Thursday, 6 May 2004

Thursday, 6 May 2004

Thursday, 6 May 2004

Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Points of Order

Speaking Slots—Allocation

JOHN CARTER (Senior Whip—National): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. If I could have the House’s indulgence, because the House will not know of some of the circumstances on which I need a ruling.

As a consequence of the outcome of the last election, you ruled that for every third first reading New Zealand First was entitled to a second speaking slot, and it would come off the National Party’s allocation. However, it was agreed that rather than have that as a regular thing, there would be a discussion between the whips of New Zealand First and myself to decide the allocation of those speaking slots. Up until now that has worked very well; by mutual agreement we have given some and taken some, and it has worked out well.

Yesterday I received a call from the senior New Zealand First whip, Peter Brown, asking whether we would consider giving that party a second speaking slot on the foreshore and seabed legislation. I told him I would give it consideration and get back to him this morning. In the meantime a discussion ensued from Jill Pettis, who had put a proposal to all the whips in the House suggesting that we extend the debate by half an hour so that all parties could get an extra speaking slot of 5 minutes. I understand that, generally, that had been agreed to, except for one party, which I understand indicated to Jill Pettis that it would not agree to it. Jill Pettis emailed me and rang me back about midday to tell me that, unfortunately, the proposal had not been agreed to.

In the meantime, rather than the discussions that normally take place occurring between myself and Peter Brown, the senior whip—who is now in Dunedin—unfortunately, the acting senior whip for New Zealand First, Dail Jones, went directly to you, Mr Speaker, to ask whether you would give the third speaking slot in the debate to New Zealand First. The fact is that, under the understanding we have, the discussions should take place between the whips, and if we cannot agree, then, obviously, it is up to you to make a decision. Unfortunately, that did not happen. Mr Jones went directly to you and broke the agreement.

I just want to make two points. In whatever decision you make, firstly, you might consider that this will be the 95th first reading, and, as a consequence, if a speaking slot is to be allocated to New Zealand First on every third bill, then on this bill the slot would go to National; and, secondly, in this particular issue, given that the discussion that should have taken place did not take place, it would be fair for you to consider that the allocation of the slot to National would be appropriate.

Dail Jones: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: I do not need any assistance on this matter at this stage. The Speaker calls members to speak under Standing Order 102. In the first instance, this must be negotiated with the whips—and we are talking about the 11th speaking slot only, and no other. I cannot impose, unless there is a complete and fundamental disagreement between the two whips, but I suggest they get together. If they cannot come to an agreement, then I will make a decision at that point. But I hope the whips can come to an agreement about it.

Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I was going to raise this when we got to the foreshore legislation, but since you have now turned your mind to this Standing Order, now is as good a time as any.

We also have been in receipt of some pretty extraordinary communications from the whips that I think you will end up having to adjudicate on, and it would be helpful if, before the debate, you were to do so. The information I have received is so incredible that I have difficulty believing it. If it is not right, I hope the Government will correct me. I have been told that the Government has decided that even though it has five slots in the debate, it will not allow Mrs Turia to speak. She will not be allowed to speak. The only way she will be able to speak is for her to seek the leave of the House. That means that I will have to make a decision on whether to allow her to speak.

I am in favour of allowing parliamentary debate, but if she is a Labour member, it would appear to me that under Standing Order 102, as she has some seniority, you could give her an assurance that she would actually get that call. I would not want to think that the Labour Party Government was manipulating the House just because it has some well-publicised divisions. That is not a reason to have extra slots given to it.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): Mr Speaker, there is ample precedent for your resolving the issue in the same way as a similar issue was resolved back in 1992, on the question of the Sealord’s debate. You will recall that one evening saw an attempt by the then Labour Party, in collusion with National, to have its Māori affairs spokesman, Koro Wētere, speak, even though he was not the senior member in the House. You will recall that that was a debate I point-of-ordered out of existence that night, my having been denied a chance to speak on that issue, and the next day I was expelled from the National Party caucus. If we are to come to this case with a degree of justice and equity, then perhaps the precedent would apply this time as well.

Mr SPEAKER: Let me just say that I intend to apply this in the fairest way possible. I always listen to the Hon Richard Prebble carefully. Whoever speaks in Labour’s slots is not a matter for the House; essentially, it is a matter for the party. I have heard what the member said, I have heard what Mr Carter said, and I hope that the matter can be resolved before we get into the debate, which is still some time off.

JOHN CARTER (Senior Whip—National): I am going to seek leave, which may actually help with the point I raised earlier. Indeed, it follows on from the point that Mr Richard Prebble has made. I seek leave of the House to extend the debate of 2 hours on the Foreshore and Seabed Bill to 2 hours and 20 minutes, to give two extra speaking slots—one to Mrs Tariana Turia and the other to the National Party. In the event that you make a decision, New Zealand First will get two and we will get three.

Mr SPEAKER: I will put that leave to the House. Is there any objection? There is.

Business Statement

Business Statement

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House): Next week in the House the Government will be seeking to make progress on the Police Complaints Authority (Commission of Inquiry into Police Conduct) Amendment Bill, the Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Bill, the Corrections Bill, the Judicial Matters Bill, and the Forests Amendment Bill. I had indicated to the Business Committee that the first reading of the New Zealand Sign Language Bill will be taken on Thursday, 13 May as the first item of business. That is not now the case, and I will indicate to all other parties, as soon as I can, what the intended date will now be.

GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National): I wonder whether the Leader of the House might be able to give us some indication of what has happened to the Civil Union Bill and when we might expect that bill to see the light of day in the House.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House): It is the Government’s intention to introduce the Civil Union Bill along with the consistency legislation at the same time. That may be done during this May period or it may be done during the June period.

Questions for Oral Answer

Questions to Ministers

Prime Minister—Māori

1. GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) to the Minister of Māori Affairs: Does he agree with the Prime Minister’s statement that she has “always been there for Māori.”; if so, why?

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Minister of Māori Affairs): Yes. Labour Governments have always been there for Māori and always will be, as they will be for all New Zealanders.

Gerry Brownlee: What sort of a man goes into bat for a Prime Minister who thinks Shrek the sheep is better company than hīkoi marchers, whom she labels as “wreckers and haters”, and is forcing the Minister and his Māori colleagues to vote for legislation that people clearly do not want?

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: This is a great Minister of Māori Affairs who knows about fronting up to his people—having been out there yesterday—who understands tikanga, and who is an old shearer who has tossed grubby sheep around and put them down the porthole.

Jill Pettis: What has this Government achieved for Māori?

Gerry Brownlee: Ha, ha!

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: I ask that member to listen very carefully. In recent times over 40,000 more Māori are now in work. Unemployment is at an all-time low, and for Māori it is at a 16-year low. Almost 900 Māori are involved in Modern Apprenticeships. We have delivered on Māori television. Members should know that a lot of Kiwis are watching it and enjoying it, and our reo will survive. So that is the thing—we have delivered.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Minister as to whether the Prime Minister’s statement was motivated by the comment at Ōrewa this year made by the leader of the National Party, that the Māori people were not—to quote him—“a homogeneous race”?

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: I tend to suspect most certainly—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Very clear ministerial responsibility is needed for such a question. The member’s question was clearly out of order.

Mr SPEAKER: I do not think there is any ministerial responsibility. The member might like to phrase his question so that he can bring it in.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I was very careful in constructing that question. I asked the Minister whether his Prime Minister’s comments were motivated by the comments at Ōrewa—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: That is the only warning. The next member is out. Points of order will be heard in silence, and members know that.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: In a political debate, which is what this Chamber is about, how a Prime Minister might be motivated to make a comment is one of prime ministerial and ministerial responsibility. After all, this is the key issue, surely, of the Ōrewa speech; or are we to find now that the National Party intends to withdraw that very serious comment? I am asking whether the Prime Minister’s comments were motivated by that statement?

Mr SPEAKER: If the member was asking the Prime Minister that, it would be fine. But the Minister of Māori Affairs is responsible for his comments, not for the Prime Minister’s comments in that way. But what I would prefer—and I have invited him to do so—is for the member to rephrase the question.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Did the Minister find, in any of his discussions with the Prime Minister since the halcyon speech at Ōrewa, any comment from her that she was concerned about the speech at Ōrewa to the effect that the Māori people, to quote Dr Brash, were not “a homogeneous race”?

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: I am certain that divisive and scurrilous speech at Ōrewa led her to think that, but in respect of the comment on the sheep, maybe she was referring to the bleating of those people in the benches opposite.

Metiria Turei: Does the Minister believe that he has always been there for Māori; if so, why is he not following through and voting against the proposed foreshore and seabed legislation?

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: Because for a long time I have spent a lot of my life trying to make sure that our people get the best shot. That is why I am going with this legislation at this stage.

Stephen Franks: Does the Minister think that the hostility he faced yesterday was his fault, the Prime Minister’s fault, the fault of both of them or neither of them?

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: I want to commend the people in the hīkoi—even my whānau who were there—because I think that they progressed and managed it very amicably. They were humbly honest. Certainly, it is nothing new to me to be sitting on the paepae, out there in front of our people, and having to stand whatever they want to dish up to me.

Gerry Brownlee: How can the Minister stand in this House and proclaim himself to be a truly great Minister of Māori Affairs one minute, then a couple of hours later fail to vote against legislation that his people are so opposed to?

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: Because that member, who has spent a lot longer in this Chamber and understands the process better than I do—and a whole lot of other Māori people out there—knows that this will take 6 or 7 months to get through. I have enough nous to understand that today is the start, and there is a whole lot of finishing to it. Wake up!

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am a little concerned about that answer. Although it appears that if a Minister stands up in this Parliament and says anything, then that can be considered as addressing the question. I think the Minister of Māori Affairs has misrepresented the question that was asked of him. He was asked why he will vote for legislation that his people do not like.

Mr SPEAKER: The Minister addressed the question, quite specifically in my view.

Gerry Brownlee: Does the Minister agree with the Prime Minister’s statement that some of the hīkoi marchers were “haters and wreckers”; if so, why?

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: Sometimes I agree with the Prime Minister; sometimes I do not. There were people who were hell-bent on doing that yesterday, but the majority of them conducted themselves in fine form, and there were good people in there.

Nuclear-free New Zealand—Status

2. MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) to the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade: Has he received any recent reports into possible changes to New Zealand’s nuclear-free status?

Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade): I have received a number of reports, including this one released by the National Party yesterday under the cover of the hīkoi—though apparently it has been around for some months. This report states that National should repeal the nuclear-free legislation, but tell the public that the policy ban will remain.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister is being reckless with the truth that is contained in that document. It does not make such a claim. I seek leave to table the document, in order that all members may know that the Minister is misleading the House.

Mr SPEAKER: There were two issues there. The first matter that the member raised was a matter of debate, but he sought leave to table to the document.

Document not tabled.

Hon PHIL GOFF: The problem with that policy recommendation is that I have received other information that Don Brash has already told an American congressional delegation that a National Government would repeal the ban “before lunch”, which absolutely contradicts what he has been saying elsewhere.

Martin Gallagher: Further to the Minister’s interrupted primary answer, has the Minister had any advice, in terms of our foreign relations, about whether the recommendations in the report to be tabled will have any credibility?

Hon PHIL GOFF: I have received advice that the National Party set up the Somers commission in the early 1990s to look at this same question of nuclear-powered ships, and promised the US State Department that this was, in fact, a mechanism to lift the ban. However, apparently the then Government got cold feet in the face of strong public opposition, and reneged on that undertaking to the United States. So I suggest, in answer to that question, that this bill will have credibility with neither the Americans, who have been taken down this track before, nor the New Zealand public, when they know that the Leader of the Opposition is being totally disingenuous about what he said on his position.

Mr SPEAKER: The last part of that answer was out of order. The Minister has no responsibility for that.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: I say to Mr Brownlee that far too many points of order are being raised.

Gerry Brownlee: Points of order, of course, are raised when the House is conducting itself in an unseemly manner. In this case, the Minister when giving an answer was being most unseemly in suggesting that there was a bill somewhere. I challenge him to table any bill that he thinks he has in his possession.

Mr SPEAKER: No. As I said to the member, I dealt with that by my ruling before he got up.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Does the Minister’s reference to 1990 relate to reports from the National Party’s Picton caucus of that year, at which time it decided to come out opposing both nuclear-armed and nuclear-powered ships visiting this country, and at which time the then spokesman on defence, Doug Kidd, and the then leader of the National Party, Jim Bolger, made a claim that they had always believed in that policy?

Mr SPEAKER: No, the Minister cannot answer that question.

Hon Ken Shirley: Does the Minister accept the fact that, in fact, New Zealand is not nuclear-free, with widespread applications of nuclear technology, including smoke alarms in our homes that are promoted by Government agencies; if he does accept that fact, then what is the reason that his Government persists with the ban on nuclear propulsion?

Hon PHIL GOFF: All New Zealanders accept the fact that some radioactive materials are used, for example, in hospitals, and that there is good reason for that. Nobody opposes that. But the overwhelming majority of New Zealanders are absolutely opposed to having either nuclear-propelled or nuclear-armed vessels in this country, and this Government, for one, will stand by its policy, based on conviction—unlike that National Opposition, which has flip-flopped all over the place over 14 years.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I hesitate to challenge your ruling, but my question related to recent reports. I think, in historical terms, the last 20 years is recent. Mr Goff introduced the issue of 1990 into the debate. I asked whether the Government had received any such reports. That report from that conference in 1990 was pretty significant, because it changed the position of both parties at the time—Labour and National—on the question of nuclear-capable ships. So in that context, I ask you to think about it again.

Mr SPEAKER: I did and I have; I still think the question that the member asked was out of order.

Keith Locke: Would the direction promoted by the National Party in Wyatt Creech’s report not eventually lead to nuclear-armed ships coming into New Zealand ports, particularly given the fact that the soft Danish model promoted by Wyatt Creech in the report has actually led to nuclear-armed ships coming into Danish ports?

Mr SPEAKER: No, this is asking for comment on a particular issue that is a party point. This is not a question that can be accepted.

Keith Locke: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: I have ruled on it, I say to Mr Locke, and I will not re-rule on that particular issue. The member did not ask the question in order. There is a way to ask the question, but he did not do that.

Keith Locke: I asked—

Mr SPEAKER: All right, I will give him one last chance, but it must be within the Minister’s responsibility.

Keith Locke: Does the Minister agree that, according to reports he has received on the Wyatt Creech report, the Danish model promoted by Mr Creech in that report would actually lead to nuclear-armed warships coming into New Zealand ports, because that has happened in Denmark?

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think there is very little difference between the way in which the question was asked the first time and the second. What it leaves the Minister doing is giving speculation to the House about something that has nothing to do with current Government policy. That is quite unacceptable.

Mr SPEAKER: No. The Minister can answer only about reports he has received. But he can certainly do that.

Hon PHIL GOFF: This Government believes absolutely that the legislation is a clear guarantee to the public of New Zealand that neither nuclear-armed nor nuclear-propelled ships will come into this country. The alternative policy of saying: “We will repeal the legislation but we will keep the policy ban.” has absolutely no credibility. It is the more so because Don Brash has already told the Americans that he will repeal the policy ban, and he will have those ships here. He will just not admit it publicly. He has said it, and refuses to deny the fact that he said it.

Hon Peter Dunne: Has the Minister received any advice—

Mr SPEAKER: Now, I do not want to have to warn any honourable member, but there have been just a few too many interjections and, of course, there can be none while a question is being asked. The member will please start again.

Hon Peter Dunne: Has the Minister received any advice from his ministry, the New Zealand Defence Force, or any branch of the United States Government that repealing that provision of the antinuclear legislation without changing the policy will in any way assuage American concerns about the operation of New Zealand’s antinuclear policy?

Hon PHIL GOFF: The advice I have received is that the Americans will simply give no credibility to a promise by a party that in Government has made those promises before, and has not lived up to them. That is why I say the National Party has credibility neither with the Americans nor with the New Zealand public—and rightly so. If there were one argument to put forward, the National Party would actually take the call and ask a supplementary question, which they have failed to do each time this question has come up in the House.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Has the Minister received any reports that the Americans have received the comments from Dr Brash with the same sense of alacrity and déjà vu with which they received the comments from Mr Lange, back in 1984, that he would sort the matter out within 6 months of taking power?

Hon PHIL GOFF: I certainly cannot confirm that that was the undertaking that Mr Lange had given. What I can confirm, however, is that a message went very clearly from the then National Government that the Somers commission would sort that matter out and give it the grounds to repeal the ban. Everybody knows that the National Party wants to repeal the ban but is scared to do so because, overwhelmingly, New Zealanders are in favour of keeping that ban. That ban will stay, under this Government.

Race Relations—Deterioration

3. Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT) to the Prime Minister: Given the Sunday Star-Times poll published last weekend that showed three out of five New Zealanders think race relations are worsening, does she accept any responsibility for the deterioration?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister), on behalf of the Prime Minister: No. I think it is those on both extremes of this debate who need to take responsibility.

Hon Richard Prebble: So can we take it from the Prime Minister’s reply that the Government takes no responsibility for headlines like the one in today’s Dominion Post newspaper: “Whites ordered off train, says girl”, which referred to a Māori woman’s announcement over a handheld megaphone that there were to be “no white people on the train”; does that not sound like South Africa under apartheid, and does this Government not think it should take some responsibility for that sort of disgraceful performance?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The difference is that under apartheid that was the official policy of the Government. Under this Government there is no support for those kinds of statements, at all, or for statements from members opposite that imply the Treaty of Waitangi is no more than a historical document.

