Thursday, 20 November 2003

Thursday, 20 November 2003

Thursday, 20 November 2003

Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Visitors

Parliamentary Delegation from France

Mr SPEAKER: I have much pleasure in informing members that a parliamentary delegation from France, led by Mr Renaud Muselier, Minister of State for Foreign Affairs, and accompanied by Mr Philippe Vitel, President of the French New Zealand Friendship Group, is present in the gallery. I am sure they will be welcomed.

Business Statement

Business Statement

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House): Next week the House will go into a 1-week adjournment. When the House resumes, priority will be given to the remaining stages of the Families Commission Bill, the first reading of the Maori Fisheries Bill, and probably further progress of the Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill and the Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Bill. Wednesday will be a members’ day.

GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National): I understand from talks around the traps that there is a proposal to set up a special select committee to deal with controversial legislation that the Government is proposing in the next short while. I wonder whether the Leader of the House might give us an indication of what legislation will go to that committee, what the committee’s make-up will be, and when those pieces of legislation are likely to be forwarded to that special select committee?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House): Yes, it is intended to set up a special select committee, whose membership will be determined in accordance with party proportionality and by each party’s own party whips and leadership. So there will be four Labour members, two National members, and one each from the other minor parties. Initially, it is intended that the fisheries legislation will go to that select committee, but it is probable that we will seek to send also foreshore and seabed legislation and aquaculture legislation. The fisheries legislation, as I say, is intended to go through its first reading on Thursday of the next sitting week. The other legislation can be anticipated early in the new year.

Sittings of the House

Sittings of the House

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House): I seek leave for the House at its rising to adjourn until the ringing of the bell on Tuesday, 2 December 2003. There is a luncheon for the Speaker of the Bundestag.

Mr SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There appears to be none.

Tabling of Documents

Home Detention

Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Justice): I seek leave of the House to table two documents relating to question No. 7 last Tuesday. The first is from Chubb Monitoring, stating that it wishes to confirm that no incident of the type alleged by Mr Mark has ever occurred in relation to home detention.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Hon PHIL GOFF: The second is a letter indicating that all 12 police districts report no knowledge of any incident such as was related to the House by Mr Mark, and I would urge him to provide any information to them to follow up that serious allegation.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. When Mr Goff sought permission to table those documents, he added on a whole lot at the end, and you did not stop him.

Mr SPEAKER: I did on the second one.

Points of Order

Questions for Written Answer

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. On 20 October this year I asked a written question of the Minister of Justice, outlining my concern that an 18-year-old Korean male student charged with threatening to kill, sexual violation, indecent assault, and other serious charges had been granted legal aid. On 24 October 2003 the Minister replied, saying that his agency had not been provided with sufficient details to confirm whether the student referred to in the question was in receipt of legal aid. Given that I had identified the school that the student attended, I was surprised at the inability of the ministry to identify the student, given the extremely serious nature of the charges he is facing. But I attempted to oblige the Minister, in a follow-up question on 30 October, by providing the name of the alleged offender. By way of response, on the same day I was advised that my follow-up question was out of order because I had not provided evidence by way of authentication that the alleged offender was of that name.

My point of order is that the parliamentary process is being deliberately frustrated here, and the New Zealand public is being denied information pertinent to the use—or, in this instance, misuse—of its taxes. I am seeking your assistance: I want the blockage to my questions regarding this matter being answered to be removed. In summary, I asked a question, I was asked for more detail, I provided more detail, yet I was still denied an answer. That is wrong, and I request your assistance.

Mr SPEAKER: I will give the member my assistance, and I promise him I will have a look at the matter and give him a fuller ruling. Under Standing Order 365(1)(a), names of persons are not to be used in a question unless they are strictly necessary and can be authenticated. No authentication with regard to the person named by the member has been received, but I will have another look at the issue, as he has asked me to do.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I understand the Standing Order, but it plainly becomes ridiculous when the name is not of any great particularity, other than as it relates to this case. I think I am suffering from obfuscation, delay, and bloody-mindedness.

Mr SPEAKER: I will have a look at the matter, as I said.

Questions for Oral Answer

Questions to Ministers

Māori Health—Our Health, Our Future

1. HEATHER ROY (ACT) to the Associate Minister of Health: Does she stand by her claim in the British Medical Journal that: “Conventional Western medicine has been unable to close the disparities in mortality and health revealed in official statistics.”, and does she accept the findings in the 1999 Ministry of Health report Our Health, Our Future that “The improvement that has occurred in Maori life expectancy at birth since 1950 has been described as spectacular”?

Hon TARIANA TURIA (Associate Minister of Health): Yes, I do stand by my comments.

Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This question has been set down on notice. It has two parts to it. The Minister addressed the first part and did not attempt to address the second part, at all.

Mr SPEAKER: I thought the Minister said she stood by her comments.

Rodney Hide: The question as set down asks, secondly: “… does she accept the findings in the 1999 Ministry of Health report …?”.

Mr SPEAKER: Perhaps the Minister could comment on that part.

Hon TARIANA TURIA: Māori health did appear to be dramatically improving. However, subsequent reports show that information to have been misleading because of the under-reporting of Māori data. The picture is worse than we once thought. Since 1980, improvement in Māori life expectancy has been slight, whereas for Pākehā improvement in life expectancy has been more marked. So the gap is currently getting wider.

Heather Roy: Does the Minister accept Otago University’s Dr Papaarangi Reid’s analysis that Pākehā have stolen Māori life expectancy, or does she accept that conventional Western medicine has been the best thing for Māori life expectancy?

Hon TARIANA TURIA: I think we need to listen carefully to the arguments that have been put forward by acknowledged experts like Dr Papaarangi Reid, Professor Mason Durie, and others, and I am certainly not prepared to ignore such expertise. The key findings of the 2003 report Decades of Disparity is that mortality rates declined steadily for all ages and both sexes for Pākehā, whereas Māori and Pacific groups showed little change.

Steve Chadwick: What is the Government doing to address Māori health issues?

Hon TARIANA TURIA: Last year I launched the Māori health strategy, He Korowai Oranga, and a separate Māori health action plan, Whakatataka, which place whānau ora at the centre of public policy. He Korowai Oranga supports whānau to address underlying causes of health issues, and enables them to support individual members of the whānau, through collective action.

Dr Lynda Scott: Does the Minister believe that it is Western medicine that can treat type 2 diabetes and its complications; and what is she doing to promote the understanding and acceptance of the need to use such treatment when traditional Māori healing fails?

Hon TARIANA TURIA: There is no evidence that traditional Māori healing fails. Certainly, I accept that for type 2 diabetes Western-type interventions are important.

Metiria Turei: Has the Minister also seen the quote from Professor Ring of James Cook University—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order—

Mr SPEAKER: I am sorry. I did not see the member or hear him call; I apologise. I have called Metiria Turei. I will call the member next.

Metiria Turei: Has the Minister also seen the quote from Professor Ring of James Cook University and Ngaire Brown from the Australian Indigenous Doctors’ Association in the same issue of the British Medical Journal : “If Governments are to truly contribute to positive change, they need to make the commitment that would transcend political vagaries and election cycles, and strip away the racism that remains a barrier to progress and health of indigenous peoples.”; and does she have any advice about that for the member who asked the primary question?

Hon TARIANA TURIA: As well as those reports that have been quoted by that member, editorials in four major international medical journals have described the impact of racism on the health of the nation. Why are we not prepared to be informed by that international context, in the light of our own appalling statistics?

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Would the Minister not admit that the biggest improvements for Māori health would come from a decent, nationwide screening programme in respect of diabetes and hepatitis B, which could be run together—[Interruption] Yes, I will get on to the member’s one shortly.

Mr SPEAKER: This is the one and only warning today. There will be no interjections. I ask the member to restart the question.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Would the Minister not admit that the biggest improvements for Māori health would come from a proper, nationwide screening programme, in respect of Māori, for diabetes and hepatitis B—which could both be done at the same time—and, secondly, that Māori die much more often, and in far greater numbers, from obesity-rated diseases, for example, than for any other reason, and that that is where her concentration and focus should go, rather than on making veiled, stupid comments about racism?

Hon TARIANA TURIA: While I accept there are social issues relative to the position of Māori health, I think it is important we take a very broad view of that, and accept that racism plays a key part in that, as well.

Dr Lynda Scott: Does the Minister stand by her statement in her article “Tribal Health Policy in New Zealand” that “We soon found ourselves tangled up in audits, having to meet a whole lot of inconsistent reporting criteria. We had to provide services in ways that we ourselves felt were not really effective …”; and does she believe that Māori health providers should not have to be accountable for public money by way of audit?

Hon TARIANA TURIA: Māori health providers are audited two times more than any other health providers in the country—

Hon Member: Prove it.

Hon TARIANA TURIA: —I can prove that—and Māori receive 2 percent of the health dollar. Ninety-eight percent of health dollars go to mainstream services. Everybody should be accountable for health dollars—both Māori and mainstream providers.

Heather Roy: Does she accept that Māori life expectancy has improved by 14½ years since 1950; if so, how can she possibly claim that conventional Western medicine has failed to close the gaps?

Hon TARIANA TURIA: Māori did enjoy large increases in life expectancy from the 1950s to the 1970s, but the discrepancies emerged throughout the 1980s. Today I think that 15 percent loss of lifespan is appalling, and it cannot all be attributed to lifestyle factors.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why is the Minister making allegations of racism in respect of the longevity of the Māori people and Māori health, when she knows full well that housing and a sound diet would be the most important things for Māori, and what racist element in our society is forcing people to go down to Kentucky Fried Chicken, or Pizza Hut, or McDonald’s, and have Fanta and Coca-Cola by way of refreshments? Why does she not stick to the facts?

Hon TARIANA TURIA: As usual, that member has a lot of rhetoric but no evidence.

Gerrard Eckhoff: Does the Minister accept the Oxford University study that shows that the typical lifespan of pre-European Māori was less than 30 years of age, and why does she not accept that conventional Western medicine is still the best and only way that Māori health will improve?

Hon TARIANA TURIA: I have not said that conventional Western medicine is absolutely not appropriate for Māori health. However, I also believe that there are ways of improving health other than that, and accept also that there other issues that come into play when we are discussing Māori health disparity.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: When the Minister said that my question was all rhetoric without evidence, would she accept that my evidence is herself?

Hon TARIANA TURIA: I do not think I need to account to Mr Peters for my eating habits; nor do I expect him to account to me for his drinking behaviour.

Hon Ken Shirley: In respect of the Minister’s comments about the lack of evidence, and her statement that Māori health providers are audited two times more frequently, how does she explain the Hawke’s Bay health trust run by Apera Clark, where dog food, spa pools, barrels of muttonbirds, two digital televisions, and household groceries were all paid for by taxpayers’ dollars filtered through that Māori health provider?

Hon TARIANA TURIA: Those issues were addressed after an audit, when it was decided not to renew the contract.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Despite her view being coloured by the fact that most of her colleagues would be three sheets to the wind on a wine biscuit, could I ask her why she is putting racism out in front of Māori people as some sort of excuse for their current condition, when she knows full well that she would be providing leadership—for the first time for a long time—by referring them back to a sound diet?

Hon TARIANA TURIA: We also know that sound diet requires a particular income.

Rodney Hide: Will she dissociate herself and her Government from the claims made by Otago University researcher Dr Papaarangi Reid, on National Radio last Monday, that Māori life expectancy has been appropriated by Pākehā, and that in doing so Pākehā have been “very, very greedy”; if not, why not?

Hon TARIANA TURIA: I do not have any ministerial responsibility for remarks that other people make.

Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Earlier, in answer to a question, the Minister associated herself with Dr Papaarangi Reid’s analysis by saying she had listened to it; now she is not prepared to comment on it. She actually linked herself into it.

Mr SPEAKER: The member is wrong. The Minister certainly addressed that question.

Hon Ken Shirley: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have a different point of order, in that the Minister said she was not responsible for other people’s comments, but my colleague Rodney Hide had asked whether she would dissociate herself from those outrageous comments. She does have responsibility for whether she would or would not dissociate herself from those comments.

Mr SPEAKER: The member is wrong. [Interruption] Order! I am about to send somebody out. The Minister certainly addressed that question.

Dr Lynda Scott: As it obviously costs more to feed a family on things like Kentucky Fried Chicken and takeaway meals, is the Minister saying that if one is poor one cannot eat well, and that is the cause of obesity amongst Māori people?

Hon TARIANA TURIA: Again, that member has no evidence that Māori people are eating Kentucky Fried Chicken, or whatever. It is noted in the disparities report that poverty is a key issue in terms of Māori health.

Rodney Hide: Does she accept the analysis provided by Dr Papaarangi Reid on National Radio on Monday morning, on Mana News, that the problem of foreshortened Māori life expectancy is “not because of smoking” but, rather, because Pākehā people are being fast tracked through the waiting lists; if not, why not?

Hon TARIANA TURIA: There is evidence that Māori people are not receiving access to treatments in the same way as non-Māori people.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I seek leave to table United Nations records in respect of the longevity of Bulgarians, Greeks, and South Koreans, all of whom have a lower income level than the Māori people.

Document not tabled.

Heather Roy: I seek leave to table two documents. The first is a British Medical Journal article dated 23 August this year, “Tribal health policy in New Zealand”, in which the honourable Minister states: “We soon found ourselves tangled up in audits, having to meet a whole lot of inconsistent reporting criteria.” The second document is Our Health, Our Future: The Health of New Zealanders 1999, a report by the Ministry of Health, which states: “The improvement that has occurred in Maori life expectancy at birth since 1950 has been described as spectacular.”

Documents, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Hon TARIANA TURIA: I seek leave to table a document on life expectancy trends from 1950 to 2000 by ethnicity.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I just want clarification, if I may.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave has been granted. No one took exception.

Rodney Hide: Well, I just hope it has got the problems—

Mr SPEAKER: No, leave has been granted.

Gerrard Eckhoff: I seek leave of the House to table the pages within The Oxford History of New Zealand referring to the lifespan of pre-European Māori being less than 30 years of age.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table those pages from that book. Is there any objection? There is.

Breast Cancer—Breast-screening Programme

2. PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) to the Minister of Health: Has she received any reports that would justify the current breast-screening age criteria to be widened outside ages 50-64?

Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Health): Yes, I have received reports recommending widening the age range up to 70 years of age. The first time this recommendation was made was to the National Government in 1998, but it was refused on the grounds that New Zealand did not have the capability or the capacity to implement it. This Government is considering all information regarding the appropriate age. It will make a decision based on evidence.

Peter Brown: Noting that answer, is the Minister telling this House that she is aware of the dreadful statistics with regard to breast cancer, and does she not accept that it is urgent that the Government screen women from 40 upwards, as they do in Australia, which has a 28 percent better survival rate than New Zealand; if she does accept that, when is she going to do something about it rather than keep talking about it?

Hon ANNETTE KING: Yes, the Government does intend to change the age for which woman can access breast screening. This programme was put in place in 1998. It was put in place and needed to develop and expand around New Zealand. We now have the capability and the capacity to extend it, and that is what this Government intends to do.

Nanaia Mahuta: What response has she received on the announcement that the Government is considering the age of eligibility?

Hon ANNETTE KING: Yesterday Grey Power put out a media statement welcoming a decision to extend the age of eligibility to cover the 50 to 70 age bracket and went on to say that the Minister is to be congratulated on her success in instituting the training of additional radiation therapists. These people are now emerging fully trained to assist in the fight against this dreadful disease. I really welcome Grey Power’s support of what this Government is doing.

Dr Lynda Scott: Now there is ample evidence to show that the age of free breast-screening should be widened, to 40 to 70 years, will she immediately review the access rural woman have to the six mobile breast-screening units, to allow for those who wish to pay for a mammogram to use the service while she is considering whether younger women should actually get some access; if not, why will she not do this immediately?

Hon ANNETTE KING: Decisions on widening the access to breast screening, as I said, will be made in the near future. In the meantime, that service is targeted at women between the ages of 50 and 64. Unfortunately we do not yet have the number of women who are in that age group participating in the programme. Our first priority in the meantime is to them.

Dr Lynda Scott: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister did not answer the question about those who can pay. We have 20 women on the West Coast who have had to trek to Christchurch to get a mammogram, when the bus is lying idle—

Mr SPEAKER: The Minister can address that point.

Hon ANNETTE KING: The member did not hear me. I did address it. I said the priority is to the women who are between the ages of 50 and 64. We do not have the number of women who are already eligible in the programme, and we need to ensure our priority is to them first. If we were going to allow women to pay for screening, I suggest that that decision could have been made a long time ago. It was not, because of capability and capacity.

Peter Brown: Is the Minister aware that for a fraction of the cost of the feel-good bureaucratic Families Commission—the sop to United Future—the Government could, by widening the breast-screening window to 40 to 70 years, do something positive and genuine for women and their families in this country?

Hon ANNETTE KING: I tell that member that this Government will do something positive for the women and families of New Zealand. It has been left to this Government to do that, and I will be making an announcement about that in the very near future.

Children—Fitness and School Transport

3. METIRIA TUREI (Green) to the Minister of Education: What advice, if any, has he received from the Minister for Sport and Recreation as to how children’s fitness and health may be affected if they have to be transported long distances to school, rather than encouraged to walk or cycle to a local school, as a result of school closures?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Associate Minister of Education (Tertiary Education)), on behalf of the Minister of Education: The Minister advises that he himself has consulted on the matter raised by the member. There is more likely to be a functional network of schools to which some children can walk or cycle if school closures occur as part of a planned network review. If schools are left to bleed slowly dry as the school population declines, distances between schools will become more random and make the option of walking to school less, not more, available.

