Thursday, 16 September 2004

Thursday, 16 September 2004

Thursday, 16 September 2004

Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Business Statement

Business Statement

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House): Next week the House will go into a 2-week adjournment period. When the House resumes on Tuesday, 5 October priority will be given to the remaining stages of the Electricity and Gas Industries Bill, to the second readings of the Employment Relations Law Reform Bill, the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill, and the Holidays Amendment Bill, and to the first readings of the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 3), and the Social Security (Social Assistance) Amendment Bill. Members’ days will be in the first and third weeks of the next session.

GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National): Is it still the intention of the Government to pass the seabed and foreshore legislation prior to Christmas?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House): Yes.

Motions

Speaker—No Confidence

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): I seek the leave of the House to move without notice a motion of no confidence in the Speaker, and to ask that he vacate the Chair whilst we discuss a number of unfortunate events that have occurred in the House recently, in which Ministers have elected to frustrate members seeking answers to questions during question time, and the Speaker has shown a willingness to allow that to happen—when necessary, by the unjustified removal of members from the House in order to further shut down a line of questioning.

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

Points of Order

Replies to Written Questions—Adequacy

Hon MURRAY McCULLY (National—East Coast Bays): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I raise it with you in relation to questions for written answer No. 12723, and Nos. 12732 to 12805 inclusive. In all those cases I have asked written questions of Ministers, to indicate the number of employees in each Crown entity, State-owned enterprise, and department of State for which they hold ministerial responsibility. In each case I have received an identical response—now 29 in number—that indicates I should go to the organisation’s annual report, seek the information through its financial review process, or wait for the State Services Commission’s human resources survey that will come out later in the year. In relation to each of the processes nominated in the answer there is the delay of at least weeks, and potentially of months.

I put it to you that if that standard of answer is acceptable in response to a question that simply seeks, without any great difficulty, a factual answer as to the number of employees in each entity for which those Ministers hold accountability, then we will have a very poor time in holding Ministers accountable in this House. There was one answer only with a direct response in terms of the number of employees in each entity for which ministerial or similar responsibility was held. That was the answer you gave as Speaker, and therefore as the person responsible for the Parliamentary Service Commission, the Office of the Ombudsmen, and one or two other entities. I would like you to look at the adequacy of the other answers, and to give your serious consideration to whether the Ministers concerned should be directed to give more fulsome and helpful responses than has been the case. In essence, I ask you to direct Ministers of the Crown to meet the exemplary standards set by your good self in responding to questions from members of this House.

Mr SPEAKER: Of course, I answer on my behalf, and not on anyone else’s. The member has written to me. I am still looking at the matter, and he will get his response.

Motions

Speaker—No Confidence

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek a point of clarification, which concerns the notice of motion that I sought, under leave, to put to the House. If that is the standard in this House—to vote without hearing the argument from the other side—then on a voice vote no such motion can be put. Pray tell me how one can put such a motion, given the fact that we have looked at the Standing Orders and at precedents going back a long way in this country’s history. I want to know how someone who believes the House should have lost confidence—and members have lost confidence—in the Speaker can have such a motion put and voted on.

Mr SPEAKER: The member can put down a notice of motion, and there are no special rules for notices of motion lodged by the leader of New Zealand First. Notices are lodged between 9 a.m. and 10 a.m. on any sitting day; I refer to Standing Order 94(1). The member’s notice was lodged between those times this morning. If the notice is in order, it is placed on the Table when the House meets—as this one has been. It is then set down as a Government or member’s order of the day, in accordance with Standing Order 95. This notice, as it comes from a member who is not a Minister, will be set down as a member’s order of the day for the next day on which the House sits, which is Tuesday, 5 October, and it will appear on the Order Paper for that day. It will be deleted from the Order Paper 1 week after its first appearance—that is, it will appear on the Order Papers for 5, 6, and 7 October, and will be omitted from the Order Paper for Tuesday, 12 October.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. As a matter of clarification, that is my very point. If the motion has not been debated within a certain time, it goes off the Order Paper. Given that I believe this is a matter of urgency, I want to know how it can be debated in this democracy in which we live.

Mr SPEAKER: The member needs leave from the House. The member has sought that, and it has been declined.

Questions for Oral Answer

Questions to Ministers

Schools—Career Guidance

1. H V ROSS ROBERTSON (Labour—Manukau East) to the Minister of Education: What steps is he taking to improve career information and guidance in schools?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education): Seventy-five schools throughout New Zealand will take part in a new pilot programme aimed at helping young people plan their move from school to further education or work. The $5.5 million Designing Careers pilot will reach more than 15,000 students in those schools. It will arm them with the information and skills necessary to make good choices about where to go next.

H V Ross Robertson: Can the Minister tell the House why providing career-planning advice is important?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Ensuring that we get the right people with the right skills into the right jobs is very important for New Zealand. All people have their strengths, and we want to match them with the right careers. For example, some people are really good at presenting information, some people are good leaders, and some people follow through on what they say. Getting those people into the right roles is important, and it has not always been done well in the past.

Hon Bill English: Given that parents and communities are raising almost half a billion dollars a year to keep schools operating, when will the Minister stop putting small amounts of money into tiny, contestable pools and start funding properly the operations of schools?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I think it is important, in addressing that question, that the member makes it clear that a significant proportion of the half-billion dollars that he describes as coming from communities comes from Chinese communities. He includes overseas student funding as local fund-raising, which is just nonsense. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: I am not to be involved in this. The member knows that.

Iraq—Defence Force Deployment

2. RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) to the Minister of Defence: Is New Zealand ending the involvement of our troops in Iraq; if so, why?

Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Defence): Our engineer deployment will return to New Zealand this month having concluded the two planned 6-month deployments.

Rodney Hide: On what date was a decision made by our Government not to replace our detachment in Iraq, and was Australian Prime Minister John Howard consulted?

Hon MARK BURTON: The Government made a series of decisions that go back to 2003. The original announcement was made—I do not have the precise date in front of me—in about, I think, August 2003. The first deployment of 6 months took place in late September 2003, at which time both the Prime Minister and I made it clear that a second 6-month deployment may happen, and it did. Cabinet made that decision and announcement quite early on, and in March this year that second deployment took place. So the full 12 months has come to a conclusion, and our deployment will come home this month.

Mr SPEAKER: There was another part to the question about Mr Howard.

Hon MARK BURTON: We are not part of the occupying force. There was absolutely no way in which we would consult Mr Howard. We are there under a UN resolution in support of the aid and reconstruction effort, not as part of the occupying force.

Luamanuvao Winnie Laban: What have our engineers been doing in Iraq over the last year?

Hon MARK BURTON: Our New Zealand Defence Force personnel have undertaken the vital task of helping to restore core infrastructure. That has included the NZAID-funded refurbishment of St Mary’s School in Basra, the construction of reverse osmosis plants, and refurbishment work on the Basra teaching hospital. There has been a large number of other projects, including the construction of water tanks and hardstand water pipes at several small schools, ongoing maintenance on two Bailey bridges, and school refurbishment. All in all, more than 40 projects have been completed.

John Carter: Can the Minister advise whether one of the reasons there is to be a removal of personnel from Iraq is due to the serious shortage of troops and the gaping holes in current training regimes, as identified in the New Zealand Defence Force annual report?

Hon MARK BURTON: No. I can confirm that the second 6-month deployment, which the Government flagged may take place and did, is coming to a conclusion. That is why this deployment is coming to its natural conclusion.

Keith Locke: Does the Minister agree with the UN Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, that the invasion of Iraq was illegal; and will the Government breathe a sigh of relief that, with the withdrawal of our army people from Iraq, there will not be a claim by the United States that we are part of the coalition force, as shown by the official US website that includes us as a coalition force and as part of the occupying coalition?

Hon MARK BURTON: I have not had the opportunity to read the announcement from the Secretary-General, but it is clear to everyone in this House—and I am sure to everyone in New Zealand—that New Zealand went, following a UN resolution and in response to it, to help with the aid and reconstruction work in Iraq. We have not been there as part of the occupying force.

Hon Peter Dunne: Does the decision to end the current engagement, in line with the original agreement, mean that New Zealand is ruling out any potential future involvements, subject to a UN request or a request from the Government of Iraq; if not, can the Minister indicate what the processes would be for considering any further request?

Hon MARK BURTON: The member asks a hypothetical question. There has not been, to the best of my knowledge, any request from the UN. Obviously, any request from the UN this Government would always consider and take seriously. I would anticipate—and other colleagues have commented on—other possible future assistance through NZAID, for instance, as part of the ongoing work in support of the reconstruction of Iraq.

Rodney Hide: Has the position of our engineers in Iraq changed in any way, especially since Prime Minister Helen Clark repeated her commitment to Iraq just in April this year, when she said: “Our position hasn’t changed. As long as our engineers can get out and do good work with the local communities we’ll be staying there.”?

Hon MARK BURTON: Our position has not changed. As the member knows, during the course of the 12 months there have been periods during which the engineers have been able to move freely, and other periods that have been more restrictive, including the last few weeks. I can tell the member, because I know he is interested, that during that time they have been able to conclude some of the project work. They have had a series of meetings with local people who will be continuing on some of the projects, such as the work on the hospital that they have been involved in. And, of course, because it is nearing the end of the planned period anyway, there is the preparation for exiting.

Rodney Hide: What is his response to the fact that in the past week we have seen Australia stand up to terrorists and refuse to be intimated, but our Government does exactly what terrorists want, by withdrawing our troops?

Hon MARK BURTON: I regard that as an affront to the courageous men and women of the New Zealand Defence Force. They have worked for 12 months in a very dangerous situation. They are coming home because it is time for them to come home. I think that member insults the men and women of the New Zealand Defence Force. He should be ashamed.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister was not asked whether it was a decision of the Defence Force or any member of it; he was asked a question to do with his political responsibility—and he knows it. Nothing in that answer remotely addressed the question. Whether or not we have sympathy with what he is saying, is a different matter. But in terms of parliamentary accountability he failed to answer the question in any way, shape, or form.

Hon MARK BURTON: Speaking to the point of order, I did address the question. The member asked, by implication, whether New Zealand was withdrawing, and the answer is no. We are not withdrawing in an inappropriate way. Our personnel are coming home at the end of a planned deployment.

Rodney Hide: The question was: what is the response of this Government? Here we have a pinko pacifist standing up—

Mr SPEAKER: The member will withdraw and apologise.

Rodney Hide: I withdraw and apologise. Speaking to the point of order—

Mr SPEAKER: No, there is no point of order on this issue.

Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: This had better be a new one.

Rodney Hide: Well, I am quite happy to stand up and apologise to that member, but I think that he should be apologising to me, to this House, and, indeed, to all New Zealanders. To suggest that my question in any way insulted the men and women who serve in our defence forces is an affront, and you, Mr Speaker, allowed it. That was a legitimate question to this Government. It in no way implied an insult to our defence personnel. In fact, if anyone should be apologising to our defence personnel, it is that Minister who is in charge. That was not the point of the question, Mr Speaker, and if you allow that to stand, I am afraid I will be joining Mr Peters.

Mr SPEAKER: The member may well be doing that. I say to the member that, as far as I am concerned, the Minister gave a strong reply. It is a debatable matter. I am not here to judge whether it is good or bad; I am here to judge whether it addressed the question. I thought he started out by saying virtually “No” to the member, then he made some political comments afterwards. That is not unknown in this House. This is no reflection on the member of course, as a strong ACT member. The member made his point, and I think he made his point very well in the point of order.

Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have to say that I seriously disagree with you. For the Minister to suggest that I am not patriotic or supportive of our servicemen and servicewomen, is very deeply offensive to me. I would have thought he would take the label that I put to him as a badge of honour, because it was true. But to stand up and say an untruth and somehow imply that I am denigrating our defence forces, I find deeply offensive. I suggest, Mr Speaker, that you ask him to withdraw and apologise. Otherwise, what are we here for? There are two standards.

Mr SPEAKER: As far as I am concerned, the member has now raised the point that he himself has taken personal offence to a comment made. That is a slightly different point from the original point of order. In that regard, I ask that the Minister withdraw that part of his comments.

Hon MARK BURTON: I withdraw that part of my comments.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. During the member’s last statement he repeated the allegation that he previously had to withdraw, and said it was true. He also accused the Minister of stating an untruth. Both of those are contrary to the Standing Orders. I ask that you now require him to withdraw and apologise again.

Mr SPEAKER: The member will now stand and withdraw the comment about an untruth, because that, of course, is out of order in this House. The member will withdraw that comment.

Rodney Hide: I withdraw.

Ron Mark: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek your guidance here because I am reflecting on the comments that were made to the Minister that were considered unparliamentary. We have a member of this House, namely the Minister himself, who has proudly told the country, in many press releases, that he was a founding member of a Taupō peace and disarmament movement. Many people in the country would naturally refer to that as a “peacenik” organisation. The Minister has also been proud to be associated with the left side of the Labour Party.

Mr SPEAKER: What is the member’s point of order?

Ron Mark: The point is this, Mr Speaker. My question to you is whether it is right to censure the member for using the term that aptly describes the Minister and bears out what he himself has put out in his own press releases as being a normal statement in referring to him in this way, as a “lefty pinko peacenik”.

Mr SPEAKER: The member has now repeated the comment. He will leave the Chamber. I am not having my ruling questioned. I say to members that as far as I am concerned, I dealt with the subject. When comments are made that are quite clearly unparliamentary, they have to be withdrawn.

Ron Mark withdrew from the Chamber.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. What happened here today happens so frequently in this House. A very clear question was put by Mr Hide that asked what the Government’s position was. Everyone heard the question. No reference was made whatsoever to any decision being made by the military, or any member of it. Instead the Minister launched into a tirade, an attack, an accusation of blatant disloyalty on the part of Mr Hide, and at no time did you raise a mutter, a murmur, or a finger. Now you have kicked one of my colleagues out of the House because he, like Mr Hide, was validly raising a point of order that should have been dealt with, and an apology should have come from the Minister. It should have been asked for from the moment he said it. Now we have a member out of the House, and if you think that is fair treatment, I do not.

Mr SPEAKER: Well, I do, and I am not having any further comments from the member. I will not have my judgment questioned in that way. The member will now stand, withdraw, and apologise for those comments.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I withdraw and apologise.

Keith Locke: I seek leave to table the front page of the coalition joint task force Operation Iraqi Freedom website listing New Zealand as one of the coalition partners.

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

Hon Murray McCully: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You have dealt, as you are entitled to do, very firmly with two members in the course of this exchange. However, having ruled that a member had taken offence, you asked the Minister to withdraw the comments that had caused the offence but did not ask him to apologise for the offence. I put it to you that in the spirit of the exchange, that would be called for.

Mr SPEAKER: That is fair enough. I ask the Minister also to apologise.

Hon MARK BURTON: And apologise.

Genetically Modified Sweetcorn—Monsanto Contract

3. SUE KEDGLEY (Green) to the Minister for Food Safety: Did Monsanto sign a statutory declaration, as part of its application to Food Standards Australia New Zealand for approval of GM corn MON 863, declaring that it had not withheld any information that might prejudice its application; if not, why not?

Hon JIM SUTTON (Minister of Agriculture), on behalf of the Minister for Food Safety: I am advised that Monsanto both provided and honoured the terms of the statutory declaration.

Sue Kedgley: In its application to Food Standards Australia New Zealand, did Monsanto withhold a study that suggested that genetically modified corn MON 863 had caused abnormalities in rats?

Hon JIM SUTTON: The study to which the member refers was a 90-day feeding study considering nutritional aspects. It was not a toxicity study, and therefore was not a food safety concern.

Sue Kedgley: Does the Minister agree that a study showing that a genetically engineered corn had caused abnormalities in rats is exactly the sort of prejudicial evidence that signing the Food Standards Australia New Zealand statutory declaration makes it illegal to withhold?

Hon JIM SUTTON: As I have previously advised the House, when the study to which the member refers was published, the whole matter was examined by the country of jurisdiction—France. The French food safety authority found that the corn was perfectly safe to consume.

Sue Kedgley: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister did not answer my question. My question was whether that was the sort of study that it would be prejudicial to withhold, given that it was information that might prejudice Monsanto’s application. The Minister did not answer the question.

Mr SPEAKER: If the Minister wishes to comment, he can.

Hon JIM SUTTON: In my reply to the first supplementary question I pointed out that the study to which the member refers was a nutritional study, and was nothing to do with food safety.

Sue Kedgley: Is the Minister saying that the Government considers it acceptable for a corporation to withhold a study that showed abnormalities in rats when seeking approval for that food for human consumption?

