Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi Claims Settlement Bill

This is the part that is arguably the part we should pay the greatest attention to. It deals with various authorities and protocols that are to exist between Crown agencies and Ngā Rauru Kītahi from this point.

It also lists a number of redress properties that are to pass to this group as part of the settlement. I note that one of them is the Waiinu Beach site. The site ceases to be a conservation area under the Conservation Act 1987, and the fee simple estate in the Waiinu Beach site is vested in the governance entity for Ngā Rauru Kītahi claim settlement. Given that the word “beach” is specifically used here, and given that throughout the time we were looking at the seabed and foreshore legislation we were told that the beach is, according to the dictionary, the part of the coastline that gets wet sometimes due to tidal activities, I would like to know whether the Government is in fact proposing to give away the fee simple title to part of the foreshore and seabed of New Zealand. National members notice and would recognise that there is nothing at all in the Foreshore and Seabed Act that prevents the Government from doing exactly that. We are aware that the Government is engaged in significant negotiations around other parts of the country with a proposal to see this sort of arrangement entered into. I understand that the particular site is not particularly large, but that is somewhat irrelevant if in fact it is a piece of coastline that has a fee simple title attached to it, and if that title is transferred as part of a treaty settlement.

This part of the bill also deals with the statutory acknowledgments for the purposes of achieving the redress. There is a clause, clause 43, that requires the Environment Court to have regard to statutory acknowledgments. Clause 43(1) states: “From the effective date, the Environment Court must have regard to a statutory acknowledgement relating to a statutory area in determining under section 274 of the Resource Management Act 1991 whether the governance entity is a person having an interest in the proceedings greater than the public generally in respect of an application for a resource consent for activities within, adjacent to, or impacting directly on the statutory area.” It would be interesting to hear from the Minister exactly what that means. Clause 43(2) specifically does not limit the obligations of the Environment Court under the Resource Management Act. That is possibly—and this was discussed at the select committee, as well—quite contradictory, and I think it is necessary for the Minister to place on the Hansard record exactly what the Government thinks it means, so that the rest of us can be enlightened as to the particular benefit that accrues to the settling party as a result of that part.

So there are two questions for the Minister. What is the Waiinu Beach site all about? Does it mean that the Government is transferring a fee simple interest in part of the coastline of this country to this group? And, secondly, does clause 43 confer extra duties on the Environment Court, in terms of the particular rohe of this iwi, when it comes to hearing matters that are part of resource applications?

Further to that, what is the situation when an application is made that does not find its way to the Environment Court? That is, I think, the nub of the issue that National members have been raising for some time—that many of these statutory acknowledgments, etc., give the various Māori groupings quite a say in the nature of resource consents, or, in fact, the nature of how any district might eventually develop, regardless of the size of the grouping’s particular interest in that area. So we want to know two things: what are the limits on the court, and what if an application does not get to a court? What are the obligations, then, on the local authorities that have the responsibility to issue consents—and it is a responsibility on them to issue consents—when applications are made?

I notice also that quite a considerable duty is put upon the relevant consent authorities to distribute to Ngā Rauru Kītahi resource consent applications. I find that just a little bit strange. Does it mean that if someone makes a proposal for some development inside this rohe area, that person not only has to get a consent from the local authority—and it does not specify which local authority; it could be the regional authority or the district authority—but also has to gain consent from the iwi themselves? This clause, clause 46, is quite a strongly worded clause. I see from subclause (3)(a) that the governance entity is allowed to “waive its rights to be notified under this section;”, but the provision also allows it to “(b) state the scope of that waiver and the period it applies for.” In other words, it might determine that particular applications under a particular value do not have to go to it for the period of the next 3 years, or until it is reviewed, or whatever. But it would seem that there is an opportunity for it to determine when it will have quite a large say on any particular project.

Also, clause 46(5) states: “This section does not affect the obligation of a consent authority to—(a) notify an application in accordance with sections 93 and 94C of the Resource Management Act 1991: (b) form an opinion as to whether the governance entity is a person that is likely to be adversely affected under those sections.” Of course, those administering the Resource Management Act must consider the adverse effects on the grouping, because that is in the law at the moment, but that tends to make me think that the previous four subclauses in clause 46 create an additional opportunity for the governance entity—an opportunity that other New Zealanders simply do not have. So we ask the Minister to make that explanation, as well. That is three things.

