Thursday, 1 May 2003
Volume 608
Sitting date: 1 May 2003
Thursday, 1 May 2003
Thursday, 1 May 2003
Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.
Prayers.
Business Statement
Business Statement
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House): When the House resumes on Tuesday, it is the Government’s intention to make progress on the Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2), the Ngati Tama Claims Settlement Bill, the New Organisms and Other Matters Bill, the Crown Minerals Amendment Bill, and the Fair Trading Amendment Bill (No 3).
GERRY BROWNLEE (NZ National—Ilam): Noting that the Order Paper is just as long now as it was at the start of the year, and that considerable amounts of legislation are due to come out of select committees, can the Leader of the House indicate to us whether we are likely to see some extended hours in the form of urgency during this 4-week sitting block, and also whether the current order of the Order Paper is the Government’s priority for its legislation?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House): I notice that there are now more private and local orders of the day than Government orders of the day, which is a rather remarkable achievement on the part of the Opposition. In answer to the latter part of the member’s question, no, there is no intention to take urgency for matters on the Order Paper.
Points of Order
Personal Explanations
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I raise a matter with some care, and I think I am raising it within the Standing Orders. I ask you to give advice to the House about when a member ought to give a personal explanation to the whole House, especially when it is partly to protect the reputation of other members. One of my members of Parliament is a member of a select committee at which a matter has arisen that is not open to the public, but the media appears to know all about it. I will not say what the matter is, but I am having MPs being doorstepped and asked whether they are the MP in question or whether they know about the matter.
It appears to me that a member of Parliament who has apparently found himself in a conflict of interest situation has a duty not just to that select committee but to the House as a whole, partly to allow the other members of that committee to be relieved from an intolerable situation. There are media outside this Chamber, I understand, doorstepping MPs coming into the Chamber and asking them for an explanation. A member has the opportunity to make a personal explanation, and in a situation such as that he should make that explanation in the House.
Mr SPEAKER: I thank the member for raising that point of order. It is an important point. I will have a look at it. The background, which I certainly was not aware of, has been indicated to me briefly. Of course, the short answer is that it is up to the member himself, but I will say that I will look at the matter further for the benefit of the House because I think an important point has been raised.
Microphones
GORDON COPELAND (Whip—United Future): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am not too sure whether the microphone system is working properly today. Those of us in this area of the House are finding it very, very difficult indeed to hear.
Mr SPEAKER: I will try to see whether anything can be done about that matter. Thank you for raising that with me. It means we will have to be that little bit quieter.
Speaker’s Rulings
Supplementary Questions
Mr SPEAKER: Before the Easter adjournment I was asked to give consideration as to whether extra supplementary questions can be allowed in certain circumstances. The short answer is yes. Speaker’s ruling 128/4 contemplates that if a Speaker feels that a Minister is trifling with the Chair, further supplementary questions can be permitted. I confirmed on 8 April that this ruling still applies.
However, I do not want members to misunderstand this. The Speaker does not judge whether ministerial replies are adequate or make political judgments on how well Ministers have responded in the House, or, indeed, how well other members are performing. Those are matters for members themselves, for the press, and for the public generally. There is nothing new about members being dissatisfied with Ministers’ replies, and appealing to the Speaker about them can be seen by Speakers’ rulings in the book going back at least to 1892. That was before I became a member. All a Speaker can do is to ensure that Ministers are relevant—that is, they address the question. In addition, Speaker’s ruling 128/4 makes clear that if a Minister answers facetiously the Speaker has a discretion to penalise the Minister by permitting further questions.
Questions for Oral Answer
Questions to Ministers
Pharmaceuticals—Pan Pharmaceuticals Products
1. STEVE CHADWICK (NZ Labour—Rotorua) to the Minister for Food Safety: What actions have been taken by the New Zealand Food Safety Authority and in the Ministry of Health in relation to the Pan Pharmaceutical products available in New Zealand?
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister for Food Safety): Since the announcement by the Australian Therapeutic Goods Administration, the New Zealand Food Safety Authority and the Ministry of Health have been working with their Australian counterparts and distributors here in New Zealand to identify and arrange for the voluntary withdrawal from the market by New Zealand companies of products identified as being of concern that have been manufactured by Pan Pharmaceuticals. I can assure the House that for the purpose of protecting the public, I will issue a recall notice when specific products are identified, if they have not already been withdrawn, and the recall meets the requirements of section 40 of the Food Act.
Steve Chadwick: Does the recall of the Pan Pharmaceutical products in Australia indicate a need for improved regulatory framework in New Zealand?
Hon ANNETTE KING: Yes. New Zealand law is outdated and deficient. I have been working to secure new legislation that will ensure that New Zealanders can have confidence in the dietary supplements they purchase. We need a register of all products on sale, we need the ability to audit the quality of the products, and the ability to initiate recalls and warnings quickly. However, my efforts to get regulatory powers similar to those in Australia have been made harder by political opposition.
Dr Lynda Scott: Does not the failure of Pan Pharmaceuticals show how foolish it would be to simply hand New Zealand’s regulatory process over to an Australian model that obviously does not work; and does not this whole saga demonstrate that while we need regulation, it must be well-thought-through and actively be effective?
Hon ANNETTE KING: That is the most bizarre question. It obviously did work in Australia. The Therapeutic Goods Administration did work in Australia. It found the product. The recall is from May 2002, because it audits every year. We do not do that in New Zealand. Dr Scott has said that she does not want that sort of regulatory regime in New Zealand because everything here is all right. That is wrong.
Sue Kedgley: Can the Minister confirm that the dietary supplements industry had reached agreement with the Ministry of Health back in 1998 for dietary supplement products to be notified electronically on a register and supplies to become licensed, and that had that agreement been implemented with the industry, instead of being put on hold while the Minister pursued plans to hand over control of our industry to the bloated Australian-dominated Australian authority, which has been found to have systematic failures, we would be in a better position today to protect consumers and swiftly recall products?
Hon ANNETTE KING: That is not correct, because I would assume that if agreement had been reached in 1998 for that to happen, the previous Government—long before I became Minister and looked at this issue—would have agreed to that agreement. In fact, there has not been agreement over the regulation of dietary supplements. I have certainly taken responsibility for it. However, in political terms, I have faced people like Lynda Scott who have a select committee inquiry not wanting to regulate, but to be on the side of business.
Judy Turner: Is the Minister concerned that what can most accurately be described as a quality control failure by one overseas manufacturer of pharmaceuticals and complementary medicines will deter the public from purchasing similar treatments from reputable local producers, and is she doing anything to ensure that consumers are aware of that distinction, for the sake of those businesses?
Hon ANNETTE KING: The member makes a very good point, and it is the reason that the products that Pan Pharmaceutical produced will be published for everybody to see, so that responsible companies are not labelled in the same way.
Immigration—Fraud
2. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) to the Minister of Immigration: Is the New Zealand Immigration Service conducting inquiries into improper, false, or fraudulent immigration incidents; if so, how many?
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Associate Minister of Immigration), on behalf of the Minister of Immigration: Yes, of course the New Zealand Immigration Service conducts inquiries into improper, false, or fraudulent immigration incidents, and such inquiries are initiated on an ongoing basis.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That Minister has had 4 hours in which to answer the question “how many?”. The question is patently and clearly on today’s Order Paper. Why do I have to get up now to elicit on a supplementary question information that he has had 4 hours to glean, prepare, and bring down to this House? That is my point of order.
Mr SPEAKER: The Minister did address the question. He indicated there were a number of incidents. It is not for me to say whether that is a satisfactory answer. He did address the question.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: I ask the Minister why he wasted 4 hours on not answering my question; if he does not know the number, why does he not tell this House, and, having said that, could he clarify what he meant in respect of his answer, given that the principal Minister, on 29 April in response to a written question, said: “The NZIS pursues all incidents of possible fraud brought to its attention that merit investigation.”, and that it took an insightfully humiliating Assignment programme investigation to alert her to the need to investigate openly advertised immigration scams in Auckland?
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: I understand there are two questions there. With regard to the first question, as of today I am unable to specify exactly how many investigations are under way. I am, however, advised that as of 31 March this year there were approximately 300 investigations into immigration fraud under way, and there were 14 investigations under way into allegations against Immigration Service staff.
Hon Roger Sowry: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I feared that that would be exactly what would happen. The Minister, having had, as the Rt Hon Winston Peters said, 4 hours in which to answer the question, clearly did have the information that he was asked for. He knew how many incidents were being investigated as at 31 March, and he went on to say that he did not have an exact number for today—but we are only 1 month on from then. The issue is that when a question is put down for oral answer, Ministers withhold the answer and then seek to have the Opposition waste another supplementary question to get the information asked for in the primary question. That is a hopeless situation—[Interruption] If the Leader of the House wants to interject while I am on my feet, I think that is unparliamentary. It is a hopeless situation when Ministers are asked a question on notice, have the information, and then refuse to hand it out in their primary answer, so that it has to be wheedled out of them at a later date.
Mr SPEAKER: When the Minister answered the original question he could have given that number in the answer. The question was asked in two parts, however. The member asked another part of the question and the Minister addressed that particular part.
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: With regard to the second part of the question, there are many allegations of improper practice made on a daily basis. Each of those has to be thoroughly investigated before we can make any claims. That process will continue, as the service is determined to make sure there are no corrupt practices under way at any stage. Investigations will be undertaken where they are deemed necessary.
Luamanuvao Winnie Laban: What has this current Government done to improve the processes for investigating fraudulent immigration incidents?
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: In 2001 the New Zealand Immigration Service established a fraud investigations unit. That unit and the investigation systems were created by the Labour-led Government.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Did the Minister’s second answer include the plethora of scams I have brought before Parliament, including the Fernridge Institute of Training, which is running a sham establishment founded to ensure that the owners of the company have a steady source of cheap labour in this country, the death of a Japanese national at the rogue Columbus Academy, the investigation into exploited Ukrainian farm workers in an approved scheme, openly advertised immigration scams, as the Assignment programme proved, and so-called refugees who can live here for months on end at a cost of millions of dollars to New Zealand taxpayers, who finance their health care, social welfare benefits, housing, and legal aid costs—does his answer include all those people, as well?
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: As I said, there are over 300 investigations under way. With regard to the Fernridge Institute of Training, the Department of Labour is continuing to investigate the allegations of improper immigration and employment practices by that training organisation. A labour inspector is examining wage records held by the Fernridge Institute of Training to determine whether the students have received their minimum legal entitlements.
Energy Exploration—Gasfields
3. GORDON COPELAND (United Future) to the Minister of Conservation: What steps, if any, will he take to ensure that neither the Department of Conservation nor his own statutory powers unnecessarily impede efforts by the petroleum exploration industry to discover and bring into production new gasfields in light of the depletion of Maui and the growing electricity crisis?
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Conservation): Decisions on petroleum exploration in conservation areas are made under the Crown Minerals Act. I would obviously ensure that decisions are made in accordance with that Act.
Gordon Copeland: Would the proposed Marine Reserves Bill grant the Minister the power to deny petroleum exploration permit-holders automatic access to territory within a marine reserve, even if they had met the “minimum impact activity criteria” under the Crown Minerals Act; if it would, what effect does he think such a veto power will have on petroleum exploration incentives in New Zealand?
Hon CHRIS CARTER: We have already faced the issue of drilling in a marine protected area in Taranaki, and a very innovative programme of directional drilling took place. It is possible to have drilling in a conservation area that does not disturb the biodiversity of that area.
David Parker: Have there been any requests for access to conservation areas from the petroleum industry in recent years?
Hon CHRIS CARTER: I am not aware of any requests for access in the last 3 or 4 years.
Shane Ardern: Noting that the petroleum industry is against the Marine Reserves Bill in this Minister’s name, that the proposed changes to the Resource Management Act will make it more difficult to obtain resource consent on private land, and the present view that he takes on conservation land, does the Minister now accept he is the greatest problem in solving this country’s current energy crisis?
Hon CHRIS CARTER: No.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is he aware of any demands that were made by United Future on issues like this at the time that that party gave an undertaking to the Government on the question of supply, or did United Future just lie down and play mouse?
Hon CHRIS CARTER: I could not really comment on that matter.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That was a pretty simple question. I asked whether he was aware of that. He either is aware or is not. It is not for him to say that he will not comment on that; that is why we have question time. For goodness’ sake, this is getting beyond a joke, and that Minister should be told to either answer the question or resign.
Mr SPEAKER: The Minister can say he will not comment. He can say that. I would actually like the Minister to repeat his answer.
Hon CHRIS CARTER: No.
Hon Richard Prebble: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. He was actually asked, as is legitimate, two questions: is it one situation or the other? The answer cannot be no. It might be that the Minister is embarrassed, but the answer cannot be no.
Mr SPEAKER: The member was asked “Is he aware”, and he said “No.” To me, that is a complete answer.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I asked him was he aware of any demands made by the United Future party at the time of the undertaking being given on the question of supply, or did it just lie down and play mouse?
Mr SPEAKER: No, he has no responsibility there. He was asked: “Is he aware”, and he said “No.”
Hon Ken Shirley: Given that the Government intends to extend the Marine Reserves Act over the full exclusive economic zone, apparently in breach of the international law of the sea, does he share the concern of the Petroleum Exploration Association, which fears that the Minister of Conservation’s approval will be required before any approval is given even to prospect for gas and oil reserves, which are much needed for this country?
Hon CHRIS CARTER: I can report that the Department of Conservation has an excellent relationship with the petroleum industry, and we are very keen to maintain that.
Shane Ardern: I seek leave of the House to table two documents, one being the submission on the Resource Management Act from the Petroleum Exploration Association, and the other being the submission on the Marine Reserves Bill from the Petroleum Exploration Association.
Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table those two submissions. Is there any objection? There is.
Electricity—Supply
4. GERRY BROWNLEE (NZ National—Ilam) to the Minister of Energy: Does he stand by his statement of October 2002 that “there is no cause for high anxiety” in relation to New Zealand running out of power in the near future; if so, why?
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Energy): The sentence that the member quotes, in part, began with the words: “While the risk of problems in exceptionally dry years is always with us …”. I therefore stand by it.
Gerry Brownlee: From the same article: is he still as happy to explain why “there is no possibility of electricity shortages in New Zealand”, as he was in November last year; and does he think that his explanation will give elderly freezing in their homes, businesses that shut down, and families without hot water for up to 18 hours a day, comfort that he knows what he is doing?
Hon PETE HODGSON: The member has already indicated his ability to partially quote bits out of context. If he continues to do so, I will continue to give him the context.
Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.
Mr SPEAKER: No, I do not need a point of order. I want the Minister to perhaps develop the answer a little further.
Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.
Mr SPEAKER: I have asked the Minister to give an answer.
Gerry Brownlee: I appreciate that, and my point of order might help him. I seek leave to table the article concerned, so that the Minister might be able to refer to the quotes.
Mr SPEAKER: That is done at the end—but leave is sought to table. Is there any objection? There is.
Hon PETE HODGSON: No, I do not agree.
H V Ross Robertson: Would the Minister consider—
Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The answer from the Minister was “No, I do not agree.” What does he not agree to? He was asked whether he is still willing to explain—
Mr SPEAKER: No, the member is just being—
Gerry Brownlee: No, I am not.
Mr SPEAKER: The member was asked whether he agreed, and he said no, he did not.
Gerry Brownlee: No, he was not asked that. The question was very specific: is he happy to explain why “there is no possibility of electricity shortages in New Zealand”, as he was in October last year.
Mr SPEAKER: The Minister said “No”. He can say “Yes” or “No” in answer to a question—
Gerry Brownlee: No, no. He said: “No, I don’t agree.”
Mr SPEAKER: Please be seated.
H V Ross Robertson: Would the Minister classify the year 2003 as an exceptionally dry year; if so, why?
Hon PETE HODGSON: The first half of 2001 saw the lowest inflows ever recorded. Inflows in 2003 so far are somewhat lower, so, yes, it is exceptional.
Peter Brown: Noting the earlier answers to Gerry Brownlee’s questions, does the Minister accept that right now there are employers, working people, and elderly retired folk on fixed incomes who are very worried about the current situation—indeed, are very worried about how the whole thing has been handled—and how will the Minister allay their fears without some sort of flippant answer?
Hon PETE HODGSON: I do not think that this is a flippant issue at all. Yes, I accept that we might well be in serious difficulty, and that we might end up with some social and economic disruption if we are not able to save sufficiently now. That is why the Government has asked the State sector to show leadership and get itself to a position of 15 percent savings in electricity, and why the electricity industry has asked New Zealanders as a whole to try to meet savings of 10 percent.
Hon Richard Prebble: Does the Minister recall telling a Dunedin election meeting in July last year that as a result of his energy reforms, he could assure the public that they would see no more newspaper headlines saying “Power cuts likely”; and given headlines like the one in this Tuesday’s New Zealand Herald: “Power cuts loom as lake levels slump … a worried watchdog lifts the electricity saving target to 10 percent”, will he now accept that his policies have failed; if he does, why does he not resign?
Mr SPEAKER: The question was too long, but the last part of the question was in order.
Hon PETE HODGSON: In answer to the first part of the question, I do not recall telling an election meeting in Dunedin what the member suggested I told it, but if he has any record of that, I would be very happy to see it.
Jeanette Fitzsimons: Given the fact that the State-owned enterprise, Genesis Energy, has not been running the Huntly power station at capacity over recent weeks and months—reportedly because it did not order enough coal soon enough—which has caused the lake levels to drop further, what steps is the Minister taking to hold Genesis accountable for its lack of social responsibility and contingency planning?
Hon PETE HODGSON: The member would not be surprised to know that we are in regular contact with Genesis Energy. However, it is fair to suggest that earlier this week there was quite a lot of shift in the fossil fuel situation that Genesis now faces. Specifically, some gas contracts involving Contact Energy have been brought forward, and my hope is that Huntly will now move to a higher rate of generation.
Gerry Brownlee: Noting that in the answer to Ross Robertson the Minister has now recognised he was wrong last October, and that we now do have an electricity crisis, will he be supporting suggestions from people like Roger Sutton, the chief executive of line company Orion New Zealand, who suggested that short power blackouts might be required to scare people into power savings, and suggestions from others of domestic water heating cuts of up to 18 hours a day; if so, why?