Hon JIM SUTTON: The study was obviously not conducted by Monsanto, and it has been discredited by the proper food safety authority of the country in which it was conducted.

Sue Kedgley: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I asked the Minister whether he thought it was acceptable for Monsanto to withhold a nutritional feeding study as part of an application for approval into the food supply. The Minister has not answered my question.

Mr SPEAKER: I think the Minister did address that question.

Sue Kedgley: Has Food Standards Australia New Zealand received the original study and the original data from Monsanto that it sought more than 10 days ago, after the Green Party had informed it that the study had been withheld?

Hon JIM SUTTON: I have no advice on that.

Sue Kedgley: How can the Minister say he has had no advice on that when I spoke to the head of our office of Food Safety Australia New Zealand on The Terrace, who said it had not received the study; how can it possibly be the case that the Minister did not? And why should New Zealanders have any confidence in the Food Safety Australia New Zealand approval process for genetically modified food if corporations are allowed to make fraudulent statutory declarations and withhold studies that may prejudice their applications, and Food Safety Australia New Zealand fails to act on those serious matters of concern?

Hon JIM SUTTON: Obviously, in relation to first part of the member’s question, she has already obtained a response directly from the department, so she has no need for elaboration by me. But I must say in respect of the rest of her question that it is notable that sometimes when people want to ignore the results of a study, they find a way. For example, I am advised that there are high concentrations of carcinogens in the tar content that comes from cannabis, and lots of people still campaign to legalise the stuff.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I fail to see the relevance of that response to the question that was asked.

Mr SPEAKER: I am just a little disturbed about these points of order. I will judge whether a question has been addressed. That reply certainly did address that question.

Sue Kedgley: Will Food Safety Australia New Zealand be seeking a formal review of MON 863 now that it has come to light that Monsanto withheld a study showing abnormalities in rats; in the light of that new information will it be undertaking a formal review of that application?

Hon JIM SUTTON: It certainly is the practice of Food Safety Australia New Zealand to review its decisions and its data when credible new data are received. In this case, however, I am bound to point out that I am advised that so far not a single case has been discovered of anyone coming to harm from eating food that contained an ingredient derived from a genetically modified organism.

Employment Relations Law Reform Bill—Non-union Members

4. GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) to the Minister of Labour: What consultation was carried out with the nearly 1.7 million non-union workers in New Zealand during the development of the Employment Relations Law Reform Bill?

Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Labour): There was extensive opportunity for non-union employees to have input into the development of the bill. For example, during the 9 months that the bill was being considered by the select committee, which advertised for submissions, it received 354 substantive submissions, over 7,000 form submissions, and heard 202 submissions over some 62 hours of sitting.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I did not ask any questions about the select committee process. Frankly, the Minister has no responsibility for it. I asked him what consultation was undertaken by his department in the formation of the bill known as the Employment Relations Law Reform Bill. If the answer is no, then he should just say so.

Mr SPEAKER: That is not the question that the member asked. If the member reads the question he will see that it stated: “What consultation was carried out with the nearly 1.7 million non-union workers in New Zealand during the development of the Employment Relations Law Reform Bill?”. Part of that is obviously part of the select committee process in terms of the question asked.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. We would not have asked this question in this way if we were uncertain about what the Minister’s responsibilities were. The Minister is not responsible for a select committee process. He is not responsible for bus timetables, either, but it would seem that if he wants to stand up and give us some information off a bus timetable, then that would stand as an answer in this House. This is a specific question about what consultation his department took with non-union workers—1.7 million of them—prior to that bill coming into the House.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: One thing the Minister is not responsible for is whether the question is poorly framed. The question asked: “… during the development of the Employment Relations Law Reform Bill?”. The fact is that a bill develops at all stages up to its third reading passage. The Minister is perfectly entitled to refer to the consultation process by a select committee, which is a process this Parliament ought to be proud of.

Mr SPEAKER: I will say again—and my word will be accepted on this—that I have judged this question and the answer. The answer did address the actual question asked.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Are you ruling that from this point on, Ministers have some responsibility for the select committee process?

Mr SPEAKER: No, I am not. The Minister is not responsible for select committees, but he is the Minister in charge of the bill and can be asked about its process through the House. That is one of the points he was answering when the question was asked. The question did not ask what the member thought it asked.

Gerry Brownlee: Has the Minister’s department any figures on how much extra revenue will be raised by the union movement from the imposition of a bargaining fee arrangement of 1.7 million New Zealanders who will be forced to pay union dues, and, as a consequence, fund the Labour Party?

Hon PAUL SWAIN: It is enormously difficult to answer that question, given that it is so ridiculous. The reality is that the member has implied that somehow 1.7 million people will pay union fees. He knows that to be not true. The fact of the matter is that bargaining-fee arrangements, which will be tabled shortly, have to meet three tests—firstly, agreement between union and employer; secondly, there has to be a ballot of all the workforce; and, thirdly, anyone who does not want to pay a bargaining fee does not have to.

John Carter: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I listened very carefully to the question asked by Mr Gerry Brownlee. It asked what information the Minister’s department had given him. He has not addressed that question. He was specifically asked whether his department had done any work, etc. The Minister did not address that question. That was a very specific question.

Mr SPEAKER: The Minister can briefly answer that particular specific question.

Hon PAUL SWAIN: No, because the question was not correct.

Hon Murray McCully: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. In the course of responding to the supplementary question asked by Mr Brownlee, the Minister’s first statement was to describe the supplementary question as “ridiculous”. I ask you whether that is an acceptable way of a Minister commencing an answer to a question.

Mr SPEAKER: If that was all that was said, it would not be, and I would have stepped in. Comments like that are quite often made by way of interjection and by way of comment about questions. Certainly, if that was the only thing that was said, it would have been completely out of order. I have told the Minister to get on and address the question.

Hon Mark Gosche: What reports has he seen about the ability of employers to pay union and non-union staff the same rates of pay?

Hon PAUL SWAIN: I have seen a report that states that the Employment Relations Law Reform Bill means that non-union staff cannot be paid the same amount as union staff. I have seen another report that dismisses such a claim. The first report is from Don Brash, Leader of the Opposition, and the second report is from associate professor Gordon Anderson, an employment law expert. I know whom I would believe.

Peter Brown: Noting the Minister’s earlier answer about a payment and a bargaining fee, will he give this House an assurance that it will be a breach of good faith and treated very, very severely if any non-union person, or employer, is compelled in any way, shape, or form to pay a bargaining fee against his or her will?

Hon PAUL SWAIN: Absolutely.

Paul Adams: What consultation was carried out with the vast majority of employees who work in the private sector, who are five times less likely to belong to a union than those in the public sector, yet make a bigger contribution to the national economy, when they are the very workers who will be disadvantaged by the bill because they will be discriminated against for not belonging to a union?

Hon PAUL SWAIN: As I said, there is quite a lot of opportunity for consultation. However, I say to the member that 90 percent of workers in the private sector are not covered by collective agreements and are not union members. The impact of that bill will be very, very small, indeed.

Gerry Brownlee: Will the Minister confirm to the House that associate professor Gordon Anderson, whom he has just quoted, is a left-wing activist who drafted part of the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions submission and has a considerable vested interest in not letting people know the full effect of the legislation?

Hon PAUL SWAIN: I cannot comment on his pedigree, but I can say that he speaks real sense on this bill, compared with the leader of the National Opposition, Don Brash, who speaks absolute nonsense. I recommend that the member read the bill.

Mr SPEAKER: The first part of the member’s question was in order and then started to stray. He certainly addressed it at that point.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I ask you to ask the Minister to give an answer to the question that was asked of him. How can he stand up here and so elo—so fulsomely—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: I saw the Hon Chris Carter start that set of interjections. I will ask him to leave the Chamber, and he will do it quietly.

Hon Chris Carter withdrew from the Chamber.

Mr SPEAKER: That was quite uncalled for during a point of order. I have made mistakes in diction, and so has just about every other person in this House. As far as I am concerned, Mr Brownlee did on this occasion, but he corrected it. I cannot see what is wrong with that.

Gerry Brownlee: That is very true. I meant to say “elegantly”, and of course, I was referring to his tie! He talked so glowingly about associate professor Gordon Anderson, who is touted to be an expert of some note, and then told us that he did not know what his qualifications were. That is not congruous with that answer. He should correct himself, or add more.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. He was asked whether he was a left-wing activist. He could have well been asked whether he was a right-wing inactivist, but that was the point at which the Minister did not have an answer.

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

Mr SPEAKER: No, please be seated. The question was addressed, but there were comments at the end of the answer that were unnecessary. The Minister should have been more terse.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. What he did not tell us was—and given that it would seem that he is an expert on the select committee process and he was relying on that process to advise him so much—did associate professor Anderson write the Council of Trade Unions submission, or part of it?

Mr SPEAKER: The Minister is not responsible for that.

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

Mr SPEAKER: This had better be an actual point of order.

Gerry Brownlee: It certainly is, because it could lead to disorder if we do not get the matter sorted out. The Minister has said that this gentleman is an expert of some note. I would like to know—and this is the nub of my question—whether he knows that by virtue of the fact that this professor wrote a substantial part of the Council of Trade Unions submission he has quite a vested interest in making sure that people do not fully understand the effects of this law.

Mr SPEAKER: As far as I am concerned, the question was asked about this particular gentleman. The Minister is not responsible for this gentleman’s submission—he can give an opinion on it, but he is not responsible for the actual submission itself.

Gerry Brownlee: Can the Minister give the House some estimate of how many non-union members will be forced to pay a bargaining fee under this legislation?

Hon PAUL SWAIN: No. Very few.

Climate Change—

Resolutions

5. DAVID PARKER (Labour—Otago) to the Convenor, Ministerial Group on Climate Change: What reports has he received on the need to take action on climate change?

Hon PETE HODGSON (Convenor, Ministerial Group on Climate Change): I have seen a number of reports. Both the Opposition leader and the Prime Minister of the UK say that climate change will have catastrophic consequences. Both of them back the science and both realise that tackling climate change is good for business. However, another report doubts the science and states that taking action would be bad for business. Who is out of step with prevailing world opinion, yet again? The National Party of New Zealand.

David Parker: What reports has the Minister seen on the validity of climate change science and the impacts on business of addressing climate change?

Hon PETE HODGSON: I have seen two reports on that. One states that the problem is enormous and eventually will “stuff life on Earth”. The other states that there is huge uncertainty about this. Whose statements are as erratic as the climate? Why, those of Nick Smith and the National Party.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: Why is the Government’s proposal to levy a carbon charge on fossil fuels in order to incorporate the costs of the climate change they cause dependent on President Putin’s decision to ratify the Kyoto Protocol; and does he think that if Putin does not ratify, the problem of climate change will go away?

Hon PETE HODGSON: The answer to the first question is so that the Government can approximate the likely international cost of carbon. The second answer is, no, I do not think it will go away—I am sure it will not.

Police, Minister—Confidence

6. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) to the Prime Minister: Does she still have confidence in the Minister of Police; if so, why?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister), on behalf of the Prime Minister: Yes, because he remains a hard-working and conscientious Minister.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Prime Minister why the jury was not told that Edwards knew McNee well before the night in question that led to the loss of McNee’s life; and why is the Minister not interested in that information?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Because the decision about the introduction of that evidence was taken solely by prosecuting counsel, as it should have been.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: If that is true, could I ask the Prime Minister why the police are holding a press conference at 3.30 today to explain the position, when last week they said there was no need to have any review with regard to McNee’s killing?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I am advised that, I think, an undertaking was given some time before, as to the police’s release of the file subsequent to sentencing. Sentencing, I understand, occurred this morning. That is a matter for the police.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why did every member of that jury agree that there was something missing in this trial in respect of the charge of murder, and believe that the police were holding something back?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I am not responsible for what the jury have concluded. As I say, the decision about what evidence was attempted to be introduced was a matter for Crown counsel, but I have been advised that, in fact, the judgment was that the evidence would not have been allowed to be introduced.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why was the jury not told that McNee had taken a mixture of Viagra and amyl nitrite, which is a cocktail known to be a shared drug; and why was the jury not told that it was shared by Edwards on the night in question, and that experts know that it leads to psychotic behaviour—a critical piece of evidence that the jury never heard?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I repeat that the nature of the evidence that is introduced is a matter for prosecuting counsel. I would deplore any attempt to suggest that a politician should be responsible for the conduct, one way or the other, of trials.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Given that a man will be out of prison within 4½ years for what was clearly a murder—if the evidence had been produced—why did the judge tell the jury that nothing in Edwards’ prior criminal record suggested he would commit murder?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The Government is not responsible for the instructions that judges give to jurors. Once judges are appointed, they are independent. I would deplore any attempt to suggest that politicians should influence what judges say to jurors. As to when the person involved will be released from jail, that is a matter for the Parole Board, which might well take into account 56 previous convictions.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why would the Parole Board take into account 56 previous convictions, when Edwards’ serious criminal activity did not come out during the trial, a trial in which the police alleged murder but failed to produce the evidence to sustain it; is the Minister not interested in justice, for someone who is a murderer will be out on our streets within 4½ years?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I am certainly interested in justice. Part of justice, in a democratic system, is that Governments do not instruct judges, Governments do not instruct prosecuting counsel, and Governments do not instruct jurors.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I ask the Prime Minister whether there is a different standard of law when a homosexual is involved, to the extent that were this case in any way a “normal” case, there would surely have been a reaction, particularly from her Government, given its social policy stance; why is McNee’s case different?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: It is not. It is the member who is asking for the case to be different by asking the Government to take action that it would not take in any other case.

Foreign Charter Vessels—Domestic Crew

7. LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) to the Minister of Fisheries: How many foreign charter vessels have been operating in New Zealand waters during the past 12 months, and how many of these vessels had a majority of New Zealand citizens on their fishing crews?

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister of Fisheries): I am advised by the Ministry of Fisheries that since 1 October 2003 New Zealand companies have chartered a total of 51 foreign vessels at various times to operate in New Zealand waters. I am also advised that the ministry does not hold information on the citizenship of the crews of any vessels.

Larry Baldock: Is the Government committed to putting New Zealand fishermen and New Zealand quota holders first, or at least on a level playing field, in the harvesting of our resources in our exclusive economic zone; if so, what plans does the Minister have to deal with the imbalance being created by the overuse of foreign charter vessels with foreign crews?

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: I would be reluctant to see measures taken that required a company to invest millions of dollars in buying fishing vessels when capital could be more efficiently spent on other parts of a business. I understand that charter vessels are considered by many involved in the fishing industry to be a cost-effective means of obtaining the necessary catch capacity and dealing with the very seasonal nature of some fisheries.

Phil Heatley: Is the Minister aware that of all the New Zealand fishing crews employed in New Zealand waters, none have their lodging, food, or board deducted from their wages; if so, why do foreign fishing crews, apparently under the same New Zealand laws, have their lodging, food, and board deducted—therefore undercutting New Zealand crews?

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: I think that question is properly one for my colleague the Minister of Labour, but I am aware of the undertaking that Mr Swain gave to a questioner, Mr Adams, in the House on that matter yesterday.

Larry Baldock: Do all those foreign charter vessels have Ministry of Fisheries observers on board; if not, is that because it is difficult to find people willing to live in the poor conditions that prevail on many of those boats, such as having to eat half-boiled squid for 6 weeks on end?

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: The conditions on fishing vessels do vary. However, I am advised that, generally, the quality of accommodation on vessels does not preclude the placement of observers on board. I am further advised that the availability of accommodation can be a problem on both New Zealand and foreign charter vessels. In fact, it tends to be more of an issue with New Zealand vessels, which are on average smaller.

Larry Baldock: In the absence of observers, how can the New Zealand public be reassured that foreign charter vessels are operating under New Zealand rules, and that their catches are being correctly recorded?

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: Observers are not always absent, and the ministry has the capacity, when necessary, to ensure they are on board.

Human Rights Review Tribunal—Chairperson

8. Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay Of Plenty) to the Minister for Courts: Who approved the “special arrangement” with the chairperson of the Human Rights Review Tribunal, which saw him get paid almost $300,000 last year, and what knowledge did Ministers have of this “special arrangement”?

Hon RICK BARKER (Minister for Courts): The chairperson was appointed on a part-time basis. It later became clear that the caseload required a full-time position. Cabinet approved the establishment of a full-time position in the 2004-05 Budget. Until this position is established and an appropriate remuneration set, the existing chairperson has been working greatly increased hours at a rate that covers his time and also the costs of servicing his office. That arrangement was recommended by the Department for Courts, and the Minister at the time was aware of it.