There is also the curious clause 50, “Termination of deed of recognition”. What does that mean? That is a simple question that we would like the Minister to answer. If some recognition relating to some particular deed is part of a settlement, why would that recognition terminate? Then there is the issue of clause 51, “Statutory acknowledgements in relation to rivers”. That clause does not seem to be at all clear. I notice that the clause states that artificial watercourses are not part of that particular acknowledgment. I want the Minister to tell us what work has been done to work out what is artificial and what is not. Literally hundreds of small rivers, creeks, and streams around this country have been moved because it was convenient to move them. It is interesting to see, when we fly over this country, how many rivers or little streams loop around themselves and quite clearly have been diverted either for irrigation purposes some years ago or for the purpose of gaining a better section of land that is unbroken by that watercourse. It would seem that although a watercourse may be somewhat artificial in direction, it is not at all artificial in so much as water flows along it.

I rise to speak to clauses 85 and 86. I think this is a very serious matter. If the Government of the day were to pass legislation stating that Jesus Christ was the son of God, we would have a riot. Members would say that we could not pass religious texts—much as any of us believe them—into the law of the land. Yet the Minister must acknowledge that that is exactly what this Government is proposing to do. For anyone who is a Christian, to vote for this section of the bill is a heresy. Schedule 12 states, in what will be a law of the land: “Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi emanated from the cosmogenic tree of the gods. It came by way of the legion of spirits who were not seen but heard, down through the generations …”. Then there are further matters in what can only be described as a religious text. In our politically correct way, I will not make a derogatory remark about those religious beliefs. All I am saying is that this is supposed to be a secular State. The Government of New Zealand does not endorse any religion, yet in this bill, it does.

It just shows how politically correct we have become. If a provision in this bill stated, for example, that Mohammed was the prophet, and if we were going to pass that into law, there would be a riot. Yet here we are passing a belief that I suspect that very few Māori actually believe. But it is politically correct to put the provision in.

As Mr Copeland pointed out to me—and Mr Murray Smith of United Future has an amendment to remove the provision—this will be the law of the land. How is a judge supposed to be able to make a ruling on it? Judges are trained in the law, not in theology. What is the point of putting a provision like that in the law? It is bad lawmaking, and it is contrary to the secular nature of the New Zealand State. It is an outrage that the Government has put the provision in. If the Government wants to know why it will be defeated this year, I say that it is because of this sort of politically correct nonsense. It is a great shame that our media are so politically correct that they will not report the fact that the New Zealand Parliament is passing religious views and stating them in the law. That is all we are being asked to do.

I do not claim to be a particularly good Anglican, but I know enough to know that it is heresy to vote for a provision like that. No Catholic ought to vote for it, and no Anglican should. Indeed, no person who believes in a secular State, and who believes that we should not force religious views on others, should vote for that provision. What on earth was the Government doing? I will tell members what it was doing. It cares very little about people’s beliefs. Our civil servants would have said that perhaps we could save $10 million of taxpayers’ money if we were prepared to pass a piece of mumbo-jumbo—which is what the civil servants would think of it—that included that provision, and that that would make everyone feel happy.

Well, this person is not happy. This is the sort of statement I do not accept. Even as a Christian, if one were to start putting Christian text on to the statute book, I would oppose it. It is not the Government’s job to start saying what is right or wrong in religion. That is a matter for individuals to form their own opinion on. There is no role for that sort of thing on the statute book. It is wrong. It is wrong in law, it is wrong constitutionally, and I suspect that every MP thinks it is theologically wrong.

Richard Prebble is wrong. He is completely and utterly wrong in everything he just said. Schedule 12 sets out a statement of Ngā Rauru Kītahi values in relation to a toopuni site. It describes what Ngā Rauru Kītahi believes is its position in relation to that particular toopuni. It is quite right that settlement legislation to implement a deed of settlement, which is about the relationships and the reasons why the settlement is made, contains a statement from the iwi concerned as to its beliefs about those issues. That is not to say that the Government agrees with the iwi’s statement, or that suddenly we all have to believe it. Mr Prebble is absolutely false and wrong in his statements about schedule 12. It simply enables the iwi for which this bill was specifically designed to have its say.

