Ngti Awa Claims Settlement Bill

This debate includes debate on schedules 1 and 2.

Part 2 is the interpretation section and it includes a whole series of clauses that deal with interpretation. To be fair, most of those are quite unexceptional and I do not have any particular concerns with them. But I have a particular issue regarding the definition of “waterway”. I have been through this legislation over the last couple of weeks as it has been dealt with in the House and wondered why the definition of “waterway” refers to coastal waters, including harbours. It goes on to exclude canals for power generation and so forth but I will focus particularly on the reference to coastal waters.

I would like the Minister to explain the relationship between this legislation and the Foreshore and Seabed Act, as it is now. As I read the balance of the legislation, it is not entirely clear to me exactly what rights Ngāti Awa gain over coastal waters. One would think that it is quite an important issue, because the Crown is the owner of the foreshore and seabed. The Government has stated this in legislation. But both in the select committee on the foreshore and seabed legislation and in this Chamber, the Government has said that nothing in the foreshore and seabed legislation derogated from the power of the Crown to transfer fee simple to claimants as part of a treaty settlement. So there is a general proposition, with which New Zealanders of all races agree to a greater or lesser extent. The Crown, on behalf of all of us and irrespective of ethnicity, owns the foreshore and seabed.

There is a special exception set aside, essentially, for future transfers as part of treaty settlements. As I read this particular settlement bill, it does not seem to involve any transfers of fee simple of the foreshore and seabed. I have looked for that carefully. It is possible that I missed it because it is a complex bill, but on the face of it and based on my examination thus far, that does not seem to be the case. Yet there is a reference to waterways in the bill. Therefore, I presume, what is really being intended—because I might add that there is substantial reference to this in various schedules—is some form of granting governance or consultation rights over the foreshore and seabed.

This brings one back to the whole issue that I was raising before of the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. I am sure members are well familiar with the treaty itself. To put it simply, article 1 of the treaty transfers sovereignty, article 2 protects property rights of various kinds, and article 3 provides for all Māori to have the rights of British subjects or, to put it in modern parlance, everyone has the right of citizenship.

None of that would therefore presuppose any form of partnership. I know that that term is used extensively and that it has many different meanings to many different people, but at least in some respects the Government seems to interpret “partnership” as authorising the Labour Government of 1999 to 2005 to have the right to set out in legislation special consultation provisions for Māori.

That is not just on things of immediate and direct interest to Māori, such as cultural and language issues, but on much wider terms. For instance, it even exists in copyright and patent legislation, as extraordinary as that might seem. There is a sense of shared governance, as opposed just to consultation. There is a major difference when the Government starts providing a form of shared governance of much of New Zealand’s public domain.

So therefore I would like to know what is intended in this bill. Is the inclusion of that definition of “waterways”, when read with the relevant schedules, intended to give Ngāti Awa governance over coastal waters?

I thought that my colleague Pita Paraone would take a call. I do not want him to think that I am taking over his issue, but there is an issue in Part 2 that I want to raise as a matter of some concern. I preface my remarks by acknowledging that every iwi has the right to conclude the settlement that it wants. That is its rangatiratanga. Iwi have the authority to do so. National is fully supportive of Ngāti Awa’s settlement and will support the passage of this legislation. The issue that I raise is this: whatever may be intended by an iwi, I would not want at some stage in any settlements that follow to have the Crown or the Government of the day suggest that just because a concept was recognised in one settlement, that concept would therefore become legitimate for all settlements.

I refer in particular to clause 13(3), which defines what “hapū of Ngāti Awa” means. I think that Pita Paraone of New Zealand First still has a Supplementary Order Paper in relation to it on the Table, but I will make these remarks. The clause sets out 20 hapū, which I take to be the traditional hapū, and it also includes, in paragraphs (a)(xx) and (xxi) of the definition, “Ngāti Awa ki Tamaki Makaurau” and “Ngāti Awa ki Pōneke”. Those hapū are what some of us may term urban conglomerates. The Ngāti Awa negotiators and settlors wish to have, and shall have, them included in the settlement. I flag to the Minister the fact that the tribes that have yet to negotiate settlements may or may not want to have included as hapū their urban groupings living in Wellington and Auckland. Other tribes will have a view that hapū descend by way of blood, and although they may acknowledge Ngāti Awa’s right to define the term in the way it sees fit, we would not want any future Government to try to suggest that future claimants and future settlements must also have a similar acknowledgment.