Metiria Turei: When the Minister spoke about responsibility and the benefits of physical activity to the Project K Weet-Bix Kiwi Kids walkathon on 7 August, did he also explain to those children how his Government can both sponsor walking and cycling to school under the walking bus programme, and under the network reviews close their schools and force them into cars and buses?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I was not at the Project K breakfast so I do not know exactly what he said, but I would imagine that if the issue was raised he would have said that he supports young people having access to good physical activity, and that he also supports a very high level of educational quality and he is not prepared to let schools around the country bleed dry. He wants to ensure that a planned way gives them an option of having good education.

Dr Ashraf Choudhary: Are issues relating to the children’s overall well-being taken into account as part of the network review process?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: Yes. The actual process of network reviews is tough on both students and communities. However, the overall objective is to provide an end result that takes into account children’s educational, social, and physical well-being. Better educational resources, teachers with better professional support, greater opportunities for a range of social experiences and interaction, as well as improved physical facilities, should all result from network review processes.

Hon Bill English: Why is it that whenever parents raise their concerns about their school being closed—such as the distance that they will have to walk their children to the next school—the Minister always loses his rag and threatens to leave the meetings?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: He does not. I say to the member on the other side as he screeches and yells in a way that I know he deplores elsewhere, that the issue is an easy one. It is one of ensuring that educational quality is guaranteed to people where population is declining. The foolish policy being followed by Mr English raises a situation that he knows himself he would not implement.

Hon Brian Donnelly: Is the Minister aware of the Massey University research of the late 1980s, I think by the St Georges, which demonstrated that the most significant factor in the depression of educational achievement was not ethnicity, nor socioeconomic status, but in fact was the distance a child had to travel to school, and is that research finding being considered in the current school reviews?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: In fact, I can say that from my own personal point of view. The St Georges are friends of mine and I am well aware of most of their research. The member will also know that the policy of the Minister of Education is always to provide an evidence base for his policies. While I cannot guarantee that that particular piece of research is taken into account, I can guarantee him that evidence is.

Rod Donald: If the Minister persists with closing either the Invercargill South School or the Invercargill Middle School, what advice does he have for 5-year-old pupils from those schools on how to walk or bike to their new school safely, given that he will be forcing them to cross two four-lane roads—one a State highway and one without any controlled intersections, the main trunk railway line and the Otepuni stream?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: No decisions have been made about which schools will close in that area. However, I put the question to the member once again. Of course, we will want young people to be safe as they travel to school. Of course, we want them to travel there in a way that is appropriate. But is the member recommending that every single school in this country with a falling population should be kept open? If he is, I doubt that he will ever be in Government to implement that.

Hon Bill English: Given the Minister’s statement that he makes all his decisions on the basis of evidence, what evidence is there that the Makarewa School, which is full, has 130 pupils, and has an outstanding record of educational achievement, should be closed?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I do not have familiarity with that particular school. Therefore, I am not able to answer the question in particular. However, I return to the basic point. The Minister is not interested in closing schools that are full, operating, and have a future. He is interested in ensuring that all schools are viable and able to offer a good education to their pupils.

Sue Bradford: How will closing the Blackball School, forcing children to travel further afield by car or bus, assist their fitness, and does he believe that perhaps the founders of the Labour Party will be spinning in their graves at the proposed loss of that historic community’s only school, especially given that the entire population is dedicated to its maintenance?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I imagine that the forefathers of the Labour movement will not spin in their graves when they hear that this party is committed to giving those young children the best quality education possible. By going to a school that is larger and has more resources, they will have more access to physical activity. [Interruption] I am sorry that the member cannot hear. It is because Mr English cannot stop shouting.

Sue Kedgley: Does he agree that closing schools and forcing children to travel by car or bus to school directly undermines the Government’s flagship Healthy Eating – Healthy Action strategy, which is to increase physical activity especially amongst 5 to 17-year-olds, and to reduce obesity, and why on earth is the Government pursuing a policy that directly undermines one of its core health strategies?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: No, and it is not.

Mark Peck: Would the Minister have any advice for Mr Donald, who went to Invercargill promising to keep all schools open, while advocating the closure of the smelter?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: The advice would be that Mr Donald should not promise things that if he were in Government he would not be able to deliver in relation to schools. I think that he should advocate on behalf of jobs in an area like Invercargill, rather than try to destroy them.

State Housing—Community Renewal Programmes

4. LUAMANUVAO WINNIE LABAN (Labour—Mana) to the Minister of Housing: What community renewal programmes are being undertaken to revitalise State housing - rich neighbourhoods?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Housing): The $4.9 million State-housing redevelopment programme in eastern Porirua gets under way this afternoon. New housing will be built to replace 14 older three-bedroom units, and a further 10 three-bedroom units will be redesigned and refurbished. An important feature of the eastern Porirua community renewal project is that construction contractors have agreed to employ local apprentices through the Porirua Apprenticeship Trust to do that work.

Luamanuvao Winnie Laban: What other State-housing modernisation and improvement projects are being undertaken?

Hon Steve Maharey: Community renewal projects are under way in Rotorua, Aranui, Clendon, eastern Porirua, Talbot Park, and Northcote, with $18.2 million in spending scheduled this financial year. In addition, the Housing New Zealand Corporation intends investing $18.8 million in modernising State houses, $16.9 million in healthy-housing initiatives, and $4 million in completing energy-efficient retrofits of 2,500 State houses, and providing 3,200 additional State houses over the next 4 years—a very substantial investment in housing.

Hon David Carter: Does the Minister agree with the chair of Housing New Zealand Corporation, Roger Bonifant, who has stated that the Mongrel Mob was just as entitled to a State house as any Rotarian; if so, how will that assist the revitalisation of State housing - rich neighbourhoods?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: The misquote that has been applied to Roger Bonifant actually was misquoted from me, so I can say to the member that the point that was being made is that there are criteria for social housing. The background of people is not something we take into account, as long as they fit the criteria. But can I say that in my own city, where we had difficulties with the Mongrel Mob, we evicted them.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: How does he think such a building programme is going to help the ordinary New Zealander, when he and his Government are bringing into this country 72,500 per year from abroad, of which over 40,000 are going to Auckland—a matter that the Minister of Immigration finds a comedy, and is the reason why she takes Valium most of the time?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: The programme, of course, will help New Zealanders. We are already helping 63,000 households throughout the country. I can mention that in the last financial year the corporation housed—get this—144 refugee households, which equates to 1.5 percent of those housed last year—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Immigration, I said.

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: —and if the member wants to argue about immigration, he needs to remember that one of the reasons we are booming as an economy at the present time is an intelligent, focused, and well-managed immigration policy.

Prisons—Spring Hill, Meremere

5. Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) to the Minister of Corrections: What is the expected cost for the construction and completion of the proposed Spring Hill prison at Meremere?

Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Corrections): Costs are currently being examined by the Government, with Treasury, Department of Corrections, and Ministry of Justice involvement. Final project approval will be sought once that work has been completed.

Hon Tony Ryall: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: I do not require shouting. The member has taken a point of order. He is entitled to be heard in silence.

Hon Tony Ryall: I put to you that the Minister has not answered the question. I have had two written questions very similar to the one I have asked, where he provided numbers. The Minister is seeking not to address the question.

Hon PAUL SWAIN: Speaking to the point of order, I point out that there are no final costs sorted out. Currently, there is—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: I have had enough. That member who interjected has had his final warning. During a point of order there is to be no interjection. The Minister is speaking to a point of order.

Hon PAUL SWAIN: Currently, work is going on to work out the final options and detailed costings. The approval will then be sought once the work is under way.

Mr SPEAKER: The Minister is entitled to answer in that way. If no final statement is made, that is his answer. I am not judging the quality of the answer.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That may be the Minister’s answer, but he was not asked what the final costs were. No project of that type would ever be contemplated by any ministry without a projected cost, and he was asked for that.

Mr SPEAKER: The Minister was asked what the expected cost is. He said there is no answer yet. He is entitled to answer in that way.

Hon Tony Ryall: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You have ruled that the Minister said there is no expected cost. In April the Minister said the expected cost was $232 million, even though the original budgeted figure was $188 million. He must know the latest expected cost. He has been advised of it.

Mr SPEAKER: If a member asserts that a Minister’s answers are contradictory, then that is a matter for debate, not a matter for me to adjudicate on. I am not responsible for the answer concerned.

Hon Roger Sowry: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You are not responsible for the answer concerned, but when the Minister has given an answer in writing to a question, with the latest costs—dated in April—and is then asked for the latest cost, he could either give the April cost if it has not changed, or give a new cost if he knows it. But to trifle with question time, as the Minister is doing—[Interruption] He is the second Minister to do that today. Tariana Turia did not answer a question, and then read the second part of the answer to question No. 1. She had the answer in front of her, but chose not to give it. We know that this Minister answered in writing—with the answer as at April—and now he refuses to give that answer to the House.

Mr SPEAKER: In answer to the first part, I pulled up the Minister Tariana Turia and made her answer the question. The member was absolutely correct about that matter, but that has nothing to do with this point of order. The Minister was asked a question, he has given an answer, and he can stand by that particular answer.

John Carter: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Just before this point of order, you gave my colleague Nick Smith a final warning about interjecting during a point of order. During that point of order, while my colleague Roger Sowry was on his feet, a number of Labour members interjected. Are you now saying that they will not be admonished for their interjections in the same way that my National colleagues have been?

Mr SPEAKER: I did not mention any member by name. Did I? If I did, then I apologise. I apologise for the fact that I made a mistake there. I say to members that I will be listening very carefully for any comments made during points of order, and the next person to make such a comment will most certainly go from the Chamber, no matter who it is.

Ron Mark: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek your assistance because this is becoming habitual, and I suggest that it is unfair on the Opposition. Some time ago we had an occasion when Mr Edwin Perry did not interject, but said the words “hear, hear” in support of a point of order being made by his leader. Your decision—according to the warnings you had already given—was to throw Mr Perry out of the Chamber. Not long thereafter, when I was making a point of order, Government members interjected in unison and none of them were thrown out, because it would have placed upon you the requirement to throw more than one of them—probably 15—out at one time. They received a warning. Government members interjected in unison again today, and once again escaped discipline. If that tactic is to be accepted from the Government side of the House, then I think it is entirely unfair.

Mr SPEAKER: It is. I will now be tightening up considerably as far as interjections are concerned. I think the member has made a valid point.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Question No. 5 asked for an expected cost for the construction and completion of the proposed Spring Hill prison at Meremere. When will we get an answer to that question, knowing that it is now November and that there was an April figure? If the figure is the same, or different, then we should know that. We have had no answer, at all.

Mr SPEAKER: It is up to the Minister to give that. If he said that he does not have a final figure, then we have to accept his word on that.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. We are not asking for any final figure—that will not be known until construction is totally complete. We are asking what anyone in Treasury or the Minister of Finance would ask of any Minister putting up such a proposal, which is what he or she thinks the likely cost will be. It is a simple question, Mr Speaker. Why do you not make him answer it?

Mr SPEAKER: Certainly, I stand by my earlier ruling. The question asked what the expected cost is. The Minister said that he does not have the figure. That was his answer.

Hon Tony Ryall: Since the Minister now appears to be covering up what is being reported as a major blowout in the budget of the Spring Hill prison, will he drop the Labour Government’s ideological opposition to private prisons, given that the company that runs the Auckland private prison says that it could build the prison at Meremere for $100 million less than this Government is proposing?

Hon PAUL SWAIN: In answer to the first part of the question, there is no cover-up. What is happening is that we are doing further work on the figures, as one would expect. As far as the second point is concerned, the answer is no. If the figures that the member is quoting are as rubbery as the figures given by the private remand prison now, I imagine they would be way off the mark.

John Carter: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister has said in his previous answers that he has no figures, but in that answer he said they were doing the figures. That must mean the Minister has some figures available, so why does he not present them to the House?

Mr SPEAKER: I do not take that at all from what the Minister said. I thought the Minister addressed the question.

Martin Gallagher: In terms of the specific needs of the region, why is the Spring Hill Corrections Facility required?

Hon PAUL SWAIN: Currently, there are 600 inmates from the region who are serving their sentences as far away as Invercargill. In order to reduce reoffending, it is important to bring inmates back to their local communities, as family support is a key part of successful rehabilitation. In addition, the Government is putting more people in prison for longer, as part of our get-tough-on-crime campaign.

Hon Tony Ryall: Will the Government not drop its ideological view against private prisons, in light of figures that I will table in the House after this question, which demonstrate that the private prison in Auckland has advised that it could run the Meremere prison for $12 million a year less than the Government is proposing, and what does the Minister think we could spend that $12 million on, when there is a desperate need for operations, police, and teachers? [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: I am warning the member. He got his one chance today, and he knows he made a mistake.

Hon PAUL SWAIN: The Government is opposed to private prisons.

Hon Tony Ryall: I seek leave to table correspondence that shows that the private prison company can build the Meremere prison for at least $100 million less than the Government proposes.

Document not tabled.

Hon PAUL SWAIN: I seek leave to table a letter to the chair of the Law and Order Committee, explaining the differences in figures that have been mentioned by the private prison for remand prisoners versus those in public prisons.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Plunket—Funding

6. STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) to the Minister of Health: What funding increases, if any, has the Royal New Zealand Plunket Society had since 1999?

Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Health): Since we became the Government, the Plunket Society’s funding has risen from $17 million in 1999 to $26 million this year, rising again to $28.5 million next year. This represents a 64 percent increase under this very good Government.

Steve Chadwick: Has she seen any reports falsely claiming that funding has been steadily cut by this Government?

Hon ANNETTE KING: Yes, I have. The ACT health spokesperson falsely said there had been steady cuts in Government funding to Plunket, a claim that was refuted by the Plunket Society president.

Hon Peter Dunne: In addition to the extra funding that has been provided to Plunket, will the Minister be issuing a directive to district health boards to say that where Plunket identifies cases to them that require the attention of the services it provides, Plunket will not be told that doing things beyond its contract is not its business?

Hon ANNETTE KING: There is no need to issue a directive to district health boards. Plunket has two contracts. It has the contract that we fund, and then its own contracts, which it has developed over many years and which are not funded by the Government—including the car seat rental schemes, and so on. What Plunket decides to do with its money is its business.

Beneficiaries—Sickness Benefit Numbers

7. KATHERINE RICH (National) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Has there been an increase in the number of beneficiaries on the sickness benefit since November 1999; if so, what is the size of the increase?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister for Social Development and Employment): Yes. The sickness benefit numbers were 32,868 in November 1999 and 40,393 at the end of October 2003. That is a 22.9 percent increase. Increasing numbers of people needing a sickness benefit for a period of time is a long-term trend, largely due to an ageing workforce. For example, between 1991 and 1995, the number of people on the sickness benefit went up by 65.6 percent.

Katherine Rich: Given that the Minister explains the rise in sickness beneficiary numbers under Labour as being driven by an ageing population and by people with mental illnesses leaving institutions, why is the Taranaki service centre of Work and Income employing Tom Mulholland, a general practitioner and part-time comedian known as the “Attitude Doctor”, to attempt to talk people off the sickness benefit if, by the Minister’s explanation, they are too old or mentally ill to work?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: New Plymouth general practitioner Dr Tom Mulholland is a highly respected physician and motivator. He will be running a programme called “Healthy Thinking”, which I am sure will be of help to many people. If the scheme is successful, I anticipate that Dr Mulholland will be in demand from many other groups of people who are suffering from depression or crisis of confidence. For example, the National Party caucus may well want to hire him.

Mr SPEAKER: No.

Georgina Beyer: What new initiatives is the Government taking to assist people on sickness and invalids benefits to return to employment or increase their levels of participation?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: The Government has many programmes to assist people on sickness and invalids benefits to return to participation in the workforce. For example, three of the new Jobs Jolt initiatives are as follows: enhanced case management and reduced sickness benefit and invalids benefit management-client ratios; innovative employment assistance programmes that include help to access health care so that people can return to work; and vocational services and employment programmes through Workbridge and other providers. The Opposition may carry on beneficiary bashing, but we are getting people back to work.

Katherine Rich: Is the Minister concerned that hiring a part-time comedian and general practitioner to use humour to motivate people off a sickness benefit confirms public concern that his initiatives to encourage people off welfare really is a “Jobs Joke”, rather than a Jobs Jolt?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: No. Given that we have 88,000 people on the unemployment benefit and an unemployment rate of 4.4 percent, the only joke is against the National Party.

Peter Brown: Does the Minister share the view of his colleague, who said earlier that poor people—people on benefits—can only afford to eat pizzas, Kentucky Fried Chicken, and McDonald’s?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: What I share is trying to get things accurate. My colleague did not say that at any time during the many answers she gave to questions in this House, and that member should not put words into her mouth. He should just put the pizza into his own.

Dr Muriel Newman: Does the Minister stand by his statement to the House on 5 August 2003 in relation to the sickness benefit that, “the sickness benefit is temporary. Before we demonise people on it, we should remember that most of them come off it, because they die”; if not, does he admit that he misled the House and will he now apologise and make a personal explanation?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I stand by the first part of the statement, but I understand that what I should have said that day—according to the people who advise me in the Ministry for Social Development—was that it was a reference to the invalids benefit.

Dr Muriel Newman: I seek leave to table official figures showing that 40,000 people moved off the sickness benefit in the year to August 2003, and only 347 of them died.

Mr SPEAKER: I should point out to the member that I usually wait to the end of the question for the tabling of documents.

Document not tabled.

Judy Turner: Will the Minister consider adopting an approach towards the sickness benefit similar to that used by the Accident Compensation Corporation in rehabilitating long-term claimants, in light of the fact that the benefit is intended to be temporary, yet about 5,000 people have been on it for 5 years or more?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: That is a very good question, and one that I will answer as follows. Accident compensation is a social insurance scheme, which means that we are able to use our projections about how long people will be on the scheme to fund getting them off it. Of course, the benefit scheme does not run in that way, but one of the things I am thinking about doing is putting proposals forward that would mean that we could estimate the length of time a person might well be on a sickness or invalids benefit. I could put forward a proposal, for example, that would allow them—as a way of moving forward—to get into the health system earlier, get their problems fixed, and move back into the workforce.