Hon Tony Ryall: How does the Government justify paying the part-time head of a peripheral tribunal more cash than, say, the Prime Minister of New Zealand—a tribunal that thinks one of the worst killers in our country’s prisons should be paid $1,200 in compensation for hurt feelings?

Hon RICK BARKER: The rate that was agreed to with the head of the tribunal was slightly more than what the Crown engages Crown solicitors for. The rate is not only for the hours worked but also covers the maintenance of an office. That includes costs for staff, holiday pay, accident compensation, office rental, insurance, information technology and software systems—all of those elements have to be paid by that chairperson out of the hourly rate he has. The Prime Minister’s salary and judges’ salaries are separate. In addition to their salaries, all the extra support services are paid for either by the Ministry of Justice in the case of judges or by Ministerial Services in the case of the Prime Minister.

Martin Gallagher: What caused the department to increase the hours of work for the Human Rights Review Tribunal chairperson?

Hon RICK BARKER: There was concern about the build-up of cases and the need to provide a timely service to claimants. In October 2003 there was a backlog of 57 cases at the tribunal. Today, there is no backlog. I am sure the Opposition would join with me in saying that that is an excellent result.

Hon Tony Ryall: Knowing the Prime Minister’s pledge to end the culture of extravagance, why did no Cabinet Minister express any concern about paying a part-time chairman a salary that puts him above a Court of Appeal judge and makes him one of the State’s top earners, and why did this Minister not express any concern at all about that?

Hon RICK BARKER: That member continues to misrepresent the situation, but firstly, no Cabinet Minister expressed concern because we have taken action. The position will be a full-time, permanent position, and the remuneration for that individual will be set by the Remuneration Authority. The misrepresentation is that this payment is not just a salary; it is also a rate that incorporates the maintenance of chambers, the payment of staff, information technology systems, etc., which the basic salary for a High Court judge does not incorporate.

Hon Tony Ryall: Is the Minister seriously telling the House that when the Minister approved this special arrangement, it was always his intention to make the position a full-time one?

Hon RICK BARKER: It is certainly the Government’s intention to make this a full-time position, and I want to make sure—and I am confident—that that will be concluded in November this year. But at the time that the decision was made, I was not the Minister, and I cannot say what was in the former Minister’s mind. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: The Minister is responsible, but the Minister can say that it was a decision of the former Minister. He can answer, or say that he does not know.

Hon RICK BARKER: I do not know what was in the mind of the former Minister, but I can tell the House that the Government’s intention is to regularise this position, and it will be fixed.

Hon Tony Ryall: If this Minister is so keen to justify that extraordinary level of payment, which is beyond what a Court of Appeal judge receives, why were the details of that special arrangement suppressed when the papers were released under the Official Information Act?

Hon RICK BARKER: The fact is that this is not an arrangement that sees the individual paid more in a salary than a High Court judge, because a High Court judge is paid a salary for a justice, and the costs of running the office are met separately by the Ministry of Justice. The member is not comparing apples with apples.

Mr SPEAKER: Now the Minister will come to the member’s question: why was the information blacked out?

Hon RICK BARKER: I presume it was because those details were relevant to the particular individual, and were of a confidential nature. If the member does not like the fact that they were blacked out, he has a right of appeal in terms of that decision.

Hon Tony Ryall: I seek leave to table a number of documents. The first is the budget proposal for the Human Rights Review Tribunal restructuring, in which the information was blacked out.

Documents not tabled.

Hon Tony Ryall: The second set of documents is the answers to written questions where the Minister provided the full information that had been blacked out in the original document.

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

Unemployment—Youth Statistics

9. NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Tainui) to the Minister of Youth Affairs: What recent reports has he received on trends in youth unemployment in New Zealand and how do they compare internationally?

Hon JOHN TAMIHERE (Minister of Youth Affairs): According to a recent ILO report, youth unemployment has skyrocketed worldwide over the past decade. At the same time, youth unemployment in New Zealand has fallen dramatically. Since this Government took office, nearly 30,000 jobs have been created for young people. Key initiatives, as announced by the Hon Steve Maharey, to continue to reduce youth unemployment include the Youth Transitions Service, which brings together central and local government; improved career guidance through schools; and the Modern Apprenticeships scheme, which are all gainfully being used to help our youth sector.

Nanaia Mahuta: What other data has he seen about trends in youth unemployment?

Hon JOHN TAMIHERE: I am advised that youth unemployment has fallen nearly 50 percent since 1998. The 1990s was one of the worst periods of youth unemployment that this country has ever seen, with the added health difficulties that this creates. What is even more galling is the party that oversaw that is the only party in this House that does not have a youth affairs spokesperson.

Judy Turner: Does the Minister agree that industry training is a vital factor to reduce youth unemployment; if so, what resources will he commit to the goal of one-quarter of a million people participating in industry training by the year 2007, given the current paltry number of slightly over 12,000?

Hon JOHN TAMIHERE: That matter falls under the responsibility of the Hon Steve Maharey. Notwithstanding that, I can indicate that significant resources have been poured into the area.

I seek leave to table a document that clearly expresses that the National Party has no concern for a youth spokesperson.

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

Resource Management Act—Rights

10. JOHN KEY (National—Helensville) to the Associate Minister for the Environment: Will his proposed changes to the Resource Management Act 1991 ensure that Māori New Zealanders have no extra rights than non-Māori New Zealanders with respect to the application of that Act; if not, why not?

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Associate Minister for the Environment): The comprehensive package of improvements to the Resource Management Act has sought to clarify the rights established by the National Party Government in the 1991 Act.

John Key: Does the Minister agree that by creating a direct reference to iwi co-management in legislation he is explicitly asserting that Māori do have special rights and privileges; if not, why not?

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: The Act is silent as to how decision makers should give effect to the principles of the treaty, but the proposed changes are to improve the quality of engagement with iwi authorities at the front end of the planning process. In terms of resource consents, iwi will have the same opportunities to participate in the consent process as any other person affected by an activity.

Dr Ashraf Choudhary: How has the Government proposed to improve clarity on consultation obligations of local authorities, iwi, and applicants?

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: Local authorities will be required to keep a register of iwi authorities prepared by Te Puni Kōkiri. In terms of resource consents, iwi will have the same opportunities to participate as any other person affected by an activity. Local authorities will be required only to undertake reasonable endeavours to consult with iwi authorities or other parties.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: Has the Minister seen research by the International Global Change Institute, which found: “Most district plans had very limited reference to, or content associated with, issues of importance to Māori or iwi.”, and can he confirm that nothing in his proposals will improve that situation?

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: No, I have not seen that document, and I would be grateful if the questioner would provide me with a copy. I can say that I am very heartened by the development, as shown in the recent report from Local Government New Zealand, of much more extensive relationships with iwi in their localities.

Gordon Copeland: Is the Minister aware that I have written a letter to him pointing out it is impossible for our courts to interpret the metaphysical, as evidenced by the Tongariro power decision, and suggesting that the Resource Management Act clarify that physical, rather than metaphysical, matters should be taken into account; and will he give that idea his consideration?

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: No, I am not aware of that letter; I have not received it to date. I can say that I think most New Zealanders would never consider building a motorway, for example, through a cemetery without consulting affected people, nor would we allow a development to run through an ancient archaeological site. I think most New Zealanders would agree that it is appropriate to consider spiritual and metaphysical matters as part of a consent process.

John Key: If Māori are not getting extra rights as a result of his proposed amendments, what did he mean yesterday when he said: “Councils will involve iwi in developing policy.”; and rather than solving any issues in this area, has he not just perpetuated them by putting them in statute?

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: No, anyone can be involved in policy development.

John Key: Has Te Puni Kōkiri compiled the theoretical list of Māori with tangata whenua status, along with the relevant people whom councils will need to consult; if so, when will councils around New Zealand get to see that list?

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: I have no idea.

Stephen Franks: Has Minister Mallard reviewed this policy to ascertain whether the Māori privileges relate to a need or are simply a race privilege; if not, why not?

Mr SPEAKER: That is a question for the Hon Trevor Mallard. I would like the member to bring his question into the responsibility of the Hon David Benson-Pope. The way that the member has asked the question is not in order.

Stephen Franks: Has the Minister obtained advice from the Hon Trevor Mallard in terms of his performing his duty to review all Government programmes to ascertain whether they represent a response to a need or are simply a race privilege; if so, what is the nature of that advice?

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: No. I do not believe such advice is necessary on this matter.

John Key: I seek leave to table yesterday’s document about improving the Resource Management Act, which quite clearly states that the difficulties in solving these issues require the identification of local Māori with tangata whenua status, and that this job will be completed by Te Puni Kōkiri and given to councils in New Zealand.

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

Algerian Refugee—Immigration, Minister

11. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) to the Prime Minister: Does she have confidence in the inquiries, if any, made by the Minister of Immigration into the alleged part played by Wahib Zaza and Rabir, alias Roberto, in Ahmed Zaoui’s arrival in New Zealand; if so, why?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister), on behalf of the Prime Minister: Yes. I am advised that the New Zealand Immigration Service has carried out inquiries, but those have not substantiated claims the member has made.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Has the Prime Minister referred to the decision of the Refugee Status Appeals Authority, which states: “The appellant went into hiding. He discussed the situation with X, who counselled against going to Australia, where he would be held in detention, and recommended that he come to New Zealand. The appellant had read of the New Zealand Prime Minister’s humanitarian response to the Tampa crisis, and felt encouraged to approach the New Zealand authorities.”; and is X Wahib Zaza?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I am not familiar with that document, so I cannot say who X is.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I read further in that document from the Refugee Status Appeals Authority, at paragraph 286, which states: “The appellant no longer had his Burkino Faso passport, it having been through the wash accidentally. Accordingly, he purchased a South African passport on the black market, and after making arrangements for his family he travelled via Thailand, Laos, Vietnam, and Korea to New Zealand, arriving here on 4 December 2002.”; and is it not a fact that a man called Rabir, alias Roberto—alerted to the Prime Minister last week—got that passport organised for Ahmed Zaoui, falsely so, too?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: It is certainly clear that the passport was falsely obtained. Indeed, I might say that it is a forged passport not a falsely obtained passport; there are differences between those two things. But no evidence has been found of a “Rabir, alias Roberto” being involved in this matter.

Hon Matt Robson: Is the Prime Minister aware that the advice given to Mr Ahmed Zaoui to come to New Zealand rather than Australia was one by Mr Samir Bennegadi, who is a nuclear physicist and Algerian citizen, and an Australian citizen as well, and who is employed at Lucas Heights, and by the Islamic Salvation Front (FIS) leadership, who are lawfully in Paris, because they believed that New Zealand would provide natural justice and not detain him and treat him as unfairly as they thought Australia would?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I am sure it is correct that New Zealand will provide natural justice, but this one has been drawn out for so long it is becoming somewhat unnatural.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can the Prime Minister not deny the fact that Ahmed Zaoui came here because, as the Refugee Status Appeals Authority says in its document, he believed we would be a soft option, and now we have passed over $1 million of wasted expenditure on a man adjudged by three First World OECD countries to be a terrorist; and how is that fair to the New Zealand taxpayer?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: It is certainly true that New Zealand takes a humanitarian approach, but the Government’s position for a very considerable time now is that it would be better for the legal dancing to end and for the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security to be able to get on and complete his work, and then the process can be taken through to conclusion. The Government can then review the legislation passed by the National Party to work out why it has proved to be so incompetent in practice.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why has legislation to do with terrorism been invoked in the Irving case, but in the case of Ahmed Zaoui all we get is the hard-working taxpayer being screwed on a monthly basis, now to the tune of over $1 million?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The Government has every sympathy with the member’s view, that the current Act is proving inadequate in its first implementation. This is the first time the current legislation has been used, and it clearly needs to be reviewed. Of course, in the case of Mr Irving, he has stated that if he manages to get on a plane and get off in New Zealand, he may consider claiming refugee status. It would be hard to see how he could be a refugee from the United Kingdom.

Tertiary Students—Māori Participation

12. DONNA AWATERE HUATA (Independent) to the Associate Minister of Education (Tertiary Education): Is he confident that Māori participation in tertiary education will continue to rise, as in the past 5 years; if not, why not?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Associate Minister of Education (Tertiary Education)): I doubt whether it will be possible for participation to grow at such a phenomenal rate in the future. In the past 5 years the number of Māori involved in formal tertiary education rose by more than 175 percent, to reach 20 percent of the adult Māori population—higher than for the population as a whole, for which the figure is 13.4 percent. For participation to carry on rising like that would clearly not be a possibility. I note, however, that some other encouraging trends are coming through from Māori study—that is, more people are doing degree and post-graduate study—and we are encouraged by the fact that the number of Māori enrolled at the degree level rose by 30 percent in the past 5 years, compared with 16 percent for the population as a whole.

Donna Awatere Huata: Can the Minister confirm that in the past 5 years the number of Māori participating in tertiary education doubled in the courses delivered by whare wānanga; if so, how long will he continue to cap their growth, when they have achieved an outcome in 5 years that it took New Zealand schools 120 years to achieve, especially since wānanga can demonstrate that a much higher level of Māori students who begin on community or level 1 and 2 courses has gone to diploma and degree courses than any other kind of tertiary institution can?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I can confirm that a good deal of that growth has come from the extraordinary efforts of the wānanga, but in negotiating a limit to the enrolments with them the point was made that that kind of extraordinary growth needs to be measured with quality. That is what they agreed with, and that is what they are doing.

Dave Hereora: Why do Māori students have to achieve the same standards of achievement as their fellow students in order to gain a qualification?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: Of course, Māori students have to achieve the same standards in order to pass the same courses. It is, therefore, unfortunate that earlier this year in, I think, an effort to gain political points, the point was made by the Leader of the Opposition, Dr Don Brash, that Māori did not have to achieve the same standards. That was utterly wrong, and I am yet to hear him apologise to those students.

Hon Bill English: Why do tertiary institutions such as the wānanga seem to be able to engage many Māori in learning, when our secondary schools fail so miserably to do so?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: That is an excellent question. It is one that I think is answered by the way that wānanga have gone about reaching into communities that other institutions were not prepared to reach into. For example, I remember visiting the Huntly area prior to the wānanga gearing up, and finding about 75 students were involved in tertiary education. When I returned once they were in full swing, I found that about 700 students had been engaged, and that was simply because of the way that the wānanga had reach into communities that had otherwise not been attended to.

Deborah Coddington: Can the Minister confirm that he gave $500,000 for Dr Pita Sharples to develop a curriculum for a Māori university, in partnership with the Waipareira Trust, but that the curriculum has not been developed; if so, what steps is the Government taking to get the money back?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I can confirm that a small grant was given to a group of people in the west Auckland area to have a look at a university. We have been unhappy with the progress of that, and a long, long time ago that money was stopped.

Deborah Coddington: Now that the land purchased by the Waipareira Trust for that Māori university is being used for housing development, and may be sold by mortgagee sale by the Waitakere City Council, will he move to recover the $500,000 given to Dr Pita Sharples, the co-leader of the Māori Party, for the university; if not, why not?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: The amount of money mentioned by the member, from my memory, was never given to Dr Sharples. A smaller amount of money than that was made available for work that has been accounted for, but, as I said, we have stopped providing that funding.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Can the Minister confirm that the money made available for curriculum development for the proposed tertiary institution is held in trust and requires the signature of a group, including a judge, before it can be released?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: That was an excellent question, and I can confirm that.

Hon Bill English: Given that the Minister was able to explain to us why he believes the wānanga have succeeded in engaging many Māori in learning, can he now explain to us why he believes our secondary schools still consistently fail to engage Māori students in learning?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I am afraid that as that falls outside my delegation I will have to rely on my professional background, and I say so. I think, if I can do a short treatise on that for the benefit of the member, the argument, broadly speaking, is that the learning styles of Māori have not been well suited to mainstream education. The changes that are being made now in terms of Māori teachers in the classroom, the use of Māori language, the wānanga coming on stream, and different approaches to learning styles are the way to go in the future.

Hon Richard Prebble: I wonder whether the Minister could clarify what the situation is, as from my understanding of his answers, yes, Dr Pita Sharples has received some money, and, yes, the money has been stopped. But, in fact, as a result of an excellent question, we now know that there is some money in a trust, so therefore how about telling the House exactly how much money is in the trust and why the Government stopped the funding; and can he remove any suggestion that in fact this Government is indirectly funding the Māori Party?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I can tell the member, to begin at the back of his question, that there is no way that this Government is indirectly funding the Māori Party. I am afraid I have to say to the member that there have been times during this year when I have not been in the House, for reasons that he knows about. This is one of them. I will have to get the facts and get back to him.