I would like the Minister in the chair, the Hon Mark Burton, to take a call. I would like to be given some reassurance on that matter, because it is a matter of great concern. Other tribes will have other ways, or will suggest other concepts or instruments, by which they wish to make sure that their beneficiaries who largely live in the cities come within the ambit of their settlement. That is their right, just as it is the right of Ngāti Awa to say who shall be the beneficiaries of this settlement and who shall be the hapū. I think Pita Paraone will touch upon the explanation that Ngāti Awa has given for this definition. There is a precedent for it. Ngāti Awa say, I understand, that it is already in some regulations issued under earlier legislation. Be that as it may, it is an important issue. It does highlight the need for the Minister to say categorically that the Government recognises that this settlement is for this iwi alone, and for no other iwi.

We have had the benefit, in the Committee stage on the Ngāti Awa Claims Settlement Bill, of explanations by the Minister in the chair, the Hon Mark Burton. I have appreciated his attempts to aid our understanding. In Part 2, “Interpretation”, the definition of the Ngāti Awa governance entity in clause 12 does not seem to explain anything. It is possible that there is a Supplementary Order Paper that covers that definition, and I am sure I will be quickly corrected if there is. But clause 12 simply states that the governance entity “(a) means a body that represents Ngāti Awa; and (b) is the appropriate body to receive the redress provided to the Ngāti Awa governance entity by this Act”.

What is completely mysterious to me is how this Parliament can propose to pass a bill that contains such a vague definition, when we well know that the mandate is a particular issue in this settlement. I would certainly be appreciative of the Minister explaining a little better what the Ngāti Awa governance entity is or will be, or explaining the tests the Government will use to determine whether it is “appropriate” and how the Government will test whether the governance entity represents Ngāti Awa. Recitals in the preamble to the bill refer to various procedures that were used to approve the settlement, and I wonder why the same procedures are not used to identify the governance entity. Or is this still an open question, and, if so, why? It is possible to take note of the fact that a private bill, the Te Runanga o Ngati Awa Bill, which would create an entity that looks like the body that should take these settlement proceeds, is also at the Committee stage. I have heard no explanation of why that bill is not a Government measure, or why it is not going through at precisely the same time as this bill. That bill has to be debated on members’ day, so we may end up with this bill and that bill being out of sync. I certainly would like to know why the definition of the governance entity is so vague.

I am also interested in having, and I had hoped that we might have had, a contribution from New Zealand First members—who drew this matter to our attention—as to the significance of using “Ngāti Awa ki Tamaki Makaurau” and “Ngāti Awa ki Poneke” in clause 13(3). I would imagine within a short time there may be an equally significant group of Ngāti Awa living in Sydney, so why do we not have that listed? Will the people who went via Pōneke to Sydney still qualify under that hapū, mentioned there? If the matter of qualification is entirely up to Ngāti Awa, why is paragraph (a) included in the definition of “Ngāti Awa governance entity” at all? If it is not up to Ngāti Awa, then the Committee ought to know what we are trying to state in these provisions. Are hapū affiliations passed by blood line? Or do they pass by residence? If it is by residence, why does clause 13(3) refer simply to Poneke and Auckland? Why not refer to Tauranga, or to other areas where people live who must, I assume, fall outside the other hapū but who would nevertheless trace their membership back to Ngāti Awa? It does not seem too much to ask that there be a brief explanation of just why that provision is in the bill.

I am aware that the two terms in subparagraphs (xx) and (xxi) in paragraph (a) under the definition of “hapū of Ngāti Awa” in clause 13(3) have been used in earlier legislation—I understand that they appear in regulations—but that does not explain why they are being used in this context, and it does not explain why we are bothering to include them if it is possible for Ngāti Awa to simply include people outside its rohe anyway through one of the other descent lines. How is that defined? Is it something that the electoral roll will also use? Do we find those hapū having entitlements to register through the electoral roll? I am just guessing that the sort of dispute that Ngāi Tahu has now got into over the entitlement to membership of its chief genealogist could be a very prominent form of dispute in future, as the direct lineage becomes more and more distant, and, perhaps, more debatable. I do hope that the Minister can give a succinct explanation of this matter—I know that he has officials on hand who can explain what it is about—so that the Committee does understand why it is of interest.