Dr Wayne Mapp: Does the Prime Minister, on reflection, think it wise to have called members of the hīkoi “haters and wreckers”, and to have said that the Māori marchers were worse company than a sheep; and what did she think that did for race relations?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The second comment was not made. In relation to the first comment, it was made in respect of certain people involved in the hīkoi, notably Tītewhai Harawira and other members of the Harawira clan. If National Party members want to associate themselves as the new chums of Tītewhai, then good luck to them.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: Would it not improve race relations in New Zealand for the Prime Minister to withdraw the legislation and sit down in dialogue with Māori, on the basis of the common ground identified by the Waitangi Tribunal, to design a solution for all New Zealanders?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: No, I think it would be much more helpful if the facts were spelt out about the nature of the legislation. Today the Government will get a chance to speak, which was denied to the Minister of Māori Affairs yesterday outside on the forecourt.

Hon Peter Dunne: Does the Prime Minister consider that one way in which a more positive race relations environment could be engendered would be for there to be a proper and thorough study of, and royal commission on, New Zealand’s future constitutional arrangements, including the place of the Treaty of Waitangi; if she does consider that to be so, what steps is the Government taking in that regard?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The Government’s position is that it is useful to have a broad inquiry into the place of the treaty in the future of New Zealand. I think to broaden that out to all constitutional issues is to have too many hares running at once.

Hon Richard Prebble: Does the Prime Minister recall her statement on 10 February on the relationship between Māori and Pākehā that: “Much of what has been said is divisive, destructive, and time wasting.”, and “I will always take a positive view.”; and how do her phrases such as “hīkoi of hate” and “haters and wreckers” contribute to positive race relations in New Zealand?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The Prime Minister’s comment in relation to the hīkoi was in relation to some of the leadership—those associated with the events at Waitangi, who are exactly the same people who prevented me from meeting with the northern tribes over the foreshore and seabed issue. This Government has no truck with that kind of behaviour. There were thousands of other people outside who behaved well. But if the member opposite wants to associate himself with Tame Iti blowing his nose on the forecourt, good luck to him.

Rates—Local Government (Rating Cap) Amendment Bill

4. GORDON COPELAND (United Future) to the Minister of Local Government: Is the Government considering any steps to reduce the rates burden in light of the defeat of the Local Government (Rating Cap) Amendment Bill?

Hon RICK BARKER (Minister for Courts), on behalf of the Minister of Local Government: The Government believes that rates are a matter for local government, not central government, and has no proposals to change this as this Government believes that local authorities are best placed to make decisions about their rates. The Government does, however, recognise that infrastructure is a big cost and has provided considerable assistance in this area. An example includes a sanitary works subsidy scheme for which $150 million is planned over the next 10 years.

Gordon Copeland: In the light of the fact that in this House yesterday all parties expressed concern about the high levels of rate increases, is the Minister now prepared to accept that the suggestion of United Future of removing GST on rates stands alone as a fair and equitable solution to the problem; if not, why not?

Hon RICK BARKER: That is not a fair and equitable solution to the problem, because local authorities do provide services. If they were not to pay GST on services, it would put them at an advantage in respect of other providers of similar services. If local authorities are to provide services, then they should pay GST.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: How can this Government pretend it is concerned about record rate increases when it is dumping on to councils another raft of additional costs with the Foreshore and Seabed Bill, in which the Government’s own commentary identifies significant additional costs for councils in reviewing their district and regional plans, and in recognising customary rights and ancestral connection orders; if the Government is genuinely concerned about rising rates, will the Government pay for the cost of the foreshore and seabed that falls on local authorities?

Hon RICK BARKER: The Government has ongoing discussions with local government, and I am sure this will be one of the topics for consideration if local government decides to bring it up in those discussions.

David Parker: Does central government place a straitjacket on local authorities in the way they raise revenue?

Hon RICK BARKER: No, under the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 local authorities have a range of funding tools available to them, subject of course to consultation with their communities. These tools include a general rate across the whole district, targeted rates, and user charges or fees, under a range of circumstances. The Local Government Act 2002 also gave a more flexible fee-setting power.

Rodney Hide: In light of his answer, is there any quantum of rate increase that would be unacceptable to this Government; if not, why not?

Hon RICK BARKER: Unlike the ACT party, this party trusts local democracy. Local citizens will decide what is appropriate for them, in conjunction with their local council.

Gordon Copeland: What would the Minister say to those on fixed retirement incomes who are hardest hit by savage rate increases, to a point where they are in real danger of not making ends meet, and will he accept that this forgotten generation would best counter higher rates by allowing them to keep some of their valuable income by removing GST on rates, as proposed by United Future?

Hon RICK BARKER: GST is levied on rates because local councils provide services. This Government has not overlooked the retired generation. It was this Government that restored superannuation to the level it was at before it was cut by the National Government. This Government has injected millions of dollars into superannuitants, and will continue to do so. We have looked after them very, very well.

Gordon Copeland: Is the Minister telling the House that the Government has no strategy to address the rates crisis in Auckland, notwithstanding the fact that nearly all parties have expressed grave concern about it; and if the Government does indeed have a strategy, can he shed some light on it for us?

Hon RICK BARKER: I would have thought that a strategy about rates was a matter for the council and its ratepayers. It is not for central government to start running local councils.

Christchurch Polytechnic Institute of Technology—Community Education

5. Hon BILL ENGLISH (National—Clutha-Southland) to the Associate Minister of Education (Tertiary Education): Has he asked Christchurch Polytechnic Institute of Technology how it enrolled 96,610 people in classification 5.1 community education courses in 2003; if not, why not?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Associate Minister of Education (Tertiary Education)): Those are short courses and students often enrol in more than one course, so total enrolment figures inevitably involve a significant amount of multiple counting. For instance, about 72,000 of those 96,610 people are likely to reflect about 18,000 students who have each enrolled in four related computing courses. The actual number of individuals enrolled in classification 5.1 courses at Christchurch Polytechnic Institute of Technology was 35,488. I have not asked the polytechnic about its classification 5.1 enrolments, but I have involved it in meetings with the sector, and the Tertiary Education Commission has talked to it about changes in policy.

Hon Bill English: Is the Minister aware that those enrolments were obtained by offering to schools a payment of $20 per person whom they enrolled and that those schools included the Bay of Islands College; and is he aware that libraries were offered a $20 payment for enrolling students, and that people were approached in shopping malls and offered $10 book vouchers to enrol in a free course, and does he believe that that is a good use of taxpayers’ money?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I am informed by officials that the Christchurch Polytechnic Institute of Technology spent $80,000 in total on book vouchers. That was largely $20 plus GST for each person who was involved. One of the things the Government has been impressing upon providers is that we do not want to see them spending money on anything other than education.

H V Ross Robertson: Is it Government policy to “trust institutions to run themselves”, and that students “do not need some dictatorial Minister in charge of tertiary education telling them what they should or should not study”, as advocated by the Hon Dr Nick Smith?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: No, we take a more balanced view than Dr Smith, which is not difficult. Government policy is to value institutional autonomy, so it is important to balance that with the efficient use of national resources in the national interest and the demands of accountability. Our policy is to ensure that through the Tertiary Education Commission the overall provision of New Zealand’s skill needs is met, and that students make well-informed decisions.

Jim Peters: Has the Minister fully considered the roll-on impact from likely increased numbers of students, and the tertiary funding needed for those students, as a result of the present National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) qualification, which now fully and comprehensively includes unit and achievement standards to level 3; if not, why not?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: If I understand the question correctly, it asked whether we have costed the students who will come through from the NCEA. Yes, we have.

Hon Bill English: Is the Minister aware that the course Cool IT, for which the Government paid Christchurch Polytechnic over $8 million, is a joint venture between Christchurch Polytechnic and Brylton Software, that Brylton Software is jointly owned by Vicki Buck, and that Vicki Buck is also the development officer for the Christchurch Polytechnic?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: No, I am not aware of that particular connection between Vicki Buck and that company. If the member has details that he thinks constitute a conflict of interest, he knows what to do with them—that is, to give the details to me. Overall I am saying, of course, that the 5.1 course classification has now attracted the attention of the Government, and the funding will be capped.

Hon Bill English: What is it about the Minister and his policy that leads polytechnics and their staff to regard community education as a gravy train they can all get on, where they can force budget blowouts and enrol literally hundreds of thousands of people in low-quality, CD-based courses for which there is no assessment, no quality approvals, no supervision, and no qualification?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: It is important to remember that the 5.1 classification was introduced in 1999 by the then National Government, and that we are the Government that has capped the funding. I do want to tell Mr English that this country has, for a long time, supported adult and community informal education, and this party will continue to do so.

Food Safety—Reports

6. STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) to the Minister for Food Safety: What recent reports has she received regarding the safety of New Zealand food?

Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister for Food Safety): I have seen the results of the total diet survey, and the summaries of the animal products residue monitoring programme and the dairy monitoring programme. Of the 117,340 tests there were just nine results where the residue was over the maximum residue limit. Maximum residue limits are not safety levels. That means that 99.9934 percent of the results met or bettered the regulatory agricultural compound residue requirements. That is a wonderful result for our food industry, and it should be congratulated.

Steve Chadwick: What implications do those results have for New Zealand?

Hon ANNETTE KING: As a food exporter, New Zealand depends on a solid reputation for food safety. This result gives our international consumers confidence that we produce high-quality food.

Sue Kedgley: How can she assure New Zealand consumers that our food is always safe, when recent tests have found that up to 50 percent of chicken flocks are contaminated with antibiotic-resistant bacteria, which of course poses a major health risk, and given that none of the surveys that she has mentioned test our food for the presence of antibiotic-resistant bacteria, how can consumers be confident that they are not eating antibiotic-resistant bugs with their chicken and pork?

Hon ANNETTE KING: New Zealanders can be confident that our food is as safe as any in the world, because of the very good monitoring programmes that are undertaken in New Zealand and the fact that we are vigilant when it comes to ensuring that safety programmes are undertaken by our producers of food.

Sue Kedgley: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I asked specifically about testing for antibiotic-resistant bacteria. The Minister did not answer my question.

Mr SPEAKER: The Minister did address the question. If she wants to comment, she can.

Hon ANNETTE KING: There were three questions, in fact. The last part was about how we can assure New Zealanders about the safety of their food, and I have answered that.

Steve Chadwick: What were the results for our largest dairy supplier, Fonterra?

Hon ANNETTE KING: Fonterra was 100 percent compliant, and as New Zealand’s largest exporter, Fonterra’s achievement is especially important. It is important to have that noted in the House, because I am very proud of an organisation like Fonterra—[Interruption]—even though Tony Ryall, obviously, is not.

Border Control—New Zealand's Reputation

7. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) to the Prime Minister: Does she have any concerns regarding the reported allegations by suspected fraudsters that New Zealand is a soft touch?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister), on behalf of the Prime Minister: The Government is always concerned at any reports of such a view, but the fact that the people were caught suggests that the New Zealand border protection system is working well.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Does the Prime Minister believe that some of the outrageous final decisions of quasi-judicial bodies such as the Deportation Review Tribunal and the Refugee Status Appeals Authority are the cause for New Zealand’s reputation as “a soft touch”, and why do we have yet another Minister of Immigration who is not prepared to use the courts to veto such absurd decisions by appealing them?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The issue the member raised in respect of certain recent decisions of the deportation review body caused considerable concern to the Government, and the legislation in that respect is being investigated.

Dr Wayne Mapp: When will the Government stop issuing drivers’ licences to people known to the licensing agents themselves to be illegal immigrants, given the Government’s apparent concern about fraud?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I have no information in front of me with which to be able to answer a question in relation to the issuing of drivers’ licences. If the member cares to put down another question to the appropriate Minister, I am sure an answer will be provided.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is the Prime Minister aware of how many convicted violent criminals have been approved for residence or refugee status in each of the past 4 years; if so, what does she intend to do about it, and when can we hope she does something about?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I do not have the numbers in front of me, but the issue the member raises has also been recognised by the Minister in charge of these matters, and the legislation is under review, with a view to bringing amending legislation to the House.

Dr Wayne Mapp: I seek leave to table an answer to a written question to the Minister of Transport that shows he has failed to release a report on the issuing of drivers’ licences to illegal immigrants, because of apparent privacy and human rights issues.

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

Foreshore and Seabed—Hīkoi Concerns

8. METIRIA TUREI (Green) to the Minister of Māori Affairs: What representations, if any, will he be making to the Government to address the opposition to the foreshore and seabed legislation expressed by yesterday’s hīkoi?

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Minister of Māori Affairs): I have spent a lifetime advocating for Māori to Governments. I respect every everyone’s right to hīkoi, and I acknowledge that there are strong feelings amongst not only Māori but non-Māori who took part in the hīkoi. I will continue to listen and work in Government for Māori to find solutions.

Metiria Turei: Does the Minister still agree with his joint statement of June 2003, made with other Māori MPs, that “the Land Wars are over, so the consent of tangata whenua is required before customary title can be extinguished.”; if so, does he consider that this consent has been given?

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: The Land Wars are over, and this is a testing and challenging time. We expect to work through, listen to Māori, and ensure that their voice is heard in this legislation.

Russell Fairbrother: Did he offer to meet with representatives of the hīkoi yesterday?

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: Yes. Yesterday, after discussions the day before, I invited the organisers of the hīkoi to meet with myself and the Deputy Prime Minister to present their take. They chose not to for now. The offer remains open to those who genuinely want to ensure our people retain the kaitiakitanga o Tangaroa, the guardianship of Tangaroa.

Pita Paraone: Can the Minister confirm that the political party with the second highest number of Māori represented in this House has worked constructively with the Government on the foreshore and seabed legislation for the benefit of all New Zealanders—Māori and non-Māori?

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: Yes, I can.

Gerry Brownlee: How can this House, or Māori, have any faith in a Minister who stands here and tells us that he is prepared to listen to Māori views, but is then quoted as saying that what hīkoi protesters have to say is a whole lot of prattle? We note that he would rather hold on to his ministerial perks and privileges than cross the floor to vote as his constituents would wish him to do.

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: As Māori, we are far better than that member. Certainly, I know where the prattle comes from, and that invention came from there.

Gerry Brownlee: I seek leave to table a New Zealand Herald article in which the Minister of Māori Affairs describes the hīkoi protesters’ comments as a whole lot of prattle.

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

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. There is a convention in this House that if a member wishes to table a document, he or she should wait until the question is over. I thought it was a convention that most members respected. Twice today we have had that convention flouted, and I would ask you to re-examine it.

Mr SPEAKER: I will rule on that point. I do ask members to respect that convention. It is not a rule, but it is a convention, and I think it is a very sensible convention. We have the question and then we have the tabling. I think the member is perfectly justified in raising the matter.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Does the Minister remember this phrase in the Resource Management Act 1991, passed by the National Party, which concerns the protection of Māori interests: “The relationship of Māori and their culture and traditions, with their ancestral lands, water, sites, wāhi tapu, and other taonga”?

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: I remember it clearly, and I have lived begrudgingly with it, and the nonsensical compliance on the tangata whenua done by that lot.

Metiria Turei: Why will the Minister not stand by his earlier statement that: “The Māori caucus is clear that customary use flows from customary title, and if the title is lost, the rights of tangata whenua become privileges granted by the Crown.”, and vote against the foreshore and seabed legislation?

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: We are reading a bill today, and a whole lot of things were signed at that time. We are happy with it, and we are going forward with it for the benefit of Māori.

Metiria Turei: Why did the Minister say about the hīkoi: “Most of the people don’t even know what crossing the floor means”, when most people on the hīkoi know that crossing the floor means standing up for your principles and people?

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: That is not the full context in which I made that comment. “Crossing the floor” means voting for Don Brash, and we will not be doing that.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Firstly, I apologise for breaching the usual protocols of the House, as Mr Peters pointed out before. I am attempting again to table a document in which the Minister of Māori Affairs—

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

Accident and Emergency Services—Safety

9. Dr LYNDA SCOTT (National—Kaikoura) to the Minister of Health: What action is she taking to ensure our hospital accident and emergency departments are safe when the Ministry of Health’s district health board scorecard quarterly report shows that 17 out of 21 district health boards’ emergency-response times are not up to scratch?

Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Health): The information now available on emergency departments is the first real information provided on how well emergency departments are performing in New Zealand. This information is also publicly available. Although the measurement tool will need refining, we are now able to benchmark for improvement. As a result, each district health board is now undertaking measures to address shortfalls in the workforce, physical environment, etc.—such as the actions taken by the Hutt Valley board and the excellent work being done by the Waikato board.

Dr Lynda Scott: What is happening to our accident and emergency departments around the country, when Canterbury District Health Board’s accident and emergency patients are banked up in corridors several times a week, seriously compromising patient safety; the Hutt Valley has an accident and emergency department described by the board chairman as the weakest link in the hospital; Wairau Public Hospital staff say the accident and emergency department is running on the bones of its backside; the Palmerston North Hospital has accident and emergency patients waiting in corridors; Wellington Hospital’s top emergency department specialist has resigned; and Waikato Hospital’s emergency department should have been upgraded years ago?

Hon ANNETTE KING: Taking the last point first, it is true that a lot of renovation needs to go on in our emergency departments—work that was not done years ago. This week the Hutt Valley District Health Board announced that it will be doing renovations to its department. A lot of work is going on in emergency departments. The reason we know they need to improve is now we do look at the data; we collect the data, and we tell the public about it.

Dave Hereora: How well do New Zealand emergency departments compare internationally?

Hon ANNETTE KING: Emergency departments around the world are always under pressure, but the Commonwealth Fund—an independent research organisation—has identified New Zealand’s emergency departments as amongst the best of those in the five countries whose departments it compared. It compared the departments of the United Kingdom, Canada, the United States, Australia, and New Zealand. We should applaud the work that our district health boards are doing, but I think we can have much better results.

Judy Turner: Does the Minister agree with the comment made by Michael Ardagh, professor of emergency medicine in Christchurch, that patients’ safety, which is already jeopardised by overstretched resources, increasing demand, staff shortages, and poor facilities, will be further threatened by the inevitable increase in pressure that winter brings; if so, what is she doing to address this?