Judy Turner: In light of the increasing number of people on the sickness benefit with some sort of psychological condition such as stress, has the Minister asked officials to change the rules to require applicants to seek verification from a specialist in that area, rather than a general practitioner who can write out a prescription for antidepressants without a clinical reference?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: In the invalids’ area we have to have a designated doctor—in addition to a local general practitioner—to certify that the person is able to qualify for the invalids benefit. In the area of sickness—no, I have not considered that at this time.

Unit Titles Act—Auckland Regional Council Report

8. JILL PETTIS (Labour—Whanganui) to the Minister of Commerce: What steps, if any, is the Government taking to deal with the problems arising from inadequate maintenance of apartments under the Unit Titles Act 1972, as identified in the Auckland Regional Council’s Bodies Corporate & Intensive Housing in Auckland report?

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Commerce): The report confirms that the 1972 Act, which deals with the subdivision of land into units, is now out of date. Not surprisingly, it was called the “Flats Act”, I think, by way of reference when it passed through the House. It is now out of date, and it is not capable of meeting the needs of residents of large, modern apartment developments. The Ministry of Economic Development is now working with the Ministry of Justice to review that Act, and I hope to have amending legislation introduced into the House next year.

Jill Pettis: What problems did the Auckland Regional Council identify in its report, which the Government intends to respond to?

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: The Auckland Regional Council report identified a range of problems concerned with the way bodies corporate are required to operate under the current legislation. In particular, the report found that that was leading to practical difficulties in getting agreement to the ongoing maintenance and effective management of those developments.

Mental Health—Serious Mental Disorders

9. JUDY TURNER (United Future) to the Minister of Health: Is she satisfied with the progress made over the past year towards providing more and better services for the 3 percent of people experiencing serious mental disorders as called for in the national mental health strategy?

Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Health): Progress towards the national mental health strategy is monitored by the Mental Health Commission, an independent body. In its last report, it noted that although progress had been made in areas like funding, which increased by 5.5 percent over the previous year, in areas like alcohol and drug services and forensic services, in the number of community mental health workers, and in the matter of quality, progress was still being hindered by workforce shortages. I agree with its findings.

Judy Turner: In light of the fact that mental health funding increased, as mentioned, by 5.5 percent over the last year, but that the Mental Health Commission reports that people’s ability to access those services has not improved, what steps has the Minister taken to ensure that increased funding will have measurable results in the future?

Hon ANNETTE KING: The Mental Health Commission points out in its report that the reason we have problems in terms of greater access—even though we have more funding and more services in the particular area—remains the problem of a trained workforce. Some of the mental health blueprint money is set aside for workforce development, and I think that one of the very good things that has happened in this last year is the establishment of the John Werry centre for the training of mental health workers for children and adolescents—an area where we have been sadly lacking.

Dave Hereora: What progress has been made towards implementing the blueprint’s recommendations?

Hon ANNETTE KING: Between 1999-2000 and 2002-03 the blueprint has moved from a 58 percent to a 69 percent rate of implementation across the country. This growth path will continue into the future, as the Government has committed itself to implementing the blueprint fully.

Dr Lynda Scott: Why is nothing being done to improve family involvement in the assessment, care, and discharge planning of psychiatric patients, which was demonstrated to be so woefully inadequate in the tragic cases of Mark Burton, Peter Ellis, and Chad Buckle ?

Hon ANNETTE KING: The member will be aware that following a tragedy in Auckland, I had the Mental Health Commission undertake a review in terms of what information was provided to families. Following that review, there was the development of guidelines for that situation, and district health boards have been provided with those guidelines. Where the problem exists is in their implementation, and, certainly, the Mental Health Commission is monitoring that very closely.

Ron Mark: If progress is so good, why then, when the daughter of a mental health patient questioned after-hours support at the Seager Clinic of Princess Margaret Hospital yesterday, did the unit manager tell her that they did not have “a duty doctor on after hours on weekdays”; and why, when that same woman asked what she should do if there was an emergency during the night, did the unit manager tell her to “contact after-hours emergency’’—what sort of logic is that?

Hon ANNETTE KING: The provision of mental health services in New Zealand, as I have already said, is continually hindered by workforce shortages. We are certainly doing our best to improve them, particularly in the area of psychiatrists, because, as the member is probably aware, it takes 15 years to train a psychiatrist so they cannot be materialised overnight. We are putting a lot of emphasis on that. However, if a person is very unwell, it is not something to be alarmed about if they are referred to an emergency department at a hospital, because once they go into an emergency department they can be assessed and put into the appropriate place.

Judy Turner: Does the Minister agree with concerns raised by the Mental Health Commission in its last two annual reports that “critical mental health issues were frequently not identified or addressed” in district health board planning, and that the financial information available was not sufficiently robust; if so, how does she plan to address this problem?

Hon ANNETTE KING: Yes, I do agree with the Mental Health Commission that statistics and information from district health boards were not good enough. In fact, a lot of effort is going in to improve the information that is required for good planning and good monitoring. I am pleased to say that we are now provided with considerably more information, and that the Mental Health Commission has the ability every quarter to look at how district health boards are spending their money, where they are underspending or overspending, and are able to provide me with regular quarterly reports.

Judy Turner: Noting that the Mental Health Commission report states that overall there was no growth in child and youth mental health services during 2001-02, and that clinicians in this field report that they are only able to engage in limited interventions for the most critical cases, what is the Minister doing to address growing concerns about the state of child and adolescent mental health services?

Hon ANNETTE KING: Since the report of 2001-02 there has been improvement in access to child and youth inpatient capacity with the opening of the new youth unit here in Wellington and the new unit at the Starship Children’s Hospital. But the member is correct, there are still problems, as I identified earlier, in child and adolescent mental health services, and part of that problem is that we have not had a specialist, trained workforce for children and adolescents. The Werry Centre for Child and Adolescent Mental Health, which opened this year and has started training, will considerably help that.

Wallaceville Research Facility—Continuation

10. Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) to the Minister for Crown Research Institutes: Will he work with AgResearch to ensure the internationally recognised Wallaceville research facility stays open beyond 2008 in its existing state; if not, why not?

Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister for Crown Research Institutes): I have been in close communication with the board of AgResearch regarding its plans to progressively relocate staff from Wallaceville. The board is still in discussions with staff and with other research organisations about relocation options, and it is too early to be sure of the precise outcome.

Dr Paul Hutchison: Why does the Minister let even a shadow of closure hang over the scientists and staff when Wallaceville has a proven track record of excellence, has formed viable business clusters, and has a huge potential for growth, and when business leaders and scientists describe the closure plan as fatally flawed?

Hon PETE HODGSON: I freely acknowledge that world-class science goes on at Wallaceville, especially amongst some teams, but the member has overlooked the advantages of a progressive relocation—for example, he may wish to reflect on the fact that there is a strong science case to locate animal health research next to New Zealand’s only veterinary teaching facility. On the other hand, the work of Dr Ken McNatty, for example, will remain in Wellington.

Mark Peck: Does the Minister have confidence in the board of AgResearch in the way it has handled this matter?

Hon PETE HODGSON: I most certainly do. Changes such as those planned at Wallaceville are difficult for the staff and the community to adjust to, but I am satisfied that the board of AgResearch is working through this issue carefully, and under the careful scrutiny of the very vigilant member for Rimutaka.

Dr Paul Hutchison: If the Minister is committed to the Government’s growth and biotechnology strategies, why is he supporting the closure of a successful and viable institution that has been built up over 100 years, and why is he prepared to see all that valuable institutional knowledge destroyed at the stroke of pen?

Hon PETE HODGSON: The gentleman chooses to use polemic. He ought not. There is no destruction going on. This is a rebuilding of science, and there is a concentration of excellence in a fewer number of sites, except that Wallaceville—[Interruption] OK, members do not want to know the answer.

Mr SPEAKER: The Minister will carry on.

Hon PETE HODGSON: Except that Wallaceville does have a future, and the precise future of Wallaceville, and who will be part of it, is still to be worked through.

Pig Industry—Post-weaning Multisystemic Wasting Syndrome

11. IAN EWEN-STREET (Green) to the Minister for Biosecurity: Why did the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry decide it could not eradicate post-weaning multisystemic wasting syndrome found at three North Island pig farms, when expert epidemiologists and veterinarians have advised the Pork Industry Board that there is a 50 percent chance of containing and possibly eradicating the disease?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Associate Minister of Agriculture), on behalf of the Minister for Biosecurity: No expert in New Zealand or overseas can identify exactly what causes this disease, how to contain the disease, or, indeed, how to eradicate it. Depopulating of farms has not worked overseas, and no one knows how long to keep the farms depopulated to beat the disease. That is why taxpayers’ money is not being spent on an eradication attempt at this time.

Ian Ewen-Street: Exactly what has the ministry done to identify and close the loophole that has led to this latest major breach of our biosecurity system?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: There is no loophole in our biosecurity system. The virus that causes this disease is endemic throughout New Zealand. There has been considerable research throughout the world to try to identify what triggers the onset of the disease. That has not yet been discovered, but this Government will work with experts in New Zealand and throughout the world to try to identify and deal with this problem.

Janet Mackey: What support is the Government giving the pork industry in the wake of the discovery of this disease?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: The pork industry has decided to attempt its own containment of the disease. This is being supported by the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, which is instituting movement controls between the North Island and the South Island, as well as funding ongoing surveillance and research to try to manage and ultimately eradicate this disease. The ministry is also funding an active surveillance programme in the South Island.

Shane Ardern: Will the Minister now withdraw his statement that New Zealand has the best biosecurity systems in the world and confess to the public of New Zealand that his Government has failed in respect of its biosecurity policy, is gambling with New Zealand’s economic future, and now appears to not be able to attempt eradication?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: No, we will not change our statement because we do have one of the best biosecurity systems in the world. This Government has committed considerable funds to the area of biosecurity—in fact, $50 million more than the previous Government. We introduced instant fines for biosecurity breaches, purchased soft-tissue X-rays for every international airport, and hired extra quarantine staff and detector dogs. We have had to do a lot in the area of biosecurity, because the previous Government failed to maintain biosecurity protection for New Zealand.

Larry Baldock: Where is the consistency of approach by the Government when it commits to spending $90 million to eradicate the painted apple moth in west Auckland, with not much more than a 50 percent chance of success, yet will not spend a cent to help the pig farmers to eradicate this disease, and perhaps the Government might consider spending that money on research, which the Minister said is so desperately needed?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: The problem is that nowhere in the world has eradication been carried out. Considerable research is going on to try to find out what triggers the disease. Spending taxpayers’ money, when we have no idea what causes the disease, could be a considerable waste of time and effort.

Ian Ewen-Street: As the infected farms are not breeding units, hence the chances of further contamination are believed to be minimal, will the Minister now instruct ministry officials to attempt to eradicate the disease; if not, why not?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: Officials are always focused on attempted eradication. The way we go about that depends on the science and information available. At this time ministry officials are working with pig farmers to try to ensure they run the best hygiene systems on their farms to prevent any further infestation within New Zealand.

Ian Ewen-Street: Can the Minister confirm that all three outbreaks of the post-weaning multisystemic wasting syndrome have occurred on factory pig farms, where the crowded and stressful conditions for the pigs inevitably contribute to the spread of such diseases; if so, what is he doing to improve the conditions on factory pig farms?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: I cannot confirm that. I know that the farm where this disease was first discovered had been having ongoing health problems for 12 months, and ministry officials had been working with them to try to deal with those problems. We will do everything possible in working with the pig industry to try to deal with the problem. It is not restricted to any particular type of pig farm, and, as I say, we will work with them to try to deal with the problem.

Māori Tourism—Government Initiatives

12. MAHARA OKEROA (Labour—Te Tai Tonga) to the Associate Minister for Economic Development: What initiatives has the Government implemented to build capacity in the Māori tourism business sector?

Hon DOVER SAMUELS (Associate Minister for Economic Development): Kei te tautoko tēnei Kāwanatanga i ngā kaupapa kia tū mātārae ai te iwi Māori I roto o ngā mahi tāpoi. The Government has introduced a range of initiatives to assist Māori into tourism. For example, the Community Employment Group has launched he kete tapoi Māori, a resource kit designed specifically to assist Māori communities that wish to take up the opportunities in tourism and to develop their own unique tourism product. Initiatives include the Māori Business Facilitation Service via Te Puni Kōkiri and BIZinfo and BIZ training services, both available through New Zealand Trade and Enterprise.

Mahara Okeroa: How is the Potama Trust working with the Government to develop the capacity of the Māori tourism sector?

Hon DOVER SAMUELS: The Potama Trust actively works with the Government in developing Māori tourism through business assessments, development grants, and subsiding the attendance of some Māori operators at key trade events such as Kiwilink and Trenz. Furthermore, they are presently developing a database for all Māori tourism businesses and operators right through Aotearoa.

I seek leave to table the he kete tapoi Māori initiatives that have been put together by the Government to assist Māori into the opportunity and workings of tourism right throughout Aotearoa.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table. Is there any objection? There is objection.

Bills

Families Commission Bill

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 19 November.

Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future): It gives me great pleasure to rise in support of the second reading of the Families Commission Bill. At the outset I pay tribute to a couple of people for the work they have done to bring this bill through to this stage. I acknowledge the work of my colleague Judy Turner, who has handled this issue, from our side, from the outset, and has done a particularly fine piece of work. I also acknowledge the work of the Hon Steve Maharey, Minister for Social Development and Employment, with whom we have worked closely on this issue. I express our appreciation to him and his colleagues for the cooperative and constructive spirit in which we have been able to develop this important measure.

I was agog last night when I listened to the arguments being raised by members opposite against this bill. I have never heard reasons of such little substance raised as reasons why an important social advance should not be promoted. Firstly, they argued against the bill because of a letter that I sent to people who made submissions to the select committee. That reason was devastating enough, but then they went on to say that one reason for opposing this bill was that the Labour Party and United Future were honouring the commitment they entered into post-election. That is how rare keeping election promises is for the people on that side of the House.

Their next criticism was even better. A budget of $28 million over 4 years has been set aside for this commission, as if that was some mark against it. But it gets better. One member went so far as to say the best reason for opposing this bill was that no one had ever heard of the idea of a Families Commission until United Future promoted it. So that was a reason for opposing a good idea! The final reason that I heard advanced last night was: “You know, we’ re opposed to this because United Future’s not the only party with an interest in families.”

None of those reasons has any substance, credibility, or fact associated with it. What those paltry excuses portray is a series of jealous, whining whingers who are so annoyed that we have been able to make progress on what is an important advance in the interests of promoting the concerns of the families and the children of New Zealand, and worse still, that this measure is going to pass into law very shortly. They are further annoyed and worried that in response to the expressions of interest sought for the appointment of commissioners in recent weeks there has been a veritable deluge of interest, because out there in the New Zealand community there is a widespread feeling of support for this move. There is a widespread feeling of concern about the state of the New Zealand family and the way in which it is dealt with as an institution by Government, and there is a widespread feeling of recognition that here, at last, some positive steps are being taken to deal with the problems so many have spoken of for so long.

I want to contrast that attitude with the unctuous attitude of concern that pervaded this House last week when we talked about the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services. We were falling over ourselves and wringing our hands with concern about the situation of those poor children and about the breakdown of circumstances that had led to that tragedy. I heard speech after speech, and comment after comment, about policy failure, about the inability to look at the circumstances in a total picture, and about the fact that services were fragmented, lacked coordination, lacked clear advocacy, and lacked a clear voice. Here, a week later, when we have a measure being promoted that will, for the first time, give an overarching approach to family policy, will ensure that the issues of concern to families can be properly advocated at a Government level, will ensure that we get the research done on the state of the New Zealand family and all the issues that impact upon it, and will ensure that we promote parenting from the very early stages right through to the stage of grandparenting, those same people who so unctuously wrung their hands in concern at the plight of those poor children in Masterton, now turn round and, for the most spurious of reasons, oppose it.

There is a well-known term to describe that, but I would prefer to refer to it simply as naked political opportunism. Those members do not like the idea that two things have happened. Firstly—and I say this particularly to the New Zealand First members—we have an arrangement between the Labour Party and United Future that actually works. We are not tearing ourselves apart. We are not creating chaos and instability. We are able to achieve effective policy outcomes on behalf of the people of New Zealand. The second thing that those members do not like is that this idea—having been talked about at the election campaign and responded to favourably and having been around for a number of years, when one talks to the agencies who have been promoting it—will now come to fruition; something that previous successive Governments have been unable to deliver.

So this is not a time for narrow political bigotry of the type we have seen throughout this debate so far. This is a time to celebrate a positive achievement. This is a time to recognise that the parents and the hard-working families of New Zealand who pay their taxes, and who often get very little in terms of direct tangible benefit for those taxes, will have a voice and will have some advocates in place who will ensure that the concerns of families are brought to the table when Government policy decisions are being made.

I find it extraordinary that everyone in this House, particularly members on that side, who in the last few months have fallen over themselves to appoint spokespersons for family affairs—having never had them previously—now fail the first test and oppose this legislation. I want them to reflect on that. When they go about their business they talk to the Plunket organisations of this world, to the Presbyterian Support Services agencies, and to all the social services agencies—most of whom made submissions on this bill—all of whom are outraged at their reaction to it, and then they wonder how they can be credibly thought of as capable of delivering good family policy.

The Families Commission draws on a number of international precedents. I quote from someone who shares the same name as me, but as far as I am aware is no direct relation, Dr Michael Dunne, the chair of the Irish Families Commission. He made the point in respect of that commission that probably its greatest single achievement following its establishment—and that was an achievement in itself—was that it made issues relating to Irish families centre stage for the Irish political process. As a consequence of that it put an edict, if one likes, before every Government that every action it takes has to have at its heart what the impact of that action will be on the family.