I want to talk to clauses 13 and 14 in Part 2. New Zealand First has put forward amendments to these clauses in Supplementary Order Paper 328. The first issue concerns subparagraphs (xx) and (xxi) in paragraph (a) under the definition of “hapū of Ngāti Awa” in clause 13(3), which refer to “Ngāti Awa ki Tamaki Makaurau” and “Ngāti Awa ki Poneke”. New Zealand First believes that the inclusion of these two entities as hapū, for the purposes of this bill, is actually outside the traditional concept of what establishes, or creates, a hapū. It is well known that the social structure of Māori is made up of whānau. A collection of whānau make up a hapū, and a collection of hapū go on to make up an iwi. In the case of these two hapū, we are advised that their members descend both from other hapū that are listed in the bill, and from the iwi ancestor of Ngāti Awa. Essentially, this Parliament is being asked to include them in this bill to ensure that those of Ngāti Awa living in Tāmaki Makaurau and Pōneke are assured access to the benefits that this settlement will bring to Ngāti Awa.

During the course of hearing the submissions on this bill, one submitter pointed out that every member registered to these two hapū held whakapapa links back to his or her traditional hapū within the Ngāti Awa tribal area, in the same way as other Ngāti Awa descendants who are resident elsewhere in the world. Notwithstanding the rationale for including these two hapū in the bill, it is important to remember that their inclusion in this bill will create new hapū. That creation can only be regarded as one of expediency and convenience.

Should Parliament be vested with the authority to create new hapū? What of other Ngāti Awa descendants living elsewhere? As the ACT member quite rightly pointed out, why should they be expected to connect with their hapū at home while those living in Tāmaki Makaurau and Pōneke have the convenience, and even the choice, to connect with either hapū back home?

New Zealand First acknowledges the intent of Ngāti Awa to have a governance structure that ensures that their people are easily able to access the benefits of their settlement with the Crown. We do not believe that what is proposed to address this is a matter for this House. We further believe that including these two groups in this bill will actually question or put to the test the intent of this bill, which is that this settlement is an enduring one.

Of further concern, we believe that to legislate for the creation of hapū, as proposed, will pose the question some time in the future: why was this allowed to happen with so many Māori MPs in Parliament at the time? Is it not strange that here we are, deliberating on a very important treaty settlement by a very well-known and acknowledged iwi of this nation, and there are no Māori members in the Government who are inside this Chamber.

💬 Darren Hughes: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. It is contrary to the Standing Orders for members to refer to the presence or absence of members. Clearly, if one includes a whole group of members, for example, saying that the Māori members of the Labour Party are not here, that casts aspersions on what all those members are doing, particularly at a time when the Hui Taumata is on, which the Government is saying clearly shows the successes of the Government in relation to Māori.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Can I just refer members, please, to Speakers’ ruling 23/7. It is out of order to refer to the absence of members from the Chamber. It is a reality that all members of the House, at some stage or other, have to take leave from the Chamber to attend select committees and caucus committees, and for other natural reasons.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I am just seeking some clarification. Are you then saying that my comment is out of order?

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Yes.

It is very good to see that—

💬 Lindsay Tisch: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I have already ruled on the matter—Speaker’s ruling 23/7.

💬 Lindsay Tisch: The member is not referring to an individual member. He is referring collectively to members of the Labour caucus who are not here. There is nothing wrong in doing that. He did not name any Māori Labour member who was not here, he just said that Labour Māori members were not here. That is a collective approach and that is, in my understanding, not out of order. The member is right in being able to acknowledge that point.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Can I just say that the members can talk about not participating in a debate, but to go outside of that actually can lead to disorder, and what I am trying to do, as Chairman, is to ensure that order is maintained in the Chamber. I think the member has recognised that, and I invite him to continue his speech.

💬 Dr Wayne Mapp: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I tell Dr Mapp that I have ruled.

💬 Dr Wayne Mapp: I understand that you have ruled by reference to Speaker’s ruling 23/7, which states: “It is a convention that we do not make reference to the fact that a member is away or is not in the member’s seat.” Now I believe that that really refers to the singular—an identifiable person. To cover the interpretation you have just given would require that Speaker’s ruling to refer to “a member or members”. It does not have those additional words “or members”. I believe that it is actually a reasonable reference and within the Standing Orders and Speakers’ rulings to make reference to a generic group without identifying any one individual.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Can I tell members that it is a longstanding convention in this Chamber that members should not refer to the absence from the Chamber of other members. But that does not stop them from criticising members for failing to vote, for failing to answer questions, or failing to take part in a debate. Again I would refer the member to Speaker’s ruling 23/7.