Hon ANNETTE KING: The Canterbury District Health Board is doing a considerable amount to address the overcrowding, and this week I met with the board and some of its clinicians. The member will be pleased to know that following that meeting Professor Ardagh said: “The issue of emergency department overcrowding is an international one. Compared with other countries Canterbury is performing well. Canterbury’s recent problems give us an opportunity to provide solutions.”

Dr Lynda Scott: Could the Minister explain what she is trying to hide by not actioning two requests from the Health Committee and four requests by me under the Official Information Act to release the latest quarterly balance scorecard report on district health boards, given that we know that a previous report has shown that 17 out of 21 district health board accident and emergency departments are not up to scratch?

Hon ANNETTE KING: The member is poorly informed. I do not release the balance scorecards; they are released by the district health boards. It is their data and they release it. They collect it and they release it publicly. They never had balance scorecards under the National Party Government, so they had no information to release to the public.

Dr Lynda Scott: Is the Minister proud that a whopping two of the 21 district health boards have achieved pass marks; and why does the Minister bother to conduct reviews, which cost time, money, and effort on behalf of our staff, into the performance of district health boards, when such disgraceful results have brought no action by this Minister?

Hon ANNETTE KING: I can only assume from those comments that the member does not believe there ought to be reviews into actions and activities of district health boards. I totally disagree with her. Thank goodness we did have the Stent report in the 1990s to show what her National Government did to that hospital! I am pleased to say that Professor Ardagh has said that Canterbury is nowhere near the crisis it had in the 1990s.

Dr Lynda Scott: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Under Standing Order 361, relating to the Minister quoting from a document, I ask her to table the document, because she referred to the latest information now available, and I have no access to the information on the latest balance scorecard.

Mr SPEAKER: If the Minister is quoting from an official document—

Hon ANNETTE KING: No, I am not quoting from an official document.

State Sector Retirement Savings Scheme—Implementation

10. DIANNE YATES (Labour—Hamilton East) to the Minister of State Services: What progress is the Government making towards implementing the State Sector Retirement Savings Scheme?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House), on behalf of the Minister of State Services: The new State Sector Retirement Savings Scheme is up and running. The Government agencies and the Public Service Association have reported a high level of interest in the new scheme from staff. Under the scheme, contributions of up to 100,000 State sector workers will be matched up to a maximum of 1.5 percent of gross base salary in the first year, and up to 3 percent for the second year.

Dianne Yates: When was the last time that State sector employees were able to join a Government-subsidised retirement savings scheme?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The Government Superannuation Fund was closed to new members in 1992. This is the first superannuation initiative across Government for 11 years, and it will repair some of the damage done to the public service in the 1990s.

John Key: Why has the Minister not answered my written question submitted well over 2 weeks ago asking why the Global Retirement Trust has withdrawn from the scheme, and if the answer to my written question is that the Global Retirement Trust cannot compete with other providers—as we suspect is the case—why was it awarded the primary teachers retirement scheme without it going out to tender?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Certainly, the Global Retirement Trust withdrew for commercial reasons. I cannot give an answer to the second part of the question, as I do not have the information on that in front of me.

John Key: I seek leave to table question for written answer No. 5424 requesting information on the Global Retirement Trust.

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

Foreshore and Seabed—Land Confiscations

11. DONNA AWATERE HUATA (Independent) to the Prime Minister: Is it her Government’s intention to repeat the land confiscations of the 19th and 20th centuries; if so, is that why she did not meet the hīkoi yesterday?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister), on behalf of the Prime Minister: No.

Donna Awatere Huata: Can the Prime Minister explain why Pākehā are to keep freehold title of foreshore, while Māori are to be denied the right accorded to them by the Court of Appeal to have their case for ownership tested in a court of law, and does she note the similarities between this and the Validation of Invalid Titles Act from the turn of the 20th century, which legislated away Māori landowners’ right of redress to the courts for land taken without their knowledge or consent?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Contrary to what has often been reported, there are only 59 private titles over the foreshore. There is frequently confusion between land that is above the foreshore, and land that is on the foreshore. One-third of the land above the foreshore is in private title, and one-third of that is held by Māori. That land is also all unaffected by this legislation. Some of the private titles over the foreshore are also held by Māori, and the provision in this bill is that people who wish to test their territorial customary rights can go to the High Court. If it is found that the rights would have existed, there is provision then for the Government to enter into discussions about redress.

Metiria Turei: Does the Prime Minister not agree that it is somewhat ironic that in the 21st century, under her watch, the Government’s Foreshore and Seabed Bill will empower the Māori Land Court to confiscate Māori rights, just as its predecessor, the Native Land Court, did in the 1800s?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The bill does not empower the Māori Land Court to confiscate Māori rights. It provides that the Māori Land Court is to have the ability to recognise Māori customary rights in a way it cannot do today; a fact that the Court of Appeal and the Waitangi Tribunal drew attention to.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is it the Government’s intention to begin an education programme, as to both the facts and legal relevance of this bill, and to the points of fact as opposed to the myths and shibboleths being spread around this Parliament and across this country on this very important legislation?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: A certain amount of material has been distributed on behalf of Labour Party members, but not funded as a Government measure. We will continue to try to explain the actual nature of the legislation over the coming few months. I am confident that when it is passed and in practice, people will be surprised that there is practically no noticeable change in their ordinary daily lives.

Hon Richard Prebble: If the Government is looking at restitution for 19th and 20th century confiscations, is it also prepared to look at insisting on restitution for 21st century confiscations; in particular the taking of taxpayers’ money for Māori education and reading that was then used to go to fashion shows in Sydney?

Donna Awatere Huata: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Not only is that question way outside the ambit of the original question, but it is simply mean and nasty.

Mr SPEAKER: The last part I will ignore, but, yes, the first part was outside the original question.

Dental Health—Decay in Children

12. BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) to the Minister of Health: Is she concerned that over one-half of New Zealand 5-year-old children living in poorer communities have dental decay; if so, what does she intend to do about this?

Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Health): Yes, I am concerned. This Government has undertaken a number of measures to address this problem. We have a 100 percent subsidy now available for the fluoridation of water supplies. We have increased the number of dental therapists in training. For example, there were only nine, or fewer, dental therapists in training up until this year. At the end of this year, 35 new graduates will graduate. We have established mobile bus dental services, and we have made dental health a priority in the New Zealand Health Strategy.

Barbara Stewart: Will the Minister ensure that all primary schoolchildren continue to receive a regular annual dental check by the school dental service, given that the incidence of dental decay is increasing?

Hon ANNETTE KING: That is certainly the aim of every region in New Zealand. At times, patients are not seen within that year. Sometimes that is appropriate—an annual recall is not necessary for everybody—but in the main, an annual recall is a good thing to aim for. However, as I pointed out, there are resource constraints in terms of dental therapists. If we train only nine per year, we will have a decreasing workforce. We have certainly taken hold of that and addressed it.

Mark Peck: What is the most effective action that can be taken to improve dental health in children?

Hon ANNETTE KING: Without doubt, the most effective action is the fluoridation of water supplies. Research carried out in New Zealand in 2000 showed that even the smallest water supplies can benefit from fluoridation. I have been a strong supporter of fluoridation throughout New Zealand, and I have been very pleased with the support I have received, particularly from our health professionals.

Dr Paul Hutchison: After 4 long years under Labour, why are so many children who were born while Mrs King has been Minister of Health seriously affected by dental decay; and after all her previous rhetoric, why does she not resign over her failure to be effective for this huge number of children?

Hon ANNETTE KING: I have put a considerable amount of effort into improving the oral health services of New Zealanders. I am just really sad that the National Party in Government thought so little of oral health that it allowed the training of therapists to reduce to nine per year to replace the workforce. It is very hard to provide a comprehensive service if we do not have the dental therapists. However, we are seeing improvement in terms of the ability to provide that service, because of things like mobile services.

Judy Turner: Does the Minister agree with comments from the New Zealand Dental Association’s executive director, Dr David Crum, that New Zealand’s very poor record of improving children’s oral health is due to the failure of parents to take adequate responsibility for their children’s health; if so, what is she doing to address the need to support and educate parents on what they can do?

Hon ANNETTE KING: Dr Crum makes a very important point. Part of the solution is to educate parents in terms of their children’s health. Dr Hutchison believes that I ought to be in everybody’s home preventing caries. That is absolutely impossible. Parents need to be involved in this process, and so do the services we provide.

Heather Roy: When the Minister started practising as a dental nurse, was the position referred to in the primary question the same, better, or worse than it is now; and how much has children’s dental decay improved over her 5 years as Minister of Health?

Hon ANNETTE KING: I can tell the member that when I trained as a school dental nurse, the number of missing, filled, and decayed teeth was over five per child in New Zealand. The number is now considerably less. Unfortunately, the legacy of those years can be seen in many of the mouths we see up and down the streets of New Zealand. The position has improved, but in pockets of New Zealand, especially in areas where there is deprivation, we have much higher levels of decay.

Dail Jones: What steps is the Minister taking to encourage people to undertake dental studies by making living allowances available to students so that they are not discouraged by large student loans?

Hon ANNETTE KING: One of the first actions this Government took on becoming Government was to reduce the fees paid by dental students, which had been very high under the previous Government. We reduced them, because fees were a barrier. We are not having great difficulty in recruiting for the 35 positions in dental therapy. I think that dental students face similar problems to other students, and some of that will be addressed in the Budget.

Dr Paul Hutchison: I seek leave to table a Daily News article of this year that demonstrates that a huge number of under-5-year-olds are riddled with dental caries.

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

Bills

Foreshore and Seabed Bill

First Reading

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister): I move, That the Foreshore and Seabed Bill be now read a first time. At the appropriate time, I intend to move that the Foreshore and Seabed Bill be referred to the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee for consideration, and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting, except during questions for oral answer, during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, despite Standing Orders 191 and 194(1)(b) and (c).

The introduction of this bill represents a major step forward in resolving some complex legal uncertainties that resulted from a judgment last year by the Court of Appeal. Until last year, the great majority of New Zealanders understood it to be a settled principle that the public foreshore and seabed was owned by the Crown on behalf of all New Zealanders, with free access for recreational purposes under the appropriate safeguard of the Resource Management Act and other Acts of Parliament. So, too, most New Zealanders were aware of the special importance that parts of the public foreshore and seabed held for particular Māori, as a result of a long history of continuous use of and connection to that part of the coast. I believe that most New Zealanders respected those customs, and were happy to accommodate them and to modify their own use of the foreshore and seabed to allow that to happen.

What changed last year was the Court of Appeal’s decision in June that the Māori Land Court could hear claims to and investigate the ownership of the foreshore and seabed. That decision raised some fundamental questions of constitutional, administrative, and property law. To allow claims regarding the public foreshore and seabed to be heard by the Māori Land Court could have serious repercussions. The Māori Land Court operates under the Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993. That Act was intended to apply to dry land only, and is incapable of recognising a property right that stops short of fee simple title. The Act was not intended to apply to the foreshore and seabed.

At this point I need to make clear to the House, and indeed the country, just what the bill means by foreshore and seabed—indeed, what the law means. Firstly, it is talking about the public foreshore and seabed, not the very small parts held in private title—some of those held by Māori. Secondly, it is not talking about the sand dunes or all the beach, but only the area that is covered by the sea at high tide. Technically, it is the marine area bounded on the landward side by the high-water line at mean high-water spring tides, extending on the seaward side to the limit of the territorial sea. It also includes the air and water space above, and the subsoil and bedrock below, that.

A central aspect of the bill concerns the legal recognition and protection of customary rights, and that derives from the mainstream of our jurisprudence. Such rights are established by long practice, and by a continuous relationship between a community and a specific area of foreshore and seabed since 1840. It is certainly not envisaged that on long stretches of the coast long-dormant practices may be resuscitated and granted status as customary rights. The ability to seek legal recognition and protection for customary rights, based on uses or activities, will be open to any group of New Zealanders. The Government is not aware of the existence of any customary rights that may meet the statutory tests in the bill other than Māori customary rights, but nevertheless considers it appropriate to retain the capacity to explore that possibility in the courts.

Customary rights, once recognised, will be exercised and protected in the context of the legislation that regulates activities on the foreshore and seabed—the Resource Management Act, in particular. This bill includes several amendments to that Act. In particular, a customary right holder will be able to continue to exercise the customary right without obtaining a resource consent under the Act. Moreover, if another party seeks a resource consent for an activity that would have a significant adverse effect, in the opinion of the regional council, on the exercise of a customary right, then the application would—unless the customary right holder consented—be declined. In seeking ways to acknowledge customary rights, it is worth noting that not all solutions will lie in the law. General social norms of courtesy and respect for others also apply.

I have no doubt the bill enables applications to be made to the High Court to investigate the full extent of the rights that might have been held in common law. The court would apply the common law and it would be able to look at the full set of rights and interests in the claimed area as it made an overall assessment of whether the cumulative bundle of rights in that area would have amounted to full territorial customary rights. I note that in the comments made by the Court of Appeal, it thought that would be a relatively rare occurrence. If the court makes a positive finding, it will refer the matter to the Crown. The Crown has to undertake discussions with the group in good faith on redress. Redress could take a number of forms, as has been the case with regard to the negotiated settlement of well-founded historic treaty grievances. The Government is also prepared to talk to particular groups outside the framework of going to the court where it is satisfied that the court would have given a positive finding, and indeed we are already in discussions with Ngāti Porou on this matter.

It is unfortunate that in these last few months the debate on these matters has threatened to be sidetracked by those taking extreme positions that either excite irrational fears or promote unrealistic expectations. As I have said a number of times, the one thing that most people seemed to agree upon the day after the decision was that the Court of Appeal was wrong, and both Māori and Pākehā in large numbers seemed to agree that the Court of Appeal had ruled that Māori owned the foreshore and seabed. The Court of Appeal, of course, ruled no such thing.

In this context it is important to set out what the bill does not do, and also what it does do. The bill does not grant Māori with a recognised ancestral connection a power of veto over the coastline of New Zealand. Instead, it enables them to participate in regional planning for the public foreshore and seabed, in the same manner in which Māori have been involved across the country since the enactment of the Resource Management Act in 1991. The bill does not deny the customary rights that New Zealanders have long exercised in particular areas of the public foreshore and seabed. Instead, it provides a legal avenue for recognising and protecting those customary rights. The bill does not deny that in some cases those rights may have amounted to exclusive occupation and possession. Instead, it requires that discussions take place with the Crown on redress where the High Court has found that that would have been the case. The bill does not impose new access obligations on the owners of coastal properties. Instead, the bill establishes access rights in, on, over, or across the public foreshore and seabed, which is defined to exclude the very small, limited areas in private title. The bill does not establish a new avenue for legal aid. That will continue to be unavailable for group proceedings before any court, although the select committee may want to look further at that matter to ensure it is adequately covered. The bill does not affect property rights on land held privately above the foreshore—one-third of the land that is privately held above the foreshore is now in Māori hands. The bill does not affect in any way the jurisdiction of the Waitangi Tribunal, or the process for resolving historic treaty claims, or the outcome of that process in any particular case—for example, that of the remaining Tainui claims that were not settled in the partial settlement of 1995.

This bill delivers four-square on our promise to protect public access and clarify ownership. It gives effect to the four principles we set out at the beginning of this exercise: access, regulation, protection, and certainty. It provides a clear and unified system for recognising and protecting rights in the foreshore and seabed. It creates a fair and reasonable framework for working through individual cases in the context of a settled concept of Crown ownership on behalf of all New Zealanders. The bill will not satisfy everyone. I doubt that it is possible, given the contentious and complex nature of the issues involved, to do so, although I am sure that once the bill is properly understood many more people will be satisfied than are at present. But the bill does go a long way to addressing the concerns that have been raised. I note that National Party members did not go outside yesterday to explain to Māori that in the National Party’s view this bill gives everything to Māori. I heard that Mr Brownlee was hiding behind a pillar, but I know no pillar as large as that. I hope that New Zealanders take the time to examine and discuss the bill, and will suggest to the select committee any aspects of it that may be improved. I would hope, for example, that the select committee will also find some way to encompass the existence of the concept of the public domain in the way the Government intended it to be understood, and in a form acceptable to both New Zealand First and United Future.

It is important, above all, that we use the debate that this issue has provoked to bring us closer together as a nation, rather than further apart. It will be very much up to the members of this House whether that is so, or whether the debate is used as a vehicle for driving a further wedge between Māori and Pākehā.

Dr DON BRASH (Leader of the Opposition): I very much wish that I could rise to speak in favour of this bill, because it is probably one of the most important pieces of legislation to come before the House this year. Over some years we have had a tradition of getting broad parliamentary consensus on treaty settlements, and that is something I strongly welcome. But, alas, I cannot support this bill, and the National Party will be voting against it. We oppose the bill because it creates confusion and uncertainty. It will increase, not decrease, racial tension, and it will compromise the effective management of the coastline and the seabed. New Zealand is at a time in its history when we should be looking forward, and not backward. We should be looking forward as one country—certainly of many peoples—and not looking back. The risk we face is that this law will not unite us; it will, in fact, create further division. We want to have a nation where we can go to the beach, where we can catch fish from a dinghy, and where we can establish a mussel farm, without regard to ethnicity.

This issue is a mess because the Government has mucked about for nearly a year. It has had no fewer than five different policies over that period. As a consequence, the Government has raised the expectations of Māori people, and the result of that we saw outside Parliament yesterday—and, indeed, we see it outside today. Having had their expectations raised, Māori people feel understandably upset because they perceive those expectations are being dashed. We needed decisive leadership, but that was lamentably absent.

The Minister pointed out that the bill provides for the Crown ownership of the seabed and the foreshore—

Hon Dover Samuels: You would support that?