Hon PETE HODGSON: Water heating cuts are likely to begin quite soon, and initially they are likely to be quite short. In fact, they might already have begun in certain parts of the country—2 hours here, 4 hours there, and so on. If we are to do what we did in 1992 and move to the next step of 18-hour power cuts for water heaters, that will start to save electricity, because it will reduce the amount of hot water available to consumers. Blackouts, on the other hand, are very much a last resort.
Gerry Brownlee: Does the Minister intend fronting power-saving advertisements on television, as he did during the last power crisis?
Hon PETE HODGSON: The industry has some television advertisements beginning on Saturday or Sunday—I cannot remember which—that are not being fronted by me.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: Does the Minister stand by his statement on 5 October last year that Mr Gerry Brownlee was irresponsibly scaremongering when he said that if there were not more generation, we faced the risk of brownouts or blackouts; and now that he is wrong, will he apologise to National’s spokesperson on energy?
Hon PETE HODGSON: Around that time last year, Mr Brownlee put out a number of remarkable statements. In particular, my statement saying that he was scaremongering had nothing to do with generation—I have been misquoted again—but was actually to do with Transpower forecasting in its supply security notice, on which he said that some security problem at the top half of the South Island meant we would all be plunged into darkness. Transpower then went on TV3 and said that Mr Brownlee had it wrong.
Gerry Brownlee: I seek leave to table a report released today talking of rolling blackouts across Tauranga City during peak times, in which the Port of Tauranga says that without power for cranes, New Zealand’s largest export port would “grind to a standstill”.
Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: I seek leave to table the article published on 5 October in the Press of Christchurch, in which Mr Hodgson said that Mr Brownlee was scaremongering to warn of brownouts and blackouts.
Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that press release. Is there any objection? There is.
English as a Second Language—Government Services
5. Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY (NZ Labour) to the Minister for Ethnic Affairs: What measures has the Government taken to enable non - English speaking New Zealanders to access Government services more easily?
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister for Ethnic Affairs): Yesterday, I launched the pilot of the Government-funded telephone interpreting service called Language Line. The service will encompass 30 languages, and will be tested by six Government departments to enable better communication with non - English speaking New Zealanders.
Dr Ashraf Choudhary: What benefits will Language Line bring for ethnic New Zealanders, Government departments, and taxpayers?
Hon CHRIS CARTER: Non-English speakers and those with limited language will have access to core Government services such as being able to lodge calls to the police in their own language. This is a practical solution to improve the ability of non-English speakers to settle quickly into our society. It will also increase the efficiency of Government departments and minimise costly confusion and error.
Pansy Wong: Can he confirm that his new Language Line is contracted to an Australian company; if so, why does he have no confidence in New Zealand interpretation service providers?
Hon CHRIS CARTER: I am delighted to announce that 26 New Zealanders will be participating as translators, with another 200 applications for interpreter positions being processed.
Hon Richard Prebble: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This Minister has been delaying question time all week, because he will not answer a question. He was asked a simple question, which I still do not know the answer to. The question was whether it was an Australian company. Instead, he told us that it is employing New Zealanders. I suppose we are to take from that that it is an Aussie company, and we are cheap labour. Why can we not have the answer to the question?
Mr SPEAKER: I wonder whether the Minister was going to mention that particular point.
Hon CHRIS CARTER: Yes, I can confirm that an Australian-owned company was the most cost-effective. However, I am delighted to report that it is also a company that is committed to employing New Zealanders. [Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Please be seated. The Minister is answering, and he is entitled to give an answer. I want him to be able to do so. Some of the suggestions that are being made would mean that he would not be able to answer any questions.
Hon Bill English: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think you can take it from some of the disorder that the practice this Minister indulges in—and he is not the only one, but he is the one today—of changing his answer when he is asked to stand again and answer the question, and the second time giving the correct answer, holds the House in contempt. I hesitate to say that it invites disorder, but that is much more likely to happen. The Minister was asked a question directly, but did not answer it. He then stood again to answer the question, and this time he did answer it clearly, as he should have the first time. It puts all Opposition parties in a difficult position if they always have to ask two questions to get the answer that the Minister is clearly willing to give eventually, but will not give when the question is asked first up.
Mr SPEAKER: The Minister did answer the question, and it was not within the new supplementary question; it was on the same question. I insisted that he give that extra information.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Given that this country suffers now from serious shortages in health, education, infrastructure, and police funding, to name but a few, why on earth do we have—according to his own press statement—300,000 people in this country who now cannot speak English, or speak very little English at all; how did that happen, other than that he belongs to a Government that set out by its immigration policy to betray the interests of the New Zealand taxpayer?
Hon CHRIS CARTER: Many of the people who will be using this line became permanent residents of this country when that member was Deputy Prime Minister, and there were much lower English language criteria for immigration.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You would remember very well that in October 1995 the then National Party, because of pressure on immigration matters, changed the English language requirement. They complained about it, and now that he has changed it again—
Mr SPEAKER: That is a debating point.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: No, it is not. I am getting to my point of order.
Mr SPEAKER: The member had better get to it quickly, or he will be leaving.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: I will get to it when I feel like it, and it is when I feel like it. I need to explain to you what I mean.
Mr SPEAKER: Please be seated. Points of order must be made tersely. The member was not making his point of order tersely. He then compounded the matter by making a criticism. I am going to ask him to withdraw and apologise for that comment.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: What comment?
Mr SPEAKER: The one relating to me.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: I did not make a comment about you. I said I would answer it, and spend my own time doing that. If you do not like that, I apologise.
Mr SPEAKER: The member will withdraw and apologise for his comments.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Here is my point.
Mr SPEAKER: I want the member to withdraw and apologise.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: I withdraw and apologise. Here is my point. The Minister was asked about his responsibility. This Government has been in power now for 4 years, and that Minister gets up, makes a totally false statement, does not answer the questions, and you let him get away with it again.
Mr SPEAKER: No, I did not. I listened very carefully to what the Minister said. He addressed that particular question.
Taxation—Corporate Tax Rate
6. Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ) to the Minister of Finance: In light of accountancy firm KPMG’s survey of 68 countries that shows New Zealand’s corporate tax rate of 33c is above the OECD average of 31.68 percent, and that seven of the 30 OECD countries have cut their corporate tax rates over the last year, will the Government lower New Zealand’s corporate tax rate to help New Zealand compete in the global economy for investment?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance): No.
Hon Richard Prebble: When reaching the decision not to cut corporate tax rates, did the Minister take any note of the statement by KPMG senior tax partner Mr Sharma that New Zealand needed to offer a better tax rate to attract corporates from Australia: “To compete with countries outside its close geography, New Zealand should offer a rate closer to 20 percent.”?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: No. I note that Mr Sharma thought the tax rate before 1989 was 28 percent, which is a 20 percent error. I note also that the total corporate tax levels in New Zealand are low by OECD standards, because we do not have a range of other taxes on the corporate sector.
David Cunliffe: What are the Government’s major priorities in the area of company tax reform?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: We want to make it simpler, especially for small and medium sized enterprises. There is a big work programme under way, and people will have to wait approximately 2 weeks, minus about 10 minutes or so, to find out some of the details.
Dr Don Brash: What is the Minister’s response to KPMG’s senior tax partner Brahma Sharma’s comment that he has spoken to several clients over the past year, including one looking to establish a processing factory and another a regional distribution centre, who have taken their business to Australia after being disheartened by New Zealand’s corporate tax rate; and how does the Minister propose to encourage investment in New Zealand if we cannot at least create a somewhat level playing field by meeting Australia’s corporate tax rate?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: My response would be to send him a copy of the statement made by that member that reducing the corporate tax rate alone would not have any material beneficial effect on growth.
Gordon Copeland: Does the Minister agree that because New Zealand customarily runs interest rates higher than Australian and other overseas jurisdictions, the cost of capital is higher for New Zealand companies, and would not a cut in the company tax rate therefore be a good way to create a level playing field and restore their competitive position?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: As the head of, I think it is, Fletcher Building has pointed out—who is an Australian—the total burden of corporate tax in Australia is higher. Australia has payroll taxes and a range of other taxes, which corporates do not have to bear in New Zealand.
Gambling—Problem Gambling
7. SUE BRADFORD (Green) to the Minister of Internal Affairs: Has he received any advice about the extent and cause of the increase in problem gambling in 2002; if so, what is he planning to do about it?
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Minister of Internal Affairs): Yes, the Responsible Gambling Bill includes a number of measures to prevent and minimise problem gambling.
Sue Bradford: Given the dramatic 21 percent rise in problem gambling reported by the problem gambling committee just this week, will the Minister now amend the Responsible Gambling Bill to make it more responsible and to give local councils the right to control the activities of pokie venues in their communities, including pokie bars that were in place as of October 2001?
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS: The member knows that the Government has moved to make sure that local bodies have some part to play in the increase of gaming places in their own area.
Dianne Yates: What does the Responsible Gambling Bill do to prevent and minimise problem gambling?
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS: Among other things, the bill as reported back provides for an integrated problem gambling strategy and requires gaming-machine societies and casino operators to develop a policy of identifying problem gamblers.
Judith Collins: What advice, and from whom, has the Minister received on raising the problem gambling levy, or excise, and the effect of any such increase on the level of funds available to be distributed to sporting, community, and cultural groups via the gaming trusts?
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS: There is nothing in the Responsible Gambling Bill that deals with excise rates, and if the member wants those she should ask the appropriate Minister.
Judith Collins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The question was what advice, and from whom, has the Minister received about raising the gaming tax, and what is happening with it. In his answer he talked about what is in the Responsible Gambling Bill. Those are completely different issues.
Mr SPEAKER: No, the Minister addressed the question that was asked.
Marc Alexander: Is the Minister aware of any hard evidence or research that shows that an increase in the gaming levy will have any effect whatsoever on the rate of problem gambling?
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS: I think the member’s own leader, in an article in the Nor’West Newsbrief of 30 April, stated that making the current system more transparent would help in that matter.
Sue Bradford: Why does the Minister consider that local councils and local territorial authorities have only “some part to play” in determining exactly where and how many pokie-machines there should be in their own districts, given that places like Manukau City have enormous problems caused by the proliferation of pokies?
Mr SPEAKER: There is too much background noise.
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS: Local government authorities already have powers in their planning to limit them, and I think that what is in the bill goes a long way to minimising the harm of problem gambling in places like Manukau.
Sue Bradford: Does the Minister think that the pokie trusts are the right way to distribute the proceeds of problem gambling, given the 206 enforcement actions taken against them in the 8 months to February this year, which include that of the New Zealand Community Trust site in Newtown, where the manager controlled who could get the applications, and that of the Pub Charity site at Bowland, Porirua, where Pub Charity awarded a grant to Bowland itself for an oiling machine?
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS: I think the member must realise that what she has told us shows that the present system is working.
Electricity—Dobson Hydro Scheme
8. Hon Dr NICK SMITH (NZ National—Nelson) to the Minister of Conservation: Does he stand by his press statement of 29 April 2003 that the land to be swapped for the Dobson Dam hydro project is of “much lower value”; if so, how does he reconcile that statement with a Department of Conservation report on Mount Buckley that says the land has “nationally important conservation values”, “high landscape value”, is a “crucial wildlife habitat link” and recommends that all of the Mount Buckley block be added to the Crown estate?
Mr SPEAKER: I want there to be as little background noise as possible. I find it difficult to hear, too.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. There was a lot of background noise following that answer to question No. 7, because a lot of members here are totally confused as to what the Minister said. He said the present system is working; if it is, why are we changing it?
Mr SPEAKER: That was not the background noise I was referring to at all. The member knows that, too.
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Conservation): Yes, Mount Buckley is of lower value. The report the member is quoting from also states that the valley floor forest in the Card Creek ecological area is the richest known site for native birdlife in the whole of north Westland. Ecologists advise me that kahikatea forest is much scarcer than steep hill-country forest, as represented at Mount Buckley.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: How would the Minister know that was true when he has never visited the area concerned, and when the member of Parliament for West Coast - Tasman promised in October 2002 that he would be visiting that month?
Hon CHRIS CARTER: I am delighted to report that I will be visiting in a couple of weeks’ time.
Hon Damien O'Connor: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The member has stated that I promised—[Interruption] I would like that member to table—
Mr SPEAKER: That is a point of debate.
Nanaia Mahuta: Can the Minister explain why the Card Creek ecological area was extended in 1997?
Hon CHRIS CARTER: To quote from the Gazette notice, one of the key reasons for extending the reserve was to add to the size and long-term viability of the principal reserve as a significant wildlife habitat. The Minister of Conservation at the time, the Hon Dr Nick Smith, clearly appreciated the regionally unsurpassed wildlife values of that area.
Hon Ken Shirley: Does he accept what most of us know—that is, the Department of Conservation will claim that any piece of land has nationally important conservation values, has high landscape values, or is a crucial and unique wildlife link—and that that is why he as Minister is required to exercise discretionary powers and not just say no to every development proposal on Department of Conservation land; and when will he start acting as the Minister and not simply be advocate for the department in this Parliament?
Hon CHRIS CARTER: That question contained a number of erroneous implications, one of which is that the Department of Conservation says no to developments on conservation land. I am sure I do not need to remind the member that the biggest hydro development extension in recent history in this country was at Manapouri in the middle of a World Heritage site, and the Department of Conservation approved that development.
Gordon Copeland: Is it not undesirable for him in his role as advocate for the conservation estate to have the statutory power to veto completely uncontested proposals, like the Dobson scheme—a decision that other interests with different viewpoints cannot seek to appeal or arbitrate in any way—if not, why not?
Hon CHRIS CARTER: As Minister of Conservation I have a statutory duty to be an advocate for conservation values, but the Department of Conservation is a department that seeks dialogue with any applicant for development. Just recently I looked at the figures for mineral development under the Crown Minerals Act and the Conservation Act, and 80 percent of applications were approved.
Gerrard Eckhoff: What are the criteria for a nationally important conservation value when compared with a nationally important productive value, and why should conservation values take precedence, given much-improved scenario modelling for power shortages for the years ahead, regardless of rainfall?
Hon CHRIS CARTER: Successive Governments of this country, whether they be led by the Labour Party or the National Party, have endorsed conservation as a value that is important to all New Zealanders.
Gordon Copeland: How can the conflict between his desire to preserve the Dobson kahikatea trees and the needs of this nation for electricity generation for dry-year conditions be resolved in the national interest?
Hon CHRIS CARTER: I have already reported to this House that hydro electricity development projects have taken place on conservation land—for example, Manapouri. I could list a number of other examples, as well.
Stephen Franks: In view of the Minister’s response to my colleague Gerry Eckhoff, is there any level of social misery or economic hardship so serious that it could persuade him to swap the Department of Conservation gorse, broom, and kahikatea for the Dobson scheme; and if he thinks that the Conservation Act will not let him, what steps has he, or any other Minister, taken to change that law?
Hon CHRIS CARTER: The Card Creek ecological area was gazetted and extended—both times under National Governments—for very valid reasons, because it is an area of high ecological value.
Hon Richard Prebble: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That has to be trifling with the Chair.
Mr SPEAKER: The member was asked a more specific question. To develop it, perhaps he could add a couple of sentences to his answer.
Hon CHRIS CARTER: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I thought the question related to the Dobson dam issue. Could the member repeat the question?
Stephen Franks: Is there any level of social misery or economic hardship so serious that it would persuade him to swap the Department of Conservation gorse, broom, and kahikatea for the Dobson scheme; and if he thinks that the Conservation Act will not let him, what steps is he, or any other Minister, taking to change that law?
Hon CHRIS CARTER: It is my duty as the Minister of Conservation to be an advocate for the environment. Each application to develop a project on conservation land must be looked at on its own merits.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: I seek leave to table an article from the Nelson Evening Mail of 11 October in which Mr O’Connor states: “Mr Carter is due to visit the area before the end of the month”.
Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.
Music—Government Support
9. DARREN HUGHES (NZ Labour—Otaki) to the Associate Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage: What has the Government done to assist New Zealand music?
Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Associate Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage): We are assisting the development and growth of all forms of music in New Zealand, first of all by supporting New Zealand Music Month, which my T-shirt is a symbol of. But we are also working through the New Zealand Music Industry Commission, New Zealand On Air, Creative New Zealand, Te Māngai Pāho, the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra, Trade New Zealand, and Industry New Zealand, and we have funded initiatives like the World Series.
Darren Hughes: Following on from those Government initiatives, how has the New Zealand music industry developed in the past 5 years?
Hon JUDITH TIZARD: Five years ago the amount of the New Zealand music played across New Zealand radio was 5.27 percent, and sales of New Zealand music albums sat at about 4 percent of total sales. The latest figures from New Zealand On Air and the Recording Industry Association of New Zealand show that airplay is at 15.36 percent for the March 2000 quarter, and that sales have increased to 9 percent. We congratulate the New Zealand music industry month initiative, the New Zealand radio industry, and the New Zealand Music Industry Commission. This Government is supporting New Zealand Music Month, which is celebrating its third year this year.
Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have just been recalling in my mind, as I notice the Minister sporting the particular T-shirt that she is, that some months ago there was an outcry in this House from Labour Party members, who were very upset at a similar sort of logo being displayed in relation to Mr Keith Locke. I wonder whether, for the sake of consistency, the Minister might be asked to remove—[Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: I have been asked to do many things, but nothing like that.
Metiria Turei: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Although the Minister’s T-shirt is bright and very beautiful and has caused some enjoyment for members of this House, I consider that some of the comments made, which you may not have heard, were very sexist. I respectfully ask that you make some comment concerning the level of sexist reference in issues such as this.
Mr SPEAKER: Let me just say that I thought the Hon Judith Tizard handled the comments very well. However, I also agree with the member that we have to be careful about some of the comments that are made. A good joke is something that I crave to hear and very rarely do—over-the-top comments I more frequently hear.
Metiria Turei: What, if anything, is the Government doing to promote local initiatives, such as, the Dawn Raid Community Trust, which promotes education, employment, and social service opportunities for young Pacific peoples and teaches them about, and involves them directly in, the music industry?