I ask this question of members on the other side of the Chamber who have previously expressed a great interest in this bill: why are they not able to support this Supplementary Order Paper and stand up and explain to this Committee the issue regarding hapū and how this Parliament, and therefore the Crown, is given the authority to establish new hapū?

The Minister of Māori Affairs expressed reluctance to support the Supplementary Order Paper because he was advised that these hapū are already listed in the Māori Trust Boards Regulations of 1985, and is therefore reluctant to become involved in changing how Ngāti Awa is structured. I have looked at those regulations, and there is no mention of the word “hapū”. What is referred to is “specific section or division”, not the word “hapū”. I am advised that in the preamble to the legislation, reference is made to “hapū”. But the point is that in the substance of that legislation—

I want to pick up on one or two points that members have made. The member who has just resumed his seat, and the Hon Georgina Te Heuheu, both raised this issue of who is Ngāti Awa and hapū. Firstly, to reassure my Tuwharetoa colleague, this settlement deals with Ngāti Awa. In no way does it attempt to generalise—that would be improper. But for the same reason, it is fitting and appropriate that the definitions that have been arrived at, in the end, sit properly, both definitionally and finally, with Ngāti Awa themselves.

I would like to share with members something that Professor Mead supplied to us 10 days ago. I am happy to circulate the document, and I am sure he would be happy for me to do so. I found it helpful, and I think one or two other members might as well. He said in paragraphs on this subject, and I am paraphrasing: “Ngāti Awa has adopted a more open and inclusive attitude towards the establishment of hapū. More importantly, how Ngāti Awa determines its internal structures is a matter for itself to decide. There is no one classical iwi model to follow.”

He goes on to say: “In Ngāti Awa’s case we have recognised the dynamic nature of hapū. They grow, they split up, they become absorbed by others, they decline, they die, and some live again.” He concludes: “It is not an easy matter for a new hapū or a revived hapū to become accepted by the other hapū of Ngāti Awa. The major hurdle that each must pass is the unanimous acceptance of all the hapū of Ngāti Awa. The mandate comes from the combined hapū. The rūnanga merely ratifies the application. Having achieved that major requirement, each is bound to establish a marae-like base and be able to carry out normal functions. A hapū or rūnanga marae shows evidence of a clear move to meet the requirement of establishing a base. What Ngāti Awa has done as part of its reconstruction and development policies, is to rebuild itself so as to be in a better position to face the future.” I want to acknowledge that I think that is a positive and admirable way forward, as defined by Ngāti Awa for itself.

I shall just to move to Mr Franks’ view. He raised questions about Ngāti Awa governance. Indeed, the reference he seeks is on page 28 of the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper, which we have already passed. There is reference at the bottom of the page to the Te Runanga o Ngati Awa Bill, which of course is a member’s bill. It is required to be so because it deals with the private good of Ngāti Awa and has no other general application. Therefore it is fitting and necessary that it be a member’s bill. We are seeking to manage, of course, and with Parliament’s cooperation I am sure we will, the orderly introduction and passing of the legislation in sequence so that we have an orderly transition and the passing of the legislation.

I just want to add that even if we were to accept the list of hapū, I must ask this question. The regulations to which the Minister of Māori Affairs referred me list the following hapū: Patuwai, Te Rangihouhiri, Te Tāwera-Umutahi, Pahipoto, Ngāti Tamawera, and Ngāti Awa ki Tāmaki. The question I ask of this Committee is where those particular hapū from those regulations are listed in this bill.

I also point out that reference is made in the bill to Te Rangihouhiri II. What happened to Te Rangihouhiri I? While some of my colleagues might think I say that in jest, we are talking about legislation, and once it is set in concrete the people who belonged to Te Rangihouhiri I may feel they have been alienated from this bill. The other question I ask along those lines is that the 1985 regulations refer to Te Tāwera-Umutahi, but we notice that in this bill Umutahi is not mentioned. Further, this bill has a new hapū called Te Kahupake. I am not, for one moment, questioning the existence of Te Kahupake, but I believe that there needs to be some consistency. If we are going to refer to earlier legislation, we have to ask where Te Kahupake came from.