Deborah Coddington: I seek leave to table three documents. The first is the submission from Dr Pita Sharples, supported by John Tamihere, Dover Samuels, and David Cunliffe, for a Māori university—

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

Deborah Coddington: The second document is a 50-page business plan, for which Dr Pita Sharples was paid $100,000, for a Māori university—

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

Deborah Coddington: The third document is the advice from the ministry to the Minister, confirming that he should supply $500,000 for curriculum development and $100,000 for the business plan.

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

Tabling of Documents

Minister of Police—Allegations made by New Zealand First

CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri): Yesterday in the House New Zealand First List MP Ron Mark accused me of misrepresentation in respect of an allegation I made that the New Zealand First Party had called on the Minister of Police to breach the longstanding constitutional convention, relating to the separation of powers between the Minister of Police and the Commissioner of Police, by calling on the Minister to intervene in matters rightly the preserve of the police by accessing and reviewing police files. Therefore, I seek leave to table transcripts from the parliamentary website that clearly show that members of the New Zealand First Party have called on the Minister of Police to intervene by accessing and reviewing police files.

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

Member's Bill—Prisoners' Human Rights

STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT): I seek leave to table a bill to achieve the end of the misuse of human rights law by criminals in prison. I realise that it is an unusual step to take. I have drafted this bill, and I believe that it would get the approval of the National Party. I seek leave to dispense—

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

Urgent Debates Declined

New Zealand Troops—Withdrawal from Iraq

Mr SPEAKER: I have received a letter from Rodney Hide seeking to debate under Standing Order 373 the reported pulling out of New Zealand troops from Iraq. Newspaper speculation on a matter is not in itself a particular case of recent occurrence that would give grounds for a debate. In this case, the Minister of Defence is reported as having said that New Zealand is at the end of a commitment to provide aid and assistance to Iraq, and I am prepared to accept that that comment is a particular case involving ministerial responsibility. However, I do not consider that the drawing to a close of a commitment is in itself of sufficient importance to require a debate to be held on the matter today. The application is therefore denied.

RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I ask you to reconsider, on the grounds that there is no more serious decision a Government can make than to send servicemen and servicewomen into harm’s way overseas. Likewise, whatever your view is, a decision to bring the troops home and not provide a replacement is also a very serious decision for any Government to make. This decision is going to be debated up and down New Zealand and around the world. It will become debatable, potentially, in terms of the Australian elections and, indeed, the United States presidential elections. We expect in a parliamentary democracy that the Government would come down to the House—

Mr SPEAKER: Would the member come to his point tersely. The member is challenging my ruling. It does not need to be debated in the House today. That is my ruling.

RODNEY HIDE: All I am asking is: when does it get debated and under what circumstances? What we learn is from the Dominion Post newspaper. We read about it there and we do not hear about it in this Parliament.

Mr SPEAKER: That is often the occasion. I am saying that this matter does not need to be debated in the House today.

Bills

Maori Fisheries Bill

Te Ture Whenua Maori Amendment Bill (No 2) /Maori Land Amendment Bill (No 2)

Third Readings

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister of Fisheries): I move, That the Maori Fisheries Bill and the Te Ture Whenua Maori Amendment Bill (No 2) / Maori Land Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a third time. E ngā iwi, e ngā karangatanga maha o ngā hau e whā, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

[To the tribes and the many callings of the four winds, greetings, greetings, and greetings to you all.]

This is indeed an historic day. The Maori Fisheries Act 2004 will repeal and replace the Maori Fisheries Act 1989 and give effect to the model that has been developed by the Treaty of Waitangi Fisheries Commission, in consultation with Māori, for allocating fisheries settlement assets to iwi for the ultimate benefit of all Māori and all New Zealanders. I acknowledge the presence in the gallery today of many of the original architects and negotiators of the settlement. I also acknowledge those who are no longer with us.

When we look back, we see that the origins of the fisheries settlement are surely entwined with those of the quota management system in the mid-1980s. The quota management system provoked Māori objection to the actions of the Government as unfair in creating and allocating property rights in fishing, and provided the means to address the treaty grievances of Māori over fisheries resources. By allocating rights to existing fishers, the Government was seen to be alienating property. However, this new property right, individual transferable quota, provided a currency with which the Government could address the claims for redress, and by buying the already allocated rights back from existing fishers rather than just taking them, this redress was achieved without creating new inequity. Of course, this was not an initiative without risk, but it was the vision and, indeed, in a political sense, the bravery of the architects and negotiators in seeking to find a resolution to outstanding issues, and to negotiate the 1992 settlement, that brought us to where we are today.

Comments by the Hon Doug Kidd in the second reading debate of the 1992 settlement bill reflect well the tenacious spirit of those who were determined to make the settlement succeed. He challenged the knockers, telling the House: “The only contribution of those doomsayers amounts to saying that because something is difficult there is really no alternative but to do nothing; that to attempt anything is to expose oneself to risk; that the only comfortable existence is an existence in which one does nothing. Those same people are prepared to stand by, for generation after generation—and there have been plenty like them before—and to listen to the grieving of the Maori. They are prepared to explain it away, and to carry on enjoying the fruits that they have managed to garner for themselves. I am not one of those people. … I am proud to be involved, because I think that I have done the right thing.” Mr Kidd also told the House that day: “There are those, of course, who would exploit difference and grievance, because they are a platform and base for a very crude type of popularism. I reject that approach utterly.”

Those messages to politicians seem as valid today as they were on 3 December 1992. I would encourage members on the other side of the House to think on what can be achieved by participating constructively, and working to include, not alienate. It is sad indeed that the National Party of today does not show the principle or the generosity of spirit of its predecessors.

Of course, it has taken many years to reach this point, and though it has not always been easy going, this point has been reached because people have in the end been willing to compromise. In many instances iwi have looked beyond what might simply be best for them, to the greater needs of Māori in general, and that is to be commended.

It is also appropriate that I today pay credit to the successive commissioners and commissions for their management of this resource endowment. They have brought the total value of the assets to approximately $750 million, more than double their original value, while distributing something in the order of $20 million per annum to iwi through the leasing and annual catch entitlement schemes. That is a remarkable record of stewardship.

Let me also thank the many groups and individuals who have worked for so long to bring us to this point. Among them, of course, are the members of the select committee, and ministry and departmental staff, who have meticulously managed the detail of this very complex bill.

The Maori Fisheries Bill delivers to Māori the means to long-term financial confidence. It paves the way for economic growth that will benefit all New Zealanders. The allocation of quota, cash, and income shares will empower iwi to develop their own assets and to contribute even more to the economic and employment growth so important to all of us. The Government welcomes the passage of this bill. It is the final step the Crown must take to complete the implementation of agreements made in the fisheries deed of settlement 1992 signed by the Crown and Māori. It is a singular privilege to have the opportunity, as Minister of Fisheries, to commend it to the House.

Mr SPEAKER: There will be one debate, but I will put each question separately at the end.

GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National): I am very pleased to speak in the third reading debate of these two bills. Can I at the outset acknowledge the presence in the House today of the Hon Koro Wētere and the Hon Doug Kidd, two gentlemen who have had much to do with the settlement of this issue to this point.

It has been a very long road to get to the point where this legislation is before the House today. But it is not the end of the road. I have to say that while the National Party is very keen to see Māori get hold of the assets that were negotiated under a National Government in 1992, and wants Māori to get on with the business of fishing, of making a considerable contribution to the economy of New Zealand, as is happening now with these assets, we also want to see them get the benefit of the assets. We are not convinced that this legislation is going to deliver that in the way that is purported. So it is with some reluctance that we will support the legislation today—reluctance, knowing that it will only be a matter of time before this issue is back before the House again and has to have a considerable amount of attention from Parliament once more.

I will tell members why we think that. It is because the assets that were given to Māori are not, as a result of this bill, going to get to them. Secondly, the inshore fishery will be given directly, but the big-money quota will not get directly to Māori. No matter what their capacity to use it, they will not get it. Iwi groups will be asked to select representatives to choose a board to set up Te Ohu Kai Moana, which will set up the trust to hold those assets. So iwi are at least three steps removed, for a start, from the body that will hold their assets. That body will not actually operate them. That body will simply appoint the directors of Aotearoa Fisheries, which in turn will organise the fishing of that quota. When it comes to the profit flow, much of it will be dependent upon the success in any given year of Sealord’s—an operation that we notice has been in some difficulty for some time. That profit will flow back to Aotearoa Fisheries, then back to Te Ohu Kai Moana, then perhaps, and only perhaps, back to iwi, but not directly to iwi—to an organisation designed to receive that income that iwi are being forced to set up; an organisation to receive intended profits from fishing activity, but an organisation prevented from fishing itself.

We think that, in the case of many iwi groupings around the country, that is an utter nonsense. They are successfully operating fishing companies, and should have been given the opportunity to take their deep-sea assets and work them, as they do with other quota they currently hold. So we think it will simply be a matter of time before many people at the bottom of the pile start to work out that there is really not a lot of change in what is being proposed today, and they will come back to Parliament to ask parliamentarians to sort out the problem. That is one of the irritations we have.

It needs to be said that this measure is a Māori solution to the distribution of assets. The Labour Government, of course, took one look at it and its natural control-freak instincts overtook it and it said: “We love that sort of grip on people’s lives, so we’ll buy it.” But I want people who are listening to understand that when Māori do come back to this House and ask a National Government to sort it out, we will be sorting out a Māori solution that went wrong.

One of the big issues for the future of this country is sorting out the ongoing historical treaty grievances. Our party has made a strong commitment to that. We note that the Government this year was advised to put more resource into the Waitangi Commission to speed the process, but even with the Government’s massive surpluses it decided not to do that. We do not understand that; that is something we will do.

The key to all of that is getting a good mandating process as to who is able to negotiate. I am a little concerned that this bill, in the case of Rongomaiwahine and Ngāti Hine, establishes those two groups as new iwi. Māori will shake their heads and say: “No, that’s not happening; they’ve always been like that.” If that is the case, why was the select committee charged with the responsibility of making that decision? Because that is inappropriate; it should be Māori who decide who are iwi and who are not. Further, that is enhanced—and my argument is supported—by the fact that the select committee turned down many other, presumably, hapū groups that wanted to be recognised as iwi. That is not the business of Parliament. One of the things that has to happen is Māori who want treaty settlements to be concluded quickly need to sort out the mandating process.

I said we will support this bill with some reluctance and I have outlined the points on which we are reluctant, but we wish those who will try to make this legislation work all the very best. It is important that 20 percent of the country’s fishing assets are fished well, it is important that the benefit of those assets flows to the whole economy, and it is important that the profits from those ventures flow to those who are the owners of them. They are the people at the bottom of the heap. We will be watching very carefully to make sure that that flow happens.

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Minister of Māori Affairs): E tika ake anō ki te mihi ake anō ki a koutou o te kōmihana, i a koutou mai i te motu i tae ake anō ki te rongo ake anō ki te whakaotinga o tēnei pire. I a kōrua anō e Doug me a koe Koro, e mihi kau ana i a kōrua e tae kaha ake anō i konei.

[It is apt that I acknowledge you, the commission, and those from the land who have arrived to listen to the completion of this bill. I especially acknowledge your presence too, Doug and Koro, and your efforts to be here as well.]

I give my greetings to the people from the Treaty of Waitangi Fisheries Commission and other people who have arrived here today, and especially those two old stalwarts of this House, the Hon Koro Wētere and the Hon Doug Kidd.

If that member is the Opposition spokesperson on Māori Affairs, I am certainly mystified at his pontification about what is good for Māori and what is not good for Māori, after the Ōrewa speech and three or four of the questions that were asked in this House today purporting that Māori are being over-fairly given interests. It has been a long journey, as Mr Brownlee well knows, since the treaty was signed in this country. That this process is being brought to finality today with the enactment of this bill, which this Government has pushed along after that long period of time, is certainly something Māori should celebrate.

The Maori Fisheries Bill is the final step in an extensive and very carefully considered process undertaken to transfer, then allocate, assets from the Crown to Māori in settlement of treaty claims to commercial fishing.

Gerry Brownlee: It doesn’t do that.

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: It certainly does that. I would ask about Fonterra. Māori are chastised at times about turning assets into confetti. Fonterra seems to be well established in the fundamentals of commerciality and keeping things together—and it is no different from Zespri.

We started many years ago with the Maori Fisheries Act 1989 and now we will have the Maori Fisheries Act 2004, and this Government needs to be commended for bringing that about. Our people have a saying: “Ka pū te ruha, ka hao te rangatahi.”, which is translated as: “The old net is cast aside”—and old politicians—“and the new net goes fishing.” Once this legislative process is completed, the casting of the new net will begin. The third reading of the Maori Fisheries Bill, along with Te Ture Whenua Maori Amendment Bill (No 2), finishes the process that most recently included major recommendations from the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee. Subsequent changes to the initial legislative proposals make them better reflect what is needed for Māori to be active and long-term participants in the fishing industry.

I extend my sincere appreciation to my pakeke in Parliament, Winston Peters, and his party for supporting us, and to the select committee for the energy and time it has invested in progressing this important legislation. Its work has not been an easy task. I especially thank the chairman, Russell Fairbrother, and also Peter Paraone and Georgina te Heuheu, and especially my hard-working colleagues the Hon Dover Samuels, Mahara Okeroa, and Nanaia Mahuta. They have been beset with challenges, but they have stood strong and they have got to this point. They have read and listened to various submissions from industry players, and have considered advice and submissions from several ministries and interested parties, including Te Ohu Kai Moana, in order to get us here today. That the committee took its task very seriously is demonstrated by the number of significant amendments that it recommended be made by this House.

The new legislation will really help propel Māori forward into the fishing sector. There will be allocation of significant fishery assets to iwi organisations in the form of settlement quota, income shares, and cash. Other fisheries’ assets will be managed centrally on behalf of iwi and, ultimately, all Māori people generally. After the legislation is passed, a new trust called Te Ohu Kai Moana will be established with the accompanying Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Ltd. It will be responsible for allocating settlement assets to iwi and for overseeing the operations of the new Aotearoa Fisheries Ltd. I will make the initial appointment of directors to that body, but then the task will be taken up in an orderly fashion by Te Kāwai Taumata, a group of 11 people appointed by 10 regional groupings of iwi, and one other member appointed by a group of representative Māori organisations.

The way forward is now clear for our people to manage the fisheries’ assets, which the trust will allocate on behalf of the ultimate beneficiaries. At that level, clear distinctions will be drawn between the governance and management of the assets, with mandated iwi organisations and asset-holding companies. A new company called Aotearoa Fisheries Ltd will administer major assets, including shares in companies received from the Treaty of Waitangi Fisheries Commission. That company will be under legislative instruction to distribute large chunks of the net profits to income shareholders. Two further trusts called Te Putea Whakatupu Trust and Te Wai Māori Trust will be established to assist with research and education grants and other activities. Te Putea Whakatupu Trust will promote education, training, and research on fishing matters and other activities. Te Wai Māori Trust will advance Māori interest in freshwater fisheries.

We have waited a long time for this day. Many of our kaumātua, kuia, and people who have had an input into this matter are not here today, and I want to remember them as Māori celebrate the beginning of the end of this long journey. People like the Hon Matiu Rata and Sir Robert Māhuta have taken the long journey back over the great ocean of Kiwa. We are still here to carry on their wishes and those of the leaders who settled the treaty-based commercial fishing claims in 1992. That was many years ago. For more than 10 years there has been much discussion and debate, mostly rigorous—often very rigorous—on how to move forward. The paternalism and the patronising of Māori people are something we want to move out of the road. We do not need to be told how to do it. We do not need to be told how to run things. We need to be recognised for the statesmanship that we can certainly imbue in this process.

Rodney Hide: What about the foreshore and seabed?

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: That member promised that he would behave himself and become that, not the outdated, rabble-rousing—

Rodney Hide: You pushed me beyond the limit.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I am not pushing anybody beyond the limit.

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: I salute the efforts of numerous commissioners—people like Sir Tipene O’Regan and Shane Jones, the commissioners who brought the old net into shore. Their journey has been arduous and at times frustrating. Hope and determination to see the job done are certainly why we are here today. I acknowledge the Rt Hon Jim Bolger and the Hon Doug Graham for their input along the way. Most of all, I pay due respect to my colleague the Minister of Fisheries, David Benson-Pope, for his outstanding work in getting this process done, and to Minister Pete Hodgson before him for his work. I also thank myself, along with Winston Peters, because we have got to here—just in case people forget that.