Hon JUDITH TIZARD: There are a number of initiatives like the Dawn Raid Trust and the arc trust in Dunedin that are working very hard through Creative New Zealand and the Music Industry Commission to support the new music and arts curriculum in schools. They are also being supported through many innovative councils like Manukau City Council.
Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. While I am happy for the issue of sexist comments to be raised, I also wish to raise the issue of sexist behaviour in this House. I draw your attention to this fact. If my colleague Mr Keith Locke were to come into this House with the very same T-shirt he would be ruled out of order and asked to leave this Chamber. I am not asking that you do the same for Judith Tizard, but—
Mr SPEAKER: The member will please be seated. That is not a point of order. It is just wasting the time of the House.
Ron Mark: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I ask you to reconsider that comment in the light of the fact that we have a dress code, and that is merely what Mr—
Government Members: Aw!
Ron Mark: In silence! I was thrown out for that yesterday.
Mr SPEAKER: The member rightly made a comment and I will adhere to it strictly.
Ron Mark: Mr Hide, quite rightly, was just drawing your attention to the Standing Orders in respect of dress. In the light of the comment made by Metiria Turei, who drew attention to sexist comments, I feel that Mr Hide’s point of order is perfectly in order. There is a dress code that applies to the men, and I now ask you whether, by permitting women to come to the House in flamboyant promotional T-shirts, that now means that men, likewise, will be permitted to stand in this Chamber and take part in debate wearing T-shirts.
Nandor Tanczos: While I thoroughly endorse my colleague’s comments, I also support the comments made by Rodney Hide. I draw your attention to the fact that we have had a consultation of the male members of this House with regard to dress code, but if you recall, the question was about whether we were permitted to remove our jackets, and not whether we had to wear a collar and tie underneath them. Members have never actually been canvassed on that issue during the time that I have been a member.
Peter Brown: Yes, it has.
Nandor Tanczos: That is not how I recall it. I ask you to consider that, Mr Speaker.
Mr SPEAKER: I consulted male members about their dress code, which included a collar and tie and a jacket, at the beginning of this Parliament and the last Parliament. Those members made the decision by quite a high majority, and I accepted that quite clearly.
Hon Richard Prebble: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. With respect to the members who have raised the matter, they have not actually addressed themselves to the correct Standing Order. The correct Standing Order is Standing Order 109, “Visual aids”. There are a whole lot of Speakers’ rulings on the matter on page 48 of Speakers’Rulings. However, the relevant point is—which will cause both members some embarrassment—that such an aid may be displayed only when the member is speaking to the question before the House and must be removed from the Chamber at the conclusion of the member’s speech. If the two members want to come to the House with an aid of that sort, then they are bound by the Standing Orders the same as everyone else is.
Hon Dr Michael Cullen: I wonder what the people who are here for serious business think. What would their comments be on this continual adolescent behaviour from members opposite?
Mr SPEAKER: This week I have received a large number of comments from people outside this House complaining about the use of the point of order procedure. I uphold the right of members to raise points of order. I took seriously the point of order raised by the Hon Richard Prebble as he is a senior member of this House. I will reflect on it in the next little while.
Dail Jones: Bearing in mind the serious nature of this House, and the importance of Government members not asking Ministers patsy questions, and the need for this Minister to be original—
Mr SPEAKER: The member will come to the question. He should not have a long procession of comments.
Dail Jones: Is the Minister aware that she was asked an identical question on 5 September 2002, namely: “What steps has the Government taken to support the New Zealand music industry”, and for how long is this House to be subjected to this Minister having the same question asked of her, and this House having to put up with the same answer being given to it, at considerable expense?
Hon JUDITH TIZARD: The music industry is a serious industry with great export and great employment potential. That is why this Government, the radio industry, and the music industry are putting a great deal of money and effort into promoting the New Zealand Music Month. I also point out that all members have been advised of this, and I hope that I am doing my job to promote New Zealand industry, particularly the music industry.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Given her duty as Associate Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage, and having particular regard for culture and what that means, does she think it is fit for a Minister, and herself in particular, to come to this House as some sort of walking emblem on a day like this?
Hon JUDITH TIZARD: There is an ancient and honourable tradition of May Day being a day for political, social, and cultural symbols, and I am very happy to participate.
Te Māngai Pāho—Contract Policy
10. RODNEY HIDE (ACT NZ) to the Minister of Māori Affairs: Is it Te Māngai Pāho’s practice to pay out money without contracts in place; if so, why?
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Minister of Māori Affairs): My officials advise that, no, it is not Te Māngai Pāho’s normal practice to pay out money without contracts being in place. When that has occurred the late signing relates either to rollover contracts with longstanding parties or to contracts awaiting Te Māngai Pāho’s sign-off. In the latter case payment does not normally occur unless the contract has first been signed by the producers.
Rodney Hide: In that case has the Minister seen Te Māngai Pāho’s letter to Mana Māori Media Ltd dated 19 November 2002, stating: “The management and board of Te Māngai Pāho have become increasingly concerned that the draft contract arrangements have not been completed”, and that “Mana Māori Media Ltd have received five advanced payments each of $28,695.08 from July to November 2002. Your urgent assistance to this matter is required immediately.”, and can the Minister confirm that Mana Māori Media Ltd received $143,475.40 of taxpayers’ money with no contract, draft or otherwise, that nothing has been produced, and that that is literally money for nothing; is that the way Labour does business?
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: No, I have not seen the content of the letter and that is not how Labour does business.
Mahara Okeroa: When will the independent review of Te Māngai Pāho be completed?
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: The review is expected to be completed tomorrow and made available to the board on Monday or Tuesday.
Katherine Rich: In the light of the fact that Mana Māori Media has been awarded $344,000 excluding GST to produce a minimum of 10 hours of radio programming a year, does he think that a potential rate of $34,000 an hour for a radio programme is extravagant even by the standards of Te Māngai Pāho, and what is he going to do about it?
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: That is an operational matter, and I am not too sure of the hourly rates involved in this business.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can we conclude from his answer to Mr Hide that he was not aware of that letter, that he is heading a ministry that has no regard for him as Minister, and that it therefore denies him information that is essential for his proper performance in this House?
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: I am more than certain that the ministry is going along with me, and it is spending one of the better times it has ever had under a very good Minister.
Mr SPEAKER: I would now like the Minister, having said that, to address the particular question he was asked.
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: No.
Hon Richard Prebble: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think it is important that we get clarification from the Minister here. He appears to be saying to the House that even though he had a question on notice about a matter involving $143,000 of taxpayers’ money, his officials have never told him that that money has been paid over, that there is no contract, and that nothing has been delivered. That is what I understand him to be saying to the House.
Mr SPEAKER: No, the member has repeated the point. The Minister does not need to stand up, because he gave a direct answer: “No”. I could not ask for anything more than that. People ask for specific answers, and that was a specific answer.
Hon Ken Shirley: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You may not have heard it, but when the Minister gave his last reply there was a loud round of applause from the gallery. I think our Standing Orders are quite clear on that. I am not sure whether the Minister brought his cheer team here to the gallery—
Mr SPEAKER: No, I thank the member for raising that point. I heard noise coming from the gallery. I want to tell the people in the gallery that they are observers of our parliamentary democracy. They cannot participate, and that is a golden rule. We occasionally allow an exception to that at the end of a particular bill being passed, which we are having later today, but as far as ordinary question time is concerned there are only 120 people who can participate. I thank the member for drawing my attention to that.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I wonder whether you could get the Hansard when it is eventually produced, look at the answer that Mr Horomia gave, and tell me how it possibly related to my question. The answer “No” cannot stand as a meaningful answer at all.
Mr SPEAKER: No, the member is challenging my ruling. I deemed that reply to address the question; the answer certainly addressed the question.
Rodney Hide: How does this Minister justify to the taxpayers of New Zealand his pay and his position, when this House discovers that Te Māngai Pāho, which he is responsible for, has paid Mana Māori Media Ltd $143,475.40 without even a draft contract in place, nothing has been produced, and it takes the ACT party to bring that to this Minister’s attention—not the very officials who are supposed to be reporting to him?
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: That contract is one of several contracts. Hundreds of contracts are given out. I tell that member that my officials do a lot of good work in relation to informing me, and I do earn my pay.
Mr SPEAKER: I say to the people in the gallery that I do not want to have to ask them to leave. They are not to participate in proceedings.
Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek clarification, and I ask the Minister to consider very carefully his answer. He has just told this House that there is a contract, and that it is one of many contracts. The whole point of the question was that there is no contract. I would like that Minister to think seriously on his answer, because it would appear he has been misleading us.
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: Can I go through matters carefully. Firstly, it is an operational issue. Secondly, I have offered—[Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: I said there should be no comments on points of order. This is a point of order. The member is entitled to have his point of order heard in silence. The member has raised the point of order, and the Minister is speaking to it. The member must not interject, or he will go.
Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.
Mr SPEAKER: No. I am in the middle of hearing the Minister.
Rodney Hide: He has not said “Speaking to the point of order”. He has not called “Point of order”. We had this problem earlier this week. What is the Minister doing?
Mr SPEAKER: Mr Hide called for the point of order. The Hon Parekura Horomia can speak to it, and I have allowed him to do so.
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: Speaking to the point of order, I point out, firstly, earlier on in my reply I mentioned that it is an operational issue, and secondly, I do not know the detail of what that member is telling me and whether it is the truth. That is something I will find out about and relay back to the House.
Mr SPEAKER: Ruling on the point of order, I say that this is a debatable matter and we have already had the answer given to the question.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: When the Minister gave the last answer to Mr Hide and referred to contracts, what contracts was he referring to, and if they were to do with the absence of a contract, which Mr Hide mentioned in his primary question, how does his answer make any sense to anybody, including himself?
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: I was referring generally to all contracts.
Industry Training—Labour Party Manifesto
11. JILL PETTIS (NZ Labour—Whanganui) to the Associate Minister of Education (Tertiary Education): What steps is the Government taking to honour Labour’s manifesto commitment to have 250,000 New Zealanders involved in industry training by 2007?
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Associate Minister of Education (Tertiary Education)): Today the Government has announced an $85 million Budget 2003 package to take the number of workers involved in industry training during 2005 to 150,000. This is a significant step towards the Labour-Progressive goal of having a quarter of a million New Zealanders involved in industry training by 2007. Business New Zealand has welcomed the package, and the Council of Trade Unions has called it “great news for workers”.
Jill Pettis: Can the Minister advise the House further about initiatives undertaken to raise the profile of industry training within New Zealand so that we may better meet those targets?
Hon STEVE MAHAREY: One crucial initiative is the partnership that has been formed between the Government, the Council of Trade Unions, and Business New Zealand. Together we will work on an $800,000 campaign, announced today, to encourage more enterprises to join the industry training programme, enabling them to produce more profitable goods and more profitable services.
Simon Power: How can the Minister claim his announcement today as a success, when the funding may fall from $837.38 per trainee in 2003 to $744.67 per trainee in 2005?
Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I am not sure what the member is referring to, because the standard measure of the usual form of payment for trainees during a year runs from $1,700, I think from memory, to about $3,500.
Nandor Tanczos: Can the Minister confirm that unions will be represented in the governance of industry training organisations?
Hon STEVE MAHAREY: We reviewed the entire industry training area last year and a document was released at that time. Legislation—the Tertiary Education Reform Bill—will ensure that will happen.
Hon Matt Robson: What is the Government doing to investigate the future needs of the workforce for industry training?
Hon STEVE MAHAREY: We have committed a $50,000 sum to an initiative—which the Progressives, I am pleased to say, are enthusiastically supportive of—to develop a proposal for a national centre for education and research in the vocational area. If that proves to be a worthwhile initiative, we will then fund the establishment of such a centre.
Bernie Ogilvy: Is he concerned that the measures announced today to increase the level of industry training may be mitigated by the Minimum Wage Amendment Bill if it has the effect of causing the loss of jobs over time, as suggested, I notice, in the explanatory note on the bill?
Hon STEVE MAHAREY: No, I am not. The evidence worldwide is that as long as the minimum wage is set at a level that is commensurate with the ability of employers to pay, there is no loss of employment.
Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome—Notifications
12. Dr LYNDA SCOTT (NZ National—Kaikoura) to the Minister of Health: Have eight cases of Sars been reported to the Ministry of Health under the notifiable diseases provisions of the Health Act 1956; if so, why has only one been reported to the World Health Organization?
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Health): Eight suspected cases were reported to the Ministry of Health under the Health Act. Those not reported to the World Health Organization were investigated, and their symptoms excluded them from being probable severe acute respiratory syndrome (Sars) cases. That is called diagnosis by exclusion. It is the approach recommended by the World Health Organization in the absence of a specific diagnostic test.
Dr Lynda Scott: What has changed between yesterday, when we had only one Sars case, and today, when the chairman of the Ministry of Health’s Sars technical advisory group, Dr Lance Jennings, said several of the cases reported since March are probably Sars cases, and how is that any different from the Chinese Minister of Health suppressing information on the number of cases?
Hon ANNETTE KING: In New Zealand we use a broad definition in defining Sars for the purpose of reporting to the Ministry of Health, which is useful in protecting New Zealanders from Sars because it picks up all possible cases. It is then the medical officer of health, the physician who is attending the person, and the technical advisory group led by Dr Lance Jennings who determine whether the cases are Sars. That technical advisory group has deemed that the cases that have come before it, other than the one that we have reported, were not probable cases of Sars.
Dave Hereora: Who makes the decision on whether Sars cases are reported to the World Health Organization?
Hon ANNETTE KING: The independent Sars technical advisory group makes the decision, in consultation with the treating physician and the medical officer of health. That group is made up of 15 eminent New Zealand specialists and experts. They make the decision independently. Not one case goes to the Minister of Heath. I have absolutely nothing to do with the decision, but I have to say that the 15 experts, led by Dr Lance Jennings, include people like Professor Keith Grimwood, Dr Rosemary Ikram, and Associate Professor Stephen Chambers. I could go on. I have never received any information from that group other than what has been made available to the public. [Interruption] I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Tony Ryall is insinuating that I was told information. That is not correct. He is accusing me of not telling the truth. That is not correct.
Mr SPEAKER: The member should not have been interjecting. He was interjecting continually. I called for order once, but if the member assures me that he was not accusing the Minister of—[Interruption] Was the member accusing the Minister of not telling the truth?
Hon Tony Ryall: Yes, I was, and I withdraw and apologise.
Sue Kedgley: Given the legal responsibility under the Health and Safety in Employment Act to provide employees with equipment necessary to protect them, can the Minister confirm whether all front-line staff in hospitals are equipped with the masks that the World Health Organization says are essential to protect staff in close contact with Sars patients, which are the masks that provide 99 percent particulate filtration, not the ordinary N95 masks that were circulated recently?
Hon ANNETTE KING: The member was at a briefing on Monday at which the Ministry of Health informed the members who were there that the World Health Organization recommendation was an N95 mask. They had been provided right around New Zealand to front-line staff. On that day—in fact, on the evening before—the World Health Organization updated its quality of mask to an N100. The member was informed of that at that stage. While there are some N100s in New Zealand, there are not stocks for everyone. People at this stage have N95s, and the Ministry of Health is acquiring the N100s as fast as possible. That information came only 2 days ago.
Dr Lynda Scott: As it was Dr Lance Jennings who actually said that several of the cases reported since March are probably Sars cases, when did she know that several of the eight notified cases were probable Sars cases, and why has the public not been informed until now?
Hon ANNETTE KING: I have not to this day been advised that there are eight probable Sars cases, because the decision on whether a case is Sars is not made by me or the Ministry of Health but by the committee members themselves. They decide whether it meets the criteria. If there were other cases I am sure that Dr Lance Jennings, a man of integrity, would have reported them. He has no reason not to, because it is on the heads of committee members that the decision is made. They have nothing to hide.
Dr Lynda Scott: Does she still consider the response to the Hawke’s Bay case as excellent, in the light of the facts that the contacts who travelled to China with that person have not all been contacted since returning to New Zealand and that at least one person has continued to travel around New Zealand, unaware of the risks—a person whose daughter-in-law has stated she is appalled by the way that is being handled?
Hon ANNETTE KING: I have been advised that one woman from that group went to Waiheke Island. Although she did not speak to the health officials herself, she spoke through another person and was given all the information.
Gerry Brownlee: I seek leave, if appropriate, for the Hansard record of the Minister of Health’s answers to question No. 12 today to be made available, ideally, within the hour. We know we normally have the Hansard record by 5.30 or 6 o’clock, but if we could have that part a little earlier that would be very helpful.
Mr SPEAKER: I am pleased to inform the member it will be on the website by about 5.30 p.m. That has been so for all this session. Members are always at liberty to approach the Minister in that way, but the answers will be on the website by about 5.30 p.m. It has to be sent and go through the usual processes. The time for questions has expired. I call on Government order of the day.
Question No. 1 to Member
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.
Mr SPEAKER: I am sorry; I was going to call questions to members, but, of course, Mr Dunne is not here. As soon as he is here, that will be able to be done.
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE: I do raise this matter with you. I put down this question yesterday. We know, as someone has just said this to me, that Mr Dunne was at the select committee today. I have had a look at the Standing Orders to see whether one can—what is the word—transfer a question to another member, and, of course, one can with regard to Ministers, but when I look at the Standing Orders, it does not appear that one can do so in the case of a question to a member. But that raises an interesting situation. This is no doubt an embarrassing question for Mr Dunne, but I have put it down 2 days in a row, and surely he has an obligation to this House to come here, front up, and tell the House why a petition signed by 25 percent of all New Zealand Chinese has not actually been considered, especially since he is on record as saying we need 5 million New Zealanders in the country. One would have thought that he would actually turn up. But are you saying that Mr Dunne can in fact, by absenting himself from the House every day, make sure that he never has to answer this question?
Mr SPEAKER: I refer the member to Speaker’s ruling 127/4—a ruling from Speaker Harrison in 1978—that Standing Order 371 “does not allow another member to answer a question on behalf of a member of whom the question is asked.” Therefore, the deputy chairperson of the committee cannot do it. But I think that the member has raised a very valid point of order. I will have a look at that over the weekend, and I will ensure that he gets an answer on Tuesday in some way.