If one translates that to the New Zealand situation, let me put it this way. There are a lot of laudable things said by various parties at various times about their aspirations for the New Zealand economy, for the education system, the health system, and so on, and so forth. They are essentially abstract if the benefit of those is not derived by the people of New Zealand. For instance, if the benefit of good economic policy is not a positive outcome for the well-being of the families and children of New Zealand, then it is essentially meaningless. If the benefit of good education policy is not to be reflected in the standard and quality of family life, it is essentially meaningless. One of the things we have failed to do over the years is to recognise that. This commission, with the powers and the credibility that it will have, and its ability not only to influence the Government of the day, but also to have policy matters referred to it, is an important step forward.

In recent weeks the Government has spoken of a programme to look at family assistance. That is the sort of thing that in the future this commission will play a pivotal role in helping to bring to together. I have already referred to the crisis in the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services. There are other issues that crop up from time to time that we as a society lament our inability to deal with on a coordinated and constructive basis. That is what this commission is about. It is about providing leadership towards a resolution thereof. For people to get up and oppose it, on the flimsy, spurious, and bitter grounds that they have, says more about their commitment to that basic ideal than it does about their political credibility, because on this issue they simply do not have any.

BARBARA STEWART (NZ First): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Last night the Minister said that there was a Supplementary Order Paper on this bill and that it would be tabled today. It is not on the Table. I wonder when the Opposition can expect to have it tabled.

Mr SPEAKER: That is not a point of order. Would the member please consult with the Clerk.

JUDY TURNER (United Future): I rise to further support United Future’s position on this bill. I want to spend the first few minutes reflecting on, and honouring, the sincere efforts of the 58 submitters on this bill who, in my opinion, were extremely short-changed by Opposition members on the select committee hearing their suggestions. The intention of United Future and the Labour Government from the outset was to listen carefully to any concerns and to work wherever possible with submitters to adjust the legislation where genuine improvements were forthcoming. In general, submitters were very positive about the proposed commission.

The most common query was about whether the bill should embrace a specific definition of family or whether the bill should stick to an acceptance of the fact that families are diverse and that the work of the commission should not be hampered by an exclusive approach to family form. In this regard, I want to express my thanks to Georgina Beyer, the chair of the Social Services Committee, advisers from the Minister’s office, the Minister himself, the Hon Steve Maharey, and the drafters who worked so cooperatively with us to address submitters’ concerns after the select committee process fell over. Some submitters were worried that the commission would become obsessed with and, in some senses, limited by the challenges of more needy families, with the result that the advocacy they wanted to see happen for healthy families would not be attended to. In response to that concern, work has been done to ensure that the legislation is very clear that the main function of the commission is underpinned by that principle that family strengths and resilience factors need to be identified, maintained, and enhanced.

A third issue raised by submitters was a request that the commission should be required to refer matters that do not fall within its mandate to appropriate agencies either centrally or locally, depending upon the need. This is now catered for and will be introduced in the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper. The Supplementary Order Paper will also include provisions giving effect to the submitters’ request that the commission will have regard, where appropriate, to New Zealand’s international obligations, and in particular to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.

The final issue raised by submitters that I want to highlight is the question of the autonomous versus independent status of the commission. Some submitters wanted extensive powers to be given to the commission, and others merely wanted reassurance that the commission would be free to speak out against any future Government initiative that may inadvertently be unfriendly towards family well-being. The truth is that as it stands the commission is designed to provide vital policy advice to the Government on the Government’s own legislative agenda, plus it is able to make evidence-based recommendations separate from the Government’s own agenda for consideration. The Families Commission is therefore autonomous enough to advocate independently for families, but linked sufficiently to the Government of the day to work constructively for the good of New Zealand families at this level.

The role that families play in the well-being of their members is immense. For all that we do to educate and support New Zealanders through the activities of our various Government departments and community initiatives, if the family context in which an individual lives is unstable and lacks continuity, then our efforts are undermined. The clear mandate of the Families Commission is to complement the existing work done by governmental and non-governmental agencies, not duplicate their efforts, and to investigate then advocate for issues that clearly enhance the family environment so that those who are dependent on that context benefit from it rather than fall victim to it. The focus is on family relationships and the part that those relationships play in shaping an individual’s future. The role of the commission is to determine what influence Government decision-making has on the stability and longevity of those relationships, and what other key factors have most impact on family sustainability, which, I presume, we all agree we should be investing in.

A clear focus on the family context has been a poorly covered base in central government thinking for too long, and it is time we put in place something to make sure that family interests are no longer left to the whim or mercy of any Government of the day. The commission forms a platform for making the vital connection between family research and family policy development. It provides a forum for gaps to be identified in our understanding of what New Zealand families need, of what gives a family resilience to work through a crisis, of how families establish and maintain strengths, of whether concepts of family strength are consistent across cultures, and of who is working effectively to support parents and children. Research information can then be supplied to both Government and community organisations to help them better target resources and better target support, and to further enhance notions of best practice when working with clients in a family context.

I am particularly thrilled at the emphasis on families’ strengths that the commission is to have. Family researcher John DeFrain states: “If one studies only family problems, one finds only family problems. Similarly, if educators, community organisers, therapists, and researchers are interested in family strengths, they look for them. When these strengths are identified, they can become the foundation for continued growth and positive change in the family, and in society.” The opportunity to establish a solutions-focused Families Commission is an exciting project. In the past the main approach has been to identify the deficits and examine the pathology in families in order to deliver services that would cater to the needs of families. An increasing number of family and community-based organisations, educators, researchers, and therapists are moving away from this somewhat disempowering nanny-State approach, and are embracing a strengths perspective to their work. A family that is classified as troubled and needy is more likely to find itself on the receiving end of all sorts of services and programmes designed and delivered by outside experts. Families then become passive recipients, rather than resourceful and actively engaged in addressing their issues and solving their problems.”

In her opening address at seventh national conference of the Australian Institute of Family Studies, the then Minister for Family and Community Services, Senator Jocelyn Newman, said that the main premise behind the Government’s stronger families and communities strategy was the belief that strong and healthy families form the best social welfare system there is, and that strengthening families represents a very sound investment in Australia’s future.

I believe that the Families Commission will help do this for us in New Zealand. If we can make the shift to measuring the nation in terms of family health, rather than just economic indicators, and if we recognise the impact that a destructive family environment has on the growth and outcomes for New Zealand, then the significance of the Families Commission becomes obvious. I look forward to the passage of this legislation.

Dr LYNDA SCOTT (National—Kaikoura): After listening to those speeches, one would think that the Families Commission is going to save the world. One would think that all families in New Zealand are now going to be absolutely amazing. After hearing what Mr Peter Dunne was saying, one would think that the establishment of a Families Commission will solve all of New Zealand’s families problems, sort out the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services, sort out the numbers on the domestic purposes benefit, and stop child abuse. I have to say that Mr Peter Dunne has a lot more faith in bureaucracy than I do. The $28 million that it will cost to establish a Families Commission could be spent on many other things that might actually do something for families in this country.

Paul Adams: Like what?

Dr LYNDA SCOTT: I have a whole 10 minutes to tell members what that money could be spent on. [Interruption] The commission will cost $28 million. Mr Dunne has far more faith in bureaucracy than I have. The bill talks about the commission being independent. Mr Dunne said that the commission has to be independent, and it should be independent so that it can criticise Government policy. But the bill states: “the Commission must have regard to any Government policy or statement of the Government’s priorities”. Basically, the commission will be a sop to the Government.

I agree with Judy Turner that families are diverse. United Future voters I have spoken to thought that United Future would stand up to this Government’s social engineering. They thought that United Future would not use a definition like “psychological attachment” meaning that that would constitute a family. “Psychological attachment” could mean the All Blacks, could it not? I think that the All Blacks are pretty psychologically attached, and I hope that they do well. But I really believe that United Future voters put United Future into Parliament because they believed that United Future would stand up for the more traditional family values. There are very diverse families in this country, but United Future voters put United Future members in Parliament because they thought that those members would stand up for the traditional family unit. We know that New Zealand families are constituted in many ways. Labour has certainly been a voice for the diversity of the family unit. Labour has stood up for that absolutely, and it has pushed the view that psychological attachment is a good basis for the definition of families. But I do not believe that United Future voters actually wanted their party to stand up for that view. I believe that they wanted United Future to stand up against Labour’s social engineering and against the view that anything goes. United Future voters tell me that they did not expect United Future to sign up to Labour’s social liberal agenda. They did not expect them to roll over so easily for this bureaucracy—the Families Commission.

I think that we do need to do something to help New Zealand families. When the National Government was in power, it spent money on things like Family Start, Strengthening Families, and Social Workers in Schools . That is what we spent money on. If we could actually do something in this country for the 20 percent of children who are in trouble, something like Family Start, that would be a far better way for the Government to spend $28 million, rather than spending it on establishing a Families Commission. If we could put wrap-around services around those young women who have babies and are in a very disadvantaged social situation, so that just one child does better, that would be better than spending $28 million on establishing a Families Commission. We know from all the research, and from all the longitudinal studies in Christchurch and Dunedin, that kids in trouble can be identified from 3 years old. We know that those children are born into families who are at a significant social disadvantage. We know that men pass through those families at a rate of knots, that there is no stability in those families, and that the kids are passed around from pillar to post. As I doctor I saw them.

I saw them coming into the surgeries. I saw the women who were abused. I saw those kids, and I knew that those families were in trouble. Spending $28 million on wrap-around services to put intensive care into those families is what would do something for the families of New Zealand.

Do members know another thing we could spend that $28 million on? We could do something for the dads in this country, because the dads are significantly disadvantaged when families break up. I have dad after dad coming to see me. One minute they are fathers, with full rights in the lives of their children, and the next minute, when families break down, they really suffer in terms of being involved in the lives of their children. A dad is reliant on the mother to determine how much involvement he can have. All of a sudden it is the mother who has custody. In a large percentage of cases, it is the mum who has custody, and it depends on the relationship she has with the dad as to how much access he gets into the lives of his children. All of a sudden that is all dads get—a bit of access.

I have seen dad after dad who cannot cope with that psychological damage, and they leave the lives of their children. I have seen dad after dad traumatised. I had a dad come to see me who had cancer. He was dying. Against all court orders, his wife would not let him see his kids. He had to get the police if he wanted to see his children. That is appalling. That should not be able to happen in this country. That $28 million could be spent on doing something about the Family Court—on opening it up. I totally support Muriel’s Newman’s point of view that we should start from a basis of shared parenting and shared custody, because, then, parents would have to speak to each other about the lives of their children—they would have to put their children first. We should have more counselling for families when parents are going through the divorce courts. Probably, we should have mandatory counselling to make sure that the problems get sorted out and that the kids are put first. That is what would improve things in this country. We should not be setting up a bureaucracy, a Families Commission. Twenty-eight million dollars for some of the alternatives I have mentioned would do so much more for this country.

I am sorry—but I cannot see that a Families Commission will work. It will be like the Ministry of Women’s Affairs. Who knows who runs it? Who knows what it ever does? A commission will not work. I do not believe it will make any difference. We know that eighty percent of our children actually do quite well in this country, and that 20 percent do not. We have to look at that 20 percent. We have to look at the lives of those families, and at putting in place systems that have been shown to work overseas. That is why I was talking about National putting in place social workers in schools—strengthening families. We have talked about the lives of those two little girls who died. What works is a policy like Strengthening Families, with just one person involved instead of a myriad of agencies that do not talk to one another. Programmes on the ground are what works, not a commission. What will work are programmes on the ground that will do something for the lives of those children. That is what National believes in, and that is what we support when we talk about families.

PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First): Mr Speaker—

Hon Dover Samuels: Father of the House!

PETER BROWN: I thank the member—that is a compliment. Anybody who calls me a “father” is paying me a compliment. One of my greatest achievements in life—and probably it is the greatest achievement in life—is bringing up two kids. I am a second-time married person, and I inherited another three children. I have five children, who have all grown up to be reliable, decent, sound adults—all of them. That is because I put a strong emphasis on family values. Don’t nod at me in that sanctimonious manner, Mr Baldock! I resent those people sitting on the United Future benches and saying across the House that because New Zealand First does not support its bill it is anti-family. I resent that by inference, and I resent it by statement. Judy Turner, the United Future member who put out the press release, should hang her head in shame. Certainly, the letter that the Hon Peter Dunne sent to submitters is disgraceful.

Darren Hughes: Venal!

PETER BROWN: The last person who called me venal is still recovering from the shock. When someone called me venal, the jacket came off and that person went down.

Hon Dover Samuels: Ha, ha!

PETER BROWN: Grey hairs and all, Dover Samuels—I am not past it. I draw members’ attention to a bill called the Commission for the Family Bill, in the name of my honourable colleague Dail Jones. It was in the ballot before those guys in United Future knew where the toilets were. It was in the ballot before they had unlocked their offices. It contains a definition of “family”. That crowd over there in United Future is going berserk about supporting the family. That is the outfit that could not support the Health and Safety in Employment Amendment Bill, because it did not contain a definition of “stress”; yet their Families Commission Bill does not contain a definition of “family”. I listened intently to Judy Turner’s speech a few moments ago. I lost count of the times she mentioned the word “family”, yet she does not even know what it means. She does not have the gumption or the intellect to put in this bill what is meant by the word “family”.

Darren Hughes: Too much vinegar at lunchtime.

PETER BROWN: Too much vinegar, the member thinks. I agree with United Future on one aspect: families are the cornerstone of society. Where we disagree is that New Zealand First knows exactly what we mean by the word “family”. I tell those United Future MPs that “family” means “a family group, including an extended family—(a) in which there is at least one adult member; and (b) in which the members have a biological or legal relationship.”

That is a very simple definition of a family, and when I last mentioned it in the House, Gordon Copeland could not get across fast enough to get a copy of this document, because he was worried that under the United Future bill, three prostitutes and a pimp would constitute a family. I challenge one of the United Future members to tell me I am wrong that three prostitutes and a pimp living together in a house would constitute a family. They would qualify as a family under this bill.

United Future does not even know what “family” means. It does not have a clue. I think the Labour member over there is pretty clueless, but he is young enough—he can learn. The United Future guys are a little bit past it. There is no hope for those guys. They go out to the public and say they are the family-friendly party—that they are the party for the family—but they do not know what they are talking about. They cannot define the word “family” to the average member of the public.

Darren Hughes: The member is still going on about that.

PETER BROWN: For that member over there, I will repeat the definition. “Family” means a family group, including an extended family, in which there is at least one adult member, and in which the members have a biological or legal relationship. That is pretty straightforward—[Interruption]. Judy Turner heckles now, but she could not even come up with anything near a definition. United Future members could not come up with a definition of stress, and they voted against that bill. In this bill, they cannot come up with a definition of “family”, and they call the bill the jewel in their Crown.

When United Future’s term finally ends and it says goodbye to Parliament at the next election, there will be more prostitution in this country than ever before—far more. United Future could not put a stake in the sand to stop that. There will be more drug use than ever before, despite its mini stake in the sand. There will be more break-ups of proper families—as I understand them, and United Future does not understand—than ever before. There will be more children brought up in adverse circumstances in single-parent units.

This bill is a sop to United Future. Some $28 million worth of taxpayer dollars will go on it, and there is no definition of “family”. For $28 million, we could have thousands of operations, and we could easily introduce breast cancer screening for every woman over the age of 40 until the age of 70 three or four times over. Yet the Government is promoting this sort of garbage legislation that says nothing, just to keep this motley little crowd onside. That is what the Government is doing. Just to keep this motley little crowd onside, it is giving a Families Commission Bill—

Darren Hughes: Looked in your caucus room lately?

PETER BROWN: The honourable member—I have forgotten his name—does not know what it is about. I can tell the young gentleman—is he a young gentleman? Well, he is young—that the family is the most important part of our society by a long way. I share that view with United Future, but the difference between us is that I know what I am talking about, and United Future does not. It is playing the worst sort of politics. It is playing with people’s emotions and fears—

Darren Hughes: Sit down.

PETER BROWN: Has the member read the letter that was sent out to all the submitters? It is an absolute disgrace. To use the word “venal”—which is offensive by anybody’s standards—

Darren Hughes: What does it mean?

PETER BROWN: I just happen to have the Oxford Dictionary definition here. The word “venal”, applied to a person, means “able to be bribed or corrupted”. I say to the member, who knows not very much about anything, that if having a definition of “family” in this bill made it that much better, New Zealand First would have looked at it much more positively. But we are not prepared to support a bill that does not have a definition. [Interruption] I ask Judy Turner where the Supplementary Order Paper is. We are debating a bill with a Supplementary Order Paper that is yet to come. It gets worse and worse.

This bill is a failure. I would move a motion that we scrap this lot and adopt my colleague Dail Jones’ Commission for the Family Bill, which was written by somebody who knows what he is talking about. It is a far better bill, and I am confident that we on this side of the House would all support it. If we gave United Future a little bit of coaching, even it would see the error of its ways and come around to supporting that bill. This bill is garbage, and Mr Dail Jones’ bill is absolutely top-notch. At least it has a definition of “family”.

DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki): After the interminable 10 minutes that the deputy leader of New Zealand First just subjected us to, it is clear that a Families Commission is OK, provided New Zealand First dreamt it up. If anybody else brings a bill to Parliament, then that must be a bad thing—it must be terrible. New Zealand First must lace the bill with personal abuse against a party that has come into Parliament with a very clear mission—a party that has come into a governing relationship with the Labour Party and Progressive, and is getting something done.

There was once a time when New Zealand First was in Government. Did it promote the Families Commission then? Oh, no. Its members came into Opposition when they walked out of Government because they could not take the pace, and they sit over there giving gentleman’s-hour speeches, like the one we just heard from Mr Brown. I support the speeches given by Mr Dunne and Mr Maharey. This is a great bill, and I will vote for its second reading.