Dr DON BRASH: —and if that was all that it did, we would be voting for it. That is quite right. We would be voting for it, because that is consistently the position we have taken on this issue since the Court of Appeal decision last year. Indeed, ever since the 1860s it has been clear to New Zealanders that the Crown owned the foreshore and the seabed, and that those areas could not be alienated from the Crown without a specific Act of Parliament. That was widely understood by both Māori and other New Zealanders. The issue we debate today arises because of an inadvertent legislative slip-up in a bill that was initially drafted by the Labour Government of the 1980s and passed when National was the Government in the 1990s. That inadvertent error has come back to bite us, and it has led to the Court of Appeal’s decision last year. It was never the intention of this Parliament to have the seabed and foreshore in any ownership other than the Crown’s, except where fee simple title existed—and that, of course, is clear in the notes the Minister issued on this bill on 7 April.

National opposes this bill because far from simply correcting that inadvertent error, it creates a whole new raft of radical, new, legal instruments. Let us consider the new jurisdiction of ancestral connection, and the new jurisdiction of customary rights. If any Minister or any Government had proposed those measures before the Court of Appeal decision, they would have been dismissed out of hand. This legislation will make existing problems a lot worse, and it will give scope for a whole new era of the treaty grievance industry. It will make the Resource Management Act even more bureaucratic and even more costly with regard to the 2,500 coastal consents processed each year. It will create another area of law where we have different standards for New Zealanders, depending on their race.

The ancestral connection provisions are quite bizarre, and it is inevitable that they will end up covering a substantial part of the total coastline. In the Government’s own notes on this bill, issued on 7 April, it stated that recognition of ancestral connection would bring with it a strengthened ability to participate in decision-making processes over the relevant coastal area. If that is not an invitation to iwi who have such ancestral connection to demand some form of compensation from anyone who wants to access or use the seabed and the foreshore, I do not know what is. Ancestral connection is to be determined by the Māori Land Court, where there will be no right for non-Māori New Zealanders to have their say.

The new customary rights orders are also riddled with problems. Ostensibly those rights are given to both Māori and other New Zealanders, but, again, I read from the notes issued by the Government that to qualify to have a customary right recognised, the court must be satisfied “the application is made on behalf of an established and identifiable group, and the activity, use, or practice has to be integral to the culture of the group, has been exercised substantially uninterrupted since 1840 and continues to be exercised …”. Not a lot of non-Māori groups will qualify under those criteria. While the Government pretends this is an issue open to both Māori and non-Māori, the reality is quite different from that. Dr Bill Hodge, the constitutional law expert at Auckland University, said in relation to this bill that Māori have had a complete victory. Before the Waitangi Tribunal in January, the Solicitor-General talked about essentially the same issues and not very differently at all from Dr Hodge—using different terminology, but basically saying the same thing. The Solicitor-General said that basically this bill would give Māori groups a substantial power of veto over the use of the coastline.

I turn to the High Court orders for compensation. The bill provides that the High Court can not only investigate a claim but award compensation. All other treaty grievance models provide that Cabinet and Ministers, and not the courts, are responsible for settling any treaty grievance.

We oppose this bill because in essence it provides for a confused management of the seabed and the foreshore. Councils will not be responsible, the Government will not be responsible, and not even iwi will be fully responsible. The Crown may own the foreshore and the seabed, but de facto control will be with iwi. This bill gives Māori a poison pill they will get value from by interfering with the rights of other New Zealanders. That is a tragedy, because it tells Māori that their path to prosperity is by clipping the ticket. That is not the way to long-term prosperity. Worse still, the bill does that in a way that exacerbates, and does not improve, race relations in New Zealand. I wish I could support this bill. Sadly, we cannot.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): Ngā reo, ngā mana, ngā waka, ngā pūkōrero o ngā hau e whā, rau rangatira mā, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

[To the languages, authorities, canoes, spokespersons of the four winds, and the hundreds of chiefs, greetings, greetings, and greetings to you all.]

Rudyard Kipling once referred to people keeping their heads when all about them are losing theirs. One may well then ask the question that if Māori have had a complete victory, why were 20,000 pounding the streets outside Parliament yesterday? The sort of speech we have just heard defies all logic, all truth, and all reality. The truth is that from day one my party said that that which we understood to be the law would be the law when this debate was over—that the foreshore and seabed would be, as our people died for in two wars, in the hands of every New Zealander regardless of race, religion, or background. The previous speaker, Dr Brash, either does not understand this bill or is deliberately setting out to create mischief and to set one group of New Zealanders against the others—in other words, to divide and rule, or, to use Professor Palmer’s famous words, he is spreading rumour with malice.

I began my legal career acting for Māori on issues to do with land. My tribe, Ngāti Wai, knows full well that they will lose nothing whatsoever from this bill. If they were to lose something, we would be defending them. This legislation guarantees that all the people of New Zealand will own the foreshore and seabed, though Crown ownership, in perpetuity forever, for our children and millions of our children yet unborn. That is what this bill says. The term “perpetuity” is important. It means forever and ever.

I can see why that does not appeal to Dr Brash and his cohorts, because selling State assets is what his party is about. Which party decided to take things to do with our right for centuries and sell them to the highest bidder, and to have quota owned in perpetuity?

Hon Member: National!

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, no, those members there did, and those agreed, and before people march on the streets let us have some facts. Why does he fear this statement “in perpetuity”? Well, members should look at his record on selling State assets. Even now, his speeches favour that. It is clear that he wants the foreshore and seabed in Crown ownership, but only for a brief time until he has a chance to sell them. This guardian and protector of our assets and our treasures would have 10 million people from abroad in this country tomorrow, and pray tell me where our foreshore and seabed assets will be when that happens.

Hon Member: What a hopeless speech.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I know he made a hopeless speech, but I would not have said so so close to the next election.

Customary rights relate to a specified activity associated with the seabed and foreshore such as the launching of a waka, the anchoring of a boat, the collecting of sand, or some other historical activity, and they will go on in perpetuity, regardless of race. Again, the test is that this activity must be demonstrably able to be proven before either the Māori Land Court for ease of costs, or the High Court in the case of non-Māori—and non-Māori are included. Where an ancestral connection order or a customary rights order is recognised it will be recorded on the register. People will know whose interests are there.

But here is the important point. Who wrote this term back in 1991? The people behind me wrote this term into the law in the Resource Management Act, for which they found such great favour in comparison with the clauses I am about to recite.

Dr Don Brash: Where were you, Winston?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Where was I back then? Actually, I was about to be expelled from the National Party because I was against the sale of State assets, and on that record I will bow to no one behind me on standing up for what is right for New Zealanders. This is what National said about matters of national importance back in 1991. National members said they would recognise the relationship of Māori and their culture and traditions with their ancestral lands, water, sites, wāhi tapu, and other taonga. What does this bill say? This bill says only that the protection recognises customary activities.

If we heard that speech, we know that it is about cant, it is about deceit, and it is about misrepresentation. That is the fact. The vehicle on which National members have predicated their next election victory has just been swept from beneath them.

Gerry Brownlee: Oh, come on!

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Those members can travel the country, make all the speeches to the Business Roundtable and the rotary clubs, and spread ignorance, but here we are talking about facts. It is fascinating, is it not, that under this bill Māori and non-Māori will be able to apply to have their ancestral connection to a particular tract of seabed and foreshore recognised. In fact, everyone will be the same. Dr Brash mischievously says that the Māori Land Court is likely to grant ancestral connection over the entire coastline, but he must surely have lawyers in his party who know that that is demonstrably and palpably untrue.

Gerry Brownlee: Margaret Wilson said that.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: She may have said it in April, but the deal we have done with the Labour Party Government demands seven things, and all seven things are in this bill. So let us stop the humbug.

For applicants to the Māori Land Court to be granted an ancestral connection order they must demonstrate, through fact, that they have had largely a continuous and effectively unbroken link to that particular piece of seabed and foreshore, back to 1840. That is why Ngāti Porou is not protesting, and that is why a number of European institutions will not protest, either—because they can prove what I am saying to be a fact. National claims to be an Auckland party. What is the Auckland regatta if not something that was happening in 1840? The right of that whole community to hold one of the biggest days it ever holds will be preserved, as well.

I want to make this very, very clear, because it is very important. National Party members, of course, have their DNA, their blood, and their fingerprints all over this issue. They believe in the Yasser Arafat policy—create the mess, the havoc, the dissidence, the indifference, and the chaos, then claim, somehow, that all the solutions will not work. They have their DNA all over it. Every bit of this legislation about which they protest, and that is now being fixed up, is what they put in place. I know that full well. I can recall being expelled from their caucus for saying that. Here they stand, like Pontius Pilate wiping their hands of it—claiming to have no knowledge. If there are New Zealanders out there who do not understand that, they should seriously get to understand it in the next few months as we close to the 2005 election.

But who said this on Radio Pacific recently about customary fishing rights for Māori, which National put in the legislation? Don Brash said: “I am, ahh, comfortable with that.” That is what he said. Michael Laws asked him: “What about these pieces of legislation that precisely go far further than this bill?”, and he said, first of all, that he was comfortable with that, and then he said: “But I must apprise myself of the detail.” Someone who is 64, has been a governor of the Reserve Bank, and pretends to lead a party that might one day be the Government owes the country more than that. It might be difficult to find the parliamentary toilets, but this is no place to learn on the job. Either one knows one’s party’s record, or one does not. One thing I want to make very clear to every pretending National Party supporter is that he or she will know National’s record before the 2005 election, and that this bill is safe.

Mr SPEAKER: I point out that the only comments that may be made are from members of this House.

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Minister of Māori Affairs): E tika ake anō i te mihi ake anō ki a koutou o te hau kāinga, te mana whenua, i a koutou mai i te motu i tae ake anō i roto i te āhua o te hīkoi. Tēnā koutou.

[It is fitting indeed that I should acknowledge those of you of the home winds, the authorities of the land, and those of you from up country who came in respect of the hīkoi. Greetings to you.]

Greetings to all our people who have made the effort to come here on the hīkoi.

We have just heard a very divisive statement by “Dr Divisive” in the sense of wanting to keep Māori in the dungeons of doom and gloom. That is what those members want to do to Māori. We need to understand, fundamentally and very pragmatically, from the outset that there is a tangata whenua in this country, and it is Māori, and that the issue that is relevant to this bill is quite clear in our minds. It is a tuku-ed, treasured passing on to us. It is, quite clearly, about kaitiakitanga o Tangaroa, not the ownership of the ocean or the sea. That came with Captain Cook. Our people have this tuku-ed to them, to our mokopunas, by our ancestors, and we do have the customary right in this country, as the first-nation people in this country.

I say that this issue is a sign of a healthy democracy, and I want to pay respect to the hīkoi yesterday because those people got out there and are unafraid to challenge Governments. This Government will not sway or move away from recognising the customary rights and the peoples who are the tangata whenua in this country. We are a Government that is prepared to face up, and that is the context of this bill.

We need to understand some things in the sense of what is relevant to Māori from our view as Māori members on this side. In the sense of being a mokopuna who has gone around the rocks to ruku pūpū, to gather seafood, it is clearly something that was passed on to us by our tūpuna, and we want it to last.

There are three types of people whom “Dr Divisive” has been encouraging—

Mr SPEAKER: The Minister is to refer to members by their name or their rank, not in that way. The Minister will withdraw that comment.

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: I withdraw and apologise. There are people in this country who want to continue in contemporary times the nasty divisiveness; to leave it with the elite, to leave it with the privileged, and to have the tangata whenua left out. We do not want that carry-on. In 1992 the customary right was put in a regulated framework—the “Treaty of Wellington”. That is where the fishing right went. It was done without consultation, it was done in the dark in Wellington, and it was done by that party over there. At least we went out, and we stand by it.

In the sense of those types of people who are saying “Leave it as it is, because it is OK.”, well, that is a lot of hogwash, because at the moment the kai moana—seafood—is being depleted. The nasty take—the illegal take—is three times bigger than the customary take at the moment. The allocated take is struggling to find a regulated, average-sized pāua or kina in these modern days. It is terrible, and we want to do something about it. So leaving it as it is is not right. There are those who say we should leave it to the Crown in total. That is not right. There are those who are muscling up to create fee simple, which is about purchase and sale—one buys it and one sells it. At the moment we have Māori who are selling whenua that was tuku-ed to them. We have other races encouraging them to pillage the kai moana and sell it in Auckland in the dark. I want to make sure that my mokopuna can go there and get kai when she grows up.

The foreshore is that strip of land between the high-water mark and the low-water mark—nothing above it, nothing below it. No treaty settlement is interfered with or adjusted by this bill. This bill strengthens our customary right. It identifies it quite certainly, and creates an understanding that there is a tangata whenua in this country—something that some people want to ignore and deny. That is terrible and disgraceful.

Yesterday was an emotional day. It was the sight of Māori where they are now. Our demographics of 200 years of being colonised by other people are over. There is always the international well-known licence that tells one that the demographics of the colonised people are just, and it is totally driven by the majority. We are a very, very young race with a median age of 22. We have more 13, 14, 15, and 16-year-olds than older people in this country such as those members. It is really important to understand that. That is a technical truth: Pākehā are a more aged people than we are. So we, as the people who are here now, representatives in this House, have to make sure through platforms like this bill that we create a better lot for our people. It is quite simply that, irrespective of all those people who are telling us to sit down or leave. We have to stand up and do that, because we understand the process. Today is the first day of a long process where votes will be taken on the way through, over the next 6 or 7 months. Today is not the end. Today is the beginning in the sense of making us go forward—it is important to that.

Let me remind members about retention. Most of the Māori land that is still intact now was put into a regulated framework by Tā Apirana Ngata, and it has stood the test of time; whether it has gorse or manuka on it, it has stood the test of time, and we still have it. It is still in our possession. A lot that was left out was pre-pillaged by people who came as visitors to this country. It was ransacked. We were haemorrhaged by it. It was disgraceful. And our people have sold on in recent times—whenua that was tuku-ed to them, given to them by their tūpuna. If they have bought their house, bought their car, bought their land, kei te pai, but at the end of the day, with our young population, we have to ensure that we have documents like this and policies like this that will help our progress—and that we are not sitting where those members want us to be. Let me tell you, Māori have grown up. A lot of our assets are better managed. With all this scurrilous scandal that is around, it is important to get it into context.

I have heard the harping of the Māori affairs spokesperson on that side. There are a whole lot of summaries in here that are clear about the sense of the policy and the benefit for Māori. That is right; Dr Brash is dead right: we are trying to create priority for the tangata whenua through customary right. It needs to be recognised—that is right. We are saying that upfront. But those members are telling other New Zealanders that this is dastardly. It is fodder for your divisive policy. You are a disgrace in the sense of bringing—

Mr SPEAKER: I would be pleased not to be brought into the debate. I ignored it the first five times, but I must not be brought into the debate.

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: I withdraw. Some people in this country are divisive and disgraceful. They do not want Māori to go forward; they are used to their being behind. I am a 53-year-old Māori. I want to mihi to my elder here, Winston Peters. I am a 53-year-old Māori, and I will tell members what I am: I am from the last generation of children of manual labourers. Ninety-nine percent of my parents’ generation, like a whole lot of these people here, worked for the Ministry of Works, worked for the Post and Telegraph Department, worked for the freezing works, worked on the railways, and did all those great labouring jobs. They were loyal; they worked for 30 to 40 years. They were neither close to management nor close to enterprise, because other people kept them out of the opportunities.

Well, I want to tell members this. I have a 6-year-old mokopuna, and I have a young son at university. There are 1,375 Māori attending Otago University, and only 130 of them are doing a Māori paper. They are doing a whole lot of things, so “Move over!”. We want to be the business managers, we want to be the business owners, and we want to make sure that Māori have their rightful place as the first-nation people, the tangata whenua in this country, and we want to make sure that their customary right is recognised—not a whole lot of the hogwash that has been meted out by other people in the development of this country.

I tell members that Māori are going forward with or without hīkoi. There are a whole lot of other hīkoi to be made in education, employment, and housing, and this Government can be measured on what we are doing. We are not saying, to get a lead in the polls, that we want to do away with that. We are not saying we want to get rid of those issues that are good for Māori. We are not saying that Māori are irrelevant. We sure as hang are trying to function properly within the process of this House and make sure that our people get a fair say. That is what we are on about. If members are not used to their people telling them what they do not want to hear, then they had better get used to it, because that is what happens when one is a Māori member.

Certainly, we will be supporting this bill. We will be voting for it. We will stand the heat from our people and recognise it. We will not be playing divisiveness like those members over there are. If those members are serious about nationhood, then they should recognise the first nation—the tangata whenua of the people. If those members support better relationships in this country, they should support the bill. Do not go out there trying to claim it is namby-pamby—that is nonsense!

Mr SPEAKER: I allowed quite a lot of vigorous interjection then, but I think there was a bit too much towards the end. But I do not want to stop interjection; it is part of our democracy. Before I call the next speaker I have to advise that she and Metiria Turei are going split the call and each have 5 minutes. I will give a quick flick at 4 minutes 30 seconds, and then a bell at 5. I call Jeanette Fitzsimons.

JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green): The Green Party does not support this bill. It should be obvious by now that many thousands—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I do not want to have any other comments made from the gallery. One hundred and twenty people were elected at the last election—they sit here. Members of the public are entitled in a democracy to listen. They are not entitled to participate, and all people in this House have to be given the right to speak. I ask that Jeanette Fitzsimons be heard by anyone other than those in the House in silence.

JEANETTE FITZSIMONS: It should be obvious by now that many thousands of other New Zealanders do not support it either, and they are not just Māori. They have come from every corner of New Zealand: grandmothers and tiny babies, kaumātua and rangatahi; at least 15,000, and some say even 30,000 to tell us in this Parliament to taihoa. They cannot understand why this Government, which they have supported for decades, is doing this to them. The Prime Minister will not meet them. Yet they are her constituents—the loyal supporters and voters of the Labour Party—and they do not appreciate being told that they are opposed to the legislation only because they do not understand it. As I walked with them yesterday, I felt the power of their sense of betrayal, and also the power of their hope that this thing might still be turned round for the sake of all New Zealanders. It was a positive, good-natured hīkoi. People sang, hongi-ed, and hugged each other. I saw no violence and no hatred.