GORDON COPELAND (Whip—United Future): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. In your deliberations over the weekend, I ask that you possibly weigh in the balance the urgency related to this matter. I think that Peter Dunne has acted in good faith, and that there is a question to be considered about whether the delay of one more day is, in terms of this petition—
Mr SPEAKER: No, I am not going to do that. I have told Mr Prebble that I will be looking at this matter, and I do regard it as important. It is one of those things that is a new point of order and something we have not struck before. I think we therefore have to deal with it on the spot.
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am confident I can suggest to you that given we now have elected deputy chairs of select committees, which we did not have in the past, it would seem to me one possible suggestion is that the deputy chair can answer on behalf of the chair—provided, of course, the deputy chair has been given the necessary information.
Mr SPEAKER: That is a very good issue for the Standing Orders Committee to consider, but, unfortunately, that is not the current rule. However, I will look at this issue over the weekend for the member.
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ): I would like to say to the House that that is an interesting suggestion, but the deputy chairman is actually Mr Graham Kelly who, we all know, is ill. I am not criticising him in any way, but I seek leave for any member of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee—because the question is to the committee—to tell the House the answer to my question.
Mr SPEAKER: Let us put it this way: I would be reluctant to do that today because no other member of the committee was aware that that question would be asked in that way, and, therefore probably would not have the information, so would be unable to answer. But does the member want leave to be put today?
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ): I do. I think members of the committee must know the answer. I seek leave for any member of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee to answer my question.
Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is.
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I want to draw to the attention of the House the fact that the ACT party does not have a member on that select committee, and, because Government members are now denying leave, it means my party does not know what is happening at that committee. I regard that as thoroughly unparliamentary.
Mr SPEAKER: That is not a point of order. That is a comment made by the member.
Bills
Ngati Ruanui Claims Settlement Bill
Third Reading
Hon MARGARET WILSON (Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): I move, That the Ngati Ruanui Claims Settlement Bill be now read a third time. Today is a special day for the people of Ngāti Ruanui and for the Crown, marking as it does a further step in the journey towards reconciliation. It will enable new pathways to be forged, enhancing Ngāti Ruanui’s economic, social, and cultural well-being. It will help foster more effective and durable relationships between Ngāti Ruanui and the Crown—relationships based on goodwill and trust. This bill will bring an end to the longstanding and significant grievances of Ngāti Ruanui, and will settle all the historical treaty claims of Ngāti Ruanui.
The historical background to the claims makes sober reading. It provides an account of New Zealand’s history that saw Ngāti Ruanui faithful to the spirit of the treaty partnership, and seeking to build strong relationships based on mutual respect and trust. But the Crown did not act like that in return. This bill contains a formal apology to Ngāti Ruanui for the breaches of the treaty acknowledged by the Crown, which I will shortly read out publicly at Pariroa Pa.
Ngāti Ruanui has been in direct negotiations with the Crown since April 1998, when a deed of mandate was recognised. A heads of agreement, recording agreement on the main components of a settlement, was signed in September 1999. A deed of settlement—the formal Crown offer to Ngāti Ruanui to settle the claims under the treaty—was then developed by the Crown and the Ngāti Ruanui negotiators. The deed was signed on 12 May 2001, and subsequently ratified by a significant majority of the people.
This Government is fully committed to progressing the settlement of valid historical treaty claims. I know that some members of Parliament and some among the public like to criticise the current treaty settlement process. Those people forget that it is a process involving two parties that seeks to restore—and in some cases to establish—a set of relationships, and to resolve all the historical treaty claims of a group of people. This Government has streamlined the treaty settlement process and better aligned it with the Waitangi Tribunal’s new case-management approach. As a result, we are now seeing a comprehensive settlement achieved every 6 months.
The Crown has withstood challenges in the Waitangi Tribunal and in the courts concerning its policy approach to settlements. This settlement was itself inquired into by both the tribunal and the courts, and I am pleased to note that on the whole those inquiries found in favour of the Ngāti Ruanui settlement proceeding. We should all be reassured by the fact that the Crown is certain of the validity of the claims settled by this bill, and has negotiated with the interests of all citizens in mind.
It remains for me to acknowledge all of those from Ngāti Ruanui and the Crown who, over so many long and arduous years, have given their all to enable us to arrive at this day. Their passion, commitment, and can-do attitude have greatly assisted in this process. There are so many of them who deserve acknowledgment. They know who they are, and they are entitled to feel a tremendous sense of satisfaction for their achievements. I know that this process has been daunting, it has been arduous, and it has taken its toll.
In particular, I acknowledge Pat Heremia, the chief negotiator for the settlement of the historical claims of Ngāti Ruanui, Tangahoe, and Pakakohi. I know that Pat has worked extremely hard to bring about this day. His zest, commitment, and understanding of things Māori and of Crown processes greatly assisted in this settlement. We acknowledge them all, Pat.
I would encourage all New Zealanders to read the historical account outlined in the Ngāti Ruanui deed of settlement. It is a grisly history, of which some people are aware, but unfortunately, many more are not. It is a history that we must all be familiar with so that we can move forward together.
I wish the people of Ngāti Ruanui, Tangahoe, and Pakakohi—their ancestors, their elders, their descendants, and their negotiating team—well for the future, whatever it may hold. Their journey ahead looks extremely bright, and I wish them well in their endeavours. The dignity, wisdom, and judgment they demonstrated in the settlement process will greatly assist on the pathways opening ahead. The enhancement of their cultural, social, and economic development awaits them. I commend this bill to the House.
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (NZ National): Tēnā tātou katoa. Ngā mihi ki a koutou ki te maunga o Taranaki, mai Tongariro, te whare o te Heuheu, tēnā koutou. E mihi nui ki a koutou i tēnei rangi, he rangi nui tēnei. Nō reira, ki a tātou katoa, tēnā tātou katoa.
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.]
[Greetings to us all. Greetings from the mountain of Tongariro and the household of te Heuheu to you the mountain of Taranaki. Greetings to you on this great occasion. To us all here, greetings to us all.]
I am pleased to support the third reading of the Ngati Ruanui Claims Settlement Bill. As a Māori New Zealander of Tuwharetoa, Te Arawa, Tūhoe, and Ngāti Awa descent, I congratulate Ngāti Ruanui, in particular, and the Government on concluding this settlement of the historical grievances that give rise to the settlement bill now before us, and which is about to be passed into law by this Parliament. I do that to emphasise the significance of the near-universal parliamentary support for this settlement, but more so for the signal it sends of the maturing of our nation, Aotearoa New Zealand.
In that respect, the Crown can—through the Government of the day, and on behalf of all New Zealanders—admit to injustice and wrongdoing, and move to make reparation for that. In that respect, Māori claimants—in this case, Ngāti Ruanui—are acknowledged and relieved of a grievance long held and passed on through generations from the 1860s to today, grievances that have signified for them that the British justice that they signed up for in 1840 was illusory only. As events unfolded, it appeared that that justice was not to apply to them. For far too long, they have been at the receiving end of an inequality of citizenship, and that is a total injustice. For the circumstances that give rise to most, if not all, historic grievances are about the application of a different standard of citizenship.
In the case of Ngāti Ruanui, that included being imprisoned without trial and being subject to unlawful confiscations and alienations. That happened 160-odd years ago, but more recently, other injustices have occurred that in a sense have given iwi to think that British justice was never meant for them. These settlements provide the opportunity for the Crown and iwi to reconcile a past that has represented a blight on our democratic tradition, for the honour of the Crown to be restored, and for Māori New Zealanders to move forward with all others in the spirit of shared nationhood. Make no mistake; Māori understand what that means. For too long, and over the last 100 years, they have given more than their share in theatres of war around the world. In the week where we have just celebrated Anzac Day, Māori know only too well what the responsibilities of citizenship are.
I wish to make two further points. The settlement model developed by National and continued by Labour is not, and probably could never be, the perfect model. As we have learnt over the last 15 years, untangling 163 years of history is not always easy, and making amends is even more complicated than we could ever have imagined. But to their credit, a majority of New Zealanders who believe in the notion of a fair go have enabled us to move forward, and to the best of the Crown’s ability. On the basis of an enormous measure of good faith on the part of both iwi Māori and the Crown, we are working our way through those matters. There is certainly no intention to create further injustice, and while that statement may provide cold comfort for Pakakohi and Tangahoe, I hope that they will in time come to accept that their inclusion in this settlement has been done with the best of intentions and on the best advice available.
I ask that those responsible for the management of this settlement work hard to unite all of Ngāti Ruanui so that in time Pakakohi and Tangahoe will come to see that this settlement is theirs, as well.
Historic settlements are only a beginning. Essentially, they take us back to the more or less even playing field supposedly existing in 1840—two peoples of vastly different cultures giving certain undertakings to each other, in order to go forward together to build one nation. That was the finest of intentions, and I am proud of our antecedents. If the treaty’s purpose was only to put right things that would go wrong subsequently, then we are attributing to our British antecedents a deception of the most significant magnitude, and to our Māori antecedents a lack of either the wit or understanding to fathom what was happening to them. I reject that, for both the Crown and Māori.
The ongoing meaning of the treaty in contemporary New Zealand—because it is ongoing—is being worked through, and the last 15 years has seen us as a nation doing that. If we proceed on the basis that we are one nation, many peoples, but with shared values, then with visionary leadership, we will forge our future together—one based on mutual trust, mutual obligations, and, as I say, shared values. The treaty remains at the heart of our constitution, and it presents a challenge to all of us as we go forward to work our way through it.
I want to pay a special tribute to Sir Doug Graham. Under the leadership of the National Party in the 1990s, he worked very hard to start the negotiations with the Taranaki people. This is the first of those historic settlements to come to this House, and I think that is reason for Parliament to be very pleased that it has seen its passage into law. Sir Doug Graham brought to that process a generosity of spirit and compassion, which remains his greatest legacy—not just to this Parliament, but to this country.
I join with the Minister today and wish Ngāti Ruanui the best for the future. I urge all members to do as we all say we will do, and that when the historic grievances have been resolved and we have reconciled our past, we as Māori will move forward. There are a great many things happening among Māori today that we all have reason to be proud of. In many places, Māori are already demonstrating their enterprising and adventurous character—those things that were all so evident, along with a great many other things, in 1840, and that now have the chance to flourish and bloom.
Lastly, I want to acknowledge New Zealanders. We are a small country, but we have a great country. I, for one, would not want to live anywhere else. I am proud of New Zealanders, and I am proud of a country that moves to address these historic grievances. In a sense, we stand alone in the world in doing that. This is our chance to show that we can modify our democratic traditions to accommodate those things that indigenous peoples value, and to accommodate the increasing diversity of our nation. I think we should all take a bow. I am still waiting for those who might oppose the legislation to come up with a better model, but in time I am sure that we will all be proud of what we are doing here today. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.
Hon TARIANA TURIA (Associate Minister of Māori Affairs (Social Development)): Ngāti Ruanui e noho nei ki te whakamana i te kaupapa o tēnei rā, tēnā koutou. Ka nui te tangi ki a koutou e whawhai tonu ana mō ēnei take, tēnā koutou.
[Greetings to you Ngāti Ruanui who remain here to empower the bill. We grieve for you, the ones who continue to fight on these matters.]
“The whole history of Government dealings with Māori of Taranaki has been the antithesis to that envisaged by the Treaty of Waitangi.” That is a direct quote from the Waitangi Tribunal’s report on the Taranaki claims. The tribunal continued: “Since the whole of lands of most hapū were taken during the war, then by any standards of fairness and justice the post-war relief had properly to be swift and clement. In fact, for over a decade Māori did not know what lands, if any, would be theirs, while that beneath their feet was continually being allocated to settlers. Even Māori who had not fought, or had fought, with the Government, and whose lands should never have been touched in the first instance, lost everything. They were left not knowing what would be returned, and never recovered more than a fraction which was theirs.”
The passage of a bill such as this brings mixed emotions. There is sorrow at the tragic history, which is summarised in the provisions of this bill and engraved on the hearts and minds of the people who have suffered for so long. There is relief that we have reached a significant milestone in the long and arduous journey towards settlement of historical injustices. There is also excitement at the prospect that the settlement will open up new opportunities for the people of Ngāti Ruanui, and the nation will be able to share in their successes and achievements.
There is also trepidation and anxiety. The Crown and Ngāti Ruanui do not know what the future holds. It is the resolution of the injustices for Ngāti Ruanui, Pakakohi, and Tangahoe that will remind us, and continue to inform us, of a shameful chapter in our shared history—not the passing of this bill. The passing of this bill is but one step along the journey.
The treaty claims process allows tangata whenua and the Crown to restore their treaty relationships. It is not a mechanism to consign our history to dim and dusty archives, never to be seen again. We must acknowledge that this legislation will not settle all the issues that Ngāti Ruanui faces. What this bill can do is establish the basis for Ngāti Ruanui, Pakakohi, Tangahoe, and the Crown to work together from now on in trust and in good faith, with honour and respect, on matters of concern as they arise.
This bill, and the report of the Māori Affairs Committee, signal that the claims process has brought serious issues to the surface, which are not yet resolved. I refer to the inclusion of Pakakohi and Tangahoe in the Ngāti Ruanui settlement. I remind the House that the Waitangi Tribunal recommended that discussions between the parties continue so as to ensure the distinctiveness of Tangahoe and Pakakohi within the settlement and the post-settlement Government entity. The select committee reported: “We understand that a small number of people identify exclusively as Tangahoe and Pakakohi and assert they were separate iwi, and that Ngāti Ruanui was ‘invented’ by the Crown in the 1860s. We also understand that some members of Pakakohi and Tangahoe feel that a further breach of the treaty will occur if they are included in the bill under the collective definition of Ngāti Ruanui.” The treaty settlement process and Crown policy encourage officials and Ministers to deal with tangata whenua organisations that claim to represent large groupings of peoples. The tragedy about the claims process is there will always be whānau who feel disenfranchised. The process should not create further injustice.
This bill represents the considered view of the Crown, reached in good faith and supported by the majority of Ngāti Ruanui. However, we must acknowledge there is still an issue of representation for the people themselves to address. In Judge Wainwright’s memorandum and directions on Ngāti Ruanui’s deed of settlement, she stated: “It will sometimes be incumbent on the Crown to confront the reality of the breakdown of relationships within tribal groups.” This bill has not settled it, and we should not try to sweep the matter under the carpet. Tribal representation and mandate are complex issues. In the end, they can only be resolved by the people themselves. It will take time for healing and restoration; time for us to focus on what unites us, rather than what divides us. We must place our confidence in the people’s indigenous processes of conflict resolution. The Crown also has a duty to reach settlements. Judge Wainwright noted that the Crown might support the people by providing skilled mediators or resources to assist them to work through their differences, and we should remember that.
Finally, some members of this House have suggested that the Treaty of Waitangi creates property rights for tangata whenua that other New Zealanders do not have. That is patently incorrect. As the Waitangi Tribunal has found, it was our people who have been deprived of their property rights, which were specifically identified in the treaty. They also lost any real opportunities for their development. No one knows that better than Ngāti Ruanui, Pakakohi and Tangahoe. Their lands are now in the hands of others, who have become extremely wealthy as a result.
The Minister has outlined the value of the settlement in monetary terms, but this is about much more than money. What price can we put on the communities demolished, the lives lost, the hopes dashed, and the culture destroyed? Even the assets returned to Ngāti Ruanui are but a tiny proportion of what they lost. If tangata whenua were to enjoy proper protection of their property rights, this settlement would be worth considerably more than $41 million. The reality is that the shortfall—the difference between what was taken and what can be returned to Ngāti Ruanui—represents a massive contribution by Ngāti Ruanui to the national economy, from which every member of this House and the nation have benefited. Ka nui te mihi ki a koutou, Ngāti Ruanui. Ngā mihi aroha, ngā mihi mahana ki a koutou, nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.
[We acknowledge you greatly, Ngāti Ruanui. Kind and warm regards to you. Greetings to you, greetings to you, and greetings to us all.]
BILL GUDGEON (NZ First): Ā, ki a koutou Ngāti Ruanui, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou. Ko Hikurangi tēnei e mihi atu ki a koutou. Nō reira, nau mai, haere mai, haere mai. I say to Ngāti Ruanui: “Welcome, welcome, welcome. This is Hikurangi speaking to you.”
New Zealand First is satisfied that the issues raised in the submissions have been considered comprehensively by the Crown and the tribunal, and, in some cases, in the High Court. We note also that, when considered by the High Court, that tribunal found on the whole in favour of the settlement proceeding. Based on material received prior to and during the course of negotiations, the Crown understands that Ngāti Ruanui is one of eight iwi of Taranaki. It is generally recognised as such, and is located in South Taranaki. On these findings and on its deed of mandate recognition, which was open and transparent and had widespread support from the claimant community, New Zealand First supports Ngāti Ruanui in its claim to be settled.
I am thinking about the time not too many years ago when Government officials attended a hui in Ruatoria with Ngāti Porou, and the presiding official officially handed back Hikurangi Mountain to Ngāti Porou. One of our kaumātua got up and said: “I did not know it was taken away.” However, we have moved on since then, and I say to Ngāti Ruanui that I hope they will continue to do that very thing amongst their people in their own time.
I will not harp on about the disputes of the past, because there have been many of those throughout the country, but I hasten to recognise the work of those responsible for bringing this bill to the House today. Many people have been responsible for that, and I do not think it would be to the benefit of everyone who is here, nor especially to the whānau back in Taranaki, to name some. I say to Ngāti Ruanui that everybody has felt those feelings ever since their whenua was taken. When I think of some of my ancestors’ involvement, kāore au e whakamā ki te whakaputa i ēnei kōhimu i mua i a koutou: I am not ashamed to allow Ngāti Ruanui to hear some of the things relating to my people and to what they were involved in. I te taha o taku Pākehā taha, koia tēnei o ngā tangata i konā: Ngāti Ruanui will recognise the name on my Pākehā side. One of my ancestors was involved there. But I must also add that he had no choice in what he had to do; he disagreed with the people who gave him the orders. Kei a au ngā kōrero i roto i tōna pukapuka; nō reira ki a koutou, ngā mihi nui ki a koutou.
