to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement that \u201Crebuilding Christchurch is a key priority for the Government this year\u201D; if so, what rebuilding plans are currently in place?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022 data-id=\u0022b1bc35ccbac849619335f47d9209245a\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000054\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b1bc35ccbac849619335f47d9209245a\u0022\u003ERt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister):\u003C/span\u003E Yes, I do. However, due to aftershocks and the need for inspections and demolitions, rebuilding may not begin in the central business district for at least 6 months. It is very important that the reasons for the severity of damage to certain buildings and consequent loss of life are understood as soon as possible. For this reason, Cabinet will request that the royal commission provide an interim report back in approximately 6 months. This report will include any recommendations that may be relevant to the construction of new buildings in Christchurch\u2019s central business district. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000055\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c699e7c6-53b9-470c-a14a-378cb6fc8a04\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002282fc7945f83848c7b6e88e25528f63d7\u0022\u003EHon Phil Goff\u003C/span\u003E: What steps is the Government taking to begin an emergency housing programme for the 10,000 families unable to return to their homes because they are uninhabitable?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000056\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228bb933986a4340c2876c01cc01b04e13\u0022\u003ERt Hon JOHN KEY\u003C/span\u003E: The relevant Minister and Cabinet has that issue well in hand. We will be in a position to make an announcement in the foreseeable future.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000057\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c699e7c6-53b9-470c-a14a-378cb6fc8a04\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002276abf0028ddf45f9aa6e0d26315c2935\u0022\u003EHon Phil Goff\u003C/span\u003E: What is he doing to help businesses that were operating out of the central business district, which obviously cannot operate there until it is reopened and rebuilt, so that as many of those businesses as possible can continue to operate and survive into the future?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000058\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d8ec682793dd4750bfdb40a75c1d1b09\u0022\u003ERt Hon JOHN KEY\u003C/span\u003E: The Government is working on a package for businesses. Again, we will be in a position to announce that package very soon. We have also been working with the Christchurch group that is responsible for that: the old chamber of commerce, the Canterbury Business Recovery Group, I think it is called. We are putting in place facilitators that can help work alongside them and we have a number of other plans for those businesses. Again, in due course we will release those plans.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000059\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c699e7c6-53b9-470c-a14a-378cb6fc8a04\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022936603bbb4e04f1999cd89fa6a8bf8c1\u0022\u003EHon Phil Goff\u003C/span\u003E: What new skills training initiatives are being put into place, given the massive rebuilding job that lies ahead of Christchurch? Given that 9,000 people in Christchurch have been made redundant as a result of the earthquake, with unemployment expected to reach 7 percent, what skills training initiatives are being put in place to ensure that those people can help in the rebuilding of their own city?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000060\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227d8ecd4bff074f28b46a714356c47665\u0022\u003ERt Hon JOHN KEY\u003C/span\u003E: The relevant Ministers\u2014Steven Joyce, the Minister for Tertiary Education, and Paula Bennett, the Minister for Social Development and Employment, have been meeting with both their departments and the business recovery group, which is the old chamber of commerce, to discuss skills requirements. Again, they have planning in hand and will be able to make announcements in due course.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000061\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c699e7c6-53b9-470c-a14a-378cb6fc8a04\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225d4850fbce124cb1bd81fa08319fc90a\u0022\u003EHon Phil Goff\u003C/span\u003E: Given the Prime Minister\u2019s answer, what has the Canterbury building industry told his Ministers about a severe shortage of skills that will exist within 12 to 18 months in the absence of real measures to provide for those skills?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000062\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f9055f0da4cd48c6bc81c3dabb994f13\u0022\u003ERt Hon JOHN KEY\u003C/span\u003E: The member might better address his questions directly to the Minister for Tertiary Education and the Minister for Social Development and Employment, but I can say that there will clearly be gaps because of the sheer amount of rebuilding that is required. Those gaps will be filled by a number of initiatives that the Government has.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000063\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c699e7c6-53b9-470c-a14a-378cb6fc8a04\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a014d4d7fcad4743bd546a95ea655786\u0022\u003EHon Phil Goff\u003C/span\u003E: What does his Government propose to do to stop families who have lost their homes being subject to rent gouging because of a shortage of rental accommodation?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000064\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022267e6be075824dfdaf2c2f75a30ed935\u0022\u003ERt Hon JOHN KEY\u003C/span\u003E: The Government has in train some initiatives in terms of temporary housing and the like. It is also working with a number of other providers. The Department of Building and Housing has a website that is looking to match those who are offering rental properties with those who require them. Again, we will have more announcements to make on that in due course.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000065\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002279db8b64-1f9b-4416-9b81-a12963db9cbf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002268404654e300476b9c36abd82f2d25b0\u0022\u003EHon Trevor Mallard\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think that answer addressed the supply, but not whether any specific measure will go to price gouging. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000066\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac169d29-4849-42c2-a4a7-f344fd416503\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002211cc0bfd7a104016a056a9ce5acd2651\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: The member should not litigate an answer in that way. The Prime Minister was asked what measures the Government was putting in place. Obviously the member was looking for some regulation or other, but the Prime Minister\u2019s answer indicated that the Government was taking a somewhat different approach, making sure supply was better matched to demand. It was a perfectly legitimate answer.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000067\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c699e7c6-53b9-470c-a14a-378cb6fc8a04\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f79b08a8e74a46c488c90bbae8b6f61c\u0022\u003EHon Phil Goff\u003C/span\u003E: What advice has his Government or Rugby World Cup 2011 given to the International Rugby Board about Christchurch\u2019s capacity to host the cup games?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000068\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022628622e4be0f4b8280b13973b6082333\u0022\u003ERt Hon JOHN KEY\u003C/span\u003E: I am not privy to all the conversations that the relevant Minister, Murray McCully, has had. I am aware that the International Rugby Board representative here in New Zealand has been involved in a number of discussions with the Government. I myself was at a meeting with them on Sunday evening. We are working our way through those issues. Again, when we have all of the facts and we are in a position to advise the International Rugby Board what our thinking is, then I am sure it will be in a position to make a decision along with us.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000069\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bc1e9f65-e08b-4939-867c-22ef093e2a4e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220e586ca65a94452eb2fb0d1e69416859\u0022\u003EHon Rodney Hide\u003C/span\u003E: Is the Prime Minister, like me\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000070\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b1220fd867de4338b69f4b11dabce1ee\u0022\u003EHon Members\u003C/span\u003E: Ha, ha! \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000071\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bc1e9f65-e08b-4939-867c-22ef093e2a4e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227a63d711d87f4f6ca34a333877d2b158\u0022\u003EHon Rodney Hide\u003C/span\u003E: In so many ways! Is the Prime Minister, like me, pleased and proud of the way officials have worked with council staff, business leaders, and community leaders in Christchurch\u2014and, indeed, with his Ministers\u2014not just in terms of the emergency response required for Christchurch but now, looking ahead, in terms of the massive job of rebuilding Christchurch for the people of Christchurch?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000072\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002204700c92beaa439aa3eb0c138d45b81f\u0022\u003ERt Hon JOHN KEY\u003C/span\u003E: I am a lot like the member, although, arguably, with slightly more hair. Yes, I am delighted with the work that local government and the officials have been doing to work though a process to ensure that Canterbury can be rebuilt as quickly as it can.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000073\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bc1e9f65-e08b-4939-867c-22ef093e2a4e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022de8fe94d254247c3b3a59a580a5dcf71\u0022\u003EHon Rodney Hide\u003C/span\u003E: What role will the new, sped-up processes for the Earthquake Commission play in allowing Christchurch people to get on with the business of rebuilding their lives and their houses?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000074\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228c6e1ec0ecb84e139c992c4ca8f2ba06\u0022\u003ERt Hon JOHN KEY\u003C/span\u003E: I am not in a position to detail all those processes today, but I can say that they will play a significant role. It is important that good and speedy decision-making can take place. Obviously, we want to work closely and in partnership with local government in Christchurch, but everyone will appreciate that the significance of that event means that we need a different structure if we are going to be successful in rebuilding Christchurch as quickly as we can.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000075\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u002206cbaa76c7614b8db90bc20c374085da\u0022\u003ESocial Assistance\u2014Minister\u2019s Statement\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022 data-id=\u0022f0c70ef1862d4d878f3ddf96aca28caf\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000076\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003E3. \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022f0c70ef1862d4d878f3ddf96aca28caf\u0022\u003EMETIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader\u2014Green)\u003C/span\u003E to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Does she stand by her statement that State support is for \u201Cpeople to fall back on when they really need it\u201D?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002263776108-58dc-4cab-baf1-95282c61d0de\u0022 data-id=\u0022dd9e6fd11a9f489bb8353a7ffa81c87d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000077\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002263776108-58dc-4cab-baf1-95282c61d0de\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022dd9e6fd11a9f489bb8353a7ffa81c87d\u0022\u003EHon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment):\u003C/span\u003E Yes.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000078\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229b3b56b99e72458a8135afc6edab51a3\u0022\u003EMetiria Turei\u003C/span\u003E: Does the Minister agree that the earthquake in Christchurch shows how important State support is and highlights the harshness of the Welfare Working Group\u2019s recommendations?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000079\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002263776108-58dc-4cab-baf1-95282c61d0de\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022651007517cfd4f96a1770fa104c64e82\u0022\u003EHon PAULA BENNETT\u003C/span\u003E: Yes to the first bit, no to the second.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000080\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c49de29704724acf9d2ca977b3f22665\u0022\u003EMetiria Turei\u003C/span\u003E: Will the Minister reject the Welfare Working Group\u2019s recommendation for work testing and abatement rates, which mean that sole parents will be required to work for 30 hours a week for less money than they currently get in the hand?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000081\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002263776108-58dc-4cab-baf1-95282c61d0de\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022dfb3cc07cbb1480eaf573f1c939bafae\u0022\u003EHon PAULA BENNETT\u003C/span\u003E: Decisions have not yet been made about the Welfare Working Group recommendations.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000082\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220ae0c1f5f5cf4d45bce9287765e7a668\u0022\u003EMetiria Turei\u003C/span\u003E: Will the Minister reject the recommendation that benefit receipt be linked to contraception for women who are on the domestic purposes benefit?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000083\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002263776108-58dc-4cab-baf1-95282c61d0de\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022224ba5d68bbc484d9608bb12997b1d85\u0022\u003EHon PAULA BENNETT\u003C/span\u003E: That was not suggested by the Welfare Working Group and no decisions have yet been made on the recommendations.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000084\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220b3ef908fe854684ae6f1c4d876d2a0a\u0022\u003EHon Member\u003C/span\u003E: Very good, Paula Bennett.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000085\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227378181387934ffcafd5add847bd4561\u0022\u003EMetiria Turei\u003C/span\u003E: That certainly was. Will she reject the recommendation that benefits be cut off completely if people fail the work-test requirements three times\u2014even people from Canterbury?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000086\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002263776108-58dc-4cab-baf1-95282c61d0de\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c2df9bcba8fb4ceca105ea70520cd4db\u0022\u003EHon PAULA BENNETT\u003C/span\u003E: No decisions have yet been made on the recommendations of the Welfare Working Group.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000087\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022137b1a8fcc56453993e1a1bfb7f86862\u0022\u003EMetiria Turei\u003C/span\u003E: Does the Minister agree that people in other parts of the country who have suffered from factory closures or the sudden loss of a partner also need to fall back on State support, just as the people in Christchurch do; if so, why will she not rule out these harsh recommendations for everyone in this country?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000088\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002263776108-58dc-4cab-baf1-95282c61d0de\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a2269852fd4e4309b36b3ccc7e214619\u0022\u003EHon PAULA BENNETT\u003C/span\u003E: Yes to the first bit, and we have not ruled anything in or out to the second.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000089\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002225c4a8001a1d48d38104fb9ee7096991\u0022\u003EMetiria Turei\u003C/span\u003E: Given the devastation in Christchurch, the unforeseen circumstances that can happen to anyone at any time, and that 70 percent of people who receive the unemployment benefit come off it within 12 months, will she not just reject the Welfare Working Group\u2019s punishing, punitive report and all its recommendations?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000090\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002263776108-58dc-4cab-baf1-95282c61d0de\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022698a6b121b2b483185cb31495a0b092a\u0022\u003EHon PAULA BENNETT\u003C/span\u003E: No. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000091\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002209a5b71a-ca7e-4e7c-9e09-f9e63f18aa12\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002288265ccf523f4518925237801de0bcab\u0022\u003EHon Annette King\u003C/span\u003E: Has a date been set for the Government to announce its response to the Welfare Working Group\u2019s recommendation; if so, what is that date?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000092\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002263776108-58dc-4cab-baf1-95282c61d0de\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022aab2f7dfbe394ee18a1ff414c04f3687\u0022\u003EHon PAULA BENNETT\u003C/span\u003E: No. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000093\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022e84aaf3d9f044531a6e899fa650b2c83\u0022\u003EGST Increase\u2014Compensation\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002209a5b71a-ca7e-4e7c-9e09-f9e63f18aa12\u0022 data-id=\u0022a9083a41222a424c92fadcec9a2ef1f9\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000094\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002209a5b71a-ca7e-4e7c-9e09-f9e63f18aa12\u0022\u003E4. \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a9083a41222a424c92fadcec9a2ef1f9\u0022\u003EHon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader\u2014Labour)\u003C/span\u003E to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement that New Zealanders were \u201Cmore than compensated\u201D for last year\u2019s increase in GST?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022 data-id=\u002237ffeef9e6fc4a4a8b5667413e477b1c\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000095\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002237ffeef9e6fc4a4a8b5667413e477b1c\u0022\u003ERt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister):\u003C/span\u003E Yes, because at the same time that GST went up, income taxes were reduced across the board and benefits, along with Working for Families and New Zealand superannuation, were increased. Those changes at least compensated\u2014in most cases, more than compensated\u2014people for the increase in GST. If the member disputes that, then she should fire up the bus and campaign on reversing the tax cuts.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000096\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002209a5b71a-ca7e-4e7c-9e09-f9e63f18aa12\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224cf9a98c2cce48719ae819c6e08a2bdb\u0022\u003EHon Annette King\u003C/span\u003E: I think the last part of the answer was unnecessary, Mr Speaker\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000097\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac169d29-4849-42c2-a4a7-f344fd416503\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225968b169444047799df16efbd17b9885\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: No.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000098\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002209a5b71a-ca7e-4e7c-9e09-f9e63f18aa12\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e6020344f4854556b0a92c9f67fe47bb\u0022\u003EHon Annette King\u003C/span\u003E: How long did he envisage that the impact of the GST increase to 15 percent would take to filter through the system, at which time those on fixed incomes, like pensioners and beneficiaries, would be compensated for price increases through the normal annual adjustment?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000099\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228ac9ad227f2040d98b7ba26420994c54\u0022\u003ERt Hon JOHN KEY\u003C/span\u003E: In some cases, price increases from GST have not actually filtered through; people have reduced their margins and held prices. But the increases to beneficiaries and the like were immediate. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000100\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002209a5b71a-ca7e-4e7c-9e09-f9e63f18aa12\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222451081533b24717a3e300bdf8f330f7\u0022\u003EHon Annette King\u003C/span\u003E: I could not hear the last part of the answer.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000101\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac169d29-4849-42c2-a4a7-f344fd416503\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222cc1e70cf5af40b5bf06548ef2842660\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Would the Prime Minister mind repeating the last part of the answer.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a3bb3c4fe02e4a2fa70464d8aedbd257\u0022\u003ERt Hon JOHN KEY\u003C/span\u003E: The increase to benefits, Working for Families, and the like were made immediately on 1 October.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000103\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002209a5b71a-ca7e-4e7c-9e09-f9e63f18aa12\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002262642d3801c741fa9f08993f77127171\u0022\u003EHon Annette King\u003C/span\u003E: Why did the Government legislate for the temporary pre-funding of pensions and benefits to be withdrawn on 31 March, in 16 days\u2019 time, even though Treasury is predicting that the CPI will rise to 4.5 percent by 31 December this year? If he is true to his word that pre-funding will more than compensate for price increases, will he now extend pre-funding until March 2012 to help people through the tough times ahead?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000104\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227c1d9c45d92d4c56ae9fcc6b8561d020\u0022\u003ERt Hon JOHN KEY\u003C/span\u003E: It is very simple: an annual calculation is done for an increase in benefits, superannuation, and the like that takes into account yearly inflation. Of course, that figure includes the 2.02 percent increase from GST going up. The Government put a temporary patch on to get people through till the annual adjustment took place. The Government then took it up, took that temporary patch off, and compensated it fully with the increase in the CPI.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000105\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002209a5b71a-ca7e-4e7c-9e09-f9e63f18aa12\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022fa1866daebce4e8ab2932fd9b800000e\u0022\u003EHon Annette King\u003C/span\u003E: Does he believe Grey Power when it stated 3 weeks ago that there have been extraordinary price rises that are severely challenging the resources of older New Zealanders on fixed incomes, with further cost of living pressures to come throughout this year? Will he revisit the Government\u2019s decision not to keep temporary pre-funding in place until March 2012?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000106\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022962c25fec37e47b891914417203b2184\u0022\u003ERt Hon JOHN KEY\u003C/span\u003E: The full increase of the CPI has been passed through with an increase in superannuation. I might add that the increase in superannuation has been significant under our Government because, of course, there are calculations on after-tax average wages, and those amounts have increased significantly under our Government. Whether there have been extraordinary increases, I do not know, but if Grey Power wants to detail them that is fine. One thing I can say to its members\u2014and I know they thank me for it every time I go and see them\u2014is thank goodness they do not have a Labour Government, under which power prices went up 72 percent in 9 years. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000107\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002209a5b71a-ca7e-4e7c-9e09-f9e63f18aa12\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225087bf4ca0934fdeb6c8a4bf8222c2c9\u0022\u003EHon Annette King\u003C/span\u003E: Is he aware that Grey Power members believed his promise to assist them and beneficiaries through the period while price increases stabilised, but now they believe that his lack of commitment to that promise indicates the shallowness of his October 2010 assurances; and will he now apologise to Grey Power members, many of whom are on fixed incomes and face a difficult year ahead as costs keep going up?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000108\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227a7d8f0ec27d4eb4888e980417d565d3\u0022\u003ERt Hon JOHN KEY\u003C/span\u003E: The member might be trying to confuse New Zealanders; she has obviously confused her own back bench. The reality is that an adjustment takes place every year for the CPI. That adjustment is in\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000109\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002209a5b71a-ca7e-4e7c-9e09-f9e63f18aa12\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229967149ecf0a49c4b4a0394e40de1cd4\u0022\u003EHon Annette King\u003C/span\u003E: Tell Grey Power.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000110\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022649446bdf40145daa2d8a938f8661a2e\u0022\u003ERt Hon JOHN KEY\u003C/span\u003E: If the member wants to hear the answer, she is welcome to; if she does not, I am happy to sit down and we will not bother answering questions. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000111\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e2e2ee61-b3b9-4a89-bcc3-5b7be76c5825\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022adfadae9cc624f4195704d3d09b4a45d\u0022\u003ERahui Katene\u003C/span\u003E: Does he believe that New Zealanders have been adequately compensated for the GST rise, given that for the full year fruit and vegetable prices increased by 8.1 percent? What consideration will he give to the M\u0101ori Party proposal to remove GST from healthy foods?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000112\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022568c16361ea84be694d033ccdb14d266\u0022\u003ERt Hon JOHN KEY\u003C/span\u003E: Yes. It is important to understand that the increase in GST is only one reason for the overall increase in food prices. I might add that, in terms of fresh fruit and vegetables, in certain areas there has actually been a reduction in cost over the course of the last 12 months.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000113\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002279db8b64-1f9b-4416-9b81-a12963db9cbf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022dc9c1508d2764c10ab5129d890c02f32\u0022\u003EHon Trevor Mallard\u003C/span\u003E: When will the final items be measured by Statistics New Zealand and incorporated into the CPI\u2014the ones that went up in October but have not been measured yet? When will they finally be measured and incorporated into the CPI this year?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000114\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b3a754fcffe24211b0c13f08257e0143\u0022\u003ERt Hon JOHN KEY\u003C/span\u003E: In part, they already are. In terms of the others, I will have to check.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000115\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u00225ee872728bce4a72bc6293e0aecb75d5\u0022\u003EEarthquake, Christchurch\u2014Ministry of Social Development\u2019s Response\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002292824476-4e66-4052-8435-b049833d8b83\u0022 data-id=\u00228b19f32d55424a7197791397f27a32a3\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000116\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002292824476-4e66-4052-8435-b049833d8b83\u0022\u003E5. \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00228b19f32d55424a7197791397f27a32a3\u0022\u003ENICKY WAGNER (National)\u003C/span\u003E to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: How is her ministry responding to support the Christchurch recovery following last month\u2019s earthquake?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002263776108-58dc-4cab-baf1-95282c61d0de\u0022 data-id=\u002266693160e26c4e7d8ee04475b59f751c\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000117\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002263776108-58dc-4cab-baf1-95282c61d0de\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002266693160e26c4e7d8ee04475b59f751c\u0022\u003EHon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment):\u003C/span\u003E Very quickly. We have already helped over 85,000 people with financial assistance totalling about $85 million.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000118\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002292824476-4e66-4052-8435-b049833d8b83\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b536924d08af43929c33fb534e808a70\u0022\u003ENicky Wagner\u003C/span\u003E: How have businesses responded in taking up the earthquake support subsidy?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000119\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002263776108-58dc-4cab-baf1-95282c61d0de\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c72f4d6d5a37495fa8ca8cabbe18ba59\u0022\u003EHon PAULA BENNETT\u003C/span\u003E: The earthquake support subsidy has been used by 7,825 businesses. Some have already opted out, so the next group of payments may not be for the full 3 weeks. I encourage businesses that do not need it to voluntarily opt out so there is support for those that do.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000120\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a40f5af7-f9b0-4b44-9669-9e63be1c3ced\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002249b5233ab9c942b6a21c92c324709dd3\u0022\u003EDarien Fenton\u003C/span\u003E: Is she concerned about the hundreds of cleaners in Christchurch offices and schools, and the caregivers in aged-care facilities, who have been unable to access their workplaces but who are excluded from job-loss cover because they were employed by multinational or national companies?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000121\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002263776108-58dc-4cab-baf1-95282c61d0de\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d55d205adf384e4e9bc60694a80f9bc4\u0022\u003EHon PAULA BENNETT\u003C/span\u003E: Yes. We have tried to make exceptions for some of those cases. If the member would like to raise them with me, I would be more than happy to look at them in more detail to see whether we can do something.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000122\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a40f5af7-f9b0-4b44-9669-9e63be1c3ced\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222f4de7ea4e184e0592c78c781c5cb362\u0022\u003EDarien Fenton\u003C/span\u003E: Why is the wage subsidy not available in cases where the employer can offer work, but the workers cannot attend, due to the need to support their families and where workers have genuine reasons for their absence?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000123\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002263776108-58dc-4cab-baf1-95282c61d0de\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229a52aa36cc4b45859531e4506a085a33\u0022\u003EHon PAULA BENNETT\u003C/span\u003E: There are exceptions where it is available, but, to be honest, as part of the recovery, those who can work need to. I understand that some people are struggling with that; as a consequence, a lot of them are receiving payments from the Ministry of Civil Defence and Emergency Management. Those payments have totalled well over $12 million to date, and they are still available. We figure that there is other assistance for those who are unable to get to work. Schools being back up, like they are, should make a difference as well. But we have a bit available for exceptions and exceptional cases.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000124\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022b365ccbf215f453e91cfac25c18d80de\u0022\u003EEarthquake, Christchurch\u2014Adequacy of Actions and Areas of Concern\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022aa2209f1-1889-4c24-b51d-cb2aedc7aa93\u0022 data-id=\u002292a14ae76c204e44802f24297a4b9c10\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000125\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022aa2209f1-1889-4c24-b51d-cb2aedc7aa93\u0022\u003E6. \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002292a14ae76c204e44802f24297a4b9c10\u0022\u003EJACINDA ARDERN (Labour)\u003C/span\u003E to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his answers to oral question No. 1 on 8 March 2011; if not, why not?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022 data-id=\u0022e7a884c41c3c47e4973e15a33633d2fb\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000126\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022e7a884c41c3c47e4973e15a33633d2fb\u0022\u003ERt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister):\u003C/span\u003E Yes.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000127\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022aa2209f1-1889-4c24-b51d-cb2aedc7aa93\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228e93b1e453a145d7b2388b7dc5bba0df\u0022\u003EJacinda Ardern\u003C/span\u003E: Is he satisfied that every possible effort was made after the September quake to ensure that young tradespeople part-way through their training continue that training?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000128\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228ea700644d724c4ca2cdc13032db1441\u0022\u003ERt Hon JOHN KEY\u003C/span\u003E: People always do their best.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000129\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022aa2209f1-1889-4c24-b51d-cb2aedc7aa93\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d59d304d51f44509a59891ca9d5fe28a\u0022\u003EJacinda Ardern\u003C/span\u003E: When he said \u201CIn terms of the skills capability \u2026 there is quite a pool of people in the construction sector from around New Zealand, and, potentially, from around the world\u201D, was he acknowledging that a skills shortage exists in New Zealand?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000130\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223d8cacf4363b4d3ba8ecf81dc92567de\u0022\u003ERt Hon JOHN KEY\u003C/span\u003E: No, it was the opposite: to explain that there are some people who have skills in the construction sector but who are currently unemployed around New Zealand.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000131\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022aa2209f1-1889-4c24-b51d-cb2aedc7aa93\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002282fc99bb58cd41f695900cc921bb7ae1\u0022\u003EJacinda Ardern\u003C/span\u003E: Is there a shortage of people with plumbing skills for the Christchurch rebuild?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000132\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022edea0f953a864800b8dd2ee3e1a906dd\u0022\u003ERt Hon JOHN KEY\u003C/span\u003E: There probably will be, given the size of the job at hand. That is why both the Minister for Social Development and Employment and the Minister for Tertiary Education are working on that issue as we speak.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000133\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022aa2209f1-1889-4c24-b51d-cb2aedc7aa93\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002224b39f20644a4e23a3e20b7229c0da63\u0022\u003EJacinda Ardern\u003C/span\u003E: Is he concerned about the number of partly trained plumbers who have left New Zealand for Australia since September?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000134\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d7b669d02c8c4311aec9eccfe0124891\u0022\u003ERt Hon JOHN KEY\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, and I think Helen Clark should apologise for it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000135\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022aa2209f1-1889-4c24-b51d-cb2aedc7aa93\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022522e2fa5e2c3441ba13774afeed03ced\u0022\u003EJacinda Ardern\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. [Interruption] \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000136\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac169d29-4849-42c2-a4a7-f344fd416503\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d040b58b53d14591bf6ded1bcc54b7f0\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: I am on my feet. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000137\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022aa2209f1-1889-4c24-b51d-cb2aedc7aa93\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e4b305a8d3ed4f09abd4077bc1a7a053\u0022\u003EJacinda Ardern\u003C/span\u003E: My question specifically asked about the period since September. I am not sure what Helen Clark has to do with that time period.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000138\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac169d29-4849-42c2-a4a7-f344fd416503\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227d43a2adc6b94dc08083e6fece6f9bff\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: I am not sure that we are helping ourselves here. The member should reflect on the question she asked the Prime Minister, about whether he was concerned about plumbers going to Australia. The Prime Minister answered by saying yes, he was, and he gave a reason for why he thought they might be going. [Interruption] I am on my feet. I cannot help with the answer; that was the answer that was given. [Interruption] Members know better than that. A little order, please.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000139\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022aa2209f1-1889-4c24-b51d-cb2aedc7aa93\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002274720379fd9d42cd9e9b17cfff5a31bb\u0022\u003EJacinda Ardern\u003C/span\u003E: What does he say to Julie Colthurst, whose son has been forced to move to Australia to find a plumbing apprenticeship even after completing 12 months of plumbing training at Manukau Institute of Technology?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000140\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022046f047917244617b04992f166cc2dc6\u0022\u003ERt Hon JOHN KEY\u003C/span\u003E: I ask him to please get in contact with my office.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000141\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022aa2209f1-1889-4c24-b51d-cb2aedc7aa93\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a105bd75a650463eb431b859c1059061\u0022\u003EJacinda Ardern\u003C/span\u003E: Does he agree with an area manager from the Apprenticeship Training Trust that \u201Cfrom business reports the boost in the construction sector is just not happening and that Christchurch situation will further delay projects. Apprenticeship opportunities in Auckland are few and far between.\u201D?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000142\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222e074d5afa354a55b044b62fdabb02ee\u0022\u003ERt Hon JOHN KEY\u003C/span\u003E: If the opportunities in Auckland are few and far between, there will certainly be opportunities in Christchurch, because a $20 billion rebuild is coming.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000143\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002279db8b64-1f9b-4416-9b81-a12963db9cbf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002235d8d51d8e2f4bb9a17b01258eb179bd\u0022\u003EHon Trevor Mallard\u003C/span\u003E: Why did the Prime Minister\u2019s Ministers not take action to prevent people like this young man from leaving the country?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000144\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022803b672b2fa84c6e8e66873cf1f0a35f\u0022\u003ERt Hon JOHN KEY\u003C/span\u003E: I am glad that the member asked that question, because this Government has taken lots of steps to prevent people from going from New Zealand. We have cut personal taxes, we have got on top of the crime wave that was prevalent when those members were in Government, we have made a priority of economic growth, we have had an outward-facing economy, and under our Government fewer people have left for Australia than under the previous Government.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000145\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c699e7c6-53b9-470c-a14a-378cb6fc8a04\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e86ad07e5024442ab0b2ced3d3782c0f\u0022\u003EHon Phil Goff\u003C/span\u003E: Why will the Prime Minister not concede that the reason why a new record number of New Zealanders qualified in the skilled areas are leaving to go to Australia is because, first, the wage gap has grown not narrowed as he promised, and, secondly, the building industry is at its lowest point for 45 years in terms of house starts?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000146\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228148bab02d3a42938f5e679b374aef5c\u0022\u003ERt Hon JOHN KEY\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, the housing construction starts are low. That is a reflection of the fact that we have gone through a global recession and that is the impact that has been most highly felt. But over the course of the next 4 or 5 years I do not think that finding jobs in the construction industry will be a problem if people are prepared to work in Christchurch.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000147\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022708b63999b654453abedbebcda9f756d\u0022\u003EEarthquake, Christchurch\u2014Support Provided by Department of Corrections\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022fbe3f87c-849c-4eee-84cc-119edeb1a681\u0022 data-id=\u0022c3962f4ee8cf422ea04d916c48970219\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000148\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fbe3f87c-849c-4eee-84cc-119edeb1a681\u0022\u003E7. \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c3962f4ee8cf422ea04d916c48970219\u0022\u003EAARON GILMORE (National)\u003C/span\u003E to the Minister of Corrections: What support has the Department of Corrections provided to the people of Christchurch following last month\u2019s earthquake?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002285ec30d4-6394-433a-a12e-2c4def705dd0\u0022 data-id=\u0022ef93b7ffca024a00a486712d595e0b62\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000149\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002285ec30d4-6394-433a-a12e-2c4def705dd0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022ef93b7ffca024a00a486712d595e0b62\u0022\u003EHon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Corrections):\u003C/span\u003E I am pleased to report that prisoners have been hard at work supporting the people of Christchurch since the earthquake last month. The three Canterbury prison kitchens have put together 5,000 ration packs, 350 heat-and-eat meals, and 500 packs of fresh vegetables harvested from the prisons\u2019 organic vegetable gardens. Prisoners have assembled 5,000 sanitation packs, which have been provided to welfare agencies for distribution to those in need. The Department of Corrections has also provided a 44-foot shipping container of surplus supplies to civil defence. The supplies included 30,000 bottles of handwash, 185,000 antibacterial wipes, and a number of water containers.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000150\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fbe3f87c-849c-4eee-84cc-119edeb1a681\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d43c2eeeca174cdb83054450750dbdf2\u0022\u003EAaron Gilmore\u003C/span\u003E: What else has the Department of Corrections been doing to help Christchurch recover from the earthquake?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000151\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002285ec30d4-6394-433a-a12e-2c4def705dd0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225583616f57184a61b7366f20ebef05a5\u0022\u003EHon JUDITH COLLINS\u003C/span\u003E: Since the earthquake, offenders on community work have been clearing the streets and helping schools to get up and running. They have also been helping to tidy up local marae and assist in the relocation of some of the Christchurch City Mission services. This weekend prisoners will be making 2,000 lunches for the Farmy Army and the Student Volunteer Army. Department vehicles will also be used to help transport student army volunteers. I acknowledge the hundreds of Department of Corrections staff who have kept our prison and probation services running in Canterbury despite facing considerable difficulties of their own at home.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000152\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u002282f8077a6b6e4d9ea8e7032812f7d36f\u0022\u003EEarthquake, Christchurch\u2014Predicted Outcome for Christchurch Earthquake Appeal\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002292557bd5-0e66-473c-a6df-7d108e7822e3\u0022 data-id=\u002241e69011e7fd4a28985c91aea8463570\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000153\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002292557bd5-0e66-473c-a6df-7d108e7822e3\u0022\u003E8. \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002241e69011e7fd4a28985c91aea8463570\u0022\u003EDr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green)\u003C/span\u003E to the Minister of Finance: How much has he budgeted to raise from the Christchurch Earthquake Appeal and has this figure been revised in light of the Japanese earthquake?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bb158206-360b-4757-8d72-f7d0994e1fb3\u0022 data-id=\u00220fc84f74d4a7487b8ca4ca4701784074\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000154\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bb158206-360b-4757-8d72-f7d0994e1fb3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00220fc84f74d4a7487b8ca4ca4701784074\u0022\u003EHon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance):\u003C/span\u003E We have not budgeted on any money from the Christchurch Earthquake Appeal, simply because it has been set up as a charitable trust and it is not intended to substitute for core Government responsibilities or to replicate the emergency relief support provided by Government or other charitable agencies. It may end up addressing the gap between core Government and other charitable agencies, but we are not counting on any cash from it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000155\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002292557bd5-0e66-473c-a6df-7d108e7822e3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222d7064320b6945fcb6b08c0d3dcf012d\u0022\u003EDr Kennedy Graham\u003C/span\u003E: If the Government is not counting on any particular amount, and essentially has no idea how much is going to come, and given that the Crown\u2019s bill is likely to be close to $10 billion, why is he not actively considering a temporary levy on income as a way to cover the massive shortfall?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000156\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bb158206-360b-4757-8d72-f7d0994e1fb3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022322b9f90f74342b6be3f156943552ad2\u0022\u003EHon BILL ENGLISH\u003C/span\u003E: There are a range of ways we can finance the earthquake, as we have said since the earthquake occurred. In the first place, we need to get better information about what those costs will be, because the ranges given are often between $2 billion, $3 billion, and $5 billion, and then we will be considering whether the Government is going to fund those costs by taking on more debt or reprioritising its spending. The Government has been looking at tightening up its spending in any case, regardless of the earthquake.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000157\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002292557bd5-0e66-473c-a6df-7d108e7822e3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223750679ef10447019a3805f67fb2c348\u0022\u003EDr Kennedy Graham\u003C/span\u003E: Given that the Australian Government, whose books are actually in better shape than ours, is using a levy to pay for its disaster, rather than incurring more debt, as is the intention here, why is the Government not seriously considering one?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000158\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bb158206-360b-4757-8d72-f7d0994e1fb3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f117e91d6ab94d76889b2752af629c77\u0022\u003EHon BILL ENGLISH\u003C/span\u003E: It has been seriously considered, and I think we have said before that our preference would be to not bring in a levy, particularly at this time when economic growth is relatively weak. Many households do feel under pressure with their incomes and concerns about their jobs, particularly in Christchurch, and we would not want to reverse direction by imposing an extra cost on the economy at a time when we all have to work pretty hard to get it up and running.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000159\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u00225c203e057fec493d8b443017af0aef64\u0022\u003EEarthquake and Tsunami, Japan\u2014New Zealand Urban Search and Rescue Team\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002260200136-9d63-4a82-b4f5-c00411adb1fd\u0022 data-id=\u0022a6f8291be6be44a994a1d3927fc2e7ee\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000160\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002260200136-9d63-4a82-b4f5-c00411adb1fd\u0022\u003E9. \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a6f8291be6be44a994a1d3927fc2e7ee\u0022\u003EJO GOODHEW (National\u2014Rangitata)\u003C/span\u003E to the Minister of Internal Affairs: What work will the New Zealand urban search and rescue team be carrying out in Japan?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002223de6bd3-0482-495d-88f4-7cc3f75d8442\u0022 data-id=\u002256f29582e5554c6e82af820f291f64dd\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000161\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002223de6bd3-0482-495d-88f4-7cc3f75d8442\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002256f29582e5554c6e82af820f291f64dd\u0022\u003EHon NATHAN GUY (Minister of Internal Affairs):\u003C/span\u003E I am informed by the New Zealand Fire Service that the New Zealand urban search and rescue team will be working in the town of Minami Sanriku in the Miyagi Prefecture in north-east Japan. This area is one of the most badly affected by the tsunami. The urban search and rescue team\u2019s work will involve identifying the sites most likely to offer potential for finding survivors, undertaking rescue operations, and helping to move survivors to places of safety.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000162\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002260200136-9d63-4a82-b4f5-c00411adb1fd\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022626de25c45d64858ae66d9a7dcdfbf67\u0022\u003EJo Goodhew\u003C/span\u003E: What urban search and rescue capability will remain in New Zealand to deal with another major event?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000163\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002223de6bd3-0482-495d-88f4-7cc3f75d8442\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b7bba81eb3ef40d797069cb3c2c40951\u0022\u003EHon NATHAN GUY\u003C/span\u003E: The team deployed to Japan was in part from each of the three New Zealand urban search and rescue task forces. The Fire Service has advised that each of the three task forces are still able to operate and will backfill vacancies, if needed, from the Fire Service. In the case of a significant disaster event in New Zealand, we would also look to international assistance, as was the case for the 22 February Christchurch earthquake.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000164\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022ce629923d7134dccbbf101dd9c32319c\u0022\u003EEarthquake, Christchurch\u2014Restoration of Roading\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022f44431ef-b505-4e94-9f57-a60b0a569bf7\u0022 data-id=\u00222c11b19c491d479585c07247f204a58e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000165\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f44431ef-b505-4e94-9f57-a60b0a569bf7\u0022\u003E10. \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00222c11b19c491d479585c07247f204a58e\u0022\u003EHon SHANE JONES (Labour)\u003C/span\u003E to the Minister of Transport: Does he stand by his statement that the $300 million bill for restoring the Christchurch road network will not be causing any \u201Cdramatic issues\u201D, and what is his time frame for the completion of this work?