But let us be as courageous as Māori people are today. Let us, as a great nation, accept this measure, and ensure that we recognise that this legislation is good for Māori, good for this nation, and should be celebrated. Wake up!

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): There is an old Māori saying that the kūmara never says how sweet it is. When one is reduced to acknowledging and thanking oneself, it brings to mind that old Māori saying: “Ka pū te ruha, ka hao te rangatahi.”, which means: “When the old net is full of holes, the new net goes fishing.” When the old net is full of holes—useless and obsolete—that is when the new net goes fishing. That is why New Zealand First is here today, and we will be ready in 2005.

I noticed that the two previous speakers did not want to own up to the facts behind this long-running battle with regard to assets. Between 1984 and 1990 the first State asset sale in this country was the sale to private ownership of the fishing resource of New Zealand. It was the first sale of a state asset and today we are seeing the aftermath of it. But, of course, why would anyone want to own up to that? It is so discredited now in 2004—not just here but worldwide. In 1986 the Labour Government, as its first State asset sale, sold the right to New Zealand’s fishing resource into private ownership. It was inevitable that by 1988 and 1989 the Māori people would be saying: “Yes, but what about us?”. And that is what we are talking about today. In 1989 the Labour Government set up Māori fisheries legislation, but it had one huge defect, which was palpably obvious back then—it is in the Hansard, for anybody who wants to remember the facts; some of us pointed it out back then—and that was that there was no distribution or disbursement policy. We also warned that it would produce the longest-running legal battle that Māoridom would ever have with itself. There is nothing as antiseptic as the saying “I told you so.”—but I did. There is nothing as antiseptic or sterile as the saying “I told you so.”—but we did, and here we are, 15 years later, and we still have only the legislation, and have huge problems to come.

My challenge to the Māori people on this issue is this: walk down the main street of Tauranga, Rotorua, or Ruatōria and ask Māori there how many of them have got a fish; go down the main street of Kaikohe, Whangarei, Wanganui, New Plymouth, Hāwera, or anywhere around this country where there are Māori, and ask any Māori on the street how many of them actually have got a fish. I know what will the answer be: “Brother, I don’t know what you’re talking about.” The deed of 1992 is a very interesting document. It was signed by all manner of people—whether they had tribal or iwi authority, or whatever. Then, there was still no distribution mechanism. We lived in a vacuum where, for a while, the Māori Fisheries Commission thought it could, without any statutory authority, take up the slack in that respect.

So we see in this legislation a trust called the National Urban Māori Authority. That was John Tamihere’s idea. That is called postal box tribalism. If one changes one’s address one changes one’s tribe. What sort of ancestral, historical thing are we talking about? Where in Māoridom’s antecedents could one change one’s address and change one’s tribe? I cannot hear a mutter or a murmur from those people over there now. I cannot hear a syllable or a sound. It is just one mess after another. Where in the world of Māori, since the mythical time of Hawaiki, could one change one’s postal box and change one’s iwi? But there it is in this legislation—one mess after another.

If that happens, I can tell members that Rongomaiwahine and Ngāti Hine have far more rights than that. Who would ever doubt who the Ngāti Hine people are? We know that Ngāti Wai came first, after all! Unless someone came from out of space or in a helicopter, the people of the coast had to be there first. It is axiomatic. But we will not stand around arguing about their rights. We know what they are, as Ngāti Hine and Rongomaiwahine know what they are, as well. The sooner we sort that out, the better.

But this debate has a great backdrop in the speech of the “Great Communicator” at Ōrewa. How difficult it was for the members of the National Party to have to admit that, in every respect, they were the architects of this legislation.

Gerry Brownlee: That’s right.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Oh! They admit it now. Well, I read Don Brash’s Ōrewa speech and it was clear that someone who is soon to be a pensioner does not remember our history—or, more important, does not remember how culpable his party is in this country’s history when it comes to this issue. How difficult it was for Gerry Brownlee to get up, make a speech, and say that National would support this legislation. What on earth was Don Brash’s speech at Ōrewa about? It was a great speech, I am told, because, even though the year was not up, Toastmasters gave him the prize for being the “Great Communicator” of 2004. This was in June. Nelson Mandela, Winston Churchill, Mark Antony, or Dr Martin Luther King could make any speech they liked now, because the prize has already been given out. I call that another little right-wing jack-up. Of course, the media swallowed it—as they always do—hook, line, and sinker. The media never questioned that it was only June. But, against today’s debate, we have that speech made at Ōrewa. I ask the National Party how it squares its position today with what was said at Ōrewa.

Gerry Brownlee: OK—yield.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I am happy to yield. I seek leave to yield briefly in order for Mr Brownlee to get up and explain how he reconciles his speech today with the Ōrewa speech.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): A yield is confined to a brief comment or question on the subject that the member yielding was speaking on. It is not a means of transferring the call. It is to be terse and to the point.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, I so seek leave.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The member does not need leave; he can yield. It is to be a brief comment and that is all.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My point of order is that, even though I come from the party of great communicators, 30 seconds is not enough to give the House the explanation Mr Peters wants. I am happy to ask the House to give me 5 minutes to give that explanation.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The House is the master of its own destiny. The member is seeking leave. Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is none.

Gerry Brownlee: Let me make it very clear that when Dr Brash stood up at Ōrewa and gave his speech, there were a number of people there listening who were impressed. There were tens of thousands who did not hear it, but who have simply got the flavour of what he was talking about and have applauded it.

Let me tell members why. When he spoke so openly, so clearly, and so freely at Ōrewa, he allowed a debate to begin in this country that is long overdue—not just for those who are non-Māori, but for Māori as well. I said, when I spoke in the House today, that we are not happy about this bill. We will support it, because we will not deny anybody the assets that are theirs. We are not happy about this bill, because it will not see those people in the various provincial towns of this country who have an ownership stake in the 20 percent of quota, whom Mr Peters spoke of, getting anything out of it at all.

We see that as a proliferation of the current arrangements. Te Ohu Kai Moana is nothing more than the Fisheries Commission in drag. Its members are the people who will determine how much money goes back to Māori. So why would we have any conflict between a position that said we should treat everybody in this country fairly and equally—which was the message from Ōrewa—and expressing some disappointment about a bill that will say to people who have an asset that they can own it but they cannot touch it, and that they can have an expectation of getting something out of it only if those members over there choose to give it to them? That is why there is no conflict on the position we take on this bill, I say to Mr Peters, and the message in Ōrewa.

I say one further thing. There was nothing for any Māori in this country to fear or be concerned about in the message that Don Brash gave at Ōrewa. There was, rather, a huge amount of hope and optimism. In that speech, he made a commitment to the preservation of te reo Māori, to a haste in the process for dealing with historic treaty settlements. We have in front of us, right here, an Official Information Act request granted to us, which shows that the Labour Government makes a big noise about settling historic treaty grievances, but when its own Office of Treaty Settlements tells it that the office does not have the resource to do that any quicker than it is doing at the moment, does the Government put some extra money in? Does it show a bit of goodwill—a word its members constantly throw around the House? Does it show any goodwill towards getting that process moving along any more quickly? No, even though the Government is told it will take years and years without more resources, it will simply throw it on the table without providing the resources. There is no conflict between our position on this speech, given the great history the National Party has of dealing in a very upfront way with issues to do with Māori rights, and the message in Dr Brash’s speech.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: He was asked how he reconciled the two speeches, and he could not. At Ōrewa, Dr Brash said that Māori are not even a people or a culture, and that they do not deserve special or separate treatment. We know what the Ōrewa speech was about. It was a case of walking out of a saloon, stealing a man’s horse, and trying to ride it out of town. That is very hard to do. A man can steal a horse, but he cannot stay on it. We just heard why. The National Party’s DNA—its fingerprints—is all over the issue in respect of separate treatment for Māori. It is no use Dr Brash coming along here. He cannot find the parliamentary toilets, yet he starts stealing my speeches and my party’s policy and trying to call it his own. The ACT party cannot call it theirs, because Shirley and Prebble signed up—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The member will use members’ full names.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: It will not work. Dr Brash was asked whether he believed in Māori Television, and he said he did not know. Does he believe in the Māori seats? No. Will National candidates be standing in the Māori seats? Yes. That is confusion. Does he believe in kōhanga reo? “I’ll wait and see how it’s working out.” It has been going for 25 years.

I will get back to my point. There is, today, an inevitability about this legislation, because of what people did in the past foolishly. I can recall the 1992 legislation, and many Māori can as well. It was always my argument—and New Zealand First’s argument, as we are saying today—that what Māori need are the fundamental things that all humans need: decent housing, decent medicine, decent first-world wages, decent salaries, and great education. They want to be part of the first world, and all this paternalistic nonsense will not uplift Māori, at all. There will be the usual people arguing the teat for all they are worth, but the mass great bulk of Māoridom need better policies than that. My message to them is very simple: hang on, because help is on its way.

SUE KEDGLEY (Green): I extend our greetings to Koro Wētere, Doug Kidd, and others, who have come here today for the third reading of this legislation. I am presenting this speech on behalf of my colleague Metiria Turei, who cannot be here today. The Greens are pleased that the allocation of fisheries assets, a result of the 1992 Sealord’s deal, is at long last being settled. Sadly, however, the Green Party is unable to support the final shape of the legislation. We had hoped for significant changes to it during its consideration at the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee, but that did not happen. Some of the key issues raised in submissions included the need for greater accountability of Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Ltd and Aotearoa Fisheries Ltd to iwi, greater accountability of mandated iwi organisations to their iwi members, changes in the timing and procedures to review the governance structures of new entities, greater flexibility in the disposal of settlement assets, reductions in delays in the transfer of assets to mandated iwi organisations, and recognition of iwi for the purposes of the legislation.

Some of those concerns were addressed but, unfortunately, little real accountability was added. One of the changes that was intended to address the issue of accountability was the provision that mandated iwi organisations would be able to table non-binding motions at general meetings of Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Ltd, and that all reporting documents should go to Te Kawai Taumata, the electoral college, to enable it to assess better the performance of the directors it appointed. But the problem is that non-binding motions, ultimately, are really worthless. Those assets after all belong to hapū and iwi, yet in the end those groups will have little control.

The Government has been reluctant to interfere with the legislation, on the basis that it concerns a settlement that is primarily for hapū and iwi to work out. But we believe that the Government has failed to recognise that the significant agreement in the community to move forward on the settlement allocation does not amount to significant support for details of this legislation.

The intention was that these issues of concern would be sorted out in the select committee process. Māori believed that the process was democratic and that their views would be listened to and taken into account, but in many cases that has simply not happened. We continue to oppose the paramount role of Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Ltd. The changes that have been made still do not go far enough to remedy the fundamental conflict of interest in the governance and commercial structures established by the legislation. Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Ltd will retain the sole voting share over Aotearoa Fisheries Ltd, which is a commercial organisation in competition with fishing entities established by mandated iwi organisations for the management of their settlement assets. We proposed an amendment to ensure that mandated iwi organisations would receive voting shares, but that, unfortunately, was not passed. We strongly believe that iwi are entitled to voting shares in Aotearoa Fisheries Ltd—the commercial entity that will retain 50 percent of the settlement assets originally intended to be transferred to the mandated iwi organisations. If the assets are to be retained in a centralised form, iwi should be able, at the very least, and entitled to exercise the responsibilities of shareholders, consistent with standard commercial practice.

The Government wanted Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Ltd to have almost complete control over every organisation involved in the management of the settlement assets, but that amounts to an abrogation of the principle of rangatiratanga inherent in the deed of settlement. Iwi cannot control Aotearoa Fisheries Ltd, because they have only income shares, not voting shares. As far as accountability, Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Ltd will still be subject to an operational audit only every 4 years, to determine how well directors are carrying out their duties and functions. In the 11th year an independent review will be conducted, to determine whether any changes in the Government’s arrangements or asset-disposal restrictions would better serve the interests of beneficiaries. At least, that reviewer will be appointed by iwi, who will also be able to set the terms of the review.

Another amendment we proposed was to remove the power of Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Ltd to retain constitutional oversight of mandated iwi organisations, and to be able, unilaterally, to alter the requirements they must meet. What other organisations are subjected to what amounts to a form of paternalism? The basis for that control is the premise that Māori cannot look after their own money.

The Green Party believes there are too many layers between Māori and the governance of their settlement assets. There also remains a conflict of interest when Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Ltd and Aotearoa Fisheries Ltd are set up to compete with iwi groups. There is little benefit in that for iwi who wish to manage their own destiny in the fishing industry. How will they compete against the huge company that is Aotearoa Fisheries Ltd? We are disappointed, too, that a Government amendment was passed last night that will allow a special procedure to allocate and transfer assets to an iwi that cannot complete its coastline claims because one or more neighbouring iwi does not have a mandated iwi organisation. An iwi that does not have a mandated iwi organisation will now have 3 years to establish one. If it does not, then allocations will be able to proceed, and some iwi may end up with nothing.

That amendment is problematic, especially for iwi such as Ngāti Hine and Rongomaiwahine, who may face problems disaggregating from the conglomerate, which may hold up the process so that a mandated iwi organisation cannot be established.

That would be a litigation nightmare. We sincerely hope that it will not happen, but the Government’s amendment provides that it might.

Finally, although the Greens disagree with the final form of this bill, we are extremely pleased that progress has been made. The issue may be a full and final settlement, in the Government’s view, but we fear that it is not a full and final settlement for hapū and iwi, who will no doubt struggle with what has been put in place by this Parliament.

Hon KEN SHIRLEY (ACT): I would like to acknowledge my former colleague the Hon Koro Wētere, who was the co-Minister with me in 1990 when we nominated the first members to the Māori Fisheries Commission. I would also like to acknowledge the Hon Doug Kidd, who succeeded me as Minister of Fisheries, and was the Minister at the time of the 1992 Sealord’s deal. The ACT party will not be supporting this legislation, and in saying that I stress at the outset that it is not because we do not want to see Māori play a dominant, successful role in fisheries. In fact, the very nature of this bill and its inadequacies are why, on balance, the ACT party has decided that it cannot vote for it. Clearly, we know that it will be passed, and we wish all those who will be its beneficiaries every success in their enterprise. But we do want to record our opposition to it on the basis that it breaches the 1992 deed of settlement, good commercial practice, the basic principles of property rights, and the Treaty of Waitangi.

This issue is all about property rights. People enjoyed fishing rights based on common law, but in the 1980s the Government introduced statutory law that gave clear property rights—first in 1983, and then in 1986—by establishing individual transferable quota under a quota management regime. Those fishing rights became tangible, clear property rights. I do not think anybody in the Government anticipated at the time the simmering concerns of Māoridom, but Māori had not been able to express their frustration at not having received sufficient acknowledgment based on their customary right. It was at the point when there were clear property rights that Māori, firstly through the Muriwhenua decision and then through subsequent Court of Appeal decisions, made it quite clear that the terms of article 2 of the treaty—full, exclusive, and undisturbed possession of one’s lands, forests, fisheries, and taonga—certainly implied that Māori had a clear property right interest in fisheries. That interest is what the Crown has been negotiating on, right from the late 1980s through to today—and, I predict, will be negotiating on beyond the present—to try to come to terms with what is a very important issue for New Zealand.

We believe that this bill fails miserably, because it imposes all manner of restrictions on Māori that other people do not have on their property rights. It sets up multi-tiered, convoluted, patronising bureaucracies, and locks Māori into them. I believe that Māori—and Ngāi Tahu is a good example, but there are other examples—are proving they are very good business people. And why should we be surprised at that? There is standard commercial law in this country, so why do this Parliament and this Government need to say that Māori have to have special protections, convoluted bureaucracies, and checks and balances that no other commercial business has to have? When we do that, it comes at a price: it diminishes the value of one’s asset, and it diminishes the opportunity for an enterprise to be, and the probability of an enterprise being, a commercial success. It can foot-trip a business. The very patronising aspects that are done with good intent can actually foot-trip a business at the end of the day.

The other aspect in terms of the Treaty of Waitangi is the pre-emption clause, which is included in the article 2 property right clause. It states that the chiefs and tribes can hold the asset for as long as they so choose, and that they then have the right to sell it. But this bill prevents the sale of the asset, and that diminishes its value. In other words, it establishes a dual quota. There is what one may call general quota, and then there is Māori quota, which is ring-fenced and can be sold only to a limited pool of people. That is being done with good intentions: because Māori may flog it all off. But it is actually their right to do that if they want to, under article 2 of the treaty. I do not believe they will flog it off, but that is their right. It is everybody’s right to make mistakes. However, the other side of that is there may be good reasons for selling the asset. I would just like to run through some of those reasons. Fishing, in a global sense, is a hunter-gatherer operation. We underwent an agricultural revolution, arguably, 2,000 to 4,000 years ago, and changed from hunter-gatherers to farmers. The same process is happening in the world’s fisheries, and aquaculture is the new dimension. It may well be that many stocks and species in various management zones may become almost extinct, commercially, so why should we lock Māori into an asset of diminishing value, when the sensible thing for them to do may be to take the value of the asset, sell it while they still can and while it has its value, and invest in aquaculture—become fish farmers, instead? That opportunity should be provided to Māori, as anyone else who holds quota would have that opportunity.