[I have the information in this book; so we acknowledge you greatly.]
Ki a koutou, Ngāti Ruanui, i heke mai e ngā kawaitanga o ngā rangatira: to those of Ngāti Ruanui who are descended from the chiefly lines of that people, I say tēnā koutou, tēna koutou, greetings to you all. Kua whiti te ra, i runga i a koutou i tēnei ra: the sun has risen on Ngāti Ruanui today, ahakoa he aha te roa e tatari ana mai koutou kia whakamana tēnei rā: even though it has been a long time and a long wait for the mana to be returned to Ngāti Ruanui today. But I encourage Ngāti Ruanui to look to its future and to put in place the leadership that will enhance it again as a people, kia puāwai anō koutou: so that it will bloom once more. I runga i ngā kōrero o rātou mā, ngā kōrero nō mai rā anō, kia noho tahi tātou, kia noho tahi tātou i runga i te humārie: the teachings of our people ever since, have been that we stay together, and remain humble; ā, tēnā, ka manaakitia mai tātou e te Atua: if we do that, the Lord will bless us.
My challenge to Ngāti Ruanui today is this. We have a world out there that is our oyster. How Ngāti Ruanui handles its future will depend on what it does with it. And I tell Ngāti Ruanui not to forget other people—its next-door neighbours, te iwi Pākehā; nā, me noho tahi tātou i roto i tēnei o tātou whenua: it does not matter how we think or what we are; we need to realise that we are still one people, even though our cultures and languages may differ. Kia noho pēnei tātou—when we do live like that—ka rongo koe i te reka: then we will taste the sweetness of what this land is all about.
Nō reira, e hoa ma ngā iwi Pākehā kei waenganui i a tātou i tēnei rā ko koutou ngā whanaunga, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, kia ora tātou katoa.
[Therefore friends, the Pākehā people in our midst today, you are our relatives: greetings to you, greetings to you, and greetings to us all.]
MURRAY SMITH (United Future): I will begin by recognising and welcoming the people of Ngāti Ruanui who are here today, as well as the people of Tangahoe and Pakakohi. Kia ora tātou. I am very aware that, apart from the Minister, I am the first member of Ngāti Pākehā to speak to this bill today, and that my te reo ability is very modest, paling into insignificance in comparison with those who have spoken before me.
Nevertheless, I trace my ancestry back to the Ngāti Ruanui whenua in South Taranaki, because my great-great-grandparents, the Luty family, farmed in that area. My grandparents and my mother grew up in Wanganui, and I therefore have an identity with the land there. However, as Pākehā settlers they were perhaps on the other side of the conflict. I do not know what role they played in the Crown’s actions and misdeeds in that area, but I do know that they settled on the land at Maxwell, and I know that Maxwell was very infamously named after the leader of a colonial militia who, on 27 November 1868, led a party against Ngā Rauru and Taranaki iwi children at Handley’s woolshed, near Waitotara. There, in an unprovoked attack, that militia fired on, chased, and attacked with sabres children, the eldest of whom was 10 years old, wounding and killing them. I think, given that it was a totally unprovoked attack, and given the things that happened there, the naming of the town of Maxwell after such a person was reprehensible. I would strongly support the moves that I know there are among some people to rename that town. I want to apologise on behalf of my tūpuna and whānau for any actions they took that contributed to the problems caused by the Crown in respect of Ngāti Ruanui’s land, and for the demise of the land and the mana of Ngāti Ruanui.
United Future New Zealand is delighted to see the third reading of this bill today. I want to bring to the House’s attention that we pushed the Government hard to bring the second reading and the Committee stage into urgency, so that we could reach the position we are now in of getting this bill resolved and passed as soon as possible. I am very, very pleased to see that finally we have reached that stage. I note that the first reading of the bill was in October 2002. Despite what the Minister said, I think that it has taken too long for this legislation to pass through the House, that grievance settlements are too slow, and that the Office of Treaty Settlements and the Waitangi Tribunal are under-resourced.
For Ngāti Ruanui, this is a time of celebration. However, it is hard to celebrate when one is obtaining something one has always been entitled to, and when the compensation has been extremely conservative. Given that Māori at one stage owned 90 percent of the land in New Zealand, settlements of restitution for iwi and hapū that are far, far short of that indicate the generosity of spirit that there is among Māori people.
The history of this settlement bears the hallmarks that many, many claims bear. We know that Ngāti Ruanui was a prosperous and economically successful iwi in the 1840s and 1850s, and we are told that it traded extensively with European settlements and overseas traders. Following the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi, Ngāti Ruanui consistently opposed the sale of Māori land in Taranaki, and by the mid-1860s Ngāti Ruanui and other iwi of Taranaki and elsewhere had entered into a contract to oppose further land sales. But, as so often seems to have happened to the Māori people, the Crown proclaimed martial law throughout Taranaki on 22 February 1860, in response to Māori opposition to the Crown’s attempts to acquire the Pekapeka block at Waitara. The Taranaki wars of 1860-61 and 1863-69 followed, and we are told that Ngāti Ruanui suffered much loss of life and property, let alone mana, during those wars. So there was tremendous suffering. The people were oppressed and the land was confiscated. We are also aware of the commendable involvement of Ngāti Ruanui people at Parihaka; those events are well recorded.
I note that a compensation court was set up under the New Zealand Settlements Act in 1863, but in order to qualify, Māori had to prove that, firstly, they had an interest in the land, and, secondly, they had been loyal to the Crown, without which they would not get compensation. Almost all of Ngāti Ruanui were rejected. Only 40 out of 997 of them were awarded a full share of entitlement. But, in fact, even then none of the awards were properly implemented.
I note that the Green Party is opposed to settlements such as this one with Ngāti Ruanui, on the basis that they are full and final settlements. However, the Crown’s limitation on the ability to provide complete compensation is obviously a factor that has to be taken into account. I have some sympathy with the situation that the Greens are talking about, and I also have some sympathy with Tangahoe and Pakakohi, who are aggrieved at the way they have been included in the settlement process. However, from my perspective as Ngāti Pākehā, that is an issue between Māori and Māori, and I have great reservations about the Crown interfering in sorting out problems between Māori and Māori. I note that the Waitangi Tribunal, which is the closest to a Māori-controlled court that we have, decided after an extensive look at the issue that this settlement process was correct, and also that the Māori Affairs Committee, comprised predominantly of Māori also, despite strong opposition to their inclusion by Pakakohi and Tangahoe decided that this settlement should continue. I think we have to rely on that. I have sympathy for their position, but it is a balancing factor.
I think we have to recognise that the ability to provide any more compensation will diminish in the future. The land continues to be developed, other parties’ interests are affected, and we need to look at the interests of New Zealand as a whole. If the Greens had their way, there would be no end to the treaty reconciliation process. That is an extreme view. On the other hand, the ACT party does not believe there should be a treaty reconciliation process at all. That is the opposite extreme view. Extremist views typically reflect neither the wishes of the majority of New Zealanders nor the best interests of New Zealand as a whole. We need to look at Māori and non-Māori working together and advancing together into the future, with the treaty grievances resolved, so that we can face the future as a nation that works well together in the spirit of the Treaty of Waitangi, in the spirit of the commonality that we have, and with the much that we have in common as citizens of this land.
United Future congratulates Ngāti Ruanui on reaching the stage of the passing of this bill, the first, I note, of the Taranaki claims to reach this point. And I look forward to attending the hui at Pariroa Pa on 3 June to hear the Crown’s acknowledgments and apologies read, and to note the transfer of the settlement redress on that day. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa .
JILL PETTIS (NZ Labour—Whanganui): Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa. As a result of the settlement process we are going through slowly in New Zealand, we now have a growing understanding of our nation’s history. I hope that an increasing number of New Zealanders will continue to open their hearts and their minds to learning more about our own history. The history of the Taranaki and Wanganui area is particularly interesting, and the more we learn about it the better we will be. We need to understand the hurt and the pain that Ngāti Ruanui has been carrying for so long. An understanding of that can come about from people taking responsibility for learning more about what happened in the area in which we live.
This settlement package provides Ngāti Ruanui, Tangahoe, and Pakakohi with the resources to help them to develop economic, social, and cultural well-being. I acknowledge here today the people who have worked so hard for so long, and who have contributed so much to this settlement process. I acknowledge those who worked to heal the pain. I acknowledge those who, through their own good and open hearts and minds, stretched out a hand to calm the anger and the hurt. I also acknowledge those who have shown incredible patience, integrity, and humility, which has led us to this moment in time. I pay respect to you all.
This settlement will assist the people of Ngāti Ruanui to re-empower themselves and will help towards the self-development of Ngāti Ruanui. But I must say that the people of Ngāti Ruanui have not sat around on their hands waiting for this day. We are already very aware of the excellent services being provided by Ngāti Ruanui to the people of South Taranaki—services such as health provision, social services, services responding to the needs of young people, and perhaps most important, education services to equip our young people for the bright and encouraging world they face as they go out into the future.
In closing, I acknowledge the people of Ngāti Ruanui, their ancestors, their elders, their descendants, and their negotiating team. I wish everyone well as they move forward to a more secure and positive future. Kia kaha, kia toa, kia manawanui.
METIRIA TUREI (Green): Tēnā koutou katoa. He mihi nui ki a koe, e te rangatira Pat Heremaia. He mihi aroha nui ki a Tangahoe, Pakakohe, me Ngāti Ruanui.
[Greetings to you all, and to you especially, Pat Heremaia, the chief. Loving greetings to you the people of Tangahoe, Pakakohe, and Ngāti Ruanui.]
The Greens have weighed very carefully our support for the restitution of claims—and we do support the restitution of claims—and our deep concerns about the justice in the treaty settlement process. We have decided in these circumstances that we support, and will support, this bill. The restoration of land and, in particular, wāhi tapu to the iwi of Ngāti Ruanui through this settlement is a significant gain. We acknowledge Ngāti Ruanui’s efforts to achieve some form of justice and restitution for the grave losses suffered by the mana whenua.
However, we are deeply aware of the strong opposition to this bill felt by members of Tangahoe and Pakakohi, by some members of some hapū, and by others in Ngāti Ruanui. So I want to acknowledge those people, kaumātua and kuia and others, who are here today from the hapū involved in this settlement, who do not support the bill, and who come to bear witness to what they consider is an injustice and another breach of the treaty. Their concerns are serious, and they raise important issues about the Government policy on treaty settlements and the processes by which these settlements are reached. The Greens share some of those concerns.
The Greens recognise Te Tiriti o Waitangi—the legitimacy of the Māori text that was signed by hapū signatories. Te Tiriti o Waitangi is an agreement between hapū and the Crown. It is a solemn pact, and the treaty settlement process is designed to provide some redress for the historical grievances that arose out of the Crown’s failure to adhere to it. The Greens acknowledge that delegated representatives of the Crown have breached, and continue to breach, te tiriti rights of Māori. We support the resolution of, and restitution for, all outstanding historical and current breaches.
We too look to the settlement process for justice, but we too find it wanting. There are steps that we believe could be taken to improve the process, and that are necessary for a robust resolution of historical claims, and for the continuation of a healthy treaty relationship into the future.
The first is that the process should undergo a comprehensive review. It is not sufficient to claim that the process is acceptable to Māori because Māori engage with it. That is wilful blindness, and demonstrates a failure to understand the complexity of the social and economic milieu within which Māori operate. Such a review needs to engage specifically with the mechanics of the process, the mandate requirements, and, primarily, the “large natural groupings” policies.
Questions about the relationship between the Office of Treaty Settlements and the Waitangi Tribunal also need to be asked. There are two processes relating to the resolution of historical claims. Claimants are increasingly encouraged to go to direct negotiation, as that process is slightly speedier than that of going through the Waitangi Tribunal.
But the tribunal is an inquisitorial body that is, ostensibly, independent of the Crown, and is able to give a balanced perspective of the justice issues between the two parties. The tribunal must be a well-resourced, primary part of the claims process; otherwise the Crown, which funds the tribunal, holds all the political power, and committed the historical wrongs, becomes the sole arbiter of the questions of justice and the level of reparation. That is, simply, not a genuine, robust, and just compensation process.
Issues of funding for claimants also need to be addressed in any review. Claimants may be more likely to proceed to direct negotiation because it is a shorter, and therefore less costly, process than going through the tribunal. It is not sufficient for a robust and durable settlement to be negotiated, when the aggrieved party must appear and present its case at a severe financial disadvantage to the offending party.
But when the time comes—and it will come—that the historical claims have been dealt with, that reparation, in whatever form, has been made, and that that part of the process is over, there will remain the need for the Crown to have developed an ongoing relationship under te tiriti that is not property based, but that takes into account the constitutional aspects of te tiriti. I read Michael Cullen’s speech on the treaty very carefully for some indication from the Government that that issue is being seriously considered, but I was very disappointed. I am aware there is some money in the Budget for treaty education, but until we hear a clear statement about that programme we should remain highly sceptical.
I agree with Mr Cullen on some things. Non-Māori have nothing to fear from the treaty. Much of the rhetoric from various areas is little more than bigoted rants of absolutely no consequence that cause considerable distaste among the public. I also agree that the treaty right in article 2 is not in any way modified by article 3. But I certainly disagree when Mr Cullen characterises article 2 as, broadly, some form of property right—no matter how much he might extend that to issues such as language. There are constitutional implications in article 2 that have not been properly considered by the Crown, nor by the courts. There is a multitude of different views about what those consitutional implications are, but no Government so far has had the will to enable that dialogue to happen in any kind of coherent way.
Mr Cullen went on to say that sovereignty has been exercised unbroken and largely unchallenged ever since. But, of course, that is completely untrue, and, in the context of this bill, an absolute insult. The tangata whenua have been challenging that sovereignty ever since the wars, when the Crown, through the settler Government, abrogated its obligations under the treaty and forcibly stole Māori land, using armed forces and legislation. The preamble on page 5 of the bill outlines how the New Zealand Settlements Act 1863 was enacted specifically to confiscate Māori land from those who had challenged the sovereignty of the Crown. That challenge has continued, and still continues, but there remains absolutely no will on the part of senior Ministers even to engage in a discussion about it; rather, the Deputy Prime Minister made a speech that flies in the face of documented, historical record.
The Green Party is committed to an ongoing national dialogue grounded in te tiriti. We believe that this will both give effect to the relationship that it enshrines, and build a high level of awareness among all citizens of Aotearoa New Zealand of the unique role of Te Tiriti o Waitangi in the evolution of our nation. Rangatiratanga is guaranteed under te tiriti to hapū and iwi, not to “large natural groupings”. Until the Crown accepts this and resources the settlement process in a way that recognises this reality, there is a real risk that settlements will simply perpetuate grievance and injustice among some hapū. We need to work now, as a nation, on the institutions that give effect to the relationship that is enshrined in te tiriti. The Crown needs to assist Pākehā to understand their own identity, so that they feel less threatened by Māori identity. Above all, we need to restore the mana of te tiriti as a living document that helps to shape Aotearoa New Zealand as a role model for indigenous relations in the world. The treaty is nation building, and not a weapon.
Finally, the Greens extend to Tangahoe and Pakakohi, and to Ngāti Ruanui me o whānau, our very best wishes for the future. Kia ora koutou katoa.
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT NZ): I waited to hear the contributions of the Green Party and other parties, partly because so few of the questions that the ACT speakers have raised in the course of the progress of this bill have been answered or been taken as questions that are deserving of proper inquiry. I waited because ACT would like to be able to share in the spirit with which members approach these matters—in other words, to see them as a ritual or symbolic act at the end of a long process whereby the issues have been settled.
When I spoke on this bill in the second reading it was very clear from the select committee report that there were a number of, I will not say outstanding but, certainly, unsettled, disputes or matters of potential further unhappiness. I had hoped that the Committee stage would inquire into some of those issues. As it turned out, most of the addresses of people in this House were in the nature of ritual protestations. There is nothing wrong with expressing the sorts of sentiments that I heard from Mr Bill Gudgeon of New Zealand First, which I respected. I found his speech a moving thing to hear. There is nothing wrong with expressing the sorts of wishes for the future that the Hon Tariana Turia expressed. But we are stewards of our votes on these matters, and we should realise that we are making law. We should be trying to craft settlements that, so far as possible, end dispute, and do not become a platform for further trouble.
My primary concern is the reservation of positions that mean people will be set against each other. I think this particular claims settlement legislation is not as serious, in that regard, as many others. I found the schedules that record the statutory acknowledgments and the recognitions moving and helpful in understanding the limits of what is attempted by this bill. But, on the other hand, this bill states very clearly that these matters can affect, and are expected to affect, the properties of parties other than the Crown and Ngāti Ruanui. In other words, this bill acknowledges on its face that there are reservations here, or, at least, the possibility of the exercise of rights that are intended to affect people who are owners of property that is not the property of the Crown and not the property, under this bill or otherwise, of Ngāti Ruanui.
So I look at this and say that, as stewards of our vote, however much we would like to have a unanimous view of the House, we should be seeing this as a precedent, as undoubtedly it will be. The settlements to be reached should, in the view of ACT, be what in family law we used to call “clean-break settlements”. In other words, we should be trying to make sure that the foul deeds that were undoubtedly committed, and the compensation that is being paid for them, put an end to the causes of potential further irritation. I believe that when we have these somewhat fuzzy, well meant, but very ill-defined stewardship arrangements, kaitiaki-ships, or arrangements for recognition by the statutory authorities of ill-defined interests of Ngāti Ruanui in land, we are certain to end up with a mismatch of expectations. We are certain to draw some of the finest minds amongst Ngāti Ruanui into exploring just what those rights might mean.