DAVID BENSON-POPE (Labour—Dunedin South): I am pleased to follow my learned colleague, and I find it extraordinary that on an issue like this, New Zealand First is so incapable of giving any even slightly reasoned argument. That party comes in here day after day, rants on about prejudice, talks about immigration, and tries to scratch any sore it can find, and is even now having its leadership referred to as the blowfly of New Zealand politics. For that party to follow those arguments illustrates what an absolute paucity it brings to the Chamber. I am happy to support this legislation.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Families Commission Bill be now read a second time.

Ayes 60

New Zealand Labour 52; United Future 8.

Noes 52

New Zealand National 23; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9;ACT New Zealand 6; Independent: Awatere Huata.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Ngati Tama Claims Settlement Bill be now read a third time.

Ayes 107

New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 24; New Zealand First 13;Green Party 9; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata.

Noes 6

ACT New Zealand 6.

Bill read a third time.

Bill read a second time.

Bills

Ngati Tama Claims Settlement Bill

Third Reading

Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Energy), on behalf of the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations: I move, That the Ngati Tama Claims Settlement Bill be now read a third time. Today is a special day for the people of Ngāti Tama and the Crown. It is a further step in the journey towards reconciliation that will enable new pathways to be forged, further enhancing Ngāti Tama’s economic, social, and cultural well-being, and that will assist in fostering more effective, endurable relationships between Ngāti Tama and the Crown, based on goodwill and trust.

This bill will bring to an end the longstanding and significant grievances of Ngāti Tama, and settle all the iwi’s historical treaty claims. The historical background to the claims makes for sombre reading. It provides an account of New Zealand’s history wherein Ngāti Tama was faithful to the spirit of the treaty—seeking to build strong relationships based on mutual respect and trust with its treaty partner—but, sadly, the Crown did not act like that in return. The bill contains a formal apology to Ngāti Tama for breaches of the treaty acknowledged by the Crown.

Ngāti Tama has been in direct negotiations with the Crown since November 1996, when a deed of mandate was recognised. A heads of agreement, recording the main components of a settlement, was signed in September 1999. A deed of settlement, the formal Crown offer to Ngāti Tama to settle the claims under the Treaty of Waitangi, was then developed by the Crown and Ngāti Tama negotiators. The deed was signed on 20 December 2001 after first having been ratified by 97 percent of the people who voted.

This Government is totally committed to progressing the settlement of valid historical treaty claims. I know there are people who like to criticise the current treaty settlement process. Those people forget that settlement is a two-way process that seeks to restore and, in some instances, to activate relationships—a process designed to resolve all the historical treaty claims of a group of people. Settlement is the pathway to reconciliation from which each treaty partner can move forward with a shared understanding of the past.

Over the past decade the Crown has developed and refined a process for settling historical treaty claims. This process is now leading to a steady stream of comprehensive settlements. The Ngati Tama Claims Settlement Bill is the second bill enacting a settlement this year, with the Ngāti Ruanui claims settlement legislation being the first. Deeds of settlement have also been signed with Ngāti Awa and Ngāti Tuwharetoa ki Kawerau, and another will be signed shortly with Ngā Rauru.

The Crown has withstood challenges in the Waitangi Tribunal, and in the courts, over its policy approach to settlements. The Waitangi Tribunal inquired into Ngāti Maniapoto’s overlapping interests in this settlement, and I am pleased to tell the House that the inquiry found in favour of Ngāti Tama’s settlement proceeding. Members should all be assured 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 Tama and the Crown who, over many long years, have worked hard to arrive at this day. Their passion and commitment have greatly helped the process, which I know has often seemed daunting and arduous, and which has taken its toll.

I encourage all New Zealanders to read the historical account outlined in the Ngāti Tama deed of settlement. It tells a sad history, about which some of us have a general awareness but know little of the detail. It is a history all New Zealanders should be familiar with, so we can move forward together.

To the people of Ngāti Tama, their ancestors, their elders, their descendants, and their negotiating team, I, on behalf of the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, extend best wishes for the future, whatever that may hold. The enhancement of their cultural, social, and economic development awaits them. I commend this bill to the House.

BILL GUDGEON (NZ First): Those sacred and historic sites that formed the foundation of Ngāti Tama, including the fishing-grounds that Ngāti Tama arduously preserve through traditional conservation methods, have re-formed Ngāti Tama in their identification with the physical symbols that were historically theirs. New Zealand First supports the third reading of the Ngati Tama Claims Settlement Bill, and acknowledges the negotiating team’s efforts in bringing this legislation to fruition. With the Crown accepting the importance of the cultural, spiritual, traditional, and historic association of Ngāti Tama to those boundaries, I am positive that an atmosphere of cooperation and fellowship will be generated between all those concerned. I am sure the Historic Places Trust will work closely with tangata whenua in their quest for the preservation of sites that will contribute to the history of the area.

Common sense tells us that without close cooperation of the parties concerned, we in this House would not be at the stage we are at today. New Zealand First acknowledges the Ngati Tama Claims Settlement Bill, and supports it to the stage at which a positive agenda will be generated amongst the recipients of this claim.

I say to Ngāti Tama that it is important to New Zealand First that the taonga they worked so hard to reclaim will be at the forefront of their ambitions, and that their claims to the treasures of this world will be considered also as imperative to their further economical development. If that is not achieved, they should ask themselves whether all that hard work has been worth it.

In the end, New Zealand First is happy to support this bill. We are happy it is on the way to a conclusion, and that Ngāti Tama will reap the benefits under good administration.

SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki - King Country): It is with pleasure that I rise to speak on behalf of National in support of the Ngati Tama Claims Settlement Bill. This legislation is the result of a process that was started under the last National Government, and that has now gone on through two Labour terms in Parliament. It is with pleasure I see it finally coming to a conclusion. The questions are: why has it taken so long, and how long will it take Labour to settle the other Taranaki claims? Two iwi have now reached a conclusion to their claims in Taranaki. There are six more to go. That is a very slow process, and the Government is very slow when it comes to getting it done.

However, I wish to thank the Government for the work it has put in, in finally getting the bill to this stage, and I know that members and representatives of Ngāti Tama who may be listening are pleased we have finally got to this point. I say to them that this has been a very, very long journey for them. There is no question that, when one studies the history of New Zealand and some of the colonial atrocities—I guess that that is the word to use—inflicted on the native people of New Zealand, including Ngāti Tama, at the time colonisation took place, there is an issue to be resolved.

It is pleasing to see that resolution process. If one asks the question of why it is necessary to go through that process, one needs to look only at the disparity between Māori and non-Māori New Zealanders, and at how small minorities of New Zealand citizens have been treated—particularly in our early history—to understand there is a depth of feeling and a grievance that has gone on for far too long. It is great and pleasing to see that the State is finally acknowledging that, in terms of both financial redress and an official apology. I congratulate the Minister on finally getting there and making that happen.

I say to those who are now going forward after the settlement that they should make sure the proceeds of the settlement ensure that the wider membership of Ngāti Tama goes forward and prospers—that it becomes one in New Zealand and does well. There is an opportunity here in terms of education, financial benefit, and commercial opportunity, and in terms of redressing some of the problems that have held back not only Ngāti Tama but also iwi throughout the whole of New Zealand over that period. I look forward in anticipation to the prosperity I am sure will result.

I have met, and know, a lot of the people involved in the Ngāti Tama iwi. I have been to the marae. They are a very hospitable, progressive, and forward-thinking people, and I wish them luck. I know that they are working already—and have been for some time—in a range of areas to maximise their opportunities, and I hope they continue in that and are now able to fast track some of those projects. I look forward with anticipation to seeing the outcome of some of that work.

I also say that, without the leadership and the fortitude of people like Jim Bolger and Sir Douglas Graham who started this process, it would never have got going. There had been a lot of feeble attempts, I might say, by successive Governments over a long period of time to try to do something in that area. I hasten to add that Mr Bolger and Sir Douglas came from the wrong side of the political tracks with regard to where Māori political allegiance usually lies, but they saw that unless we found a way forward as a society to try to bridge the gaps that existed both culturally and economically—not to close them, as the current Government claimed it would do, and then hastened to widen them—we could not move forward as a nation.

I strongly believe that that is still the case to this day. Unless we bridge those gaps—unless we can agree to be different but one and the same as a country—we will never move forward. New Zealand simply cannot have something like 14 or 15 percent of its population—which is expected to grow to 20 percent in the next 10 or 12 years—so far behind the rest of the country economically and socially without having some kind of economic and social problem within the nation. So I say to those at the front of this process that they should go forward now and make this legislation a full, final, and solid resolution to the difficulties they have suffered over a long period of time. I acknowledge those who are here today, and I wish them luck.

Hon JOHN TAMIHERE (Associate Minister of Māori Affairs): I commend the bill to the House, in its third reading. I acknowledge the contribution made by the member for Taranaki – King Country. I want to raise a number of things, and the first is to acknowledge the undoubted and significant work of the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, the Hon Margaret Wilson. It is right that in this House we do rise on behalf of our colleagues, and I express the merit, the capability, and the capacity that this Minister has brought to this very difficult task. I want to commend her, and place that commendation on the record.

The second point I want to make relates to the settlement process, per se. It is very important that our difficulties are told. It is very important that a healing process occurs—and it has, and this legislation brings it to a conclusion. But, more important, let us get over its victim-hood status. The true test in the next 10 years for Māori leadership, whether it is for Ngāti Tama, or elsewhere, will be how the rubber hits the road and how these assets are aligned with where our underperforming communities are. That is the true test, and we will be vigilant about that on behalf of the beneficiaries of these assets. It is about getting these assets linked to the many—not to the few.

This is a big test. It is a huge challenge, and it is now in the hands of Māori people, like those in leadership of Ngāti Tama, to ensure that the rubber hits the road so that, in the next 10 years when our babies are coming through, they are no longer the cabin boys in this ship, but the captains. Those are the sorts of key benchmarks we want, as a people. The challenge now is on our people’s leadership. The challenge now is not for the Government to make everything happen; the challenge now is not for Pākehā people to have a burden of guilt; the challenge now is directly on our leadership.

I look forward to the leadership of Ngāti Tama being a key exemplar of demonstrating quite clearly that these assets and these settlements will be linked with our performance, and that our performance will be a beacon as we start to produce the pride in ourselves we undoubtedly have, and release the potential we undoubtedly have. That is why this part of the process is a great part, and I commend the bill to the House accordingly.

METIRIA TUREI (Green): Kia ora koutou katoa, he mihi nui ki ngā rangatira, he mihi nui ki a Ngāti Tama. The Greens have considered very carefully our support for the restitution of claims, along with our very deep concerns about the treaty settlement process, but we have in the end decided to support this bill. We acknowledge Ngāti Tama’s efforts to achieve some form of justice and restitution for the grievous harms caused to the manawhenua. We applaud the resilience of the iwi in getting through the difficult settlement process, and in achieving a settlement at all. We were pleased to see the comparatively high ratification rate, for example, for the deed of settlement.

However, we are deeply aware of the strongly felt opposition to this bill—from people who, like us, consider that the settlement process simply creates further injustice. The ratification rate for the governance entity was not good, and there were significant and compelling submissions that raised serious concerns about the exclusion of Ngāti Tama people from the process, and their obstruction. We urge the governance entity to take those concerns very seriously, if it is to manage and utilise the settlement assets for the benefit of every member of Ngāti Tama—as is its solemn responsibility.

The issues raised, and the fact that they remain unresolved, highlight the serious flaws in the settlement policy and process, which create a conflict, fail to manage that conflict, and then deny all responsibility for it. The settlement process selects the winners, disadvantages the others, and leaves the iwi, hapū, and whānau to pick up the pieces at the end.

There are steps, we believe, that could be taken to improve the process, which are necessary for a robust resolution of historical claims and the continuation of a healthy treaty relationship that does go into the future. The first is that the process should undergo a comprehensive review by those people who are affected by the process—that is, the iwi, the hapū, and the whānau. This settlement has shown another serious problem within the process, where a competent challenge to the mandate goes unsupported by the responsible State agency, while the challenged group receives support and funding.

We do not want to set a required level of support for the mandate that does not take into account the particular circumstances of the settlement and the iwi and hapū involved. We agree that it is not for the State to determine who is to be the governance entity or those responsible for the management of the iwi’s assets. That is a decision for the iwi and hapū alone. But, despite claims to the contrary, the Office of Treaty Settlements does interfere with that decision in ways that undermine the sovereignty and capacity of iwi and hapū.

It does that in the first instance by unilaterally determining the requirements for the structure and nature of the governance entity. That, in some cases, has led to an unjustifiable and unconscionable delay in the process to force iwi into a particular structure, and, secondly, as in this case, to fund one possible entity over another. The process of the Office of Treaty Settlements has failed the whānau whānui, and Ngāti Tama as a whole. That is why the process of treaty settlements needs a full-scale, independent, and comprehensive review. Such a review needs to engage specifically with the mechanics of the process, the mandate requirements, and, of course, the large natural groupings policy.

It is not sufficient for the Office of Treaty Settlements simply to say that with each new settlement the office learns more and therefore refines its process. That does not assist those iwi and hapū who have suffered a further injustice and indignity, simply because the office is on a learning curve. Neither is it acceptable to claim that the processes are generally acceptable to Māori because Māori engage with them. That is wilful blindness, and demonstrates a failure to understand the complexity of the social and economic milieu within which Māori operate.

Māori have never been involved in determining the best process for the restitution of their historical issues. That is the first fundamental flaw, and it has resonated throughout the whole process, leaving serious, ongoing injustices in its wake. The continual failure to review the process is simply another insult by this Government—that Māori should remain passive and grateful recipients of State benevolence. That is structural racism, and is not, and never will be, acceptable.

The time will come when historical claims have been done, reparation made—such as it is—and that part of this process is over. But there remains the need for the Crown to have developed an ongoing relationship under the treaty that is not property-based, but that takes into account the constitutional aspects of te tiriti. There are constitutional implications in article 2 that have not been properly considered by the Crown or the courts. There are a multitude of different views about what those constitutional implications are, but no Government has yet had the will to enable that dialogue to happen in any coherent way.

With each new settlement, a new injustice is created. This year the treaty settlement process has left open wounds within Tangāhoe, within Pakakohi, and now within a significant section of Ngāti Tama . Ngāti Maniapoto is also justly aggrieved in its belief that it has legitimate claims over areas included in the redress for Ngāti Tama. The Government’s treaty settlement process fails iwi, hapū, and the nation as a whole.

The Green Party is committed to an ongoing national dialogue that is grounded in te tiriti. We believe that this will both give effect to the relationship that it enshrines, and that it will build a high level of awareness among all citizens in Aotearoa New Zealand of the unique role of te tiriti in the evolution of our nation. The treaty is not a panacea, nor is it a weapon. What it is, and should be, is nation-building.

Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT): On behalf of the ACT party I am addressing the third reading of the Ngati Tama Claims Settlement Bill . The ACT party is certainly delighted at and acknowledges the process involved in hopefully bringing this claim to fruition. We certainly acknowledge the foul deeds that were done in the name of the Crown by the Governor in 1860 and the years thereafter, which dishonoured the Crown. That certainly demands a settlement, to anyone who believes in fairness. But having said that, I say the ACT party will not be supporting this bill at its third reading. I would like to share with the House the reasons for that.

ACT favours full, fair, and final settlements for legitimate treaty grievances. In fact, we have campaigned since entering this Parliament in 1996 for full, fair, and final outcomes. But there are provisions in this settlement, as outlined by the previous speaker, that are unresolved matters. We do have concerns that the settlement may well create further injustices and highlight some of those unresolved issues. We have heard mention of the exclusion and the obstruction of the Ngāti Tama people in the process of deriving this negotiated settlement with the Crown. I think the point was very well made that we risk a very serious situation if these settlements are to be nothing but examples of claimants becoming the passive recepients of State benevolence, because that is a recipe for revisiting the problems that we face. So, while we are delighted and pleased to see that the grievance has been addressed and a negotiated agreement reached, we do think there are real problems with the process that may well mean it is not final, and, in fact, that this very process may well be the trigger for further claims. That just exacerbates the perception we have in our society of a treaty grievance industry that is self-perpetuating. Where the Crown can ensure that remedies are full and final we will support it, but we are not convinced that is the case in this situation.

I also express the concern of the ACT party with regard to some of the language and the concepts that are interwoven into this settlement. In particular, the settlement confers special rights on the Ngāti Tama people over land that is not theirs. The amendments to the Resource Management Act and some of the language in this settlement confer privileges and rights over land that is not theirs and is not part of the settlement. That, in itself, is a recipe for ongoing litigation and conflict. Of course, that is now interwoven in much of our legislation—in particular, the Resource Management Act. I was surprised that New Zealand First is voting for this bill, because like ACT, Winston Peters has campaigned on and championed opposition to the principles of the treaty—those undefined principles—yet in this settlement legislation we have a lot of reference to the principles of the treaty. We do not know what they are. The Crown has never told us what those principles are, yet it keeps legislating for them. ACT is not prepared just to accept benignly legislation that perpetuates those sorts of problems.

So it is with some sadness that we cannot support this bill. We acknowledge the grievance, we accept the effort that was made in terms of reaching a negotiated agreement, but on conclusion we are not satisfied that this bill has got it right. I do think that the negotiated agreement is interesting in itself, because we know that there are some 750 claims before the Waitangi Tribunal. In the 25-odd years that the Waitangi Tribunal has been addressing these issues it has, on average, managed one settlement a year. [Interruption] The Government has just announced that it is stepping that up to two settlements a year, which is encouraging. But on the basis of one settlement a year, with 750 claims lodged, even if no more claims were lodged we would have another 750 years ahead of us of the self-perpetuating treaty industry.