As I stood on the steps with my Green colleagues, I remember the last hīkoi to Parliament, which another Prime Minister refused to meet, and when another political leader was feted as the hope for the future. I remembered seeing the banner “No more asset sales”, and I remember the vote in Parliament just a few minutes before that to sell Contact Energy, including a quarter of our electricity generation and the water rights on the Clutha River. When New Zealand First members support this legislation, they might like to recall that their election promise not to sell State assets lasted only until they walked out of their coalition with National. Crown-owned foreshore and rights of public access can be sold in the same way by a simple majority of Parliament; Māori customary-owned foreshore cannot. That is one reason that this legislation is bad for Pākehā as well as for Māori.

Other reasons are that it sets a precedent for confiscation of legal rights, and it undermines the treaty, which is our treaty, too, and it makes us feel ashamed, locally and internationally. This bill will perpetuate bad environmental management. Around New Zealand, local authorities are still pouring raw sewage into the sea. They are still failing to protect fragile dunes, shellfish beds, and nesting grounds from four-wheel drives. They are still allowing totally inappropriate coastal subdivisions and commercial developments on historic, iconic headlands like Cape Kidnappers, contrary to their own district plans. We need hapū and iwi to exercise their kaitiakitanga, to be part of the decision making about coastal management, because they do not support the desecration of the coast. Our future as a nation depends on a good working relationship between Government and hapū in local communities. We desperately need cooperative negotiation over the oceans policy, the aquaculture policy, and fisheries regulations, and the marine reserves bill. All of these are on hold until the foreshore and seabed issue is resolved, but resolving it by force and without the agreement of one party will create conflict for generations.

This bill, in conjunction with Don Brash’s speech, has driven a wedge between people, stirring up false fears among Pākehā that the access to the beach is under threat, and destroying the trust of Māori in Pākehā processes because they feel betrayed. And it was all unnecessary. When the Court of Appeal decision came out, the Government could have said: “This isn’t quite what we expected, but we have a treaty partnership here, so let’s sit down, and find our areas of agreement and difference, and negotiate a solution we can all live with.”

The areas of agreement are large. No Māori leader I have spoken to is holding out for exclusive, freehold, saleable title. They agree that there should be public access, except in a few very special places. But they would like it to be freely offered and freely accepted, not snatched as though they were trying to withhold it. They want their kaitiakitanga and their mana recognised. They want a say in management decisions. They want some rights to commercial developments within the law. None of this is unreasonable, and none of it excludes the rest of us. A simple amendment to the Te Ture Whenua Maori Act could provide that when customary title is found to exist, the Māori Land Court could issue a collective customary non-saleable title with negotiated public access registered on it. It is still possible.

METIRIA TUREI (Green): It is still possible to negotiate a solution that affirms the tino rangatiratanga and kaitiakitanga of Māori, and meets the needs of the general public, but only if the Government withdraws the legislation and engages in real negotiation with Māori. The Ngāti Apa decision gave the Government a perfect opportunity to recognise the political dimension embodied in article 2 of the Treaty of Waitangi, and to consider seriously how rangatiratanga might be implemented in the 21st century. But instead, the Government chose a patronising, 19th century extinguishment and confiscation that will haunt this country for generations.

It was, and still is, an utterly irresponsible act and it is contrary to the law. The Court of Appeal clearly stated that the Government wrongly assumed that it owned the foreshore and seabed, and that customary rights—rights that precede the Crown’s acquisition of sovereignty—still exist in New Zealand law. But the Government also makes the culturally bound value judgment that private title under European law is sacred, but that tikanga-derived customary title is meaningless and without value. It is that presumption that underlines the contempt this Government shows to Māori, and that underlines the discrimination inherent in this legislation, because it confiscates a form of title that is held only by Māori. It allows title issued according to European law to stand. This bill will redefine customary title and turn it into a privilege granted by the Crown. That is the extinguishment of rights and the confiscation of land that is unconscionable.

The Government argues that this is not a confiscation, because Māori can still go to court to have their rights recognised. It is this the Government waves in public to assure the rest of the country that it is not abrogating the civil rights of New Zealand citizens. But that right is an empty, baseless right. The High Court cannot affirm the full spectrum of customary title rights and responsibilities, nor can it grant any remedies for the loss of any identified rights. It is an utter frace that the court can give a list of exactly what one has had confiscated, so that Māori may then take that to the Government to talk about this little list of lost items.

Then in an additional stab in the guts the Government negotiates with the New Zealand First Party, a party headed by a Māori MP, for the High Court to grant territorial customary title to any group of non-Māori. What for? To build landfills and toilets on wāhi tapu and the coastline, to pump sewage into the seabed? That provision, negotiated by New Zealand First, perverts the international common law doctrine of customary title and its application in Aotearoa. Customary rights cannot in law apply to anyone, other than the peoples with whom sovereignty resided before colonisation. This legislation co-opts and perverts the legal concept to mask the Government’s expropriation of customary rights.

The Court of Appeal found in law that the Government had wrongly assumed that it owned the foreshore and seabed. In response the Government will extinguish legal rights, confiscate land, and put our foreshore and seabed at serious risk of further future alienation and environmental degradation. This Parliament is at a pivotal moment in our nation’s history. The Greens ask the Government to withdraw the legislation and sit down with Māori to have a real dialogue about other viable solutions.

To the Labour and New Zealand First Māori MPs who have not yet turned away from this legislation I say to them that we know where the injustice in this bill will lead this country. How can any of us, willingly and knowingly, subject our people to this theft? We all, Māori and Pākehā in this Parliament, have the choice right now whether we take the path back to our colonial paternalistic history of confiscations, unrest, and injustice, or we put on the brake, withdraw the legislation, and take the path of deliberation, cooperation, peace, and justice.

Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT): I rise on behalf of the ACT party to oppose the foreshore and seabed legislation. ACT is a party that believes in private property rights, the rule of law, the citizen’s right to go to court, and one law for all. This bill violates all of those principles. Today Parliament is doing great and lasting damage to racial harmony by introducing legislation that racially discriminates. The bill discriminates against Māori. It removes the right that the Court of Appeal found that Māori have to seek a declaration from the courts that the seabed and foreshore is Māori land. The bill discriminates against non-Māori by allowing Māori to go to the Māori Land Court to seek a declaration that a particular group of Māori have this new legal concept, ancestral connection with the coastline. Such status will be forever, and according to the Solicitor-General, it will give Māori virtual veto rights over the use of that part of the foreshore by the rest of the community. Non-Māori are discriminated against, because they have no right of standing in the Māori Land Court.

The bill is bad law. Where to start? First, with a provision giving exclusive jurisdiction to the Māori Land Court on what is ancestral connection. There is no right of appeal, and Māori Land Court judges are being invited to create new law. I mean no disrespect to the Māori Land Court when I say that it is not a court. The Māori Land Court is a specialist tribunal for resolving disputes between Māori landowners. Communal land ownership leads to disputes—for example, when there are many owners who can build a property on the land. Those disputes, by definition, are disputes between Māori.

The Māori Land Court was never set up to adjudicate on the ownership of non-Māori land and it was never set up to adjudicate in disputes between citizens at large. Those are matters for the general courts. General land issues have always been adjudicated by the High Court, and there has always been a right of appeal to the High Court from the Māori Land Court. It is simply wrong that this bill gives the Māori Land Court adjudication over land that today is not Māori land, and adjudication over disputes that affect non-Māori.

Let me make it quite clear that in opposing this bill I am upholding the rights of all citizens to go to court but I am not lending my support to claims that Māori, under the treaty, own all the foreshore and seabed around New Zealand. As a lawyer, it is very clear to me that in law, whether it be legislation, the British common law, or Māori customary law, Māori do not own the vast majority of the foreshore and seabed of New Zealand. Legislation passed by this House implies that the foreshore and seabed are Crown land. Both Māori and British common law require continuous occupation and control for common law ownership. If Māori controlled and occupied Takapuna Beach, I think we would have noticed. But it does not follow that it is not possible that there are parts of the foreshore and seabed still owned by Māori. Indeed, I think it is likely that Māori do own some parts of the foreshore and seabed of New Zealand.

I do not see any reason for panic or legislation. If this continuous ownership and occupation has caused no problems for the last 160 years, it is probably going to cause no problems for the next 160 years. The fact that some of the foreshore areas are now owned by people who have riparian rights, causes no problems—except to those who are ideologically opposed to private ownership. It is ACT’s view that the Court of Appeal decision in respect of Marlborough should have been appealed to the Privy Council—if only because courts should not overturn 40-year-old precedents. I do hope that even though the Court of Appeal, I note, was built with no windows, at least one judge did notice the huge civil disruption caused by judges not following well-established precedents.

It is for Parliament, not the courts, to make law. But this Government for ideological reasons decided not to appeal to the Privy Council. Having decided not to appeal, the Government should have simply allowed this matter to proceed through the courts. All that the Crown had to do was to say that it is Government policy that there be public access to the beaches and the seabed. That statement would have been non-controversial. I know of no iwi that has said it would seek to limit public access. Public access will be a problem only if in the future it is somewhere limited. In that eventuality any Government could come to this House legitimately and ask for legislation, and I think the House would give it.

There is only one matter that requires legislative amendment. We all know that when Parliament gave the Māori Land Court the power to freehold Māori land it was never intended that that power would enable that court to declare non-Māori land—such as the foreshore—to be Māori land. Any claim by anyone to the foreshore and the seabed should be brought in a proper court—the High Court.

I hope I have made it clear I do not actually support the National Party’s position. I think there are some inconsistencies. New Zealand First’s position appears to be that it is saving the Auckland Regatta, which will come as a shock to them. The Green Party’s position is somewhat emotional. The reason I am speaking out is that New Zealand has no written constitution. The only protection that the public have to their rights for their private land, for their rights to go to court, is the 120 MPs. It may not be a populist position to stand for that, but that is the ACT party’s position.

I also say to members opposite they would be far better off to let this bill drop. This bill may well mean that the Labour Party loses its support from Māori. That may well help parties in the short term, on this side of the House, but long term I see that leading to political instability. I say to members opposite that racial harmony is something that every member should know is something we should be aiming for. This bill is the worst attack on it in my time in the House. I say that the best thing the Labour Party can do for its own interests, but even more for the country, is to drop this bill.

TARIANA TURIA (Labour—Te Tai Hauāuru): I seek leave to take a call to speak in this debate.

Mr SPEAKER: The member is seeking leave. Is there any objection?

Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT): Yes. I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am keen to hear from the member but it is my understanding that the Labour Party has three slots. She is still a Labour Party member, and I say to the Labour Party that it should allow her to speak, rather than saying to the House that we should change the rules just because the Labour Party is not prepared to hear a dissenting voice.

Mr SPEAKER: That is not a point of order. The member is entitled to object to the seeking of leave. He did so.

Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future): Every now and then in the life of a nation an issue of moment arises that requires people to put aside partisan differences and work together for a solution that befits that nation as a whole. I believe that this issue is one of those. It is a great failure of leadership on behalf of the two major parties that we are in this situation today, and that we were not able to get to a point, as we did with the treaty settlements in the 1990s, where a bipartisan approach was able to be achieved, so that a lot of the division, bitterness, uncertainty, and rancour that has divided this country in recent times could be avoided, and we could make progress on both sides of the argument with a sense of pride and satisfaction in what had been achieved. I spoke with the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition separately, and urged them to work together to see whether such an approach could occur on this occasion. I think it is to New Zealand’s shame and disappointment that that was not able to happen, because if it were the case, we would not be in the position we are in right now where—whatever the outcome with regard to this legislation on this vote or any other vote during its time before this House—essentially, we have a country that is polarised and divided, and will take time to heal.

One of the important issues that arises from the whole chain of events that began with the Court of Appeal ruling last year is the need to reassert some certainty about what all our reasonable expectations are. At the time of the Court of Appeal ruling, it was the general view of New Zealanders—Māori, Pākehā, and others—that the foreshore and seabed were the collective property of us all, but that each one of us had an indistinguishable, but inalienable, right to its use and enjoyment. What we wanted to see put in place was a regime that protected that historical understanding. It was in that context that United Future began discussing with the Labour-led Government as early as July or August last year processes by which a settlement could be arrived at that would give that signal of assurance, and allow us to progress as a nation. I believe that the principles announced in the December package were correct, valid, and provided a way forward. There was some further simplification required, and that occurred over the ensuing couple of months.

But one of the things that became important right throughout to us—and in the end became the point at which we parted company with the Government on—was that in order to ensure ultimately that all New Zealanders had the right of access, ownership, and enjoyment they all felt they were historically entitled to, the concept of the foreshore and seabed as public domain had to be acknowledged. Now, that is not a new, republican fad. It draws on English common law going back to the time of the Magna Carta, which was hardly a republican document. What that concept recognises is that as a nation, we have something in common. It also recognises that the Crown acts as the public’s agent. As an entity, the Crown is there to govern on behalf of the people it serves. When the phrase “public domain” was removed from the legislation, that assurance was removed. We ended up with the position where the Crown ceased to be the agent of the people of New Zealand carrying out the will of the people of New Zealand, but became instead a player in its own right, with all the opportunities to dispose of the foreshore and seabed it was acting in trust for on behalf of the people, in any way it saw fit. We said that was not an acceptable position, because it did not give the protection that every single one of us was seeking. It was on the basis of that position that we withdrew our support for this bill.

I want to pay a special tribute to the Deputy Prime Minister, the Hon Dr Michael Cullen. We have dealt with him in good faith throughout this process, and in return have been met with openness, integrity, honesty, and straightforwardness. I say to Dr Cullen that I was as sad as he was that in the end our ways parted, because I know how much he invested into making the agreement that we were reaching stick. I know how upset he feels—as I do—that the inability of the Labour caucus to manage its own numbers, frankly, led us to that position. He is a man of integrity who has emerged with his honour intact and enhanced as a result of this process, and I pay tribute to him.

The issue that now confronts every single member in this House this afternoon, as this bill goes to a select committee, and as the people in the gallery, on the forecourt, or listening to the debate around the country on their radios have the opportunity to express their views, is this: where to from here? Do we continue to see this issue in narrow, partisan, political terms, where a temporary majority will prevail more for the sake of convenience than good management, or do we take the opportunity—which I thought Dr Brash was hinting at this afternoon—to try to genuinely work towards a solution that will embrace a large number of members of this House? Unless we do that, whatever solution we arrive at is a tainted one, passed by a narrow majority. In a way, it is the same argument that we have about the Supreme Court: that it lacks a moral mandate. The community is divided, and that automatically raises the suspicion that what ought to be a mark of some permanence and some stability could, potentially, be overturned by any future Government on a whim at any particular time.

The previous speaker made reference to 160 years of law, and made the argument that if the ownership of the seabed and foreshore has not become an issue in the last 160 years, what guarantee is there that it will become an issue in the next 160 years? I have some sympathy with that point of view. I do not have perhaps the previous speaker’s confidence that the issue would not arise, but what I do know is that unless this Parliament speaks unequivocally and tries to come together in a sense of unity to create a purpose, then there is every prospect that the historical understandings of the last 160 years will be challenged. With that, there is every prospect of the fear being realised that all of us have, whatever side of the argument we are on, about this country beginning to tear itself apart.

Today is a historic day, not just for those of us privileged to sit in this Chamber and take part in this debate but for our country. It is about our nationhood, and it is about our future. Fundamentally, there is no prospect of this country going forward in the united, cohesive way that we all like to talk about, if we are unable to set petty differences aside and come to a constructive solution on major legislation like this. My challenge to the House, as this bill goes to a select committee and the debate proper begins, is that we should all focus on ways in which we can achieve a positive outcome, and start to leave behind the factors that have divided and embittered us for far too long. Otherwise, we will not have a nation to be proud of.

TARIANA TURIA (Labour—Te Tai Hauāuru): I seek leave to take a call in this debate.

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

NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Tainui): Tū ana au ki te kei o te waka. E kīa nei te kōrero: Mōkau ki runga, Tāmaki ki raro, ko Mangatoatoa kei waenganui. Ko Pare Hauraki, ko Pare Waikato te kaokao roa o Pātetere. Ka huri te titiro ki te rāwhiti, ko Tīkapa Moana Te Pae o Hauraki ki Moehau. Ka rere atu au ki ngā tai mihia o te Waitematā, ki te mānukanuka o Hoturoa. Tiro atu au ki te pūaha o te awa Tūpuna, he piko, he taniwha, Waikato taniwharau. Ka rongo te whatitiri. Tainui Āwhiro e ngunguru ana i te ao, i te pō. Ka tae atu rā ki te tumu o te waka ki Kāwhia tangata, ki Aotea whenua, Whaingaroa te moana. Ka tau hoki te ūnga o te waka ki Mōkau. Kāti au i konei. Pai mārire!

[An interpretation in English was given to the House.]

[I stand on the stern of the canoe. The proverb says this: Mōkau at the top, Tāmaki below, and Maungatoatoa in the middle. It is Pare Hauraki and Pare Waikato the long ribs of Pātetere. I turn and look to the east. Behold, it is the sea of Tīkapa and Hauraki on the horizon at Moehau. I wing my way to the welcoming tides of the Waitematā, to the anxiety of Hoturoa. I look at the mouth of the ancestral river and behold, a bend, a chief. It is Waikato of a hundred chiefs. Hark, the lightning hears. It is Tainui Āwhiro rumbling in the daylight and in the night. At last I arrive at the mooring stump of the canoe where the Kāwhia people reside, where the land of Aotea and the sea of Whaingaroa are. The canoe also landed at Mōkau. I end here. Good tidings!]