It is for those reasons that the ACT party feels rather strongly about the bill, and I certainly feel strongly about it. I chaired the first select committee over a period of about 2 years, and I was the Minister who transferred the first quota to the Māori Fisheries Commission. But I have to say that this process has been horribly politicised. The point is that it was to be a property right settlement, whereas what it has become is a social welfare cheque, and that is not what it should be. The Crown may well have responsibilities with regard to the social needs of Māori in health and welfare, but it should not confuse that with a property right. That is what this bill does. It is meant to be a property right settlement, but the provisions that, I think, John Tamihere and others have brought to this bill as a compromise—it is stated to be a compromise, but it is actually a politicisation of the issue—breach the intent of the deed of settlement.

I predict that this legislation will provide an avenue for this matter to be relitigated in future years. There is a recipe for ongoing disputes in this legislation, although we hope this is the end of it. We hope that 12 or 13 years after the Sealord’s deal a compromise has been achieved, but I see in this legislation the seeds of ongoing disputes within Māoridom. That in itself could be very divisive. We members of Parliament are already receiving letters from various hapū, stating that they want to disassociate from their iwi and that they do not acknowledge them. Possibly that will go down to the whānau level. That is the reality. With tangible assets, resources, and values of this nature, why should we be surprised at that? This bill creates a climate whereby those problems are likely to become exacerbated.

ACT will not support this bill. I listened to the speech made by Gerry Brownlee from the National Party. I agree with most of the points he made, but I could not agree with his conclusion. Why on earth would one support this bill on the basis of one’s own analysis? It is not robust legislation, and that is a shame. We have to make the point that we are currently working through the foreshore and seabed legislation and the aquaculture legislation. All those issues are intertwined and interrelated, with common threads between all of them. I think we could well see the unfortunate elements in this fisheries bill compounded by what I think is a totally wrong approach on the foreshore and seabed, whereby due process is being abandoned. The Government of the day has panicked and introduced legislation that cuts across due process and, in an indirect way, will exacerbate some of the problems that stem from this legislation.

LARRY BALDOCK (United Future): It is with a sense of gratitude that I rise on behalf of United Future with the privilege of speaking at the third reading of this legislation, which hopefully will be the end of the legislative resolution of the Treaty of Waitangi fisheries settlement negotiated in 1992. As a member of this House who is in his first term, I begin by paying my respects to those honourable members in this House and in previous Parliaments who acted with integrity, good faith, and courage in the initial negotiation and ongoing development of that settlement. I acknowledge the presence here today of Mr Wētere and Mr Kidd. I also pay tribute to Māori leaders who, with good will, accepted the terms of settlement on behalf of all Māori, in the interests of the welfare and development of Māori. I know that some of those leaders of considerable mana have since passed from the world, but they are no doubt here with us in spirit today. I acknowledge the hard work done by the members, both past and present, of the Treaty of Waitangi Fisheries Commission, Te Ohu Kai Moana. I know they will welcome this day, which sees the passing of this legislation.

This legislation is different from the Māori Fisheries Bill that was referred to the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee on 4 December 2003. Despite having been cautioned not to make too many changes to that bill, the committee did, in my opinion, make a number of improvements in response to submitters’ concerns, while still respecting the delicate balance achieved by Te Ohu Kai Moana’s negotiations with iwi and hapū across the country. It is important also to acknowledge the excellent work and support given to the committee by the support staff, the officials from the Ministry of Fisheries, the Parliamentary Counsel Office, and the independent adviser who served the committee so well. Personally, the working relationship that developed in the select committee is a positive memory that I will retain for some time. The Committee of the whole House passed further changes to the legislation, which were recommended by the Minister, and that has resulted in the final version of the legislation to be passed here today. Despite all the debate, criticism, and proposed amendments during the last phase of the passage of this legislation, it is notable that it will be passed by an overwhelming majority of the members of this House. It is encouraging that such significant legislation of benefit to all New Zealanders is being passed at the end of such a long parliamentary process.

It is our earnest hope that this legislation will facilitate further growth in the economic development of Māori with iwi and hapū tribal affiliations, and also of urban Māori, as well. Māori economic development and prosperity is good for all New Zealanders. The strengthening and restoring of the Māori economic base will enhance the Māori entrepreneurial opportunities that are already evident in the New Zealand economy. Pākehā and other ethnic communities should welcome every aspect of that success and growth.

The Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee has to date been given two bills to deal with: the Maori Fisheries Bill, and the Foreshore and Seabed Bill. I would at this point like to make a few comments about the contrast between the goodwill that is being developed by the passing of this legislation and the situation we are faced with as a committee as we hear, day in and day out, the disappointment, anger, and frustration that is expressed by Māori and others over the Foreshore and Seabed Bill. This legislation has not been without controversy. Certainly, there was considerable concern when the Treaty of Waitangi (Fisheries Claims) Settlement Act was passed in the early 1990s. Despite that, this legislation is welcomed by the majority of people, and it makes a positive contribution to the resolution of past issues. Yet in the Foreshore and Seabed Bill it is hard to recognise that it is the same Labour-led Government, which has a laudable record of listening to Māori and addressing Māori issues, that is in danger of demonstrating it seems to have forgotten all it has learnt about listening. The National Party also seems to be shying away from constructive engagement on such important issues.

The legislation we are passing today is the combination of work carried out in good faith by both previous Labour and National Governments. It was started by Labour in 1989, was carried on by National in 1992, and is now being concluded by the Labour Government in 2004. United Future is pleased to have been able to play some small, constructive role in the completion of this legislative process. It demonstrates some of the best attributes of how the members of an incoming Government, irrespective of the political party it is comprised of, can lay aside the mantle of having been the Queen’s Opposition—and therefore of challenging, disagreeing with, and criticising many of the previous Government’s actions and policy—and, on assuming the reigns of power, can carry on the good work that was done by their predecessors, for the benefit of all New Zealanders.

This bill deals with the distribution of assets to Māori, based upon the recognition of a property right in fish. Surely a consensus can be found that will recognise similar rights in the marine environment of the foreshore and seabed, where those fish live. This legislation is part of the answer. However, at this stage at least, the Foreshore and Seabed Bill, rather than being part of the answer, is in danger of contributing towards—and is heading towards—becoming a serious part of the problem, in my opinion. Hardly any of the submitters I heard were fully in support of that bill, whether they were Māori or Pākehā. Submitter after submitter has appealed to the Government to slow down the passage of that bill, and to allow more consultation to occur.

Mr SPEAKER: The member will come to this legislation.

LARRY BALDOCK: I am, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: No, the member is not. He is straying.

LARRY BALDOCK: The Government needs to accept that the journey is often as important as the destination. Therefore, I call on the Government to accept United Future’s offer of at least taking one step in the right direction, by responding to the appeals of submitters, as has been the case with regard to this legislation. The select committee should be given an extension of time, to enable it to make an interim report—

Mr SPEAKER: The member will please be seated. He must not refer again to that bill and the proposals for it. He is to talk on the third reading of this legislation only, or his speech will be terminated.

LARRY BALDOCK: I believe it is time for us to have a cup of tea. We must acknowledge all the truth about our history as a nation, but not forget that that is one of the many high points that demonstrate the ability and willingness of New Zealanders to resolve seemingly irreconcilable relationship challenges. The passage of this legislation is an example of that. I am sure that Te Ohu Kai Moana’s directors and staff would have many stories to tell about the process that has been gone through. This legislation is the end of 12 to 15 years of work, and it is the beginning of another 12 years of work, as well. Although many people have lamented the length of time that has passed, the money spent on litigation, and the hours of discussion and hui, none of it is wasted if we really believe that the journey can be as important as the destination.

In closing, on behalf of New Zealand First I not only convey our support for this legislation but also express our support to those who will take up the responsibilities outlined within it, as well. To the kaumātua and rangatira o ngā iwi o Aotearoa who have been elected or will be elected to Te Kāwai Taumata, with the responsibility to appoint the members of Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Ltd, who will carry much of the burden for the next phase of the journey, to those who will become directors of Aotearoa Fisheries Ltd, to the many kaumātua and rangatira who will be given the responsibilities of trust in the mandated iwi organisations, and to other leaders who will assume responsibilities, I say: whakapainga e koutou te ingoa o te Atua. Kia kaha, kia toa, kia manawa nui. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

[You must praise the name of God, and be strong, brave, and stout of heart. So, greetings to you and to all of you.]

Hon JOHN TAMIHERE (Associate Minister of Maori Affairs): E te Kaihautū, te kaiwhakaruruhau i a mātou Jonathan, tēnā rā koe. E ngā rangatira, mātua, Koro rāua ko Doug, ā, tēnā rā kōrua, tēnā rā kōrua, tēnā rā kōrua. Nō reira, e ngā rau rangatira rongonui o te kōmihana, e ngā iwi huri noa, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa. Ā, kei te tautoko, kei te whakamiha ki a rātou ngā tīpuna. E te rangatira a Pari, e rātou mā ngā tīpuna, haere, haere, haere ki a koutou.

[And, greetings indeed to you Mr Speaker, Jonathan, the one who shelters us. To you two chiefs and father figures, Koro and Doug, greetings, greetings, and greetings to you two. And so to the well-known chiefs of the commission, as well as the people gathered about, greetings, greetings, and greetings to you all. I endorse and acknowledge the ancestors who have departed, especially Pari. Depart the ancestors, farewell, travel on.]

It is a pleasure and a privilege to stand to bring the saga of this legislation to closure. It had its genesis at the time of the settlement. It had its genesis in this House, where Māori rights with regard to the fishing assets were always protected. We bring closure to the issue today in relation to legislation that, in large part, went through a long, tortuous process—a litigatory process. We have arrived. As one of the combatants in part of the process, it is great to stand up in this House and to know that we have brought inclusion and closure, so that our people out on the street can now start to participate more fully and fulsomely in a wonderful asset. The only regrettable thing about that is the time line it will take before the rubber starts to hit the road out in our communities. The acid test is now on Māori leadership, full stop.

I want to acknowledge a number of the leaders who have brought this legislation to conclusion, and without picking anyone out separately or individually, I do acknowledge the fine work of the Hon Matiu Rata, who was one of the forefathers in the Labour Party and one of its statesmen. I acknowledge also, as I already have, the Hon Koro Wētere. I acknowledge the work of National Party members when the National Party actually stood for nationhood building. The members concerned were the Hon Doug Kidd, the Rt Hon Jim Bolger, and the Rt Hon Douglas Montrose Graham. But those days are gone, and I regret that the National Party does not have statesmen of their ilk any more.

I now want to turn and acknowledge others, as I should—I want my kids to read this. The reality is that I have stepped on many toes, and a number of the chiefs and a number of the tribes who may well be here in the gallery or listening to the radio broadcast of this debate would acknowledge that. But at least they should give me some Brownie points for being consistent. I want to say of the great chief Sir Robert Māhuta that it was a joy and a pleasure for me as a younger Māori merely to have had the opportunity to watch him operate. It is regrettable that he is no longer here to see this legislation come to closure. He was a chief who was always light years ahead of his people. He was always putting things into place for them, in terms of expectations. The fact that they could not see that then but know it now is regrettable. So I want to acknowledge the superb work and effort that Sir Robert put in. I am pleased that his daughter will take the opportunity to stand up in the debate as part of this closure.

I also want to acknowledge Sir Graham Latimer. Now, I have said some naughty things about Sir Graham, but, as our other speakers have said, as the young net goes fishing certain things like that do occur. That is just how things work. But I want to acknowledge here today the work of Sir Graham and Auntie Emily—an auntie of mine from the Whakatōhea people. They championed these issues whilst we were always sitting on the fence and throwing all sorts of naughty things at them.

Finally, I want to acknowledge Sir Tīpene O’Regan. Although at times I have thought that he has been ill considered and that I probably would have taken a different approach from his, I think that chief will go down in history as one of the greatest chiefs that Māoridom has produced in the last 50 years, regardless of the tribe. So although I am from Ngāti Porou, Whakatōhea, and Hauraki whānui, I want to salute that Ngāi Tahu chief who, through force of personality, significant intellect, and the like, has placed Ngāi Tahu on the map for all time. I just wanted to acknowledge those people in that particular way.

I want to move on now to address three things in the legislation very quickly. The Hon Winston Peters often gets it wrong when he tries to address matters Māori. For instance, he challenged myself and Parekura Horomia over hiding under the dress of a woman, or under the apron strings of a woman. Little does he know it, but Ngāti Porou men actually rejoice in that—we rejoice in it. We are born out of Ruataupare and Materoa—the great chieftainesses. Our tribe is born out of great chieftainesses. We rejoice in being under the skirts of women, and so I say all power to the arm of the Prime Minister. That just carries on a great tradition.

Hon Parekura Horomia: And he married our cousin.

Hon JOHN TAMIHERE: That is right. I now want to turn to three things, because in the third reading debate it is important that they are nailed, and definitely nailed. In the Committee stage, I addressed two items. The first was clause 65 of the Maori Fisheries Bill, “Purpose of Te Putea Whakatupu Trust”. That trust is merely set up to ensure that all the obligations of the settlement arrive at the doorstep of all Māori, and so it is a bridge. It is a bridging trust that acknowledges exactly where we are, in terms of our development and evolution. The clause has been amended so that the purpose, which is the heart and the soul of the trust, is indeed very wide in terms of the promotion of education, training, and research. It can also have an application in relation to fisheries. The final clause that I will talk to concerns the appointment of the directors of that trust. It is quite clear that consultation can be had with only one defined group of Māori over the directorship, and that is urban Māori.

The final thing I will say is on the issue of the disaggregation model. It is up to Ngāpuhi, to Kahungunu, to Hauraki whānui, and to Te Arawa Kotahitanga to honour and respect the constituent iwi that make them up. No one would disaggregate if he or she was treated with some honour and respect. The law is there to allow us to take our mana away from a new corporate entity, in the event that it does not honour and respect the iwi. Rongomaiwahine, Ngāti Hine, the 12 iwi of the Hauraki, and the eight iwi of Te Arawa will have the right to walk in their own mana, but, let us get this right: it would be better if their interests were served under one umbrella.

I acknowledge all the work of the members of the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee in bringing this matter to a conclusion, and I thank them very much. This is a great day for Māori. We will hit the street, and we will be positive. We will understand our promise and fulfil our potential—and I say we should not vote for the Māori Party.

PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei): The National Party wants Māori to go fishing. We want them to fish their assets, their quota, on their boats, for their people. We do not want Māori forced into the courts. We do not want Māori in constant debate with the Crown. Like Māori themselves, we just want them to go fishing. That is why the National Party supports this bill. After 13 long years, and a century for many, we just want Māori to go fishing. However, we know that this is a transitional bill, and that is what we will publicly call it. Māori will be back for changes, and we say rightly so. We expect them to be. We will not be surprised when they appeal, simply because this Government has refused some freedoms where there is limited control for Māori over their own assets—not anybody else’s assets; not the Government’s to decide what they do with them, but their own assets.

In fact, the Minister did introduce a bill—and we are not going to stand back from this; we will state it—that was, in part, quite condescending and patronising. For instance, we were intrigued to see a low level of accountability for Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Ltd and Aotearoa Fisheries Ltd to iwi in one aspect, yet iwi—mandated iwi organisations within the bill—had a huge amount of accountability that they had to fulfil to their members and to Government institutions like the Inland Revenue Department and the like. A huge amount of accountability is entailed for them, such as, audits, reporting back, going back to their members, having to get votes, and so on.

The question that Georgina te Heuheu and I asked at the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee was: “How is it that mainstream organisations, businesses, and companies do not have to meet these stringent requirements of accountability, but we are going to make Māori organisations in the fishing industry jump through all these hoops?”. We say that it cuts both ways. Don Brash has been talking about the fact that there has not been a level playing field whereby in some instances in health and education Māori might be receiving more attention than others. It cuts both ways. Why should Māori, under this bill, have to jump through more hoops and be more accountable than mainstream organisations? Does the Government not trust Māori to organise their own assets and their own affairs?