Much of the legislation we produce in these settlement bills is directed and determined by the Office of Treaty Settlements, via Government policy. Very little of it, except for specific names and details about places, is determined by iwi themselves. Often, the history set out in the preamble of a bill is a description written by Government officials and later agreed to by iwi. So very little content in this bill was actually written by the iwi and the iwi alone. The purpose of this bill is to provide some form of restitution for the wrongs committed against the iwi in the past. Those wrongs relate to more than just land and resources. They also relate to misinterpretation of and disinformation about the iwi’s own history. The failure that we have had in this society over time is not to enable Māori to have the chance to say what their history is themselves, instead of it being re-interpreted through the English language, or through the perspectives of colonial history and the Pākehā system that we have in place now. That is all that schedule 12 does. It enables Māori to say for themselves what their own history is, instead of having it continually recycled through a Pākehā perspective.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with including this measure in legislation. In fact, it shows an incredible maturity on the part of the Government, at least—I am saying something nice about Government members, for a change—to enable those statements to be made without being fettered, or without being filtered through a Pākehā lens. There has been a long history of structural racism in this country, which continues today. This is a small step towards recognising that the indigenous people of this country—the mana whenua—have the right to hold and to state their beliefs, and to present their history in the way that they see fit, without having it be re-interpreted by Pākehā all the time.

I am very pleased that the bill at least provides some opportunity for Ngā Rauru Kītahi to speak for itself, and to have its own history put in the bill. That is not mumbo-jumbo. Richard Prebble calls it mumbo-jumbo, which is a most derogatory and pejorative description of the history of those people as they have determined it themselves. He cannot accept that their history is legitimate, and that the way that they describe it and the purpose for which they describe it are legitimate. That history is absolutely legitimate, and I believe that it must be accepted by the House. It is absolutely essential that Ngā Rauru Kītahi be given the opportunity to state its history in its own legislation for the purpose of providing it with restitution. The arguments against schedule 12 go to the heart of what structural racism in this nation really is. There is a failure to see structural racism when it occurs, and a failure to understand that it is the re-interpretation of the history, the reality, and the tikanga of the indigenous peoples in this country. It is their right to have their history described in legislation. At least that is one of the few times when it belongs solely and entirely to them.

The Greens are very happy that schedule 12 is here in the bill. We will definitely continue to support those kinds of statements being made in this form of legislation. It is such a small step, yet there is a continual denigration of it.

I want to take a call in this part of the debate. Firstly, I want to make a comment about clause 46. I must say—and it is not very often that I agree with him—that I have to support the concern of the National member, particularly in terms of subclause (1). Only some New Zealanders will not have the opportunity in terms of the non-notifiable applications. In this clause, the claimant group will receive notification of all applications, whereas the only notification of applications that the general public will not receive are those that are deemed to be non-notifiable. With regard to clause 46(3), I cannot see why they would want to waive their rights under this clause, and I would be very interested to know under just what circumstances they would want to do so.

I want to make a specific comment with regard to clauses 85 and 86. I reluctantly agree with the comments made by the ACT member, because he said that the House is not denying the right of the claimant group to its beliefs. But we say that the House has no right to legislate for those beliefs. Secondly, their exclusion would not affect the settlement, in terms of the quality or the amount. However, one may be suspicious that the negotiators on behalf of the Crown may have included this so as to minimise the amount of settlement. I suggest that that is probably a factor.

The comments made by the Green member have contributed to a thought that I have always had in terms of my concern for the inclusion of this part. By including this and having the comments that are being made by this Committee—I must say that it has not been too derisive to this point—the fact is that if we continue to go in the direction that the Green member has started to take the debate, then I will feel some embarrassment for the claimant group. I want to re-emphasise the point that the claimant group is entitled to its beliefs. It is not the responsibility of this Parliament to pass into legislation what the claimant group might believe. I suggest that before too long—and I am probably showing my age—we will believe that there really was a Janet and John. As a young person growing up and going to school, I believed in Janet and John.

💬 Hon Richard Prebble: And Harry Potter?

No, not Harry Potter. I am a bit older than that, but my grandchildren think that Harry Potter actually exists. That is the point I am making—if we start legislating for that sort of thing, future generations will start saying that they have to believe it.

We are talking about getting an enduring settlement. Excluding this part will not make any difference to the endurance of the settlement. I wanted to stand to make the point that the claimants, Ngā Rauru Kītahi, will still have their settlement even if this reference is not included. I signal that New Zealand First will be supporting the amendment that has been proposed by United Future.

I move, That the question be now put.

I too would like to take a brief call concerning Murray Smith’s amendment to omit from schedule 12 the statement of the religious belief of the iwi. In doing so I would like to endorse entirely the comments made by the member Pita Paraone. I say to Metiria that she has completely—[Interruption]—Metiria Turei has completely missed the point.