They are not made properly tradable. They are not made as rights that are capable of being turned into concrete benefits. They are, really, rights to interfere, rights to complain, and rights to try to influence what one’s neighbours are doing. They are negative. Unless the very best of goodwill is present on both sides amongst all people, the rights create a relationship that then gets recast and labelled as “holding to ransom”, as “corruption”, or as “misuse of powers”, because it is not exactly clear what those powers were conferred for. On one side, they will be used to try to exercise an influence that the other side will resent. To the extent that those powers, on the face of this bill, influence private property, it will mean that neighbour resents neighbour, and that is not a recipe for true, long-term settlement.
I was also concerned by the context. In terms of this settlement, the Māori Affairs Committee urged that we should not reopen the matter. The select committee said that it had concerns that it could not address, because these settlements are treated as if they are subject to the convention of foreign treaties—in other words, all that Parliament can do is give a yes/no answer. We would much prefer to have been in the position where we had been consulted in some way, and had had our concerns addressed, because we think we speak as the true representatives of the majority of New Zealanders. Most parties in this House have, for a long time, been part of a conspiracy of silence in this area. We know, from the opinion polls, of growing unease, and we believe that when the Ministers and the Attorney-General speak, and when Crown Law negotiates, there is a widely held fear that they do so with one hand tied behind their back, that they do not challenge as they should, that they are not true negotiators, and that, in effect, for the reasons that Metiria Turei just gave, negotiation takes the place of investigation. Negotiation is taking the place of full fact finding.
What that may be leading to, rightly or wrong, is a view that these are political settlements to achieve political outcomes for a Government that is determined to maintain the votes of its Māori members. It was not reassuring for us to hear, before this debate, applause for the Minister of Māori Affairs, the Hon Parekura Horomia, when it appeared to this House that he was not taking full responsibility for what may be financial misfeasance or lack of financial probity in his own portfolio. We would have hoped that the people who were coming here to welcome this bill would be concerned about that, and would not take what appeared to be a partisan approach. We think that is confirmation of the concern about this being a political settlement.
Finally, I simply want to balance—not because I disagree with the optimism that has been expressed by many—the view that has been expressed numerous times in this House in relation to these settlements: that in some way the settling of assets is a path to wealth and happiness. The assets that matter are sometimes harder to acquire and hold when one is rich than when one is poor. The assets that matter are attitudes to education, attitudes to work, and attitudes to self-reliance and family responsibility. For many of us, the old saying of rags to rags in three generations says it all. The generation that ends up with wealth that it did not earn is the generation that sows the seeds for it being lost. Because of that wealth, it loses the ability to maintain the drive, and the respect for work and education, of its children. We were mischaracterised by the United Future party as being opposed to reconciliation; we are not, at all. We believe that reconciliation is imperative, but we do not wish it to be on a false basis. The assets may be more of a hindrance to growth than a benefit.
MAHARA OKEROA (NZ Labour—Te Tai Tonga): Nā, ka tū ki te mihi anō ki a koutou Aotea waka, Ngāti Ruanui me ngā hapu. Tēnā koutou e haramai nei kei roto i te Whare, ki te rongo atu i ngā kōrero maroke māi i taua tangata, e whaka hōhā mai ki a tātou katoa.
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.]
[I rise once more to greet you, the waka of Aotea, the people of Ngāti Ruanui, and the subtribes. Greetings to you who came here into this House to listen to the dry remarks from that member: remarks that are a nuisance to us.]
On that basis, I welcome my people to this House. Fate places people in strange places, and with regard to that, what do I say as an uri of Taranaki? What do I say as a descendant from Parihaka, as they all are, as well? What do I say about the mamaetanga, te hohonutanga o taua haehae mai? [the hurt and enormity of that laceration inflicted?] What do I say about the notion of assets, when we have never had any assets? We drive through Taranaki and gaze upon the pastures verdant and green. We are not just talking about this claim; we are also talking about other levels of confiscation that have happened to Taranaki people, mai i te raki ki te tonga. [from the north to the south.] We engaged in long debate about the Māori reserved lands. In a sense, that was also a form of confiscation, and the debate was long and hard, but the point is that that was part of a parliamentary commission in 1928. It took as long as that to realise some justice and some equity about what we are engaged in.
What do I also say? I have had the same experiences as we all have had, about where we were, and are, as people. It is not just about the whenua. That is only one key facet of what we are about as Taranaki people. I dispute the claim made by the previous speaker when he talked about assets not necessarily being in terms of how we commonly define them, but, rather, being in terms of health, education, and other things. I am proud to stand here as an uri of Taranaki and Parihaka and to say that, in spite of all the things we have experienced, we do not have goals that are less, in terms of our striving for education and good health, and to live in this community of Aotearoa as equal citizens. That has been part of the ongoing raruraru [problem] for our people. We do not participate fully. There have been impediments of a historical nature that have, in a way, diminished our chances to participate where we want to participate. Someone—I think it was the honourable member Georgina te Heuheu—talked about some of these things, and so did the honourable member Tariana Turia.
The effects have somehow been categorised as only a loss of land. Why do we wear the raukura [feather]? From my point of view, the raukura symbolises something that is hugely spiritual, and talks about the determination and the dynamism of our people. It talks about the courage of our people. It talks about the indomitable spirit of our people and the unquenchable drive for justice. That is what it talks about.
I am honoured to be standing here and to look at the range of generations from Ngāti Ruanui who have come. They have brought their tamariki, so that they can witness the historical nature of what we are about here in the House today. I invite members to look at the intergenerational presence of our people. It was people like our tamariki who sat on ngā marae o Parihaka at the time of the pāua [conflict] and the invasion. We exercised huge discipline—and we still do, as a people. When I talk about their courage and determination I am also talking about a particular way of doing things o roto, o runga i te ngāwari o te tangata. [based upon the accommodating nature within a person.] It has never been about whakahihi. [snobbishness] It is about raukura. I acknowledge the people’s presence as a whanaunga. [relative] What I am trying to say is ka puta ē tō hē, ngā kōrero papa ngākau. [is that what you said about speaking from the heart came out wrong.] I talk about Titokowaru, e tohe, [challenge it] Wiremu Kingi, Te Whiti raua ko Tohu, and all those other people who are not here to see this. I am reminded, therefore, of a whakatakitanga kōrero, mai i a Te Whiti ki tana iwi. [a proverbial saying from Te Whiti to his people.] When he talked to the colonisers, he said: “Nōu te pāua tuatahi, mā mātau te pāua whakamutunga.” [“Yours is the first conflict, but ours will be the one to finish it off.”] Are we seeing that? Because that is what the future challenge is about. If we do not look on that sum as a disposable asset, the challenge will be, and it is on the people, that it should grow like a tree, kia puāwai, kia puāwai, kia noho pai ai ā-uri. [that it flourishes, it blooms, and as relatives we are better off because of it.] Our time has come—at the age of 40 for me, and a lot of the people here are much older than me!
As for the parties that are here present, I greatly appreciate the support of three members of the National Party, and that of the other parties that have contributed to this discourse. I look forward to meeting them all at the conclusion of the third reading, nō reira, mā ngā tau heke e noho pai mai i runga i te pokohiwi o te katoa, pai mārire.
[so that it sits well on everyone's shoulders in years to come.]
Hon MURRAY McCULLY (NZ National—East Coast Bays): I do want to take the opportunity to reflect on some matters on the occasion of the third reading of this bill, but I will start by commending those who have been responsible for bringing this complex process to the conclusion it reaches today. I do want to commend, in particular, my esteemed colleague the Hon Georgina te Heuheu for the wise words of counsel she offered to members of the House in her address in relation to this bill. I do not pretend to bring to this matter anything like the understanding that others have of the complex history behind the bill. Nor do I claim to have a detailed understanding of the complexities of the legislation itself. But I do believe that there are some issues that relate to it that members of the House and those who are interested in these matters will wish to reflect upon on this occasion.
Since this is a third reading debate and we should do these things, I want to refer to the preamble to the bill. To those who have read it in detail I apologise, but I do want to refer to some parts of it that I think we should reflect on today. The preamble notes that it was in the first half of the decade of the 1990s that the Waitangi Tribunal commenced the investigation of 21 claims concerning Taranaki Māori, including the Ngāti Ruanui claim. The preamble goes on to remind us that on 11 June 1996 we saw an interim report from the Waitangi Tribunal. It then notes that in April 1998 the Crown recognised the mandate of the Ngāti Ruanui working party. Then, on 31 August 1998, we saw the terms of negotiation containing the scope, objectives, and general procedures of the negotiations recognised. On 7 September 1999, over 3 years ago, we saw the heads of agreement in relation to this settlement. The final step, of course, apart from the legislation itself, was on 12 May 2001, when we saw the deed of settlement signed by the parties.
Those who have read that sequence of dates and have reflected upon them will, I believe, ask themselves, as I have asked myself, this question: does it have to take as long as that? Is there a better and faster way? I do not raise that question today in any sense of partisan criticism. It is a matter of history and chronology that much of this process took place under a Government of which I was a part. I raise the question today because I think that this is a day when we should reflect on these matters. I do so not to deflect in any way from the sense of achievement that some will feel at the final passage of this bill but because today is a day when we should properly reflect, in a balanced way, upon those sorts of questions.
Since 1990 the Waitangi Tribunal, various armies of officials, and various Ministers have been working on this claim to bring it to the conclusion that it reaches today, 1 May, 13 years later. I say that that is just too long. We have to find a better and a more effective way. I have referred to that issue in the House before, but I do so again today because I have, as a member of the Māori Affairs Committee, taken the occasion to ask officials testing questions on these matters when they have appeared before us at various times.
In particular, I remember an occasion when I joined with the Hon Dover Samuels and other Government members in asking the officials from the Office of Treaty Settlements, in particular, and from the Ministry of Justice this question: if we gave them some more money—if we went back as a select committee to Parliament with a unanimous recommendation that they should get some more money to try to get this process moved ahead more quickly—what would they do with it? There was much shuffling and uncomfortable movement on the officials’ bench. So Mr Samuels and, I think, Mr Tamihere, myself, and others pursued the matter further, and, being dissatisfied with the verbal comments we received, asked for some papers to be written. It was only after some weeks and many reminders that we got the papers we had sought. I am bound to say that none of us were any wiser or any better informed as a consequence of them.
That process demonstrated to me—and this has been reinforced to me on subsequent occasions—that there is not within the officialdom that services this important area in this country either an understanding of how we might do a better, faster job or a commitment to doing a better, faster job. I believe that there are members on all sides of this House—certainly I believe there are members on the Labour side—who share the sense of frustration I feel that we cannot do better than that. Today is a day when we should say to those officials, and to others who contribute to the process, that while there might be a sense of achievement in reaching this particular milestone, there are many, many other milestones to be reached and they are taking too long.
I asked those same officials how long it would be before the historic claims on the table were dealt with, if we proceed at the current rate of progress. The answer was a daunting one—20 to 25 years. I say to those officials, to the Minister, and to my parliamentary colleagues that that is just too long and we have to find a better, more effective way.
I know that there may be some people who will regard this as heretical, but I believe that the way forward is for us to try to move some of the officials out of the process, and to see a more direct embracing of the negotiation process by appointed negotiators working for Ministers. The Ministers themselves should take a greater sense of involvement and ownership, because I cannot see any way forward that does not include a greater role in terms of political leadership and a more direct form of negotiation.
Finally, I am one—and the Minister of Māori Affairs, I am sure, will be delighted to confirm this—who has been a staunch critic of so-called capacity building programmes that lack benchmarks and any sense of evaluation. I am sorry to say that in most cases those programmes lack any sense of a tangible result that can be demonstrated to benefit those who are supposed to benefit from them. But I accept that those of us who are critics of those programmes that breed dependency and destroy opportunity have an equal obligation to come to the party and support those—I know there are many in Māoridom with this view—who strongly believe in Māori economic development, and who have a great sense of pride and a great desire for independence. I have a slightly more positive view than Mr Franks about the opportunities that will result as the assets that are part of this settlement package pass across to Ngāti Ruanui.
I close by saying that I will continue to hound the Minister of Māori Affairs—in fact, I am only just getting started—in relation to those programmes that are sheer handouts and that do not build the capacity he would assert they are there to build. I will continue to hound that Minister, but I also say I hope that the settlement contained here today will signal an opportunity for success for those who are builders in Māoridom, and for those who strive for independence in Māori economic development. I wish them well in that regard.
MITA RIRINUI (NZ Labour—Waiāriki): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Can I suggest that in the interests of time I do my own translation?
Mr SPEAKER: Yes, you may.
MITA RIRINUI: Kia ora! Otirā, tēnā koutou, Aotea waka, Taranaki tangata, te maunga tītōhea, ngā kārangaranga hapū kei waenganui i a koutou, tēnā koutou nau mai, hara mai. Nā koutou tonu tēnei rā. Ahakoa te iti, te rahi o ngā kōrero, kua hurihuri haere i roto i tēnei Whare, nā koutou tonu te kaupapa. E tautoko ana i ngā mihi o tēnei a tā koutou mokopuna. Nāna e kī, nāna i whakamārama i ngā taimahatanga, i whāwhāhia ai e koutou, mai i ngā rā ki muri, ā, tae noa ki tēnei wā. Otirā, o ngā kōrero maroke o ngā tangata kāre e matatau ana ki a koutou hōhonutanga, tō koutou mamae, me kī rā, he kōrero whakaparanga noa iho tērā. He whakaparanga noa iho nā te mea, ko koutou tonu ngā mea e mārama ana ki a koutou mamae, ā, taimahatanga katoa, e ngā maemaetanga i ūhiatia ai e te Karauna i runga i a koutou mātua, tūpuna i te wā i te pakanga ki roto i a Taranaki. Nō reira, me kī pēnei rā te kōrero, rirerire pai mārire.
Nā, ehara tēnei i te whakarōroa i te wā e noho ana koutou i roto i tēnei Whare. Kāhore! Kua tutuki ai i ngā kōrero i tā koutou tangata, te maunga i tītōhea kei tōku taha nei, a Mahara. Nāna i kōrero ā-papa ngākau ki a koutou, āna mōhiotanga, i ngā ritenga katoa e pā ana ki a koutou. Kua tū tēnei ki te whakatau atu, ki te whakaoti atu i tēnei wāhanga a tō koutou hīkoi i runga i tēnei huarahi tino roa rawa atu. Nō reira tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.
[Thank you. Greetings indeed to you Aotea canoe, the people of Taranaki, the mountain made barren by frequent cultivation, and the various subtribes in your midst; greetings to you, and welcome, welcome, welcome. This is very much your day. No matter how much or how little has been said in this House, the matter is still yours. I endorse the tributes made by this grand child of yours. He was the one who talked about it, who explained the weighty issues that you had to fight, way back at the beginning and to the present time. Indeed, having listened to the dry talk by those who did not really have any idea about how deeply it affected you, and the anguish it caused you, let us say that that sort of talk is just pure rubbish, pure loose talk, because you are the only ones who know how much pain it caused you, what the all the burdens were about, and the hurt that the Crown inflicted upon your ancestors and forebears during the conflict in Taranaki. Therefore, let us say it this way, rirerire pai mārire.
So, I am not standing up to prolong your stay in this House. No indeed! This man beside me, this man of your barren mountain, Mahara, has said it all in his closing address. He gave it to you from the heart. He gave all that he knew from within him, every shred of custom that relates to you people. I have got up to acknowledge you and to finish off this part of your walk on this road, which has been a really very lengthy one. So, greetings to you, greetings to you, and greetings to us all.]
I thank Mr Speaker for his indulgence. I am wondering what I can possibly say in this discussion that would add to the importance of this occasion. Although I have heard many drawn-out speeches about the history of Taranaki, I wonder how much understanding there is of it. The people who experienced the history and the events in Taranaki are sitting in the Chamber tonight listening to the kōrero, and I wonder what their views are. But I was moved by the contribution of the person I call Taranaki’s maunga, the member Mahara Okeroa, who talked to the people of Taranaki. When we say “kōrero a whaka ngākau”, we say he talked from his heart.
I have only one thing to say to the people of Taranaki. This has been a very, very long road and a very, very drawn-out process, and for them a very, very painful one, and no one knows that better than they do themselves. As this process draws to a close, I know that there is not much I can add to it. However, I would like to say to them that whilst the road has been long and the challenges have been great, there are greater challenges to come. When the people of Taranaki leave here, the hope is that they never have to come back. We hope that they will take on the challenges of the days to come. The Taranaki I heard about when I was a child—the greatness of its prophets and people, and of the passive resistance movement—will open new roads. I have to say that the people of Taranaki have a legacy that many of us envy. But as I have said, they are the people who really know about that. I say bless them all.
The people of Taranaki should confront the challenges as they come and have no fear, because they have a great legacy. I remember the words of Titokowaru; nāna i kī ai: “Ahakoa he maunga tītōhea, ka rere ngā manu ki reira unu ai, e kore, e kore, e mimiti.”
[it was he who said: “Even though it is a mountain made barren by frequent cultivation, and birds fly there to drink, it never dries up.”]
What a great legacy the people of Taranaki have, in terms of the passive resistance movement. Many of our tribal leaders around the country have been to Taranaki in the past to experience its spirituality and to look for a way ahead. Many of them returned home to their tribes and to their people much more prepared for their role and much more patient with the processes of that time.
Ki a koutou katoa, koi nei, kua oti katoa rā ngā āhuatanga e pā ana ki tēnei wāhanga o tō koutou pire. Hoki tonu atu ki ō koutou kāinga, ki ngā tini āhuatanga kei waenganui i ngā karanga hapū o Taranaki, ki te mahi i ngā mahi kai mua kai a koutou. Nō reira, me kī anō rā, ngā manaakitanga o Te Runga Rawa ki a koutou. Nō reira tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, kia ora tātou. E tau ana.
[To all of you, it is done. Everything relating to this part of your bill has been completed. Return to your homes, to the many things within the subtribes of Taranaki and to tend to those matters that are ahead of you. So, I say once more, may the Almighty protect you. Greetings to you, greetings to you, and good health to us all. I end here.]
JOHN CARTER (Senior Whip—NZ National): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. There is one more speaking slot that normally would be taken by National. However, the Minister of Māori Affairs has been here all afternoon, and given that he is present in the House, it might be appropriate for him to make a contribution of 3 or 4 minutes. I am happy to relinquish my speaking slot, if he so wishes to do so.