I reiterate the point that I am not in any way questioning the desire of Ngāti Awa to address provision of a structure that will deliver to all of their beneficiaries. What I do ask is whether it is correct and proper that this Parliament should be asked to set in legislation a list of hapū that will set a—should I say—precedent for this Parliament to give legislative recognition to other hapū, and, dare I say it, other iwi in future. I just wanted to say that, in respect of those hapū.

Again, in talking to Supplementary Order Paper 328, which was submitted by New Zealand First, I refer to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. Mention was made by the Minister in the chair that reference to the principles was first mentioned in the Treaty of Waitangi Act of 1975. That suggested to me, and it has proven to be the case, that the task, the responsibility, of defining those words has been left to people outside of this Parliament. I believe that if we in this Parliament enact any legislation, we are the correct body to define what is meant in that legislation. New Zealand First asks that that reference be deleted from the bill, because of the vagueness of the words. I am not for one moment questioning the integrity of Ngāti Awa or its negotiation team, but none of us in this Parliament at this time can be assured that this matter of settlement may not be revisited because of the lack of definition and clarity of those words.

That term is very vague and has been included in legislation since 1986. Almost 30 pieces of legislation have those words included. One would think that those who did the deed of including those words in legislation would have ensured that there was a clear definition. But, no, who has been left with the responsibility of defining them? The task has fallen to others outside of this Parliament, who have taken an increasingly activist, liberal, and broad-licence approach. Despite the passage of almost 20 years, the words that I seek to have removed from this bill remain largely undefined and ambiguous. Because of that, those words have become a source of ongoing litigation regarding their relevance and meaning. Those who have substantially benefited from that are those associated with the legal process. Those words are without a clear, tangible benefit for New Zealanders.

I rise on behalf of United Future to take a very brief call on this part, mostly to say that the concerns expressed by New Zealand First regarding the inclusion of particular hapū could be settled if one flicked through the bill to the definition of Ngāti Awa, which describes very clearly the overall body, the group that is the umbrella, for the hapū. The fact that Ngāti Awa chooses to understand the groups that fall under that umbrella in a developing way does not propose—in my reading of this measure—any danger to the agreement, in that the agreement is with Ngāti Awa, not with particular hapū. My understanding is that that is how Ngāti Awa sees itself—its organisation—and how the people of Ngāti Awa see themselves.

💬 Pita Paraone: It doesn’t need to come to this Parliament to have it endorsed. That’s the issue.

OK, the concern the member has is that Ngāti Awa chooses to recognise its structure in this Parliament. He considers that to be unnecessary.

💬 Pita Paraone: No, the Government has chosen to recognise it.

The Government has chosen to recognise what Ngāti Awa has presented before it as to the way Ngāti Awa sees itself, and I think that is a perfectly acceptable role for the Crown to take. Because Ngāti Awa considered it to be necessary, the Government has respected that opinion and included that definition as part of what was considered and put before us in this bill.

The point was made by the National member Georgina te Heuheu that this is peculiar to that particular iwi, and that it does not necessarily set up a pattern, a precedent, for other settlements with other iwi. That is a perfectly acceptable point to make, and I think that she received assurances from the Minister in the chair at the time, the Hon Mark Burton, that that was certainly the case. So I think it is a matter of trusting Ngāti Awa in this matter and saying that this definition is peculiar to this particular settlement. We should congratulate the iwi on looking to the interests of its people collectively and looking at the best structure by which it can then disperse the resources that will come to it.

I would like to make a brief response initially to the member who has just taken a call. We are legislators in this Parliament. We are not here to simply endorse matters that, in essence, private bodies put before us. That is exactly the point Mr Paraone was making, and it seems that United Future has not understood the issue at hand, as indeed it does not understand so many other issues.

I have specifically taken a call to talk further on the issue of the principles of the treaty. Although I believe that this has led to serious problems in this country, it is certainly true that the 1975 legislation that established the tribunal referred to the principles of the treaty. That, of course, is not a reason why we have to perpetuate the error some 30 years later, particularly given the way the Court of Appeal dealt with it as a result of the State-Owned Enterprises Act and given the inclusion of that reference by means of a last-minute Supplementary Order Paper that was never debated in this Parliament properly. We have built a whole superstructure, a constitutional edifice, on that basis. That, in itself, should tell members that we are in error and that we need to take the opportunity, as representatives of the people, to correct that error.