That is why ACT consistently campaigns for full, fair, and final settlements. We must bring an end to the grievance industry, so that as a nation we can move forward. I reiterate the other point, which is that we firmly believe in one class of citizenship—one law for all. That is why we must oppose the provision in this bill whereby special privilege is given to a group of people, based on their race—and it is a privilege and rights over land that is not theirs, which is a breach of article 3 of the treaty. I think it would be wrong if this bill were to pass through this House without those issues being flagged.

MURRAY SMITH (United Future): United Future is pleased to support the third reading of this bill. I would like to start by correcting Mr Ken Shirley. It was a mistake that he was not alone in making, because I have heard Winston Peters, who I thought would have known better, make exactly the same mistake that Mr Shirley made. There are not 750 settlements to go. Each settlement resolves a number of claims that are before the Waitangi Tribunal, and the best estimates are that 45 or 50 settlements will be necessary in order to dispose of all the claims.

Hon Ken Shirley: So we have only 50 years to go!

MURRAY SMITH: We want to speed up the process, and United Future has been pushing very hard to speed it up to a level of four or five claims a year, which we think is sustainable. I certainly concur with ACT, to the extent that I believe that the process needs to be pushed faster. United Future has succeeded in getting the Minister to commit herself to having 90 percent of the claims settled by 2015, and that is considerable progress on where both the previous National Government and this Labour Government were heading just 1 short year ago.

I congratulate Ngāti Tama on reaching what is a significant event, and its whānau, hapū, and iwi on reaching the point where they will now have a degree of self-sufficiency that has been denied them for nearly one and a half centuries, and a resolution of the grievances that have affected them over that time. I have no doubt that to them the apology from the Crown is at least as significant as, if not more significant than, the recompense they are receiving. The apology provides an opportunity for Ngāti Tama to let go of the grievances of the past, and to move forward in a new and positive relationship with the Crown and New Zealand in general. The bill provides a combination of an apology and a settlement, and that provides freedom—a freedom that is offered to the iwi to put the grievances behind it, and to move on and provide a positive contribution to its own people and to the wider interests of New Zealand.

For the Crown, a considerable indictment is conveyed in this bill, not only in terms of past offences but of continuing offences, and not only in terms of direct offences but also of bureaucratic offences that continued beyond the direct offences. It is important during the third reading to make some allusion to the grievances that were effectively created, so that they are put on the record at this time. In particular, unjustified hostile actions were initiated against the iwi in 1860. There were confiscations of land. Some 74,000 acres of land were confiscated with inadequate consideration around about 1865, and then there were the events at Parihaka in 1881, which we are well familiar with, and in which Ngāti Tama was also involved. That was followed by bureaucratic offences—the West coast commissions of 1880 returned limited land to the iwi, but the amount was small, and it was of poor quality and insufficient for its needs. That land was also placed under Public Trust control, whereby perpetual leases meant that by 1974—a very recent date—60 percent of the land had been sold and 26 percent was under perpetual leases. The Sim Commission of 1926-27 did not fully investigate the return of the land, let alone the return of wāhi tapu and other taonga of the iwi. An annuity of £5,000 was recommended for all the Taranaki iwi to split between themselves, and £300 for the Parihaka offences. Yet not even that amount was fully paid. There was no consultation with the iwi about that recompense, let alone an acceptance by them of that, despite the Taranaki Maori Claims Settlement Act of 1944, which claimed that there had effectively been such an acceptance. The Crown now admits that there was no such acceptance, but this redress has been reached after full consultation with and the approval of the iwi.

Ngāti Tama was a successful iwi before it was stripped of its self-sufficiency and its mana. I, and United Future, can only hope that with the passing of this bill, Ngāti Tama can regain its mana and a measure of self-sufficiency. I note that the settlement redress package includes not only the Crown’s acknowledgments and apology but financial redress of $14.5 million and a right of first refusal for a period of 50 years over certain Crown-owned land in the Ngāti Tama right-of-first-refusal area as designated, together with a site-specific right of refusal over the Tongaporutu recreation reserve. It also includes cultural redress, including the transfer of five sites of cultural and spiritual significance and including large areas of conservation land. In addition the package includes 11 statutory acknowledgments and seven deeds of recognition, protocols with five Government departments, appointment of the Ngāti Tama governance entity as an advisory committee to the Minister of Fisheries and the Minister of Conservation, and a right of first refusal for a period of 50 years over two species of shellfish—kina and surf clams—if they are introduced into the quota management system. Finally, there is an acknowledgment of Ngāti Tama’s customary non-commercial interest in pāua and in certain other species in the iwi’s area of interest. Those are significant areas of compensation, although like most settlements I am sure they will not represent the full value of what was taken. The fact that Ngāti Tama has been prepared to accept a less than 100 percent settlement, in order to resolve these matters and move forward, is to its credit.

It is also pleasing to see that with a 61 percent participation rate in the settlement mandate and a 97 percent affirmation of the terms of settlement, Ngāti Tama has provided one of the highest settlement ratification and participation rates to date, and that is greatly encouraging. The concern, of course, is that there was such a low turn-out in voting on the governance entity—a mere 32 percent—although 98 percent of those people approved the governance entity. In looking at the reasons for the low turn-out it seems to have been the view of the negotiator and the two rūnanga representatives that that was due more to apathy, because of the length of time the settlement process was taking, than to active dissent. They have raised an issue about possible confusion over two tick-boxes: one being for the governance entity, and the other for an advance payment of $250,000. They were also of the view that many Ngāti Tama voters considered they had expressed sufficient support when they ratified the deed of settlement. Those are matters that the Crown is addressing, with a view to trying to get a greater participation rate in future treaty settlements. One of the measures the Crown is trying to explore is the ratification of the deed of settlement and the governance entity simultaneously, and that would certainly improve the turn-out figures.

For the Crown and Ngāti Tama the passing of this bill today constitutes the end of the issue. However, for Ngāti Tama and Ngāti Tama Whānau Whānui, it is the beginning of the management of the new resources they have been given. In Māori culture we understand there is a strong measure of restorative justice, and that it is a better system than the Pākehā-inherited system of adversarial justice. There is now an opportunity for Māori among themselves to demonstrate the superiority of restorative justice principles, and to demonstrate that relationships between the different groups within Ngāti Tama can be resolved in a way that builds the relationships and actually reaches solutions. If New Zealanders can see that Māori can resolve their own internal grievances by that method, that will give us encouragement to change the nature of the New Zealand system to one that I, personally, believe would be preferable, in terms of restorative justice rather than adversarial approaches. Here is an opportunity to prove that. Personal rights and personal agendas need to be set aside for the sake of the iwi as a whole and the country as a whole, and respect needs to be given to all.

I congratulate Ngāti Tama again. United Future is very pleased to see this bill going through the House and to support the third reading. We wish the people of Ngāti Tama good fortune in the future, as they deal with these assets and as they relate together.

Bills

Visiting Forces Bill

First Reading

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Minister of Police), on behalf of the Minister of Defence: I move, That the Visiting Forces Bill be now read a first time. It is my intention to move at the conclusion of this debate that the bill be referred to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee.

The Visiting Forces Bill will repeal and replace the Visiting Forces Act of 1939. The proposed bill is intended to rectify certain deficiencies, identified by the Crown Law Office, in the Visiting Forces Act. The bill will also update the law relating to visiting armed forces, and bring it into line with developments in New Zealand law as well as the law of New Zealand’s friends and allies.

This is important for reasons of international reciprocity. New Zealand expects that its armed forces will enjoy similar privileges and immunities from local jurisdictions, when they are deployed to foreign countries, as their visiting counterparts receive here. The relationships in respect of jurisdiction are contained in the status of forces agreements that are routinely negotiated with States with which New Zealand has defence relations, and to which the New Zealand Defence Force deploys. This is made difficult when, under current legislation, New Zealand is unable to guarantee similar privileges and immunities to forces visiting New Zealand.

The principle generally recognised under international law is that a State that voluntarily admits a foreign armed force to its territory by implication undertakes not to exercise any jurisdiction over the force or its members that would be inconsistent with its continuing to exist as an efficient force of the sending State. Prior to the 1951 NATO Status of Forces Agreement there was, however, considerable debate as to the extent to which a visiting force must be considered subject to the laws of the receiving State. The solution arrived at in the NATO Status of Forces Agreement provided that, for most purposes, there is shared jurisdiction between sending and receiving States. The NATO agreement allocated primary jurisdiction to the sending State for offences committed in the performance of official duties, or against other members of the force or accompanying civilians. Off-duty offences committed against the local population were left to the primary jurisdiction of the receiving State.

The Crown Law Office has identified that the 1939 Act does not (a) contain any provision to resolve issues of shared jurisdiction; (b) provide for members of visiting forces who commit offences in New Zealand to be arrested and brought before a court in the usual way, pending resolution of the question of jurisdiction; (c) provide an effective safeguard against double jeopardy; or (d) deal with coronial inquests into the death of a member of a visiting force.

The Visiting Forces Bill will make the following improvements: (a) potential application to any foreign State—not just Commonwealth members—whose armed forces are in New Zealand with the consent of the New Zealand Government; (b) clarification that the jurisdiction of visiting forces may include criminal jurisdiction, which will enable New Zealand to give effect to the status of forces agreement signed with Australia in 1998; (c) provision of a mechanism to resolve issues of shared jurisdiction between New Zealand and the sending State; (d) provision for members of visiting forces who commit offences in New Zealand to be arrested and brought before a court in the usual way, pending resolution of the question of jurisdiction; (e) effective safeguard against double jeopardy; and (f) provision concerning coronial inquests into deaths arising from the presence in New Zealand of a visiting force.

The Visiting Forces Bill will permit a visiting force in New Zealand to exercise exclusive disciplinary jurisdiction over its personnel, as is currently the case under section 3(1) of the 1939 Act. It will also provide for shared jurisdiction between New Zealand and the sending State to investigate and prosecute offences committed by a member of the visiting force in New Zealand. In such cases, the ability of the visiting force to exercise criminal jurisdiction will be subject to the terms of the status of forces agreement entered into between New Zealand and the sending State before the visiting force arrives in New Zealand.

LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako): National will support this bill. We think it is timely that this sort of legislation has come in that brings us into the international arena. If we were to look at the background, to why this bill has come about, we would see that the Visiting Forces Act of 1939 applied only to forces of designated Commonwealth countries, and dealt with a number of limited matters. The Act conferred only disciplinary jurisdiction, and did not cover things like resolving issues of shared jurisdiction; providing for members of visiting forces who commit offences in New Zealand to be arrested and brought before a court in the usual way, pending resolution of the question of jurisdiction—which country was to have jurisdiction—and providing effective safeguards against double jeopardy. So there were a number of issues that the 1939 Act did not apply to, and that has led to inconsistencies with the way that other jurisdictions and legislation around the world now operate.

If we look at international practice, we can see that this bill brings us into line with that practice. The United Kingdom passed a Visiting Forces Act in 1952 to implement arrangements under the NATO status of forces arrangement, and, as the Minister of Police mentioned, on 29 October 1998 the New Zealand Government signed an agreement with Australia with the intention of amending the law to bring it into line with international law and practice. However, the agreement was not ratified, and a number of issues came from that; that now leads us to this bill that we are debating this afternoon, and that National supports.

Probably the major provisions in this bill are those relating to the command, control, and administration of the visiting force, but I want to spend a brief time on the crux of what this bill is about—that is, the provision that criminal and disciplinary jurisdiction is subject to agreement. Clause 8l provides that “(1) To the extent permitted by the applicable agreement, the service authorities of a visiting force may, within New Zealand, exercise over members of the visiting force, members of its civilian component, and its dependants all criminal and disciplinary jurisdiction conferred on them by the law of the sending State.” These rights include the power to arrest, the power to detain, and the power to search any person falling under those categories. The bill also allows for powers to enter and search any ship, aircraft, vehicle, or premises belonging to, or occupied by, the visiting force, or such person as mentioned earlier in the bill. It also allows the service authorities to seize or take possession of any property, article, or thing found in the possession of such a person, or on a ship, aircraft, vehicle, or premises.

So what the legislation does is quite wide ranging. As I said earlier, it brings us into line with international practice. There are some exceptions, and I will just mention what they are, because they are significant and we do not want people to think that this is blanket coverage of all the provisions that we might expect. The sentencing authorities of a visiting force must not impose or carry out a sentence of death in New Zealand. As we do not have the death penalty, that of course falls in line with what we would expect.

Hon Ken Shirley: We could really!

LINDSAY TISCH: We probably could change it. There must be no act done in New Zealand that would, if committed by a member of the armed forces of New Zealand, constitute an offence against the Crimes of Torture Act. I was unfamiliar with the Crimes of Torture Act of 1989, but that is certainly an exemption.

There are a couple of provisions that require the Attorney-General to have input into how these matters proceed. Two of those provisions are that the service authorities of a visiting force must not exercise a power to enter and search any ship, aircraft, vehicle, or premises belonging to, or occupied by, a visiting force or person—as I mentioned earlier—if the ship, aircraft, etc. is also occupied by a person who is here other than as a member of a visiting force, a member of its civilian component, or a dependant, and the service authorities of a visiting force must not exercise a power to seize or take possession of any property, article, or thing found in the possession of any such person. Service authorities may request the Attorney-General to obtain the issue of a search warrant under section 59, if those matters are to be proceeded with.

The Attorney-General will also have input into the criminal proceedings, which is a major provision of this bill. Criminal proceedings may be instituted against a member of a visiting force, a member of its civilian component, or a dependant who is subject to the service law of the sending State. But these proceedings are stayed and must not proceed without the consent of the Attorney-General.

There are a number of other provisions that I will not go through. It is significant that we have this legislation. National will support this bill going to the select committee.

STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua): I rise to support this bill. In the 64 years since the Visiting Forces Act was first passed, many gaps have emerged that international instruments do not really resolve. I am glad that this bill is bringing us into line with international law. I am very pleased to support this bill today.

RON MARK (NZ First): This matter should be relatively simple. If I am correct, I do not think anyone will be opposing this bill. Certainly, New Zealand First will not be. However, I would be interested to hear the view of Ken Shirley and the ACT party. It is interesting, because I could sit here and go through the bill page by page—as the honourable member Lindsay Tisch has done—and highlight parts of it, but I think that he and the Minister between them have covered the need for the bill and its aims quite well.

I guess we all need to consider for a moment that there used to be a time when New Zealand had lots of visiting troops. In my time in the New Zealand military, I remember that not only were we exercising in Fiji under the Tropic Dawn exercises, but we used to have some friends called Americans who would come to New Zealand every year to take part in the Tropic Lightning joint exercises in Waiouru. For a lot of reasons, we do not have those people visiting any more. Some would say that given the length of time—and Steve Chadwick said it was 64 years or so since the Visiting Forces Act was passed—a lot of things have changed.

There is probably less need for this sort of legislation now than there was then, and that is probably one of the great ironies. In those days, we used to have the Brits here in huge numbers, the Americans in good numbers, and the Australians. I guess that was because we were all part of an Anzac and an ANZUK arrangement. We had lots of friends and people who wanted to exercise and train with us, and take the opportunity to enjoy the sights, scenery, and pleasures that New Zealand had to offer them whilst they were taking their “liberty”—as some Americans called it—or R and R, as others did. That was a most enjoyable time in the New Zealand military, because we got to operate alongside those people and give ourselves the opportunity to test our mettle.

The Gurkhas visited in those days, as well. The Queen’s Gurkhas were out from the UK, and I think we have had a recent visit from those chaps. In most recent times, a larger number of French servicemen have visited New Zealand than have Americans. I hear that for the last exercise they participated in, we were not allowed to acknowledge that they were here, because no one wanted to talk about them being here. I really do not understand that, because this is a time when New Zealand needs friends and needs to acknowledge that they are present.

All sorts of things happen in the military that can result in legislation like this being needed.

Jill Pettis: Be careful!

RON MARK: Yes, I will be very careful. I am thinking of little things like the New Zealand service personnel who were always poorly equipped and envious of what other people had, and how they used to obtain stores and equipment from their visiting friends and allies. In so doing, we were able to re-equip the army to a better stage than it had been by our Government. Some of the favourite stores that were obtained—and some might interpret this as being a breach of civil law—were American overboots, American combat jackets, and all sorts of things.

This bill does not relate to those activities, because the Americans did not commit any criminal acts in New Zealand. If anyone were to be accused of committing criminal acts, it was the New Zealanders who were committing them on our visiting friends, because they had better gear and lots of it. They could replace it really quickly, because their Governments gave them bigger budgets. In my 20 years’ service—15 years in the New Zealand military service, and 5 years with the Brits—I do not recall any real serious crimes being committed by visiting troops. In fact, they were often more in danger from anti-Vietnam protesters and the like, than they were—

Hon Ken Shirley: What about Oman?

RON MARK: No, I do not remember any crimes being committed in Oman, other than the work of terrorist organisations and insurgent forces. We did not classify those things as crimes; they were operations, and were dealt with accordingly.

When the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee was looking at the insertion of New Zealand forces into Afghanistan, Iraq, and other places around the world, Mr Locke questioned most vigorously on status-of-forces agreements that have been signed. He wanted to know what the status of those forces was in terms of their operational liability. We talked about that, but now I guess that this legislation will bring some things into line so that we are all singing off the same song sheet. The fact that we are now formalising standard NATO policies that have been accepted is a good thing.

However, we just need to go a little further and extend our level of cooperation with our friends and allies in a far more meaningful way operationally. I have witnessed defence personnel from the United Kingdom operating in other parts of the world at the invitation of the Governments of those nations, and having to undertake difficult tasks that were never talked about publicly. I guess one always worries about the status of one’s troops, and how they might be treated should they fall foul of the law in participating in some of those operations. I guess that when we get to the select committee and start to talk about it—or maybe not talk about it, because we cannot talk about the SAS operations or some of those areas if we can go to closed sessions and maybe even have them in private. We just need to be sure that those reciprocal agreements provide our personnel with absolute guarantees.