The bill remains condescending and patronising in other aspects. The National Party put forward some amendments that were glossed over by the Government. We asked that Māori should have more say in the directorship of New Zealand’s largest fishing company, Aotearoa Fisheries Ltd. We asked that some of the layers—there are about five layers of governance between Māori on the ground and the directors of the company—be taken out. We suggested a way of doing that, but it was rejected. We also presented amendments to enable proven Māori organisations to withdraw all of their assets, including deep-sea quota, to put into use as they saw best. With the current arrangement Māori are able to directly control only half their quota, and we see that as a tad patronising.

Iwi did have some victories, though, with this bill. In the bill as introduced, some iwi like Ngāi Tahu and Tainui were not recognised but had to jump through all sorts of recognition hoops. Even though they had had a Crown settlement, had been through the courts, and had structures in place to deal with settlements, they had to prove their mana again. Iwi came to the select committee and said that that was absurd, and the committee, which I am proud to have been part of, made sure that there was a significant amendment so that if such iwi organisations want, they could be given automatic recognition. That was a win. If they are formally structured and accountable to their members, if they have established an asset-holding company, and if they have already been accepted by the Crown as having a mandate for Treaty of Waitangi settlement purposes, they should be given recognition, and I applaud that change.

There were also issues around coastline agreements that were likely to hold up the allocation, whereby if there was a dispute over a part of a coastline, the allocation for the whole coastline would be held up in the courts. A change was made there. Now if a small area of coastline is under dispute, that is held and it goes through a process, but the rest of the allocation can go forward, and that is sensible and we were glad to support it.

We did have the issue of the restriction of sale and swap of quota, because there are limitations on realising the value of fishing operations because of the requirement for iwi to sell capital items, quota, or shares only to iwi or Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Ltd. We said to Māori that their asset and their quota will be devalued if they can sell only within Māoridom. But they told us, time and time again, that although the restriction on the sale of shares and quota has the potential to affect their asset’s value, it was an accepted consequence of the settlement. They understand that but they want their generation, the generations after them, and again generations to follow, to get the benefit. They support this aspect of the bill.

National supports this transitional legislation, because we want to see Māori go fishing. But we know that it is transitional legislation, because Māori will need changes to it. These issues will come up because they eventually will want full control of their asset, and that is something they should certainly have. National, though, supports this bill.

Hon DOVER SAMUELS (Labour—Te Tai Tokerau): Ā, tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Te mea tuatahi māku, kei te mihi atu ki ngā kaumātua e noho mai rā, e Koro, e Doug Kidd, e Graham. Kei te mihi atu ki a koutou katoa mō tēnei rā tino nui rawa atu mō te iwi Māori.

I am just acknowledging our three kaumātua, Doug Graham, Koro Wētere, and Doug Kidd. I also want to acknowledge members of the commission and another kaumātua, Sir Tipene O’Regan. I think it is appropriate that these kaumātua, these gentlemen, are acknowledged in terms of the history and the origins of this legislation. It is quite interesting for me to stand here and listen to some of the contributions that have been made by my colleagues across on the other side of the floor. I think when we listen to the contribution made by the Hon Parekura Horomia and the response he got from the other side, it shows us exactly the reason why this issue has been on the boil for over 12 years.

I have listened to my whanaunga Winston Peters—and I acknowledge his whanaungatanga in terms of Ngāti Wai—talk about the new net going fishing, and how the old one has a lot of holes in it. I am going to tell the House that I am a bit of a fisherman from way back, and I certainly know about holes in nets. I think when it comes to the time when there are so many holes, it is time not only to patch up the holes or to buy a new net but perhaps for my whanaunga to buy himself a longline. Certainly some of the contributions he has made have been very enlightening to the House with regard to his whakapapa with the National Party; it is very interesting in terms of the origins of the legislation.

It is a big day for Māoridom. What I would like to advocate for our people is that this Government is delivering for Māori. It has been a long and tortuous pathway for us to get here. I can see the National Party over there frothing at the mouth and squinting and saying: “We have heard about this before.”, but the reality is that today we are here at the end of line and we are delivering the goods. Our people will go out fishing. Not only will we challenge this industry; we own over 50 percent of it from the corporate model. We will get it. We will start cooking, and not with hangi stones but with gas. We are going to start cooking with gas. We have a corporate model here, and I look forward to Aotearoa Fisheries Ltd at the end of the day coming out with a big bottom line and saying that Māoridom has made a big profit. We support that.

On the other side, there is a process to deliver the goods to our iwi through the mandated iwi organisation provisions in this legislation—that is, to deliver to mandated iwi organisations that will ultimately deliver what belongs to the people at the grass roots. That gives me great encouragement, and this House should be proud of it. It is the only time in the history of this nation that legislation like this has been supported by this House, whereby the mechanisms actually deliver to the grass roots of our whānau and our hapū. Since their disenfranchisement in the late 1980s many of our people have been waiting, pēnei i te kāwau nei i runga i te kōhatu—like a shag on the rock. I do not know, Mr Speaker, whether you have seen a shag on the rock but, usually, that bird is waiting for a fish to jump—e tatari ana kia peke te takeke; waiting for the piper to jump. I say to this House that the waiting is now over. The piper has jumped, and the kāwau has flown.

I want to commend, to congratulate, and to acknowledge the contribution of my colleagues on the select committee, and specifically our chairperson Russell Fairbrother. He has been a good chairman and put up with a lot of argy-bargy. I do not want to say that in Māori, because somebody might ask me to interpret what I really mean. Russell Fairbrother has been a very fair chairman. I know that my colleague Phil Heatley knows more about this bill than his colleague Gerry Brownlee. I invite Gerry Brownlee to go on to one of the waka one day, go out fishing, and understand what fishing is all about. I will have to raise the Titanic, and I am sorry about that, but we do not have a waka big enough for the deputy leader of the Opposition.

This is a big day for Māoridom. I am glad to be here this evening to share this day with our kaumātua colleagues, the commission, and Sir Tīpene O’Regan. I hope that at the end of this session we will all be invited to a bit of a celebration, where members of this House can taste the cuisine of the Māori quota—crayfish and its delicacies. Nō reira me mutu āku kōrero.

[So, I must end my remarks here.]

I would even invite Ken Shirley. I know that the generosity of our people will invite him, even though he wants to sell everything. That is the reason why he does not support this legislation.

Nā reira, tū atu ana ki konei ki tēnei o ngā whare ki te mihi whānui atu ki a koutou katoa. Whakarongo mai te iwi Māori, ko tēnei te rā whakahirahira, whakanui puta noa i tō tātou motu. Huri ana, tēnā koutou, ā, tēnā koutou, kia ora mai anō tātou katoa. Kia ora tātou.

[And so I stand here to acknowledge you all broadly. I want you the Māori people to take heed. This is a significant and important day for us throughout our country. So greetings and greetings to you throughout, and greetings indeed to all of us. Thank you all.]

Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National): Tēnā koutou katoa. I am very pleased to follow my colleague the Hon Dover Samuels, and I agree with him that this is a great day for Māori, but it is also a good day for this House, as well. I do not think we should ever forget that these things come to pass because, ultimately, some people in this Parliament see the rightness of doing these sorts of things. We do not have to pat ourselves on the back, but we need to remind New Zealanders that in making these things come to pass on their behalf, we set ourselves apart in the world for dealing in a very open and honest way with issues that are quite difficult, and we have seen some of the difficulty occur in recent times.

I want to acknowledge the leadership that concluded the fisheries settlement of 1992, because it is that settlement that is the basis of the legislation before us today. Obviously, I cannot name all of the leaders who were involved, but there are, first of all, two who have passed on whom I want to name—Sir Robert Māhuta and the Hon Matiu Rata. I understand that, along with Sir Tīpene O’Regan, they were the leading negotiators on the Māori side.

On the political side, I think we are probably all quite chuffed to see in the House this afternoon the Hon Koro Wētere, the Hon Doug Kidd, and the Hon Doug Graham. They are sitting there like the trifecta. I suppose they have reason to feel a little bit pleased, as well. I understand that politics were not an issue at the time that they were negotiating the fisheries settlement with Māori, and I kind of think that it might have been quite good to be around at that time because these days politics is the only issue is it not? I want to acknowledge those gentlemen.

Clearly, political leadership on both sides of the House made sure that that Māori fisheries settlement was concluded, and it is political leadership today that makes sure that this legislation is passed through into law.

During the Committee stage National was certainly unhappy with the legislation as it stands, but there is a good reason that we support it. My colleagues have already referred to that, and I referred to those things in my first reading speech. It is in relation to a recognition that was there in 1992. It was an issue of settling the past and re-uniting Māori with their property right in the fish. However, this asset represents a huge economic go-forward plank for Māori, and if it does that for Māori, then it does it for the country as a whole.

One of the things we can give some credit to Te Ohu Kai Moana for is the way it has managed the assets in the meantime. We have now reached the stage where Aotearoa Fisheries Ltd, Sealord’s, is a major player in the sector. It is recognised nationally and internationally. Now that the assets are to be allocated in part to their rightful owners, Māori, and the other part to a conglomerate sitting at the top in the form of a big company, Aotearoa Fisheries Ltd, then we can only hope that the economic potential that was recognised in 1992 will, indeed, be realised once this framework that the legislation sets out is put into place.

But I cannot let this opportunity pass without expressing major disappointment that after 11 years or so of a forum finding a way to allocate these significant assets, we have a framework here that National believes is overly bureaucratic; it is convoluted to some degree, more so than is necessary, it separates the true owners, Māori, from their asset by about six layers, and my colleague Phil Heatley referred to the fact that as introduced the legislation created a huge number of hoops for Māori people to jump through, without a corresponding accountability lying in either Aotearoa Fisheries Ltd or Te Ohu kai Moana Trustee Ltd. Work in the select committee has improved that, but to my mind the bill is essentially still a disappointment.

Yes, the commission has obviously worked hard, and so have Māori. Sure, there has been a lot of litigation in 11 years. The stakes are high, but after all of that, we still come to a framework that probably resembles a framework that one would expect a Labour Party policy team to put together, rather than Māori.

As I say, the assets must go out. I am certain that that is why, in the end, Māori were willing to make the compromise they did, because they knew that those assets must go to them. It is just a pity that a significant proportion of the assets will still be tied up with this sort of central controlling body. My colleagues are right in the sense that this will probably come back to us, because Māori will want to be set free. It is a little bit of a cage that they have been put into here. It is like they have been treated as though they are witless. Clearly, they are not. There is a huge booming Māori economy out there that should suggest to the Labour Government that the kind of framework that holds Māori back to this degree is not appropriate. In any event, it is a good day in the sense that there is the potential for the creation of economic wealth and economic prosperity, and that is why we support the bill.

NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Tainui): Ā, e kore e mutu ngā mihi ki a rātou mā kua huri ki tua o te ārai, heke iho mai ki a tātou e huihui mai nei i tēnei rangi, ā, tēnā tātou katou.

[The acknowledgments to those who have passed on and indeed to us gathered here today will never end, so greetings to us all.]

I rise to speak to the third reading and the passing of the Maori Fisheries Bill. This legislation puts to rest over 10 years of dispute and consultation amongst iwi and Māori. It is probably the most significant legislation to be passed into law in the last 100 years, and it heralds a new way forward. Not all Māori will be happy with the outcome, but then, not all Māori supported the settlement. None the less, all Māori should benefit from the business and activity of fishing that this legislation will effect.

A moment of history was reached in 1992, but most certainly events leading to that point should be a poignant memory for all New Zealanders who saw the beginning of a real desire to just get on with it. Much of the debate today is academic. The fisheries settlement was about real people, real fish, real benefits going back to iwi, and going forward.

I acknowledge here today the Hon Koro Wētere, the Hon Doug Kidd, and the Hon Doug Graham. They have many stories to tell tonight, and I am sure we will hear a lot of them. I also acknowledge the original negotiators, some of whom have been mentioned. Those who are here today include Sir Tipene O’Regan and Sir Graham Latimer. I also acknowledge those who not here today—significantly, the late Hon Matiu Rata and the late Robert Māhuta, my father. Their efforts have not been in vain, and their vision is, as it was when it was achieved, timeless: to see a strong economic platform for Māori advancement and development.

One of the more contentious issues in the legislation was the provision for the disaggregation of iwi and their quota. That matter was raised by submitters, and, after a great deal of consideration, the committee agreed to such measures. However, it should be noted that it will be a challenge in an already fractious political environment for Māori and iwi organisations to retain, and maintain, collective fisheries interests in larger groupings. I anticipate that much effort will go into retaining collective interests, and accountability standards will certainly go up to meet the needs of tribal members, and that is how it should be. The select committee process, in particular, was a genuine attempt to work through the issues of iwi recognition, accountability of corporate entities and mandated iwi organisations back to tribal members, and intergenerational retention of property rights, all of which are contained within the legislation.

Particular thanks should go to the Ministry of Fisheries’ advisers, led by Terry Lynch, to the clerk of the committee, to Parliamentary Counsel Office, to Briar Gordon, whose work was invaluable, and to our independent adviser, Tim Castle, who helped the committee get its head around the issues presented in the legislation. There was constructive debate across, and along, the table about some of the real contentious issues, but the desire really just to see Māori get on with it and do things for themselves, was genuine. I particularly acknowledge members of the Opposition, because, without their constructive input and support, we would not have reached a number of the conclusions that we came to—namely, Phil Heatley, Georgina te Heuheu, and Pita Paraone. The genuine attempt to get to something just to kick it off could not have been achieved without that type of support. I also acknowledge Larry Baldock.

I am sure that the ebb and flow of the tide will present many challenges to Te Ohu Kai Moana in its new revamped form, its fisheries companies, and the iwi fisheries companies. And so we have it—a waka ready to be launched so the new net can go fishing. In time, I look forward to when the safety ropes can be taken off.

He iti anō tāku mō tēnei kaupapa kei mua i a tātou i tēnei wā, nō reira, tēnā tātou katoa.

[This is just my little contribution towards the bill before us today, so greetings to all of us.]

Maori Fisheries Bill read a third time.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Te Ture Whenua Maori Amendment Bill (No 2) / Maori Land Bill (No 2) be now read a third time.

Ayes 102

New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1.

Noes 15

Green Party 6; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata.

Bill read a third time.

Bills

Public Records Bill

First Reading

Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister responsible for Archives New Zealand): I move, That the Public Records Bill be now read a first time. At the appropriate time I will move that the bill be referred to the Government Administration Committee. This bill repeals the Archives Act and the document and archive provisions in Part 17 of the Local Government Act 1974. It reflects the changes in technology, legislation, and record-keeping practices that have occurred in the last half-century. Public records provide evidence of Government activities and are a key component of ensuring public accountability. They enhance democracy by informing citizens about issues, decision-making processes, and results. They also contribute to who we are as a nation by recording people’s experiences with Government. The growth of email and the Internet has created a new set of challenges, including the erosion of administrative record-keeping practises and the increasing complexity of recording business transactions. The bill addresses those challenges by establishing record-keeping requirements for public offices and local authorities.

Archives New Zealand was established as a stand-alone Government department in 2000. The Government strengthened the role of Archives New Zealand to enable it to provide leadership, to set standards for consistent and effective record-keeping, and to enhance communication between agencies. Public records are a key component of ensuring that Governments are accountable to society for decisions made and actions taken. Public records provide essential evidence of people’s rights and entitlements, the actions of Governments—both positive and negative—since 1840, and record a history of individuals, whānau, communities, and society as a whole. Good record-keeping within Governments improves the accountability of Government institutions by providing reliable evidence of their decisions, actions, and interactions.

Public archives are a tremendously rich resource of evidence about our collective past. They enhance New Zealanders’ sense of national identity by enabling us to piece together the ever-changing story of who we are and how we got here. Archives New Zealand has holdings of 80,000 linear metres of textual records, 750,000 photographs, 300,000 maps and plans, 1,300 works of art, comprising the New Zealand war-art collection, and 20,000 motion picture reels. Archives New Zealand is also custodian—and I notice the empty gallery—of the Treaty of Waitangi and the women’s suffrage petition.

Since the Archives Act was passed in 1957, the Official Information Act and the Privacy Act have come into being. They also provide systems for accessing and managing Government information. The Public Records Bill clarifies how those other Acts interface with the archives legislation. We have also seen the establishment of State-owned enterprises and Crown-owned companies, which have resulted in ambiguity about what agencies are covered by the Archives Act. The bill addresses this. It provides a broad definition of public office, and a mechanism to encompass any future governance models. The bill creates a record-keeping framework that will ensure that public records are managed appropriately until their authorised disposal. Disposal is a technical term in this context; it means the transfer to Archives New Zealand for permanent preservation or destruction.