Mr SPEAKER: Does the Minister want to do that?
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Minister of Māori Affairs): No.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the Ngati Ruanui Claims Settlement Bill be now read a third time.
Ayes 109
Noes 7
ACT New Zealand 7.
Bill read a third time.
Labour 52; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8.
Waiata
Points of Order
Personal Explanations
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. At the beginning of the session today, I raised with you a matter that you said you were going to look at.
Mr SPEAKER: I have already been doing some work on the matter.
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE: Thank you, but I want to bring you further developments, because I regard this matter as very unparliamentary. Members of Parliament appointed to select committees are appointed by this House, not by themselves, or by the parties. I now discover that the member of Parliament concerned, Mr Ewen-Street, is putting out press statements saying that he has withdrawn from an inquiry. He is quite prepared to brief members of the press gallery, but is not prepared to come to this House to account for his actions. From what I read here, it appears that he has been sitting on an inquiry and has had an improper relationship with one of the lawyers to the inquiry—I understand the media is calling it a “sex for questions” scandal—yet he is not prepared to come to this House to explain—[Interruption] If the member thinks it is appropriate to resign today, how long has this situation existed? Has he been asking questions as an MP, or has he been asking them on behalf of someone else? Has he compromised the whole inquiry? Why is he not prepared to account for his actions in this House, rather than doing so around the press gallery?
Mr SPEAKER: I have taken note of what the member said, and I am looking at this particular matter—as I promised him earlier I would.
Bills
Māori Television Service (Te AratukuWhakaata Irirangi Māori) Bill
Third Reading
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Minister of Māori Affairs): I move, That the Māori Television Service (Te Aratuku Whakaata Irirangi Māori) Bill be now read a third time. E te rangatira whakahaere kōrero, tēnā koe. E aku hoa mema o te Kāwanatanga, me ngā mema o Tērā Tāha, tēnā tātou katoa. I a koutou, Winitana, e mihi ake anō i a koutou. He kaupapa whakahirahira rawa atu tēnei mō ngā iwi Māori katoa o Aotearoa, mō te reo Māori, mō ngā tikanga. Nā reira, he mea nui tonu tēnei ki te whakatakoto i Te Pire Aratuku Whakaata Irirangi Māori kī tēnei Whare mō te pānuitanga tuatoru. Tēnā tātou katoa.
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.]
[Greetings to you, Mr Speaker. To my fellow members of the Government, to the members on that side of the House, greetings to us all. To you, too, Winston, and the others, greetings as well to you. This policy is one of vast importance for all of the Māori people of New Zealand, for Māori language, and for Māori customs. So indeed it is a privilege to present the Māori Television Service Bill for its third reading. Greetings to us all.]
The Māori Television Service Bill was introduced on 20 November 2001. The first reading took place on 5 December 2001. The bill was then referred to the Māori Affairs Committee for consideration. After careful consideration, the Māori Affairs Committee reported the bill back to the House on 7 May 2002 with a number of amendments. The select committee’s amendments were adopted in full during the Committee stage, as were a number of further minor amendments put forward. Amendments adopted at the Committee stage include: a new translation of the preamble of the Māori title for the bill; requiring the service to foster, where appropriate, its broadcasting capacities for appropriate training and education; aligning the provisions relating to the independence of the service with a similar provision in the recently passed Television New Zealand Act; removal of the Kaitiaki Trust; the inclusion of a clause protecting the name Māori Television Service; a tightened and clearer disputes resolution process; and a review of the bill 5 years after enactment.
The amendments I have listed have been the source of significant debate, and to a large extent speak for themselves. The amendments provide greater clarity in some areas, and will assist those parties that have to work with the Act. The review of the bill in 5 years’ time is a particularly important addition. It recognises that the bill brings forward a new model of cooperation between the Crown and Māori. It also recognises the creation of a new entity in a fast-changing broadcasting environment. It is appropriate therefore that in 5 years time we take stock of our achievements and address any fine-tuning that may be required.
Since the commitments made in the early 1990s, a dedicated Māori television channel has been a long time coming. In the sense of finalising a Māori need for its usage within this nation, the journey has taken nearly 43 years. I am proud to be part of a Government that has remained focused on its commitment to promoting and protecting the Māori language and culture, and providing an outlet for showcasing Māori achievement—whether cultural, social, or commercial. Within Māoridom there are many expectant viewers awaiting the Māori television channel. I envisage that all New Zealanders will come to understand, embrace, and value the contribution of the Māori Television Service to our identity. We have just witnessed a great finalisation of the settlement with the Ngāti Ruanui people. It is important, and it would be great if the whole nation were given the opportunity to understand the detail behind the settlement, the issues that are relevant to the situation that Ngāti Ruanui found itself in throughout our history, and its needs today.
I agree also with Darren Hughes, who noted in the House during the second reading of this bill that many Pākehā would be eagerly awaiting the Māori channel. I know that none of those people will be disappointed. The service will provide programming that will entertain, promote education and development, inspire people in communities, and challenge people about who they are and their place in this world. It is well known that nonsensical prejudices prevail at times, both in this House and in other areas of the country. It is important that the Māori Television Service is recognised as a platform for better informing this nation’s people, and as an asset for all New Zealanders in the future. It is about Māori needs; it is about expressing, showing, and informing other people better.
The service will place a particular emphasis on targeting our young people. In terms of Māori demographics, 40 percent of our people are in the 14 to 16-year-old group, and 65 percent are 25 years and younger. The media they follow, and the interconnectivity they have with things like television, are well known. I remind the House that over 50 percent of Māori are in those age groups. The service will provide an unparalleled opportunity for Māori to tell their stories, and for all New Zealanders to gain a better understanding, rather than being fed the nonsense they are at times fed by ill-informed and ill-prepared people who want to continue with scurrilous and scandalous upheavals and scratch the prejudices of people who do not care about the first people of this nation, the tangata whenua.
I thank the people who have played a key role in supporting the establishment of the service. For their support and vision, I thank my Cabinet colleagues, the Māori Affairs Committee, the Māori caucus, and the Māori members of other parties who have come up quietly—even though their parties might not have agreed—and said they supported the bill. I feel privileged to have worked with them. I also thank my colleagues in the Green Party for their continuing support in standing against all other prejudices to support this bill. I also thank United Future for the odd times it voted for this bill—contrary to what was said in the newspaper the other day. I know that those members have a vision for seeing a new Māori channel available in every kōhanga reo and kura in the country, and available also in people’s sitting rooms. That is what it is about.
More broadly, I remind the House that the establishment of the Māori Television Service Bill is the consequence of significant consultation, negotiation, and agreement between the Government and a number of Māori stakeholder organisations. They include the original claimants in the broadcasting asset case—the New Zealand Māori Council, Ngā Kaiwhakapūmau i te Reo, the Te Reo Māori Television Trust, Te Pūtahi Paoho and its representative bodies, including the National Māori Congress, and the Māori Women’s Welfare League—and especially the hapū, iwi, and whanau around this country. I acknowledge those organisations, and the many individuals who have worked long and hard for this day.
Of the people associated with those organisations and with the promotion and protection of te reo Māori generally, I especially want to recognise Dr Huirangi Waikerepu and Sir Graham Latimer, who took the case initially, and have campaigned for it over the years. I also acknowledge the board, and wish the chair, Wayne Walden, and the new provisional chief executive, well, in the sense of their persistence and professionalism. Like the rest of New Zealand, I look forward to seeing the results of the hard work and commitment of the service when the channel goes to air. Finally, I wish to thank the officials for their work, especially those from Te Puni Kōkiri.
I commend the Māori Television Service Bill to this House.
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (NZ National): I welcome the opportunity to make a contribution on the third reading of the Māori Television Service Bill, but I am sorry to say that National will not be supporting it, as I am sure has been signalled pretty clearly during the second reading and Committee stage of this bill.
I will give some credit to my colleague John Carter. He was a little bit incredulous that a bill that sets up a Māori Television Service to promote and protect te reo had no Māori title. I give him credit for making that point to me during the Committee stage. That led me to put in a Supplementary Order Paper proposing a Māori title, and that made the Minister get cracking in order to put his own title forward. I guess he was probably embarrassed. If one thinks about the so-called flagship projects that this Minister boasted about when he took over 3 years ago, one was to be the successful establishment of the Māori Television Service. The second was closing the gaps, and we heard a little bit about that earlier in the week and this afternoon. The third was the Māori fisheries allocation, and we are still waiting for that to come to this House in the form of legislation. So, by the Minister’s own count, we might say that he is finally getting legislation through this afternoon that will set up the Māori Television Service, but it has been a sorry saga of non-performance, and mistake after mistake ever since the Minister said he would get the television service up and running. That is a great shame.
I am very mindful of the National Government of the early 1990s taking on board the Privy Council recommendations that the New Zealand Government was bound under the treaty to promote and protect te reo, and, in the sale and allocation of broadcasting assets, te reo was seen to be a vital part of that protection obligation. The National Government certainly made some quite significant steps forward in the 1990s. I acknowledge that we did have the saga of Aotearoa Television, but one would think that a new Government coming in in 1999 would have been able to take that earlier saga and make sure that no mistakes were made under its stewardship. But, no, that was not to be.
As I said earlier, this has been a sorry saga of mistake after mistake. We had the total debacle over the appointment of a Canadian with no business experience, no Māori experience, and no television experience to run the Māori Television Service. The establishment board made the appointment anyway, and, as the organisation was not legally formed as a proper service, the Minister of Māori Affairs was responsible for that. In the end, the Minister and his Government are responsible for the debacle that occurred over the John Davy appointment, even though they tried to shed their responsibility elsewhere. And as if that was not enough, we then had the appointment of Derek Fox as the chief executive, who is a guy who was initially appointed as the chairman, and who somehow managed to sit on a panel that was interviewing for the chief executive position, and then—lo and behold!—he was it. Where is the transparency in that? This Minister must take responsibility for the lack of transparency in that appointment. As we have said on an earlier occasion, Derek Fox was initially brought on, because he was running a political party that had the capacity in 1999 to oust this Minister, so, in a sense, Derek Fox appears to have been bought off. He is now probably where he always wanted to be—in the position of chief executive officer. He may be the man for the job, but the circumstances in which he was appointed have to be decried. Again, this Minister must take responsibility for that debacle.
The problem with those debacles is that a Māori Television Service is something that is probably wanted by a great number of New Zealanders. Many Pākehā say to me that they really have only a couple of sources through which they can even begin to understand the thinking and aspirations of Māori. One of those is the Mana News programme, which is broadcast every morning on National Radio, which a lot of Pākehā listen to and appreciate, and the other is the Mana magazine. From time to time, they also watch Marae on Sunday, but that is not enough. I talk about two peoples going forward together. We are one nation with many people, but with shared values. The wider community has a right to understand the values of Māori, which, incidentally, happen to be values that are probably shared by all of us. However, if those Pākehā are waiting around for this television service to happen, they have no doubt run out of breath.
As I said, despite some of the hiccups in the 1990s, this Government did not seem to learn a thing. In a sense, it has presented us with legislation that does not guarantee the success of this service. One has only to listen to the submissions made by the Māori Television Service board itself, to hear that it was deeply disappointed in the legislation, and, right to the end, they were probably endeavouring to bring in some changes that would make this legislation a lot more realistic in terms of the major task ahead of the board, which is to bring a television service into operation from scratch, and to make it successful. This proposal deserved the Minister’s full attention. All the mistakes that have occurred suggest that this Minister is not up to managing or overseeing the establishment of this service, and that is a great shame.
Māori deserve better. Instead, Māori have been brought into disrepute by the mistakes that have been made. That is not fair. New Zealanders deserve better. If we are to have some shared understandings, if we are to go forward together in a shared undertaking, then this television service could have been an absolutely critical factor in doing that. Instead, we are left with legislation that is inappropriate and does not make clear who its stakeholders are or what the basis of funding is. The funding for this service is to be appropriated annually. How does that tie in with the satisfaction of a treaty obligation? I am suggesting that it does not tie in with the satisfaction of a treaty obligation. How does the Crown’s ongoing involvement in this satisfy a treaty obligation? It does not. And those matters are of extreme importance to all those Māori people who, for the last 15 to 20 years, have laboured long and hard to bring this service to fruition. They have had no answers whatsoever on those matters.
The only bright spot in all of this—and I said this earlier during the Committee stage—was the appointment of Wayne Walden as the chair. I do not know who I give credit to for that—possibly Wayne himself, because he was brought on board to manage the recruitment and management process. At the end of the day, I guess he decided that if the thing was to work, he had better take over the chairmanship of it. I wish him well. How does one turn a sow’s ear into a silk purse? If anyone can do it, hopefully he can. I wish him all the best, but this legislation does not have our support.
MARC ALEXANDER (United Future): It is a sad reflection of today’s climate that informed public debate is often cloaked under the skirt of an ideological mistress, trussed up by political correctness, and giving birth to dim-witted legislation. The problem is we all end up paying for it at the expense of legitimate issues that could use the resources to better effect. Māori television is but one recent example.
In 1993 the Privy Council told the Crown that it had a duty actively to protect Māoritanga, which includes language and culture. I have no problem with that. As a nation not only do we have an obligation but also an ethical requirement to protect our cultural heritage, both for its own sake and for future generations. We have an implicit responsibility and duty to safeguard and nurture the wider interests of Māori as an integral part of this unique cultural heritage that is New Zealand. But these interests can never be absolute. No good can ever come from trying to rewrite history by token gestures that unfairly penalise one segment of our population in favour of another.
This ideological tactic, driven by well-meaning but deluded apologists, will always result in added social tensions and will inevitably undermine the very point they are trying to make. Late at night, after a couple of glasses of Chardonnay in an office in Parliament, Māori television probably sounded like a great idea and a possible vote-catcher. The public has never demanded it. From the broadcast point of view a stand-alone Māori television station makes not one iota of sense. Aotearoa Television Network was a prior attempt, and it failed. It failed miserably and suffered an ignominious demise in 1997. Unfortunately, some bad ideas do not rest in their graves quietly, and like a phoenix on a bad hair day the blueprint for Māori television Mark 2 was resurrected in 2001. This is the kind of thing that happens when a flock of ideologically driven non-Māoris think they have the answers to a problem of their own creation.
Where in the Privy Council ruling was there a broadcasting directive? If we really want to protect Māori language and culture we would empower Māori to make their own decisions so that if there were legitimate needs for Māori television it could be funded by Māori, accountable to Māori shareholders, with the same economic rules of the game as for every other player. The whole process could be driven and supported by Māori at large. There should not be any doubts about that.
The problem is that Māori television has succumbed to business practice error No. 1, and that is identifying a need that is not there. The second mistake is to fund a venture by the deep pockets of the taxpayer, so there are no market incentives to succeed. How else can anyone explain the tsunami of practical blunders, which has earned its architects and advocates an industry raspberry and a black mark on their respective résumés. That approach would, surely, have sent any other enterprise into the realms of oblivion. The Canadian chief executive officer, who was initially appointed through a woefully inadequate vetting procedure, was discovered to have falsified his CV, and ended up bankrupt and in prison. He has since turned up in Afghanistan, of all places, pursuing some other employment possibility. Learning nothing from that folly, Derek Fox, who was one of those engaged in the interviewing process for a new chief executive officer, suddenly switched chairs and assumed the position himself. Apart from all the accountability and transparency issues, could we really not find one person who is experienced and competent and who wanted the job, before looking inward? Is there not a red flag in all of that?
To cap that, two people from a key supplier to the enterprise were at the centre of a scandal at Aotearoa Television Network involving the spending of around $8,000 each on clothes, travel, and five-star hotels. One of those people was later given an additional $1.6 million to make yet another documentary series—Hawaiki for the Māori Television Service, and even more for another series, Rongoa.
Hon Richard Prebble: They’ll get on to the estimates.
MARC ALEXANDER: That is exactly right. So it goes on. The latest audit on accounting practices at Aroha Films has thrown up even more questions. Two production companies allocated as much as $700,000 have collapsed, leaving bad debts; signatures obtained in advance for cheque payments; original invoices made out to outside parties; photocopy, printing, and stationery costs nearly three times that budgeted; and $270 for—of all things—speeding fines, disguised as “equipment rental”. Aroha Films has paid $152,000 in consultancy fees, has been billed for home renovations, has $24,000 of payments to employees in dispute, and paid out a whopping sum of $94,835 in petty cash in the 5 months between April and August.
National got it wrong the first time. Even with the benefit of that experience, we now have a Labour Government hell-bent on following the example of lemmings with Māori television. Experience has seemingly taught Government absolutely nothing. Rather than treading warily, the Minister of Broadcasting, Steve Maharey, says that the Māori Television Service will be “one of the most exciting public broadcasting projects ever attempted”. Yet the Minister claims there will be only a niche market for it. If that is the case, why not let the niche market pay for it? Why should others have to pay for what they do not want, will not be a part of, nor will benefit from? We could underwrite struggling regional television and require the inclusion of targeted Māori programming, if that is what we really need to do. At the very least, we would not be wasting our money on infrastructure, but would create new employment possibilities and a talent pool for the future for the major networks. Taxpayers have other, more important priorities. If we really want to do something positive for the social, cultural, and economic development of Māori we could put resources into early interventions and stem the appalling rise in crime, health, and unemployment statistics. Only those divorced from any sense of reality and fiscal responsibility could possibly support this bill, and it is a bill—one paid for by the unwitting taxpayer.
Let me now highlight some of our major concerns. Just because the Crown has an obligation to protect Māori taonga and te reo, that does not infer any sort of a broadcasting directive, let alone the establishment of a television channel. The Privy Council ruling was not that specific. If we were serious about protecting Māori language and culture we would empower Māori to do it themselves. The function of the service is supposed to have been to provide te reo through a high-quality and cost-effective service. This will never happen because there are no real market incentives for it to operate in such a fashion. A clause in legislation telling it to operate efficiently will not simply cause it to do so, unless there are real incentives—incentives that can come only from private enterprise. We all know the inevitable outcome: a tax dollar black hole. The service is supposed to remain independent of ministerial interference from programming. Would it really air anything likely to offend a politically favourable Government, lest it lose the taxpayer dollars that it feeds off?