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00224a244152-977c-48d2-bf53-4f3a369a27a9\u0022 data-id=\u0022253ba74e3a624e02845c39cb5c336c63\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000166\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224a244152-977c-48d2-bf53-4f3a369a27a9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022253ba74e3a624e02845c39cb5c336c63\u0022\u003EHon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Transport):\u003C/span\u003E Generally yes, although I stress it is very early days and the $300 million figure has since been widened to $400 million and is simply the best rough estimate of the cost to repair the Christchurch road network at this point. In the context of the approximately $3 billion available annually in the National Land Transport Fund, that current estimate is manageable and will not cause any dramatic issues in the shape of that fund. The cost is likely to be spread over 4 to 5 years, but again I would say the timing is very much dependent on the extent of damage to underground services and the time frame for repairing that damage.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000167\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f44431ef-b505-4e94-9f57-a60b0a569bf7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002249bbf3f4f8a54cc6934ffa1809c9af86\u0022\u003EHon Shane Jones\u003C/span\u003E: The Minister told this House on 8 September that the damage to the State highway network from the first quake was $6 million to $10 million; can he now give us a revised figure that includes both levels of damage?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000168\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224a244152-977c-48d2-bf53-4f3a369a27a9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223aeb63a7d84c45aab175feb66caa6e43\u0022\u003EHon STEVEN JOYCE\u003C/span\u003E: I am doing this from memory, but I think it was less than $10 million after the September quake, and the number is in the order of $20 million following the 22 February quake for the State highway network. The local roading network is what it is in relation to the $300 million to $400 million figure. After the September quake the Christchurch City estimates for local road damage was around $185 million, and that was subsequently revised down to $85 million earlier this year.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000169\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f44431ef-b505-4e94-9f57-a60b0a569bf7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002234aee52d76374c479fbc78c148c4d3a5\u0022\u003EHon Shane Jones\u003C/span\u003E: Given the inevitable changes and stresses on the National Land Transport Fund as a consequence of the Christchurch earthquake, has he informed the Mayor of Auckland, Len Brown, that the earthquake-related transport costs means his Government will not be supporting the mayor\u2019s public transport aspirations, such as the central business district rail link?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000170\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224a244152-977c-48d2-bf53-4f3a369a27a9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c2b8e7c380a646ef9a04d9d5040938dd\u0022\u003EHon STEVEN JOYCE\u003C/span\u003E: No, I have said to the mayor that the public transport aspirations for Auckland will not be any easier to fund\u2014nothing will be easier to fund\u2014as a result of the additional cost of the Christchurch earthquake. I point out to the member two things: firstly, the Government has made no decision to fund that project at this point; and, secondly, it would not be funded from the National Land Transport Fund.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000171\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f44431ef-b505-4e94-9f57-a60b0a569bf7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221f22278d1e9c41fd83df9bb2b803d91c\u0022\u003EHon Shane Jones\u003C/span\u003E: Will the Minister abandon his favoured project, otherwise known as the \u201CHoliday Highway\u201D and at a cost of $1.7 billion, and divert those funds to the more valuable purpose of restoring Christchurch\u2019s transport infrastructure?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000172\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224a244152-977c-48d2-bf53-4f3a369a27a9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f91990e1f35c43ce9e08057f296d85a1\u0022\u003EHon STEVEN JOYCE\u003C/span\u003E: No. The Government will not be adjusting its roads of national significance programme, except perhaps in relation to some timing matters. Those seven projects were chosen on the basis of their contribution to economic growth in New Zealand, their improvement of journey reliability, and their contribution to safety. I would have thought that the member as a Northland MP may have been focused on economic development in Northland, but perhaps not.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000173\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022e434d7e0e2a54c68a3e0b6431a83df82\u0022\u003EEarthquake, Christchurch\u2014Restoration of Roading\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022ffff330f-1757-41d6-9973-25244f0fdada\u0022 data-id=\u0022e9b31a10a8e546d1872846a4095f5098\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000174\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ffff330f-1757-41d6-9973-25244f0fdada\u0022\u003E11. \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022e9b31a10a8e546d1872846a4095f5098\u0022\u003ECOLIN KING (National\u2014Kaik\u014Dura)\u003C/span\u003E to the Minister of Transport: What work has been done to repair and reopen Christchurch\u2019s roads and highways following the 22 February earthquake?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00224a244152-977c-48d2-bf53-4f3a369a27a9\u0022 data-id=\u00226a8e1e8e920d4c448fc94ce6ecdd9537\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000175\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224a244152-977c-48d2-bf53-4f3a369a27a9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00226a8e1e8e920d4c448fc94ce6ecdd9537\u0022\u003EHon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Transport):\u003C/span\u003E The State highway network was, in fact, remarkably resilient. The New Zealand Transport Agency worked quickly to check and reopen the vital roading links in Christchurch, including the Lyttelton tunnel, which was reopened to emergency vehicles the day after the quake, and State Highway 74, which was reopened to general traffic flows by 24 February. The major focus has been the removal of tonnes of silt from roads in Christchurch, and some remedial work has taken place on State Highways 73 and 74, including new seals.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000176\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ffff330f-1757-41d6-9973-25244f0fdada\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002234686165420b4ca7ba53db76c3424423\u0022\u003EColin King\u003C/span\u003E: What is being done to assist the Christchurch City Council with the repairs of local roads that are required?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000177\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224a244152-977c-48d2-bf53-4f3a369a27a9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002288d0edd3607246449525f43c359b6f6d\u0022\u003EHon STEVEN JOYCE\u003C/span\u003E: The New Zealand Transport Agency and its contractor on the Christchurch Southern Motorway project immediately released workers from that project in order to fix immediate problems with the roads. The New Zealand Transport Agency is also providing engineers from around the country to assist the council with damage assessment. Looking ahead, the New Zealand Transport Agency will provide a significantly higher than normal rate of funding assistance to the council so that it can get on with local road and bridge repairs. As mentioned in answer to the earlier question, the cost of the repairs is currently estimated at between $300 million and $400 million. In addition, we are looking at contracting arrangements that will provide Christchurch with an efficient and coordinated response to the repair of roads and other horizontal infrastructure.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000178\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022fc05d8c2e1f34eabb4cc4235edc9ef6e\u0022\u003EEarthquake, Christchurch\u2014Heritage Buildings and Recovery of Cultural Artefacts\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00221fb8d8db-3e96-49c7-ab1c-b7916a50e30e\u0022 data-id=\u002276fd901aa8404a6692366588669f7a1c\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000179\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221fb8d8db-3e96-49c7-ab1c-b7916a50e30e\u0022\u003E12. \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002276fd901aa8404a6692366588669f7a1c\u0022\u003EHon STEVE CHADWICK (Labour)\u003C/span\u003E to the Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage: Has he had any discussions with the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery about heritage buildings or recovering cultural artefacts from buildings damaged by the earthquake on 22 February; if so, what did he say to the Minister?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002241146229-4d11-415b-a4ac-f4e2b923e95d\u0022 data-id=\u0022ca55b895cf3f43808849f5ea1607e963\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000180\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002241146229-4d11-415b-a4ac-f4e2b923e95d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022ca55b895cf3f43808849f5ea1607e963\u0022\u003EHon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage):\u003C/span\u003E Yes, we have had a number of conversations about those issues. We both agreed that the priority was first to ensure that the city was as safe as possible for the rescue effort, and then the recovery and rebuilding effort could begin. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000181\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221fb8d8db-3e96-49c7-ab1c-b7916a50e30e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002290322c00b4a042caa4c13f471d786ef6\u0022\u003EHon Steve Chadwick\u003C/span\u003E: Did he read the statement by Blue Shield, the cultural equivalent of the Red Cross, placing the expertise and network of its members at the disposal of their New Zealand colleagues; if so, what action has he taken to ensure that it is involved in the process? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000182\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002241146229-4d11-415b-a4ac-f4e2b923e95d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224863f7c2ad1d4f688a2bfb553dced384\u0022\u003EHon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON\u003C/span\u003E: I do not recall reading that statement; I am sure that Ministry for Culture and Heritage officials will have read it. We are certainly anxious to contact as many people as possible around the globe to assist us with the tasks of reconstruction and also, I might add, deconstruction, which is a different concept from demolition. It is focused deconstruction, saving the materials until reconstruction can begin.  \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000183\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221fb8d8db-3e96-49c7-ab1c-b7916a50e30e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002240e80dfbf42948deab732c9bab4ba3fe\u0022\u003EHon Steve Chadwick\u003C/span\u003E: Does he agree with Bruce Chapman, the chief executive of the New Zealand Historic Places Trust, that much of Christchurch\u2019s heritage could be saved; if so, what action has he taken to ensure that as much as possible is saved, after all due regard is had to safety? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000184\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002241146229-4d11-415b-a4ac-f4e2b923e95d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e60f1730107b4b429c3caf6e120b08a8\u0022\u003EHon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON\u003C/span\u003E: I certainly agree with Mr Chapman. He, I, and a group of my Cabinet colleagues visited Christchurch last Sunday and were briefed by civil defence and various engineers on what could be done to save buildings. Mr Chapman\u2019s views are commendable, but they are not his alone. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000185\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221fb8d8db-3e96-49c7-ab1c-b7916a50e30e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002271a8d6c82f0c4430b77c63a8ffd6ad67\u0022\u003EHon Steve Chadwick\u003C/span\u003E: I seek leave to table the Blue Shield statement on Christchurch, offering assistance to the New Zealand Government.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000186\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac169d29-4849-42c2-a4a7-f344fd416503\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022bbd4a2dc5fc34dff82a6c7bf09907b7b\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000187\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac169d29-4849-42c2-a4a7-f344fd416503\u0022\u003EDocument, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.\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=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000188\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022c97023d2fac241859d7524b17dd9dc00\u0022\u003EMarine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000189\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022eca0772b50b74d09b8a14236388cff4e\u0022\u003EIn Committee\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000190\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u00228eb1c91c8999402887f5645b20c1586e\u0022\u003EPreamble\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002241146229-4d11-415b-a4ac-f4e2b923e95d\u0022 data-id=\u0022d13f70824e18470e938c230dcbd06679\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000191\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002241146229-4d11-415b-a4ac-f4e2b923e95d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d13f70824e18470e938c230dcbd06679\u0022\u003EHon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General):\u003C/span\u003E The preamble is a reasonably brief part of the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill, but it sets out quite a lot of history. Recital (1) states that the starting point of the debate over the foreshore and seabed, which has gone on for many years, was the decision of the Court of Appeal in Attorney-General v Ng\u0101ti Apa. The response of the Government of the day was the Foreshore and Seabed Act of 2004. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000192\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002241146229-4d11-415b-a4ac-f4e2b923e95d\u0022\u003EIt is worth recalling a little of the parliamentary history of that legislation. The bill was introduced and referred to a special select committee, the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee, then reported back to Parliament, whereupon the bill proceeded under urgency: its second reading, Committee stage, and third reading occurred within one sitting day. It is interesting to observe, when one considers the legislative history of the matter, that during that period of urgency the Government tabled numerous Supplementary Order Papers, making significant changes to the bill, including the 67-page Supplementary Order Paper 302, which Opposition MPs were given to digest during their 1-hour dinner break. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000193\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002241146229-4d11-415b-a4ac-f4e2b923e95d\u0022\u003EThe legislation was\u2014I believe, in good faith\u2014aimed at securing an enduring resolution of this vexed issue, but that did not prove to be the case. Indeed, there has been both national and international criticism of the legislation. I refer, for example, to recital (2), which sets out the report of the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination and the report of the special rapporteur, Mr Stavenhagen, who came to New Zealand and expressed his concerns about the legislation. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000194\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002241146229-4d11-415b-a4ac-f4e2b923e95d\u0022\u003EIt is notable that last year another special rapporteur, Mr James Anaya of the University of Arizona, came to New Zealand. He recently produced a report that stated he was \u201Cpleased to hear of recent legislative developments aimed at addressing the concerns raised by M\u0101ori regarding the Foreshore and Seabed Act of 2004.\u201D, and that the bill that is now before the Committee represented \u201Ca notable effort to reverse some of the principal areas of concern of the 2004 Foreshore and Seabed Act.\u201D \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000195\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002241146229-4d11-415b-a4ac-f4e2b923e95d\u0022\u003ERecital (3) recounts the history of the matter since this Government came into power, and refers to the report of the ministerial review panel and to the work undertaken to achieve an enduring solution. Recital (4) talks about what the proposed Act will take into account. A couple of minor amendments to the preamble are proposed: reordering words and so on, and introducing the concept of manaakitanga. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000196\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002241146229-4d11-415b-a4ac-f4e2b923e95d\u0022\u003EThe preamble, as I say, sets out the history of the matter, and represents the endeavours by this Government to find an enduring solution to what I acknowledge has been a vexed problem for many years. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022c699e7c6-53b9-470c-a14a-378cb6fc8a04\u0022 data-id=\u0022076f15a20305416bbf9e582b70d661ee\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000197\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c699e7c6-53b9-470c-a14a-378cb6fc8a04\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022076f15a20305416bbf9e582b70d661ee\u0022\u003EHon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition):\u003C/span\u003E The Labour Party is opposed to the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill. The bill does not achieve the purposes that are set out in Part 1. I recall very clearly the Prime Minister saying that he wanted to settle this issue; this bill does not settle the issue. The bill states that it provides a durable solution; this bill does not provide a durable solution. The M\u0101ori Party itself says the bill does not provide a durable solution. It says that it is simply a temporary stopgap.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000198\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221368ba6c-25be-40f6-a2a0-8f81e1f78b79\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225322137aa5f14ac8aea9af03742796ce\u0022\u003EChris Tremain\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. This is a tight debate. It deals with the preamble. I ask you to call the Leader of the Opposition to account on this issue.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000199\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022893adc11-ce4e-419c-a079-08f04b3d75f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224ffdcfd1bf4f4831a70605546fb9190f\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch)\u003C/span\u003E: I will determine the relevancy.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000200\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c699e7c6-53b9-470c-a14a-378cb6fc8a04\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a51e2abd09554833bb17c97f47edd031\u0022\u003EHon PHIL GOFF\u003C/span\u003E: The purpose clause states that the purpose of the bill is to establish a durable scheme. Tariana Turia and Pita Sharples are both on record saying that it is simply a stopgap, a stopgap until they can get more. If that is all that this bill is, the Minister in the chair, the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, is wasting the time of this House in bringing it in.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000201\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c699e7c6-53b9-470c-a14a-378cb6fc8a04\u0022\u003EI remember very clearly the Prime Minister saying that if there was not broad support for the bill, then he would withdraw it. Was there broad support for the bill? Four and a half thousand submissions to the M\u0101ori Affairs Committee from a cross-section of New Zealanders were, overwhelmingly, opposed to this legislation. They were strongly opposed to this legislation. Supporters of the National Party are strongly opposed to the bill. Supporters of the M\u0101ori Party are strongly opposed to the bill. And the reason the M\u0101ori Party has been split asunder is that its members themselves could not reach agreement on the bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000202\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c699e7c6-53b9-470c-a14a-378cb6fc8a04\u0022\u003EWe should not be surprised at that, when we consider the history of the bill. The bill is a response to the foreshore and seabed legislation. National members when in Opposition said that the foreshore and seabed legislation went too far and bent over backwards to give the M\u0101ori people more than they should get. National ran the campaigns of iwi versus Kiwi and dog whistling, and the race-based card was played time and again. I can tell members that hundreds of letters that have been sent to the Prime Minister and copied to me, from every electorate represented by the National members opposite, state that the Prime Minister\u2014[Interruption] \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000203\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022893adc11-ce4e-419c-a079-08f04b3d75f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ccac152b739746ee8fc3592ea4a7777a\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch)\u003C/span\u003E: The member interjecting cannot bring the Chair into this debate. I ask the member\u2014and all members\u2014to remember that the Chair is not part of this debate.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000204\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c699e7c6-53b9-470c-a14a-378cb6fc8a04\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ed417a56e14347dfb4e5ccf9123dd823\u0022\u003EHon PHIL GOFF\u003C/span\u003E: The truth is National promised one thing before the election and betrayed its own supporters by not delivering what it had promised. And the M\u0101ori Party did exactly the same thing. The M\u0101ori Party said that the foreshore and seabed legislation was a disgrace and a disaster, but it has ended up supporting what National has put in this legislation, which most of the M\u0101ori Party\u2019s supporters cannot differentiate from what was in the foreshore and seabed legislation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000205\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c699e7c6-53b9-470c-a14a-378cb6fc8a04\u0022\u003EThe reason this bill fails is that it is simply a fig leaf. It is a fig leaf for National to hide the fact that it promised one thing and delivered something totally different through the Attorney-General, and it is a fig leaf for the M\u0101ori Party because it promised something that even two-thirds of its own supporters say it has failed to deliver. No wonder there is embarrassment. No wonder there is the determination to pass this legislation under the cover of the Christchurch earthquake. The National-led Government said to Parliament that this is a time to avoid bitter, partisan dispute. That is what Government members said, but what did they do? They brought in this legislation, hoping that nobody would notice because we were all focused on the needs of the people in Christchurch.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000206\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c699e7c6-53b9-470c-a14a-378cb6fc8a04\u0022\u003EIf that was all that National did, it would have been bad enough, but National went through the 4\u00BD thousand submissions\u2014and the department spent hours and hours of time analysing those submissions\u2014it went back to the select committee, which was chaired by Tau Henare, and after hours of people giving submissions and after countless hours of the department compiling a report, how long did the select committee give to the consideration of this bill?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000207\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022893adc11-ce4e-419c-a079-08f04b3d75f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225834c1f641e34169bc15779ba488618d\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch)\u003C/span\u003E: Before we carry on\u2014and I will give the member the call\u2014I remind the member that we are on the preamble, and I ask that from now on we stick to the preamble. That is what we are debating.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000208\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c699e7c6-53b9-470c-a14a-378cb6fc8a04\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002275d55c1818d648bfa57e1b125b3efa25\u0022\u003EHon PHIL GOFF\u003C/span\u003E: The preamble sets out the history of this legislation. This legislation was introduced and referred to the select committee in the pretence that people\u2019s voices would be heard. It makes a farce of the democratic process for people not to have been heard and for Tau Henare to have forced this legislation through the select committee in 2 hours. The select committee had 2 hours to consider thousands of submissions and to consider a 500-page report. The chairman of the select committee might be a speed-reader but I do not believe that he\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000209\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221368ba6c-25be-40f6-a2a0-8f81e1f78b79\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c8a1913a85414754afd8a13e20f0c456\u0022\u003EChris Tremain\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Following your previous ruling\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000210\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022893adc11-ce4e-419c-a079-08f04b3d75f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022079e999d95e44a61abebdcec256cbc35\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you. I will determine relevancy. I ask the member to stick to the preamble. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000211\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c699e7c6-53b9-470c-a14a-378cb6fc8a04\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224145ef0bbcce4aca8644407a23f7e792\u0022\u003EHon PHIL GOFF\u003C/span\u003E: As the preamble sets out, what the House should be trying to do is find common ground. We had division over the foreshore and seabed legislation. Everyone in this House now agrees that it was right to legislate for public access. Every party agrees on that. Every party in this House agrees that customary title is something that should not be alienated. What we are seeking to resolve is how to determine customary title. What the bill does\u2014and the preamble sets out the history of it\u2014from the way that it is constructed is provide that customary title can be determined not impartially and independently by the judiciary, but, rather, by a political deal between the National Government and the M\u0101ori Party. We saw such political deals on the emissions trading scheme\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000212\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022893adc11-ce4e-419c-a079-08f04b3d75f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c225118de6c24ee9a5e1554c47566e04\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch)\u003C/span\u003E: I have mentioned\u2014and I will not say it again\u2014that we are on the preamble. The preamble is on page 7. I ask the member to come back to the preamble.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000213\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002279db8b64-1f9b-4416-9b81-a12963db9cbf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002270ca5ec055c741a6a411de109698e984\u0022\u003EHon Trevor Mallard\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. The preamble does set out the history of this legislation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000214\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022893adc11-ce4e-419c-a079-08f04b3d75f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226883185bd6214d0ea4c8c67c1b27e143\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch)\u003C/span\u003E: I know what the preamble does, thank you. The member has just talked about the emissions trading scheme. Let us focus on the preamble. It is very clear what it is. I ask the member to continue.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000215\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002279db8b64-1f9b-4416-9b81-a12963db9cbf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227534e1ee09c14a4ab39c8c3964923d6c\u0022\u003EHon Trevor Mallard\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. The Minister in the chair made some very broad comments about this agreement. All that the Leader of the Opposition said was that it was, effectively, a dirty little deal like the emissions trading scheme. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000216\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022893adc11-ce4e-419c-a079-08f04b3d75f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022267e0fac784943b5b347224be9b2b0ae\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch)\u003C/span\u003E: I gave some latitude in the first 5-minute speech and I am now asking the member, and other members when they come to speak, to focus on the preamble. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000217\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c699e7c6-53b9-470c-a14a-378cb6fc8a04\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a14938e25e4840cdbd4d05b82ff99f6a\u0022\u003EHon PHIL GOFF\u003C/span\u003E: The key issue, as set out in the preamble in reference to the Ng\u0101ti Apa decision, is how one determines claims of customary ownership. Labour got certain things right in the Foreshore and Seabed Act. It got it right about statutory protection of public access. It got it right about non-alienation of customary titled land. We freely acknowledge that we did not get right the denial of access to the court. We stand ready in the Chamber today to work with every other party to find common ground for a durable solution to this problem, if there is a will on the part of the National Government and the M\u0101ori Party to do so. I regret that there is no will. If there was a will, the democratic process would not have been aborted in the way that it has been by the lack of select committee consideration of the bill. It would not have been transgressed by the refusal to give advice on what the grounds for customary title are. Why has the Attorney-General not been prepared to make available to the House the legal advice that he has received on this issue? If he made it available we could have a properly democratic and transparent process. Why has this bill been rushed back without proper select committee examination? Why is it now being rammed through under the cover of the Christchurch earthquake?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000218\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221368ba6c-25be-40f6-a2a0-8f81e1f78b79\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ef2f207afb99452d8daaa265677040e3\u0022\u003EChris Tremain\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I just cite clause (2) of Standing Order 107, \u201CRelevancy\u201D\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000219\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022893adc11-ce4e-419c-a079-08f04b3d75f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f979d2a1d6d343f9b7001058d7c360c1\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch)\u003C/span\u003E: Sit down. I have made clear what we are on, and I will determine whether the member goes overboard. He has a minute 20 remaining\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000220\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c699e7c6-53b9-470c-a14a-378cb6fc8a04\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002296a95408427047e8b7a1f97d92995735\u0022\u003EHon PHIL GOFF\u003C/span\u003E: What we are trying to do\u2014and as set out in the Ng\u0101ti Apa decision\u2014is to find a solution that is durable, fair, open, and transparent. We can see that the answer in this bill does not address the dilemmas set out in the Ng\u0101ti Apa decision. It does not provide for durability. It does not provide a process for transparency or democratic input. It does not settle the issue of Ng\u0101ti Apa, because it leaves this House and this country more bitterly divided than they were before. It does not settle the issue. John Key has reneged on his undertaking that unless there was broad support for this bill, it would not go through. Every member of the National Party opposite buries their head in shame because they have received letters that have been copied to me that accuse National of a total sell-out, a betrayal of its promises, of being totally misleading, and of not achieving something that Labour set out to achieve in addressing this bill, which was to bring the country together, which was to bring Parliament together, and which was to consider a way of properly addressing these issues. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022 data-id=\u0022ac5977e8fd994084bd4a699873f326d6\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000221\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022ac5977e8fd994084bd4a699873f326d6\u0022\u003EMETIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader\u2014Green):\u003C/span\u003E What is it with all the men screaming today, especially when we are hearing it from members of the House who were responsible for putting in place the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004? That legislation created, in the first place, the discrimination, the inherent injustice, and the confiscation that the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill is supposed to protect us from but dismally fails to. I note that other male members of the House who are part of this whole \u201Cman screaming\u201D thing were also opposed to the 2004 legislation and had quite a different view in those early years from the one they have now. None the less, we have this bill before us. It is a disgrace.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000222\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003EThe preamble is very interesting in the way it sets out the history of the process by which this bill has come about. I will briefly address a couple of issues. The preamble raises the question of discrimination. It states that concern was raised about the discriminatory effect of the 2004 Act on wh\u0101nau, hap\u016B, and iwi. That was highlighted by the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination and the United Nations special rapporteur. That is quite right. The committee and the special rapporteur, who visited here and produced a report, highlighted the discrimination, particularly around the unequal treatment of M\u0101ori and the unequal treatment of the different kinds of title. The Greens have raised this issue before, and we will be dealing with it later on in the Committee stage.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000223\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003EThe issue raised is about the different treatment of the different kinds of title. On the one hand there is freehold title, and on the other hand there is customary title. The different treatment of these kinds of title comprised a large part of the criticism of the United Nations committee. That issue was also raised by the ministerial review panel that was set up by the M\u0101ori Party to have another go at looking at this issue. Members should not forget that we have had three major rounds of public submissions on this legislation, only to find ourselves dealing with exactly the same bill that we dealt with in 2004. Under the bill M\u0101ori land is still confiscated and M\u0101ori are still treated in a discriminatory way. The ministerial review panel was also clear that that principle of equal treatment had to be a core part of any further framework on how to deal with the foreshore and seabed issue. It said there should be equal and consistent treatment for similar cases in respect of M\u0101ori and other property rights.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000224\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003EWe know from this legislation that there are two areas of discrimination, which I will briefly mention. The first is that the proposal to put in place public access applies only to those areas where there is, or could be, customary title. It does not apply to the more than 12,000 private freehold titles in the foreshore and seabed. That itself is an explicit act of racial discrimination against M\u0101ori and against the M\u0101ori forms of title and land management. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000225\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229c0eba1d-17a6-44e2-a9b3-2e2535339570\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224b79dba372dc45048b9d83f31053f19c\u0022\u003EHon Pete Hodgson\u003C/span\u003E: Which way would you fix it, Metiria?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000226\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022fa63513ae6f040efa759c3c5bf532db6\u0022\u003EMETIRIA TUREI\u003C/span\u003E: The member asks whether that should be the case. If there is to be a principle of public access to the foreshore and seabed, then, yes, it should apply equally, regardless of the title. If there is to be some other consideration of the treatment of public access, then let us consider that, but if the principle is\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000227\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229c0eba1d-17a6-44e2-a9b3-2e2535339570\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c2e6e334243543dd8d8be1f17bab0a01\u0022\u003EHon Pete Hodgson\u003C/span\u003E: Including Port Otago?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000228\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223dc70768ee394fafacf2ce78f2628716\u0022\u003EMETIRIA TUREI\u003C/span\u003E: Well, that raises the question, does it not? It raises the question of what we do then with the kinds of titles that councils might have, or ports might have, or other forms of industry. It might be that we could have a process that considers things like the safety of the public in those areas and the particular use of those areas. But if we do not have the basic principle that public access to the foreshore and seabed should apply equally everywhere, and then look more carefully at only those areas where it should not, for particular reasons, what we have is discrimination in law\u2014racial discrimination in law. That is what this bill is doing. It is putting racial discrimination into law, because it does not consider issues of safety, and it does not look at the kinds of ownership of the 12,500 freehold titles that there are on the foreshore and seabed; it is very blunt and very broad. It applies only to whether there are freehold titles. Freehold titles are protected from the principle of public access, which does not have to be provided, but customary title held by M\u0101ori is treated as a secondary form, as a lesser form, of title and is therefore subject to public access considerations. That is discrimination.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000229\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003EAnother area of discrimination was raised in the M\u0101ori Affairs Committee, which is referred to obliquely in the preamble. It is related to when the Government can remove the rights of a person over his or her land. In normal circumstances, if one has freehold title and the Government wants to take that land for some form of infrastructure that it considers important, the process is worked through under the Public Works Act. There is a process for looking at the value of that land and it is a fairly straightforward, clear process for those who have freehold title. But if iwi, hap\u016B, or wh\u0101nau were to have customary title in a piece of land and the Government decided that it needed that land to build a road or a water pipeline through it, the Public Works Act would not apply. In fact, they would have to negotiate with the Crown and the Crown gets to decide, on its own, effectively, whether any compensation would be paid at all for the acquisition of that land and, therefore, for the interruption of the rights of that wh\u0101nau or hap\u016B or iwi over that land.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000230\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003EAgain, we have here the treatment of customary title as a secondary, lesser form of title that does not have the same rights as private title and is not treated or valued the same by the Crown or by other agencies. If the Crown wants our customary title land, it can go and get it, and it does not have to give us compensation. It is entirely up to the Crown to decide whether it will do it. That is not the case if one has freehold title. It is another form of racial discrimination in this legislation for no reason, for no justification, at all. There is no reason why we cannot have the same principles for the use of land for important Government infrastructure to apply to freehold titles and to customary title, as well.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000231\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003EThese are details beyond the principle, and Parliament is well aware of the Green Party\u2019s opposition to this legislation on principle, but if we also look through the details we see that it just gets worse and worse. It is these details of discrimination that show how much of a failure the M\u0101ori Party - National negotiations have been over trying to resolve the inherent injustices that were put in place by New Zealand First and Labour in 2004. Those inherent injustices remain. The failed principles are still in place in this legislation, and the failed details are still in place in this legislation, just as they were in 2004. It is a great disappointment.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000232\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003EThe preamble sets out the history. The history is a lot dirtier, in my view, than these four recitals make clear. The preamble is very broad in the way that it discusses the issues. It tries to give the 2004 legislation a worse record than this one, which of course is not true, because they are effectively exactly the same. They effectively do exactly the same thing; they have simply been negotiated between different parties.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000233\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003EIt is a real disappointment to know that M\u0101ori MPs from across the House, particularly from the M\u0101ori Party and National, will be supporting legislation that has at least two\u2014and there will be more\u2014clear examples of racial discrimination against M\u0101ori, against customary title, and against tikanga M\u0101ori, and that this legislation will be put into law in just a few days\u2019 time.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002277ec6495-df45-43ac-aaa1-a03b5dd4c128\u0022 data-id=\u002261a17a4bba53447bb451c138b4201fbc\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000234\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002277ec6495-df45-43ac-aaa1-a03b5dd4c128\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002261a17a4bba53447bb451c138b4201fbc\u0022\u003EHon JOHN BOSCAWEN (Deputy Leader\u2014ACT):\u003C/span\u003E The ACT Party strongly opposes this legislation in the same way that the ACT Party opposed the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004. In fact, the ACT Party is the only party that has had a consistent policy, a policy based entirely on principle, in its opposition to the provisions of this bill. The ACT Party over the next 2 or 3 days, with your support, Mr Chairperson, will take the opportunity to put its arguments out into the public domain and to repeat those arguments, because they are powerful arguments. They are arguments that have been ignored by the Government and they need to be understood by all New Zealanders. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000235\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002277ec6495-df45-43ac-aaa1-a03b5dd4c128\u0022\u003ELet me comment very briefly on the speech made by the Leader of the Opposition, who commented on the preamble. He said that the Prime Minister promised that this bill would not proceed unless it had widespread support. We in this Chamber know today that this bill does not have widespread support. The suggestion that it has widespread support is an absolute fiction. The preamble sets out the history of this bill and of how we got to this stage. As the Attorney-General, the Hon Chris Finlayson, points out, it started with the decision in the Ng\u0101ti Apa case in 2003. The name Ng\u0101ti Apa is bandied around the Chamber. Most of the members of this House would know some of the background, but probably few members of the New Zealand public would know it. In the Ng\u0101ti Apa decision we had nine iwi from the upper South Island\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000236\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e2e2ee61-b3b9-4a89-bcc3-5b7be76c5825\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022079c8eb8314e441a87e7d1b8a3b0b418\u0022\u003ERahui Katene\u003C/span\u003E: Eight.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000237\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002277ec6495-df45-43ac-aaa1-a03b5dd4c128\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b4bd7b1742154e3d8c9031cffb28c17b\u0022\u003EHon JOHN BOSCAWEN\u003C/span\u003E: I am told it was eight. I am happy to be corrected on points of fact, but it was more than just one iwi. It was more than just Ng\u0101ti Apa iwi; there were eight iwi. The eight brought a case asking for recognition of what they said their customary rights were to parts of the seabed of the Marlborough Sounds. Ng\u0101ti Apa was just one of those iwi\u2014just one of those eight iwi. If you like, they have lent their name to this case, which is now etched in the memories and the history of the debate on this bill. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000238\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002277ec6495-df45-43ac-aaa1-a03b5dd4c128\u0022\u003EThey brought a case that went all the way to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal accepted their claim to the extent that they were seeking to have their case heard in the M\u0101ori Land Court, which had previously been denied to them. The right to bring their claim had been denied to them in the High Court. The High Court acted on a decision of the Court of Appeal in 1963\u2014the Ninety Mile Beach decision. It was expected that the Court of Appeal, when it heard this case in 2002, would follow the decision in 1963, but it did not, to the surprise of all, including, I suspect, the Prime Minister and the deputy leader of the Government of the time. The Court of Appeal decided that Ng\u0101ti Apa and the other seven iwi were entitled to go to court. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000239\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002277ec6495-df45-43ac-aaa1-a03b5dd4c128\u0022\u003EIt is very important to understand what the court decided and what it did not decide. That is the crux of this issue. The court did not decide that Ng\u0101ti Apa and the other seven iwi had customary title to the seabed and foreshore\u2014it did not say that. There was a widespread misrepresentation or misunderstanding of that decision. The decision did not say that. What the Court of Appeal said was that Ng\u0101ti Apa had the right to go to court\u2014the right to go to court. That is a right that the ACT Party has consistently spoken up for and defended ever since the decision was brought down by Justice Sian Elias and her four colleagues in 2003\u2014the right to go to court. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000240\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002277ec6495-df45-43ac-aaa1-a03b5dd4c128\u0022\u003EWhen the previous Labour Government announced within 36 hours of that decision that it would pass legislation to take away that right, or, certainly, to severely restrict it, the ACT Party opposed it. We know the background. We know that Tariana Turia gave up her ministerial position in the Labour Government, stood in a by-election, and formed the M\u0101ori Party. It is important to understand that that decision said that iwi have the right to go to court and nothing more. In fact, if it did say anything more, what the judges said was that it was a very, very high test\u2014a very, very high test to award customary title. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000241\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002277ec6495-df45-43ac-aaa1-a03b5dd4c128\u0022\u003EI carry on to the next recital of the preamble, recital (2). It talks about the bitterness and the difficulty that the passing of that legislation in 2003 created. As a consequence, when National was elected into Government it formed a confidence and supply agreement with the M\u0101ori Party. The National Government agreed with the M\u0101ori Party to review the Foreshore and Seabed Act. As the Attorney-General says, and as is laid out in recital (3) of the preamble, the ministerial review panel recommended that the Act should be scrapped and replaced. Following that we had this document here, which was produced by the office of the Hon Christopher Finlayson. It is called \u201CReviewing the Foreshore and Seabed Act\u201D. It is a very concise document. I recommend to anyone who has followed this issue to read what this document says. I am sure it can be downloaded from the internet\u2014I presume it can be. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000242\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002277ec6495-df45-43ac-aaa1-a03b5dd4c128\u0022\u003EThe interesting thing about this document is that the Attorney-General announced his decision to call this review, to publish this review, the week before Easter 2009, and he announced that he was closing submissions on 30 April. That allowed only 4 weeks for the people of New Zealand to digest this document, to understand the history, and to make their submissions. What we now know is that 1,500 organisations made a submission on it. I say that we now know that, but we did not know that in May, we did not know that in June of last year, we did not know it even in July or in August, because when the Attorney-General was asked to release the submissions that were made on the document he refused to do so, he continually refused to do so, and it was not until an Official Information Act request was lodged that he reluctantly released those submissions late last year. What do we know? We know that 90 percent of the people who made submissions on this document oppose what the Government proposes. The Government set out four options. It was very clear from reading this document that option four, the Government\u2019s proposed option, was opposed by 90 percent of submitters. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000243\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002277ec6495-df45-43ac-aaa1-a03b5dd4c128\u0022\u003EWe come now to recital (3) of preamble, which refers to the bill. The process of the bill passing through this Parliament has been an absolute disgrace\u2014an absolute disgrace. I sat as a member of the M\u0101ori Affairs Committee, which travelled around New Zealand hearing submissions on this bill. I was supported by my colleague Hilary Calvert. The select committee heard submissions on this bill in Whangarei, in Auckland, in Tauranga, in Wellington, in Blenheim, and in Christchurch.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000244\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002251dfea20-2244-4fc7-bd7d-ebf7a98580e1\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e9008d68b47b4dfd8845f784f6716b7a\u0022\u003EHon Tau Henare\u003C/span\u003E: Hilary Calvert was there most of the time, not John Boscawen.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000245\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002277ec6495-df45-43ac-aaa1-a03b5dd4c128\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f28ce695068845bc9517c4a0736aefb7\u0022\u003EHon JOHN BOSCAWEN\u003C/span\u003E: I am very happy to respond to the taunts of Mr Tau Henare. He was the chair of that committee, and, clearly, he has a very bad memory. I attended the sittings in Whangarei, in Auckland, in Wellington, and in Blenheim. Hilary Calvert also attended hearings in Tauranga, in Christchurch, and in Auckland. The ACT Party was represented. We listened to the people. I say on behalf of my colleague Hilary Calvert, who will speak on the preamble later in this debate if the Chair gives her the call, that we were absolutely shocked at the way that some of the submitters were treated by the select committee. They were treated discourteously. People of New Zealand come along, they get involved in the parliamentary process, they make submissions, but they do not come along expecting to be abused, to be spoken down to, and to be called liars. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000246\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002277ec6495-df45-43ac-aaa1-a03b5dd4c128\u0022\u003EWhat came out of that select committee? There were 4,500, or was it 5,000, submissions. What we do know is that an overwhelming number of submissions on the bill strongly opposed it. Now we come to the farce\u2014the absolute farce\u2014with which the members of the select committee considered those 4,500 submissions. They met together on the first afternoon that Parliament sat this year and considered a 520-page report\u2014520 pages\u2014in less than 2 hours. They wrote a report the following day, the report of the majority, which was one page\u2014one page. They summarised this issue in one page. Attached to that page were 40 pages of recommended changes.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022 data-id=\u002293479a2de56f43f9b0d8e64589dbefdf\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000247\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002293479a2de56f43f9b0d8e64589dbefdf\u0022\u003EHon DAVID PARKER (Labour):\u003C/span\u003E I would say that the most noticeable thing about the preamble is what it does not include in the selected history that it chooses to include, but before I go into some of those omissions in the preamble, I will respond to something Metiria Turei said, which was that the bill is discriminatory because it protects existing M\u0101ori and freehold titles. I disagree with this bill, I do not think it should proceed, and I do not think that it will provide an enduring settlement, but I disagree with her assertion that it is discriminatory of M\u0101ori or of non-M\u0101ori in that way. I also disagree with her implied assertion that the common law right to a customary title would prevail over an existing freehold title that has been established. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000248\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EIt is absolutely clear from a reading of the Ng\u0101ti Apa decision\u2014in my opinion, anyway\u2014that a customary interest would not have been found in an area that was already subject to a freehold title. The tests of control that have been applied in overseas jurisdictions to establish a customary marine title, as it is called in this legislation, are quite high tests and they would be obviated by an instance where someone else has been conferred a title. So we ought to remember that what is in debate here is a common law interest that is unextinguished. There are many actions that can extinguish customary interests, and the conferring on someone of a collective or freehold title would have extinguished customary interests that were inconsistent with that freehold title. I do not think there is any doubt in law about that. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000249\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EI also note, in respect of the assertion that that is somehow discriminatory against M\u0101ori, that a lot of the titles that are being protected by those particular clauses in this legislation are, in fact, M\u0101ori titles. They are collective titles, and they are sometimes M\u0101ori freehold titles, that extend into the foreshore and seabed area. So rather than this aspect being discriminatory against M\u0101ori, or discriminatory against some other group, that same rule actually applies to everyone. In any event, I suggest to Metiria Turei that those areas would not qualify, in any jurisdiction around the world that has looked at these issues, as still having extant unextinguished customary title interests. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000250\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EI will return to some of the other problems with the preamble. The first recital of the preamble states that the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004 was enacted partly in response to the Court of Appeal decision. But it does not say that, at the time, the exaggerated rhetoric coming from both sides of the dispute was saying things that were wrong, and was rarking up race relations. I have said in prior parts of this debate\u2014and I do not shirk from saying it again\u2014that that time was a septic time politically, and that race relations were being irresponsibly rarked up by, amongst others, Don Brash, the then leader of the National Party. Bill English was also saying to people that they would not be able to have a barbecue at the beach. When the legislation protected rights of public access, Bill English was saying that people would not be able to have a barbecue at the beach. Gerry Brownlee was the third person who was a leader of those intolerant and incorrect things that were being pushed by the National. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000251\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EThey were three very senior people in the National Party at the time. Don Brash was leader. Was Bill English deputy at the time? I cannot recall. He was National\u2019s finance spokesperson at the time, anyway, I think, and Gerry Brownlee was also in a senior role and had the spokesmanship role for M\u0101ori affairs at the time, on behalf of the National Party then in Opposition. They rarked up that legislation, and they said inaccurate things about the effect of the Foreshore and Seabed Act. There was also Hone Harawira\u2014and I have said this previously to Hone Harawira, who in my opinion also misrepresented the Ng\u0101ti Apa decision\u2014who said that the effect of the Ng\u0101ti Apa decision was that M\u0101ori owned the foreshore and seabed around New Zealand. At times he gave the impression to New Zealanders that that was true in respect of the foreshore and seabed around the whole of New Zealand, and that the rights that the Ng\u0101ti Apa decision found in respect of M\u0101oridom were tantamount to freehold property rights. But that was wrong too and it was one of the things that drove the fearful response from some of the red-necked reactionaries in New Zealand, who thought \u201CHell! I can\u2019t live with that.\u201D Well, they did not need to live with that, because that was never true, either. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000252\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EThose two things are omitted from the preamble, but they ought to be there because they are very relevant to where we got to in that Act. The Act was not perfect, and I agree with the special rapporteur from the United Nations that the greatest problem with the Foreshore and Seabed Act was not that it declined a right of people to go to court to prove they had an unextinguished customary interest, which is what we are now calling a customary marine title, but what we called under the Act a territorial customary right. It was not that people could not go to court to establish that that right existed prior to the Foreshore and Seabed Act, the problem was that people could not get recognition of it at court, and they were flicked back to a negotiation with the Crown. That effectively left people\u2014and I agree with John Boscawen on this\u2014at risk of grace-and-favour agreements with a future Government to have their property rights recognised. They should not be reliant upon a future negotiation with the Crown for that. If the right exists, and the court finds that it exists, then it should be recognised. It should not be a matter of negotiation with the Crown. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000253\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EIt is on that fundamental point that Labour has said that it agrees that the existing Act needs to be changed. That could easily be done by way of amendment. It could have been done by way of amendment to the existing Act, and we would have preferred that. We could go along with repeal and replacement legislation if it were of that limited effect. But, of course, that is not the effect of this legislation. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000254\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EIn the short time I have for the remainder of this turn, I will take up the issue of the process that has been adopted. We heard the Attorney-General, who is in the chair, say that the prior process for the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004 had been rushed. In fact, the legislation received the Royal assent a year and a half after the Court of Appeal decision in the Ng\u0101ti Apa case. There were hearings up and down the country. There were thousands of submissions. The big difference in process was that the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee did its job properly; it was allowed to finish its job properly. It was allowed to properly report to Parliament about what the effect of the legislation was. In aid of that, it had had legal advice from Paul McHugh, a Cambridge professor learned in international common law property rights\u2014customary rights. That select committee had the benefit of that advice, and it reported back to Parliament about the legal effect of the Foreshore and Seabed Act compared with the common law right. In this legislation we do not have the benefit of the Crown\u2019s advice\u2014the advice received from Crown Law\u2014because access to that has been blocked by the Attorney-General. The Attorney-General is entitled to claim privilege and not release that advice, but it was improper of the M\u0101ori Affairs Committee to block select committee members from getting legal advice. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000255\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EWe, to this day, do not know how to compare the legal tests with what would have been found at common law if this issue had been back in the courts. That is wrong\u2014that is very, very poor process. We are codifying this test in a way that M\u0101ori says is unfair to M\u0101ori, and that some non-M\u0101ori say is unfair to non-M\u0101ori. We have this enduring sore left for New Zealand because we have not properly dealt with the issue in the absence of legal advice. But it is abundantly clear that this matter will not be settled by Parliament. The co-leaders and whip of the M\u0101ori Party are saying that the legislation is but a step and that they do not accept that it settles the issue fairly. Hone Harawira, having left the M\u0101ori Party, is saying that he does not accept that the settlement is a fair settlement. So for the Government to pretend that this is a full and final settlement of the framework to determine foreshore and seabed claims is wishful thinking and wrong. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000256\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EThe issue about the process was also touched on by Mr Boscawen. There was a 500-page departmental report that raised lots of technical issues\u2014500 pages. I was one of the members of that select committee. I actually like to think I am a reasonably thorough member of select committees, and I try to read my papers. This report was circulated by email on the Friday; it was received in our offices on the Monday\u2014which was the Monday after Waitangi Day\u2014after the weekend, and it was considered by the select committee on that Tuesday afternoon. I, like most members of the committee, received it on the Tuesday morning. I went along to the select committee on the Tuesday afternoon, and the report was pushed through consideration by the National and M\u0101ori Party members without any member having read the whole of it. Paul Quinn says that he read the whole of the report; he did not, because even he on that afternoon acknowledged that he had got through only two-thirds of it. I had not had a chance to read it properly.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e2e2ee61-b3b9-4a89-bcc3-5b7be76c5825\u0022 data-id=\u0022614f426a476b476cb4cd2ba7695969eb\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000257\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e2e2ee61-b3b9-4a89-bcc3-5b7be76c5825\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022614f426a476b476cb4cd2ba7695969eb\u0022\u003ERAHUI KATENE (M\u0101ori Party\u2014Te Tai Tonga):\u003C/span\u003E I am very proud to stand today as a daughter of Ng\u0101ti Apa, Ng\u0101ti Kuia, Ng\u0101ti K\u014Data, Ng\u0101ti Toa, Ng\u0101ti Tama, Te \u0100tiawa, Rangit\u0101ne, and\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000258\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002273f60731-048d-4a21-81c5-52d588de2325\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022817635711f8b492095f936dc8e45e971\u0022\u003EHon Mita Ririnui\u003C/span\u003E:Ng\u0101puhi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000259\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e2e2ee61-b3b9-4a89-bcc3-5b7be76c5825\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022135992cc04eb482d9f3dc6e5ff7ad92c\u0022\u003ERAHUI KATENE\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014no, not Ng\u0101puhi, thank you\u2014and Ng\u0101ti R\u0101rua, all eight iwi of Te Tau Ihu. I am very proud to stand to speak on the preamble of this very significant legislation, the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill. I cannot help but to be taken back to 1997, and to think of the courage and vision of all eight iwi from the top of the South Island, from Te Tau Ihu, who went before the M\u0101ori Land Court to seek clarification that the foreshore and seabed within the Marlborough Sounds is M\u0101ori customary land, as defined in legislation. I remember the historic ruling by Judge Heta Hingston that the M\u0101ori Land Court does have jurisdiction to consider whether the foreshore and seabed is M\u0101ori customary land. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000260\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e2e2ee61-b3b9-4a89-bcc3-5b7be76c5825\u0022\u003EToday we are proud to have come full circle. It is a history that has taken many dramatic turns. Following Judge Hingston\u2019s ruling, the decision was appealed to the M\u0101ori Appellate Court by the Crown and certain other parties, and, as the preamble makes clear, in June 2003 another twist appeared when the Court of Appeal held that the M\u0101ori Land Court did indeed have jurisdiction to determine claims of customary ownership. Enter from stage left the previous Labour Government, which, led by Margaret Wilson and Helen Clark, moved in rapid fashion to thrust the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004 on the nation. We totally endorse the opening comments in this bill\u2019s preamble, which establish the history we all know of the 2004 Act: the condemnation of the Waitangi Tribunal; the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination; and the special visit of the United Nations special rapporteur, Rodolfo Stavenhagen. The 2004 Act removed the long-held common law right of M\u0101ori to seek customary title in the High Court. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000261\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e2e2ee61-b3b9-4a89-bcc3-5b7be76c5825\u0022\u003EThe 2004 Act extinguished customary title; no wh\u0101nau, hap\u016B, or iwi could seek customary title. The 2004 Act did not make provision for traditional practices or recognise the evolving nature of customary rights. The finding from the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination that the legislation contained \u201Cdiscriminatory aspects against the M\u0101ori, in particular in its extinguishment of the possibility of establishing M\u0101ori customary title over the foreshore and seabed\u201D was an indictment on the previous Labour Government, and has provided a key source of concern for t\u0101ngata whenua for 7 long years. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000262\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e2e2ee61-b3b9-4a89-bcc3-5b7be76c5825\u0022\u003EToday we welcome a new approach: an approach that takes account of the intrinsic, inherited rights of iwi, hap\u016B, and wh\u0101nau, derived in accordance with tikanga, and based on their connections with the foreshore and seabed and on the principle of manaakitanga. This key statement in recital (4) of the preamble says so much, and it bears some further explanation. The 2004 Act did not incorporate tikanga in its tests. This bill incorporates tikanga as a key element in the test for customary title, and allows for differences in tikanga from group to group. The 2004 Act extinguished customary title; no wh\u0101nau, hap\u016B, or iwi could seek customary title. The bill restores the ability for customary title to be recognised, and it does so in a way that honours the intrinsic, inherited rights of iwi, hap\u016B, and wh\u0101nau. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000263\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e2e2ee61-b3b9-4a89-bcc3-5b7be76c5825\u0022\u003EI want to also draw attention to the concept of manaakitanga, which the M\u0101ori Party is very proud of introducing in this bill. The inclusion of manaakitanga as an example of tikanga, which this bill is most concerned with extending protection to, is a very significant achievement of this bill. The only other legislation in which the concept of manaakitanga features is the Central North Island Forests Land Collective Settlement Act 2008 and the Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Act 2010. So we are pleased with the important progress that has been achieved with this legislation, and, in particular, with this preamble, which recognises and provides for the interests of wh\u0101nau, hap\u016B, and iwi, and which gives credence to the principles of manaakitanga. But it does more than that: it recognises the mana tuku iho of wh\u0101nau in relation to the takutai moana, it recognises the right to participate in conservation processes, and it provides greater certainty for iwi, hap\u016B, and wh\u0101nau. The bill restores the ability of M\u0101ori to seek customary property rights in the High Court. Most important of all, it honours the agreement we have made with our people to repeal the 2004 Act. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000264\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e2e2ee61-b3b9-4a89-bcc3-5b7be76c5825\u0022\u003EThis bill is in the House on our initiative. Make no bones about it, this is a M\u0101ori Party bill. We have delivered on our word to our members, and we are pleased to stand here in support of the bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002273f60731-048d-4a21-81c5-52d588de2325\u0022 data-id=\u002229aac635c9ce42adac3a21ec4e155b3e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000265\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002273f60731-048d-4a21-81c5-52d588de2325\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002229aac635c9ce42adac3a21ec4e155b3e\u0022\u003EHon MITA RIRINUI (Labour):\u003C/span\u003E I find it very interesting that different members of the M\u0101ori Party have different versions of the history of the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill. I have to congratulate my colleague the Hon David Parker\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000266\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002251dfea20-2244-4fc7-bd7d-ebf7a98580e1\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d9700d0b421e4946ab136035239a9c6a\u0022\u003EHon Tau Henare\u003C/span\u003E: That\u2019s not what you called him last week.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000267\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002273f60731-048d-4a21-81c5-52d588de2325\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022737b3cb2d22a4d6bb246ebb29e49505f\u0022\u003EHon MITA RIRINUI\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014on his speech to the Committee this afternoon. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000268\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002273f60731-048d-4a21-81c5-52d588de2325\u0022\u003EWe are talking about the preamble to the bill, in terms of its history, but in doing that we have to be mindful of matters that were raised throughout the select committee process but are not actually covered in the preamble. I heard the interjection from the Hon Tau Henare, and I wonder at what point he will take a call and explain to the Committee what instructions he had to drive this legislation through the M\u0101ori Affairs Committee and to not take into account the views of the submitters. I was part of the process, as I was part of the process in 2003 and 2004, and I have to say that it was an absolute shambles.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000269\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002251dfea20-2244-4fc7-bd7d-ebf7a98580e1\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225e12ba3a62e642bfb5cf522a6a6db9e8\u0022\u003EHon Tau Henare\u003C/span\u003E: Just like you. You did nothing as well.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000270\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002273f60731-048d-4a21-81c5-52d588de2325\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022bfd49ee70f4b4a7687e89d8c8e743719\u0022\u003EHon MITA RIRINUI\u003C/span\u003E: I am actually disgusted with the interjections I am hearing from the member across the Chamber in terms of his understanding of the process. If he thinks it was a transparent and open process, he should go back and read the select committee\u2019s report. A lot of the issues raised by the submitters were not actually included in the report. That was because that member went out of his way to shut down any open debate on certain matters. But I am sure he was acting under orders, so I will leave that matter as it rests. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000271\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002273f60731-048d-4a21-81c5-52d588de2325\u0022\u003EWe heard some valuable contributions this afternoon for and against this bill, but it is important that we take into account what the common people were saying about it. They were not interested in the high-flying legal arguments around the customary rights issue. I remind the member from the South Island that any codification of customary rights, as this bill is attempting to do, is actually an extinguishment of those customary rights. Get it clear\u2014the member is a lawyer, I hear. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000272\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002273f60731-048d-4a21-81c5-52d588de2325\u0022\u003EWhen we talk to people on the street, the first question they ask is what the bill will deliver in terms of recognition of the customary rights that they have enjoyed since 1840. I have to say that there is a lot of uncertainty around that. There is a lot of uncertainty around it, because a lot of the areas that the Government claims this bill covers are customary rights that they enjoy already. I am quite offended when I hear the member Rahui Katene refer to the collection of shellfish, and the manaakitanga that M\u0101ori have for other people. Those principles have never been compromised at any time, in my recollection, apart from the 1991 amendment to the Fisheries Act. So if she wants to talk about the history of this bill, I tell her to go back and look at when customary rights, in terms of shellfish collection or fisheries, were actually extinguished. They were extinguished back then. But that was to our benefit, because the codification of our customary rights in terms of kai moana was very, very clear in that we still have in place certain rights that allow us to practise manaakitanga. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000273\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002273f60731-048d-4a21-81c5-52d588de2325\u0022\u003EAnother thing that annoys me is the way we put up arguments and put the issues before our people. Our people think they will look out the window one day and the takutai moana will be gone. I will give members an example. I visited a group on the weekend at Maket\u016B, and the issue around this particular bill came up. A certain person, out of genuine concern, got to her feet and asked me what was happening about the takutai moana and our kai moana. I told her we were standing on the takutai moana and that it was still here and still ours, and I said we had just had lunch and we had kai moana on the table. I asked what her issue actually was. Her concern was that there was a lot of hype and emotion around this bill, as there was in 2003 and 2004. The concerns raised amongst M\u0101ori people were that those rights in terms of customary practices would be extinguished for ever. That is not the case. That was not the case in 2003 and 2004 and it is not the case now. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000274\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002273f60731-048d-4a21-81c5-52d588de2325\u0022\u003EI make the accusation here in the Chamber that the problem in 2003 and 2004 was that certain people in this House raised expectations about what they could deliver if they formed the M\u0101ori Party. They raised expectations about what was possible in terms of taking their issues to the High Court. They raised expectations in terms of what enjoyment they would have in the future in respect of customary practices. In other words, a lot of hypocrisy and misinformation was being flaunted out there amongst M\u0101ori people. That misinformation is still out there, and those people expect the M\u0101ori Party to deliver to them customary rights and customary title. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000275\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002273f60731-048d-4a21-81c5-52d588de2325\u0022\u003EThose members forgot to cover the complications M\u0101ori will face in the High Court. My colleague David Parker said earlier on that the benchmark is very high in terms of qualifying for the recognition of customary rights under this bill. That may be all very well for the legal fraternity, because, let us face it, they will be involved with litigation for some time to come, and they will be handling applications on behalf of many iwi around the country. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000276\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002273f60731-048d-4a21-81c5-52d588de2325\u0022\u003EMembers are not saying to those iwi that once we get this bill through, the issue is not over. It will never be over; it is just beginning. There are difficulties for iwi who apply for customary title over the takutai moana: they will have to meet the legal costs, and they will have to provide strong evidence about those interests. M\u0101ori have never ever had to do that\u2014ever. Since 1840 and pre-1840 they have never had to do that. I want the members to think about that and the sort of situation created for M\u0101ori in terms of arguing their case before the High Court. It has never ever had to be done in the past. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000277\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002273f60731-048d-4a21-81c5-52d588de2325\u0022\u003EThe previous Labour Government gave M\u0101ori the opportunity to enter into direct negotiations to clarify the nature and extent of their customary rights on the foreshore and seabed, and many of them have taken up the offer. That opportunity has been removed. Neither can M\u0101ori go to the M\u0101ori Land Court to have a settlement. The M\u0101ori Land Court is probably the best court in the land to consider these types of applications for customary interests, because their people are more intricately involved with M\u0101ori on a day-to-day basis; a lot of them are community-based people themselves. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000278\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002273f60731-048d-4a21-81c5-52d588de2325\u0022\u003EIt is a shame that we did not have a lot of debate around this particular issue. I concur with my colleagues that the select committee process was rushed. We made that known at the time but there seemed to be little consideration for a longer debate. The M\u0101ori Party will have to explain that to our people in the future. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000279\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002273f60731-048d-4a21-81c5-52d588de2325\u0022\u003EAn interesting submission was presented in Tauranga that stated that the select committee process provided the opportunity for us to have a longer debate. Little did the submitter know that it was the opportunity for the Government to shut down the debate. Once this bill came into the House and started to go through the second reading process, that was the end of it. There is no debate after that. That is why the Hon Tau Henare acted on instruction, because the Government wanted to shut down the debate for ever. There is no ongoing debate for M\u0101ori in terms of the legal requirements around their customary interests or the nature and extent of their customary interests. Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022802874a3-deca-48b7-9d33-9087058892f5\u0022 data-id=\u002231c5454b61224a028b88cdd459e95e82\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000280\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022802874a3-deca-48b7-9d33-9087058892f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002231c5454b61224a028b88cdd459e95e82\u0022\u003EKELVIN DAVIS (Labour):\u003C/span\u003E The preamble of the Marine Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill sets out, basically, its whakapapa. It is important to remember that this all started when Ng\u0101ti Apa sought some aquaculture areas way back in the time of the last National Government. The Marlborough Sounds council at the time would not guarantee Ng\u0101ti Apa some aquaculture space. Ng\u0101ti Apa said that was not fair and it would take the issue to court. It went to court and finally the Court of Appeal in 2003 said that, yes, Ng\u0101ti Apa had a case, and might go to court to test for customary title.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000281\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022802874a3-deca-48b7-9d33-9087058892f5\u0022\u003EBefore I move on to other parts of the whakapapa, I want to say that when M\u0101ori go to court to test that they have a case they have to be really, really careful. If the court decision is that they do not have any interest in customary title in a particular area, then they basically lose everything. That is a point we all need to realise when we say that M\u0101ori are chasing the right to go to court to test for customary title\u2014which I agree with. The point of the matter is we may lose everything if the court says that, no, we do not have a right to customary title in a particular area.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000282\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022802874a3-deca-48b7-9d33-9087058892f5\u0022\u003EDuring the select committee process I asked submitters whether they were after the right to go to court. They said yes. I asked whether they would accept the court\u2019s decision if it said they did not have a case for customary title. They said: \u201CHeck no. We\u2019ll fight that. We\u2019ll never lie down. We\u2019ll never give up another inch of seabed.\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000283\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002267431f57-e958-4c83-b438-7da8061d479e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b55995b9a1f24976a7b675c38fba64c6\u0022\u003EPaul Quinn\u003C/span\u003E: Rhetoric!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000284\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022802874a3-deca-48b7-9d33-9087058892f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b45a93fc69f742c0b459629700cfb439\u0022\u003EKELVIN DAVIS\u003C/span\u003E: The member over there says \u201CRhetoric!\u201D. That is fine, but I know that the mentality amongst our wh\u0101nau is that they will not accept the court\u2019s decision if the court says they do not have a case. That is something we as M\u0101ori have to be very mindful of\u2014that we may in fact lost everything. That is the risk we take by following this path.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000285\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022802874a3-deca-48b7-9d33-9087058892f5\u0022\u003EAfter the Court of Appeal decision the Foreshore and Seabed Bill was drafted. We know that it was controversial, and recital (2) of the preamble to this bill talks about the criticism. The h\u012Bkoi led by Hone Harawira was born. It started off up north and marched down to Parliament.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000286\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4112fc5-c53f-4aa9-bf6d-5a05ce6252cf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ad4519febb85426ba4dc8d76fab700e5\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy)\u003C/span\u003E: We will permit interjections as long as they are rare and reasonable. We are not going to have yelling contests between other members that are dissociated from the member on his feet. One at a time.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000287\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022802874a3-deca-48b7-9d33-9087058892f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225e0c4b295b1d4984b1bf41985d98e024\u0022\u003EKELVIN DAVIS\u003C/span\u003E: It is interesting that the very issue that gave birth to the M\u0101ori Party could also well be its demise. We have seen what has happened to the M\u0101ori Party over the last few weeks. One of the key members in forming the M\u0101ori Party is now one of the key members in its falling apart. It is very interesting that the M\u0101ori Party is in dire straits over this bill. Its members are embarrassed by this whole bill\u2014and I will get on to a few things Rahui Katene said earlier on. The M\u0101ori Party formed a coalition with National, and the coalition agreement said that they would address the whole issue of the foreshore and seabed. They had a ministerial review, which was fine, and this new bill was produced.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000288\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022802874a3-deca-48b7-9d33-9087058892f5\u0022\u003EI and the other members of the M\u0101ori Affairs Committee traversed the length and breadth of the country. I think we had 14 hearings in various places around the country and we heard from over 200 submitters. In those submissions there were polar opposite views. M\u0101ori in particular said this issue was a property rights and justice issue. On the other hand a number of people, mainly from the Coastal Coalition, said it was a race issue. It was really unfortunate. The truth lies somewhere in between the two extremes, the polar opposite views.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000289\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022802874a3-deca-48b7-9d33-9087058892f5\u0022\u003EI want to bring up the matter of the select committee process. It is unfair that on the Friday before Waitangi Day we received an email on our BlackBerries containing the 500-page departmental report. But those of us up north for Waitangi Day were meeting, talking, and listening to M\u0101ori, and hearing what the issues were for M\u0101ori. We spent the whole weekend at Waitangi, and on Monday we had meetings in our electorates. We then travelled down here to Wellington to find the 500-page review on our desks on Tuesday morning. There it is; the Hon Shane Jones is holding one up. We had a couple of hours to read it. It was impossible in that time to read it, to compare it with the bill, to make comparisons, and to really get our heads round it. It was wrong of the Hon Tau Henare, the chair of the select committee, to rush the process through without due deliberation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000290\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022802874a3-deca-48b7-9d33-9087058892f5\u0022\u003EIt was also unfair and wrong for us to be denied access to legal advice.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000291\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002251dfea20-2244-4fc7-bd7d-ebf7a98580e1\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c658e5f323c04cc7a457beabbece891d\u0022\u003EHon Tau Henare\u003C/span\u003E: What a cry-baby!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000292\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022802874a3-deca-48b7-9d33-9087058892f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221e2cca132a9140028d3df17cefffd842\u0022\u003EKELVIN DAVIS\u003C/span\u003E: We hear the Hon Tau Henare over there telling me not to be a cry-baby. He says that because he knows that he led\u2014or misled\u2014the process of the select committee. He is embarrassed about that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000293\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022802874a3-deca-48b7-9d33-9087058892f5\u0022\u003EI want to go on to something that Rahui Katene brought up. She said this bill is a M\u0101ori Party bill. The reason that party was formed was to repeal the Foreshore and Seabed Act, and she is very proud of what she has here. It is interesting that she says it is a M\u0101ori Party bill, because I have in my hand a letter from a M\u0101ori Party member who attended one of Te Ururoa Flavell\u2019s sideshows when he went around the country trying to convince M\u0101ori Party members that the bill was a good thing. He no doubt told them what he wanted them to hear. Te Ururoa was asked who was running the timetable and he said it was National. He was asked who wrote the bill and he said it was National. He was asked whose bill it was and he said it was National\u2019s. The letter says: \u201CIt\u2019s not the M\u0101ori Party\u2019s bill at all so why the hell vote for it.\u201D This is what\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000294\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002251dfea20-2244-4fc7-bd7d-ebf7a98580e1\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002277ae70d29e0a4ec9a3ec01f36101562a\u0022\u003EHon Tau Henare\u003C/span\u003E: What\u2019s his name?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000295\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022802874a3-deca-48b7-9d33-9087058892f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002207dc68ee8bd84397b17c0180d21baff2\u0022\u003EKELVIN DAVIS\u003C/span\u003E: I will scroll to the end. It is Tim Selwyn. He was, I assume, a M\u0101ori Party member. He is saying this bill is not a M\u0101ori Party bill; it is a National bill. Somewhere between Rahui Katene and Te Ururoa Flavell, that party needs to sort out exactly whose bill it is. Rahui Katene says it is a M\u0101ori Party bill and its members are very proud of it. Te Ururoa Flavell turns up to a public meeting and washes his hands of the bill. He is doing a Pontius Pilate. He does not want any part of it. He is saying it is a National bill. I tell those members to sort it out between them, because more confusion is arising from this whole episode.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000296\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022802874a3-deca-48b7-9d33-9087058892f5\u0022\u003EThat is the bones of the whakapapa regarding this bill. It was well explained and well set out by John Boscawen from the ACT Party.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000297\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002251dfea20-2244-4fc7-bd7d-ebf7a98580e1\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b8c8e1826618462faae64e853a8a32a3\u0022\u003EHon Tau Henare\u003C/span\u003E: Oh, you support the ACT Party now.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000298\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022802874a3-deca-48b7-9d33-9087058892f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f07d3e415aeb4bbf9dcd9756d9e1c19a\u0022\u003EKELVIN DAVIS\u003C/span\u003E: I agree that it is a bit hard when a Labour Party member and an ACT Party member end up agreeing with each other. I also agree that there were times when I thought the chairperson of the select committee was a bit rough with a number of submitters. I agree with the Hon John Boscawen that when members of the public come to a select committee to express their ideas, they should not be put down, harangued, or harassed in any way. It was a shame that that happened, even though I was blown away by some of the extreme views of a number of the people from the Coastal Coalition who say that this bill is about separatism and apartheid.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000299\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f44431ef-b505-4e94-9f57-a60b0a569bf7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002254306708cb4541b499c5020572426d42\u0022\u003EHon Shane Jones\u003C/span\u003E: They\u2019re nuts, forget them\u2014National voters.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000300\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022802874a3-deca-48b7-9d33-9087058892f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ff2f1fb07be5428385422d4cf2cfbabe\u0022\u003EKELVIN DAVIS\u003C/span\u003E: They are nuts, and I think they need to pull their heads in. Basically, they are so extreme that they are not helpful at all to any part of this debate. Kia ora.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002267431f57-e958-4c83-b438-7da8061d479e\u0022 data-id=\u00227eecc97157204ca08ceb3c3e066b87c7\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002267431f57-e958-4c83-b438-7da8061d479e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00227eecc97157204ca08ceb3c3e066b87c7\u0022\u003EPAUL QUINN (National):\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=\u00227883c85e-a5bb-4a12-9962-80df55af0ecd\u0022 data-id=\u002283746c646c6642b1bc6bc6f2f5f023e3\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000302\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227883c85e-a5bb-4a12-9962-80df55af0ecd\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002283746c646c6642b1bc6bc6f2f5f023e3\u0022\u003EHONE HARAWIRA (Independent\u2014Te Tai Tokerau):\u003C/span\u003E T\u0113n\u0101 koe, Mr Chairperson, huri rauna kia ora t\u0101tou te Whare. First of all, I think we need to put to bed the ridiculous story from the Labour Party that the reason why Labour passed the Foreshore and Seabed Act was that it thought National would do something racist. That would have to be the biggest joke, if it were not so tragic, that I have heard in a long, long time. It was not National that said it would take away the foreshore and seabed; it was Labour. Labour said it would do that, and it went ahead and did it. I think we need to clear that up straight away. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000303\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227883c85e-a5bb-4a12-9962-80df55af0ecd\u0022\u003EI also thank the Labour Party for allowing me the opportunity to speak on the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill during the second reading and, hopefully, for granting me the opportunity to speak on it again in the third reading. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000304\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227883c85e-a5bb-4a12-9962-80df55af0ecd\u0022\u003EI congratulate the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, Chris Finlayson, on doing a good job on this bill. He has been very enthusiastic and very open. I think he has been willing to travel and willing to listen to people\u2019s views. But I think the real problem for the Minister is that he does not support this bill. He does not support it, because he knows that it does not lead to justice for M\u0101ori. The Minister does not support this bill, because he would have dearly loved to provide the opportunity for M\u0101ori to gain tupuna title, in terms of the foreshore and seabed. The Minister does not support this bill, because he went around and said to M\u0101ori groups, and to the iwi leadership in particular, that if they could not get their foreshore and seabed back through the courts, he would leave the door open for them to come and see him and negotiate the possibility to get their foreshore and seabed back by discussion with him. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000305\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227883c85e-a5bb-4a12-9962-80df55af0ecd\u0022\u003ENow, something else has happened. That deal was changed, and that was the deal that the M\u0101ori Party supported: going to court, and, if not being successful in court, negotiation with the Minister. That deal with the Minister morphed into a deal in Parliament. I understand today that that deal has morphed into nothing. That deal is now completely off the table, and the only deal left is the court deal. The problem here is that the court deal is no deal. Just because the door has been opened to the courtroom, it does not mean to say justice is available to M\u0101ori. When the Minister himself says M\u0101ori must prove full and exclusive use and occupation of the foreshore and seabed without substantial interruption and according to tikanga, he is setting a test that is so high that no wh\u0101nau and no hap\u016B can even afford to contemplate going to court. It is as difficult as that to prove. I think Mr Parker raised the notion of local body involvement on the foreshore and seabed, which would negate that ability. Others have mentioned the fact that land was taken illegally, but that does not apply in this situation. It still means that M\u0101ori do not have the ability to get the foreshore and seabed back. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000306\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227883c85e-a5bb-4a12-9962-80df55af0ecd\u0022\u003EI pick up on the comments made by Metiria Turei about the racism implicit in this bill. I understand that people have been concerned about my mentioning the fact that the bill is racist legislation only 15 times in my second reading speech. That is because it is. Unfortunately, it is also because the Minister thinks the bill is racist. The Minister himself does not agree that things should be imposed upon M\u0101ori that are not imposed upon others in this country, in terms of the way in which the foreshore and seabed is managed. In terms of the issue about mana\u2014and I see that the word \u201Cmana\u201D is used freely in the bill, and in particular in the preamble\u2014I note that in terms of sovereignty, in terms of control of primary minerals, in terms of control of access, and in terms of access to resources, all of those statutory authorities still remain with the Crown. So there is no mana, because those issues are elements of mana. They are still wrapped up in Crown ownership, and that of course is the issue that M\u0101ori were fighting against. Although the title has been changed nominally, from Crown ownership to no title, in fact the statutory authority in relation to all of those matters still remains with the Crown. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000307\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227883c85e-a5bb-4a12-9962-80df55af0ecd\u0022\u003EI have heard often that issues of this nature should have broad support. Clearly, Labour\u2019s Act did not have broad support, but neither does this legislation from the National Government. In fact, this bill does not even have the support of the general P\u0101keh\u0101 population, let alone the M\u0101ori population in this country. I think that is a concern, or it should be a concern, to the Minister. I know, for example, that this bill is not what M\u0101ori people want. In fact, of the 72 submissions that came in on the bill from M\u0101ori organisations, wh\u0101nau, hap\u016B, iwi, marae, and M\u0101ori collectives, only one supported this bill. We could hardly say that is broad-based M\u0101ori support. This legislation is not even what all of the M\u0101ori MPs in this Chamber want. I know that Mr Quinn, for example, does not believe that this bill will achieve what his people would like to see happen in relation to the foreshore and seabed.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000308\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002267431f57-e958-4c83-b438-7da8061d479e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225458427d8b004e83afd33587f51deb9f\u0022\u003EPaul Quinn\u003C/span\u003E: How do you know that?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000309\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227883c85e-a5bb-4a12-9962-80df55af0ecd\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f2f5aa9449e04ada81dcb28256413dd7\u0022\u003EHONE HARAWIRA\u003C/span\u003E: Because the member told me so, just outside the Chamber a few minutes ago. I say thank you very much to Mr Quinn. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000310\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227883c85e-a5bb-4a12-9962-80df55af0ecd\u0022\u003EI also say this bill is not even what the M\u0101ori Party wants. I will quote from one of the co-leaders on this legislation: \u201CIf the negotiations had been just, fair, and moral, the outcome would have been different.\u201D I will repeat that, in terms of whether the M\u0101ori Party supports this bill. One of the co-leaders said, in her question and answer video on this legislation: \u201CIf the negotiations had been just, fair, and moral, the outcome would have been different.\u201D Clearly this bill is unjust, unfair, and immoral. How the M\u0101ori Party can say this is its bill, when it is unjust, unfair, and immoral, is beyond me.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000311\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227883c85e-a5bb-4a12-9962-80df55af0ecd\u0022\u003EFor all of those reasons I think we need to consider the proposal that was made by one Moana Jackson. It was a simple proposal that I know the Minister also liked, and I will come to that at the end of my k\u014Drero. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000312\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227883c85e-a5bb-4a12-9962-80df55af0ecd\u0022\u003EBut when the M\u0101ori Party said this was its bill, I could not understand why it would say that, when the principle of tupuna title that the M\u0101ori Party wanted in the bill was summarily dismissed early in the process. I cannot understand why the M\u0101ori Party says this is its bill, when even the M\u0101ori Party membership does not support this bill. When the M\u0101ori Party says this is its bill, I ask whether it heard the submissions that were submitted to the M\u0101ori Affairs Committee that said this bill fails to properly recognise and provide for the mana of hap\u016B and iwi, that it continues the original confiscation via investing in the common space, that it sets the use and occupation tests too high, that it limits the contents of a customary marine title, that it introduces a costly, adversarial, and complicated court process, that it remains discriminatory to M\u0101ori, and that it continues to breach Te Tiriti o Waitangi, tikanga M\u0101ori, common law principles, and international human rights standards, including the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000313\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227883c85e-a5bb-4a12-9962-80df55af0ecd\u0022\u003EMoana Jackson suggested a very simple solution to this problem, and it was this: repeal the 2004 Foreshore and Seabed Act, because everybody wants that to occur, including Labour. So if the Minister wants broad support, then there is the answer. We should repeal the 2004 Act and then put a moratorium on the foreshore and seabed, so that M\u0101ori can take 2 years to discuss the way that will lead to a solution that achieves broad-based support and still achieves the kinds of principles that are important to M\u0101ori in terms of mana, in terms of tikanga M\u0101ori, and in terms of kaupapa. E mihi atu ki a koe, Mr Chairman. Thank you very much. Huri noa te Whare, kia ora t\u0101tou katoa.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002260200136-9d63-4a82-b4f5-c00411adb1fd\u0022 data-id=\u0022e29889e5918943aebea644d13cd22244\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000314\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002260200136-9d63-4a82-b4f5-c00411adb1fd\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022e29889e5918943aebea644d13cd22244\u0022\u003EJO GOODHEW (Junior Whip\u2014National):\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=\u0022c53e4642-d448-4d84-abfe-0443fe24aae9\u0022 data-id=\u0022eea8fcf55c9042bb817e4ccde0f1a6e9\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000315\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c53e4642-d448-4d84-abfe-0443fe24aae9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022eea8fcf55c9042bb817e4ccde0f1a6e9\u0022\u003EHILARY CALVERT (ACT):\u003C/span\u003E Tau Henare was right when he said that I was at many of the select committee hearings on the foreshore and seabed legislation. One of the submissions that I particularly noticed was one made by Business New Zealand on behalf of 76,000 employers and business groups. It talked, in particular, about the preamble. It talked about what the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill is all about, and it said that it was there for six reasons: to uphold and protect property rights; to be consistent with the Treaty of Waitangi and relevant common law; to bring legal clarity and certainty; to facilitate economic development for M\u0101ori and non-M\u0101ori; to integrate with other relevant legislation, including the Resource Management Act; and to satisfy overall justice and fairness, including appeal rights and remedies. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000316\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c53e4642-d448-4d84-abfe-0443fe24aae9\u0022\u003EAs has been mentioned earlier, the Prime Minister has said that unless this bill had widespread support he would not be supporting it. Those 76,000 businesses and organisations looked at these six criteria, thinking that these were the six things that this bill should be doing, and said that this bill breaches all six of them. The first reason for the proposed legislation was to uphold and protect property rights, and Business New Zealand said a variety of things, but at the end it said that the substitute rights that the proposed legislation would create bear no comparison to the property rights assured by the Treaty of Waitangi, and even the highest category proposed, the customary marine title, would restrict iwi and hap\u016B to blocking the proposal of others as the main way to extract tangible returns, rather than allowing them to gain full benefit of recognised orthodox property rights. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000317\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c53e4642-d448-4d84-abfe-0443fe24aae9\u0022\u003EWhen Business New Zealand talked about whether the proposed legislation would be consistent with the Treaty of Waitangi and relevant common law, it said: \u201CThe Bill is inconsistent with common law in promoting a special status of common marine and coastal area that is contrary to the common law doctrine of eminent domain under which the absolute ownership of all land lies with the Crown.\u201D It said: \u201CGiving away the common law doctrine of eminent domain in relation to the marine and coastal area would leave nowhere for any currently freehold land to revert to should it not be possible to find someone to whom private ownership could pass. This could result in neglected, decaying and dangerous structures for which there would be no-one to take responsibility. The Bill expressly denies exclusivity of use of areas under the interests created for iwi, except where reclamations are completed\u201D. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000318\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c53e4642-d448-4d84-abfe-0443fe24aae9\u0022\u003EWhen looking at whether the bill creates legal clarity and certainty, Business New Zealand said that the exclusion of freehold land in defined areas would mean that land can become part of the common area by, for example, erosion, and by contrast land that moves beyond the line of mean high-water springs reverts to Crown ownership. \u201CCrown ownership of minerals (other than those designated as the property of the Crown) continues until any such are found within a customary marine title group area. At that point Crown ownership ceases and ownership moves to the relevant iwi group.\u201D Importantly, Business New Zealand said: \u201CRather than promoting legal clarity and certainty, the exceptions cited above demonstrate the uncertainty and complexity contained in the proposed legislation.\u201D That is uncertainty and complexity in so far as it could facilitate economic development for M\u0101ori and non-M\u0101\u014Dri. It said: \u201CThis approach would also take no account of the time effect of transactions and the ongoing refinement of terms and conditions to suit particular prospective buyers and sellers. For example, a falling market might mean the owner had to start afresh when a price moved above market, to ensure a sale was not \u2018more favourable\u2019; on a rising market the opposite would prevail. This level of complexity for what should be a straightforward transaction illustrates the difficulties for economic development that could result from the proposed legislation.\u201D \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000319\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c53e4642-d448-4d84-abfe-0443fe24aae9\u0022\u003ESo it does not satisfy the supporting economic development for M\u0101ori. The submission then asked whether the proposed legislation would integrate with other relevant legislation, including the Resource Management Act 1991. Clearly, we will hear a lot more about this later in the bill, but it is Business New Zealand\u2019s view that the bill should integrate with other relevant legislation and it fails to integrate with the Resource Management Act. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000320\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c53e4642-d448-4d84-abfe-0443fe24aae9\u0022\u003EAs for whether it would satisfy overall justice and fairness, including appeal rights and remedies, legislation of this kind must be balanced, but there must be concern about the differences of interpretation this bill has received, doubtless fostering public confusion. If it became law, many people could perceive the legislation as unfair, particularly in light of the kinds of issues raised in the submission. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000321\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c53e4642-d448-4d84-abfe-0443fe24aae9\u0022\u003EOn the question of appeal rights, the relationship between applications for recognition by agreement and for recognition by order of the High Court is unclear. With the responsible Minister able to enter into an agreement to recognise a protected customary right, it is not apparent why any group would apply to the High Court for a recognition order. The only reason would seem to be uncertainty whether the Minister would be prepared to grant recognition. And although there can be little concern that favouritism would be a feature of ministerial decision-making, grants of recognition left to the Minister\u2019s discretion would invite accusations of this sort. If recognition was not granted, the further question would arise whether the group involved might then apply to the High Court. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000322\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c53e4642-d448-4d84-abfe-0443fe24aae9\u0022\u003EThe preamble also describes this legislation as taking into account the intrinsic and inherited rights of wh\u0101nau, hap\u016B, and iwi derived in accordance with tikanga. Tikanga is an Alice in Wonderland word. It means whatever the Queen\u2014I think it was the Red or White Queen\u2014said it would mean, no more and no less. The preamble goes on to state that \u201CIt translates those inherited rights into legal rights and interests\u201D. So we are to believe that this Alice in Wonderland word, a word that can be defined by the person claiming some property in our coastal land, creates legal rights based entirely on the say-so of the claimant. We might just as well ask iwi for a list of what they want and put through a legal transfer. Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022659f6556-09a1-4ead-bc52-05cbdb4eaab8\u0022 data-id=\u0022bb69b766b3c8498f84544a7f929c3247\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000323\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022659f6556-09a1-4ead-bc52-05cbdb4eaab8\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022bb69b766b3c8498f84544a7f929c3247\u0022\u003ECRAIG FOSS (National\u2014Tukituki):\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=\u0022f44431ef-b505-4e94-9f57-a60b0a569bf7\u0022 data-id=\u00224cc217e1931844f1891a2764c349c3c3\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000324\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f44431ef-b505-4e94-9f57-a60b0a569bf7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00224cc217e1931844f1891a2764c349c3c3\u0022\u003EHon SHANE JONES (Labour):\u003C/span\u003E \u0100, kia ora an\u014D t\u0101tou. T\u0113n\u0101 koe e te Kaihaut\u016B o te Whare m\u014D t\u0113nei w\u0101hanga o \u0101 t\u0101tou whiriwhiri i t\u0113nei ahiahi. Ahakoa n\u014D te tonga noa atu koe, ka nui taku hari i whakaritea kia t\u016B ai ahau. He m\u014Dhio n\u014Dku me p\u0113hea te p\u016Bkenga ka puta.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000325\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f44431ef-b505-4e94-9f57-a60b0a569bf7\u0022\u003E[Salutations once again to us. Thank you for allowing me to speak in this part of our deliberations this afternoon, Mr Chairman. Although you are from the very southern part of the country, I am absolutely pleased that you allowed me to stand. Mind you, I know how eloquent I am.]   \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000326\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f44431ef-b505-4e94-9f57-a60b0a569bf7\u0022\u003EThank you very much, Mr Chair, for providing me with an opportunity to stand and make a contribution on the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill. Unfortunately the public thinks that the reasons we are marshalling on why we do not agree with this bill\u2014and I will come to the preamble very soon\u2014are consistent with what the last speaker, Hilary Calvert, just said. No one on this side of the Chamber believes that such an important bundle of rights, traditions, habits, and usages as those caught up in the words tikanga M\u0101ori comes from Alice in Wonderland. That was a disgraceful description of the bicultural traditions of this Parliament, and it showed why ACT, after, unfortunately, the passage of this bill, and as we get closer to 26 November, will be written right out of the script. Not a single person will shed a tear when that happens to someone who could make such a provocative, ill-conceived, and very nasty remark about nigh on 15 percent, soon to be 20 percent, of the population. But that will soon pass into history.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000327\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f44431ef-b505-4e94-9f57-a60b0a569bf7\u0022\u003EThe preamble is a rather tight and somewhat parsimonious description of what has happened on this issue. We need to bear in mind that it was hardship that brought this issue to the attention of the former M\u0101ori Fisheries Commission, which then became the Treaty of Waitangi Fisheries Commission. Having extended the preamble and given it a greater degree of heritage, the Minister in the chair, the Attorney-General, ought to have included the pivotal role that was played by the Treaty of Waitangi Fisheries Commission, which was, for a short time\u2014a mercifully short period of time\u2014dominated by influences in the south, until it was liberated by those of us in the north. What happened was that marine farming interests were dashed. They will be extinguished, and they would probably be non-existent, if one was to listen to the previous speaker from ACT. That was a very, very jaundiced and uncharitable description of recent M\u0101ori history and New Zealand\u2019s economic development history.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000328\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f44431ef-b505-4e94-9f57-a60b0a569bf7\u0022\u003EThe Court of Appeal decision was reflective of a knee-jerk reaction from a High Court judge who took a very narrow and arid approach. That in itself was a reaction against Judge Ken Hingston\u2019s decision, which was called, and is known, amongst the iwi as the Tau Ihu decision. That, in turn, was a reflection of how difficult and unwilling the people who were manning the seats in Tasman and the Tau Ihu area were to the applicants from the M\u0101ori tribes of that area towards establishing marine farming interests.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000329\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f44431ef-b505-4e94-9f57-a60b0a569bf7\u0022\u003EThis preamble, unfortunately, does not identify the fact that Labour, when it passed its bill, allocated, in a very sensible fashion, 20 percent of the marine farming interests to ensure that that portion of the grievance was addressed. Of course, as befits parliamentarians such as Phil Heatley, he has just carried on that very good work. The origin of that original deal goes back to Labour, and I think it is very disappointing that between recitals (1) and (2) of the preamble no reference is made to those very useful interventions delivered by our side of the Chamber.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000330\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f44431ef-b505-4e94-9f57-a60b0a569bf7\u0022\u003EThe other thing this preamble ought to have included was reference to the ill-fated decision in the Te Oneroa-a-T\u014Dhe / Ninety Mile Beach case. [Interruption] I am speaking about the preamble. I am endeavouring to educate the member opposite who looks like a kina, and the one who behaves like a hedgehog. If they prove to be disinterested in receiving a brief history lesson, let it to be to the detriment of their descendants and their families, many of whom may need to go to see Ms Bennett, unless they pay more attention. The Te Oneroa-a-T\u014Dhe / Ninety Mile Beach case ought to have been mentioned in the preamble, because had our matua from the very far north had more resources to challenge that decision, the outcome may have been substantially different.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000331\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f44431ef-b505-4e94-9f57-a60b0a569bf7\u0022\u003EWe do not and will not support this bill. We are more than willing to provide Hone Harawira with a suitable level of opportunity to make\u2014[Interruption] I apologise for mistaking a kina and a hedgehog, but after that contribution I do not feel those descriptions were incorrect. I come back to the contributions that our colleague Hone Harawira has made. Unwisely, he attacks Labour, without giving credit for the very sensible ideas that we brought forward to address some of the interests that motivated the claimants. I just hope that he is in the Chamber to cast his vote. Whatever he does, he needs to sort it out with the Green Party, so that the people of Te Tai Tokerau know that, although he has a loud voice, he will actually cast his vote. He needs to bear in mind that the vote that will really count for him will be on 26 November, and it will have a red tinge\u2014but that is another matter.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000332\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f44431ef-b505-4e94-9f57-a60b0a569bf7\u0022\u003EI come back to the contribution made by the ministerial review panel, which was led by that peerless personage of Te Ao M\u0101ori otherwise known as Judge Eddie Durie. However, I did not agree with the interpretations that came out from that review panel. There was one absurd section, and I want it read into Hansard in my abbreviated form, because it shows that perhaps this preamble is lacking an additional bit of history. It had a photo and a ridiculous statement that it was only after the 1940s and 1950s that New Zealanders enjoyed recreating, swimming, cavorting, and doing other things on the seabed and foreshore. That was an absolutely ridiculous statement. From the beginning of the time that families have come here to live, and quite apart from our M\u0101ori t\u016Bpuna, people have taken for granted that that was their birthright. This bill\u2014unfortunately it is an inescapable outcome\u2014will lead to drama, aggro, and a definite prospect that people thinking they can go ahead and enjoy those interests will be challenged and drawn into drama. The report suggested that such interests in the foreshore and seabed were a very recent innovation. Although that report by Richard Boast, Sir T\u012Bpene\u2019s daughter, Judge Eddie Durie, and I forget whoever else was on the panel, is referred to in the bill, it did not advance matters to such a stage that this bill is demonstrably superior to the contribution that Dr Cullen and Helen Clark made. We will fight that issue, along with the M\u0101ori Party, at the next election.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000333\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f44431ef-b505-4e94-9f57-a60b0a569bf7\u0022\u003EThe M\u0101ori Party is entitled to say that this is its bill. It is entitled to say that this bill is its remedy, etc. In one sense, it needs to say that, because it promised it would address the dramas associated with our contribution. But it has not described satisfactorily to our people the facts about, when we have our day in court, the narrow and largely unsatisfactory criteria that its people\u2014its supporters\u2014will have to meet. Its supporters are diminishing by the day, and by the hour\u2014not that I want to wish too much ill will towards the M\u0101ori Party, because as fate would have it, one or three of its members might survive, and we will address that after 26 November. It is important that those people bear in mind that the threshold and the test that has been established will not satisfy their aspirations. It will lead to a set of expectations inversely related to what this bill can produce, and statute ought not to do that, which is why we will not be agreeing with this bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000334\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f44431ef-b505-4e94-9f57-a60b0a569bf7\u0022\u003EThe preamble contains a very sparse and uncharitable description of the role that Labour played and the more positive aspects of that role, but in particular it completely avoids the very ugly, divisive, and quite extraordinarily angry reaction from Don Brash and a host of other National members who are now wildly passing the bill. That has been left out of it, as well. A balanced history would show that prejudice and bigotry flowed from that side of the Chamber. The attempt on this side of the Chamber was to combine notions of fairness and customary rights and to bring balance. That is what we sought to do, but it was a reaction to an almost fascist outburst in the speech at \u014Crewa. It is bizarre that the M\u0101ori Party would actually want to cuddle up to the Government and to bring the bill to pass. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002251dfea20-2244-4fc7-bd7d-ebf7a98580e1\u0022 data-id=\u0022e2f7c5a26c16472fbea301a3a2f340da\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000335\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002251dfea20-2244-4fc7-bd7d-ebf7a98580e1\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022e2f7c5a26c16472fbea301a3a2f340da\u0022\u003EHon TAU HENARE (National):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That the question be now put.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022655c7fbf562e47b68ba1dce7b9976d45\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 62\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 57; M\u0101ori Party 4; United Future 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 59\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1; Independents: Carter C, Harawira.\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=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000336\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 207 in the name of the Hon Christopher Finlayson to the preamble be agreed to.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022592d10d3022749d1991c05441d959f4b\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 62\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 57; M\u0101ori Party 4; United Future 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 59\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1; Independents: Carter C, Harawira.\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=\u0022bbbc6fccb9494e29b69dbf0c2d745771\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 preamble as amended be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 62\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 57; M\u0101ori Party 4; United Future 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 59\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1; Independents: Carter C, Harawira.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EPreamble as amended agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000337\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u002244f490d666044a37ac8e3c4db41d1999\u0022\u003EPart 1  Preliminary provisions\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002241146229-4d11-415b-a4ac-f4e2b923e95d\u0022 data-id=\u002276e516c22d6447cd8083d1e21b532e77\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000338\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002241146229-4d11-415b-a4ac-f4e2b923e95d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002276e516c22d6447cd8083d1e21b532e77\u0022\u003EHon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General):\u003C/span\u003E I will make just a couple of preliminary comments about Part 1 of the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill. The part sets out\u2014not surprisingly, given its title\u2014certain preliminary provisions. They outline the purpose of the bill. There is a very important and carefully defined Treaty clause, and clauses that provide some definition of two terms: \u201Caccommodated activity\u201D and \u201Cdeemed accommodated activity\u201D. They are activities that do not fall within the customary marine title permission rights. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000339\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002241146229-4d11-415b-a4ac-f4e2b923e95d\u0022\u003EThere are a number of amendments on the substantive Supplementary Order Paper 207. Clauses 8 and 9 will be moved from Part 1, and it is proposed that they be located within Part 3 before the resource management and conservation permission rights to which they relate. The terms \u201Caccommodated activity\u201D and \u201Cdeemed accommodated activity\u201D have been very carefully refined to ensure that they better reflect the policy intent, and to improve their workability. It is also proposed that the clauses that actually repeal the Foreshore and Seabed Act and restore customary interests\u2014clauses 14 and 15\u2014be moved to immediately after the purpose clause. That is what the Supplementary Order Paper proposes. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000340\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002241146229-4d11-415b-a4ac-f4e2b923e95d\u0022\u003EThere are a couple of other clauses I would not mind just briefly referring to. Clause 6 is an important clause. In the course of a number of submissions that were made to the M\u0101ori Affairs Committee, as I understand it, and also in the course of a number of written submissions, hellfire and brimstone have been aired to the effect that if this legislation passes, New Zealand\u2019s sovereignty will somehow be diminished. Of course, that is to address the very point that the Court of Appeal said was mistaken: to conflate the concepts of ownership and sovereignty. On 6 February 1840, when the Treaty of Waitangi was signed, the British Crown assumed sovereignty of Aotearoa New Zealand. But at that time existing indigenous property rights continued to exist. In other words, the assumption of sovereignty did not undermine those ownership rights. Time and time again, when I have been speaking on this bill over the last period\u2014more particularly, in the last couple of weeks\u2014people in the audience have got up and raised those matters with me. I have had to say to them that ownership and sovereignty are two different concepts. Clause 6 deals with that issue, and the Supplementary Order Paper redrafts it, not to alter anything substantively but to set it out more clearly. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000341\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002241146229-4d11-415b-a4ac-f4e2b923e95d\u0022\u003EClause 7 is the interpretation clause. A couple of points are worth making here. The first point deals with the definition of the \u201Ccommon marine and coastal area\u201D. Paragraph (a) refers to those parts that are held in fee simple. Specified freehold land located in the area will not be included in the common marine and coastal area. I thought the position was very well articulated by the Hon David Parker, in response to the Green Party member\u2019s speech that nothing is to be gained by essentially indulging in a confiscation of land held in freehold title. It is important for the member of the Green Party Metiria Turei, who says she adopts a beautiful, pure approach to these matters, to understand that the effect of what she is seeking would be to remove and put into the customary marine title area general land owned by P\u0101keh\u0101, general land owned by M\u0101ori, and also customary land. I do not think that is particularly wise, and we will not go there. We will not confiscate M\u0101ori customary land from M\u0101ori, nor will we confiscate general land that they may own.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000342\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002241146229-4d11-415b-a4ac-f4e2b923e95d\u0022\u003EI will just say something about paragraph (c) of the definition of the \u201Ccommon marine and coastal area\u201D, which deals with the bed of Te Whaanga Lagoon in the Chatham Islands, because there is some interesting background to that issue. The Waitangi Tribunal\u2019s report of 2001 deals with the position of Ng\u0101ti Mutunga and Moriori claims in the Chatham Islands. The tribunal found that the lagoon should be vested in a body that was representative both of Ng\u0101ti Mutunga and of Moriori. In fact, Ng\u0101ti Mutunga had lodged a case in 1993, contesting the tribunal\u2019s findings. They viewed the lagoon as their M\u0101ori customary land. The M\u0101ori Land Court adjourned the case for the tribunal\u2019s hearing of the Ng\u0101ti Apa case. So rather than put the lagoon into the common marine and coastal area, we have specifically excluded it at this stage. If it is put into the common marine and coastal area, it cannot be used in a Treaty settlement. It is my fervent hope that, at a point in the not too distant future, we will be able to enter into negotiations both with Ng\u0101ti Mutunga and with Moriori, and achieve a settlement that will deal with this lagoon. The lagoon should never have been put into Crown ownership in 2004. It is important that it not be moved across to the common marine and coastal area now, so that it can be used in a Treaty settlement. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000343\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002241146229-4d11-415b-a4ac-f4e2b923e95d\u0022\u003EThe other definitions are very technical, and I do not think that I need to take the time of the Committee in order to deal with them.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022 data-id=\u00223e1aabc4bd104ac7910a220302027802\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000344\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00223e1aabc4bd104ac7910a220302027802\u0022\u003EMETIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader\u2014Green):\u003C/span\u003E It is really unfortunate that the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations is prepared to deliberately misinterpret the issues, particularly on the question of equitable treatment under the law for private title and customary title. The argument is\u2014and it was upheld by the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination and by the ministerial review panel that looked at the issue\u2014that there be equitable treatment of M\u0101ori forms of title and other forms of title.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000345\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003EIt is not a question of whether there should be confiscation of private title. The question is if we are going to have a principle of public access\u2014I do not know how David Parker managed to completely misunderstand this point\u2014then there is no justification for saying the principle should apply only to some forms of title and not to others. If we want to protect things like public safety, for example, or the environmental values of particularly sensitive areas, or if there is some rational, logical reason why public access to particular land should not be provided, then one can set out criteria and ways of managing those decisions. But the title of the land should be irrelevant to whether the principle applies. The principle should apply in accordance with the needs of the public and issues pertaining to that particular land, which are things like environmental sensibility, r\u0101hui, particular kinds of use, and public safety.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000346\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003EThe issue for the Greens and for M\u0101ori\u2014on this issue we have consistently spoken for M\u0101ori\u2014is equitable treatment under the law, and the right for customary title and M\u0101ori forms of tikanga title to be treated equitably by legislation. That was not the case with the 2004 law. It is not the case with this Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill, because the principles of, for example, public access apply differently to different forms of title. I wanted to clear that matter up. It does not matter how much other people try to misinterpret that issue; that is the clear, principled position on the issue of public access, for example.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000347\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003EI have an amendment to delete clause 9 in Part 1. It is related to clause 8 but that is OK. As I said in an earlier call, the issue is about accommodated activities, which are activities of Government agencies and Crown entities, public works, and various kinds of things like that that could occur, or are occurring, on customary marine title land. The bill has all these definitions of people who can have these kinds of activities and the kinds of activities they can be, and if they impact on customary marine title land, the Minister effectively has the right to use, take, or acquire that land, or to damage it, if the Minister chooses, and then to enter into negotiation with the holders of that customary marine title about what compensation might be available. I want to go through the legislation, because it is a technical point but it is important. Again, it is one of the discriminatory aspects of the bill that show that M\u0101ori title is being treated differently from other kinds of title, and one of the reasons why the bill is considered to be discriminatory in ethnic terms.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000348\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003EClause 8 sets out the kinds of things that can be considered to be part of an accommodated activity. They include renewing an existing resource consent, upgrading existing structures, the replacement or relocation of existing structures or infrastructure, and dredging, which is a major issue for M\u0101ori in coastal areas. Dredging is one of those activities. That could mean things like using a coastal marine area as a dump for the discharge of sewage. If a council wanted to use a particular area of land as a discharge point for sewage, for example, in emergency situations, then under this legislation there is a capacity for the council to make an application to use someone\u2019s customary marine area as a dump for sewage.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000349\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003EClause 8 also describes who might be able to make such an application for a deemed activity, an emergency activity, an accommodated activity, and the list is the Crown, any Crown entity, a network utility operator within the meaning of the Resource Management Act, an electricity generator, a port company, Maritime New Zealand, and the Auckland Regional Transport Authority. So the possible organisations that could seek to use the customary marine land of an iwi or hap\u016B for this purpose are very broad and the powers are very significant.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000350\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003EClause 9 talks about a \u201Cdeemed accommodated activity\u201D, which appears to be an extension. One of the activities listed in clause 9 is prospecting, exploration, mining operations, or other forms of mining under the Crown Minerals Act. Of course, mining in general is sensitive, but marine mining is a particularly sensitive issue for M\u0101ori at the moment. There have been numerous claims to the Waitangi Tribunal dealing with the right of M\u0101ori to have some say over what happens in their coastal areas, their rohe, around mining applications. They have been upheld by the Waitangi Tribunal but denied consistently by the Crown. This bill again gives to others, to Crown entities or their agents, the right to make application to use M\u0101ori customary marine areas for the purposes of mining and mineral mining.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000351\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003ESchedule 1 talks about what happens to an application to undertake that activity in a customary marine area. Clause 8 of Part 1 of schedule 1 states that the Minister must consider the application and any information provided by the customary marine title holders, and must decide whether to waive the customary marine title holder\u2019s permission right, whether there are any other affected rights, and whether to provide compensation\u2014whether to provide compensation. So the Minister makes the ultimate decision. If a company wants to go on to M\u0101ori-held customary marine area land and undertake mining activities on that land contrary to the wishes of the holder of the title to that area, then the Minister can provide for it and agree to it. Additionally, the Minister can decide whether to provide compensation for loss of the use of, or damage to, that land. So the holders of a customary marine title are completely beholden to the intentions and desires of the Minister as to whether their land is able to be used by them freely, whether some other group can use that land for something that it considers to be more important than the wishes of the iwi or hap\u016B who hold that land, and whether they are considered important enough to be given any kind of financial compensation for its loss. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000352\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003EThe Green Party again says that if we are to treat land equitably, regardless of the title of the land, then we must have the same laws apply. For freehold land, that law is the Public Works Act, which has a system for the provision of compensation. Compensation is not negotiable under the Public Works Act, but it is negotiable when it comes to M\u0101ori tikanga title. It is negotiable, because, according to the Government\u2014the M\u0101ori Party and National\u2014if M\u0101ori hold title in an area of land, it is not as important as anybody else\u2019s title. That title can be taken from them for somebody else\u2019s economic use or deliberate destruction for their own purposes, and the Government can decide that it is not worth anything and not give M\u0101ori compensation. That is what these provisions in this bill do. That is how this bill is discriminatory against M\u0101ori and against M\u0101ori forms of title. It is grossly inappropriate that the process for the use of land that is, in effect, supposed to be treated like private land is so different from the process for other kinds of land. It is not appropriate to have such discriminatory, racist provisions in this legislation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000353\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003EThe Green Party is opposed to them and we have put forward our amendment to take them out. I understand that Labour has a similar amendment to remove those clauses. We will be supporting that amendment if it comes up first, and we certainly hope Labour will support ours if it comes up first. There is no justification for treating these two different kinds of title differently.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022 data-id=\u002274ea6994e494460a8f5a7fe008f50334\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000354\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002274ea6994e494460a8f5a7fe008f50334\u0022\u003EHon DAVID PARKER (Labour): \u003C/span\u003EI will just respond to Metiria Turei\u2019s comments that I lacked an understanding as to why the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill is discriminatory in respect of protecting existing freehold title. The point I was making is that those areas that are in freehold title would not qualify as areas where there are unextinguished customary rights, and therefore the issue does not arise. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000355\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EI do agree with the second point that Metiria Turei made. That is that if there are extant customary title interests in the foreshore and seabed, and they are subsequently overridden in favour of some public project or some private project like mining, then there ought to be fair compensation for the loss of the right that has been found to exist. That is one of the issues that we raised at the M\u0101ori Affairs Committee and on which the select committee, because it ran such a poor process, did not even report to the House. That issue was of concern to the Green Party, Labour, the M\u0101ori Party, and others, including ACT, when they saw that effectively we could be saying there is an existing customary interest in the foreshore and seabed area that is properly recognised under this legislation, and that it could be taken away at some future time, and that the compensation, if anything, for taking away that right would be at the grace and favour of a future Government, rather than a right at law as exists under the Public Works Act where a public work takes away some other property rights. That is an example of where I do agree with the Green Party that it is bad law. We have an amendment on the floor of the House to remove those provisions so that it is not of that effect. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000356\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EI raise another issue that relates to these Part 1 definitions. Part 1 sets out the outline of the Act and states, amongst other things, that we are to codify what is or is not an extant customary interest that should be recognised in a customary marine title. One of the problems that we get ourselves into here is that we have taken it upon ourselves in Parliament to try to codify things that the courts have never had the chance to properly interpret and say what it is that the common law provides for, what is the range of rights that may be existing and the range of rights that may have used to exist\u2014for example, the right to mine for oil and gas, which was clearly abrogated by the nationalisation of that resource back in 1948, I think, although the Attorney-General might be able to correct me as to the date\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000357\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f44431ef-b505-4e94-9f57-a60b0a569bf7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022eac42eed5a6b40afa12f34d337f55d90\u0022\u003EHon Shane Jones\u003C/span\u003E: 1937.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000358\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227862ab235d0b4ec48cc4e4047f94d636\u0022\u003EHon DAVID PARKER\u003C/span\u003E: I thank Mr Jones. It was nationalised in the Petroleum Act in 1937, so there is no longer an extant customary interest that would be able to be part of a customary title. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000359\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EThe Government\u2019s attempt to codify these provisions in Part 1 fails for a number of reasons. One is that National in Government, and the M\u0101ori Party, said that they were setting out to settle this issue, yet we have the M\u0101ori Party through its co-leaders, the Hon Tariana Turia and the Hon Pita Sharples, and its whip, Te Ururoa Flavell, all saying that it is not accepted by them as settling the issue; it is just a first step along the way towards achieving a wider ambition. That shows that the primary ambition of the Government to settle this issue through the codification of the appropriate threshold test for the establishment of a customary title is not achieved, and that is putting aside\u2014and I do not mean to put aside as irrelevant\u2014Hone Harawira\u2019s concerns. His concerns are also relevant in so far as they show that this legislation does not settle the underlying dispute. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000360\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EWhat are some of the problems as far as ACT is concerned? ACT, quite rightly, makes the point of asking why it is necessarily correct that having a right of fishing or a right of navigation does not mean that one cannot get a customary title. Someone might want to put that argument in court and that person might be right, because these issues have not been determined either in a New Zealand jurisdiction or in many overseas jurisdictions. ACT is right in saying that that argument might be relevant and that it ought to be listened to by the court. Conversely, the arguments that some M\u0101ori submitters made that the requirement to prove exclusive use and control is too high a threshold test might be right too, but they do not have the opportunity to claim that in court now. They are being stripped of the right to go to court and make those arguments, because the codification of those issues puts them beyond the jurisdiction of the court. The court has to apply the codified tests, rather than determine what the proper tests are for the establishment of a customary marine title. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000361\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EThat, I think, is at the nub of where Labour got to on this. We freely acknowledge that the existing Foreshore and Seabed Act is wrong in that it does not allow people to get a court remedy, but we also went further and said that Parliament has now had two cracks at codifying this and has not done it in a way that settles the issue for New Zealand, because there is no compromise available that the parties from the different sides of the debate can accept. Therefore, the whole thing should be referred back to the courts, preserving public rights of fishing and access and the inalienability of customary interests, and that is really all the legislation needs to do. That is why we have put forward amendments that amend the various provisions in this part to that effect. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000362\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EI also say in respect of the change to the threshold test that with the absence of legal advice as to the effect of the change of the test, I remain ignorant as to what is the true effect. I will give an example of where this was being spun by the Government to different interest groups to different effect at the select committee. Te Ururoa Flavell was quite rightly concerned that land confiscations that were improper during the period post-colonisation should not mean that a claimant is disentitled from claiming a customary interest in adjacent foreshore and seabed, in his view. He thought that if a claimant went to court and argued that, then he or she might be able to convince the court that those customary interests are extant. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000363\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EThe definition in this bill is changed from the original Act in that the requirement for continuous ownership of contiguous land has been removed. That is no longer a prerequisite to the establishment of a customary interest in adjacent foreshore and seabed. That was interpreted by National members, who were trying to placate the M\u0101ori Party, as saying that the very fact that claimants have had their land confiscated does not disentitle them from establishing a customary title, but what those members did not say, and what they never explored, was what the effect was of the provision that one has to prove\u2014I think the words are, and the Minister in the chair, the Attorney-General, can correct me if I am wrong\u2014continuous and exclusive occupation and control of the area of foreshore and seabed itself. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000364\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EThe question then arises that if one does not control the adjacent land and, therefore, people have been free to wander down to the foreshore and seabed, then how can a claimant show that they have exclusive control of the adjacent area of foreshore and seabed? None of these issues have been explored properly at the select committee, because we did not have legal advice, and because the National Government was determined to pull the wool over the eyes of the M\u0101ori Party\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000365\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002267431f57-e958-4c83-b438-7da8061d479e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229e83390ab48741bcb786ad86903c731c\u0022\u003EPaul Quinn\u003C/span\u003E: We explored it, David.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000366\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022928d8f870b394192bdf613039cee5e1f\u0022\u003EHon DAVID PARKER\u003C/span\u003E: No, those members did not explore that. They asked the question but then they blocked us from getting any legal advice so as to get the answer. That is not exploring it; that is very, very poor process. So the poor old M\u0101ori Party is left ignorant of the fact that although it is true that the fact that adjacent land was confiscated is not an absolute bar to proving a foreshore and seabed interest in the adjacent foreshore and seabed, it may well be a de facto bar, given that one will not be able to show exclusive control of the adjacent area of foreshore. I know that, because the Attorney-General has as much as confirmed that to me in discussions that I have had with him. But I have not been able to explore it in a way that gives me the benefit of either Crown legal advice or legal advice to the select committee, because we were blocked from obtaining it. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000367\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003ESo we can see why at the end of this process there will be a sense of grievance on the part of M\u0101oridom, who will feel that they have been done over. I do not necessarily agree that their view that the common law test is a lot more generous than that is right, but I can see why they will feel that they have had the effect of this legislation misrepresented to them, and therefore they will have an ongoing sense of grievance and this issue will not be settled. That is why this bill fails the test that the Prime Minister laid out for it right at the start. He said the Government would not proceed with the bill if it did not settle the issue and it did not have broad support. That is but one instance as to why that is not the case. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000368\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EThe consideration in the departmental report of this Part 1 of the bill is some 50 pages long. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00227df975cd-93d2-4f55-9bc5-d2790e28e043\u0022 data-id=\u0022a88cc4c870cd4e6e9b1608cc01cedb4e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000369\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227df975cd-93d2-4f55-9bc5-d2790e28e043\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a88cc4c870cd4e6e9b1608cc01cedb4e\u0022\u003EHon MARYAN STREET (Labour):\u003C/span\u003E I am almost at a loss to know where to begin in making a contribution on Part 1 of the terribly flawed Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill. Not only is the legislation flawed but the process around it is flawed. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000370\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227df975cd-93d2-4f55-9bc5-d2790e28e043\u0022\u003EI begin with a bit of rebuttal to the earlier ACT speaker Hilary Calvert, even though she was speaking on the preamble. It astonishes me how far the ACT Party can go in offending just about everybody. Its members used to refer to tikanga as mumbo-jumbo. In debate on previous legislation when we have been passing laws about Treaty settlements they have referred to tikanga as mumbo-jumbo. But today we have heard it called Alice-in-Wonderland stuff in relation to this legislation. I am just astonished at how far the ACT Party is prepared to go to offend as many people as possible. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000371\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227df975cd-93d2-4f55-9bc5-d2790e28e043\u0022\u003EIn this legislation\u2014and I come to Part 1, which is the part under discussion at the moment\u2014there is such a divergence of opinion, united only in its opposition to this legislation. It must almost be unprecedented in this Committee. More people disagree with this legislation, from a variety of positions around the country, than agree with it. Sometimes National has wanted to characterise the opposition to this bill as being all ACT members. I dare say ACT wishes it had as many members as that. I have in my in-box, filed under the title \u201CForeshore and Seabed\u201D, 250-odd emails that oppose this legislation for a variety of reasons. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000372\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227df975cd-93d2-4f55-9bc5-d2790e28e043\u0022\u003EWe come to clause 4 in Part 1 of this bill, which states: \u201CThe purpose of this Act is to\u2014(a) establish a durable scheme to ensure the protection of the legitimate interests of all New Zealanders in the marine and coastal area of New Zealand;\u201D. This legislation palpably fails to do that. We have been given assurances that there will be a revisiting of this legislation. I am sorry that the Minister in charge of the bill, the Attorney-General, has been compelled\u2014by others, I suppose\u2014to bring this legislation to the Chamber in this way at this time, when the country\u2019s interests are rightly diverted to Christchurch. He is being compelled to bring this legislation to the Chamber and to persist with it when it will clearly not satisfy a whole range of people and a whole range of interests. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000373\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227df975cd-93d2-4f55-9bc5-d2790e28e043\u0022\u003EI draw attention to why this scheme will not be durable. I say to the Minister in the chair, the Attorney-General, that I wish this were going to be a durable scheme. Nobody wants a durable scheme more than we do. We got the last legislation wrong in respect of stripping the right to go to court to have claims tested. We got that wrong and we have said so, and we have apologised. That remains on the record. We have also said that we want a durable scheme. We want to establish a durable outcome to ensure the protection of the legitimate interests of all New Zealanders.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000374\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022df788c48-b9be-42fd-b8f2-76629a5572b8\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002260297a5a65dc4078aeec7b2460a5fd45\u0022\u003EHon Dr Wayne Mapp\u003C/span\u003E: A durable scheme on your terms, however.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000375\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227df975cd-93d2-4f55-9bc5-d2790e28e043\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228fe6aae4d7384b0784a4e5b069d6915c\u0022\u003EHon MARYAN STREET\u003C/span\u003E: Not on our terms, I say to Mr Mapp, but on mutually agreed terms. This Government will ram this bill through by a margin of 62 to 59. Those were the numbers in the last vote, a few minutes ago. It does not augur well for clause 4 of Part 1. It does not augur well. It is being passed by a margin of three votes. For something as important as this bill\u2014which should be durable, testable, able to withstand criticism, and able to be justified to everybody across the country\u2014three votes is not a sufficient margin by which this legislation should pass. It is too important.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000376\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002251dfea20-2244-4fc7-bd7d-ebf7a98580e1\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ac960a60287748ecb05797e90fe0fab9\u0022\u003EHon Tau Henare\u003C/span\u003E: We\u2019re not listening and we don\u2019t care.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000377\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227df975cd-93d2-4f55-9bc5-d2790e28e043\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a852e5ad0b224d2d86839299268f9082\u0022\u003EHon MARYAN STREET\u003C/span\u003E: Oh, Mr Henare has just said the magic words \u201CWe don\u2019t care.