💬 Metiria Turei: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Mr Copeland has completely failed not only to use my proper name but to pronounce it in a way that is recognisable, except in the most extreme way. I ask you to tell him that if he is going to refer to me, he should use my full name properly.

I was busy correcting that error when the member interrupted me. I have corrected the error. The member has completely missed the point that has been made by Pita Paraone. I would defend very, very strongly any New Zealander’s right to freedom of religion. New Zealanders are free to believe anything they want to believe, to pursue that, to manifest that, to practise that, and, by the way, to leave it if they wish to at any point in time. Those freedoms are enshrined in our New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. That is not the issue at all. The issue is that we are setting a precedent in this bill for the inclusion of statements of religious belief in law.

I will tell members why that is very dangerous. It is very dangerous, because inevitably there will be people in this iwi who do not personally believe what is in that statement. The majority of the iwi may do. It may be their history. I do not dispute any of those facts, at all. But individuals may want to make a quite different decision personally about their spiritual beliefs. If they do, I can just imagine one of the elders saying: “But, hang on, what we believe is right.” When he is asked how he knows that, he will say: “Because the Government of New Zealand has said it is right.”

That is what we are actually doing with this provision; that is the precedent we are setting. I do not believe that that sort of statement has a place in a piece of law—because we are actually making law here. There is nothing wrong with incorporating it as an appendage to the actual settlement, if the iwi want to do that, or to put it as part of the papers with the settlement, but in the view of United Future, including myself, it should not be included within the bill, for that reason. It is a very unfortunate precedent.

I must say that I agree with the comments made by Pita Paraone—a member from New Zealand First—and by the Hon Richard Prebble. National, along with New Zealand First, submitted a minority view that related totally to this part under discussion. The Green member is incorrect, or impugns the rest of us with a view that is not correct, in that she appears to make it look as if we do not respect the beliefs of Ngā Rauru Kītahi. That is utterly untrue. We do respect them. They are entitled to their beliefs. They are entitled to their cultural, spiritual, and mythological beliefs. They are certainly entitled to those; we just do not think that Parliament should be legislating for those beliefs.

The other thing is that those beliefs can be very well recognised in the deed of settlement, and usually such beliefs are set out in the deed. The fact is, all of us in this Parliament, except the ACT party, voted for the Tūwharetoa ki Kawerau legislation, and the committee was able to effect a change by requesting the claimants to consider taking out of their settlement bill a schedule that in its way resembled the very one now before us. Their having agreed to that, and that schedule having been taken out of the bill—largely because the matter sits in the deed of settlement, anyway—their settlement is not at all compromised. In fact, it has gone into law. It is now in law.

That can be done with this situation, as well. Indeed, in the select committee process I put it to the claimants, for all the reasons that have been stated here tonight, and for the reason, especially, that it is as if they are asking the Government of the day to give legitimacy to their beliefs. Well, either one believes one’s beliefs or one does not. If one does believe them, having them stated in a piece of law does not necessarily make them any more true than what one thinks they are, anyway.

This is a real issue. National in Government will give it serious thought. I know that it has been done in previous settlements, but that does not necessarily make it the most desirable thing we have ever done in this Parliament, particularly when it is clear that no parliamentarian in this place wishes to show any disrespect to any claimants’ or tribes’ beliefs. But a legitimate concern has been raised that this Parliament ought not be legislating for the kind of statement we see in schedule 12 to be passed in law.

Sadly, although I put to the claimants the issue of changing it or taking it out, they did not agree. That is their right, I guess, but I think it was also the responsibility of the Minister in charge to try to encourage them to have it removed from the bill. That would have had no effect at all on the settlement, which, with our support, will eventually be passed into law.

I move, That the question be now put.

I note that the Minister has not yet taken a call to answer the questions that were put to him earlier, not only by me but also by Mr Pita Paraone. I also want to make some comments about the two clauses that refer to schedule 12. We raised these issues at the Māori Affairs Committee—they are the subject of a minority report attached to this bill—and we raised them again during the second reading debate. So there would be some expectation that the Government by now might have a clear explanation of why this particular schedule exists.