I rise to speak to the Foreshore and Seabed Bill with an air of trepidation, and with high expectation that this Parliament will not act in a way reminiscent of its colonial days. This is by no means an easy issue, and quick-fix solutions will haunt current and future Governments. That is not a threat; it is the reality of treating a complex issue in a very simplistic way. The answer will take time to arrive at. Māori understand that this is the only time they will have the opportunity to influence a law that will forever extinguish and transform what they have long understood their ancestral rights to be. They do not want the end result of this law to transform those rights into something that they cannot recognise any more. It is as simple as that.

Twenty-three thousand New Zealanders, many of whom were Māori, appeared before the steps of this Parliament yesterday in opposition to the intent of this bill. Clearly, there is a grave sense of unfairness and injustice at the speed with which such decisions are being taken. The hīkoi was an expression that demanded the attention of all politicians in this House. Politicians have argued on the fringes of this debate, which has only polarised New Zealand. This bill allows a simple Act of Parliament to alienate the foreshore and seabed, so let us do some straight talking. Nobody has really wanted to understand the hearts and minds of Māori, who simply will not tolerate the watering-down of their ancestral rights, their customary property rights, and what they mean. The hīkoi walked right through the middle of this debate—peacefully and without incident, we understand. It showed this Parliament that the principles Māori assert are understood by all New Zealanders: principles of fairness, due process, justice, and equality, to name a few. Those same New Zealanders represent a vibrant canvas of the future of this country, and will not be limited by small-minded views that often shape New Zealand law as it applies to Māori. They have put a face to their opposition to this bill, and a proposition that there can be another way forward. We should listen to them. Māori are looking for sustainability—sustainable solutions, and positive ways forward that contribute to our nation’s identity, and get on with it.

The right to govern is a privilege, and there is nothing more binding than the willing consent of those who choose to be governed. Each person on the hīkoi represented generations past and present. Māori do not consent to the extinguishment of their customary property rights, which is what this bill does. The hīkoi said clearly that the solutions could be found in the Treaty of Waitangi, and that the Government must commit to a relationship and solution based on those principles, and commence a dialogue with Māori. That solution could be the foundation of a very strong sense of nationhood, and in part was affirmed by the Waitangi Tribunal. The common law doctrine of aboriginal, or native, title is a set of rules that preserve the pre-existing rights that indigenous people have to their lands, according to their tikanga. The treaty merely affirms that. Whether Māori signed the Declaration of Independence or the Treaty of Waitangi, it is evident from their histories that they asserted the strongest concept of authority over their tribal domain. This bill waters down the effect of that authority to mere use rights, which, again, transforms what Māori understand their rights to have always been. Simply being induced into participating in the existing Resource Management Act processes, or being consulted with, just will not do.

One would have thought that the right to fully explore one’s customary property rights, and to have them protected, is reasonable. So why are Māori being prevented from doing so? What is the real reason for this bill? Why is it that only the rights of Māori are being affected? Many questions remain, and the answers are not clear. One thing is sure: if the Foreshore and Seabed Bill is a glimpse of how Māori customary property rights are to be treated by the Government, then we will see the tide of Māori opinion turn, as sure as night becomes day. Members in the Māori electorate seats have a clear mandate to represent the views of our constituents on the hard issues, and this is one of those times. The Tainui waka and the electorate object to the first reading of the Foreshore and Seabed Bill. The mandate of that opinion is expressed now because the bill is fundamentally flawed. The bill does not reflect what Māori believe our pre-existing customary property rights to be, according to our tikanga. The Treaty of Waitangi is not recognised in any way, and I suspect any tinkering with the bill by the select committee will be just that.

We are in a time of peace, and there are real opportunities to get things right. But the Government must be committed to genuinely ensuring that there is agreement from Māori—our consent, our willing consent. The Government is making a decision for Māori because it is the best deal on the table. Heck, it is the only deal on the table, and Māori say no to it. Surely Crown ownership remains subject to a customary property right until Māori agree to any sort of alienation or extinguishment of that right. These are challenging times, and young Māori New Zealanders have an expectation that their potential will not be limited by perception or legislation. The faces on the old people show us what determination is all about, and what vision and direction can achieve.

Let us commit to get it right. This bill should not continue. For that reason, and to ensure that the Government is accountable, I will not resign. The Government will need to work hard to retain the confidence of my electorate and to strengthen its relationship with the Tainui waka. Never again should the vote of Tainui be taken for granted. Waikato, Hauraki, Maniapoto, and Raukawa say no to this bill. It is not about voting for National or ACT; it is about preserving our customary property rights in the domain of Tangaroa. Anything less is an extinguishment of those rights. This and future Governments will be revisiting this matter should the bill continue.

Nō reira, he hokinga mahara, e kore tēnei oranga e huri ki tua o āku mokopuna. Tēnei e tū nei, e haria ana ō koutou wawata ā koro, ā kui mā, ki te whakahē i tēnei pire. Ka huri.

[So therefore, bear in mind that this benefit will not go beyond my grandchildren. I stand here carrying the aspirations of your grandfathers and grandmothers to oppose this bill. I turn.]

Hon JOHN TAMIHERE (Associate Minister of Maori Affairs): I seek leave of the House to allow Tariana Turia, at the conclusion of this time-limited debate on the first reading, to have the right of a 10-minute speech. Before the motion is put, I would be grateful to ask colleagues across the other side of the House to acknowledge that this is a great Parliament, to acknowledge that this is one of the few places that our people have a right to express their views, to acknowledge that Tariana Turia has made a significant move in recent times on the basis of this bill, and under our culture it is important—kai a te rangatira—that she has a say. I am just asking colleagues—

Mr SPEAKER: The member has put the point—

DAIL JONES (Junior Whip—NZ First): Speaking to the point of order—

Mr SPEAKER: It is not a point of order.

DAIL JONES: The issue is very simple. The Labour Party just has to give up one of its speaking slots. We have had one Labour Party member speaking in opposition, and there is nothing to stop another Labour Party member doing the same—

Mr SPEAKER: Please be seated. If the member persists, he will leave. Leave is sought, is there any objection? There is objection.

MITA RIRINUI (Labour—Waiariki): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I was on the end of the list for the Labour Party members, and I would be more than happy to stand down from that.

Mr SPEAKER: That resolves that matter. The list will be adjusted accordingly so that Mrs Turia will speak in the 12th slot.

GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National): Is it not extraordinary that we can have perhaps the most important legislation to come before this Parliament and we hear nothing from the Prime Minister? New Zealanders have come to this Parliament from all across the country to hear the views of their politicians, and we hear nothing from the Prime Minister.

This is extremely divisive legislation. It is fascinating that we can have the National Party opposed to it, the ACT party opposed to it, New Zealand First supporting it, but showing reservations, United Future supporting it, but showing reservations—

Hon Peter Dunne: We’re opposing it.

GERRY BROWNLEE: —my apologies, United Future opposing it, the soon-to-be-independent member, Tariana Turia, opposing it, and Nanaia Mahuta opposing it. All of us have very different reasons for doing so. That must surely tell everyone here that it is very poor legislation and should not go any further. But it will progress today, because John Tamihere and his cohorts—the other Māori MPs in the Labour Party—will support it. They could have stood up in their caucus and said: “We have listened to the people. We have listened not only to our own people, but to all those New Zealanders out there who have concerns, and we’re not prepared to vote for it.” But they have said: “No, we’re scared of Helen Clark, so we will do as we are told.” That will be the electoral end of them and their Labour Party.

Why should someone like me vote for this bill? I feel very, very strongly about this bill for the simple reason that people like me, and like most in this Parliament, are effectively being told, with the passing of this legislation, that no matter how long we live in this country, no matter how many generations back us, we can never feel the same way about the whenua as a Māori. I want to tell this House, and anyone who cares to listen, that I fundamentally reject that concept.

My family has held a property in Pelorus Sound since the 1870s. Today my 98-year-old grandfather, his 10 children, his 42 grandchildren, and his 57 great grandchildren all have an interest in that place. It is, in every way and in every sense, a standing-place for our family. Yet we are told that we cannot have the same interests, the same love, or the same connection with the coastal strip along the front of that property as Māori can. Even though we know, and history reports, that Māori who lived in the area were cleaned out by Te Rauparaha in the 1830s, those remnants—never seen in my lifetime—can come back and claim a greater connection to that part of the coast than my family and I.

Dail Jones: But they won’t get it.

GERRY BROWNLEE: Well, it is not possible to dispossess New Zealanders of the birthright they have by virtue of being here and expect that this legislation will not be seen as totally divisive and setting up a separatist regime in this country. Anyone who says: “Well, there’s never been a problem with this stuff.”, and the Winston Peters’ line: “This bill’s perfectly fine; it won’t cause any problems.”, should have a look at Delaware Bay, not far from my family’s place in Pelorus Sound. On the day this bill was introduced to the House, the gates were put up by Ngāti Tama, a price was put on access, and the local council simply said it would do nothing because the seabed and foreshore legislation would make that a legitimate activity. That is a fact. That is the sort of division in our society that Helen Clark has sanctioned and been supported in by Parekura Horomia and his fellow Māori MPs. So people should not expect someone like me to support legislation like this.

There are concepts for the management of the foreshore and seabed of this country that could be unique to this country. I personally think there is enormous opportunity to develop management around our coastlines along the lines of taiapure. It is not an exclusively Māori concept, but Māori—and, indeed, New Zealand—could look to the interpretation of that as a solution. What is wrong with taking some time over that?

Could I further ask all those who want to say that there are treaty rights involved here what the treaty guaranteed to non-Māori on the day it was signed? It guaranteed equal citizenship in this country, and I am tired of being told that I am part of a group that somehow has a greater obligation to Māori than Māori themselves have as part of the community.

Parekura Horomia talked today about styles and understandings of ownership. He told us it is not about fee simple; it is about all of those other ethereal things. If those things are to be held and preserved in this country, surely they are to be so by virtue of the Treaty of Waitangi. If that is the case—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

GERRY BROWNLEE: —I ask Mr Horomia why my rights under that treaty are being so kicked about by that member. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

GERRY BROWNLEE: I am not prepared to have my speech interrupted by that man.

Mr SPEAKER: If the member does not sit down, his speech will be terminated immediately. I called a point of order. Now, the Minister must not interject in the second person, because he is bringing me into the debate. He has been doing that constantly, and he will stop.

GERRY BROWNLEE: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I want to make it clear that I consider that interruption to my speech totally unacceptable. I was unaffected by the Minister’s barrage, but I am the only speaker today to have had my speech interrupted by the Chair, and I resent that deeply.

Mr SPEAKER: Let me say that I was—[Interruption] The member is very close indeed to trying my patience; I was trying to protect him.

GERRY BROWNLEE: Oh!

Mr SPEAKER: I was, because the Minister was interjecting, and the interjection was wrong. I was trying to protect the member. However, I have taken note of what he said.

GERRY BROWNLEE: I will again ask the questions for people to think about. Why cannot a non-Māori claim protection under the guise of the Treaty of Waitangi, and why do we have Māori members standing up in the House and talking about the Government as though it was something separate from Māori? Why do we have Māori constantly wanting to talk about the obligations of Government to them, as though they were members of some third-party group who had no responsibility themselves?

I want to say to those Māori members on the Government benches that if they put the tick today in favour of this legislation, then the legacy left behind by their term in this Parliament will be the start of deep, deep racial division in this country. There is no question about it. The National Party knows that in less than 18 months’ time we will need to pick up the mess left behind by the outgoing Labour Government. We are prepared to do that, but we are not prepared to buy into some of the myths and nonsense being put before the House today by Māori members who, frankly, have forgotten whom they represent.

TARIANA TURIA (Labour—Te Tai Hauāuru): E ngā mana, e ngā reo, tēnā koutou katoa. E ngā tangata whenua o Aotearoa kua maranga ake i te karanga o te takutai moana, maranga mai, maranga mai.

[An interpretation in English was given to the House.]

[To the authorities and the languages, greetings to you all. To the people of the land of New Zealand who have risen to the call of the coastal shores, rise up, rise up.]

First of all I want to thank the Hon Mita Ririnui for giving over his time to me to speak in this debate. Tēnā koe, Mita. I will not go over all the other comments that have been made by others in this House today, given that I have only 5 minutes to speak. But I want to say that it is a fundamental principle of democracy that citizens have rights against the Crown. They are property rights, and we have the right to defend those rights in the courts of this land. This legislation overturns the rule of law and it extinguishes the property rights of our people.

I want to commend those who were involved in the march yesterday on their discipline, solidarity, and courage in standing up for what we believe in. I have said on many occasions that this issue is the most significant issue facing our nation, and, indeed, yesterday was a day in our history that will be etched in our memories for years to come.

It could well have been different. I believe that a solution that would have pleased all New Zealanders could have been simple. All it would have taken to protect access to the foreshore and seabed was for the Government to amend the Resource Management Act. To ensure the land was inalienable and could never be sold, we could have changed Te Ture Whenua Maori Act. Instead, our relationship has been tested to its most extreme point by a foreshore and seabed package written in the interests of middle New Zealand. Our response to this insult has been to rise up, to stand up for our rights. We remain confident in our knowledge that tangata whenua rights are recognised in common law. Te Tiriti o Waitangi confirmed those rights, the Maori Land Act enshrines those rights in legislation, and the Court of Appeal has upheld those rights.

The bill impacts only on Māori. Our people have asked the Government to explain why no action has been planned against private landowners or foreign investors who own areas of the foreshore. Why are those privileged groups not targeted in this policy? Is it that they are specially privileged and can escape the scrutiny of the policy makers? The legislation is infused with racist overtones in that it is specifically targeted at ensuring Māori are prevented from claiming their inherent rights to the foreshore.

What has been taken away is not just tupuna rights, which Māori may have been able to establish. What is also under compromise is the right to justice in the hands of the court. We will not sit down and accept a compromise of basic rights, a denial of our tikanga, a belittling of our status as indigenous peoples. What we have heard over the months of discussion on this bill, and resoundingly through yesterday’s hīkoi, is the powerful call to stand up and be counted. We are mana whenua. Our authority comes from our relationship and our access to our lands and the rights of guardianship and protection. We will not be relegated to second-class citizens in our own land. We are tangata whenua, and we are proud of it. It is that pride and determination that will drive us in the next hīkoi to the ballot box. We can determine our own future, and we will.

I have been inspired by the commitment and support shared across this nation for us to take control of our own political destiny. The hīkoi has represented a great coming together of our peoples, united in their strength of commitment to ensure that the last part of customary land is not removed from our hands. We owe this to our mokopuna. We owe them a chance to address their potential secure in the knowledge of who they are. Ultimately, it is because of our mokopuna that I have decided unequivocally to vote against the Foreshore and Seabed Bill. I do not want to be recorded in history as part of a Government that attacked the very nature of customary rights—the rights we have held according to our tikanga, for our children and our grandchildren. Kia ora.

GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Could you tell the House what the arrangements are? Mr Tamihere has clearly got a split speech with Mrs Turia. Normally, some indication is given to the House that a speech is to be split. Can I ask what the arrangement will be over the third speech that the National Party would ordinarily get, given that this is the 95th bill being dealt with by this Parliament, and therefore, according to the one-in-three cycle, the slot is appropriately ours?

Mr SPEAKER: I will come to that at the end of this speech.

Hon JOHN TAMIHERE (Associate Minister of Māori Affairs): Ko Hikurangi tōku maunga e kore rā e nekeneke. Ko Waiapū taku awa e rere rā. Ko Porourangi te tangata. Ko Te Aitanga-ā-Mate me Te Whānau-ā-Rua ngā hapū. Ko Harataunga me Mataora ngā whenua. Kō Ngāti Porou Whānui-ki-Hauraki te iwi. Tihei mauri ora!

[An interpretation in English was given to the House.]

[Hikurangi, which never moves, is my mountain. Waiapū flowing there is my river. Porourangi is the man. Te Aitanga-ā-Mate and Te Whānau-ā-Rua are the subtribes. Harataunga and Mataora are the lands. Ngāti Porou at-large-at-Hauraki is the tribe. Behold the breath of life!]

The Ngāti Porou people are not just centred on the coastline of the Tairāwhiti; they are bound and anchored, in their very essence, into the foreshore and seabed. My colleague and my whanaunga, the Minister of Māori Affairs, would not vote for this legislation if it discriminated or prejudiced our abilities to move forward in a protection regime for the foreshore and seabed. From the time that this bill hits the select committee, we have 6 months to work through our communities as to whether there are unintended consequences, perverse results, or a range of other amendments that might be able to be made that ensure the upholding of the sanctity that the Court of Appeal has ruled.

Due process has been upheld, with respect. Māori can go to the Māori Land Court and explore the extent of their customary right in that court. If Māori are not happy with that, they can also go to the High Court, under jurisprudence known as aboriginal title. One thing is stopped in both those jurisdictions, and one thing only, and that is the provision of exclusive freehold title. That is a Pākehā, a Westminster, tikanga. The alienation of our rights is predicated by this House ensuring that process. Māori members on this side of the House want a protection regime—one that is handed down to us, tuku-ed from our ancestors. We do not want a regime that will be alienated again—where it is moni, not mana, that counts. We will vote for this legislation today. We will see what our people say, in the cool calmness of their submissions, as the select committee goes up and down this country. We will listen to our people, but we are part of a Government. We are no longer an Opposition.

I say to some of our leadership outside this House that we are now coming to the time when we must release the latent potential of our young people, rather than always telling them what is wrong with this world, why it is bad, why they will fail, and who will make them fail. The debate has to move on. We on this side of the House will reserve our judgment for the select committee. We will see how that process works. Coming from Ngāti Porou, that is our right.