\u201D Mr Henare has just said the magic words. The National Party does not care about the interests of all New Zealanders. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000378\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227df975cd-93d2-4f55-9bc5-d2790e28e043\u0022\u003EPita Sharples has said that the M\u0101ori Party is not entirely happy with the bill, and neither are iwi leaders or the general public. I will pick up one part of that, which also goes to the question of how durable this legislation or this scheme will be. Not one iwi\u2014not one iwi\u2014around the country supports this legislation. Mark Solomon and the iwi leaders have said that they oppose this legislation. He has said that to me personally. I have heard him say it. Not one iwi around the country supports this legislation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000379\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227df975cd-93d2-4f55-9bc5-d2790e28e043\u0022\u003ELet us go to the comments of Te Ururoa Flavell from the M\u0101ori Party. He has said that we will be going back. \u201CWe will \u2026 be looking at it again,\u201D he said publicly, and he said there would be \u201Canother time for our people to come back and have another go in the future.\u201D \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000380\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227df975cd-93d2-4f55-9bc5-d2790e28e043\u0022\u003EI say to the Minister that I wish this were a durable scheme. I wish this legislation acted in the interests of all people. But the opposition to this bill comes from right across the political spectrum, from the offensive comments of ACT right through to iwi leaders. It comes from right across the political spectrum. That opposition makes this legislation faulty, fragile, and able to be undermined in a moment. That is what will happen to this bill. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000381\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227df975cd-93d2-4f55-9bc5-d2790e28e043\u0022\u003EWe have an opportunity to get this right. This bill does not need to be rushed. It certainly does not need to be rushed under cover of the Christchurch earthquake. It does not need to be taken at this pace. The select committee process did not need to be aborted in the way that it was. The select committee members did not need to have legal advice denied them. The fact that the Government has Simon Bridges on its side of the select committee does not constitute independent legal advice. It does not constitute independent legal advice. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000382\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227df975cd-93d2-4f55-9bc5-d2790e28e043\u0022\u003EIf one were to look at the departmental report, one could see quite clearly, from page 59, that a number of submitters\u2014 \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000383\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002251dfea20-2244-4fc7-bd7d-ebf7a98580e1\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f135cff4f58b4d52bb0d068e12c1d1ce\u0022\u003EHon Tau Henare\u003C/span\u003E: This member wasn\u2019t even at the select committee. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000384\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227df975cd-93d2-4f55-9bc5-d2790e28e043\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229287c849de904f019607fa0231c1f2d4\u0022\u003EHon MARYAN STREET\u003C/span\u003E: But I have looked at the report\u2014which some of the members of the select committee might have done well to do\u2014and I can see that a number of submitters were concerned that the bill as it had finally emerged was not the same as the Government\u2019s proposals set out in its consultation document. More time needed to be taken on this, for the integrity of the legislation and for the integrity of the process. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000385\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227df975cd-93d2-4f55-9bc5-d2790e28e043\u0022\u003EThe process is a travesty. The fact that Mr Henare does not care is a travesty. This legislation, which could have had the complete support of this entire Parliament, has been an opportunity lost. I am sorry that it is an opportunity lost, I tell the Minister; it could have been better than this. I am sorry that the Minister has been rolled in this process. It did not need to happen like this, and the select committee process did not need to be impaired and aborted in the way that it has been. What we have here will not deliver the purpose of this Act.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002277ec6495-df45-43ac-aaa1-a03b5dd4c128\u0022 data-id=\u0022988f2377475c4666841decb5047eafe6\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000386\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002277ec6495-df45-43ac-aaa1-a03b5dd4c128\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022988f2377475c4666841decb5047eafe6\u0022\u003EHon JOHN BOSCAWEN (Deputy Leader\u2014ACT):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Mr Chair, for the opportunity to speak on this part. My colleagues the Hon Heather Roy and Hilary Calvert also wish to make a contribution. In a short time I will address certain definitions in the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill. In particular, I will refer to the definition of \u201Cmarine and coastal area\u201D, which is set out in clause 7, the definition of \u201Cplanning document\u201D, which appears later in that clause, the definition of \u201CRMA permission right\u201D and its implications, also set out in clause 7, and the definition and significance of the meaning of \u201Caccommodated activity\u201D, which is at the beginning of that clause. But before addressing those very specific provisions of this part I need to make two general comments to put some of these issues in context.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000387\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002277ec6495-df45-43ac-aaa1-a03b5dd4c128\u0022\u003EThe first thing I will do is acknowledge the contribution earlier in this debate of Rahui Katene. She got up in this Chamber and said she was proud to be a daughter of Ng\u0101ti Apa, and went on to list a number of other iwi. And she should be proud\u2014she should be absolutely proud. One has to look no further than the article that appeared in the New Zealand Herald last Wednesday penned by the Hon Pita Sharples and the Hon Tariana Turia, in which they set out the details of this bill and its implications. One has only to read that article to realise how proud Rahui Katene should be and how proud the M\u0101ori Party should be. The passing of this bill will be the culmination of many years of activity. And the bill will pass; the Government has told us that it is committed to pushing it through. As Maryan Street has told us, it will pass by the very, very narrow margin of 62 votes to 59. This legislation is a major issue. I do not believe that its full implications are understood by the wider New Zealand population. In fact, I am not even sure they are understood by the media. I urge all New Zealanders, or, certainly, everyone listening to this debate, to go to the online edition of the New Zealand Herald and read the article by Tariana Turia and Pita Sharples that was published last Wednesday.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000388\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002277ec6495-df45-43ac-aaa1-a03b5dd4c128\u0022\u003EI will quote two sentences from it. They started by saying that \u201CThe new bill acknowledges that ALL coastal iwi have connections to the coast. Their mana tuku iho (inherent authority) entitles them to protect their wahi tapu and to be consulted on conservation and resource-management issues.\u201D The interesting thing about that is it protects the rights of all coastal iwi. Does it protect the rights of all other New Zealanders who are not coastal iwi? Does it protect the rights of all other New Zealanders who have property on the coast? I have travelled up and down the country over the last 6 months, trying to create awareness of this issue, and when I spoke to the Taup\u014D rotary club back in October, I met a gentleman who told me that he can trace his ancestry back to the early 1800s, certainly back to prior to 1840, when the Treaty of Waitangi was signed. His family owns freehold land, and it can trace its ownership back to prior to the Treaty of Waitangi. The family still owns that land today. It has owned it for over 150 years. Under this bill, his interests are not protected. His interests are not protected and his interests are not recognised. The National MPs sit there and shake their heads. All I can say to those National members is that they do not understand the provisions of this bill. Sadly, the implications of not understanding those provisions, and of not reading the many hundreds if not thousands of emails that have come in, will dawn on them far too late.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000389\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002277ec6495-df45-43ac-aaa1-a03b5dd4c128\u0022\u003EThe second point I will raise before I get down to looking specifically at the implications of the definition of \u201Ccommon marine and coastal area\u201D, the implications of \u201Cplanning document\u201D, and the implications of \u201CRMA permission right\u201D is about a reference made earlier this afternoon to the Coastal Coalition. Coalition members have been demonised in this debate. They have been accused by Mr Finlayson of spreading misinformation. Mr Finlayson has responded to the Coastal Coalition with a page set out on the Beehive website. All New Zealanders can go to the Beehive website. I imagine that Mr Finlayson is ashamed of what appears on that website. Under the heading \u201CSetting the Record Straight\u201D I read and New Zealanders will read: \u201CYou may have heard opponents of the Marine and Coastal Area Bill making inaccurate claims about the legislation. We want to set the record straight.\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000390\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002277ec6495-df45-43ac-aaa1-a03b5dd4c128\u0022\u003EI encourage Amy Adams, if she looks at nothing else, to look at this single page. The Attorney-General recognises four specific issues. I could make some points on all four of them, but in the interests of time I will make a point on just one, which relates to Part 1 and the definition of \u201Ccommon marine and coastal area\u201D. The article states that opponents claim that \u201CThe bar has been lowered on the qualifying criteria so anyone can apply\u201D\u2014\u201CThe bar has been lowered on the qualifying criteria so anyone can apply\u201D. The Attorney-General says that \u201CThe most rigorous test is proving uninterrupted and exclusive use and occupation of an area of the common marine and coastal area from 1840 to the present day.\u201D So \u201CThe most rigorous test is proving uninterrupted and exclusive use and occupation \u2026\u201D since 1840. \u201CMany areas of New Zealand are not eligible because of this requirement.\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000391\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002277ec6495-df45-43ac-aaa1-a03b5dd4c128\u0022\u003EWell, most New Zealanders and, I suspect most National members who will be voting for this bill, would think that was a very tough test. It is a tough test, but it is not actually the test. People do not have to prove that they have had continuous and exclusive occupation, and the reason I say that is that under the very provisions of this bill it is acceptable for people who are not part of the claimant group to have fished in an area, to have boated in an area, and to have navigated through an area, yet the claimant group can say that it has continuously and exclusively occupied that area. That is an absolute fiction; it is a charade to say that we are making the test continuous and exclusive occupation when in actual fact we are not. The tragedy is that members of the public will wake up to that fact. National is punting that they will not wake up to it until after the election on 26 November, but that they will wake up I have no doubt.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000392\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002277ec6495-df45-43ac-aaa1-a03b5dd4c128\u0022\u003ELet me turn now to the definition of \u201Cmarine and coastal area\u201D. As I said earlier, the ACT Party has a number of amendments on this part that we want to speak to. We are proposing amendments, for example, to the definitions in clause 7 of \u201Clocal authority\u201D, \u201Cmana tuku iho\u201D, \u201Cmineral\u201D, and \u201Cplanning document\u201D. Let us look at the definition of \u201Cmarine and coastal area\u201D. What is the definition of \u201Cmarine and coastal area\u201D set out in clause 7? The definition states \u201Cmarine and costal area\u2014(a) means the area that is bounded,\u2014(i) on the landward side, by the line of mean high-water springs; and (ii) on the seaward side, by the outer limits of the territorial sea;\u201D. So the marine and coastal area goes from the high-tide mark to the outer limits of the territorial sea\u2014it goes out 12 miles.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000393\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002277ec6495-df45-43ac-aaa1-a03b5dd4c128\u0022\u003EThe reason that is important is that the bill provides for a massive transfer of wealth from all New Zealanders to certain select iwi. Under the provisions of this bill it is assumed, in the absence of information to the contrary, that customary title is held in all seabed and foreshore, in all areas of the marine and coastal area. The bill actually states that customary title lies with an iwi claimant, and that it is up to the Government to prove that that is not that case\u2014clause 105 is the significant clause. The reason I raise this issue is it has extreme significance. It has extreme significance for the definition of \u201Cmarine and coastal area\u201D and, as a consequence, for the definition of \u201Ccommon marine and coastal area\u201D, because under clause 105 it is up to the Crown to prove that customary title does not exist, as opposed to the iwi proving that they have customary title.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000394\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002277ec6495-df45-43ac-aaa1-a03b5dd4c128\u0022\u003EAnother key definition is the definition of the Resource Management Act permission right.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022802874a3-deca-48b7-9d33-9087058892f5\u0022 data-id=\u00221ebcbe08d60f4b2f987a96e6a34e92ac\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000395\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022802874a3-deca-48b7-9d33-9087058892f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00221ebcbe08d60f4b2f987a96e6a34e92ac\u0022\u003EKELVIN DAVIS (Labour):\u003C/span\u003E The Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill is an indictment on the M\u0101ori Party. In fact, not only is it an indictment on the M\u0101ori Party but also, I suspect, it will be its epitaph. The M\u0101ori Party has focused its efforts exclusively on repealing the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004, and clause 4(2)(a) provides for the repeal of the Foreshore and Seabed Act. That is the one thing on the M\u0101ori Party\u2019s list that its members can tick off. It is the one thing on the M\u0101ori Party\u2019s list that they can say they have achieved in the 5 years they have been in Parliament. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000396\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022802874a3-deca-48b7-9d33-9087058892f5\u0022\u003EThe reality is that under the M\u0101ori Party and National, outcomes for M\u0101ori have gone backwards, not forwards. Members of the M\u0101ori Party have focused exclusively on the repeal of the Foreshore and Seabed Act to the detriment of issues that really matter to M\u0101ori. They do not have a plan for the M\u0101ori economy to move forward. We did not need a Native Affairs survey last night to tell us that only 34 percent of M\u0101ori actually consider the Foreshore and Seabed Act to be an issue of any significance. The real issues that M\u0101ori are interested in are unemployment, the cost of living, the sale of assets, and the rise in GST\u2014things that the M\u0101ori Party voted for. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000397\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022893adc11-ce4e-419c-a079-08f04b3d75f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221b8ff9825f8a40f08c10eda314deb6d8\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch)\u003C/span\u003E: Part 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000398\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022802874a3-deca-48b7-9d33-9087058892f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223cf0809eee4b40c48cd57097d3d9818c\u0022\u003EKELVIN DAVIS\u003C/span\u003E: I am saying, Mr Chair, that M\u0101ori Party members have focused solely on clause 4(2)(a), which repeals the Foreshore and Seabed Act, to the detriment of all the other issues that really mean something to M\u0101ori, such as unemployment and the rise in the cost of living. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000399\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022802874a3-deca-48b7-9d33-9087058892f5\u0022\u003EOn clause 4, \u201CPurpose\u201D, M\u0101ori Party members also say that they want to establish a durable scheme. This measure will not be durable. They have said already that this bill is just the start, and that every 3 years, come election time, they will focus again on this issue\u2014a bit at a time. This measure is not durable. It is about entrenching M\u0101ori in grievance. It is about making sure that M\u0101ori always have something to be upset about, and always have something to complain about, so that people will vote for the M\u0101ori Party because it is the party of grievance. M\u0101ori are better than that. We need to rise above the grievance mentality. We need to rise above it, step above grievance, and actually move on and make real changes in our lives. We need to address unemployment, we need to address the M\u0101ori economy, and we need to ease the cost of living for our people. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000400\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022802874a3-deca-48b7-9d33-9087058892f5\u0022\u003EI heard Hilary Calvert talk about tikanga. She obviously has a problem with the word \u201Ctikanga\u201D. The trouble is that M\u0101ori do not have a problem with the word \u201Ctikanga\u201D. We understand what it means. I get annoyed, and I got annoyed during the M\u0101ori Affairs Committee hearings, when people say that tikanga can end up meaning anything. Well, it does not mean anything if one understands the M\u0101ori language. If people understand M\u0101ori customs and M\u0101ori culture, then there is not an issue with the word \u201Ctikanga\u201D. It is an issue only for those people who want to exclude themselves from the indigenous culture of New Zealand\u2014they are the ones who have a problem with it. The word \u201Ctikanga\u201D is pretty plain and clear to M\u0101ori. If the Coastal Coalition, ACT Party members, and anyone else has an issue with the word \u201Ctikanga\u201D, I suggest to them that they enrol at their local night classes, if there are any in their community left standing, and learn a little bit about M\u0101ori culture, M\u0101ori language, and M\u0101ori tikanga. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000401\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022802874a3-deca-48b7-9d33-9087058892f5\u0022\u003EClause 7 defines the marine and coastal area. The marine and coastal area is \u201Cthe area that is bounded,\u2014(i) on the landward side, by the line of mean high-water springs;\u201D. What we are talking about is the wet sand\u2014the wet sand. That is what the M\u0101ori Party cares most about\u2014wet sand. It does not care about issues that are really facing M\u0101oridom, but it cares about wet sand. We in the Labour Party care more about issues that are really affecting M\u0101ori people, and, as I have said, those issues are unemployment, the underachievement of M\u0101ori kids, health, and the longevity of M\u0101ori lives. As I said, the marine and coastal area is defined in this bill, and it is wet sand that we are talking about. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000402\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022802874a3-deca-48b7-9d33-9087058892f5\u0022\u003EThere were a number of submitters who had not actually read the bill. They came in and they raved about the marine and coastal area. I remember one submitter in Whangarei who told us that this bill was the reason that coastal developments in Northland had basically finished and that there was no more building happening on the coast of Northland. I asked him whether he had read the bill, and he said no. So I said: \u201CWhere in the ocean are you going to build your house?\u201D He asked me what I meant and I told him that if he had read the bill he would know that the bill is about the wet sand\u2014everything below the high tide mark. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000403\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022802874a3-deca-48b7-9d33-9087058892f5\u0022\u003EAs I said earlier in the debate on the preamble, there are two extreme polar opposites. A number of people from the Coastal Coalition and that ilk were put up to turn up and criticise this bill without actually having read it. I found that even though I opposed the bill I ended up having to defend the Minister in charge of the bill, Chris Finlayson, from some of the rabid, ill-informed misinformation that was being put out by the members of the Coastal Coalition, such as the fact that coastal developments in Northland had ceased because of this bill. That submitter had obviously misunderstood the issue. He did not understand that the lack of development was due to the lack of an economic plan from the National Government and was not due to this bill. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000404\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022802874a3-deca-48b7-9d33-9087058892f5\u0022\u003EPlanning documents also caused a bit of anxiety for a number of people. They were worried about iwi and hap\u016B planning documents that were going to \u201Cchange the world as they knew it.\u201D I have a planning document here. It is from Ng\u0101ti Hine. It is all about working together cooperatively with regional councils and district councils and it is about working together for the good of everyone. I will read one part of the document. It states: \u201CTe R\u016Bnunga o Ng\u0101ti Hine will promote and enhance partnerships between Ng\u0101ti Hine, central government and its agencies, and regional and district councils.\u201D This is not about being exclusive or about separate M\u0101ori development or apartheid. This is about integrating, cooperating, and establishing relationships. All Ng\u0101ti Hine ask is that \u201Cthe relationships of Ng\u0101ti Hine need to be cognisant of our status as tangata whenua, kaitiaki, and Treaty partner.\u201D I ask all those people who are so anti-M\u0101ori, anti - planning documents, and anti - everything else where the harm is in what Ng\u0101ti Hine is asking. They want to work together with central government, local government, and regional government, and I believe that that is an honourable and great thing for them to seek.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000405\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022802874a3-deca-48b7-9d33-9087058892f5\u0022\u003EI turn to the definition of \u201Croad\u201D. There is the issue of Ninety Mile Beach. Ninety Mile Beach is deemed a road, from what I understand. People cannot drive on Ninety Mile Beach at high tide unless they want to drive at about a 45-degree angle for 60 miles of sand dunes. But when the tide is out all and sundry use that road: tour buses, people going fishing, and people walking their dogs\u2014everybody uses Ninety Mile Beach. I believe that it is deemed a road. So I wonder about the status of Ninety Mile Beach. It was not cleared up in my mind at the select committee whether Ninety Mile Beach is being used as a road, but it is actually part of the coastal common marine area, so I have that issue still wandering around. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000406\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022802874a3-deca-48b7-9d33-9087058892f5\u0022\u003EIn terms of \u201Cwarden\u201D there is a lot of concern by members of the Coastal Coalition and their ilk that wardens are going to be standing guard over areas of the coast. The bill does not say \u201CM\u0101ori wardens\u201D. M\u0101ori wardens are normally elderly people in their 70s who stand at the gates of marae and direct people in cars to car-parking areas. I do not think that the word \u201Cwarden\u201D in this bill means a warden as set out in the Maori Community Development Act. However it is a big stretch for the Coastal Coalition and others to try to make a case that in the dunes of every beach there will be\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002260200136-9d63-4a82-b4f5-c00411adb1fd\u0022 data-id=\u0022517bde11de704d67998bd60089d1ac98\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000407\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002260200136-9d63-4a82-b4f5-c00411adb1fd\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022517bde11de704d67998bd60089d1ac98\u0022\u003EJO GOODHEW (Junior Whip\u2014National):\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=\u0022f44431ef-b505-4e94-9f57-a60b0a569bf7\u0022 data-id=\u0022627c2653b7c444468d23ef0a08916640\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000408\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f44431ef-b505-4e94-9f57-a60b0a569bf7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022627c2653b7c444468d23ef0a08916640\u0022\u003EHon SHANE JONES (Labour):\u003C/span\u003E Kia ora an\u014D t\u0101tou. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000409\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002251dfea20-2244-4fc7-bd7d-ebf7a98580e1\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220e1f12f32ab94071a419cf8f4c82105b\u0022\u003EHon Tau Henare\u003C/span\u003E: T\u0113n\u0101 koe.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000410\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f44431ef-b505-4e94-9f57-a60b0a569bf7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002242983f93503f4df7abade74f0487c6bd\u0022\u003EHon SHANE JONES\u003C/span\u003E: \u0100e. I want to take on board the admonition offered by the Minister in the chair, the Hon Christopher Finlayson, that we focus on Part 1 of the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill. I want to direct our attention to pages 10 and 11. I see some complications and I would be interested to get a response from the Minister. I imagine that work is taking place in relation to how High Court judges and indeed lawyers representing the parties in the inevitable litigation will deal with the notion of mana tuku iho and tangata whenua. I am presuming that the High Court is exploring whether it will need additional expertise or whether some of the\u2014dare I use the term\u2014tikanga of the court need to be amended, although I would note that Christian Whata, certainly one of the most able young M\u0101ori lawyers of his generation, is about to join that august company.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000411\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002241146229-4d11-415b-a4ac-f4e2b923e95d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a69b2b0d0a9f4d49ad2a8608b709569f\u0022\u003EHon Christopher Finlayson\u003C/span\u003E: He has done.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000412\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f44431ef-b505-4e94-9f57-a60b0a569bf7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002224e394746ad849e49df9343e146358a1\u0022\u003EHon SHANE JONES\u003C/span\u003E: Unfortunately Mr Ririnui, a man of Waiariki origins, did not extend a p\u014D\u2019hiri when he went to the h\u0101kari, the feast, for Christian Whata, to me and Kelvin Davis from Ng\u0101puhi, so that we could continue our peace-loving ways in that part of Aotearoa. However, it is good that M\u0101ori High Court judges will be there but I hope that the Minister will take a call on that because although we are full of passion and are making various political points, after this bill eventually finds its way permanently into the landscape of statutory law, someone will actually have to pick it up in 2014, 2015, 2016, and 2017 and make decisions on behalf of groups as to whether they are hap\u016B or iwi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000413\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f44431ef-b505-4e94-9f57-a60b0a569bf7\u0022\u003EI direct the Minister\u2019s attention to purpose clause 4(1)(b), which goes to the heart of what this bill is about. The purpose is, according to that paragraph, to recognise an ill-defined mana tuku iho concept exercised by iwi and hap\u016B as tangata whenua. I can assure the Minister, having spent many years along with three other M\u0101ori MPs in this Chamber dealing with these issues in a different part of the coastal environment called the fishing industry, that this will be hotly litigated. This will be hotly debated. I imagine that a judge will, at the end of the day, draw on what has been defined as an iwi in the fisheries settlement. If that proves to be the case\u2014and the Minister in the chair is nodding in the right direction\u2014then I think that that is a sensible way to go. But we should not for a moment imagine that that will bring litigation to an end\u2014unfortunately. It is a further example in the bill, and it might be said of any bill, when we endeavour to bring our M\u0101ori terminology into the law.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000414\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f44431ef-b505-4e94-9f57-a60b0a569bf7\u0022\u003ETo that score, I do not think it is a bad idea, unlike our friends from the ACT Party. I will not let it pass that they can stand unchallenged and imagine that they will be rewarded for trying to deprecate M\u0101ori culture by analogising it to Alice in Wonderland. I want members to know that one of the figures in Alice in Wonderland was a dodo, and that party will go the way of the dodo if it continues to deprecate those members of M\u0101ori descent in this Chamber and the passion with which we seek to maintain culture and pass it on to the next generation. So I encourage members of that party and their supporters to think that perhaps the dodos are Muriel Newman and that gaggle of personalities who through viral means are trying to leave us with the impression that the country is overrun by angry rednecks hating M\u0101ori language coming into legislation. I cannot help it if they are actually Don Brash\u2019s voters. They were on that side of the Chamber and now they are disappearing elsewhere, but more about the Mad Hatters at a later stage.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000415\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f44431ef-b505-4e94-9f57-a60b0a569bf7\u0022\u003EI come to clause 6. I have signalled that the High Court, if measures have not been taken, ought to ensure that its tikanga and rules are evolved to deal with these challenging issues, but, more important, that we have the right level of expertise there, because I am a great believer in the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court\u2014and I see it. I have said earlier that it was a bleak day when we left that very vague and ambiguous in our time. I am on record as saying that, so it would be good to know that that is the case. I want to move right along to clause 6. I imagine that the Minister is putting before the Committee a distillation of what will be the responsibilities in international law of the Crown, given that we are going forward with an idea that the actual seabed and foreshore, takutai moana, coastal space, and so on, will not be vested in the Crown as such but will be an open space, a public space\u2014takiw\u0101 marea is, off the top of my head, my translation for open and public space.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000416\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f44431ef-b505-4e94-9f57-a60b0a569bf7\u0022\u003EBut I would caution us against providing any opportunity in this bill that allows, quite frankly, for a debate and a legal tussle as to what is the scope of the Crown\u2019s sovereignty, because the logical conclusion is that once we strip away the Crown as being the putative or exclusive owner on behalf of society and we introduce this other notion, it will be challenged in the courts as to what is public space and so on, how far private property rights stretch, even if they are customary associations, customary interests, or perhaps enforceable rights, and how far the notion of a dimension of an unfettered public space actually goes. So I ask for a bit of clarification around those issues, because there is the notion that this bill will turn from a debate about historic associations and residual interests into a debate on whether any subsisting sovereignty elements are in the actual seabed and foreshore legislation other than the ability of a democratically elected Government to regulate. Unfortunately I was not on the M\u0101ori Affairs Committee save for one or two meetings and I am not actually apprised of how that was explored by submitters, but it is an important point.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000417\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f44431ef-b505-4e94-9f57-a60b0a569bf7\u0022\u003EUnlike the lucidity that is evident in my speech, questions on the day from Paul Quinn, who is hollering and who could also be a part of the Alice in Wonderland fairytale, generally bamboozled the submitters. Even when I was there, people wanted to answer his questions, but such was the ambiguity of his questions that he was consistently told by the chair to turituri, to keep quiet. I do not know how well they get along with each other.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000418\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f44431ef-b505-4e94-9f57-a60b0a569bf7\u0022\u003EI want to now come to the notion of the marine and coastal area. According to the ACT spokesman, there is an assumption that because we have defined the area in question as being out there on the horizon, te pae, and on the mean high-water spring, that somehow this represents an opportunity for muck and gouging. Ambiguity should be addressed. If there is ambiguity, it is reasonable that the Minister should, during the course of our deliberations, say that it is just a simple physical description and that it does not represent an assignment of potential wealth or residual interests that will one day grow from being perhaps a rock or a defined discrete area that a hap\u016B still has, and that then somehow grows further into including all the ironsands off the west coast of Te Ika-a-M\u0101ui. Unfortunately, that would be of no good to my iwi because we are on the east coast in the far north, and as a consequence of iwi activists, not the least of whom is Margaret Mutu, our settlement gets further and further away. But that is another matter. I do not mean to be personal in any denigratory way or in any manner of form. I just want it known that I am not motivated when I mention ironsands. But I do think it is a reasonable point. I have my senior colleague here. He and I both have some concerns about these ambiguities because there is a host of changes. If what is at stake is a significant natural resource and is valuable to the overarching interests of the country, then it is good for the Minister to say that, no, it will not actually be lost.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00226c1d5df8-ac1d-4ce1-a778-202845cfc69f\u0022 data-id=\u002249625e1d5f024a8eba643ea43aa23762\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000419\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226c1d5df8-ac1d-4ce1-a778-202845cfc69f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002249625e1d5f024a8eba643ea43aa23762\u0022\u003EHon HEATHER ROY (ACT):\u003C/span\u003E It gives me great pleasure to rise and speak to Part 1 of the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill. I would like to concentrate on two clauses in this part of the bill. The first is the outline of the Act, which is clause 3 in particular. I think this is also relevant to clause 7, which covers the definition of common marine and coastal area.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000420\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226c1d5df8-ac1d-4ce1-a778-202845cfc69f\u0022\u003EUnder this bill, the assumption is that iwi and hap\u016B have customary rights over all the common marine and coastal area, unless the Crown can prove otherwise. Of course, this is the new terminology for what we previously knew in the foreshore and seabed legislation, which was debated under the previous Labour Government. Iwi and hap\u016B have customary rights over all common marine and coastal area, unless the Crown can prove otherwise. One of the things that ACT, through all iterations of this debate since the 2004 legislation, has talked about is that everybody who feels they have a genuine ownership bid should be able to have their day in court, so that is relevant to that point. Also, the bill contends that iwi have guardianship ahead of all others. To my mind, the crux of the matter relates to property rights. There were a number of submissions to the M\u0101ori Affairs Committee that talked about property rights. That is always the yardstick that I use when we think about how we proceed, how law is put in place, how we deal with things, particularly before the courts, and when the courts should be the decider, if you like, of who has genuine ownership.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000421\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226c1d5df8-ac1d-4ce1-a778-202845cfc69f\u0022\u003EI will probably run out of time in this call to talk about property rights, but there are a number of issues that should be considered when we look at the detail of this bill. I think the bill is being justified to P\u0101keh\u0101 and the public, generally speaking, largely on the basis of what will happen to the coastline in the future. Of course there are large areas of coastline that should be protected from development and exploitation. I do not think there would be any dissension in the Chamber from that view at all. Reserve status is justified for it, for example, but we should not forget that we have one of the largest coastlines in the world and, alongside that, one of the lowest population densities and a declining economic capacity to maintain First World health, education, and infrastructure systems. Stephen Franks submitted to the select committee that he deplores the absence of any proper defence of genuine property interests in coastal areas, and I have to say that on that point I agree with him.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000422\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226c1d5df8-ac1d-4ce1-a778-202845cfc69f\u0022\u003EThe bill creates\u2014some would say covertly\u2014a form of exploitation right for some iwi and hap\u016B. Those rights in areas where they can get marine titles can easily be supported, but the circumstances of creation of those titles could simply discredit any kind of status, other than reserve. They do not give their owners the true owner\u2019s stake in preserving the long-term value of their interests. That is something that I think we in this Chamber should be genuinely concerned about. In that respect I welcome the debate that we are having today.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000423\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226c1d5df8-ac1d-4ce1-a778-202845cfc69f\u0022\u003EI think the bill is promoted without any proper defence of true property interests for M\u0101ori. It might well surprise many of those on the Opposition ranks to hear me talk about that. But the bill removes such interests from local authorities, and even from current lease or licence holders. The bill should have been, I would have thought, for a National Government an opportunity to strengthen true property rights for everybody, all citizens of this country, whether they be M\u0101ori or non-M\u0101ori.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000424\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226c1d5df8-ac1d-4ce1-a778-202845cfc69f\u0022\u003EWe should also consider as a general part of this debate why we have property rights, why they are important, and why they are a fundamental grounding of our legal system and what we stand for. Property rights protect minorities against majorities, so that those who have the money, the wealth, and those who have the ability for whatever reason to wield a big stick are not able to do so to the detriment of those who have a genuine property right.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022d52e59e3-2195-4c95-a654-665c11b39b63\u0022 data-id=\u0022b3290433dd0c4fcbae5c038cf0c375f0\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000425\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d52e59e3-2195-4c95-a654-665c11b39b63\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b3290433dd0c4fcbae5c038cf0c375f0\u0022\u003EHon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Labour\u2014Ikaroa-R\u0101whiti):\u003C/span\u003E E t\u016B atu t\u0113nei e te Kaiwhakahaere o te Whare, hei k\u014Drero atu m\u014D te \u0101hua o te pire nei. E tautokotia atu ng\u0101 whakaaro e puta \u0101-waha a toku hoa nei a R\u0101wiri Parker me Shane Jones e whakaaro atu m\u014D te \u0101hua o te tikanga m\u014D te takutai moana, e puta atu te whakaaro, e waiho atu m\u014D te Minita anake engari, e whakaaro atu r\u0101 t\u0101tou m\u014D te haerenga ki te k\u014Dti. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000426\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d52e59e3-2195-4c95-a654-665c11b39b63\u0022\u003EN\u014D reira, he nui atu ng\u0101 whakaaro m\u014D te w\u0101hi tahi nei. E t\u016B kaha atu, e puta atu te whakaaro m\u014D te \u0101hua o te tikanga me te ture me te waihotia atu ng\u0101 tupuna ki a t\u0101tou m\u014D t\u0101tou a ng\u0101i M\u0101ori n\u0101 te mea, i roto i te tuhinga e k\u012B atu w\u0113tahi waihotia atu ki ng\u0101 k\u014Dti n\u0101 te mea i roto i a t\u0101tou, i reira k\u0113 w\u0113tahi o ng\u0101 iwi mai r\u0101 n\u014D e mau tata ana ki te takutai moana, e ora ana te manaaki a ng\u0101 hua o Tangaroa, e nui atu te \u0101hua p\u0113r\u0101 tonu. E whakaaro atu, he aha ai e k\u012B t\u0113nei anake te \u0101hua anake e mau ana m\u014D t\u0113nei tino take. N\u014D reira, e whakaaro atu m\u014D ng\u0101 nekeneke haere m\u014D te ture nei. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000427\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d52e59e3-2195-4c95-a654-665c11b39b63\u0022\u003EE t\u012Bmata atu te k\u014Drero e puta \u0101-waha atu a te Minita nei m\u014D tana whakaaro, m\u014D te whakaae, te kore whakaae m\u014D te ture nei. N\u0101 te tuhinga nei, e wehewehe atu m\u014D ng\u0101 whakaaro a w\u0113tahi e p\u012Brangi e waihotia atu ki te Minita e whakaaea, k\u0101re e tae atu ki ng\u0101 k\u014Dti, k\u0101re e tae atu i roto nei o te Whare Mi\u0113re. N\u014D reira, t\u0113r\u0101 an\u014D te mea i roto i a t\u0101tou i konei e wero ana m\u014D t\u0113nei w\u0101hi. N\u0101, te mate hoki p\u0113r\u0101 tonu atu te \u0101hua m\u014D w\u0113tahi o r\u0101tou e tae atu i te k\u014Dti. E mau atu te m\u0101tauranga m\u014D ng\u0101 kaiwhakahaere o te k\u014Dti i roto i te ture.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000428\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d52e59e3-2195-4c95-a654-665c11b39b63\u0022\u003E[Mr Chairman, I rise to speak about the nature of this bill. I support the views expressed by my colleague the Hon David Parker, and those expressed by the Hon Shane Jones, relating to tikanga\u2014how it relates to the foreshore, and whether it should be left solely to the Minister. We favour going to court. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000429\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d52e59e3-2195-4c95-a654-665c11b39b63\u0022\u003EI have many comments to make about the foreshore\u2014strong views about tikanga within the law and the legacy left by the ancestors for us, the M\u0101ori people, because in this bill, it says that courts can make a ruling. But we are mindful, too, that some tribes have lived close to the foreshore for a long time\u2014nurtured and looked after Tangaroa\u2019s resources at the same time. There are many examples like that. I say, leave it for the courts to determine. Why make this the only real reason for it? So we should really think about the implications of this legislation. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000430\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d52e59e3-2195-4c95-a654-665c11b39b63\u0022\u003EWhen the Minister began his address, he expressed his view in regard to agreeing or opposing this legislation. Now to some, this bill is divisive because it is left to the discretion of the Minister. He determines whether a settlement goes before the courts, or whether it goes through our parliamentary process. That is another reason why we on this side of the Chamber oppose this. However, those who choose to go to court will also be confronted with a similar situation if their more knowledgable ones give advice to court officials.]\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000431\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d52e59e3-2195-4c95-a654-665c11b39b63\u0022\u003ESitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000432\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c437bda8-4741-4ac5-89ab-b0818e1ab9fa\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223127ce4cfef541e2b52676ce61e2be02\u0022\u003EHon Darren Hughes\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I am sorry to interrupt my colleague; this should not take long. I have not had a chance to consult with the Opposition\u2019s junior whip about the part of the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill that we are currently considering. My specific question is, how many Minister\u2019s amendments are there to this particular part?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000433\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4112fc5-c53f-4aa9-bf6d-5a05ce6252cf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022de4a49893c334cafb0df54a0d4261afe\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy)\u003C/span\u003E: They are on the Table.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000434\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c437bda8-4741-4ac5-89ab-b0818e1ab9fa\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ec3454e22d66416d9fc439ebaedfba17\u0022\u003EHon Darren Hughes\u003C/span\u003E: Do you know how many there are?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000435\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4112fc5-c53f-4aa9-bf6d-5a05ce6252cf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022de12920239244cefbfb5715986aa94e1\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy)\u003C/span\u003E: I do not. I have just come here, as you have. They are accessible on the Table.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000436\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c437bda8-4741-4ac5-89ab-b0818e1ab9fa\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022bbc278908e3e4df5b549cfeeeba77da8\u0022\u003EHon Darren Hughes\u003C/span\u003E: So all the amendments that are available for debate and for the voting on this particular part have been tabled at this time by the Minister?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000437\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4112fc5-c53f-4aa9-bf6d-5a05ce6252cf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229681451dc0394cecb099f02e36b7e915\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy)\u003C/span\u003E: That is correct. I understand so.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000438\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d52e59e3-2195-4c95-a654-665c11b39b63\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228ce4f50bee764e13bde48e75fe1c1ffb\u0022\u003EHon PAREKURA HOROMIA\u003C/span\u003E: It is interesting to note that the High Court will have a fair bit of sanctioning power, and what certainly needs to be ensured at this early stage is that the judges have the ability to cope with M\u0101ori tikanga and understand the nuances of hap\u016B and iwi conflict, important as it is. It is the issue that needs to be broken down. There can possibly be an agreement, but what is more important is that we do not fuel or encourage more conflict amongst the wh\u0101nau and the hap\u016B. In some parts that wehewehe is something that certainly puts asunder a lot of hard work by people in this building, by people outside, and especially by the wh\u0101nau, hap\u016B, and iwi. That is of interest. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000439\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d52e59e3-2195-4c95-a654-665c11b39b63\u0022\u003EI want to come back to this issue, because I want to commend the Minister for ensuring clause (3)(2)(a) in Part 1 of the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill \u201Csets out the purpose of the Act and acknowledges the importance of the marine and coastal area to all New Zealanders and the customary interests of wh\u0101nau, hap\u016B, and iwi in that area\u201D. I really commend the Government and encourage it to hold that line, because if one has been an activist and a collector and gatherer of the fruits of the takutai moana, then it is important that there is a sequence that has been well driven and well trodden. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000440\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d52e59e3-2195-4c95-a654-665c11b39b63\u0022\u003EFirst of all, it starts off with the wh\u0101nau, the family who go to ruku p\u016Bp\u016B, to gather seafood, to make sure that they are replenished and that they feed their families well. The next is hap\u016B, who in a sense try to determine and define boundaries and those issues relevant to that hap\u016B\u2014the collection of those wh\u0101nau. Last of all is the iwi, who may, in relation to representing the wh\u0101nau and the hap\u016B, ensure that all those issues that are relevant to working there, or to doing anything with the foreshore and seabed, are recognised and managed well in accordance with the tikanga and with mana. There is inherent clarity in that. Certainly, I commend the Minister on that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022 data-id=\u0022ddb97fbaf81e4d24b6cdb024ce80617c\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000441\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022ddb97fbaf81e4d24b6cdb024ce80617c\u0022\u003EHon DAVID PARKER (Labour):\u003C/span\u003E I will deal with a matter that arises from clause 7 that relates to the definition of \u201Ccommon marine and coastal area\u201D. The importance of this definition is that parts of the marine and coastal area, which is also defined in the bill, are subject to claims for customary interests, and they can be made only in areas that are common marine and coastal area within the definition of the bill. Of course, the definition that came to the M\u0101ori Affairs Committee is the definition that is still set out in the bill. That is now being amended by Supplementary Order Paper 207 from the Minister in the chair, the Attorney-General, and it changes the definition substantially. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000442\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EIn this regard, I refer the House to a letter from the New Zealand Law Society, dated 7 March. This letter was written on behalf of the Law Society by its president, Jonathan Temm, who is becoming increasingly concerned at the poor processes used by this Government, not just in respect of this bill but also in respect of another bill. Indeed, as we sit here, in another part of this complex today, similar poor process is being adopted in respect of a telecommunications bill. Increasingly, the Law Society is concerned that the effect of this is that we can have bad law and we can make mistakes because we do not allow changes to proposed law to have proper scrutiny. The letter stated: \u201CThe Law Society has noted the M\u0101ori Affairs Committee by majority is recommending the passage of the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill without amendment. The appended list of possible amendments prepared by officials in light of submissions received\u201D\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000443\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002251dfea20-2244-4fc7-bd7d-ebf7a98580e1\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221735ce6a5be645658ce089712c0c2337\u0022\u003EHon Tau Henare\u003C/span\u003E: What\u2019s wrong with that?