What I would not like to see—and legislation has gone through this House before that I believe jeopardises some of our troops—is a situation where our people go about performing their duty as instructed, either as part of a coalition or a multinational force, and then find themselves facing some international kangaroo court for supposed war crimes, because someone else’s interpretation of that operation is that it was a crime. I note that the Americans have signalled their concern about such treaties and agreements at the United Nations level.

On the face of it, this bill seems harmless, so on that basis New Zealand First will support it going to a select committee. If there are areas of concern—and I will be listening to the speakers who come after me, who might have seen something I have not—then New Zealand First will definitely look at those issues.

It gives me great comfort and satisfaction to be able to reflect that on very few occasions have visiting forces to this country run foul of the law, and on very few occasions did we run foul of the law in the time we were deployed in Singapore. If this bill tidies up the legalities of how to deal with those contingencies—should they occur—then that is fine; let us have that. My only suggestion in this area of cooperation and determination to work more closely with our allies and traditional friends is that maybe we as a nation should be looking to extend those things and take the same view operationally. Let us start working a little more closely with the United States and Australia in the South Pacific, in the manner that Australia is working.

In closing, I just say that there are many advantages in doing such a thing. I note that one of them was reported in the paper recently. Whereas New Zealand is having to spend $750 million on some armoured vehicles, Australia—because of its good relationship with the United States—is in the process of being offered 100 M1 Abrams main battle tanks for the price of 50. That is the sort of deal one gets when one has friends in the United States.

KEITH LOCKE (Green): I rise on behalf of the Greens to support the Visiting Forces Bill going to the select committee. It is important to have rules governing any foreign military personnel who come to New Zealand. They come here under all sorts of categories, ranging from people here for short-term training missions, to people staying on a longer-term basis—as with the American personnel who have been coming to Harewood on and off for many years. As the previous speaker indicated, there are different levels of agreement relating to visiting forces. This bill is a sort of base document, setting out the framework under which visiting forces operate. On top of this will be individual status of forces agreements appropriate to the particular foreign contingent coming in, whether it be a short-term training force or a longer-term force working in New Zealand—as, again, applies to the people who come to Harewood in one capacity or another.

In addition—as the previous speaker indicated—there are often other agreements, such as those that occur in relation to Afghanistan, where the situation is reversed, with New Zealand units operating within a larger force, like an American-led force in the case of Operation Enduring Freedom, where rules of engagement and command structures are built in on top of the status of forces agreement. It can be quite complicated, and it is good to have a base document. I do not think we will have in New Zealand that level of complexity that perhaps operates in Afghanistan, because I do not envisage hostile military operations taking place in New Zealand in the near future. They are not on the horizon in any way whatsoever.

The essence of this bill and the status of forces agreements that lie on top of it are that the visiting force has jurisdiction over things that happen within it—that is, if one of the visiting soldiers in its base attacks another soldier from the same country, the discipline that ensues is, in general, that of the visiting force command structure. The case does not go into a New Zealand military court or domestic court, although, as one speaker has said, there is a qualification in the bill whereby the Attorney-General has certain rights to intervene and generally to stay any prosecution.

Of course, there are grey areas. For example, a fight between two personnel from a visiting force may occur. In some way a New Zealander, or the property of a New Zealander, may be involved, getting us into that shared jurisdiction situation, where the involvement of the Attorney-General—the New Zealand Government—is relevant.

There is one provision of which we will tease out the meaning at the select committee. On the surface, the provision is a very good one—that is, the service authorities of a visiting force must not impose, or carry out, a sentence of death in New Zealand. Of course, given that we have abolished the death penalty, we would be in favour of that, but it does leave open the question of a crime being committed that is deemed to be a very serious by the visiting force, and instead of the prosecution taking place in New Zealand—or any sentence carried out in New Zealand—the visiting personnel might be whipped back to the country of origin, be it Brunei, the United States, or whatever.

If it were the United States, which does have the death penalty, one could conceivably see the situation of somebody who commits an offence in New Zealand being whipped back to that country and suffering the death penalty at the end of some sorts of military proceedings that take place there. That is a theoretical possibility, and I would like to tease that out when the bill gets to the select committee.

It is relevant, because around the world now, the application of the death penalty is quite controversial when it involves people from other countries—for example, if a foreigner is a citizen of another country. There have been protests in Europe about Italian citizens, and so on, being sentenced to death in the United States. There has been a controversy over the people illegally detained at Guantanamo Bay. Some are British and some are Australian citizens, and there is a question of whether the proceedings against them ever take place—they are in a legal limbo at the present time—in an American military court, which will mean they will possibly be subject to the death penalty. So it is a live question, when one is talking about the question of visiting forces.

I think the problems that ensue historically with visiting forces ensue more where there is a longer-term occupation force. There have been big controversies, for instance in South Korea, Okinawa, and the Philippines, and one would expect that when visiting forces, like the American forces in this case, have been in such countries for long periods of time—and many thousands of them—the assault cases, rape cases, and murders ensuing in respect of the local populace can cause great tension between the countries involved.

The proper application of justice is important, and citizens of the country—in this case, New Zealand—get very upset if they do not think that justice has been properly applied to visiting forces who have offended, and if the way they have offended has affected the citizens or property of citizens in the host country. It is important to have the bill right in this respect, to make sure it is applied properly, and to make sure that on top of the bill we have appropriate status of forces agreements that ensure justice is done.

Throughout the 1980s, in terms of visiting forces in the form of United States personnel on Operation Deep Freeze, there were ongoing problems and tensions between agencies of the New Zealand State and the US commanding forces. For example, there were cases of drugs being intercepted that had been brought in on American military planes, and there was a to and fro between the Customs Service, which wanted to get at the people responsible, and the American forces.

If we use a parallel with Harewood, we cannot raid an American plane very easily under the Visiting Forces Bill, or under any status of forces agreements that are on top of it. We have to have an arrangement whereby domestic authorities in New Zealand—the Customs Service, and others—are satisfied that if, for instance, drugs were brought in on a military plane, then some penalty has ensued, and that the drugs did not somehow move to the population of Christchurch, as occurred in a contentious case in the 1980s.

This is potentially a relevant problem, because the United States sends its Starlifters through Harewood on a regular basis, en route to the joint Australian-US base at Pine Gap station. Even the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry had a bit of a debate with US authorities at Harewood about the right to spray the planes coming in, as a biosecurity measure. All these questions are left a little bit up in the air, and need to be dealt with.

There is the other question—and Ron Mark referred to it—about the International Criminal Court, which the American Government does not accept. Potentially, under New Zealand’s adherence to the International Criminal Court, if we find that American military personnel who are based here short term or long term have offended—even overseas—in a way that would qualify them to come before the International Criminal Court, then we should have an arrangement where that is made possible.

The Americans are trying to sign up agreements with countries around the world, and have, unfortunately, signed agreements with several countries in the Pacific—unfortunately, without very much New Zealand diplomatic action to stop this—to exempt American people in those countries from being shipped off to the International Criminal Court.

I think it is important that we have agreements, and this bill, set out, so that we can fulfil our international obligations. We must assure New Zealand people that justice is done to people who commit crimes—be they members of American forces—particularly if New Zealanders are involved in any way, either directly, in terms of their property or of physical effects, or in terms of what often happens with visiting forces, which is the fathering of offspring in New Zealand, when civil cases sometimes ensue. All sorts of problems can arise that are handled through the civil jurisdiction rather than the provisions of this bill.

Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT): ACT will be supporting the Visiting Forces Bill. It is a harmonisation of criminal and disciplinary provisions, and it seems to be time to legislate for this, although it is rather curious that for some 64 years—when our friends used to visit us regularly, and we had lots of visiting troops from other nations—we managed to get by without this legislation. Now, at this time in our history when we have no friends, and when no troops from other nations want to visit us, this Government deems it necessary to pass legislation to harmonise aspects associated with visiting troops. That is certainly an extraordinary situation.

I want to comment on the situation with regard to visits by United States forces. The United States was our traditional ally, going right back to the Second World War and earlier. Large numbers of US troops used to come here. During the Second World War we had numerous bases, such as at Paekakariki, where the Guadalcanal campaign was launched. The hospital at Silverstream was built for American troops involved in the Guadalcanal battle. The visiting American troops from that time were a part of our culture. We know now that because of the actions of this Government, the troops are no longer welcome.

When it comes to visits by nuclear-propelled ships of the United States Navy—and other navies, for that matter—they are banned by statutes on our book. Clause 11 of the New Zealand Nuclear Free Zone, Disarmament, and Arms Control Act, which was passed in 1987 in the run-up to an election, bans visits by nuclear-propelled ships to this country. I abhor nuclear weapons. The issue of nuclear weapons is totally distinct from that. The South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty, signed in 1985, bans the deployment of nuclear weapons in the South Pacific. But for some strange reason, the Labour Government thought it necessary to have this clip-on ban on visits by nuclear-propelled ships.

An anti-American sentiment drove that. There was an extensive review of the situation by the retired Judge Somers in 1992—a 179-page report by a retired High Court judge, along with three eminent scientists in physics and medicine. Their conclusion, after hearing all public submissions, was that there was no environmental risk or public safety reason for precluding the visit of American ships to New Zealand. In other words, it is a straight, anti-American sentiment that this Government clings on to.

The Somers report went further with regard to these visits of nuclear-propelled ships and their troops. It concluded that two times more radiation is emitted into the environment from patients being treated by iodine for goitre in Auckland Hospital alone, than there is from the entire fleet of US nuclear-propelled ships and all their support services in a year. That was the conclusion of a High Court judge and top scientists after a year of study. So, that is the nonsense of our ban on the visits of nuclear ships.

Of course, we lose massively in the economy, because visiting troops are part of the tourist industry. If it is a large aircraft carrier, for example, there would be 2,500 troops, with 5 months’ accumulated pay and a lot of disposable income. It is a very lucrative part of the industry. I am told that New Zealand ports were always preferred ports of call. The troops enjoyed themselves here more than at many other ports around the world, and they always looked forward to coming to New Zealand. We have lost that expenditure, and it was not just those pays that were being spent here, but it was all the provisions of the ships, and the repairs and maintenance. We no longer see that. Ten nuclear-propelled ships visited New Zealand between 1960 and 1984, when we essentially banned them. There were five submarines and five surface ships, with 13 visits in total, but involving only 10 ships—obviously, some came twice.

So we are losing massively by this silly provision on our statute book. I raise the issue here, because it is the Visiting Forces Bill and it is an appropriate time to address it. While this bill does address those criminal and disciplinary provisions, we must reflect on the nonsense of the perpetuation of our ban on nuclear propulsion. Apart from there being no environmental reason for it and no public safety risk, it is to our disadvantage from a strategic point of view. It is the single greatest obstacle blocking New Zealand from enjoying equal status with Australia in the negotiation of a free-trade agreement with the United States, and that could cost this country dearly.

So, because of cold war rhetoric, this Government is not prepared to put us on an equal footing with Australia so that we can gain access to that market on an equal basis. While I say to the House, in that respect, what we will see is CER withering on the vine, because, as Australia looks to the bigger market in the United States with a free-trade agreement, to the extent that New Zealand is an obstacle to that, New Zealand companies will relocate to Australia. I know the Carter Holt Harvey head office is already thinking of doing that. Closer Economic Relations will become an irritant and, as New Zealand is a smaller market, there is no doubt where the Australian economy will be looking.

We will lose massively from an economic point of view, and this foolish Government persists in retaining and perpetuating this meaningless ban. It is meaningless from an environmental point of view and from a public safety point of view—it is meaningless from all perspectives—but it continues this ban on the visits of nuclear-propelled ships, which effectively blocks the navies of many nations from visiting our ports, for strategic visits and for rest and recreation. It costs us directly in the economy, but indirectly it costs us our future.

GORDON COPELAND (United Future): I rise to speak briefly to this bill. It is a companion to other recent legislation, which deals with New Zealand forces who are going overseas, which in this case is the flipside of visiting forces coming into this country. It will enable the status of forces agreements that have been negotiated with other jurisdictions to come into effect and be given effect within this country, and it is a largely non-controversial measure.

I pick up on one point that the Hon Ken Shirley mentioned in relation to the number of foreign military personnel coming to New Zealand. He is quite right in saying that that no longer happens with regard to the United States, but there are still about 3,500 members of foreign military establishments who come to New Zealand every year from a whole variety of countries. Obviously we need, therefore, to have in place proper legal arrangements covering the visits of those personnel. United Future is happy to see this bill go to the select committee for its consideration.

Bill read a first time, and referred to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee.

Bills

Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Broadcasting): I move, That the Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill be now read a second time. This bill represents the final step in the first 5-yearly review of Radio New Zealand’s charter. As part of a Government that has a strong commitment to the principles of public service broadcasting, it is a pleasure for me to bring this bill back to the House. [Interruption] Public broadcasting over the last little while has seen some pretty uncertain times, but, as I am sure Ken Shirley will applaud, it is now in very safe hands.

As I said when I addressed the New Zealand broadcasting conference back in 1994, public broadcasting is, above all else, driven by an ambition or belief that broadcasting makes a contribution to the health of society and the health of our culture. This Government holds strongly to that belief, and we are working hard to ensure it is reflected in the reality of public broadcasting.

The Commerce Committee was asked to undertake the review of Radio New Zealand’s charter in December 2000, and the committee’s report was tabled on 21 December 2001. That report was supportive of the charter, and suggested only a few minor legal changes to assist Radio New Zealand to engage fully with the charter’s spirit. The Government considered the report and agreed with its recommendations. The proposed amendments were originally drafted for inclusion in the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 3), but not all parties in the House supported that course of action, so the Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill was created instead and referred to the Commerce Committee.

The bill proposed three areas of change to the charter. The first was to propose some changes of wording to incorporate certain concerns raised by submitters during the review of the charter. Those changes were supported by the committee. The current charter requires our public radio broadcasts to provide programmes that contribute to intellectual, scientific, and cultural development—which is, of course, why Mr Shirley does not listen to it. This bill adds spiritual and ethical development to that list. That change recognises that in order to contribute to the health of our society and culture, public broadcasting needs to address those additional dimensions. There is also a new requirement to include programmes for a full range of age groups, which are designed to ensure that the needs of children are included.

I pause for a moment on the matter of the spiritual and ethical elements put into this bill, which do not mean a religious denomination. It means that New Zealanders, in terms of programming, do have concerns about values issues, which may well be religious issues, and about issues of spirituality in the broad sense that represents the wide range of cultures that make up our society. It is reasonable to expect that those concerns are explored on Radio New Zealand.

The second point is that Radio New Zealand is also required to provide an international radio service to the South Pacific, which is called Radio New Zealand International. The provision of that service has been part of Radio New Zealand’s operation for 13 years, and this change to the charter gives recognition to the importance of that function. It is important. We know that other nations—such as the Australians, who have a very large budget—broadcast into the Pacific, but one of the most exciting things about the way we do it is that we do it from the Pacific Island point of view. We do not run a broadcasting programme that comes from New Zealand and tells Pacific Island nations how the world should be; we have a lot of people who are able to provide the view of those nations through that service, and we keep them up to date with what is going on around the world and what is happening here in New Zealand.

Finally, Radio New Zealand is required, for the first time, to survey the views of non-listeners to its broadcasts, and to inform the shareholding Ministers of the results of those surveys as part of its annual report. We are very keen to know why people listen to Radio New Zealand, and why they do not. It is the nation’s broadcaster, so we want to know what both those listeners who tune in, and those people who do not, are looking for. We do not expect or even think that all New Zealanders will glue themselves to Radio New Zealand all the time—I think there are 168 radio frequencies available to people throughout this country—but we want to know that people regard their national broadcaster as a broadcaster they will tune into to meet particular needs they may have: news, current affairs, a particular programme, or whatever. Radio New Zealand is there as something that everyone sees they have a stake in, and that they feel is part of the infrastructure of New Zealand. The purpose of that new requirement is to assist in assessing Radio New Zealand’s performance against its charter obligations, and to inform future programming decisions that may increase the size of its audience.

The select committee consideration of the bill led to the calling for submissions on the bill, and all submissions received were supportive of the proposed changes. The committee has not recommended a change to any of the provisions of the bill, except to recommend an amendment to change the commencement date of the bill to January 2004.

The Radio New Zealand Act, which incorporates the Radio New Zealand charter, is a major part of the public broadcasting landscape. The ongoing maintenance of the charter is essential if we are to keep our sights on what it is designed to achieve. I make special mention of those groups and individuals who took time to make submissions—at the time of the review and on the bill itself. All those efforts are, of course, appreciated. I am also grateful to the members of the original Commerce Committee for their thorough consideration and review, and to the members of the current select committee for the expeditious way in which they heard submissions and reported back on this bill.

I am aware that this is the first review of the charter. I am also aware that it has been a protracted one. From the first instruction to the Commerce Committee in December 2000 it has taken a good 2½ years to reach this stage. While cognisant of the fact that these reviews are required every 5 years, I will certainly be looking at ways in which we can streamline the process. But the notion that we will review the charter—for both radio and television—is essential. It is something that is owned by the people of New Zealand. Whatever they may do with their broadcasting, we want them to have a stake in what goes on in Radio New Zealand. One of the key ways of doing that is to review that charter regularly. That gives people the chance to talk about what they want to hear and affirm what they are hearing on Radio New Zealand, and it ensures that what takes place in the nation’s broadcaster is relevant to their lives and allows them to explore what it means to be New Zealanders, through all the programming styles, genres, and content they get on Radio New Zealand. One way to do that is to have an effective review of the charter every 5 years.

As a member of a Government that believes Government does have a role in broadcasting—as do all progressive nations all over the world—I look forward to what is a small but significant change to this legislation. I look forward to the fact that New Zealanders will feel this is a step closer to what they want to hear on their nation’s radio broadcaster, and I thank, once again, all those who have been involved with this bill.