Mr SPEAKER: I have an intractable dilemma, and I am going to share it with the House. The 11th call goes either to National or to New Zealand First. At the Business Committee meeting on Tuesday, 10 September 2002 it was agreed that the remaining Opposition call would, generally, be given two out of three times to National, and one out of three times to New Zealand First. My dilemma is this. The last six times that there were 12 speakers in the debate, the National Party got the 11th call. However, if we go back to the 95 times we have had a first reading debate—and of course a lot of the time all the calls are not used—we realise, if we divide by three, that that is not one-third. I can see a very good reason for both people being granted the call. In this intractable dilemma—and it has to be sorted out subsequently by the Business Committee—I want to offer the following solution: that 5 minutes be given to New Zealand First and 5 minutes be given to National. That gives both parties a share of the speech. I would take the leave of the House that that be the case.

Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have a suggestion that I think may help you and the House. The respected Māori member Mita Ririnui graciously gave up his speaking slot in deference to his colleague Tariana Turia, who had previously been denied a slot. I suggest that we hear from Mita Ririnui also—he would have prepared a speech; this is an important debate—and that both the National and New Zealand First members, in terms of the third slot, be given a full speech. That meets your dilemma, as well as recognising the gracious offer that Mita Ririnui made to the House.

Mr SPEAKER: I thank the member for that suggestion, but what I am saying is that if there were 5-minute speeches given to Mr Ririnui—

Hon Richard Prebble: Mr Speaker, you have not understood the proposal that has been put to you. No doubt the National member and the New Zealand First member have prepared 10-minute speeches, and I am sure the Labour member has, too. We are proposing that there be three speeches, all of 10 minutes—one for the Labour Party, one for the National Party, and one for New Zealand First. In fact, I ask for leave for that.

Mr SPEAKER: Mr Ririnui was asking for only 5 minutes anyway. Is there any objection to that course being followed? There is. I will therefore put my proposal that I offer 5 minutes to New Zealand First and 5 minutes to National. Does anyone object? No.

DAIL JONES (Junior Whip—NZ First): I raise a point order, Mr Speaker. I am quite happy for Mr Smith to get the first 5 minutes, and I will take the next 5 minutes.

Mr SPEAKER: Let me just say that this is a 10-minute call in total. It would go to one or other member. We are proposing that those members have 5 minutes each. Does anyone object to that? No. There is a 5-minute call, to the Hon Nick Smith.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): The mess that surrounds this bill marks the end for this Government. This bill fails Māori; it fails all of the people of New Zealand. It is one of those bills so riddled with compromise that it serves the interests of no one.

What has surprised me in this debate is that in talking about the foreshore and seabed of New Zealand—and I remind the House that we are talking about 18,000 kilometres of coastline and 26 million hectares of foreshore and seabed—I have heard too little from the Government about how this bill will improve the management of that foreshore and seabed for all New Zealanders.

We are in this waka together, whether it is the economic use of our foreshore and seabed, or the important protection of the environmental and recreational values of our foreshore. I want this House to honestly ask whether this bill will improve things. I say it will not. I say this bill is more driven by politics than providing a regime that will best serve the foreshore and seabed interests of all New Zealanders.

In the foreshore and seabed we already have a plethora of Government agencies that have responsibilities. We have the Ministry of Fisheries, the Department of Conservation, regional councils, local councils, and also the Ministry of Economic Development. With the confusing array of ancestral connections, new orders for customary rights, on top of those that already exist in our fisheries laws, I believe that we will end up with nothing less than an absolute muddle of different instruments that will serve nobody’s interests. Far from securing the rights of those who recreate and use our foreshore and seabed, this bill does the opposite.

Those new provisions for ancestral connection are a step backwards. I ask the members opposite who rejected the concepts of ancestral landscapes in the resource management law because they would create too much confusion, why, suddenly, ancestral connections are somehow going to do the job?

National does not accept that Māori own the foreshore or seabed, and that is not what the Court of Appeal said. Nor has it ever been the intention of this Parliament to have the Māori Land Court issue title for areas of foreshore and seabed. It is actually quite simple—land laws do not work at sea. It will be as much Māori rights with quota, and Māori rights to customary fishing, that will be countered across if we go down the road of having individual fee simple title in respect of that foreshore and seabed.

But what is awful about this bill is the way it will compromise sensible management of that foreshore. Under this bill, we will have areas of ancestral connection, customary rights orders, customary fishing rights, quota-holder rights, maritime transport rights, and resource management regional plans. It is nothing less than a bureaucratic mess, and it will adversely affect the management of those areas. One needs to start this debate from a principled point of view of how to effectively manage those areas of foreshore and seabed, and this bill does anything but achieve that.

I also want to make the point that the Prime Minister has failed the test of leadership. She failed to participate in this debate, failed to speak to the Māori people who were on the forecourt yesterday, and failed to have a clear policy on this issue over 9 months. Now we are to understand from John Tamihere that the ball game is still open, and we do not know what the final Government policy is. That confusion and uncertainty is the cause of this problem, and the Government need look no further than the mirror for this mess that will bring it down.

DAIL JONES (NZ First): New Zealand First would prefer to have this matter dealt with by the Privy Council, and hopes that the current appellant to the Privy Council will continue with that appeal. We will have to wait and see what happens there. Unfortunately, future appeals to the Privy Council have been ended as a result of support by the Greens for the Government’s legislation.

I will do something unusual in this debate and quote from what the Court of Appeal said. It said: “Māori customary land is defined by the Te Ture Whenua Maori Act, and is land that is held by Māori in accordance with tikanga Māori. It refers to lands owned by natives under their customs or usages. Such property was not the creation of the Treaty of Waitangi, or a statute, although it was confirmed by both.” What the Court of Appeal is saying is that what we are looking at today is a decision based on English common law. It is not related to the Treaty of Waitangi.

The court also said, in paragraph 89, as I have indicated, that what is at stake “is a matter the Māori Land Court would have to consider as a question of custom and usage.” There is nothing there about getting fee simple titles, but custom and usage in accordance with tikanga Māori and, of course, ahi kā. That is what this legislation is about, is it not—proving that one can go back to 1840 and establish one’s ahi kā?

That is what the Court of Appeal said, and that is what this legislation does. That is what New Zealand First wanted, when on 25 June 2003, in a speech by the Rt Hon Winston Peters, it said: “New Zealand First will support any move to ensure the Crown has legal title to the foreshore and seabed.” That has been done; that is our policy. “We also seek assurances that legal title extends to the other parts of the environment where ownership could be disputed.”

Mr Peters went on to say: “Māori traditional rights of use must be protected, but those rights cannot be extended to property ownership on the basis of race.” Now there is no question of property ownership in this bill, but Māori traditional rights of use are protected in keeping with the Court of Appeal decision. That is what New Zealand First wants to achieve. When the Labour Party came to us with legislation, which was virtually what New Zealand First said was the basis of the Court of Appeal decision, what could one do? One had to support it.

Now ahi kā is a long-established exercise—the burning of the fires of occupation. Captain Cook saw it at Mercury Bay in 1769. It is well established. The example given by Mr Brownlee shows that he does not understand ahi kā, which requires continuous fires of occupation. The example he gave was not continuous—that is the difference. It will not be easy to do this, and to some extent that is why there is a bit of concern from the Māori community.

There is no question about that, ever, in my time in this Parliament—and I look back to 1977 when we had the Territorial Sea, Contiguous Zone, and Exclusive Economic Zone Bill. We passed that legislation to say that the seabed was vested in the Crown. In that House we had Matiu Rata, Koro Wētere, Ben Couch, Rex Austin, Whetū Tirikātene-Sullivan, and Brownie Rēweti. None of those members objected to the Crown owning the seabed through that legislation. Similarly, in respect of foreshore and seabed legislation, I know of no one who has ever objected to the Crown owning the foreshore and seabed. So it has been well established for a long time in this Parliament that the Crown has owned the foreshore and the seabed.

New Zealand First has looked at this bill. It guarantees the public the right to be in or upon the public foreshore and seabed, the right to enter, remain in, and leave the public foreshore and seabed, and to enjoy the public foreshore and seabed. No ancestral order or a customary rights order made under part 3, subpart 2, or under part 5 of the Act can limit or prevent those rights from taking place. So if anyone has an ancestral connection order, or a customary rights order, that still does not permit them to exclude any New Zealander from going on the public foreshore and seabed. When my wife goes for a walk on Takapuna beach, she will retain that right.

Mr SPEAKER: I call Mahara Okeroa. This is also a split speech.

MAHARA OKEROA (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): Kia ora Mr Speaker. Tēnā koutou katoa i haere mai nei ki te rongo au. Ko te whānuitia o ngā kōrero, ko au he uri nō Te Raukura. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, kia ora mai tātau katoa.

[Thank you Mr Speaker. Greetings to all who came here to listen to me. The sum total about me is that I am a descendant of Te Raukura. So, greetings to you, greetings to you, and greetings indeed to us all.]

I listened with some amazement to an interpretation of the treaty by the Opposition’s shadow Minister of Māori Affairs. I was simply appalled by the level of misunderstanding and by that analysis.

Gerry Brownlee: Don’t apologise!

MAHARA OKEROA: I am not—I am just appalled. That member should apologise. He gave an analysis of the treaty that shows very clearly that he knows nothing about it. He is the shadow Minister of Māori Affairs.

Let me now divert a wee bit, to the previous mention of Delaware Bay. In fact, that bay is known as Whakapuaki. On that bay—and I know it—the people from Ngāti Tama have title. They have title that meets the test. That shutting of the gate was about tiakitanga and respect, and looking after the access according to the tikanga that has been proposed in this bill. People must respect tikanga Māori. That is what the issue is about with regard to this bill. Then we have another Opposition member, a former Minister of Conservation, who, despite the ownership of that bay, despite the certificate of ownership, and despite the fact that it has been awarded by the Māori Land Court, took a case about the validity of that title held by Māori. That is what this bill is about. It is about, as the Hon John Tamihere said, the protection of our rights.

The Opposition says that Māori are getting too much. They say that Māori are getting privileges over and above those of other New Zealanders. In any situation, we have to meet the test, and the test and the bar are high. That is always how it has been when Māori have contested their cases, be they land claims or whatever, in a court of law. There is a poison here, the poison that was referred to by the Leader of the Opposition. Let us be very, very clear about where that poison is. It does not rest with us. Mita Ririnui was magnanimous in giving his 5 minutes to Tariana Turia, and that is right—that is tikanga. That is the way it should be in this House, even though Tariana Turia is expressing a real, heartfelt view, ka tika mai. I, in view and perception, am looking at this bill as a way forward, not backward—never backward. What National is proposing is to take our people back in history to where we were sitting very uncomfortably, and that is why the people are here at Parliament today.

Gerry Brownlee: That’s why they don’t want you to vote for it.

MAHARA OKEROA: I wish that member of the Opposition would pay me more respect, because he objected mightily when he was interrupted. Now he is not giving the same freedom of speech to another member in this House.

I need to say this: certain people, whom I have great respect for, have asked me to cross the floor of the House. That is a total anathema to me. As the member for Te Tai Tonga, I will not take the mana of the Te Tai Tonga electorate and its diversity of people, and give it to National, because crossing the floor is about voting for the Opposition. That is the tikanga in this House. On that basis, there is no way that I, as a Labour Party member, would ever even consider doing that.

Hon DOVER SAMUELS (Minister of State): E Te Rōpū Kaihīkoi, ā, kei te mihi atu ki a koutou katoa. Ā, i runga i te huarahi, ā, hoki atu koutou ki ō koutou wā kāinga mā. Te Runga Rawa koutou e manaaki. Ngā kaumātua, ngā kuikuia, ā, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā anō hoki tātou katoa.

[An interpretation in English was given to the House.]

[To the hīkoi gathering, I acknowledge you all. May the Almighty above look after you on the road as you return to your homes. Greetings to the elderly, both men and women. Greetings, greetings, and greetings indeed to us all as well. ]

I am glad that the whānau and hapū have come here to share the contributions of the parties here this afternoon, in terms of this bill. I think they would have learnt a lot. They have seen the differences of opinion between, and the different contributions that have been made by, different people in terms of the process. Furthermore, they have seen the National spokesperson on Māori affairs, the shadow Minister in the National Party, say that National does not support this bill because it gives too much to Māori. That is the future for Māoridom. “There is your future”, says the shadow National Minister—if at some time, somewhere, the National Party ever becomes the Government in this country. Let us be clear that that is an example of what we will get if National ever becomes the Government. That member of Parliament refuses to recognise Māori customary rights. I say to our people that I hope that tidal wave will never reach the shores of New Zealand. The audacity of some people to suggest that I should cross the floor and sit with that member! Pigs might fly! Me rere te poaka! Ā, ngā hunga e mea ana me whakawhiti atu au ki te noho ki tērā taha: e moemoe ana, pōkarekare ana!

[An interpretation in English was given to the House.]

[And as for those of you who are saying that I should cross to the other side and sit there: dream on, stir on!]

I refer to current legislation that confirms Crown ownership of the foreshore and seabed—that is, the area that is covered by the sea, and the areas that are uncovered by the sea, according to the rise and fall of the tide. No. 1 was the Territorial Sea and Fishing Zone Act of 1965. No provision was made in that Act for Māori customary rights. The second piece of legislation was the Territorial Sea, Contiguous Zone, and Exclusive Economic Zone Act of 1977. Once again, it is silent. Nothing in that Act refers to Māori customary rights. The third piece of legislation was on the foreshore and seabed. Members should listen to this one. We had the Foreshore and Seabed Endowment Revesting Act of 1991. Again, that Act does not mention one word about Māori customary rights. I want to ask the House if it knows who passed those three pieces of legislation. It was National. It passed the three pieces of legislation that confirm Crown ownership but have no reference to Māori customary rights.

Things will change. The winds of change will come about. It is no wonder that the National Party does not support this bill. Then the ACT party says that it does not support the bill, but that it supports property rights. I was here in the House when ACT asked all its farmer mates in Taranaki to come down to Parliament with their tractors to oppose the Māori reserve legislation. They came here. The property rights we were talking about were Māori rights, but ACT opposed that legislation. Why? Because it gave Māori the rights that they should have duly had in terms of the Māori reserve lands. There is the Clayton’s approach; there is the forked tongue. We heard Dr Brash oppose this bill. I ask our people why he opposes this bill. It is because it gives Māori the mana to their takutai moana.

I tell our people that when they go to the court, then they will be successful. Tihei mauri ora!

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Foreshore and Seabed Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 65

New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 13; Progressive 2.

Noes 55

New Zealand National 27; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata; Other: Mahuta, Turia.

Bill read a first time.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister): I move, That the Foreshore and Seabed Bill be referred to the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee for consideration and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting, except during questions for oral answer, during any evening in a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, despite Standing Orders 191 and 194(1)(b) and (c).

A party vote was called for on the question, That the motion be agreed to.

Ayes 65

New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 13; Progressive 2.

Noes 55

New Zealand National 27; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata; Other: Mahuta, Turia.

Motion agreed to.

Bills

Police Complaints Authority (Commission of Inquiry into Police Conduct) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Justice): I move, That the Police Complaints Authority (Commission of Inquiry into Police Conduct) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. I thank the Law and Order Committee for its report and its recommendations, which are unanimous.

This bill amends the Police Complaints Authority Act of 1988 to allow the Commission of Inquiry into Police Conduct to fulfil its terms of reference to inquire into the adequacy of any investigation carried out by the police on behalf of the Police Complaints Authority. To do that, it is necessary to override the secrecy provisions of the Police Complaints Authority Act, so that relevant information can be disclosed to the commission. The secrecy provisions require the authority and its staff members to maintain secrecy in respect of all matters that come to their knowledge in the exercise of their functions. The secrecy provisions are needed to create a climate in which witnesses can give evidence without fear of self-incrimination or retribution. The secrecy provisions in the Act are retained, but are lifted for the purpose of this inquiry only. The bill has a sunset clause and the legislation will expire 1 year after the commission has finally reported.

Concerns were expressed to the committee that the existing protections for witnesses to the authority’s investigations have been removed, along with the secrecy provisions. That is quite wrong. Aside from the secrecy provisions, the bill does not in any way interfere with the other existing protections and privileges available for witnesses to authority investigations. Under the Police Complaints Authority Act, no statement or answer given by any person in the course of proceedings before the authority shall be admissible against that or any other person in any court. The exceptions to this relate only to proceedings for perjury, or for an offence against the Police Complaints Authority Act itself. This bill does not change this fundamental protection in any way. The same type of protection exists in the Commissions of Inquiry Act. In addition, the terms of reference for the commission exclude the determination of guilt or innocence of any particular individual. These existing provisions should ensure that witnesses cannot be prosecuted using information they provided to the authority under the expectation of secrecy.

The committee agreed that existing protections continue to exist, but to allay concerns expressed by submitters and those who have given information to the authority it recommended that a specific clause be inserted for the avoidance of doubt. This clarifies that no proceedings can be taken against witnesses before the authority on the basis of what they told the authority.

Certain matters, in addition, are defined as restricted matters. These include, firstly, any information produced by the authority, deputy authority, or staff member of the authority; and, secondly, any communication by a person to the authority in which that person made a complaint about police conduct, and in respect of which that person has not given consent to the authority for it to be disclosed to the commission.

The authority, or any person holding any office or appointment under it, or members of the police, cannot disclose to the commission any restricted matter. The effect of this definition is that the commission can direct that the authority disclose any matter produced by members of the police who investigated on behalf of the authority, but not information produced by the authority in response to that information from the police. An exception to this is instructions and directions from the authority to members of the police investigating on its behalf.

Concern was expressed by the Police Association that complainants to the authority are the only group that will have any protections. Again, that is wrong. I have outlined the protections that are available for all witnesses to the authority. The ability of complainants, however, to refuse to allow the authority to disclose their complaints to the commission is a necessary protection available for those who may have provided extremely personal and private information. The exclusion of correspondence made directly to the authority respects the expectation of confidentiality of that information.

In response to a submission made by the Police Managers Guild, the committee considered that instructions issued by the authority to police investigating on its behalf may provide useful context for the commission. The committee recommended an amendment to the bill to allow the authority to disclose to the commission directions and instructions given to the police investigating on the authority’s behalf. This information cannot contain matters relating to the complainants or their complaints. The authority must continue to maintain secrecy in respect of all other information it produced.

