Ngāti Mutunga Claims Settlement Bill

There is a new Part 4 proposed by Christopher Finlayson. I need to rule on this matter. The purpose of the Ngāti Mutunga Claims Settlement Bill is to implement the terms of the deed of settlement. An amendment to transfer the assets of an iwi authority to a new entity is outside the scope of the bill and, therefore, out of order. It is a matter for the entities concerned how they regulate their business and transfer assets. If legislation were needed it would be by means of a private bill; it would not be for inclusion in a Government bill, as per Speaker’s ruling 110/1. So there will be no debate on this matter; the amendment is out of order.

I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I actually have to disagree with your ruling, with all due respect to the office of the Speaker and the Chair. How can the new entity be outside the scope of the bill, when the bill itself actually talks about moving from the old to the new? It is the express wish of the Crown to move from the old entity to the new entity. In fact, it was part of the negotiations that the Crown had to be satisfied that the new entity was going to meet the obligations of what the Crown wanted in terms of mandate and the whole structure of the new structure. I cannot see how this amendment is outside the scope of the legislation, when moving from the old organisation to the new organisation goes to the heart of the settlement.

Thank you, but the point is that the amendment cannot be made within this bill; it still has to be made within a private bill. It is a well-established principle in this Parliament that matters of iwi administration are matters for private legislation. The Ngāi Tahu Claims Settlement Bill illustrated that point clearly. The bill establishing that rūnanga and providing for the conduct of its business required private legislation at the time, and the Standing Orders, by leave of the House, were suspended to allow what was intended as a public Act to proceed as a private bill.

I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I do not want to go on all day, but I have two options open to me. I do not think that this amendment does what you think it does. It does not establish all the administrative duties of the new entity; all it does is transfer everything from yesterday to today and give the entity a new name. The amendment does not establish by statute everything that the new entity will do. That is my first point. The second option open to me is to maybe get the big guns—the Speaker—back down here. That is no reflection on you, Madam Chairperson; please do not take it in that way. It is an important point. Here we have a Treaty settlement. We have been in contact with one side of the negotiated settlement, and, obviously, we have had a very, very short talk with the Government. I am not sure what the Government’s position is on the matter yet, but I think it is important that we come to some sort of resolution here. So the options are either to come to a resolution or to call the Speaker back and get into it again.

I appreciate the member’s point, but the point is that the Committee cannot give itself permission to do something outside the scope of the bill—it cannot give itself leave. But I respect the member’s position, and if the member would like to recall the Speaker at this point, then he should do so.

Under Standing Order 179 a motion may be moved. I move, That the Chair obtain the Speaker’s ruling on a matter of procedure.

Motion agreed to.

House resumed.

Speaker Recalled