I have looked at other settlement legislation, and I can tell the Committee that none is as clear and explicit as this bill. It makes the extraordinary claim that those who are of Ngā Rauru descent, and presumably all of those who might be adopted by those of Ngā Rauru descent, are of both divine and human parentage and therefore, I would say by my understanding, are making a claim to be demigods. The question for the Minister is: if this is to be in the law, should a judge in a court ignore it?

💬 Metiria Turei: No.

Well, the member for the Green Party says that, no, the judge could not. I would ask the member to explain what a judge is to do if someone goes along to a court somewhere and says: “My mother is that bit of land, and the law says so.”

💬 Metiria Turei: It’s no different and the member knows that.

No, no, the member is not right. It is actually not for the member to debate; it is for the Minister. So if someone says: “I don’t want that bridge going there, or that road going over there, or that sports ground or that housing subdivision going over there, because that land is my mother.”, the law says that that is to be respected and that that is fact. It is that sort of utter nonsense that New Zealanders are thoroughly sick of. I cannot stop anyone believing anything they want to believe. I have no right to. And no one can stop me believing what I want. No one can take away someone’s identity, and no one can give it to them. So Mr Paraone is quite right. That should not add or detract from the settlement as far as the claimants are concerned, but I think it detracts from the settlement as far as we are concerned, because it makes us look foolish. I cannot understand why the Government is so keen to pass it. I have to say that if I stood up before an audience anywhere in this country and read out that particular schedule, and told people that the Government had just passed it into law, they would not believe me. Well, actually, they would. If I said it was a Labour Government that did it, then, yes, they would believe me.

That simple question is something that I asked before and that the Minister should answer. I asked whether a judge should ignore this piece of law, because, like any other piece of law, it will have a consequence somewhere. I think it is absolutely amazing that we should be saying to a group that as part of their treaty settlement the courts will afford them the status of demigods. The courts will say that the law of New Zealand recognises the relationship between that individual and the physical geographic assets of the part of New Zealand described in this bill. That is extraordinary! [Interruption] Mr Cosgrove over there might think that there is no problem with it, but I ask him to read schedule 12. He probably has not, and I have to tell him that on the street corners of the Waimakariri electorate, this particular clause would cause outrage.

I stand to take a brief call to respond to a number of issues raised by, in particular, Mr Brownlee. I thank the Green member for her contribution on the issues relating to clause 85 with regard to Ngā Rauru Kītahi values. At the same time I want to respond to the United Future member Gordon Copeland, who also expressed some views about that clause. At no time have Ngā Rauru Kītahi said that this is the basis of their religious beliefs. This is a statement about Ngā Rauru Kītahi values in terms of their culture and spirituality in relation to their land. The Government acknowledges that they have made this statement, and that is the only reason why the statement is included in this legislation. If it was a reference to their religious beliefs, and given that many of the Ngā Rauru Kītahi beneficiaries are of the same religious denomination as I am, I would indeed have some problems with it. But that is not the case.

In relation to the concerns expressed by Gerry Brownlee about clause 43(1) on the Environment Court, the legislation places no extra duties on the Environment Court. The statutory acknowledgment provides for Ngā Rauru Kītahi to have input into existing Resource Management Act processes in relation to applications to consent authorities, Environment Court applications, and Historic Places Trust applications. It does not give special weighting to Ngā Rauru Kītahi views in relation to the Resource Management Act processes.

Mr Brownlee referred also to the area of Waiinu Beach, included as part of the cultural redress. That area of beach is located about 1 kilometre inland, and at no time does it get wet, unless it rains.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: What’s it called a beach for?

It is on Beach Road. It is not unusual to give an inland area a name that gives the impression that it is situated on the coast. I can tell the member—

💬 Gerry Brownlee: It’s a real estate rort.

It may well be, but it is 1 kilometre inland; it does not adjoin the coast.

I believe that the member had a problem with clause 50, too, in relation to the termination of the deed of recognition under cultural redress. That clause basically acknowledges that at some time in the future the deed of recognition may terminate if the land is no longer managed by the Crown. In other words, the Crown may decide to sell it off in the future.

I have covered many of the issues that have been raised during the debate on Part 4. Most of the debate surrounds the cultural and spiritual values of Ngā Rauru Kītahi. I am of the view that the Committee has no reason to be concerned about that, although I do acknowledge the concerns of particular groups in relation to religion. I tell Mr Brownlee that I have no idea how a judge would rule on a matter relating to clauses 85 and 86, and I do not know of any court decision in which a judge has made a determination about who is God and who is not.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: He’s never had to.