There have been some reports in the media that this bill would throw open thousands of files containing the evidence of witnesses previously assured that their evidence would be kept secret. However, the police have indicated that the number of files held on behalf of the authority relating to sexual assault complaints against the police is expected to be fewer than 200. This bill covers only files within the ambit of the Police Complaints Authority Act, but does not address access to files existing before 1988, when that Act was passed. The commission’s terms of reference cover matters back to 1979. Files that pre-date 1988 are not subject to the same restrictions as files that were created after 1988. Access to these files will be via other legislative and procedural mechanisms.

Lastly, there was some support from submitters for provisions to be inserted into the bill to determine how the Commission of Inquiry into Police Conduct deals with the information it receives from the authority. The Police Association suggested the bill be amended to require the use of anonymity, aggregation, and review of individual cases, as a way of enabling the commission to fulfil its terms of reference without exposing those who have relied on the secrecy that the Act provides. The select committee did not agree, and noted the practical difficulties associated with this proposal. A commission of inquiry is established under the Commission of Inquiries Act. It is outside the scope of this bill, and inappropriate for Parliament, to determine the processes of a commission. How the commission deals with information will need to be considered on a case by case basis, and general legislative provisions would therefore be unsuitable. In addition, the commission is likely to be mindful of the circumstances in which the information was received by the authority and of the need to maintain the integrity of the authority’s procedures. The commission has already indicated that it will ensure the interests of persons before it will not be unfairly jeopardised. The commission is bound by principles of natural justice. It also has the ability to make decisions to treat information confidentially where it believes that that is necessary in all the circumstances.

In conclusion, the objective of this bill is to amend certain provisions of the Police Complaints Authority Act to ensure that they do not prevent the current commission of inquiry from gaining access to information needed by the commission to carry out its functions. That is vital, and it is equally vital that there is public confidence in the commission, the authority, and the police. This legislation is designed to assist in achieving that end. I commend it to the House.

Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty): The National Party in Opposition will support the progress of the Police Complaints Authority (Commission of Inquiry into Police Conduct) Amendment Bill.

It is useful to remind the House about the rather despicable way in which this bill made its way into this Chamber. Most members of the Opposition did not have an opportunity to read the bill until the Acting Minister herself, the Hon Margaret Wilson, had started speaking in the debate, and that in itself was an outrage. However, through the processes of the Law and Order Committee, the Opposition parties have been able constructively to address the issues raised in this bill, and we have prevailed in the sense that a number of very sensible amendments have been made to it.

The bill should be read in conjunction with the terms of reference for the Commission of Inquiry into Police Conduct. The key point that members on the select committee belaboured for some time was the lifting of the veil of secrecy across the evidence or statements given to the Police Complaints Authority by police officers during the conduct of an investigation by the authority. The concern raised by a number of submitters was that police officers gave their evidence and comments to the authority on the understanding that that information would not be made public, or ever used against them in a court of law other than for a matter of perjury. But these are extraordinary circumstances, and the National Party will support the lifting of that veil in these limited cases.

It was put to the select committee that we should provide amendments for the automatic suppression of that information given to the commission. We reject those submissions because we think it is fundamental to the restoration of public confidence in not only the authority but—more important—the New Zealand Police that the commission and Parliament should be beyond any accusation that we sought to limit the availability of information for the consideration of complaints before the commission.

For those who are concerned about the evidence that was given to the Police Complaints Authority during an investigation, we received numerous assurances from counsel and from advisers to the committee that the privileges and protections that attach to that evidence being used against anyone in court other than for a matter of perjury do continue to flow through to the commission of inquiry. There is no likelihood that that evidence can be used against any officer other than in a case of perjury. We think that is an important protection.

We have also noted in the report back to the House that we believe it is the responsibility of the commission to determine what information is suppressed publicly. There are good reasons why the commission may decide to suppress some information, or the names attached to some information. Recently, in the District Court at Whakatāne, five police officers were subject to a private prosecution on what I think were quite spurious and vexatious grounds. During the hearing, the judge suppressed the names of all officers involved. The reason for that was clear: in this country now, police officers suffer guilt by association, and the mere mention of their names in a prosecution, or in association with this commission, will lead some New Zealanders to believe that guilt has been established, when nothing could be further from the truth. So it is important that the commission has the ability, as provided for under legislation, to suppress information, names, and details, if it is appropriate. I am certain that the commission will adopt a responsible attitude, because I do not want a situation where the mere mention of a police officer’s name in passing during the commission of inquiry’s term leads to the media or New Zealanders drawing some conclusion that the officer has undertaken something that was illegal or wrong.

So the National Party Opposition will be working to facilitate the passing of this bill during the Committee stage. We know that it is a very serious thing that Parliament is doing, but we believe that the circumstances warrant this action. We note that the commission of inquiry, headed by a High Court judge and a former senior public servant, will have the power to suppress information as it sees fit. We are certain that it will take a responsible attitude in that respect in order to achieve what Parliament wants to achieve, which is the restoration and improvement of public confidence in the New Zealand Police.

MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West): I rise to take quite a brief call in this debate. As chair of the Law and Order Committee, I want to compliment its members for the work they did on this bill. I think it is appropriate, and appropriately gracious, to also express my appreciation, along with the Government members of the committee, for the work that was done by the Hon Tony Ryall and Ron Mark from the opposite benches, as well as by my deputy chair, Marc Alexander, in helping us facilitate this bill in a relatively short period of time.

As members will be aware, there was a fairly tight time limit. The reason for that was very understandable in that the bill amended the Police Complaints Authority Act, in order to allow the Commission of Inquiry into Police Conduct, which has been recently established, to fulfil its terms of reference to inquire into the adequacy of any investigation carried out by the police on behalf of the Police Complaints Authority.

As I think has been previously stated, in order to do this it was necessary to override the secrecy provisions of the Police Complaints Authority Act, so that relevant information can be disclosed to the commission. The secrecy provisions require the authority and its staff members to maintain secrecy in respect of all matters that come to their knowledge in the exercise of their functions. The secrecy provisions are needed to create a climate in which witnesses can give evidence without fear of self-incrimination or retribution. The secrecy provisions in the Act are retained, but have been suspended for the purpose of this inquiry only—I want to stress that. The other very critical point is that the bill has a sunset clause, and the legislation will expire 1 year after the commission has finally reported.

I certainly acknowledge the concerns of the New Zealand Police Association, and I note that it continues to have concerns in this particular area. I also want to note that this decision to totally empower the commission in its work was supported unanimously by the committee. I also note that the New Zealand Police Officers Guild appears, by media reports, to be reasonably happy with the work the committee did. I want to assure members of the New Zealand Police Association that it was a decision the members of the committee did not take lightly. We certainly listened very closely to the advice provided by officials, weighed up the issues, and basically came down to the basis that we must not unduly fetter or hamstring the commission itself.

I think it is very important—and I think we in this House would all agree—to ensure that the New Zealand Police is perceived by all of the population to be amongst the best police forces in the world. This is all about ensuring that that confidence in our police is maintained throughout our community, and I think that is obviously where the Commission of Inquiry into Police Conduct will fulfil a very important function.

I want to take the opportunity to assure members of the New Zealand Police Association, and members of the police force, that our intent as a select committee was clearly to assist that commission of inquiry to do its very important job—the outcome of which, in my view, is to ensure that we as a society maintain confidence in what I still believe is one of the best police forces in the world.

Without further ado, I thank the officials, the submitters who came before us, and the members of the Law and Order Committee in, understandably, working under very tight pressure. We look forward now to the very constructive and positive work that we believe will be undertaken by the commission of inquiry itself.

DAIL JONES (NZ First): New Zealand First supports this legislation. I appreciate the comments by the chairman of the Law and Order Committee about the excellent work my colleague Ron Mark did on the select committee. Really, the select committee as a whole should be complimented for returning a bill back to the House so quickly. I see that this bill was introduced to Parliament on 30 March 2004. The closing date for submissions was 14 April 2004, and here we are again on 6 May considering the second reading. Parliament can really get a move on when it wants to. It shows that we are very concerned about this issue.

I suppose an important reason for this legislation is that we do not want any of the people involved with this inquiry to put up excuses at a later stage that the inquiry did not have adequate resources and information, and that, somehow, they were barred from getting things that might have helped them reach a conclusion. From experience, one knows there is only one thing worse than an inquiry, and that is an inquiry into the inquiry. We have any number of situations—one possibly before the Justice and Electoral Committee at the moment—whereby inquiries seem to have a life of their own, because people come up with all sorts of reasons why the previous inquiry was not conducted properly and fairly.

New Zealand First somewhat reluctantly supports this legislation to make sure that there can be no excuses about the information available to the inquiry. Protections have been put in place, which is excellent. Perhaps at some stage a Labour member could tell us whether there is meant to be another Supplementary Order Paper during the Committee stage, as has been mentioned to New Zealand First. Obviously, we will have the opportunity to look at that later on.

This was just a brief speech to support the bill, and we look forward to it proceeding as promptly as possible.

STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT): I rise for the ACT party to speak on this Police Complaints Authority (Commission of Inquiry into Police Conduct) Amendment Bill, which allows the lifting of secrecy provisions in the Police Complaints Authority Act for the benefit of a commission of inquiry—that commission having been appointed to look into claims of sexual offences by police.

To a member of a party not represented on the Law and Order Committee, the committee’s report shows signs of it having been done under time pressure. Although the committee members may be so close to the matters at issue that they are confident they have a clear understanding of them, I find it a little difficult to work out from the report, in some cases, exactly what it was that they decided. I hope that during the Committee stage there will be some elucidation on some issues.

I am concerned, for example, that the committee rejected the request that material that had been provided in confidence, or with a promise of secrecy, would benefit from automatic suppression when it went to the commission. I can see that automatic suppression would be too much of a problem, but I wonder why such material would not benefit from a presumption that it would be suppressed—a presumption that could be lifted by the commission if it decided that its requirements overrode the interests of privacy or confidentiality. It seems that the committee found areas where it could not get a perfect solution, so it decided that it would not have any solution at all. It seems to me that there could well have been middle courses that would have served the purpose we want, which is essentially to reassure New Zealanders that the Government does not renege on promises lightly, or, if it is forced to do so by compelling reasons, reneges to the least extent possible. I do not find the committee’s report very reassuring there at all.

There is a strong principle here. We have to remember that when people learn about the law, they learn about it in terms of folklore—they do not know the words. If they do get to know about this bill, what they will learn is that Government promises cannot be trusted; that people might be assured that information they give to the Police Complaints Authority will be kept secret, but they cannot trust that assurance, as the Government can always go back and bring in another bill. That is the message of this bill. In my opinion, it is not obvious on the face of it that the select committee and the Government have taken all the steps they could have to show that when Governments do renege on a promise they do so as carefully and with as many limitations as are feasible given their purpose. ACT certainly supports the purpose of this bill, which is to make sure that this commission of inquiry is not frustrated. We would like to be able to support this bill unequivocally, but I have to say that, on the face of this report, it is not possible to do that.

I am concerned that the kinds of people who might be affected include not just police who have given evidence or whose material is there; it might be that there are others who are scared that suddenly there will be disclosure of who narked. That could be a very significant fear. Particular cases always tug at the emotions, and the cases raised in Rotorua cause us to say that this commission of inquiry should be able to get at this information, but our job really is to decide what this bill will mean when translated in the street. Will it mean that people should not help the Police Complaints Authority because it will come back on them? Will it mean that when the Government tells people to trust it, people should decide not to take the risk?

Why did the committee suggest that the commission of inquiry have so many powers to protect, but not give an indication to the commission, through this law, that when it does have those powers, it ought to really exercise them? There is nothing in this bill to reflect the committee’s own concerns. The committee is saying it is concerned but believes that the commission will act wisely. It is really saying “Trust us.”, or “Trust the commission.” Why did the committee not put into this law something that tells the commission to remember that information provided in confidence should be treated in confidence as far as is feasible? That would be a very simple drafting matter. I see no reason why the committee could not have put it in.

Hon Rick Barker: This speech is just a stream of consciousness.

STEPHEN FRANKS: Of course, I doubt whether Mr Rick Barker, who is tossing silly comments across the House and saying this speech is a stream of consciousness, would understand this. I do not think any Government members have read this report. They would not bother. They threw this bill into the House at the last minute. They did not bother to discuss it with anyone on the other side of the House. They started the debate on this bill without having even warned the House that it was coming, because they were ashamed that they had set up the commission of inquiry without any preparation, and without realising that it would run parallel to the police prosecution. The commission already looked like monkey business because the police officers who are the subject of the inquiry will be able to claim prejudice and, perhaps, even double jeopardy. The commission of inquiry was already compromised. This bill was a knee-jerk, hasty reaction, and a reaction that could rebound because there is no provision instructing the commission to protect people as far as possible.

There is some argument that the Government did not want to do that, because it would have meant that the commission had to consult with thousands of people who had provided evidence. Well, why did the bill not just say there would be consultation with those who reasonably appeared to the commission to be in a position where they might be concerned about the privacy of their information? That could easily have been done, but it has not been. It is another piece of sloppy work from the justice portfolio—

Hon Rick Barker: You can’t be taken seriously when you are making a speech with your hands in your pockets.

STEPHEN FRANKS: No wonder Mr Barker is braying; he is braying because he is embarrassed and trying to cover it up. We will support this bill going through to the Committee of the whole House stage, but we will be looking for answers as to why it does not better protect privacy, because it is such a gross invasion.

KEITH LOCKE (Green): The Green Party will support this bill, but like previous speakers—including Stephen Franks, who has just spoken—we are concerned that the principle of privacy in the deliberations of the Police Complaints Authority should be upheld where at all possible. This is a very exceptional circumstance. We have a commission of inquiry into police misconduct where some of the information disclosed to the Police Complaints Authority is very relevant to the deliberations of that commission of inquiry. The initial complaint in Rotorua that led to other evidence coming out, and to the setting up of the commission of inquiry, related very much to what appeared in the media reports to be the mishandling of the case by Mr Dewar, the officer who provided information in the report to the Police Complaints Authority. I think, in that regard, we definitely do have to allow the commission to look at material from the Police Complaints Authority.

That being said, I think that Stephen Franks raised some important points, and his suggestions for amendments deserve some consideration. However, I think we can trust the commission in this case to consider very seriously the questions of privacy. When the commission holds its deliberations and makes its final reports, it should be very careful not to disclose the individual circumstances of people or information that could lead to their identification. I think the commission will be very aware of what Mr Franks talked about: that we do not want people to be identified who confidentially provided information. Stephen Franks used the term “nark”. Those people could be seen as narks if they are members of the police who say something about the wrongdoing of other police officers.

We do not want that information to get out because, as a general principle, we do not want to stop people from rightly whistle-blowing to the Police Complaints Authority, just as we encourage whistle-blowing in other areas of the public service. We actually passed a law recently. It was not a fully adequate law, but it did provide some protection for whistle-blowers. That is one of the principles that lies behind the secrecy provisions of the Police Complaints Authority: that we will not get a proper understanding of wrongdoing unless we have provision for police officers and other people to come forward in confidence and say something is wrong. That is particularly important in the police, because sometimes there is a sense of camaraderie that means one officer does not want to upset another officer. It is a particular problem with any police force that when officers are out in very difficult situations they rely on each other, so there is an automatic tendency to cover up, to an extent, the activities of other officers. Unless we provide that secure option for whistle-blowing, then we are in trouble.

It may be that Stephen Franks will propose useful amendments in the Committee stage. However, I tend to trust the commission to understand the tenor of the legislation and to keep to privacy at all times. With that, I just repeat the Green Party’s support for this legislation.

MARC ALEXANDER (United Future): In the very short time that I have I would like to say that United Future will support this legislation, although with some questions about the legitimate concerns that the police have about it. Stephen Franks has pointed out some of those concerns. The lack of anonymity for those who relied on the secrecy guaranteed under the principal Act could compromise future information-gathering exercises. Lifting secrecy provisions could compromise the workings of the Police Complaints Authority.

We were told in no uncertain terms that this bill is a one-off, it will not happen again, it is a unique set of circumstances, and so on. The problem is that with this bill we have opened the door, and the next time something like this happens another bill will be before Parliament to open the door all over again. This bill may just compromise future scrutiny of the police, and we do have some problems with that. It is a matter of a balance between public confidence in the police and police procedures, and public confidence in the Police Complaints Authority with its ability to receive information in secret.

On this one, to be honest, one is damned if one does and damned if one does not. Although we will support the second reading of the bill, we will consider introducing, a Supplementary Order Paper of our own to try to strengthen some of the secrecy provisions, if that is possible. United Future does not regard that it is necessarily the case that the removal of identifying information, for example, would make it difficult for the commission to fulfil its obligations. There are some circumstances where that might not be the case. But I do not see that we have been given sufficient reasons to put that aside altogether.

There is no denying that the bill was rushed through the Law and Order Committee. There was a time frame within which we had to hear the submissions, listen to the advisers, deliberate, and give consideration. Regrettably, it was much too short for us to assess everything as thoroughly as we would have liked. If members read the commentary, they will see that there really is very little in it that reflects a lot of the concerns we raised, but we simply ran out of time. I do not think this is a very good way to conduct legislation, at all. It is something the Minister needs to look at in the future—that we do not simply try to get legislation through promptly, without going through it as thoroughly as we should. However, the issue of public confidence in the ability of the police to be scrutinised outweighs some of my concerns, so at least United Future will support the bill’s second reading—but that support is provisional at this stage.

LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako): The National Party will support this legislation. We note the concerns of United Future. Mr Alexander of United Future is the deputy chair of the Law and Order Committee. National notes those concerns. Firstly, yes, there was a rush. This legislation was introduced on 30 March, and the select committee had only 2 weeks in which to hear submissions.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 6 p.m.