Let us look at competence issues. Its first chief executive officer, John Davy, with a fraudulent CV, is now in Afghanistan. The appointment process for the next chief executive officer is doubtful. The new chief executive officer already had a falling out with a Government over the transmission platform. Stated initially, what he wanted was resources of $100 million to start up. How does he think he will be able to do a job with one-third of that? Key programming supplier, Aotearoa Television, is hardly a shining example of cost-effectiveness. Aroha Films came out of an audit looking foolish, has been billed for someone else’s home renovations, and managed to spend $94,000 on petty cash in 5 months. The transmission platform chosen for the service was one of the worst possible choices made. Not only was it bitterly opposed by the service itself—which wanted CanWest’s TV4—but it is now confined to transmitting on an outdated UHF frequency that is available to about 22 percent of the present potential viewer audience. As a final kick in the teeth, those who are actually interested in watching the service but who cannot receive it will have to fork out an additional $200 to have a suitable aerial installed.
This bill is the single worst example perpetrated by non-Māori apologists and is nothing more than taxpayer-funded tokenism. It is in fact a slap in the face for Māori, paid for by the slapped faces of the taxpayer.
EDWIN PERRY (NZ First): New Zealand First will be opposing this bill, I am sorry to say. We have some real concerns about it. The area I want to cover is clause 76, in Part 3. That provision deals with the transfer of assets and liabilities to the already troubled Māori Television Service television station.
But, first, the bill has been introduced to establish a service to promote and teach te reo. With regard to te reo training, I have to concede that I support that part of the bill. As members heard in the previous reading of the bill, my mother-in-law would be very disappointed if she were to hear that I am against that part of the programme. But the important thing is that the programmes are of high quality. Another function is to be cost-effective. Well, we have heard this afternoon how negative the effect of being cost-effective is. So we have some real queries about that. The service also is to provide translation into English and Māori. I ask members why that was not done through Television One, TV2, or TV3.
Hon Tariana Turia: They can translate from Māori to English.
EDWIN PERRY: It is not a problem, and the savings would be astronomical. Sadly, $50 million will not get us there.
Hon Tariana Turia: Better than $11 million.
EDWIN PERRY: Right, let us move on. Let us get back to the assets side of it. I ask the Minister what the assets are. Are there any assets? Are the service and the transmitters assets? Will the intellectual property right on the programmes, and the registration of the programmes, be assets?
Hon Parekura Horomia: Yes.
EDWIN PERRY: Thank you. Are the vehicles currently owned by the organisation assets?
Hon Tariana Turia: Yes.
EDWIN PERRY: They are all nodding away there, but the trump card is coming up. What about furniture and high-tech equipment? The question I want to ask now is whether they are leased or on hire purchase. If they are leased or on hire purchase, and if this organisation goes bottom up, those assets will not be owned by the service. The hire purchase companies and the lease companies will have preferential ownership of those assets. Those are some of the concerns I want to put to the Minister.
Hon Parekura Horomia: It’s like our land. We thought we owned it but other people took it.
EDWIN PERRY: Oh well, the member is addressing that; we will address it too, when we get there.
Why should we be so concerned? The Minister of Broadcasting, Mr Steve Maharey, in the Sunday Star-Times on 20 April 2003, referred to an award-winning Māori production company based out of Ruatoria. Through my own research I have found out that it is a quality company. It is an asset. One of its series was the Moko Toa series, which we all know about. It is a qualified production company. But the plug has been pulled because funding is not available through the Māori Television Service. Given that that company was making programmes like that, I say that the production companies that are to be brought on board now will produce inferior programmes.
Let me touch on some liabilities. What are they? Again, we do not know. I have just spoken about assets. I ask the Minister where we sit currently with the Viaduct Basin building.
Hon Parekura Horomia: What building is that?
EDWIN PERRY: The one at the Viaduct Basin that is costing something like half-a-million dollars a year. Where does the lease sit with the service? Are there any ongoing costs? I might be helping the Minister to find out what is actually happening to that building. Are there some liabilities? I believe that there are some liabilities with that particular building, and they are hidden liabilities. Are there any hidden liabilities that may announce themselves through some of the production companies? In my own research I found that there may be, and there will be, some liabilities coming back on the organisation that could be a hidden cost.
The Minister knows and I know that there are other serious issues that face the Māori people, and here we are spending $50 million on something that may be a miss-and-hit station. Can I just touch on the areas of need. One is Māori secondary schools. They may look nice from the outside, but on the inside they need revamping. They need new carpet and new, state-of-the-art teaching aids. Just last night here in Parliament we heard a young group of Māori screaming out for funding for their programme. At this point I must say that Te Māngai Pāho did help them with some funding. But the $50 million that the Minister is to spend on this television station could be spent on a lot of other areas where it would be productive and positive in respect of our people.
I also want to touch on the funding. The Budget is coming around. I say to the Minister that if the Māori population is 12 percent of the total population, then why is he not getting 12 percent of the Budget for this television station. With regard to te reo teaching, we know that there are enough organisations in the country. Kanohi to kanohi, eye to eye, is the best tool. Our old people never had television with which to teach people te reo. They did it on the marae, kanohi to kanohi. I say to the Minister, in relation to all these private organisations, that our marae are the most sacred place, where te reo should be taught by our old kaumātua within our own iwi who know the kawa and the tikanga of that particular area, or hapū, or rohe.
There are some problems with the coverage. We have heard before in this House that a lot of areas throughout Aotearoa will not receive coverage.
Hon Tariana Turia: 92 percent can.
EDWIN PERRY: We will see; we have heard a lot of other good things about it. If that is the case, it will be good.
Hon Parekura Horomia: It will be good news.
EDWIN PERRY: I do not think it will be good news; that is the only thing I am concerned about.
Let me talk about the board, which has been touched on many times before in this House. Let us hope that the board does not make the same mistakes as it did with Mr Davy. We need people who have the skills to smell out somebody who comes along to try to fit us up—and I am talking about us, about Māori, as well. We need to be aware that there are qualified people on that board.
Can I talk about the chairman? I also applaud, as my fellow MP Georgina te Heuheu did—and I am sure our Māori members across the House do, too—Wayne Walden’s appointment. He is a man who has been successful in business.
Hon Tariana Turia: We did appoint him.
EDWIN PERRY: Yes, I know. The Government had to find somebody to clean up the Māori Television Service. He will clean it up—I hope he does. He will sniff out the ones who are not performing.
The only other concern I have is in respect of the appointment of our whanaunga Derek Fox. Why was he not appointed at the beginning? That is all I say.
Darren Hughes: It was not good enough!
EDWIN PERRY: No, it was not good enough. He should have been there at the beginning. He is the right man to run this service. He is the right man to look at the programmes. But the board got sucked in by a guy who came across from Canada with all the credit cards and all the CVs, and what did he do? He fitted us up. All I will say is that, again, this is a hit-or-miss thing. The Minister knows, and I know, that if the money were spent in other areas, it would be more beneficial to our people.
Hon TARIANA TURIA (Associate Minister of Māori Affairs (Social Development)): Sometimes I cannot but be amazed at what I hear in this House when it comes to anything to do with Māori development. I hear people talking about unwitting taxpayers having to pay for the Māori Television Service, and there is no consideration that Māori people pay tax, too. We are big taxpayers. Not only that; one should think about where those “unwitting taxpayers” got their wealth from originally. I think we should have a few history lessons around here, before members start carrying on in the way that they do—trying to make us feel as if our hands are always out for a handout, instead of a hand-up to where we should have been in the first place.
The retention of te reo is a very important aspect of our treaty rights. Te reo is our access to our culture. It is who we are as a people. It is our whakapapa. It is the essence of who we are. Those of us who have had the misfortune to lose te reo, or not to have te reo because of the way in which we have been educated to think about ourselves, know that loss far more than anybody could say.
I am always surprised when the National Government is critical of any Māori developments. When one thinks about the history of government in this country, and the number of years that the National Party was in Government, one has to ask what it has done that has assisted our people to go forward, to take charge of their own development, and to be independent people. Yet it criticises every single move that this Government makes to try to address those issues. Anything that is about positive development is negated by those in Opposition. I think that is tragic.
I was thinking about Derek Fox. There is nobody better suited to be the chief executive officer of Māori television. He is a living taonga. Under article 2 of the treaty, he should have been appointed as of right to be the head of Māori television. Name someone better! We sit in this House and listen to people putting down every action that our people take. If we look at the developments that are taking place—[Interruption] Is it not funny? I one day heard that member’s party talking about tikanga in the House—about members shouting across, being rude, and being negative. But what do we see right now?
Actually, the member would be surprised to know that I agree with him. I do not agree that we need to be negative about personalities or the issues that are confronting us. I want to be positive, and I say that we need to be seeing positive images of ourselves. We need Māori television. The media are so negative about our people. Our young people need to have hope about their future, and the way for them to have hope is for us at least to have control over this form of media; for us to have the ability to communicate right into the sitting rooms of our families, so that they can see the positive things—and there are many positive things happening throughout our country.
That is the reason I totally support Māori television. I see it as a tool for our development, a tool that we absolutely need. Sure, some mistakes have been made, and there may be some mistakes made in future, but we have had agencies make mistakes with our people, with the result that millions of dollars have gone down the tubes, and do we hear anybody in this House complain about that? No. But the moment the money gets into Māori hands and mistakes are made, it is a damned different story, and some of us are sick of it. I am sure there are some people on the other side who really are sick of it, as well.
There is a huge opportunity with Māori television. Large amounts of really positive information that are stored away can be brought out and put on to Māori television, so that we can take advantage of it and be educated about a whole range of things.
I go back to retention of te reo, because that is why the television service has begun. I have heard people in the House asking why we do not do that through Television One, or TV3, or whatever. Television has been around a long time, and what do we see? We see that 5 minutes of Te Karere has grown to 15 minutes. We see very few positive things on television about our people. Even Te Karere buys into the mainstream television thing of negative reporting. It reports every negative event. How many times, when we get around the country to really positive events, do we find a television camera there? Kaore; there is none. I think the Māori Television Service is a really, really important development, and I like to think that those of us in the House who are tangata whenua will see it as such. I hope that our friends in the United Future party will look to the positive, rather than continuing to look to the negative, and will see the potential of this television service.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to. All those in favour—
John Carter: Point of order—
Hon Richard Prebble: There are calls.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member had not called when the member had finished, and I have put the question.
Hon Richard Prebble: I called, and you are just being silly and offensive to the House.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member did not call.
Hon Richard Prebble: I called. To have an acting Speaker behave in that way is just an outrage. You may run things that way on your little councils, but this is an outrage. You know the rules, and you know who wants to speak on this matter.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member will be seated, please. The member did not call and I have put the question.
Hon Richard Prebble: I have called. Now you are calling me a liar.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member’s behaviour is disorderly. The member will leave the Chamber, please.
Hon Richard Prebble: No, I will not. I want to speak in this debate.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member will leave the Chamber, please.
Hon Richard Prebble: No, I will not.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am putting the vote, and the member—
Hon Richard Prebble: No, you are not putting the vote. I have called, and you have refused to call me.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please be quiet. The member will leave the Chamber.
Hon Richard Prebble: No, I will not. I wish to speak on this matter. You are actually preventing debate. You are not behaving like a Speaker. You are just trying to play up to your Government members. You are not behaving as a Speaker. Your behaviour is completely disorderly. Then you accused me of not calling when I rose to call. Then you carried on calling the debate. You are being silly now.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member’s behaviour—
Hon Richard Prebble: You are lying to this House.
Naming and Suspension of Member
Naming and Suspension of Member
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member’s behaviour is quite disorderly. The member leaves me no choice but to name him. The question now is, That the Hon Richard Prebble be suspended from the service of the House. All those in favour please say “Aye”, to the contrary, “No”. The Ayes have it.
Hon Richard Prebble: The Noes have it.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is—
Hon Richard Prebble: If you knew the rules, you would know what happens next. I am entitled to have a vote. Are you not even going to give me that?
JOHN CARTER (Senior Whip—NZ National): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. We now find ourselves in a peculiar situation. I know we are dealing with a procedural matter, but it is past 6 o’clock, which is the time to lift the House. My understanding of the Standing Orders is that even though we are dealing with a procedural issue, when 6 o’clock comes we must lift the House and we cannot continue on. I think we will find ourselves in a bind if we try to deal with a matter now, past the time that the Standing Orders say the House should lift. I know it is a peculiarity, but I think we are in a conundrum.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question was put—
Hon Richard Prebble: You are not following the right rules. It is outrageous.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member will be silent. The vote will be put.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the Hon Richard Prebble be suspended from the service of the House.
Ayes 69
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8.
Noes 47
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7.
Question agreed to.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member is suspended from the service of the House. [Interruption] I call the Serjeant-at-Arms. The member will please leave the House. The member has been suspended; it has been voted on. Would the member please leave the House.
Hon Richard Prebble: No. [Interruption]
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: The vote was being put on the third reading before 6 o’clock.
Hon Richard Prebble: It was not put. The Hansard will show that it was not put.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I have been advised that I have to finish the vote.
JOHN CARTER (Senior Whip—NZ National): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. If I may, I will talk on that particular point. I was on the phone at the time that the member Tariana Turia resumed her seat, having made a very good contribution to the debate, I might say—I was able to listen partly to the debate. I then looked around and realised that no other members at that stage looked as though they were seeking a call—the member had sat down, having finished a little earlier than her 10 minutes. Even though I was on the phone, while you were in the middle of looking to put the question, I sought the call.
Hon Richard Prebble: That is dead right. So did I.
JOHN CARTER: Hang on, just let me finish; I am on a point of order. Again, while it is your prerogative, there have been many occasions in the past when Speakers have then said to members: “Well, look, I am in the middle of putting this, but given that the member is now seeking the call and there is opportunity, it would be appropriate; but the member must rise more quickly.” That has been a common occurrence. I want to make the point to you. Firstly, there is precedent for allowing a call to be taken, even though you may be in the middle of putting the question. Secondly, you have a right, even though you may be halfway through doing that, to decide to allow a member to continue a call, when the times are not used up. I would ask you to reflect on that—that there is plenty of precedent, in these circumstances, to allow me, who sought the call, or other members even, to carry on with the debate.
The debate had not been completed, and the situation was brought about because the member resumed her seat early. As I say, even though you were in the middle of putting the question, I did rise to take a call. I would ask you to reflect on that, and on whether, given the precedents on many occasions, it might have been appropriate in this case to allow the call to be taken. Indeed, we are now at the stage when we are well past six o’clock, and we need to lift the House.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, we will not do that.
Hon Richard Prebble withdrew from the Chamber.
Bills
Māori Television Service (Te AratukuWhakaata Irirangi Māori) Bill
Third Reading
Debate resumed.
DAVID BENSON-POPE (Senior Whip—NZ Labour): Just very briefly, I would like to contribute on two matters. First, I would like to draw to your attention to Standing Order 90—for your consideration after this evening—which is a quite unequivocal consequence of the refusal we saw from Mr Prebble to leave the House when directed to do so by you, and even after having been named. I must also, for the record, comment on the extraordinarily unparliamentary language that was used by that member, in calling you a liar and a little Hitler, and also in calling at least two of my colleagues fascists. Having made that point for the record, can I contest what Mr Carter said. In fact, neither Mr Carter who was on the telephone, nor Mr Prebble, who was reading the newspaper, did call. You quite properly put the vote. The vote was commenced, and could I ask please that we continue that vote so the House can rise for the evening.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, we have to continue that vote. I will now put—[Interruption] No, I have dealt with the point of order. There is nothing that has been dealt with outside the Standing Orders, and I have dealt with—
JOHN CARTER (Senior Whip—NZ National): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The senior Government whip has now doubted my word. I am an honourable member in this House. I have relayed the events as I saw them. You were halfway through putting the question—I do not deny that—when I sought the call. I am not suggesting that you had not started putting the question, but I did seek the call halfway through—
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would the member please be seated. We need to finish dealing with this.
JOHN CARTER: Yes, you do, but what I am offended by is that my word has been doubted. Unless there is evidence, members are honourable members in this House and should not have their word contradicted.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I tell the member that he contributes very well, and I certainly respect what he says. It was very clear; there was absolute silence. I looked around. I was surprised, and I realised that I had to put the question. It is as simple as that. We now have to put the vote.
JIM PETERS (NZ First): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am not going to advert to the Standing Orders, but I wish to remind you that when the call was taken by New Zealand First, that member attempted to take the call. In the natural order of things in this House, the normal practice would be that the Speaker reverts, having noted the intention, and turns to that speaker at the next call.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I thank the member. We have dealt with the matter. I know exactly what he is saying. Mr Prebble had called. I looked around. No member was calling. I cannot tell members to call. I will now put the vote on the—
JOHN CARTER (Senior Whip—NZ National): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: We have dealt with the matter.
JOHN CARTER: This is a fresh point of order. This House has to run with harmony. I think you will find that if we proceed down the path we are likely to, we may cause some aggravation that may cause difficulties in running the House over the next while. Given that you have made the decision that you have, and you have every right to do so, I would like to the seek leave of the House, even though you have started putting the question, that nevertheless, we continue with the debate and allow members of the House who want to make a contribution, who have a right to—and our party is one, and I think there are other parties—to do so. I seek the leave of the House for that so to happen. I see that the Deputy Leader of the House has come in, and he may want to consult his whip. I am trying to suggest a way through an issue that may well otherwise cause some grave disharmony in the House. I am seeking leave for the debate to be allowed to continue.
DAVID BENSON-POPE (Senior Whip—NZ Labour): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member has sought leave.
John Carter: He may want to contribute.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Did the member want to speak to the point of order?
DAVID BENSON-POPE: Can I just clarify the request? Am I correct in understanding that the leave requested is for when the House next sits, or whenever this item continues on the Order Paper, for this third reading to continue?
John Carter: Correct. That is entirely what I am asking.
DAVID BENSON-POPE: The Government will not be opposing that leave.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that course of action? There is not. That course of action will be followed.
The House adjourned at 6.12 p.m.