Absolutely, and there is no reason why a court would have to in the future.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: It’s in the law now.

That is my point. It would not have to do so in the future.

The Minister is mistaken. Let me explain how he is mistaken. Clause 91—to take one example—concerning the New Zealand Conservation Authority and relevant conservation boards, states that they must observe this provision. And what do they have to observe? They have to observe schedule 12. So when they are making orders with regard to land, they have to see whether it fits in with this “gods, sky, lands, and seas”—that is what it says. The Minister said that at no point would a judge have to rule on that matter. Well, actually, a judge could easily have to rule on it, because if a conservation board decided to make an order with regard to a piece of land that is described in this bill, and if a member of the iwi believed that the order was not in line with his or her religious beliefs, the judge would then have to look at this provision and would somehow or other have to decide whether a practical conservation order, like putting in a fence, is in line with this sort of statement: “the celestial realm, the cosmic emanations of the divine beginning, the world and its creation, and the evolution of the earth and its people”.

I have been on the Māori Affairs Committee, and I remember when one of the High Court judges appeared to give evidence, as High Court judges did. It was Justice Baragwanath, someone who is very sympathetic to things Māori. He asked how on earth he was expected, as a judge, to be able to give a judgment on those sorts of phrases. He was referring to a case he had heard down in Dunedin, where apparently an early Māori god—I suppose we would say—had pissed into the ocean. He said that an iwi group came to court and said that, as a result of that, the dredging being proposed by the harbour board was a religious insult. The judge asked the committee, as the Government had put into statute the fact that he was to take note of Māori religious values, how he was supposed to make that judgment. He said he was trained in the law, not theology. That is what the High Court judge said.

As I have just pointed out to the Minister in the chair, Mark Burton, I can see a provision and I can see easily how this Parliament is asking a judge to make a judgment of that sort—which the Green MP could not make. She would not know how to make it, yet she is telling us that we should include it in the bill, even though the Green Party tramples on other people’s religious beliefs. If this provision was a Christian provision, the Green Party would be the first party to jump up and down, and oppose it absolutely. The godless Labour Government would be absolutely opposed to any Christian views being put into this bill. It has been quite happy to trample over Christian views in the last 6 years, yet it introduces this provision.

I challenge any Government member to give us a theological discussion on this provision for 5 minutes, and then tell us how High Court judges are supposed to interpret it. They cannot do it. They know that it is PC nonsense. At the minimum, they put it in just to reach a settlement, instead of making a statement of principle for New Zealand that this Parliament does not impose religious beliefs on anyone and that it does respect other people’s religious beliefs—even though I suspect that there are very few members of this iwi who actually believe this. That is what I suspect. There might be some, but I suspect that most do not, because I notice that many of them belong to various Christian churches and this is not in line with those beliefs. So I ask the Minister why we are putting something into the law when we have heard from the judges themselves that they will interpret it if they are required to but they do not know how on earth they are supposed to do it. As a lawyer, I say that the judges cannot do it. I have seen the Deputy Prime Minister attacking the courts and saying that the courts are creating law, but no, they are not.

💬 Hon Taito Phillip Field: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. This is the third time I have called and it is the third time you have given the call to Opposition members. I thought that there was some arrangement in terms of alternate calls for the two sides of the Committee.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): Thank you for raising that—I was not aware that it was your third call. Your other call was after an earlier Labour call. I noticed that, and Mr Prebble was sort of part-way through what he wanted to say.

I will try to allow that member to take a call, so I will not take the full 5 minutes. I just remind the Committee that senior Government members—in fact, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Attorney-General—have risen in this Chamber and been extremely critical of Her Majesty’s judges. How can we criticise the judges when we are passing a provision like this, which no member of Parliament, including the Green MP, can interpret? I pointed out one example, but there could be others, of a conservation board being told by law that when it is making conservation decisions on drainage and the like, it must take notice of schedule 12. I have read it. I was raised in the Church and have no idea what some of these provisions mean. How is one supposed to practically apply that if one is a layperson on a conservation board? I cannot see how he or she can do it, and I cannot see how a judge can do it. Why are the Government and the Greens passing bad law? How on earth is that settling a grievance, when no member of this Chamber can tell me how to apply in practical terms a clause like the one the conservation board is required to apply to a piece of land? I am not making it a question of religious beliefs; I am just saying that with regard to the law it is mumbo-jumbo and we should not be passing bad law.

I move, That the question be now put.