Ngāti Mutunga Claims Settlement Bill

Madam Speaker, you have been recalled to give a ruling on new part 4 proposed by Christopher Finlayson, which effectively sets up the governance of the Ngāti Mutunga Iwi Authority and Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Mutunga. What has happened is that I have ruled it out of scope, as per Speaker’s ruling 110/1, because the entities themselves should regulate their business and transfer assets. If legislation is needed, I have ruled that it would be by means of a private bill, not by inclusion in this Government bill, as per Speaker’s ruling 110/1.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I think the first point to make to the member, having heard the debate—and I thank Madam Chair for the summary—is to refer the member to Speakers’ rulings 73/1, 73/2, and 73/3, which do relate to the procedural matter that has to be dealt with first. That is that the Speaker will not interfere with a decision of the Chairperson on a question of relevancy, and this is a question of relevancy as to the scope. As you will note, there are a great deal of Speakers’ rulings on this matter, and it is very clear. It might be of interest to the member, though, just to make a comment on the substantive matter. I do agree with the substance of the ruling, because this is essentially a private entity, and it has always been the case that private entities are the subject of private bills.

I just want to add a bit of information to the issue. It is that, again, the Supplementary Order Paper does not set out to establish a new entity. That so-called entity, which is Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Mutunga, was established on 21 December 2005. So the entity is already there. The old entity has changed into the new entity, and what we are trying to do is allow the transfer from the old to the new entity, not actually use the legislation to create a new entity. That might help, and my colleague Chris Finlayson will most probably be able to help, as well.

Thank you for your comments, Madam Speaker. I go to the part of the commentary where it seems to me that the select committee got it wrong: “The Office of Treaty Settlements advised us that amending the bill to provide for the disestablishment of the iwi authority”—and these are the important words—“and the establishment of the post-settlement governance entity was not feasible.” Of course, that is not what is happening here, because the settlement entity, which is Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Mutunga, was established on 21 December 2005, and that followed a Crown-approved ratification process involving all Ngāti Mutunga members over the age of 18 years. So it is not a question of establishing it by statute—I understand exactly what the Speaker was saying in that regard—but of facilitating the transfer of assets to an entity that is already in existence.

The report goes on to state: “The Parliamentary Counsel Office advised us that amending the bill to disestablish or establish private trusts would be very unusual and could have implications for previous settlements.”, but the primary point having been erroneous, the rest of that paragraph is erroneous. We are not seeking to establish a new governance entity but to facilitate the transfer of assets to an entity that is already in existence. Unless I have the wrong end of the stick, which I suppose is entirely possible, I am seeking to adopt the formula that has been adopted in other settlement statutes including, for example, Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Act 2006. I refer you, Madam Speaker, by way of example to Part 4, Subpart 2.

I do not think there is any debate about what the members opposite are proposing in the sense of what the amendment actually does. I think where the disagreement is, is about the mechanism of whether this bill can be changed in this way to give effect to what the members are arguing for.

So the purpose of the bill, in clause 3, is to give effect to the deed of settlement—to the claims settlement as it has been signed—and that document does not transfer assets. Yet when we come to Mr Finlayson’s proposed new clause 104, that is what is proposed—to transfer the assets of a private entity within an existing Government bill. That is the nub of the matter. It is not necessarily the merits of the argument in proposed new clause 104, but whether the mechanism is correct to be able to amend that by way of a Government bill. I refer you, Madam Speaker, to Speaker’s ruling 108/4, which I think touches on that, but I think the main point is that it is inconsistent with the purpose in terms of what this Government bill gives effect to, in regard to Mr Finlayson’s Supplementary Order Paper.

As I said, and to reiterate, in relation to the procedural matter as to relevancy and the fact that it has been ruled on, the Speaker will not interfere with that ruling. However, in relation to the second part, as I said, I agree with the ruling. The wrong process has been used to try to achieve the end in this instance. I declare the House in Committee.

In Committee

Debate resumed.