KATHERINE RICH (National): The Minister of Broadcasting said this legislation should be a step closer to what New Zealanders are looking for, but I wonder whether it is a step further away. If we look at the insertions the bill makes, we see three little words, but they are words that I think some New Zealanders will take issue with. It is a sad day, really, when we look to State radio to guide us when it comes to our spiritual development. It is a sad day when we look to public broadcasting to guide us when it comes to ethical development. When did National Radio ever become a teacher of ethics, a teacher of spiritual development, or even a teacher of culture?

People listen to National Radio because they get something out of it. They like the quality of the news and they like the programmes. Many of us grew up with National Radio blaring while we had our breakfast in the mornings. We grew up listening to Mr Humphrey . It seems he has been on air for most of my entire life. But I wonder whether there are greater priorities when it comes to focusing on things that can be done with National Radio. For example, would it not have been better to take the cost of putting this bill through—this 2-page bill—and put it into better-quality studios, better-quality programming, or an FM strategy so that those in the South Island who, like me when growing up, listen to a very crackly Mr Humphrey could get clearer reception of National Radio?

It is sad that we think any broadcaster can teach us about spirituality or ethics. I do not know what ethical programming might deliver. Perhaps it might teach people not to sign paintings they have not painted—who knows? United Future may have been disappointed to hear from the Minister that spiritual programming does not mean religious programming, because a lot of submitters thought that was what that word would deliver. There was a lot of debate about what the correct word was. Some people wanted the word “religious” to be in there, but a compromise was struck, and the word “spiritual” was put there instead.

I think it is good that there has been one change, which was basically as a result of Opposition debate. That change is the inclusion of requirements for the surveying of the current audience of Radio New Zealand. Unfortunately, Radio New Zealand pulled out of the commercial survey programme, ostensibly because, it said, the programme cost too much, but then it went on and spent exactly the same amount doing its own in-house survey, which it paid for itself. Initially, the survey just looked at the current audience, and one of the arguments I put forward was that there was no point in Radio New Zealand continually surveying just its current audience, because, considering that audience numbers were declining over time, it was continuing to survey a reducing group. So I was quite pleased to see an amendment that Radio New Zealand was to look not just at its current audience but at those who were not listening to Radio New Zealand, in order to try to identify ways of attracting that audience.

It seems to me that surveys are pretty important, because a broadcaster needs to know what people think about the programmes it is airing, and needs to be open to criticism about programmes when people say they do not like what it happens to be airing. Some listeners, particularly last year, started to turn off their radios as a result of some of the changes that had been made.

I would have to say that, when we are looking at spiritual and ethical development, that should also apply to Radio New Zealand itself. I think there are some staff members within Radio New Zealand who perhaps feel they have not been dealt with ethically—and certainly not spiritually—over the last year. If I look at some of the concerns that, I am sure, Sean Plunket has had about his treatment, or that staff member Lynne Snowdon has had about her treatment, I wonder whether this desire to behave ethically, or to have in the charter the promotion of ethical development, was applied to the treatment of those particular staff members, or in fact to other staff members who have had a difficult time in the last couple of years. But there has been quite a lot of progress. With a new person in charge there, we hope to see some changes made to Radio New Zealand. I would like to see a concentration on some of the things that would actually make a difference to programming—things like studios and equipment, and FM band usage, and not just bits of paper and the insertion of words that will not change a helluva lot.

As I said, it is pretty sad when we think that one broadcaster can take part in the teaching of ethics within a country, or even in the spiritual development of a country. That is not really the role of State radio. The role of State radio is to provide a service that all New Zealanders can tune into, and that, at least, lets them hear some programming that reflects them. We should not be in a position where we have to reconfirm that public radio is there for all New Zealanders of all age groups. That has always been the case. If we look at the schedule for Radio New Zealand, we see that there has always been the intention to have a wide range of programming for different sorts of New Zealanders.

But there is no point in having State radio if people do not listen to it. One of the things that concerned me when we were going through the estimates and financial review process this year, and the year before, was to see the declining numbers of people tuning in to National Radio. That really did concern me, because if New Zealanders are not pricking up their ears to listen to a wide range of programming on National Radio, then it is just broadcasting into the ether, and there really is not that much point to it. So, despite National Radio being a public broadcaster, there is still an obligation on its part to try to attract people to listen to it, and to make sure that when people turn it on they hear a wide range of programmes that they actually enjoy.

So National disagrees with this bill. We think the money spent on bringing it through the House should have been applied to other things that would actually make a difference to the quality of programming. Anybody who has been interviewed in the press gallery Radio New Zealand studios lately would realise that the staff there should be supported in their desire to have a higher-quality studio than they currently have. But, once again, the main reason we cannot support the bill is that we just do not see that the role of State radio is to teach New Zealanders about their spirituality, or the ethics that they should follow. When we start to have a Government teach us about ethics—particularly one that is unethical—we are going to run into real difficulty. With the Government teaching ethics, we will be looking at what the Government’s definition of ethics is. As I said before, who knows, we might see some programmes coming up about the ethics of not signing paintings one has not painted, or about the things that can go wrong if one says things one should not. We will see.

In terms of the Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill, I hope the work that has been done is continued. I do think the money should be spent on improvements in programming and equipment, because if people do not tune into the Radio New Zealand network in large numbers, then there really is very little point in continued public funding of it, as New Zealanders will not feel they have a stake in it.

MARK PECK (Labour—Invercargill): May I just remind listeners that that was Katherine Rich, No. 4 in the National Party, which tends to suggest—[Interruption]

Hon David Carter: What number is this member?

MARK PECK: I am No. 32 and dropping, but who cares, because at least when one is in the position where one has not been promoted, one has nothing to be demoted from.

David Benson-Pope: And he can win his seat.

MARK PECK: And I can win my seat, and I will continue to win my seat. Katherine Rich thinks it is fine to make gratuitous and insulting comments to us, and then complains when they are made back. If she is going to make those sorts of remarks, she has got to learn to take them, too, whether or not she is a female. She has to learn to take the heavy hits in this House when she decides to be churlish in the way that she is. She has got a lot to learn for No. 4.

Hon George Hawkins: She’s hopeless.

MARK PECK: I agree with my colleague that she is absolutely hopeless and reflects the dearth of talent on the National Party front bench.

The Commerce Committee is a four-four committee, and the bill was carried by majority.

Steve Chadwick: That is great.

MARK PECK: It is great. It means that the majority was sensible, and the minority, who frankly do not have enough spirituality amongst them to mount a seance, simply could not get their heads around an issue that is really very straightforward. This particular bill should never have gone to a select committee. That is the truth of it. It should have been dealt with by way of a Statutes Amendment Bill, but we are going through a period of time when the Opposition is a little bit concerned about people whose skin is a little bit darker than white, and is starting to suggest that these people are not allowed to have spirituality.

Well let me tell members opposite that one of the things they have not yet learnt is that if one wants to look at the way the nation is developing, the way they are playing their politics, in the next 10-15 years they will find themselves with even fewer votes again. Our population is growing amongst Māori and Pacific Islanders, and members opposite have to learn that. Pākehā have Santa Claus. Who believes in Santa Claus any more?

Hon Ken Shirley: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The member has been talking for several minutes now—it seems like an hour or more—but he has not once attempted to address the bill.

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member is addressing the bill.

MARK PECK: Pākehā have Santa Claus, which is something that nobody believes is real. I hate to say that to all those little people out there who are listening. In what way is that any different from taniwha? Can somebody tell me? For the likes of National and ACT to be so churlish that they cannot even begin to understand what spirituality is, shows exactly why there is only one big party left in this country. The National Party members will have to learn to get their heads around some of those issues and to stop playing games about them. The issues of spirituality are the only issues in contention in this bill. Those issues are very important to New Zealanders.

Hon David Carter: Name them.

MARK PECK: I can tell the member opposite that I was fortunate to attend the opening of a court not so long ago. I was delighted to see that those who were involved in opening the court were quite proud of the fact that they could mihi, that they could have a powhiri, that they knew waiata, and that they knew Māoridom. I am talking about middle-class New Zealand Pākehā males who were keen to show their affinity with Māoridom and the spirituality that goes along with that. The parties opposite have a lot to learn about the way this nation is developing, if they think they will be able to form, in any way at all, something like a coherent Opposition, much less ever be able to get themselves into a position to become the Government again. In fact, Lord and taniwha forbid that they should ever be in a position to form a Government again, because they just do not want to learn it. When we look at what went on today in question time when my colleague Tariana Turia was being put through the wringer about stuff they do not even begin to understand, like the spirituality involved in this bill—

Hon David Carter: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. We have now listened to this man for 8 minutes without him at any time referring to the Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill. I suggest that you ask him to speak to the legislation before the House. He has not even mentioned it. [Interruption] I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. A point of order should be heard in silence without chipping from that Jill Pettis.

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, the member is right. Please be seated.

Hon David Carter: Well, deal with it.

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member will be seated. The member has been addressing the bill. There is a contentious issue of spirituality in the bill. He has been addressing it.

Hon David Carter: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. My second point of order is that during my point of order Jill Pettis incessantly chipped in, and you said you would deal with it.

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member had finished his point of order and I had ruled on it. [Interruption]

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member will rise and apologise for—

Hon David Carter: I will not.

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member made a derogatory comment to the Chair. The member will rise and apologise.

Hon David Carter: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. During my point of order the member was incessantly chipping in, and you said it was after I had finished. It was not, and I will not be apologising.

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member will now leave the Chamber.

Hon David Carter withdrew from the Chamber.

Hon Ken Shirley: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. You chose to expel the member who has just left, but in fairness to him he did have a second point of order about his being interjected on during a point of order. That is a very serious matter.

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member will be seated. I have dealt—

Hon Ken Shirley: But you did not rule on that, as I understand it.

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I did rule on it—

Hon Ken Shirley: You ruled on the first one—

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, I ruled that he had finished the point of order, when it happened.

Hon Ken Shirley: But you did not bring Ms Jill Pettis to check.

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I have ruled on that point of order. Please be seated.

MARK PECK: I can understand why the other side is a little bit sensitive about this, because it has tried to make these particular issues around spirituality and culture a negative debate within our society. If those members opposite knew the number of people who have come up to me in my own electorate and said that it is about time the Opposition political parties grew up and celebrated the fact that as a nation we are bicultural—and actually multicultural in many respects—and respected the indigenous culture of this country, it would make their hair curl. Our society has had enough of the splits and divisions that have been fostered by that side of the House.

When we look at the other issues in the charter around which programming is put together, we see that adding in this cultural and spiritual dimension will simply enrich what we have as a nation. I support it, and the majority of the select committee supports it.

I want to make one final thing clear to members opposite. We had only two submissions on the bill. We spent almost no time going over any substantial points in contention, because nobody came along and said that what we were doing in this bill was the wrong thing to do. It is time members opposite grew up and became statesmenlike in this House and contributed positively to a debate on these issues within our society.

BARBARA STEWART (NZ First): New Zealand First will not be supporting the Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill. We do not believe that the charter of Radio New Zealand needs to be modified in this way. We believe that the charter is being reviewed principally to ensure that it is a model of political correctness in every way. The bill is very short—only 1½ pages. We want to know how the bill will advance the lot of New Zealanders, or the lot of National Radio. The bottom line is that it will not. I also want to know how many New Zealanders get their spiritual and ethical beliefs from Radio New Zealand. I would say, very, very few. It would be a sad society if that was how people obtained their spiritual and ethical beliefs. We have all heard that we are a multicultural society, so I must ask: whose beliefs will be broadcast more than anybody else’s? I know that the Minister said it will be very generalised, but I would hazard a guess that not many cultures in this country would consider that their beliefs were the same as everybody else’s. New Zealand First questions the value of this focus of the charter.

In September I read a New Zealand Herald report on Radio New Zealand’s continuing loss of listeners, even with its flagship morning programmes. It reported an 8 percent drop in the number of listeners, and the figures released show that, for the first time, the number of Radio New Zealand listeners has dipped below 500,000. All in all, this is quite a morale-damaging time for Radio New Zealand. I would like to know how much of this can be attributed to the charter. It is interesting to note, too, that Radio New Zealand does not take part in the usual ratings surveys used by the commercial broadcasters. Instead, it uses an independent survey programme that measures its performance against the charter. The New Zealand Herald actually said that Radio New Zealand was really pleased with the report that showed it had a drop in the number of listeners, and it said that the drop in the number of listeners was not even statistically significant. Any decrease in the number of listeners is significant. It is far more difficult to get people to turn back on to a station once they have turned off than it is to keep them on. People move on. There may be a small percentage that comes back, but a station does not usually get back the whole percentage that was lost. We all know that Television One experienced that with the news some years ago.

The addition of the words “spiritual, and ethical” into Radio New Zealand’s charter shows the extent that the Government is prepared to go to be the most politically correct nation in the world, and one must question why. This political correctness has come at a high price, a very high price, indeed, for Radio New Zealand, and that price appears to be the continuing loss of listeners. New Zealand First believes that there should be free and open communication, and that the role of the Government, particularly when it comes to radio broadcasting, should be confined to essential regulatory matters—because there are some matters that do necessitate State invention. I must say, too, that to be the most politically correct nation in the world does not excite the majority of New Zealanders. It does not do anything for us. Radio New Zealand has operated quite successfully in the past without this prescriptively politically correct charter. We would like to see further growth in the development of Radio New Zealand programmes. Perhaps the money that has been spent on this could be spent on developing new programmes or having new equipment. I must say that Radio New Zealand has got some really good programmes. I do listen to them, and I would like to hear more of them. I think this bill enforces impossible compliance challenges on Radio New Zealand, and makes it difficult for Radio New Zealand to measure its performance. New Zealand First is not going to be supporting this bill.

SUE KEDGLEY (Green): The Green Party is absolutely delighted to support this bill. We regard the review as basically a ringing endorsement of Radio New Zealand, and quite frankly when one contemplates the incredible commercialisation of virtually all the rest of the media in New Zealand—all the television media, and all the other radio stations in New Zealand—I think we should be deeply grateful that we have this public broadcaster, Radio New Zealand. It is an oasis, if one likes, from the commercial pressures that characterise the rest of the media, and from those constant advertisements, and so forth. I am extremely grateful and express my gratitude every day for Radio New Zealand.

I think it is very interesting to see the incredible sensitivity or reaction that people have had to the addition of the words “spiritual, and ethical”. What on earth is the problem that everyone is getting their knickers in a twist about? I wish we had more ethical debate here in this Chamber, and much more ethical consideration. Thank God that we are going to add the word “ethical” to Radio New Zealand’s charter. But we are not going to be teaching ethics on Radio New Zealand any more than we are teaching politics by having current affairs. What we are going to be doing, I hope, is hearing the ethical dimension on many of the important issues of our time, and one that springs to mind is genetic engineering. If we had programmes contemplating the ethical dimensions of genetic engineering, we would quickly realise what a folly it is to lift the moratorium. And as for “spiritual”, what on earth is the problem in recommending that there be spiritual programmes that explore spiritual issues?

I think this is a wonderful development. I look forward to hearing programmes about Islam, about the Jewish religion, about Buddhism, and about indigenous interpretations of spirituality. I think that New Zealand would be much better as a nation if we actually learnt a little about things like Islam, and, indeed, about Christianity. We may better understand some of the conflicts that beset our world. So I welcome the addition of the words “ethical” and “spiritual”. The astonishing reaction of my colleagues to these particular words is something that I find incomprehensible.

I would also like to comment on the fact that I am glad we are adding that Radio New Zealand will have to address all ages, and not simply elderly New Zealanders. If I have any criticism of Radio New Zealand it is that it has at times in its current affairs become a little predictable, and perhaps a little boring. It could do with a little bit of spice, impetus, interest, and challenge. Perhaps the new chief executive will bring those qualities to Radio New Zealand. I was concerned when I read the Independent and noticed that Radio New Zealand spent $250,000 on legal fees last year. That is very disquieting and unfortunate. It is also interesting to note that it reduced its news budget by the same amount of money—that is, $225,000 was slashed off its news budget, and $250,000 was spent on legal fees. We find it deeply regrettable that we are slashing the news budget. If anything, it should be strengthened if Radio New Zealand is to carry out its charter obligations. It is extraordinarily lamentable that it has spent all of that money on legal fees. Let us hope that with the new chief executive we will put all that legal fighting and the low morale behind us and that Radio New Zealand will begin a new era.

The fact that there were only a number of submissions on this bill is testimony to the support that this public broadcaster receives in New Zealand. We need to be very, very grateful that we can tune into a radio station that we know is, as its charter states that it ought to be, independent, and that it provides genuinely independent current affairs that we can trust, and that are comprehensive and impartial and not influenced by commercial pressures. We do not have, as with Television New Zealand does, current affairs programmes that are sponsored by the ANZ or, until recently, Mitsubishi Motors, which obviously calls into question their ability to be impartial and objective.

Thankfully, Radio New Zealand news and current affairs are not sponsored by Mitsubishi Motors, by ANZ, or by any other commercial organisation. It is not dependent for its revenue on commercial organisations. It does not interrupt its broadcasts continually with irritating commercials. We should be profoundly grateful that we have such an outstanding service. We look forward to its new era under the new chief executive. We hope that the low morale we keep reading about will be turned round with the new chief executive. We hope it will continue to implement its charter, and we are delighted we have had this review—a view that is quite contrary to the view of one of the previous speakers, who said that this should not have been reviewed, at all, and that it should have been left to regulation. [Interruption] I noted that he had was not following the mantra of his leader, because the Minister of Broadcasting said he thought it was great that we had this review and that it was important we had it.

Mark Peck: Not the review; the bill should never have gone to the select committee.

SUE KEDGLEY: My view is that I am delighted that it has come to this House, that we have been able to have this brief debate, and that this is not yet another example of important legislation that is sent off, buried in regulations, and not ever able to be discussed. We are very, very pleased to support this bill, and to support the addition of the words “spiritual” and “ethical”.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 6 p.m.