Some 18 months ago I wrote an article for the New Zealand Law Journal. The focus of that article was on why the reference to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi was wrong, and why we should instead refer to the terms of the treaty. I referred in my previous speech to the core elements of the treaty: article 1, the transfer of sovereignty; article 2, the protection of property rights and taonga; and article 3, the establishment of the rights of British or New Zealand citizens. The treaty fits within the context of modern democratic values. It does not sit outside those principles, and that is something that this Government fails to realise. In a democracy each citizen is treated as having equal rights. That is the foundation stone of all modern democratic States. We all have one vote. We all have the right to participate equally in our Government; no one has any more rights than anyone else to participate in our Government. We are treated equally before the courts. That is the modern democratic theory, and all modern societies subscribe to it. We have seen in Iraq that irrespective of people’s views about the origins of their vote, nevertheless when people had the opportunity to vote as citizens they took that opportunity. That is why when we look at the treaty we have to interpret it within the context of those democratic values.

I believe that this Government has not understood those first principles, because if it did understand them it would not be inserting throughout legislation, and general legislation in particular—health legislation, local government legislation, and educational legislation—reference to the principles of the treaty, and, more particularly, to the establishment of separate committees that give some citizens more rights in our Government than other citizens. That is the fundamental flaw in the Government’s approach. We are specifically talking about that situation in terms of general legislation, and in general legislation we all have equal rights. The Government, instead, has actually divided New Zealanders against one another. I appreciate that that is not the Government’s intent, but that is the outcome. Surely the Government should listen to the heartfelt concerns of New Zealanders of all races and reverse its course on that. In fact, Mr Mallard has done nothing.

I move, That the question be now put.

The issues raised by both Dr Mapp and Pita Paraone are serious, and we have already commented on them. I want to make a further comment on the issue of the hapū. Dr Mapp is absolutely right; we are legislators. I think Judy Turner has totally lost sight of that, as United Future sometimes does with regard to these settlements. There is no intention at all for any member of this Parliament to be disrespectful to Ngāti Awa, but there is every desire to make sure that this Committee understands very clearly what it does when it starts to put into legislation certain concepts that, for some iwi at least, will be contentious. On the issue of adding in urban groups and now calling them hapū from here on in, although that may be acceptable for Ngāti Awa, it will not be acceptable for other tribes that are still to settle. I think it behoves members who do not quite understand that issue to think about it, because every one of the 120 MPs in this Parliament will be here when that issue is passed into law.

💬 Stephen Franks: Which way should I vote—yes or no?

National will probably support the Supplementary Order Paper that Pita Paraone has laid on the Table. I will leave that to the whip to do. We are deeply concerned that this Government is taking on the notion, however well intentioned, that somehow urban groups fall within the meaning of the term “hapū” in its traditional form. I think Stephen Franks was probably quite right to ask about Ngāti Awa ki Sydney. Maybe the numbers of Ngāti Awa in Sydney are not great at this point, but we are a very mobile people and in time our numbers will be spread throughout the world.

In relation to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, I was on the tribunal in its earlier days when we were faced with interpreting that phrase. As I said earlier, I rather think the phrase has been brought into disrepute by this Government trying to include it in general legislation. Again, I say members need to think quite clearly about the three parts of the treaty, the third part being that which gives Māori the same rights as British subjects. That is where the reference to general legislation applies. The insertion of the phrase “the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi” does not belong there. I suppose over the last 2 years the Government has backtracked on inserting it, but, certainly, in its first 2 years in power it was trying to—as I think I said then—poke the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi into every bit of legislation that moved. That was wrong, and it is no wonder that New Zealanders started to get upset.

In any event, this bill will pass this time. But perhaps the Government ought to give some serious consideration to the issue of the principles of the treaty, and also to the issue of urban communities from here on in being classed as hapū.

I move, That the question be now put.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the question be now put.

I refer members to Speaker’s ruling 61/5 given by Speaker Kidd, which states that it is highly disorderly to interject when votes are being taken. It can actually be seen as intimidation and could ultimately lead to a breach of privilege, as outlined in Standing Order 85(1). I ask for silence whilst votes are being taken.

I refer the member to Speaker’s ruling 61/2 from Speaker Hunt, which states that no comment at all is allowed while a vote is being taken.