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000444\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022975a12cfe0bd43ce9248cc50d7ccdc44\u0022\u003EHon DAVID PARKER\u003C/span\u003E: Mr Henare should listen to the rest of the letter from the Law Society, because there is lots wrong with the process. Paragraph (c) of the letter continues: \u201CYour subsequent public statement that you intend introducing amendments to the bill presumably by way of Supplementary Order Paper on its return to the House\u201D, and \u201COne such amendment will be to require that negotiated agreements concerning customary marine title be given effect through legislation. The society is concerned that the foreshadowed process of introducing significant amendments by way of the SOP procedure will remove the opportunity for pre-legislative scrutiny of these amendments. There are two specific concerns\u201D, and then it notes them. I do not have time to go into them in full, but essentially the letter states that there is not as much public scrutiny of proposed amendments.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000445\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002267431f57-e958-4c83-b438-7da8061d479e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f115feee7a3f4bdcb155ecbeb4dc158a\u0022\u003EPaul Quinn\u003C/span\u003E: Is that all?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000446\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223ccf3f4de7fe4e8d95934eec02ebcd6a\u0022\u003EHon DAVID PARKER\u003C/span\u003E: \u201CIs that all?\u201D is pretty revealing of the attitude of the Government to using proper processes so that we do not make mistakes as to law. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000447\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EI will give members just one instance, and I have time in this call to develop only the one instance, although there are lots of others that I want the Minister to comment upon. The definition of \u201Ccommon marine and coastal area\u201D in clause 7 as it came to the select committee stated that excluded from the definition of common marine and coastal area was \u201C(b) any area that, immediately before the commencement of Part 2, is both owned by the Crown and also has a status of any of the following kinds:\u201D, and then it listed conservation areas within the Conservation Act, national parks, reserves within the meaning of the Reserves Act, and wildlife management reserves. The Minister has already talked about paragraph (c) of the definition relating to Te Whanga Lagoon in the Chatham Islands, but he has made no reference to the changes being made to paragraph (b) and the reason therefore. I have some questions for the Minister, because I am actually not sure what the import of this amendment is. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000448\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EI had a call today from someone who said that the effect of this amendment is to exclude from the exclusions areas such as the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park. The Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act created a marine park that extends from the Firth of Thames out to Little Barrier Island and Great Barrier Island. Those islands no doubt include areas of foreshore, and no doubt there are areas of seabed that are also affected by the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act. I would have thought, given that preceding that Act those areas were vested in the Crown, that those areas would be protected under the existing definition that came to the select committee and that those areas would be outside the areas for which there could be claims of customary marine title. Now this has been changed by Supplementary Order Paper 207, it seems, so that those areas\u2014and this is a big area; the whole of the Firth of Thames or a substantial part of it, as I understand it, out to Great Barrier Island and Little Barrier Island\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002251dfea20-2244-4fc7-bd7d-ebf7a98580e1\u0022 data-id=\u0022758b8cc8ac814553bbd28c3877a8dcb2\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000449\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002251dfea20-2244-4fc7-bd7d-ebf7a98580e1\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022758b8cc8ac814553bbd28c3877a8dcb2\u0022\u003EHon TAU HENARE (National):\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=\u00220ee528dc-7870-4553-95ed-5ec0cab60f07\u0022 data-id=\u002237ab49b83afe44a79aabb5d509ff2469\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000450\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220ee528dc-7870-4553-95ed-5ec0cab60f07\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002237ab49b83afe44a79aabb5d509ff2469\u0022\u003ECATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green):\u003C/span\u003E T\u0113n\u0101 koe, Mr Chair. T\u0113n\u0101 koutou e te Whare. I will address Part 1 of the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill, but I would like to give some context. In 2004 my partner and I were the original, token tauiwi who travelled from Tauranga to Wellington with Ng\u0101ti Porou led by T\u0101me Te Maro, and with Ng\u0101ti Kahungunu led by Moana Jackson, Ng\u0101hiwi Tomoana, and Mereana Pitman. This uplifting h\u012Bkoi joined the rest of Aotearoa on the forecourt of this Parliament to do more than oppose the Labour Government\u2019s legislation. The h\u012Bkoi upheld the political and cultural strength of wh\u0101nau, hap\u016B, and iwi who had travelled together to remind the Government and the rest of the country that their mana whenua status and rights in the realm of the takutai moana had never been superseded, given away, or handed over and that they were, therefore, the last people who needed to prove their relationship. Raupatu was not acceptable that day, and raupatu is not acceptable today. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000451\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220ee528dc-7870-4553-95ed-5ec0cab60f07\u0022\u003EWe sit here now, in 2011, and later we will be arguing over the tests, as another Government wishes to establish the recognition of a tangata whenua right to go to court. Regrettably, the repeal of the original legislation is not the solution, although it is being repealed in this bill tonight. Some are arguing that the bill is a step in the right direction, but restoring due process in a manner that basically maintains basic inequality of access to justice cannot be celebrated. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000452\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220ee528dc-7870-4553-95ed-5ec0cab60f07\u0022\u003EIn terms of Part 1, the purpose of the bill is not, in my view at least, to provide true justice and equity under Te Tiriti o Waitangi, let alone access to the beach for all New Zealanders. Access to the beach for all New Zealanders has never been the purpose of this or the previous legislation. The \u201Chaters and wreckers\u201D have never been the hap\u016B katoa asserting their mana whenua. Perhaps the Coastal Coalition might like to consider its responsibilities in the fostering of hate and the wrecking of local community and hap\u016B relationships through its particular and perverse take on this bill. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000453\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220ee528dc-7870-4553-95ed-5ec0cab60f07\u0022\u003EThere are numerous issues to be addressed, from the privileging of private title-holders in another part of this law to the unfair thresholds for establishing so-called customary rights within 6 years. Expressions such as \u201Ccustomary title\u201D and \u201Ccommon space\u201D have been given new and particular definitions, and the courts will no doubt have a field day, at others\u2019 expense, establishing those meanings. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000454\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220ee528dc-7870-4553-95ed-5ec0cab60f07\u0022\u003EFor me, the underlying purpose of the bill is expressed in clause 9. The Crown, under whatever name we choose, wants control of the coastal resources so that it can bargain with multinationals. From Rio Tinto on the western coast to Petrobras in the east, we have proposals for mineral exploration, sand mining, and oil drilling. The Crown does not want to bargain with iwi as well, so it is much tidier for the Crown if it is the decision maker. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000455\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220ee528dc-7870-4553-95ed-5ec0cab60f07\u0022\u003EThe public thinks this bill is about their right to a picnic in the sand, but really it is about the development of undersea and coastal wealth at the expense of the environment and future generations. While we fight over the mirage of public access, the companies are busy working with our own Crown research entities, assessing the opportunity to drill for oil and mine for sand. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000456\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220ee528dc-7870-4553-95ed-5ec0cab60f07\u0022\u003EOn the original h\u012Bkoi in 2004 lots of people were acutely predicting the intensification of the coastal prospecting that we see today, and which is being upheld by clause 9. But, as has been said before, we will fight on the beaches. If we go to the East Coast we will find hap\u016B katoa fighting for the right to protect their area from oil drilling, and those hap\u016B see a direct relationship between Part 1 and their rights as mana whenua to protect their land from Petrobras, a particularly unedifying multinational whose history includes many instances of oil-spills. Therefore the rights of the indigenous people of Aotearoa need no proof, but their right to protect the environment alongside other citizens, in terms of their relationship with Tangaroa and Papat\u016B\u0101nuku, is in need of our protection. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000457\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220ee528dc-7870-4553-95ed-5ec0cab60f07\u0022\u003EIf we want to look in detail at the way in which the coastal and economic zone has been expanded, we will see a large increase in prospecting and mining rights, which clause 9 absolutely establishes the Crown\u2019s right to maintain its hold over. We will find that many citizens, as well as tangata whenua, are very concerned about that. We can keep talking about access and about the tests, which we will talk about in the debate on Part 2, but, in the end, the tangata whenua do not have to prove anything. They were here first. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000458\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220ee528dc-7870-4553-95ed-5ec0cab60f07\u0022\u003EWhat we do need to prove as a country is our capacity to look after our resources and respect people whose kaitiakitanga goes back through generations, and who do not have to prove it. I think what we need to prove is our capability to look after our resources\u2014our vulnerable coastal environment, and our vulnerable communities who want to maintain their mana whenua, rather than having to establish it through a court of law. I am very strongly in favour of the Green Party\u2019s position on this bill. We oppose it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022802874a3-deca-48b7-9d33-9087058892f5\u0022 data-id=\u002244f6db208df440dd89e1e2745bba5b16\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000459\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022802874a3-deca-48b7-9d33-9087058892f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002244f6db208df440dd89e1e2745bba5b16\u0022\u003EKELVIN DAVIS (Labour):\u003C/span\u003E Before the dinner break I was talking about the wardens and the definition of \u201Cwarden\u201D under clause 7 of the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill. I think it is important for the record that we differentiate between the wardens appointed for the purpose of this legislation and wardens appointed under the Maori Community Development Act. The wardens under that Act are good-natured, normally elderly people who stand at the gates of marae to direct traffic. For the purposes of this legislation, wardens basically\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000460\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002267431f57-e958-4c83-b438-7da8061d479e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022be7f48c65f4549448158b63e4e336ef0\u0022\u003EPaul Quinn\u003C/span\u003E: Discrimination, Kelvin! That\u2019s terrible!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000461\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f44431ef-b505-4e94-9f57-a60b0a569bf7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002246be8105f1994622b88a37a35785cc3a\u0022\u003EHon Shane Jones\u003C/span\u003E: Rark the wardens up!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000462\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022802874a3-deca-48b7-9d33-9087058892f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022145152582fc94028bb9a91b58a4a2ae0\u0022\u003EKELVIN DAVIS\u003C/span\u003E: I am sorry, but I am having trouble concentrating because of the interjections, not so much from Mr Quinn this time, but more from my own colleague. The wardens will be responsible to a customary marine title group for the following functions: to assist in implementing prohibitions or restrictions, entering w\u0101hi tapu for the purpose of performing their functions, and advising members of the public of any applicable prohibition or restriction. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000463\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022802874a3-deca-48b7-9d33-9087058892f5\u0022\u003EThe question is about how those wardens are to be identified by members of the public, and how the public will know that there will not be any old Tom, Dick, or H\u014Dri turning up and telling them they cannot be in a particular place. That question needs clarification in terms of this bill\u2014exactly what \u201Cwarden\u201D means. There was hysteria, again from the likes of the Coastal Coalition, that we would have M\u0101ori in sunglasses and with baseball bats scaring people off the foreshore and seabed. When we think that this bill probably relates to only 2, 3, or 5 percent of New Zealand\u2019s coastline, and that most of the areas that we are talking about will be relatively isolated, such as around the North Cape, it is pretty unlikely that\u2014and this is just to settle the nerves of the ACT Party and the Coastal Coalition\u2014there will be a big M\u0101ori in sunglasses and with a baseball bat standing on the edge of the beach to warn people off. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000464\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022802874a3-deca-48b7-9d33-9087058892f5\u0022\u003EMembers might go to the North Cape, but I doubt whether, in the history of all of Aotearoa New Zealand, more than 2,000 people, over the last two millenniums, have set foot on those beaches. If we left our cars at the road and walked in, it would probably take about 4 or 5 hours to get there. I would say that if any warden was dumb enough to be standing there waiting for somebody to turn up just so that he or she could turn them away, the chances are that that warden would probably be more likely to give them a cup of tea and welcome them to go and have a swim at the beach, just because he or she would want to have some company. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000465\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022802874a3-deca-48b7-9d33-9087058892f5\u0022\u003EThe warden issue needs to be settled. People need to know that we will not have big, burly M\u0101ori frightening off everybody. There was another guy, obviously another Coastal Coalition person, who said he was scared that his surf life-saving club would not be able to practise surf life-saving. He said it was the oldest surf life-saving club in the Tauranga area, he had been a surf lifesaver there for 50 years, and now it was ridiculous that, when somebody needed to be rescued from the ocean, the club would have to ring up and ask permission from a warden or somebody like that so that its members could cross over the sand and get to the water. We said: \u201CMate, have you read the bill?\u201D. The answer was that he had not, or, if he had, he had totally misunderstood it, because if his surf life-saving club had been there for 50 years, there is no way that that beach could be deemed to have been exclusively used by M\u0101ori, and he had nothing to worry about. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000466\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022802874a3-deca-48b7-9d33-9087058892f5\u0022\u003EI want to talk about the w\u0101hi tapu. Again, this issue got the Coastal Coalition\u2019s back up. I cannot think of many areas\u2014in fact, I can think of only one area\u2014underneath the high-tide mark that may be deemed to be a w\u0101hi tapu. It is the resting place at T\u0101kou Bay of the M\u0101taatua waka. According to our traditions, the M\u0101taatua came over and settled down in the Whakat\u0101ne area somewhere. There was a bit of a ding-dong between a couple of brothers, who were the chiefs on the waka, and our tupuna Puhi\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022cc9c47c0-4409-44ca-ad2f-498707f27d69\u0022 data-id=\u0022f32fbda554e6447b96ab6be21ff1ad28\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000467\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cc9c47c0-4409-44ca-ad2f-498707f27d69\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022f32fbda554e6447b96ab6be21ff1ad28\u0022\u003EJONATHAN YOUNG (National\u2014New Plymouth):\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=\u0022c53e4642-d448-4d84-abfe-0443fe24aae9\u0022 data-id=\u0022130813072ce84ea29d82a6d2c6986284\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000468\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c53e4642-d448-4d84-abfe-0443fe24aae9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022130813072ce84ea29d82a6d2c6986284\u0022\u003EHILARY CALVERT (ACT):\u003C/span\u003E I will talk about three things in relation to Part 1 of the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill. I want to talk about the seabed, airspace, and accommodated activities. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000469\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c53e4642-d448-4d84-abfe-0443fe24aae9\u0022\u003EI will start with the seabed. Historical use of the seabed any significant distance from the shore seems impossible to prove, and allowing title to be granted to iwi allows for unjust and potentially divisive future claims. Historically, no one has crawled about on the seabed miles from shore.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000470\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c2dfe169-d946-4f87-8d43-0bcdb7d8bebc\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220cd63d6d8cff468da0bd7abbd03813b8\u0022\u003EHon Tariana Turia\u003C/span\u003E: How do you know that?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000471\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c53e4642-d448-4d84-abfe-0443fe24aae9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022369a45822f3040ea9231a98728f1eb39\u0022\u003EHILARY CALVERT\u003C/span\u003E: There is no chance of anybody holding their breath on the seabed from 1840 till now\u2014that just cannot happen. From the 18th century to the 20th century, the Commonwealth generally considered territorial waters to extend for 3 nautical miles. That distance was the length of a cannon shot, and thus the distance of water a nation could defend from\u2014[Interruption] \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000472\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002277ec6495-df45-43ac-aaa1-a03b5dd4c128\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002232f3b06a6f3e4362ba547cc6d7bd7822\u0022\u003EHon John Boscawen\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I am sorry to have to interrupt my colleague, but I am hearing harangues from Labour Opposition members. I also have to listen to continued interjections from Tariana Turia. The reason I specifically object is that when I gave my speech in the first reading debate, Tariana Turia lodged a point of order objection to me, complaining\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000473\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4112fc5-c53f-4aa9-bf6d-5a05ce6252cf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002257995dd76cf4466faea522e42c72e606\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy)\u003C/span\u003E: The member must address those matters at the time. We do not deal with historical matters here. I will deal with the matter of noise in the Chamber. This is a reasonably impassioned debate, and at times the noise levels have come up and gone down. Overall, I think the noise levels are reasonably acceptable, but from time to time I need to caution members, and I think we need just a bit of decorum and a wee reminder of that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000474\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c53e4642-d448-4d84-abfe-0443fe24aae9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228045db5df5bd476e9b178613f3d310b5\u0022\u003EHILARY CALVERT\u003C/span\u003E: The Hon Turiana \u201CTurei\u201D seems to believe that\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000475\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c2dfe169-d946-4f87-8d43-0bcdb7d8bebc\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223b47c63ed26541c684a3663238a011e2\u0022\u003EHon Tariana Turia\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. If the member is going to use my name, she can pronounce it correctly. I am offended that she does not.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000476\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4112fc5-c53f-4aa9-bf6d-5a05ce6252cf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229e40921b216a428cafda2e7e8b23a12c\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy)\u003C/span\u003E: That is correct. Members need to take a bit of care about these matters.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000477\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c53e4642-d448-4d84-abfe-0443fe24aae9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f6205fbe46a646b5b7357d3abd7e6c51\u0022\u003EHILARY CALVERT\u003C/span\u003E: My apologies. The member who interjected suggested that I do not know whether somebody could have held their breath on the seabed since 1840. Perhaps I do not know, and perhaps she does not know either. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000478\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c53e4642-d448-4d84-abfe-0443fe24aae9\u0022\u003EAs I was saying, we have had territorial waters extending to 3 nautical miles. That distance is the length of a cannon shot, and was what people could defend. Putting aside the distinct lack of cannons in 1840, and any ability for anyone living in New Zealand at that time to defend even that region, it is quite clear that nobody has ever had the exclusive use and occupation of the seabed beyond that mark\u2014let alone to the 12 nautical mile limit that came in only last century. It should therefore be near to impossible to grant any title to any iwi claiming such rights. That does not mean, however, that the courts do not know something I do not, and that aspect of that legislation should not be tried by the courts. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000479\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c53e4642-d448-4d84-abfe-0443fe24aae9\u0022\u003EI turn to the airspace. The bill\u2019s explanatory note states that the foreshore and seabed is \u201Cthe area from the high-water mark at mean high-water spring tides extending seawards for 12 nautical miles. This area includes the subsoil and the waterspace and airspace above this area (but not the air or water itself).\u201D What is the airspace? ACT wants the foreshore and seabed issue to be left to the courts where it belongs, but in a perverse way we may get our wish. One can see the definition of airspace going to court time and time again, as we are forced to deal with questions like whether paragliding businesses will have to pay whenever they take somebody paragliding in the airspace\u2014or the air? How tall does a ship\u2019s mast have to be before it is in the airspace? What about surfcasters who throw their lines across the air into the water? It may sound crazy, but for those directly affected by this bill\u2014those whose livelihoods are at stake\u2014it is very serious indeed. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000480\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c53e4642-d448-4d84-abfe-0443fe24aae9\u0022\u003EThe third point I would like to make\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000481\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002251dfea20-2244-4fc7-bd7d-ebf7a98580e1\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229efcb21245b7486e91e48949bac30350\u0022\u003EHon Tau Henare\u003C/span\u003E: Tonight we are witnessing the discovery of a new planet. It\u2019s time to go home.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000482\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c53e4642-d448-4d84-abfe-0443fe24aae9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227493989062f64281be89067fc5488f0f\u0022\u003EHILARY CALVERT\u003C/span\u003E: Certainly, the honourable, interjecting member can take a call any time he wants to, if the Chair allows it. The definition of \u201Caccommodated activity\u201D has been changed on Supplementary Order Paper 207, put forward by the Minister in the chair, Chris Finlayson. The definition no longer includes activities that can be lawfully undertaken without resource consent. In practice, this will mean that activities that never needed resource consent may be controlled by the holder of a customary marine title. The intention of the bill was to allow things that were already going on to continue, and for anything that currently has resource consent to be able to continue. I am sure the Minister is a meticulous person, so presumably he left out on purpose the definition that included\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022cfdabe42-521a-4dca-afab-3e781731a130\u0022 data-id=\u002252e6b0855db04c7d8615cbe1393894cf\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000483\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cfdabe42-521a-4dca-afab-3e781731a130\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002252e6b0855db04c7d8615cbe1393894cf\u0022\u003EDr PAUL HUTCHISON (National\u2014Hunua):\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=\u0022dfa851f0-ef7b-4834-bc41-1b3b645a3495\u0022 data-id=\u002254e3ab1431b54b52b7fa139f8e1ac8f8\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000484\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022dfa851f0-ef7b-4834-bc41-1b3b645a3495\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002254e3ab1431b54b52b7fa139f8e1ac8f8\u0022\u003EDAVID SHEARER (Labour\u2014Mt Albert):\u003C/span\u003E I would like to take a call on the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill, particularly in respect of clause 8. Clause 8 is a rather long and large litany of the meaning of \u201Caccommodated activity\u201D. The bill attempts to codify \u201Caccommodated activity\u201D meaning one of those things that will be exempt from the bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000485\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022dfa851f0-ef7b-4834-bc41-1b3b645a3495\u0022\u003ETo start with I would like to explain very clearly and carefully why Labour supports abolishing clauses 8 and 9\u2014and Labour has put up an amendment in the name of David Parker\u2014so that we do not have to codify a rather ridiculous and long list of exemptions that should go to the court and have the High Court decide on those matters. I take into account also my colleague Parekura Horomia\u2019s reservations about the High Court and the ability of the High Court\u2014as has been seen in other cases\u2014to understand and to weigh up M\u0101ori tikanga, in terms of being able to make that particular decision.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000486\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022dfa851f0-ef7b-4834-bc41-1b3b645a3495\u0022\u003EI want to look at a couple of issues around clause 8\u2014in particular, clause 8(1)(d): \u201Can existing activity that is undertaken in accordance with a resource consent or other lawful approval granted under an enactment that was replaced by the Resource Management Act 1991:\u201D. That brings an enormous amount of latitude to the interpretation of the bill, rather than trying to codify every single possibility and it going to the High Court for it to be ruled on in that particular way.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000487\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022dfa851f0-ef7b-4834-bc41-1b3b645a3495\u0022\u003EI will take a moment to compliment the officials\u2014some of whom are here in the Chamber\u2014for the extraordinary job they have done in putting together more than 5,500 submissions and nearly 300 oral submissions for the departmental report from the Ministry of Justice. The really unfortunate side of this is that it will not be used to its full extent, because we have not had the ability to debate the bill in the way we should have when it is of such vital importance to New Zealand. Instead, it will be research for the enormous number of PhD and master\u2019s degree students who will be looking through it to show where the Government went wrong when it tried to ram through legislation that was so divisive in this country. I remind members that this bill is legislation that John Key said he wanted to sort out and to resolve once and for all. Unfortunately, that will not be the case.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000488\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022dfa851f0-ef7b-4834-bc41-1b3b645a3495\u0022\u003EI come back to clause 8, because it is the area I particularly want to focus on. I will quote from the officials\u2019 departmental report on clause 8(1)(i): \u201CThe purpose of this clause is to ensure that the existing marine mammal sanctuaries\u201D\u2014and as I was saying before, here we get into the detail of the bill that is trying to codify every single aspect of a possible situation that might come up\u2014\u201Ccontinue to operate as they have done prior to the enactment of this bill. Any substantial iwi and hap\u016B rights over such areas should have already been considered and dealt with during the establishment phase of the reserve.\u201D But of course the reserve might have already been in place, and then a customary right might be established. The question then becomes which has sway over the other. It goes on to state that management activities will depend on the nature of each sanctuary but could involve activities such as monitoring and gathering information. In this situation, in relation to clause 8(1)(i), the number of areas that the legislation attempts to codify were quite rightfully pointed out by a number of submitters.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bbded2ec-ac25-4a73-a380-3f4d87693084\u0022 data-id=\u00221813597ed36649b691af985b368470c2\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000489\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bbded2ec-ac25-4a73-a380-3f4d87693084\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00221813597ed36649b691af985b368470c2\u0022\u003ESTUART NASH (Labour):\u003C/span\u003E My colleague David Shearer has spoken about clause 8 of the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill, and I will talk about clause 9. It deals with the meaning of \u201Cdeemed accommodated activity\u201D, as opposed to \u201Caccommodated activity\u201D. I do not quite understand a few of the words. I hope the Minister in the chair, the Attorney-General, will provide me with a couple of definitions. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000490\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bbded2ec-ac25-4a73-a380-3f4d87693084\u0022\u003EIn subclause (1), \u201Cdeemed accommodated activity means \u2026 a nationally or regionally significant structure or infrastructure\u201D. I am quite keen to understand what defines a \u201Cnationally significant structure or infrastructure\u201D and a \u201Cregionally significant structure or infrastructure\u201D. What does that mean? Is it a simple road, or are we talking about a bridge or jetty? \u201CSignificant\u201D is quite a wide term, and everyone will be aware that what is significant to one person is not necessarily significant to someone else. Subclause (1)(a) introduces a word that is so subjective, I would argue, as to be almost meaningless. I can see this process being tied up in the courts for quite a long time arguing that very point: what is \u201Csignificant\u201D? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000491\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bbded2ec-ac25-4a73-a380-3f4d87693084\u0022\u003EI turn to schedule 1, \u201CProcess by which certain new activities in customary marine title area become deemed accommodated activities\u201D. For example, clause 1 of Part 1 of schedule 1 states: \u201CPrior to the application under the Resource Management Act 1991 for any resource consents for new nationally or regionally significant structures or infrastructure in a customary marine title area, the proposed structure or infrastructure may become a deemed accommodated matter in accordance with this Part.\u201D \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000492\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bbded2ec-ac25-4a73-a380-3f4d87693084\u0022\u003ESchedule 1 lists the process under which something becomes a deemed accommodated activity. It is quite complicated, and clause 4 of Part 1 of schedule 1 goes from the ridiculous to the sublime. It states: \u201CUpon receipt of an application under clause 3 \u2026 the Minister must consider and decide to\u2014(a) seek more information from the applicant; or (b) decline the application on the basis that insufficient information has been provided, or the proposed structure or infrastructure does not meet all or any of the requirements and criteria set out \u2026 ; or (c) make an initial decision on whether there is sufficient information to demonstrate that all of those requirements and criteria have been adequately addressed.\u201D \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000493\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bbded2ec-ac25-4a73-a380-3f4d87693084\u0022\u003EIf one is applying for something to be a deemed accommodated activity, one has to satisfy seven different tests. Even then, the Minister may say that a little bit more information is needed or that not enough information has been provided. The Minister may just make an initial decision on whether there is enough information. I can see this process being tied up for a long time in the courts. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000494\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f44431ef-b505-4e94-9f57-a60b0a569bf7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f86d983642c34c3fa97a7fef9a5b6633\u0022\u003EHon Shane Jones\u003C/span\u003E: Litigation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000495\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bbded2ec-ac25-4a73-a380-3f4d87693084\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d05aba4d8ea04885871a1fdee88d04cf\u0022\u003ESTUART NASH\u003C/span\u003E: Mr Jones has hit the nail on the head. Members know who will get wealthy from this legislation. An army of lawyers will argue the definition of \u201Csignificant\u201D. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000496\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bbded2ec-ac25-4a73-a380-3f4d87693084\u0022\u003EAs I said, clause 1 of Part 1 of schedule 1 talks about new nationally or regionally significant structure or infrastructure. What about a jetty that is falling down? I can think of several around the place that are unsafe. If they were done up, they could become nationally or regionally significant structures or infrastructure. Does that mean if it is not new one does not need to go through this whole process? It is like doing up an old vintage car: all we need is the vehicle identification number. We can change the whole car, yet the car is a vintage if it has that number. We could plant a 150-year-old bit of wood in the sand and say that we do not need to go through the whole process, because the wood was not a new structure or infrastructure in terms of schedule 1. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000497\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bbded2ec-ac25-4a73-a380-3f4d87693084\u0022\u003EAgain, I come back to what is meant by \u201Csignificant\u201D. I cannot make that call and I do not think anyone can, but I tell members who will be able to make that call. A District Court judge will make the call on what constitutes \u201Csignificant\u201D.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022c83012b4-3939-4753-80fc-1956a3e2bd1e\u0022 data-id=\u0022a754817b0d3f448a98a2e5d94cf4617f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000498\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c83012b4-3939-4753-80fc-1956a3e2bd1e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a754817b0d3f448a98a2e5d94cf4617f\u0022\u003EMICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That the question be now put.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000499\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4112fc5-c53f-4aa9-bf6d-5a05ce6252cf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022fca396004acd491697c67312bb7e8382\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000500\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002277ec6495-df45-43ac-aaa1-a03b5dd4c128\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002229fecf2782884dca8be5f8994c1b6db6\u0022\u003EHon John Boscawen\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I understand that you are taking the vote that we stop debate on this part of the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000501\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4112fc5-c53f-4aa9-bf6d-5a05ce6252cf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224073d267a3b3483782fc0fe455f8c8bc\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy)\u003C/span\u003E: No, let me correct the member. I am giving the Committee the opportunity to decide whether this is the termination of the debate. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000502\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002277ec6495-df45-43ac-aaa1-a03b5dd4c128\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ca27549f6f6d4c7993a46ca52a678415\u0022\u003EHon John Boscawen\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Chairperson. This is very important legislation. It has far-reaching ramifications for all New Zealanders. There is a massive transfer of wealth from all New Zealanders to selected iwi, and the ACT Party has already\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000503\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4112fc5-c53f-4aa9-bf6d-5a05ce6252cf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c1f63597495e4d61b883f3a6da132041\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy)\u003C/span\u003E: I have taken all those things into consideration\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000504\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002277ec6495-df45-43ac-aaa1-a03b5dd4c128\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c93b7990182446048accd68a941bd050\u0022\u003EHon John Boscawen\u003C/span\u003E: Point of order\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000505\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4112fc5-c53f-4aa9-bf6d-5a05ce6252cf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002258c1abe6a00843ee935517cb53fc76f6\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy)\u003C/span\u003E: I am on my feet. I intend to put the motion. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000506\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bbded2ec-ac25-4a73-a380-3f4d87693084\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d8e935c733a849059587d7f1958b4dd8\u0022\u003EStuart Nash\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000507\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4112fc5-c53f-4aa9-bf6d-5a05ce6252cf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b4dbb2dd244a44a2a027c57c3411a754\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy)\u003C/span\u003E: I will hear the member.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000508\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bbded2ec-ac25-4a73-a380-3f4d87693084\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f0092629996e4a1c967a7647d3105674\u0022\u003EStuart Nash\u003C/span\u003E: I ask for clarification, Mr Chairperson, as a new member because sometimes we are a little bit hazy on these rules. I understood that you cannot put the motion if new information in the bill had been brought forward. Am I wrong in that?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000509\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4112fc5-c53f-4aa9-bf6d-5a05ce6252cf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d44fb9d9854246c1bee5697fd2797124\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy)\u003C/span\u003E: I make a judgment across a range of things as to when it is time for the closure. I take the matter very seriously, and the member will be aware that I have been in Parliament for some time. It is not my intention to curtail debate for the sake of being obstreperous, so I am going to put the motion.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000510\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002277ec6495-df45-43ac-aaa1-a03b5dd4c128\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b9fd0d5b8cee49a1a111ed210c67fafe\u0022\u003EHon John Boscawen\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. The ACT Party has given notice that we have suggested a number of amendments on this bill. You seem to be denying us the chance to put them, and I ask that the Speaker be recalled. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000511\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4112fc5-c53f-4aa9-bf6d-5a05ce6252cf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022528a28988cef4d74bb7d599ef8c376e8\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy)\u003C/span\u003E: The member is entitled to do that. I can forecast what the result will be; it has happened several times. If the member wants to do that, that is his right. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000512\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002277ec6495-df45-43ac-aaa1-a03b5dd4c128\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223e000d3e164e4714bc419e61764288ed\u0022\u003EHon John Boscawen\u003C/span\u003E: I move, That the Speaker be recalled. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000513\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002277ec6495-df45-43ac-aaa1-a03b5dd4c128\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000514\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u002268eea8d99d754e5e8d1378c552bf8142\u0022\u003EHouse resumed.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000515\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022314077c96349422a83bcff8a0aacff79\u0022\u003ESpeaker Recalled\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022f4112fc5-c53f-4aa9-bf6d-5a05ce6252cf\u0022 data-id=\u00223cdc0532938d40a6a9cc9e9129918c27\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000516\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4112fc5-c53f-4aa9-bf6d-5a05ce6252cf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00223cdc0532938d40a6a9cc9e9129918c27\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy)\u003C/span\u003E: Mr Speaker, the Committee of the whole House has determined that you should be recalled to rule on my decision to take a closure on Part 1 of the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill. Debate on Part 1 has included clauses 3 to 10 and schedule 1. There have been a number of amendments to the bill, but the debate has been going for just on 2\u00BD hours. There have been 27 calls. Every single member in the Chamber who has been seeking a call has had an opportunity to have at least one call; some members have called three times. I considered that the debate had reached a conclusion, so I accepted the call for the closure.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002277ec6495-df45-43ac-aaa1-a03b5dd4c128\u0022 data-id=\u00223075d7784f7041b5a7f77ecd53c66d28\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000517\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002277ec6495-df45-43ac-aaa1-a03b5dd4c128\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00223075d7784f7041b5a7f77ecd53c66d28\u0022\u003EHon JOHN BOSCAWEN (Whip\u2014ACT):\u003C/span\u003E I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I wonder whether I could speak to the reasons I have asked for you to come back to the Chamber. It is hard to imagine a more important and wide-ranging bill before this House in this 3-year parliamentary term. The ACT Party has strong opposition to this bill. We have lodged hundreds of amendments; some are very substantial. We gave notice to the Chair that we wanted to debate those amendments, and we gave notice to the Speaker of a number of issues that we wanted to raise. For example, clause 4(1)(a) talks about protecting the legitimate interests of all New Zealanders. We think this bill protects the legitimate interests of only some New Zealanders. We are being denied the chance to put our arguments. We think that the closure has been put far too early and we ask that you rule that the ACT Party has the right to speak to its amendments and to oppose this bill in the vigorous way it deserves to be opposed. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022c437bda8-4741-4ac5-89ab-b0818e1ab9fa\u0022 data-id=\u00221722f5f909ff48009ea5cbda7bb0d8df\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000518\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c437bda8-4741-4ac5-89ab-b0818e1ab9fa\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00221722f5f909ff48009ea5cbda7bb0d8df\u0022\u003EHon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip\u2014Labour):\u003C/span\u003E Mr Speaker, I do not want to comment on the substance of the motion moved by Mr Boscawen to recall you; he has given his reasons to you for that. The only thing I would note\u2014not by way of challenging the Chairman\u2014is that we started the debate on Part 1, the part we are currently on, at a quarter to 5. So we have spent about an hour and three-quarters on Part 1. I think the Chairman has added together the debate on the preamble and the debate on Part 1 to get to that figure he used of 2\u00BD hours. It has certainly been a substantial debate and I think that has been because there have been so many amendments set out on the Minister\u2019s Supplementary Order Paper. That might be of some help to you as you are reflecting on the ruling you will inevitably make.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002277ec6495-df45-43ac-aaa1-a03b5dd4c128\u0022 data-id=\u0022397d721c86e445f3af4a7f7695eaf702\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000519\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002277ec6495-df45-43ac-aaa1-a03b5dd4c128\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022397d721c86e445f3af4a7f7695eaf702\u0022\u003EHon JOHN BOSCAWEN (Whip\u2014ACT):\u003C/span\u003E I will make one additional point, Mr Speaker. One of the reasons we are having to debate the amendments in the Committee is, as you may be aware, the M\u0101ori Affairs Committee met to consider a 520-page report\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022ac169d29-4849-42c2-a4a7-f344fd416503\u0022 data-id=\u0022b24df74eafdc4e54b32806189060c8a4\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000520\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac169d29-4849-42c2-a4a7-f344fd416503\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b24df74eafdc4e54b32806189060c8a4\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: I do not believe that is helpful to the House. The member made a perfectly fair point of order a moment ago, but I do not think we need to get into that detail. The Speakers\u2019 rulings on this issue have been in place for some time, and in fact in our current Speakers\u2019 rulings go back to 1931. There is good reason why Speakers\u2019 rulings are the way they are, and that is that the Chair of the Committee of the whole House is obviously in the best position to assess the state of the debate. The Chair has reported to me that there have been 27 calls on Part 1 and that some members have had up to three calls. The Chair of the Committee of the whole House is clearly in the best position to assess whether a closure motion, when put, should be accepted. Speakers\u2019 ruling 65/3 is particularly clear on this matter: \u201CThe [chairperson] is the sole judge as to whether or not he ought to sanction the putting of the closure motion, and it must be left entirely in his hands.\u201D Excuse the sexist language, but obviously it was a male Chair of the Committee back in those days. What is more, Speaker\u2019s ruling 65/4 goes on to state: \u201CIt is not for the Speaker to second-guess the Chair\u2019s judgment [on the closure].\u201D \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000521\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac169d29-4849-42c2-a4a7-f344fd416503\u0022\u003EIf the Committee of the whole House does not agree that the closure should be accepted, then the Committee votes on the matter, and is at liberty to vote down a closure motion. So I must, I believe, in all conscience stick with the existing Speakers\u2019 rulings on this matter\u2014that the Chair of the Committee must be the sole judge of whether the closure motion should be accepted and put to the Committee for the vote. I must, on that basis, return the matter to the Chair of the Committee.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000522\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bbded2ec-ac25-4a73-a380-3f4d87693084\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b1f25dac683649a29906ec39157b1d27\u0022\u003EStuart Nash\u003C/span\u003E: Point of order, Mr Speaker\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000523\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac169d29-4849-42c2-a4a7-f344fd416503\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022001c5e8c306647a6b587d85a06b999b6\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: I will briefly hear a point of order from the member.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bbded2ec-ac25-4a73-a380-3f4d87693084\u0022 data-id=\u002217742fc4d1e043e485b9febb7052814b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000524\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bbded2ec-ac25-4a73-a380-3f4d87693084\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002217742fc4d1e043e485b9febb7052814b\u0022\u003ESTUART NASH (Labour):\u003C/span\u003E I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Just very briefly. You mentioned there had been 27 calls on this debate and that some people had spoken three times. Speakers\u2019 ruling 65/1 states: \u201CThe moving of a closure motion is treated as a speech.\u201D I think you may find that a number of those 27 calls, if not half, were probably closure motions, because at the end of every Labour, Opposition, ACT, or other speech, a closure motion was put by the Government.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000525\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac169d29-4849-42c2-a4a7-f344fd416503\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022958ca72d533c4d1ebaa7c0bf76bd3df4\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: I have made a ruling and, therefore, the matter is now closed. I declare the House back in Committee.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000526\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002277ec6495-df45-43ac-aaa1-a03b5dd4c128\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002287aaf0ffc2764f439f235842de965d27\u0022\u003EHon John Boscawen\u003C/span\u003E: Point of order\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000527\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac169d29-4849-42c2-a4a7-f344fd416503\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022fd6c63c79c3541bc8e20ff3a0d9d383e\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: I have declared the House back in Committee. I have made my ruling on the matter and declared the House back in Committee on the bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000528\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022e2534afa44d64e1aa3f9c47aae926768\u0022\u003EIn Committee\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000529\u0022\u003EDebate resumed.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000530\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u002211b3865017c84aaa9a5358fd7f362dc7\u0022\u003EPart 1  Preliminary provisions (continued)\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00227883c85e-a5bb-4a12-9962-80df55af0ecd\u0022 data-id=\u00223b6366ac9aae42e9bf7003d5784cb6ed\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000531\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227883c85e-a5bb-4a12-9962-80df55af0ecd\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00223b6366ac9aae42e9bf7003d5784cb6ed\u0022\u003EHONE HARAWIRA (Independent\u2014Te Tai Tokerau):\u003C/span\u003E I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I tried to rise a couple of times during the debate, but unfortunately these gentlemen over here were standing up quite frequently and speaking quite loudly, and I never ever got the opportunity to speak. By the time you got to make your ruling, you had already made it before I could get back up again. So I would appreciate having the opportunity to speak to this part.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000532\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4112fc5-c53f-4aa9-bf6d-5a05ce6252cf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022dc8497ce9ae3491b9734f2459b87aafd\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy)\u003C/span\u003E: I have to say to the member that I was being particularly attentive and I did not notice him. That is probably my mistake. His objection to my not giving him a call is noted, and I will be more vigilant in the future.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002277ec6495-df45-43ac-aaa1-a03b5dd4c128\u0022 data-id=\u00223f65cad930d54f828ac5cfe194799ce4\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000533\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002277ec6495-df45-43ac-aaa1-a03b5dd4c128\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00223f65cad930d54f828ac5cfe194799ce4\u0022\u003EHon JOHN BOSCAWEN (Deputy Leader\u2014ACT):\u003C/span\u003E I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. My understanding is that when you reported to the Speaker, you said to the Speaker that all those members who sought the call had been given it. Surely, Mr Hone Harawira\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000534\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4112fc5-c53f-4aa9-bf6d-5a05ce6252cf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022832b1756fb9b48b791c922dec1fe4633\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy)\u003C/span\u003E: The matter has been dealt with. Please sit down.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u002242099c8e1969476dbeaa86cb07200eed\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 62\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 57; M\u0101ori Party 4; United Future 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 58\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 5; Independents: Carter C, Harawira.\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=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000535\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 209 in the name of Hilary Calvert to clause 4(1)(a) and (c) be agreed to.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022dafa56eecca54fc3b1c7f0630c5aee5e\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 47\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 42; ACT New Zealand 5.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 73\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 57; Green Party 9; M\u0101ori Party 4; United Future 1; Independents: Carter C, Harawira.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendments not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022f4112fc5-c53f-4aa9-bf6d-5a05ce6252cf\u0022 data-id=\u0022c485b08503f242dfa21defc115a35ae5\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000536\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4112fc5-c53f-4aa9-bf6d-5a05ce6252cf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c485b08503f242dfa21defc115a35ae5\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy)\u003C/span\u003E: The next amendment in the name of Hilary Calvert on Supplementary Order Paper 209 to clause 4(1)(d) is ruled out of order as not being a serious amendment. Hilary Calvert\u2019s next amendment to clause 4(2)\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000537\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002277ec6495-df45-43ac-aaa1-a03b5dd4c128\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b5f7cc8d80f145e59af06809e9de339c\u0022\u003EHon John Boscawen\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. You have ruled out Hilary Calvert\u2019s amendment to paragraph (d) of clause 4(1). You say that it is not a serious amendment. What we have done there is to substitute the words \u201CTreaty of Waitangi\u201D for \u201Cte Tiriti o Waitangi\u201D. We noticed that the Hon Christopher Finlayson has changed the wording on his Supplementary Order Paper from \u201Cwh\u0101nau, hap\u016B, iwi.\u201D, to \u201Ciwi, wh\u0101nau, hap\u016B.\u201D So if it is good enough for the Hon Christopher Finlayson to change around word order, surely it is good enough for the ACT Party to move amendments that do the same.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022f4112fc5-c53f-4aa9-bf6d-5a05ce6252cf\u0022 data-id=\u00221c6405bff5f346cea0b3d3e72ba5d427\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000538\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4112fc5-c53f-4aa9-bf6d-5a05ce6252cf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00221c6405bff5f346cea0b3d3e72ba5d427\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy)\u003C/span\u003E: There are a suite of Speakers\u2019 rulings on page 111 to page 114. I have sought advice and I have given this matter some serious consideration. The amendment is ruled out of order.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000539\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4112fc5-c53f-4aa9-bf6d-5a05ce6252cf\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 209 in the name of Hilary Calvert to clause 4(2)(a) be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022fcc9e90dc4cd41a2b73cdf3bdd7b7771\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 47\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 42; ACT New Zealand 5.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 73\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 57; Green Party 9; M\u0101ori Party 4; United Future 1; Independents: Carter C, Harawira.\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=\u0022f4112fc5-c53f-4aa9-bf6d-5a05ce6252cf\u0022 data-id=\u0022f5c8e22a3e80487da9d370147cecbe9e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000540\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4112fc5-c53f-4aa9-bf6d-5a05ce6252cf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022f5c8e22a3e80487da9d370147cecbe9e\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy)\u003C/span\u003E: The amendments in the name of Hilary Calvert to clause 4(2)(b) to (e)(i) set out on Supplementary Order Paper 209 are also ruled out of order. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000541\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4112fc5-c53f-4aa9-bf6d-5a05ce6252cf\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 209 in the name of Hilary Calvert to clause 4(2)(e)(ii) be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022737cb64fdc0b498fa83c0f69a3d92002\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 47\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 42; ACT New Zealand 5.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 73\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 57; Green Party 9; M\u0101ori Party 4; United Future 1; Independents: Carter C, Harawira.\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=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000542\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 209 in the name of Hilary Calvert to clause 5(b) be agreed to.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u002285913134db1540f08129fe728aef4679\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 47\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 42; ACT New Zealand 5.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 73\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 57; Green Party 9; M\u0101ori Party 4; United Future 1; Independents: Carter C, Harawira.\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=\u0022f4112fc5-c53f-4aa9-bf6d-5a05ce6252cf\u0022 data-id=\u0022bf0fefcedfd14b428c46c7ad1e3615bb\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000543\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4112fc5-c53f-4aa9-bf6d-5a05ce6252cf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022bf0fefcedfd14b428c46c7ad1e3615bb\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy)\u003C/span\u003E: We come to Hilary Calvert\u2019s first amendment to clause 5(b) as set out on Supplementary Order Paper 209. The question is that the motion be agreed to. Those of that opinion will say Aye, the contrary No. The Noes have it? [Interruption] I think we might have just done that one. I am sorry. I am getting confused\u2014I have amendments crossed out. I apologise to the Committee. So the next amendments, which are to clause 5(b) and (c) set out on Supplementary Order Paper 209, are out of order, as is the first amendment to clause 7. We then go to Hilary Calvert\u2019s amendment to clause 7 to insert a definition\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000544\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221cd0981b6c1d452e896019ecd99d5329\u0022\u003EHon David Parker\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. At the risk of disagreeing, I am not sure that we did do the first amendment to clause 5(b). I do not think it had been put.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000545\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4112fc5-c53f-4aa9-bf6d-5a05ce6252cf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002245f549498a5c400ea6cbcc15e88f0a60\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy)\u003C/span\u003E: I will just consult as to what the Clerk has got on the top of the vote. I am a little confused myself, but I thought we had. Yes, we have. I neglected to cross one out that was ruled out of order. That was how I made that mistake.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000546\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002261c20a6954114721acaae0b120791372\u0022\u003EHon David Parker\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I am unclear. Which one did we pass and which one has been ruled out of order?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000547\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4112fc5-c53f-4aa9-bf6d-5a05ce6252cf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022510e46de7541411ba97051d9818b0446\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy)\u003C/span\u003E: We have not passed any. They have all been voted down.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000548\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022de343e0940514312b662151c1b7eee7d\u0022\u003EHon David Parker\u003C/span\u003E: Which one was voted down and which was ruled out of order? You have described them both as amendments to paragraph (b).\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000549\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4112fc5-c53f-4aa9-bf6d-5a05ce6252cf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229ca3a4edf5484794b11da580b2ba7462\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy)\u003C/span\u003E: There are two amendments to clause 5(b). The first one we voted on and the second one is out of order, as is the one to clause 7.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000550\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002277ec6495-df45-43ac-aaa1-a03b5dd4c128\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002268765e4ce7ef4fbbb74b4ae08884c6b1\u0022\u003EHon John Boscawen\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. You have just used the words \u201Cas is the one to clause 7.\u201D There are actually several amendments to clause 7\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000551\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4112fc5-c53f-4aa9-bf6d-5a05ce6252cf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221521132fb7bd4d2caf5293652f75c74c\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy)\u003C/span\u003E: The first amendment to clause 7. If the member was listening before, I started on the second clause 7 amendment, which is in order. We are now going to vote on it\u2014the one that inserts a definition of \u201Cdirectly affected\u201D, as set out on Supplementary Order Paper 209. That is the one we are now voting on. Is everybody clear?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000552\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4112fc5-c53f-4aa9-bf6d-5a05ce6252cf\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 209 in the name of Hilary Calvert to clause 7 to insert a definition of \u201Cdirectly affected\u201D be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u002229334dbdc0944a2bb2d85f9029bd1bc7\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 47\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 42; ACT New Zealand 5.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 73\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 57; Green Party 9; M\u0101ori Party 4; United Future 1; Independents: Carter C, Harawira.\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=\u0022f4112fc5-c53f-4aa9-bf6d-5a05ce6252cf\u0022 data-id=\u0022db9764de6d564d9cba88dff1419094be\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000553\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4112fc5-c53f-4aa9-bf6d-5a05ce6252cf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022db9764de6d564d9cba88dff1419094be\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy)\u003C/span\u003E: The next amendments to clause 7, to amend the definitions of \u201CDirector-General\u201D, \u201Cenvironment\u201D, etc. are out of order.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022 data-id=\u00222bd424bd3fa84f7ca8a090c2baf64843\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000554\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00222bd424bd3fa84f7ca8a090c2baf64843\u0022\u003EHon DAVID PARKER (Labour):\u003C/span\u003E I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. With respect, I would have thought that if that amendment passed, the wording of the statute and the meaning would change. Why, therefore, is it out of order? The Government has the power to vote them down, but I would have thought that it was within order.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022f4112fc5-c53f-4aa9-bf6d-5a05ce6252cf\u0022 data-id=\u002267156976269c488bb5d505447a27a3e8\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000555\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4112fc5-c53f-4aa9-bf6d-5a05ce6252cf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002267156976269c488bb5d505447a27a3e8\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy)\u003C/span\u003E: If the Committee would show a bit of patience, there are a few that I have dealt with. It is around omitting \u201CConservation\u201D and substituting \u201CDepartment of Conservation\u201D. In Speakers\u2019 ruling 114/1, although there is a somewhat subjective judgment on behalf of the Chair I am guided by minor word changes or alternative forms of words, as in Speaker\u2019s ruling 111/3. Those are the things taken into consideration.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022 data-id=\u00225442af56912d4fecbcebbf4284e5081c\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000556\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00225442af56912d4fecbcebbf4284e5081c\u0022\u003EHon DAVID PARKER (Labour):\u003C/span\u003E I ask for some consistency, then, because many of the Minister\u2019s amendments in his lengthy Supplementary Order Paper make corrections to words that could be argued to be of similar effect. I ask the Chair to apply similar rulings to the Minister\u2019s amendments when it comes to the consideration of them.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022f4112fc5-c53f-4aa9-bf6d-5a05ce6252cf\u0022 data-id=\u002288939943d05845f3a2112a39cdb00ca0\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000557\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4112fc5-c53f-4aa9-bf6d-5a05ce6252cf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002288939943d05845f3a2112a39cdb00ca0\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy)\u003C/span\u003E: In this case, I deem that \u201CConservation\u201D and \u201CDepartment of Conservation\u201D are the same thing, and under Speakers\u2019 rulings 114/1 and 111/3 I have ruled it out. But I note what the member has said. So we move to Hilary Calvert\u2019s amendment to clause 7 to amend the definition of \u201Cmana tuku iho\u201D, as set out on Supplementary Order Paper 209. The question is\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002277ec6495-df45-43ac-aaa1-a03b5dd4c128\u0022 data-id=\u0022d95e046819b842098acfee82c1b00655\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000558\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002277ec6495-df45-43ac-aaa1-a03b5dd4c128\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d95e046819b842098acfee82c1b00655\u0022\u003EHon JOHN BOSCAWEN (Whip\u2014ACT):\u003C/span\u003E I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I am not trying to waste your time; I really am very confused. If we go back to the beginning of clause 7\u2014the Supplementary Order Paper I have is 209\u2014the very first definition under clause 7, referring to \u201Caquaculture activities\u201D, you ruled out of order. The next one, on the definition of \u201CCourt\u201D, we voted on, and it was lost. The next one\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022f4112fc5-c53f-4aa9-bf6d-5a05ce6252cf\u0022 data-id=\u0022eae5e266bc584e8aa19f56be003122b4\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000559\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4112fc5-c53f-4aa9-bf6d-5a05ce6252cf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022eae5e266bc584e8aa19f56be003122b4\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy)\u003C/span\u003E: Sorry, slow down. The next amendment to clause 7 we did vote on, and it was lost\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000560\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002277ec6495-df45-43ac-aaa1-a03b5dd4c128\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002229f74902bbe8474a9abfca95c0d47bae\u0022\u003EHon John Boscawen\u003C/span\u003E: That was the definition of \u201CCourt\u201D. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000561\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4112fc5-c53f-4aa9-bf6d-5a05ce6252cf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228928b019d6b64f2488f163b184577fd5\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy)\u003C/span\u003E: The third amendment to clause 7 I have ruled out, and now we are about to vote on the fourth one.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002277ec6495-df45-43ac-aaa1-a03b5dd4c128\u0022 data-id=\u00227974070f20d74ea6b584be2e975ec735\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000562\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002277ec6495-df45-43ac-aaa1-a03b5dd4c128\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00227974070f20d74ea6b584be2e975ec735\u0022\u003EHon JOHN BOSCAWEN (Whip\u2014ACT):\u003C/span\u003E I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. You just mentioned \u201CConservation\u201D; the fourth is to omit \u201Cgiven\u201D from the definition of \u201CCrown entity\u201D. I am looking at my Supplementary Order Paper\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022f4112fc5-c53f-4aa9-bf6d-5a05ce6252cf\u0022 data-id=\u0022ce4766bf935d4070a0260c4a76c1fbd7\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000563\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4112fc5-c53f-4aa9-bf6d-5a05ce6252cf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022ce4766bf935d4070a0260c4a76c1fbd7\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy)\u003C/span\u003E: \u201CDirector-General\u201D\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000564\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002277ec6495-df45-43ac-aaa1-a03b5dd4c128\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221293e9cad5d6419bb2541d97b3656ecf\u0022\u003EHon John Boscawen\u003C/span\u003E: \u201CDirector-General\u201D is about the sixth or seventh amendment in. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000565\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4112fc5-c53f-4aa9-bf6d-5a05ce6252cf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229f6a526d74ca43759674ff82c560138b\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy)\u003C/span\u003E: The Hilary Calvert amendments to clause 7 that I have ruled out are to amend the definitions of \u201CDirector-General\u201D, \u201Cenvironment\u201D, \u201CHigh Court Rules\u201D, and \u201Clocal authority\u201D. Those ones are not significantly different, but the next one is, so we are about to vote on it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000566\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4112fc5-c53f-4aa9-bf6d-5a05ce6252cf\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 209 in the name of Hilary Calvert to clause 7 relating to the definition of \u201Cmana tuku iho\u201D be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022c55bb4ab3630484eb02e6fad4910e6c4\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 5\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EACT New Zealand 5.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 115\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 57; New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; M\u0101ori Party 4; United Future 1; Independents: Carter C, Harawira.\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=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000567\u0022\u003EThe result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 47, Noes 73.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000568\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 214 in the name of Hilary Calvert to clause 7 relating to the definition of \u201Cmarine and coastal area\u201D be agreed to.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022ab6a25eb2e634480af21add1e706c1d8\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 47\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 42; ACT New Zealand 5.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 73\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 57; Green Party 9; M\u0101ori Party 4; United Future 1; Independents: Carter C, Harawira.\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=\u0022f4112fc5-c53f-4aa9-bf6d-5a05ce6252cf\u0022 data-id=\u0022a05e5888b8cd47ffb486aea7d1901215\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000569\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4112fc5-c53f-4aa9-bf6d-5a05ce6252cf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a05e5888b8cd47ffb486aea7d1901215\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy)\u003C/span\u003E: The next amendments, to amend the definitions in clause 7 of \u201Cmineral\u201D and \u201Cplan\u201D as set out on Supplementary Order Paper 209 are out of order.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000570\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4112fc5-c53f-4aa9-bf6d-5a05ce6252cf\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 209 in the name of Hilary Calvert to clause 7 relating to the definition of \u201Cplanning document\u201D be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u002265fa6e1345f548babcf6d24e34a9a615\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 5\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EACT New Zealand 5.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 115\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 57; New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; M\u0101ori Party 4; United Future 1; Independents: Carter C, Harawira.\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=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000571\u0022\u003EThe result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 47, Noes 73.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022f4112fc5-c53f-4aa9-bf6d-5a05ce6252cf\u0022 data-id=\u00226a789580c4bd4ed5b017603a8e7175d7\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000572\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4112fc5-c53f-4aa9-bf6d-5a05ce6252cf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00226a789580c4bd4ed5b017603a8e7175d7\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy)\u003C/span\u003E: The next amendments in Hilary Calvert\u2019s name, again to clause 7, amending definitions about \u201Cprivilege\u201D, \u201Cproposed plan\u201D, \u201Cpublic notice\u201D, \u201Cquota management system\u201D, etc., on Supplementary Order Paper 209 are out of order.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000573\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4112fc5-c53f-4aa9-bf6d-5a05ce6252cf\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 209 in the name of Hilary Calvert to clause 7 relating to the definition of \u201Cresponsible Minister\u201D be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022705c027e41cd4ddc91cf7b46d99fef63\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 5\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EACT New Zealand 5.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 115\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 57; New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; M\u0101ori Party 4; United Future 1; Independents: Carter C, Harawira.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendments not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000574\u0022\u003EThe result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 47, Noes 73.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022f4112fc5-c53f-4aa9-bf6d-5a05ce6252cf\u0022 data-id=\u002259b75c4de5bf43749402b9db07856b70\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000575\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4112fc5-c53f-4aa9-bf6d-5a05ce6252cf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002259b75c4de5bf43749402b9db07856b70\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy)\u003C/span\u003E: I am advised that I may have truncated the words around the amendments I ruled out of order previously, so I will read the statement in its completion so there is no confusion. The amendments to amend the definitions of \u201Cprivilege\u201D, \u201Cproposed plan\u201D, \u201Cpublic notice\u201D, \u201Cquota management system\u201D, \u201Crecognition order\u201D, \u201Cregional council\u201D, \u201Cregional document\u201D, \u201Cregister\u201D, and \u201Cresource consent\u201D are ruled out. Hilary Calvert\u2019s six further amendments to clause 7 to amend the definition of \u201Cresponsible Minister\u201D as set out in Supplementary Order Paper 209 are out of order. Hilary Calvert\u2019s amendments to clause 7 to amend the definitions of \u201Croad\u201D, \u201Cship\u201D, and \u201Cstructure\u201D set out on Supplementary Order Paper 209 are out of order.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000576\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4112fc5-c53f-4aa9-bf6d-5a05ce6252cf\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 209 in the name of Hilary Calvert to clause 7 to insert a definition of \u201Csubstantial interruption\u201D be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022efaf3c75d741450fa4cc431ec3c7a7cb\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 5\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EACT New Zealand 5.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 115\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 57; New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; M\u0101ori Party 4; United Future 1; Independents: Carter C, Harawira.\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=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000577\u0022\u003EThe result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 47, Noes 73.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00221368ba6c-25be-40f6-a2a0-8f81e1f78b79\u0022 data-id=\u00229f3b1567f2aa4a5fb2e9c87472947785\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000578\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221368ba6c-25be-40f6-a2a0-8f81e1f78b79\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00229f3b1567f2aa4a5fb2e9c87472947785\u0022\u003ECHRIS TREMAIN (Senior Whip\u2014National):\u003C/span\u003E I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. That vote cannot be right. If both National and\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022f4112fc5-c53f-4aa9-bf6d-5a05ce6252cf\u0022 data-id=\u00220caf519b1e0e4eec91eb1d79e9776d23\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000579\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4112fc5-c53f-4aa9-bf6d-5a05ce6252cf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00220caf519b1e0e4eec91eb1d79e9776d23\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy)\u003C/span\u003E: Ayes 47, Noes 73\u2014the amendment is not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00221368ba6c-25be-40f6-a2a0-8f81e1f78b79\u0022 data-id=\u00225fc8ba0bba3f481ba9537c26045224f0\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000580\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221368ba6c-25be-40f6-a2a0-8f81e1f78b79\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00225fc8ba0bba3f481ba9537c26045224f0\u0022\u003ECHRIS TREMAIN (Senior Whip\u2014National):\u003C/span\u003E Yes. We are 57, they are 42. That has to be well over the numbers we are talking about.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022c437bda8-4741-4ac5-89ab-b0818e1ab9fa\u0022 data-id=\u00220bdc3ef2c5af4c398eccdc7e9de736ee\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000581\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c437bda8-4741-4ac5-89ab-b0818e1ab9fa\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00220bdc3ef2c5af4c398eccdc7e9de736ee\u0022\u003EHon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip\u2014Labour):\u003C/span\u003E Labour has voted against the last two amendments. It voted 42 votes opposed. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022f4112fc5-c53f-4aa9-bf6d-5a05ce6252cf\u0022 data-id=\u00223be1d03d96264f08b33a36851ae61bbc\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000582\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4112fc5-c53f-4aa9-bf6d-5a05ce6252cf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00223be1d03d96264f08b33a36851ae61bbc\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy)\u003C/span\u003E: So for the last two you voted against. Leave is sought to amend the record. Is there anyone opposed to that course of action? There is no one; we will do that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000583\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4112fc5-c53f-4aa9-bf6d-5a05ce6252cf\u0022\u003EI also rule out of order Hilary Calvert\u2019s amendments to clause 7 on Supplementary Order Paper 209 to \u201Ctaonga t\u016Bturu\u201D, \u201Cterritorial authority\u201D, \u201Cterritorial sea\u201D, and \u201Cwarden\u201D. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000584\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4112fc5-c53f-4aa9-bf6d-5a05ce6252cf\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 207 in the name of the Hon Christopher Finlayson to omit clauses 8 and 9 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022300da50d1f9b46e39c5371aced719932\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 62\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 57; M\u0101ori Party 4; United Future 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 58\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 5; Independents: Carter C, Harawira.\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 name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022f4112fc5-c53f-4aa9-bf6d-5a05ce6252cf\u0022 data-id=\u0022ac6e1c1799944a2eb623ffc7a3a725d5\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000585\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4112fc5-c53f-4aa9-bf6d-5a05ce6252cf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022ac6e1c1799944a2eb623ffc7a3a725d5\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy)\u003C/span\u003E: The Hon David Parker has a typescript amendment to omit clauses 8 and 9. That is now out of order as being the same in substance as the previous amendment. Metiria Turei\u2019s amendment to omit clause 9 as set out on Supplementary Order Paper 206 is out of order for the same reason. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000586\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4112fc5-c53f-4aa9-bf6d-5a05ce6252cf\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 209 in the name of Hilary Calvert to omit clause 10 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u00227ebd60b1980040fdbe4d2e1173cdb850\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 5\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EACT New Zealand 5.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 115\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 57; New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; M\u0101ori Party 4; United Future 1; Independents: Carter C, Harawira.\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=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000587\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 211 in the name of the Hon Christopher Finlayson to the proposed amendment to clause 7 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 207 in his name be agreed to. \u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u002281dbb334d7f64b78bae4d575e48bd757\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 62\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 57; M\u0101ori Party 4; United Future 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 58\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 5; Independents: Carter C, Harawira.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment to the amendment agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022f4112fc5-c53f-4aa9-bf6d-5a05ce6252cf\u0022 data-id=\u00221bb7a958222b402eb53dcd4a57ce8548\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000588\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4112fc5-c53f-4aa9-bf6d-5a05ce6252cf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00221bb7a958222b402eb53dcd4a57ce8548\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy)\u003C/span\u003E: We have the Minister\u2019s remaining amendments, as amended, set out on Supplementary Order Paper 207 and Supplementary Order Paper 211. The question is\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000589\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022cc2847a8c0584606a4de3537eca50e1a\u0022\u003EHon David Parker\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. You might be able to correct me as to process here, but it seems that in respect of the ACT Party\u2019s amendments we had to take them clause by clause, yet you are now proposing that we take all of these other ones, which seem to include some individual amendments, as one question. Is that in order?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000590\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4112fc5-c53f-4aa9-bf6d-5a05ce6252cf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221b9c5a957c9047aaa7742b12af92ef6d\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy)\u003C/span\u003E: Yes. That is the Minister\u2019s prerogative. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000591\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229f1fd238e359424186cf70f5a306c9b2\u0022\u003EHon David Parker\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Can I have an assurance that we have had the Clerk of the House go through each of those amendments on the Supplementary Order Paper, applying the same logic that was applied in respect of Hilary Calvert\u2019s amendments, and strike out those that are effectively inconsequential in terms of the change of meaning and therefore out of order on that same basis. When I read the Minister\u2019s Supplementary Order Paper, there are certainly some that would fit within that category.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000592\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4112fc5-c53f-4aa9-bf6d-5a05ce6252cf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002274abf09213b04f29a1a636b06d8e5ccd\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy)\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, you have that assurance.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000593\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022febec1de74e7406ca32d10ffbc3e4881\u0022\u003EMetiria Turei\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Just to be clear, is this a vote on all the Minister\u2019s amendments to Part 1 and to Part 1 only?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000594\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4112fc5-c53f-4aa9-bf6d-5a05ce6252cf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022118354dac7e24c778db763ad6c762797\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy)\u003C/span\u003E: Only to Part 1\u2014the ones that have not been dealt with consequentially as we have moved through. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000595\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4112fc5-c53f-4aa9-bf6d-5a05ce6252cf\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the remaining amendments to Part 1, as amended, set out on Supplementary Order Papers 207 and 211 in the name of the Hon Christopher Finlayson be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u00227563a7283b354bed9c5724ac5e94f0d7\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 62\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 57; M\u0101ori Party 4; United Future 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 58\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 5; Independents: Carter C, Harawira.\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=\u0022bc8e1c70c19f4746bba99f4005dcb3f0\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 62\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 57; M\u0101ori Party 4; United Future 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 59\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1; Independents: Carter C, Harawira.\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=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000596\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u00229176a3e61cf44d66a44f8c37a89e1f66\u0022\u003EPart 2  Common marine and coastal area\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002241146229-4d11-415b-a4ac-f4e2b923e95d\u0022 data-id=\u00220ceb105d2d16415c8be518d5e958f248\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000597\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002241146229-4d11-415b-a4ac-f4e2b923e95d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00220ceb105d2d16415c8be518d5e958f248\u0022\u003EHon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General):\u003C/span\u003E Part 2 of the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill has three subparts. The first outlines the basic interests in the common marine and coastal area, and this includes the important clause that provides for the special status of the common marine and coastal area as an area that cannot be sold. I do not intend to go through the way in which we reached the concept of a common marine and coastal area.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000598\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c437bda8-4741-4ac5-89ab-b0818e1ab9fa\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022196f475c2bff4b2bb86f620027f515d0\u0022\u003EHon Darren Hughes\u003C/span\u003E: Why not?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000599\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002241146229-4d11-415b-a4ac-f4e2b923e95d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002223ec245e9d584dab87085498579a35c3\u0022\u003EHon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON\u003C/span\u003E: Because the Hon Peter Dunne, I say to the senior Opposition whip, gave an excellent second reading speech in which he explained how the concept of public domain had almost taken hold when Ms Clark needed to run to the New Zealand First Party for guidance, and New Zealand First was adamant that there had to be absolute Crown ownership. That is the first subpart. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000600\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002241146229-4d11-415b-a4ac-f4e2b923e95d\u0022\u003ECertainly, the bill as introduced contains in this part provisions to repeal the 2004 Act and restore customary interests, which were extinguished by it. It also contains provisions as to existing interests\u2014for example, resource consents. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000601\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002241146229-4d11-415b-a4ac-f4e2b923e95d\u0022\u003ESubpart 2 outlines public rights and powers in the common marine and coastal area. It preserves the public right of access, fishing rights, and navigation rights\u2014and I will say something about access in a minute. Subpart 3 provides a new regime for reclamations, which is as a result of a great deal of consultation with organisations like the port companies. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000602\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002241146229-4d11-415b-a4ac-f4e2b923e95d\u0022\u003EThere are a couple of changes contained in the Government\u2019s Supplementary Order Paper 207. As mentioned earlier, it is proposed that clauses 14 and 15, which deal with the repeal of the 2004 Act and the restoration of customary interests, be moved into Part 1. Clauses 16 and 16A change the status of roads, so roads will no longer become part of the common marine and coastal area and will continue to be owned by their current owners. If an unformed road continues to be unformed for 15 years, it will become part of the common marine and coast area. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000603\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002241146229-4d11-415b-a4ac-f4e2b923e95d\u0022\u003EThe Supplementary Order Paper also reframes clause 30, and I believe that that will better meet the policy intent that these functions held by the Minister of Conservation are residual only, and it also moves these particular provisions to Part 4. The Supplementary Order Paper will also remove clause 31, which relates to notices regarding dangerous structures. The clause is no longer needed, as the relevant agencies already have jurisdiction under existing legislation. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000604\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002241146229-4d11-415b-a4ac-f4e2b923e95d\u0022\u003EI do want to say something about clause 27, because it has been the subject of lots of excited comment. It was the first stage of opposition to the bill for organisations like the Coastal Coalition, and certainly questions have been asked in the House about it. Some of those questions could almost be regarded as offensive\u2014questions about M\u0101ori wanting to block access to the foreshore and seabed, which is a proposition that I find profoundly insulting. It is suggested that a Supplementary Order Paper will make it clear beyond peradventure that no one can charge. Indeed, the explanatory note on Supplementary Order Paper 210 in the name of Hilary Calvert says her \u201Cfor the avoidance of doubt\u201D provision is based on a similar prohibition on charging contained in the existing Foreshore and Seabed Act. It seems that the opponents of this bill are like insatiable cormorants\u2014we give them some guidance, and we give them some help, but it never satisfies them; they just want more and more. This Supplementary Order Paper reaches, as it were, the denouement, because it is truly fantastical. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000605\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002241146229-4d11-415b-a4ac-f4e2b923e95d\u0022\u003EBut anyway, I will say something about the existing regime in the 2004 Act, because section 7 of that Act provides for certain rights of access. I particularly refer honourable members to section 7(2): \u201CEvery natural person has access rights in, on, over, or across the public foreshore and seabed.\u201D Those access rights can be limited for various reasons\u2014for example, use by port companies, naval bases, and places like that. In fact, in section 7 there is no prohibition on charging; it is a statement of rights of access. Then one moves to section 40, which is said to be the non-charging section, but one finds it relates only to the guardians of a foreshore and seabed reserve, or an applicant group, or a board not being entitled to charge or collect fees or other forms of payment. The point I am endeavouring to make is that the 2004 Act does not contain a general prohibition on charging, and that to suggest otherwise is simply to misread the legislation. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000606\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002241146229-4d11-415b-a4ac-f4e2b923e95d\u0022\u003EA number of submissions have been made, some in good faith and some in bad faith, about the scope of clause 27. As I have said all along, one does not need to add the phrase \u201Cwithout charge\u201D because a reading of the bill, and in particular I refer to clauses 64 and 119, means that the cumulative effect of what we are dealing with here\u2014a bundle of rights referred to in clause 64 when an applicant group succeeds in obtaining customary title\u2014are just those rights, and no more than that. But because some concerns were expressed by people\u2014no doubt, as I say, some in good faith\u2014we have added into clause 27 the phrase \u201Cwithout charge\u201D to make that clear beyond any doubt whatsoever. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000607\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002241146229-4d11-415b-a4ac-f4e2b923e95d\u0022\u003EBut undeterred, Ms Calvert has put forward a proposed amendment to avoid doubt; she wants to add in a subclause (5). I say to her that it does not even get to base one, because there is no doubt whatsoever\u2014there never was any doubt\u2014and we are getting to an extreme stage where the member is proposing an amendment that can only be regarded as stating the obvious. I was trying to think whom she reminded me of the other day, and then I came across it. Many years ago there was a very good programme called Fawlty Towers. One day when Sybil was in hospital for treatment of an ingrown toenail, Basil suggested that she enter Mastermind and that her topic could be the bleeding obvious. Really, it is that kind of amendment that we have; it is a statement of the bleeding obvious. One finds that it is totally unnecessary when one looks at what the Supplementary Order Paper put forward by the Government provides, and when a fair reading of the bill provides the combination of clauses 64 and 119. So I say to Ms Calvert that her proposed amendment is not, as it were, complicated by any vestige of merit. It is unmeritorious, it is mischievous, and, quite frankly, it is unpleasant.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022 data-id=\u0022ee35b401b15448708d9dcd681314673f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000608\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022ee35b401b15448708d9dcd681314673f\u0022\u003EMETIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader\u2014Green):\u003C/span\u003E How typical it is of the Minister in the chair, the Hon Christopher Finlayson, to get as personal as that in this debate. I find it to be completely without dignity that he would speak about other members of the Committee like that. I disagree very strongly with Hilary Calvert and with much of the language that she has used today in this debate, but I do not think there is any place for that kind of personal, nasty attack. Not only is it undignified but it belittles the Minister to be engaged in that kind of behaviour in the Chamber over an issue that is as serious as the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill, which there is no doubt that everyone has a very strong view about, even if one disagrees with another member\u2019s view. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000609\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003EI will address Part 2 of the bill briefly. One of the issues is that in clause 11 a statement has come up, which I think it is made later on in the bill, as well. Clause 11(2) states: \u201CNeither the Crown nor any other person owns, or is capable of owning, the common marine and coastal area,\u201D. I will repeat that: \u201CNeither the Crown nor any other person owns, or is capable of owning, the common marine and coastal area,\u201D. That is a legal fallacy. That does not actually exist in New Zealand law. The process of colonisation was one whereby the two principles of imperium and dominion were brought to Aotearoa through colonisation by the British Crown, imperium being the right to rule, and dominion being the right of the Crown to have underlying ownership over all the land. Over time that right has been effectively passed on, through various systems and constitutional niceties\u2014and not quite such niceties\u2014so that in effect it now belongs to the Government to exercise on behalf of the Crown as its ownership right. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000610\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003ESo when a law states that nobody owns the coastal and marine area, that is not true; it is just factually incorrect. The ownership of Aotearoa, through the colonisation process, rests with the State and with the executive. Having that kind of rubbish in legislation is bad enough. That people are passing legislation that just does not tell the truth about the factual basis of landownership in this country is historical fallacy. But that also leads me to challenge the M\u0101ori Party. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000611\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003EI ask that the M\u0101ori Party members be prepared to stand up to defend the statement they made earlier today that they are proud of this legislation and that this bill is a M\u0101ori Party bill. I ask them to say how they can argue that this bill is a M\u0101ori Party bill, say they are proud of it, and say they will vote for it, when we have a legal fallacy here around ownership, and when the whole basis of M\u0101ori issues around the foreshore and seabed is that there could still be areas of extant customary title as set out in the common law, and that is ownership. That is ownership, and that is what customary title, tikanga title, is about: it is about ownership. Now the tikanga way of describing and talking about the responsibilities of ownership is different, and M\u0101ori have tried to get the message through to the Government, to members, and to the public that it is not as much about the right to do with the land as one chooses as it is about the responsibility to care for it for the future. The concepts of what ownership means might be quite different, but it is hard to have to use the English language to describe these concepts when ownership is an issue. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000612\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003EM\u0101ori have come to the M\u0101ori Affairs Committee, to the panel, and to select committees in years gone by to say they want their right to be restored to go to court to assert their customary title ownership in tikanga terms. If that is what M\u0101ori have said, and if the premise on which the M\u0101ori Party was built was respect for that principle, respect for that call by M\u0101ori to assert their customary title ownership in tikanga terms, then how can the M\u0101ori Party members in any kind of conscience stand here to say they are proud of legislation that specifically strips M\u0101ori of that right? This bill says no person is capable of ownership of the customary marine area, yet M\u0101ori have said over and over that they want to have the right to be able to test, and to assert, their customary title ownership in tikanga terms. The M\u0101ori Party members\u2019 votes will determine whether this legislation proceeds, and therefore whether the confiscation of this land and the extinguishment of that right will continue. I think that those members owe it to M\u0101ori who have supported them, and whose call the M\u0101ori Party is here to respect, to explain why they can now vote against the rights of M\u0101ori to assert their customary title ownership in tikanga terms, and in the fullness of those tikanga terms.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000613\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003EAt the same time as we are debating this bill, a h\u012Bkoi is making its way through the country. A large number of M\u0101ori have made their way from the north. I understand that they are at Hato Petera College this evening, and are making their way into T\u0101maki-makau-rau tomorrow. The premise of this h\u012Bkoi and of the h\u012Bkoi on which the establishment of the M\u0101ori Party was based\u2014and Tariana Turia in previous years met the parent h\u012Bkoi, the mother h\u012Bkoi of the present one, if you like, some years ago\u2014is the same premise: that the foreshore and seabed should not be confiscated, and that M\u0101ori rights should not be extinguished. \u201CNot one more acre\u201D is the call of this h\u012Bkoi, just as it was of the last h\u012Bkoi. Those wh\u0101nau who are making their way through the country to demonstrate their opposition to this bill deserve to be given an answer from their representatives in this Parliament. They deserve to be given an answer from those who have said in the past that they would stand up and fight for their right to have their rights recognised, and to oppose the confiscation and extinguishment of those rights. Those people are entitled to an answer as to why the M\u0101ori Party is prepared to take those rights away. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000614\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003EThis issue is not easy. It is difficult, particularly for M\u0101ori and for M\u0101ori MPs, just as it was last time. This is a difficult debate, and it is especially difficult to hear some of the very crass comments that we have heard in the debate tonight. There is no doubt about that. But our people deserve to get answers. Our people deserve to be told by their representatives here why they are voting for a confiscation, and why the M\u0101ori Party members are voting to remove any capacity for the ownership that M\u0101ori have been asserting now since 2003, or before that, through the Ng\u0101ti Apa decision, for many years now\u2014for a decade or more. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000615\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003EI ask the M\u0101ori Party to take a call and to answer the question\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000616\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f44431ef-b505-4e94-9f57-a60b0a569bf7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229f2d6934dd3640d09e4bc4cf83a4efb5\u0022\u003EHon Shane Jones\u003C/span\u003E: Good luck.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000617\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022faab739c7ef34e278bc04e0373ce7f95\u0022\u003EMETIRIA TUREI\u003C/span\u003E: Shane Jones is quite right. I am not holding out a lot of hope. I certainly will not be holding my breath, as Hilary Calvert suggested we should do from 1840. I will not be holding my breath, but I do think the M\u0101ori Party owes it to our people to give them an explanation. If it was genuinely proud of this legislation, as Rahui Katene said it was, it would stand up and defend its position and explain to our people, who are marching through the country as we speak, why they have to march at all. Why is the M\u0101ori Party supporting this legislation at this time, when it knows, and it has said publicly, that this bill is bad? It has said this bill will not be effective and does not give justice to our people, so why does the M\u0101ori Party support it?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000618\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f44431ef-b505-4e94-9f57-a60b0a569bf7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b0a2757e02f14653b67eea2835849836\u0022\u003EHon Shane Jones\u003C/span\u003E: That\u2019s why the rangatahi are changing their mind.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000619\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228a67279550bc4855b91e93ba4037c8b0\u0022\u003EMETIRIA TUREI\u003C/span\u003E: It is also why our kuia and kaum\u0101tua are very disappointed in their political representation. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000620\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003EWe are getting down to the nub of this issue: that there is customary title, which the courts have said could still exist in the foreshore and seabed, that predates the colonisation of this country, if you like, that that title should be explored, and that M\u0101ori who believe they may hold it are entitled to go to court to have their case heard. Yet the M\u0101ori Party is stripping them of that right. There is no doubt that this is very serious\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000621\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f44431ef-b505-4e94-9f57-a60b0a569bf7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022796c2206e17e4e7e984a22d46f843f55\u0022\u003EHon Shane Jones\u003C/span\u003E: The Labour Party? The National Party.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000622\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222a5e59c196f14f99ba6ccd3911213cee\u0022\u003EMETIRIA TUREI\u003C/span\u003E: The M\u0101ori Party is stripping that right from those hap\u016B who came to us. It is personal to some extent, as well. I sat with Tariana Turia on the foreshore and seabed select committee in 2004, and I remember us both weeping together over the harm that was being caused to our people.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022802874a3-deca-48b7-9d33-9087058892f5\u0022 data-id=\u00227c895a3d97ef4b66a54a29126280cb6d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000623\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022802874a3-deca-48b7-9d33-9087058892f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00227c895a3d97ef4b66a54a29126280cb6d\u0022\u003EKELVIN DAVIS (Labour):\u003C/span\u003E Before I start, I would like to acknowledge John Boscawen for his tenacity in his points of order earlier. I do not agree with his politics and where he is heading, but I admire a new member, a new Minister, who stands up and is prepared to speak his mind, regardless of how wrong it may be. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000624\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022802874a3-deca-48b7-9d33-9087058892f5\u0022\u003EI would like to carry on from what Metiria Turei said about neither the Crown nor any other person owning, or being capable of owning, the common marine and coastal area, which is stated in clause 11. I bring up this point because, as she said, it is a fallacy that the Crown can say that nobody owns the common marine and coastal area yet the Government retains the final say in what happens on the seabed. The Government can still override what M\u0101ori want in terms of the common marine and coastal area. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000625\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022802874a3-deca-48b7-9d33-9087058892f5\u0022\u003EI want to raise an example\u2014and there are members of my own caucus who disagree with my argument on this topic. There is a proposal for Crest Energy to build some turbines in the Kaipara Harbour for tidal power generation. There will be 200 of these turbines, if the whole proposal goes through, and each will be the size of a small apartment block. They will cover an area in the mouth of the Kaipara Harbour that is about 7 kilometres long and a couple of hundred metres wide, so these electricity turbines will be plonked on a substantial area of seabed. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000626\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022802874a3-deca-48b7-9d33-9087058892f5\u0022\u003ENobody is opposed to renewable energy generation. However, the point is these turbines will create a massive footprint on the seabed. There will be no navigation rights over the top of these turbines, obviously, for safety reasons. So what is being created is a property right\u2014if this proposal goes ahead\u2014over a substantial area of the seabed. That is what the M\u0101ori Party has agreed to. It has agreed that nobody will own the seabed, yet it agrees that the Government has the final say as to what can happen. The M\u0101ori Party is agreeing that the Government can create, in effect, a property right over a substantial area of the seabed in the Kaipara Harbour, against the wishes of Te Uri o Hau, the local hap\u016B, and against the wishes of Ng\u0101ti Wh\u0101tua. The M\u0101ori Party has agreed that it is OK for that to happen. So, basically, the tino rangatiratanga of that area of seabed is being gifted to the Government. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000627\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022802874a3-deca-48b7-9d33-9087058892f5\u0022\u003EI cannot believe that the M\u0101ori Party is agreeing to this. I cannot believe that the M\u0101ori Party is allowing the Government to take total control, tino rangatiratanga, of this area of seabed. Even if customary marine title to the Kaipara seabed is given to Ng\u0101ti Wh\u0101tua and Te Uri o Hau, a process outlined in schedule 2A on Supplementary Order Paper 207 allows projects like this, which would be an instance of significant national and regional infrastructure, to be built. Crest Energy can bypass the wishes of Ng\u0101ti Wh\u0101tua and Te Uri o Hau, and can go to the Minister for Land Information, who, at the end of the day, has the final say and can decide that this project may go ahead. The M\u0101ori Party is legislating for tino rangatiratanga not to reside with the local hap\u016B, Te Uri o Hau, or with Ng\u0101ti Wh\u0101tua, but to reside with the Crown. That, in my opinion, goes against everything the M\u0101ori Party is meant to stand for. The M\u0101ori Party is going against its own values and its own principles by saying that the tino rangatiratanga of that particular part of the seabed is to rest with the Crown. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000628\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022802874a3-deca-48b7-9d33-9087058892f5\u0022\u003EThat will not be the only example of a project that is\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022 data-id=\u00223eaf6f9a20794c81a47a51d5459faae0\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000629\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00223eaf6f9a20794c81a47a51d5459faae0\u0022\u003EHon DAVID PARKER (Labour):\u003C/span\u003E I begin by referring to clause 11 of the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill, which is one of the issues that the Attorney-General, Mr Finlayson, referred to in his opening remarks on Part 2. He talked with some pride about the common marine and coastal area being accorded a special status, which clause 11 achieves. In subclause (2) it states \u201CNeither the Crown or any other person owns, or is capable of owning, the common marine and coastal area, as in existence from time to time after the commencement of this Part.\u201D This is really a discussion about words, because what really determines what this means is the bundle of rights different people have in respect of that common marine and coastal area. If that does not change, then whether it is called a Crown area or a space that is not capable of being owned by anyone does not matter\u2014they are just words.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EIn reality, the Crown still regulates what occurs in respect of this area. So if there are environmental effects, then those have to be assessed in terms of the legislation that controls development in those areas. In reality, this legislation, as does the current legislation, protects people\u2019s rights of free access over those areas, so that does not change as a consequence of this legislation. All people have fishing rights in respect of these common marine and coastal areas, so that does not change. All people have navigation rights, so that does not change. No people have private rights to mine for oil and gas, because those were nationalised back in 1937, so that does not change. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000631\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EAs my colleague Shane Jones said in an earlier submission to the Committee, there are very little changes as a consequence of this change of terminology from the area being vested in the Crown, as the putative owner, effectively holding it on behalf of the people of New Zealand, subject to the different rights that different groups of people have. This change from the area being Crown land to being held by the Crown on behalf of New Zealand is subject to different rights in respect of different groups, including the rights of M\u0101ori to have their customary interest recognised. This change from the Crown holding it to no one owning it is an illusory change\u2014it makes no difference.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000632\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002203014954044a4264988060f09c3af56f\u0022\u003EHon Member\u003C/span\u003E: Fiction.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000633\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222f30faf1e6424b9d825307d9e796b58f\u0022\u003EHon DAVID PARKER\u003C/span\u003E: It is a legal fiction. It makes no difference in practice, so it should be seen for that. It is not objectionable, except to the extent that it is a pretence of a change when it is not a change, and that is where our objection arises to this. For this to be accepted by the M\u0101ori Party as settling its grievance seems to me to be ridiculous, because this is but a fiction. So I invite the Minister in the chair, the Hon Chris Finlayson, to acknowledge that, really, what one calls this area is less relevant than the bundle of rights that everyone has in respect of the area, and to acknowledge that the change from this being held in the Crown\u2019s name on behalf of New Zealanders, subject to all of the different bundles of rights and responsibilities that I have earlier described, makes no difference in practice. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000634\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EI want to raise another issue, which is the access clause, clause 27, and the clause that is being amended by the Minister. I note, again, that there are a large number of amendments in the Minister\u2019s Supplementary Order Paper 207 that infringe the warning given by the New Zealand Law Society that these things should have been made public so that there was an opportunity for public scrutiny sufficiently in advance, so people could raise any concerns they had. That would normally have been done following the M\u0101ori Affairs Committee report, incorporating the amendments recommended by the Ministry of Justice in its 500-page departmental report, but, of course, because that process was so improperly truncated by Government members we did not have the ability to do that. We did not have the ability to have that advice from the select committee to this House at Parliament or to the Committee of the whole House, and we are reliant, therefore, on the Supplementary Order Paper, which raises these new issues. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000635\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EIn respect of the access clause, I prefer the new wording \u201Cwithout charge\u201D of the Minister to that proposed by Hilary Calvert in Supplementary Order Paper 210, for a number of reasons. Firstly, I think it is easier to read, but, secondly, I think that Hilary Calvert\u2019s amendment goes too far. I would like to go into that in some detail. Hilary Calvert\u2019s amendment proposes to add clause 27(5): \u201CTo avoid doubt, neither a customary marine title group nor an applicant group is entitled to charge or collect fees or other form of payment from any person for body for the use\u201D\u2014I emphasise the word \u201Cuse\u201D\u2014\u201Cor occupation of any part of the common marine and coastal area.\u201D The Minister\u2019s amendment makes it clear that one cannot be charged for access, but Hilary Calvert\u2019s amendment goes a lot further and says that one cannot charge for any use. That, of course, makes a nonsense of the ACT Party\u2019s argument that if there are property rights to be recognised, then those property rights are for the holder of those rights to use. If someone else were to come along and use the right that was the subject of a customary marine title, without payment of charge to the person whose right that was, it would make a mockery of the whole thing. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000636\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EI would like the ACT Party to take a call and explain how that would be right. I understand that its property rights logic is being applied to its opposition to the bill, but it says that people who have an extant customary interest in the foreshore and seabed should have it recognised and should be able to utilise it for their personal benefit, as anyone else can utilise their property right. I find it absolutely irreconcilable that the ACT Party could take that position and then say that anyone can use it for free. I raise the issue of a right to extract a mineral that has not been nationalised. For example, there is some suggestion that there are areas of the foreshore and seabed where there may be customary title interests under seabed minerals, be it ironsands or other minerals. By saying that I am not saying that the Taranaki iwi are correct to say that they have extant rights, but somewhere in New Zealand there will be extant rights to minerals, and it would be a nonsense if someone else could come along and have the right to use that part of the common marine and coastal area for his or her private benefit to the exclusion of the person who owned it. I think that the proposed subclause (5) goes too far on the part of the ACT Party. I agree with the Minister\u2019s amendment to clause 27. I think that is fair to settle down concerns, be they as he put it, with good intent or mala fides, but I do not agree with the amendment proposed in Supplementary Order Paper 210 by the ACT Party member Hilary Calvert for the reason that I have outlined. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000637\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003ESo, in respect of that issue, Labour will be voting against the ACT Party amendment. If we had the opportunity to vote separately in respect of that particular amendment from the Minister we would vote for it. But it is probably going to be put, as is the Minister\u2019s right, along with all of the Minister\u2019s other amendments, many of which we disagree with. So we will be forced to vote against that as a part of a wider motion. But I note for the record that we approve of the change to that particular wording in that clause relating to access that is promoted by the Minister but oppose the change proposed by Hilary Calvert. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000638\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EThere are many, many other changes made to Part 2. The first of them is referred to in the Supplementary Order Paper 207 and records that in clause 11(2) we are omitting the word \u201CPart\u201D and changing it to \u201CAct\u201D. That changes the meaning so that the provision comes into effect from the commencement of this Act rather than from the commencement of this Part, and that seems OK, as do the changes to subclauses (3) and (4). In terms of subclause (5), I am not sure what the effect of this is. There is a deletion of clause 11(5) and a substitution of very similar wording. One of the difficulties we have when a Supplementary Order Paper that runs to 73 pages is produced as close to the next readings of this bill as this one has been is that it is difficult for us to get our heads around each and every one of these little changes. So I ask the Minister to explain what the difference is in effect for clause 11(5), which seems to be substantially reproduced in the Supplementary Order Paper, but seems to differ in the addition of a paragraph (f), which is not in the original version of the bill that came to the select committee.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002277ec6495-df45-43ac-aaa1-a03b5dd4c128\u0022 data-id=\u0022844f95566d0747f49302f0183d043683\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000639\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002277ec6495-df45-43ac-aaa1-a03b5dd4c128\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022844f95566d0747f49302f0183d043683\u0022\u003EHon JOHN BOSCAWEN (Deputy Leader\u2014ACT):\u003C/span\u003E The ACT Party has a number of amendments to Part 2, and a number of issues to raise. I start this first call by saying that I hope we have the opportunity to raise those points during the debate this evening and as it continues into tomorrow on this part. I will talk specifically about two clauses: clause 14, which runs to 1\u00BD lines, and clause 17. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000640\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002277ec6495-df45-43ac-aaa1-a03b5dd4c128\u0022\u003EBefore I address those two clauses in this call on Part 2, I need to quickly respond to a number of points. This debate on Part 2 started with an introduction by the Minister in the chair, the Attorney-General. The Hon Chris Finlayson was at pains to point out that New Zealanders would have access to the common marine and coastal area, and that it was never an issue and had never been an issue, but, notwithstanding that, he was prepared to succumb, if you like, to the urgings and the pressure of the ACT Party to amend clause 27 so that access to the common marine and coastal area would be without charge. In making those comments Mr Finlayson took the opportunity to take aim at my colleague Hilary Calvert. It was a very personal, direct, and hurtful aim. I am very sad that the Minister felt he had to stoop to those levels, and I acknowledge the comments of Metiria Turei, who rose to her feet immediately after his remarks were made. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000641\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002277ec6495-df45-43ac-aaa1-a03b5dd4c128\u0022\u003EI will also comment very quickly on the point that Kelvin Davis made during his speech in this debate. It was interesting that he was subject to interjections from Mr Quinn, I think it was, who taunted him by asking why he did not make his comments during the debate in the M\u0101ori Affairs Committee. Well, I suspect that Mr Davis would have liked to make those comments in the select committee, but this Parliament is ignoring the fact that the Government used its majority on the M\u0101ori Affairs Committee to ram this bill through. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000642\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002277ec6495-df45-43ac-aaa1-a03b5dd4c128\u0022\u003EWe have a report from the M\u0101ori Affairs Committee. The official report of the committee is simply one page, and attached to that is\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000643\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022893adc11-ce4e-419c-a079-08f04b3d75f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221459a115ac0145d2bab02a9a7f056b40\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch)\u003C/span\u003E: The cross-interjections are too loud. Calm it down. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000644\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002277ec6495-df45-43ac-aaa1-a03b5dd4c128\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228e88ab6a911e4b4c9cd68b09ac5630a5\u0022\u003EHon JOHN BOSCAWEN\u003C/span\u003E: We then have the Labour Party, Green Party, and ACT Party minority reports, followed by 40 pages of recommendations from the officials. Normally the select committee would expect to see those recommendations incorporated into the drafting, an amended bill would come back before the select committee, and members of the select committee would consider it and look at the various amendments and at what was best and what was not best. The reason this debate will go on for so long is that the Government used its majority on the select committee to shut down that debate and shut down people like Mr Davis, who was a member of that select committee. We now have to debate those things in the Committee of the whole House. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000645\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002277ec6495-df45-43ac-aaa1-a03b5dd4c128\u0022\u003EI now move to clause 14 of the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill, because it is the essence of this bill. Clause 14 is in Part 2, which is the part we are debating right now. People watching this debate on television or listening on the radio might ask what clause 14 says. Very simply, it states: \u201CThe Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004 \u2026 is repealed.\u201D The Foreshore and Seabed Act is repealed, and that is why we are here tonight. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000646\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002277ec6495-df45-43ac-aaa1-a03b5dd4c128\u0022\u003EI will repeat a claim I made earlier this afternoon, which was that the ACT Party has been entirely consistent on this issue the entire way. We are talking about property rights, access to justice, and access to the courts, and on those things we absolutely support the M\u0101ori Party. We do not believe that this bill provides those things, and we do not believe this bill is the right response, but we absolutely support the M\u0101ori Party on the repeal of the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004 and we absolutely stand up for the right of iwi and hap\u016B to go to court. The ACT Party, and, I suspect, the National Opposition at the time, would have been the only members in Parliament who supported Tariana Turia when she first took her lone stand. I make it absolutely clear that our position on this bill is that we want to see that Act repealed. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000647\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002277ec6495-df45-43ac-aaa1-a03b5dd4c128\u0022\u003EHaving said that, it is important to understand what the decision in the Ng\u0101ti Apa case was. The decision was that iwi have the right to go to court. It stated that there might be unextinguished customary rights out there, and that iwi have the right to go to court. I cannot emphasise enough that the Court of Appeal did not state that there were unextinguished customary rights, or that there was customary title; it simply stated that there might be, and that iwi and hap\u016B had the right to go to court. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000648\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002277ec6495-df45-43ac-aaa1-a03b5dd4c128\u0022\u003EOne of the reasons we object so strongly to this bill and will fight against it so hard is that we believe it makes things so much worse. The Attorney-General constantly calls out \u201Ccodification, codification\u201D. He says that we have to put rules in legislation so that judges will know what to do. In fact, he is making it much harder for judges. If the Government had simply repealed the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004 and that was all it had done, then ACT could have supported that. Alternatively, as Mr Parker has suggested, if the Act had been repealed, provision had been made for claims to be taken to the High Court, and access to the common marine and coastal area had been guaranteed, then the ACT Party could have also supported that. But the proposal is to repeal the Act and to put in place a series of tests for the granting of customary title. Those tests go beyond anything that has been provided for in any Commonwealth court in the world. There have been no successful cases in the United Kingdom, Canada, or Australia. It might interest members to know that the only claim that was brought for customary title or ownership of the seabed in Australia was lost. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000649\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002277ec6495-df45-43ac-aaa1-a03b5dd4c128\u0022\u003ENational has the gall to put it out there that this bill builds on common law, precedent, and decisions that have already been made in other countries around the world. Let me repeat that there has been no legal decision that passes customary title\u2014or ownership, because we are talking about something akin to ownership\u2014to a customary title applicant. The reason the ACT Party opposes this bill so strongly is that the Government is assuming the courts will go and grant customary title over large areas of New Zealand\u2019s coast. It is putting in place tests that, in the eyes of the Government, will reduce what is granted. In fact, the effect will be to substantially increase the areas that may be transferred into customary title, and when I say \u201Ctransferred into customary title\u201D, I mean that the benefit will be transferred from all New Zealanders to a select iwi. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000650\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002277ec6495-df45-43ac-aaa1-a03b5dd4c128\u0022\u003EThat brings me to clause 17, \u201CContinued Crown ownership of minerals\u201D. This clause provides that, notwithstanding the case where an applicant group might gain customary title, all nationalised resources, which means petroleum, gold, silver, and uranium, remain the property of the Crown. There are a couple of issues related to that. The first issue is the question of what does not\u2014what has not been nationalised\u2014and clearly one of New Zealand\u2019s major resources that has not been nationalised is iron sands. The Ministry of Economic Development has estimated that this country has iron sands worth some $600 billion to $1,000 billion\u2014that is $1 trillion\u2014off its coast. A large part of that resource lies off the coast of Taranaki and the Waikato. We might say that it belonged to iwi in 1840, but one of the fallacies of this bill is that the common marine and coastal area\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022f44431ef-b505-4e94-9f57-a60b0a569bf7\u0022 data-id=\u00223087c5a4d4ce4773bb3ed7c86fe11859\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000651\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f44431ef-b505-4e94-9f57-a60b0a569bf7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00223087c5a4d4ce4773bb3ed7c86fe11859\u0022\u003EHon SHANE JONES (Labour):\u003C/span\u003E Kia ora an\u014D t\u0101tou. I will focus on Part 2 of the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill, as members would expect, and I assure you, Mr Chairperson, that I will do so in a manner that does not offend either your rulings or those of the person who was in the seat you currently occupy until very recently. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000652\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f44431ef-b505-4e94-9f57-a60b0a569bf7\u0022\u003EI want to take us initially to clause 26 in Part 2. There is an interesting irony here. We are being invited to contemplate\u2014and I find it difficult to actually follow how in an administrative sense it is to take place\u2014that by dint of the passage of this legislation, we will have a situation where Crown and sub-national bodies of Government will have their assets, with certain exceptions, regarded as part of the great public space, etc, but there will be an opportunity for local government to seek redress. I think this is one of the reasons why a number of hap\u016B and tangata whenua have been stirred up. The Attorney-General may say they are ill-informed, although I would say they see a double standard here. A number of them will point out to us the original way in which local government and other public bodies acquired either the land for the roads or other interests in land adjoining the seabed and foreshore\u2014the takutai moana, I should say\u2014and say that those original grievances have not been satisfactorily dealt with. They are going to complain\u2014as they already have done to us\u2014that there is a very circuitous process that they are expected to go through, but there seems to be a very straightforward process for the local body organisations to go through. It is probably a case where a well-intentioned intervention has turned into an issue as to whether there is a double standard here. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000653\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f44431ef-b505-4e94-9f57-a60b0a569bf7\u0022\u003EI note that the Minister of Conservation or his or her delegate\u2014I think that is the term being used\u2014will presumably speak with the authority of the Crown. But clause 26(4) states\u2014and if I am not mistaken, this provision has carried over from Labour\u2019s legislation; the Attorney-General might care to confirm that\u2014that \u201CNo court has jurisdiction to hear any claim in respect of any loss suffered by a local authority as a result of the operation of section 18.\u201D If that part was carried over from Labour\u2019s bill, then it could be one of the few redeeming features of the current bill, but that is another matter. As the Minister goes forward, issues of this nature will have to be carefully explained to M\u0101ori applicants, because if there is a case where there has been a great deal of pain and confusion, it is in the area of local government. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000654\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f44431ef-b505-4e94-9f57-a60b0a569bf7\u0022\u003EI just want to go back and direct our attention to clause 11. My colleague David Parker has pointed out that, yes, the nomenclature is different, but when we unpick the interests that are at stake in the new takiw\u0101 marea\u2014that is my brief attempt at translating \u201Cpublic space\u201D\u2014we see that the Crown has exclusive authority, and is No. 1 in the allocation of entitlement to occupy space. The Crown will have exclusive authority to set conditions to manage the effects of interaction, activity, use, etc., in the space. The Crown will have enormous, if not exclusive, authority in enjoying the ability to exclude. I accept that the Minister may say that once a title or a customary interest has been recognised there will be a certain level of ability within the hap\u016B or tangata whenua group to exercise enough authority to ensure that they can exclude others from having an injurious effect on the interests that have been restored to them. In my view, it makes a nonsense to suggest that what is being replaced here in terms of Crown title with this broad, vacant kind of conception of the space championed by Mr Dunne\u2014appropriately so\u2014is somehow both novel and something significantly different from the Crown. I accept that it does overcome one issue, which is that in the politics of polarisation the Crown is often seen as being the wrong side of the equation. I invite the Minister to take a call during the course of the evening or tomorrow or, more than likely, early next week and correct either me or David Parker on whether we are being a little too uncharitable or are misunderstanding the actual impact and effect of the law in relation to the way we are describing it. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000655\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f44431ef-b505-4e94-9f57-a60b0a569bf7\u0022\u003EI go on to point out that clause 30 states: \u201CThe Minister of Conservation is the manager of the common marine and coastal area and exercises and performs, in respect of the common marine and coastal area, all those management and administrative powers, duties, and functions provided for by this Act or any other enactment\u2026\u201D. That only goes to show that nothing in this bill significantly changes in terms of the Crown having that exclusive level of authority. It is politics, but at one level it is a symbolic fiction that has been promoted by our colleagues in the M\u0101ori Party. They are entitled to do that. It really depends on how well that message is picked up by our people, because the M\u0101ori Party has assumed that our people do not have the sophistication to see that they are being hoodwinked. Therein lies one of the sad things about this bill. The M\u0101ori Party knows deep down that Hone Harawira\u2019s concerns are largely accurate, but it has taken a punt that iwi and hap\u016B are tired of the whole affair, or it has occurred that they will not get access to advice, or that they will not put in the effort to uncover the fact that this bill is really an exercise in chicanery. This does not deliver the promise. This does not deliver the things that the M\u0101ori Party put in its manifesto, but, unfortunately for Labour, we are incapable of stopping this legislation, other than the fact we will remind M\u0101ori people how it has not been possible for them to enjoy the success they thought they were going to get through the M\u0101ori Party. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000656\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f44431ef-b505-4e94-9f57-a60b0a569bf7\u0022\u003EI direct the Minister\u2019s attention to clause 39, \u201CDetermination of application by Minister\u201D. It is kind of extraordinary\u2014and I should imagine there are some strong commercial applications here\u2014but we are putting M\u0101ori applicants through an inordinately circuitous process in order to prove their interests. This clause and a clause slightly earlier deal with the ability of developers to acquire a level of interest in the land that is not being extended to hap\u016B and iwi, not being extended to tangata whenua. Indeed, I direct our attention to clause 39(1)(a), which states: \u201Cwhether the applicant is to be granted an interest in the reclaimed land and, if so, whether that interest should be a freehold interest\u2026\u201D. That is not what Labour agreed to, and I am quite sure the Minister will agree. The first time round that is not what Labour agreed to. We preferred a leasehold interest. It could be said that a very long-term lease is akin to a freehold interest anyhow, but it is rather bizarre that the legislation, which is being promoted by Tariana Turia and her team as having actually expanded the prospects of M\u0101ori securing greater customary interests, will actually provide developers and the private sector with something akin to inalienable title. But the M\u0101ori Party is unwilling, through this legislation, to extend it to its own supporters or to iwi M\u0101ori. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000657\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f44431ef-b505-4e94-9f57-a60b0a569bf7\u0022\u003EIt is just a small example of how, No. 1, the M\u0101ori Party has been inattentive. They have surrendered a great deal of control and stewardship\u2014dare I say the sovereignty of the pen\u2014to the Attorney-General. In many respects that is necessary because he is the most senior legal official in terms of Cabinet\u2019s make-up, but they should not for a moment think that the irony will not escape M\u0101ori voters\u2014dare I say M\u0101ori applicants\u2014that somehow or other they have to go uphill, down dale, across the takutai moana through a very circuitous range of steps, and at the same time this legislation, crazily enough, makes it arguably easier for large-scale commercial interests to secure a greater level of ownership of reclaimed land. The Minister may say that as the land is being reclaimed, someone else had already lost out prior to that, because it was presumably, if not vacant, dormant space.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022d52e59e3-2195-4c95-a654-665c11b39b63\u0022 data-id=\u0022fab255901f8645dfbeb2a4b8ed0cca38\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000658\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d52e59e3-2195-4c95-a654-665c11b39b63\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022fab255901f8645dfbeb2a4b8ed0cca38\u0022\u003EHon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Labour\u2014Ikaroa-R\u0101whiti):\u003C/span\u003E I will continue on the definition and the special status of the common marine and coastal area. The definition sounds like general gobbledygook in relation to the notion of the Minister in the chair, the Hon Chris Finlayson, that this is something brand new and that it is safe. It is not too different from how the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004 defined the area. I think what is more important is that we have now subjected the nation to this notion that the common ground is there and the \u201Ccommons\u201D as defined by the British was something that was clearly owned by the Crown. At the end of the day, that has been twisted to suggest that nobody owns the common ground: the M\u0101oris do not own it, the Crown does not own it; it just sits up there esoterically and there is no suggestion whatsoever of who should make decisions on it. But, at the end of the day, it comes back to the Crown to define it and to ensure that it is there. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000659\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d52e59e3-2195-4c95-a654-665c11b39b63\u0022\u003EI come to how the M\u0101ori Party has suggested that there are limited gains in this bill. The reality is that this bill will not fix the problem. The M\u0101ori Party has said that this bill does not settle the issue for it, but at the same time it is trying to claim a great victory. So it would be really interesting to understand where the victory is when really it is just a quick shuffle of the pack. It is like the magician who says: \u201CNow I have the white glove\u201D, and the next minute, \u201CNow I have\u201D\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000660\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f44431ef-b505-4e94-9f57-a60b0a569bf7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228b8ae761e0b74484b817def0a9ad084a\u0022\u003EHon Shane Jones\u003C/span\u003E: The white rabbit.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000661\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d52e59e3-2195-4c95-a654-665c11b39b63\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022bd5c135582ab4b5fb10c149bfbce99cc\u0022\u003EHon PAREKURA HOROMIA\u003C/span\u003E:\u2014\u201Cpulled the white rabbit out of the hat.\u201D \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000662\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d52e59e3-2195-4c95-a654-665c11b39b63\u0022\u003EBefore this bill received even its first reading the acting co-leader of the M\u0101ori Party Te Ururoa Flavell publicly stated that the M\u0101ori Party would certainly look at it again and there would be another time for his people to come back and have another go at it in the future. But the Minister has been quite explicit about the finality that he sees in relation to this bill. So those are challenging questions, and I ask the Minister to comment on them. If it were not for the symbolic value of the repeal and the desire to address the Crown ownership aspect of the Act, then an amendment could have been an appropriate solution. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000663\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d52e59e3-2195-4c95-a654-665c11b39b63\u0022\u003EEarlier in the day I commended the Minister for the sequential way the bill listed \u201Cwh\u0101nau\u201D, who generally go to gather and ruku p\u016Bp\u016B, and get the delicacies of the sea; then \u201Chap\u016B\u201D, who govern and continue to entertain and ensure that those mana tuku iho rights are covered; and then \u201Ciwi\u201D, who generally oversee and keep in mind what is important for them, and, of course the legislation and the Government. So I was fascinated to see in the Minister\u2019s Supplementary Order Paper that he had adeptly moved things around and caused that sequential order to be reversed. Now we have \u201Ciwi, hap\u016B, and wh\u0101nau.\u201D I ask the Minister why he did that, for what reason, what relevance it has in respect of the common marine and coastal area, and what relationship it takes in respect of the functions of mana tuku iho. Mana tuku iho is quite explicit. It is that practice, that being, and that relevance that has been succeeded through the generations by the wh\u0101nau, the hap\u016B, and the iwi to supervise. I ask whether the reversal of the sequential order is some code that signifies this Government moving anything that is relevant to M\u0101ori up the command channel, so it can have its negotiation point being between itself and just iwi, never mind wh\u0101nau and hap\u016B. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000664\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d52e59e3-2195-4c95-a654-665c11b39b63\u0022\u003EIn June Hone Harawira said the proposal represented pandering to rednecks, and I have to suggest that, to my mind, some of the Coastal Coalition\u2019s stuff is just that. Harawira announced he would not be voting for the legislation and left the M\u0101ori Party because of it. That is all the theatrics we have seen over the last few days. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022cc9c47c0-4409-44ca-ad2f-498707f27d69\u0022 data-id=\u00225b8ee368f98141dcbefac86fd8324ec5\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000665\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cc9c47c0-4409-44ca-ad2f-498707f27d69\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00225b8ee368f98141dcbefac86fd8324ec5\u0022\u003EJONATHAN YOUNG (National\u2014New Plymouth):\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=\u0022dfa851f0-ef7b-4834-bc41-1b3b645a3495\u0022 data-id=\u0022e31dc207195c4b2a8e3f3ca88ce595c4\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000666\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022dfa851f0-ef7b-4834-bc41-1b3b645a3495\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022e31dc207195c4b2a8e3f3ca88ce595c4\u0022\u003EDAVID SHEARER (Labour\u2014Mt Albert):\u003C/span\u003E I will speak on two clauses in Part 2: clause 11, which a couple of my colleagues have already spoken to, and then clause 14. Part 2 deals with the common marine and coastal area, and clause 11\u2014for those people who perhaps have just joined us\u2014looks at the special status of the common marine and coastal area. I point to subclause (2), which is basically the crux of this part. It states that \u201CNeither the Crown nor any other person owns, or is capable of owning, the common marine and coastal area, as in existence from time to time from the commencement of this Part.\u201D That is an extraordinary clause in this legislation. I think it confuses pretty much all of New Zealand, and it certainly confused the many submitters who spoke on the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill. The clause is some sort of geographic twilight zone designed for a political purpose, and not really designed both to be durable and to give satisfaction to all sides in trying to understand and come to terms with the property rights inherent in this bill. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000667\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022dfa851f0-ef7b-4834-bc41-1b3b645a3495\u0022\u003EIf we look at Part 2, for example, we know that many of the submitters felt that this area of land, this no-ownership land, should have actually stayed in the keeping of the Crown. As my colleague David Parker said in his speech, in many ways when we look at the interests, the rights, the obligations, and the authority over this no man\u2019s land, we see that it is the Crown that holds all those rights\u2014and I will go into some of those in a minute. Therefore, the provision gives the pretence and the illusion that we have something that is quite different and something that is workable, when in fact we have something that I do not think has ever existed in law before. As I say, it quite patently will not be durable in the longer term.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000668\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022dfa851f0-ef7b-4834-bc41-1b3b645a3495\u0022\u003EMany submitters said, for example, that the common heritage of New Zealanders should be kept in Crown ownership for the benefit of everybody, and in many ways we see that that is exactly what this legislation does when we look at the rights and responsibilities that the Crown will exercise over this particular area of land. On the other hand, a number of iwi and other submitters did not support the provision, because they felt that the non-ownership regime was just symbolic. It was not actually real, at all; it was simply symbolic. I would say that that is exactly the case; all it does is introduce a vagary into our legislation that was not there before.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000669\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022dfa851f0-ef7b-4834-bc41-1b3b645a3495\u0022\u003EThere are other reasons for not supporting this common marine and coastal area. It applies only to M\u0101ori where M\u0101ori have an interest, as opposed to any other private title, so in a sense it discriminates against M\u0101ori and what M\u0101ori are looking for. The proposal is also flawed because there are three exceptions to the no-ownership regime, and this is what I was talking about in terms of its illusory nature: the exclusion of pre-existing freehold titles, the ability of the Crown to deem or declare land in the common marine coastal area to have status under various conservation statutes\u2014in other words, conservation statutes will continue\u2014and the administration of those statutes by the Minister of Conservation. Some submitters also argued that the bill breached the guarantees of exclusive possession under the Treaty of Waitangi, which is another larger and bigger issue that I do not want to go into.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000670\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022dfa851f0-ef7b-4834-bc41-1b3b645a3495\u0022\u003EOne curious anomaly that arises because of this no-man\u2019s land was brought up by the Dunedin City Council. The council basically said that it was unclear whether the common marine coastal area would in fact be rateable under the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002. That is quite an interesting concept, because if that land were under Crown ownership, of course the Crown would not be liable for rates. But actually this area is not in Crown ownership. The Crown effectively has an interest, as I said before, and the way it controls it is likened to an ownership right, but it certainly will not be the owner. It is possible for the Crown to be considered liable for rates because section 10 of the Local Government (Rating) Act provides that \u201Ca ratepayer is the person who is named \u2026 in the rating information database and the district valuation roll.\u201D In other words, the Crown could be, in fact, liable for rates on land that is actually under no ownership. This provision, as I say, was a piece of legislative creativity that was set down to try to resolve a political matter. It did not try to address the real issue that was before us. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000671\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022dfa851f0-ef7b-4834-bc41-1b3b645a3495\u0022\u003EI will go on to clause 14, which gets to some of the heart of what this bill seeks to do. As the Minister said, clause 14 repeals the 2004 Foreshore and Seabed Act. What is interesting about this is the regulatory impact statement of May last year. It stated: \u201CIf it was not for the symbolic value of repeal and a desire to address the Crown ownership aspect of the Act, then amendment could be an appropriate solution \u2026\u201D. In other words, we could have amended the 2004 Act quite easily to give real impact and restore many of the issues that people have been objecting to. That would not have given the political outcome that the Government desired. It certainly was not the political outcome that the M\u0101ori Party desired. We now have an enormous bill, with a 75-page Supplementary Order Paper that is being rushed through Parliament without the ability of the M\u0101ori Affairs Committee to give it really good solid consideration, and without our having draft legislation to work from and to work studiously through. We now have a situation with legislation that is extraordinarily divisive and that will not be durable; the Prime Minister claimed that durability was his main goal in putting through this legislation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000672\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022dfa851f0-ef7b-4834-bc41-1b3b645a3495\u0022\u003EMoreover, this legislation really underscores just how limited the gains have been for the M\u0101ori Party. What exactly has the M\u0101ori Party gained from this bill? Its members could have changed the 2004 Act sufficiently to give the impact and the outcome they desired. The reality is that this bill will not fix the problem. The M\u0101ori Party has said that the bill does not settle the issue for its members. The party has said that this is only the starting point. In many ways, Hone Harawira\u2019s position in this is the most honest; he has said: \u201CI don\u2019t agree with this.\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000673\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022dfa851f0-ef7b-4834-bc41-1b3b645a3495\u0022\u003EProgress reported.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000674\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022dfa851f0-ef7b-4834-bc41-1b3b645a3495\u0022\u003EReport adopted.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000675\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022dfa851f0-ef7b-4834-bc41-1b3b645a3495\u0022\u003EThe House adjourned at 9.55 p.m.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20110315d5a406f1d2d840dbb779abe046d038df000676\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022dfa851f0-ef7b-4834-bc41-1b3b645a3495\u0022\u003E\u003Cbr\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n  \u003C/body\u003E\n\u003C/html\u003E"