The bill also ensures that there is broad coverage of the activities of Government and that public archives will be accessible. Transparent processes give the Government and the public confidence that the evidence of the Government’s actions contained in public records is properly managed. The policy for records of local authorities is similar to the framework for central government, but will reflect their community focus and autonomy from central government. This means that local authorities are not subject to the reporting or auditing requirements of the bill.

The following are key provisions. The bill confirms the duty of the Chief Archivist to exercise leadership in record-keeping in public offices and in the management of public archives in New Zealand. The bill continues the authority of the Chief Archivist to decide which Government records may be destroyed or otherwise disposed of and confirms independence from ministerial directive in discharging this duty. The bill will apply across the broad public sector to include not only public service departments but also tertiary institutions, State schools, district health boards and other Crown entities, State-owned enterprises, and offices of Parliament—amongst others. The bill provides a broad definition of records and confirms the inclusion of electronic records and non-textual media.

The bill recognises that there is a legitimate interest in decisions made about record-keeping in Government. It establishes an Archives Council, which will advise the Minister on archives and record-keeping matters. Two members of this council must have knowledge of tikanga Māori to ensure that Māori views are taken into account. There are increased consultation expectations imposed on the Chief Archivist, including a requirement for public comment to be sought on disposal recommendations. The bill continues the role of the Chief Archivist in protecting and providing access to Government records that have long-term value and that need to be kept permanently as archives. Such archives must come under the Chief Archivist’s control after 25 years, but this can happen earlier by agreement. The right of the public to inspect such archives, free of charge, is confirmed.

Where there are reasons for controlling access to public archives, such as protection of privacy, this is protected; and the public office that transferred the archives will make decisions on access according to relevant legislation, such as the Official Information Act and the Privacy Act. There will be occasions when public archives are better kept by the office that created them—for example, some specialised electronic records. The bill is flexible enough to allow these arrangements, while ensuring the archives are protected according to standards set by the Chief Archivist. Disposal decisions made under the Archives Act will remain valid through a transition provision. They will also apply to access decisions and other arrangements made for the transfer of archives to Archives New Zealand, and those also continue as if they were made under the provisions of the bill.

The bill confirms that the Chief Archivist has a role in fostering archival capacity within the community and in facilitating access to archives. The bill sets a context in which the Treaty of Waitangi is to apply in public record-keeping and specifies what actions need to be undertaken in order to comply. I commend the bill to the House.

Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National): I am pleased to stand to speak to the Public Records Bill. National will support the bill going to the Government Administration Committee. However, we certainly want to have a good look at it when it is before that committee. There are one or two issues we will have some questions about during that stage, and we will probably seek advice on them, as well.

National agrees with the underlying principle driving the bill. The purpose, as the Minister said, is to create a record-keeping framework for Government records, and we support that. Over recent years it has become so much more important that we as New Zealanders make sure that a proper record of our history is in our archives and that we properly recognise those things that are distinct and unique to us in our identity as New Zealanders. Legislative provisions that date back to 1947, given advances in technology alone, make it necessary for us now to have a look at this very important area of activity.

I want to raise a couple of points relating to some of National’s concerns. The Minister referred to the Treaty of Waitangi clause, and I acknowledge that this seems to be a new approach to issues around the treaty. I remember that when the Government was passing its health legislation in 2001—I am not quite sure about the date—a general treaty clause was proposed. I asked at the time why we should not, rather than having a generic treaty clause—which ultimately always seemed to lead to litigation, or which, on another view of it, may mean nothing at all—judge what it is we want to protect, then specifically spell that out. It seems to me that clause 7 does that. It states: “In order to recognise and respect the Crown’s responsibility to take appropriate account of the Treaty of Waitangi …”, then sets out what is sought to be protected.

For instance, paragraph (a) of clause 7 states that clause 11 requires the Chief Archivist to ensure that processes are in place for consulting Māori. I am not saying that we necessarily agree with that, because the issue of consultation in a range of legislation seems to have gone a bit overboard; none the less, it sets out what is considered important in respect of treaty obligations in this case. Paragraph (b) states that clause 14 requires that at least two members of the Archives Council have a knowledge of tikanga Māori, and paragraph (d) states that clause 26 recognises that an iwi-based or hapū-based repository may be approved as a repository where public archives may be deposited for safe keeping. That is interesting, and I look forward to receiving some advice from the officials in the select committee as to how that is to work and about what it actually means. It is important to recognise that many hapū and iwi have frameworks or processes whereby they keep things they consider to be of value, not just to themselves but to us as New Zealanders. So it is likely that that is an appropriate provision, as well.

As I say, National is particularly interested in clause 7. For myself, I am interested to see that it takes a different approach to the treaty and spells out what it is that the Government thinks ought to be protected, as against having some nebulous treaty clause, which, over the years, has come to mean not a hang of a lot, in some cases.

The other area is the interface between official information and public records. Under the Official Information Act, it is not an offence to destroy official information, yet the definitions of official information and public records seem to overlap. So there seems to be a gap there. If that is not the case, then we will find out soon enough. I listened to the Minister’s speech, but I do not expect that an issue such as that would necessarily be traversed in a first reading speech. I just flag with her that we possibly have an issue there, as well.

There is one other area I would like to raise, because one of my colleagues had a group come to him with an issue that touches on the Privacy Act. Archives are a record that belongs to us all after a certain time, and the bill constantly mentions access. There are people whose lifelong work, or whose job or profession, is in archival research. In fact, a lot of what we will do in the future, and the decisions we make today for the future, are based on that as well. A concern has been raised that in this bill an attempt may be made to try to restrict access, to the point where privacy issues unnecessarily impinge upon legitimate archival research. That is an area of real concern. We would not want to see that happen, and we will be scrutinising the bill’s provisions to ensure it does not. Otherwise, we certainly support the thrust of the bill. It is in the interest of all New Zealanders to make sure we have a good process for keeping records. Ostensibly, this bill appears to do that.

JIM PETERS (NZ First): It is a sign of the maturity of the country when we begin to take into account and give high regard to our past. Therefore, New Zealand First supports the Public Records Bill going to the select committee. Apparently 20 years ago, I am told, such a bill was in the House, and it may be that this bill will have a similar fate. In 1984 this very matter was being discussed, and someone called a general election. Fate intervened, and 20 years later it is back here with us. I am not necessarily saying that that will be the fate of this bill, because it deserves a much better fate than that.

In looking through the years and with the knowledge of modern technology, it may be that we can say that this bill comes in the fullness of time. We have today the ability to store and restore documents and records, and a far greater knowledge of how they can be preserved long term. We see the immense value of a systematic approach, not only for central government but also for local government, in the way these matters are taken in hand. For future researchers, would-be historians, planners, and so on, this bill in time, when it is implemented and put into practice, should be a ready source of easier access. That brings me to one of the issues we do see, which is that access is maintained and is there, with some qualifications.

However, the issue in this bill that really intrigues me is that for the first time, as the Hon Georgina te Heuheu has just said, there is a properly constructed purpose clause about the Treaty of Waitangi—at long last. New Zealand First has called for that over the years, and has talked about the Treaty of Waitangi clause being—to use the old-fashioned historian’s phrase—“high-sounding nothing”, in Metternich’s words. But at long last, a bill has arrived in the House with a treaty clause that expands and sets out with clarity what that clause means for this bill with regard to the issue of public records. We in New Zealand First are pleased to see that.

Clause 7 states, in relation to the functions of the Chief Archivist and the Archives Council, what advice will guide them with regard to tikanga Māori. It also picks up the fact that there may be some unique methods of record-keeping—and there are, of course. Last of all, it states that hapū or iwi may have places where those records may reside. In respect of that, I would hope that the same access procedures are able to be carried out wherever those records reside.

We have worked through the provisions relating to functions and duties, and they seem to us to be eminently sensible and straightforward. I will not take the time of the House much longer, but I say that we hope those issues that are not so clear on first reading will become a matter of concern at the select committee. Specialists always find unique matters that are of particular and peculiar concern to them, and if those specialists are out there, we hope they will come readily to the select committee and help to put together what looks to be a sound bill, and a bill that will preserve for the future a more adequate knowledge of the past.

IAN EWEN-STREET (Green): I am presenting this speech on behalf of my colleague Keith Locke, who cannot be with us today. The Green Party will be supporting this bill. It establishes a more systematic approach to the keeping and disposal of public records, even though it still gives too much leeway to Ministers to withhold documents from the archives.

Laudably, the bill strives to achieve collection in the archives of all appropriate public documents. The new body, Archives New Zealand, will be an independent Crown entity, and there will be an advisory Archives Council. The Chief Archivist will be independent and not subject to ministerial direction. The Chief Archivist has the power to issue mandatory guidelines covering the retention and disposal of public records, and may direct local government to preserve particular records. The Chief Archivist will also arrange for independent audits of record-keeping in Government offices. There will be more a independent, systematic, and transparent approach to archive collection.

It is also good that the archives will be open to the public free of charge, although public users may have to pay photocopying costs. Free access is important because we want to encourage historical research, and the fact is that many of our amateur historians do not have much money. They are doing it for love, not profit. Many of them are retired and are living on a pension, but the product of their labours is often of great worth to the community.

Researchers get very frustrated when key materials are not in the archives or they are shut out by restrictive access rules. This is not a new problem, but wording in the new bill gives Ministers and heads of Government departments a lot of discretion in keeping material out of the public domain. It is good that there is a general provision in clause 21 for the mandatory transfer of public records after 25 years. However, this provision is immediately qualified by clause 22, which gives Ministers, after consultation with the archives Minister, the power to defer the transfer of records for any period determined by the Minister, and then gives the Minister the power to renew that deferral at any later time for any further period. The Minister can refuse to transfer documents that might prejudice security. In reality, there is little that will prejudice security 25 years after the fact, other than the identities of still-under-Government operatives. Twenty-five years ago the cold war was still raging, and Muldoon was still in power.

After 25 years, Ministers may well prevent the release of material, not for real security reasons but to protect their departments from public embarrassment. For example, I have recently received, under the Official Information Act, and at the end of quite a few requests, a memo dated 28 July 1975 from one Brian Lynch, writing on behalf of the Secretary of Foreign Affairs. It reported on a meeting Mr Lynch had with the then Fretilin secretary-general, and now East Timorese Foreign Minister, Mr Jose Ramos Horta. In the memo, the secretary admits without any qualms that he lied to Mr Horta. In paragraph 4, he writes that: “Despite the confidence we displayed to the contrary, we are sure that the Indonesians have not in fact dismissed the possibility of achieving integration by force if they consider the situation requires it.” At the same time, Mr Lynch said to Mr Horta that: “He was sure that at senior Indonesian Government level, armed intervention had been ruled out.” That is, 4 months out from the Indonesian invasion, the New Zealand Government knew that it was on the cards, yet lied about it to the East Timorese. According to the documents, the content of the Lynch/Horta discussion was then passed on to the Indonesians.

We are not just talking about a ministry being embarrassed for its dishonesty. Taken together with all the other East Timor documents released in recent years, they show that the invasion of East Timor and all the agony that followed may have been avoided if the New Zealand and Australian Governments had stood up and been counted in 1975. Instead, they collaborated with the Indonesian regime, and covered it up. At the end, they wanted to keep friendly relations with the Suharto Government, even if it meant sacrificing the East Timorese people.

That is where the bill is dangerous in another way, in that one of the grounds for a Minister not transferring documents is that doing so might “prejudice international relations of the Government of New Zealand”. I argue that making public the documents on our disastrous past relations with the Indonesian dictatorship actually improves our relationship with the modern democratic forces in that country. Bureaucrats in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade may have the opposite view, and the Minister may well act on their advice.

Whatever the outcome of that argument, the Minister can fall back on the third reason in the bill for refusing transfer of documents, which is that the transfer might “prejudice the entrusting of information” to New Zealand by a foreign Government. To continue with my Indonesia illustration, it may well be argued that we cannot release the East Timor documents because there are letters and cables in them that the Indonesian Government wants to keep secret. At first sight, any undue restrictions might be countered by the Chief Archivist’s right under the bill to inspect records held by a department. However, the Chief Archivist’s access to any classified or restricted material can be vetoed by the head of the relevant department.

To give members an idea of the outrageous restrictions that can be imposed, let us look at the Security Intelligence Service, which says that information on SIS staff cannot be released until 100 years after their deaths. Technical information on SIS operations also has a 100-year time limit, and subject files, a 50-year limit. It is precisely the most embarrassing and controversial parts of our history that we can learn the most from. An error understood is an error not repeated. How can we really learn from what the SIS may have done wrong, if we have to wait 50 or 100 years, by which time all the people who could enlighten us are well in their graves?

We need procedures to stop unnecessary delays in transferring material to the archives. The Australian Law Reform Commission, for example, has proposed independent review bodies to stop material staying classified well beyond the normal archives deadline. It says that those reviews should continue at 5-year intervals. The commission has hit the nail on the head when it says that: “Information must not be classified for extraneous reasons—for example, to conceal breaches of the law, inefficiency, or administrative error; to prevent embarrassment to a person, organisation, or agency.”

One might argue that we have the Official Information Act process with recourse to the Ombudsman, which applies to most information still held by Government departments, and that is a useful fallback. But for historians, that is always of limited use, because it is often hard to know exactly what to ask for in documents one has never seen, and departmental officials are used to playing sophisticated games with the inquirer. In any case, someone writing an interesting history is looking for the unexpected; something that he or she did not know about, and would not think to ask for.

Open archives are much more valuable for such research. There is one reason why we do not want many outs for the Ministers and top bureaucrats in the Public Records Bill. Hopefully, we will see several contributions from researchers, historians, and lawyers in the select committee process to address any of the bill’s weaknesses in that respect.

STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT): I rise for the ACT party in this first reading of the Public Records Bill, which, as the Minister introducing it believes, shows an increasing respect or reverence for our history, in what she calls the ever-changing story of who we are and how we got here. A speech like that on a bill that most members would consider very technical, dry, and non-contentious, is a chance to reflect.

I have to say that I enjoy history. I love the magazine that we get from Antrim House every month or two. I even confess to enjoying Sounds Historical—and I can see a lip curling on the other side of the House because Mr Hughes would consider that that was a typical fogeyish pleasure—and I really do enjoy historical tourism. I can spend days in museums.

But I worry about this bill. I worry about the preoccupation of New Zealand with its history, and I worry about the claim that that shows some form of maturity. Exploring a contentious or glorious past, examining our navels over and over again, and taking enormous care about recording our history might actually be quite irrelevant if, in fact, we are too immaterial or irrelevant a people for anyone, including our children, to even stay around. Let us think about the times one goes on foreign travels to see those mysterious and vast ruins and jungles of Asia, or artefacts in South America and so many other places where people have lived for thousands of years and transformed the landscape. But nothing is remembered, and the reason—completely unlike the history of, say, the United Kingdom, Rome, or many of the countries dominant in the world today—is simply that history is irrelevant if the people who think it is important are no longer relevant.

I worry that we will put a great deal of effort into keeping archives, when we have, in fact, lost respect for the truth—respect for the idea that it really does matter what we are storing. Even the casual phrase the Minister used to introduce this bill: “the ever-changing story of who we are and how we got here”, has been changing because of political correctness. It has been changing because parts of our history are inconvenient. It does not matter how good our archives are, if we think—as Dr Michael Bassett recently told us the Waitangi Tribunal thinks—that history should be at the service of modern politics, and that rewriting the story is OK if it serves a valuable purpose. If we can decry the efforts and good intentions of our forebears because we now hold different values, then there is not much point in having a really flash Archives Act or public records legislation, and in storing it all. If we really have become insignificant, our songs and stories will pass into dust, whatever we do to try to preserve them.

I also worry about this bill because I wonder who will bother to read most of the stuff. The attention span of our audiences is about 15 seconds for most items of what is considered important news. I contrast that with, say, the Dominion of only 50 years ago, which could have had tens of column inches reporting a debate on a significant topic and properly reporting the nuances of each member’s speech. We were a more serious people. Maybe the Pope is right—if we are to spend our time in playing sport and being entertained, then there is not much point in keeping enormous records. [Interruption] Maybe he has a record!

Worse, we do not believe in history when we pass legislation like the Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Act, which was passed this year, and under which the Government instructs probably around 700,000 New Zealanders to lie about their past. What use is public records legislation and a pretended respect for history when the Government passed a bill only 6 months ago that says to 700,000 New Zealanders that when they are asked about a criminal record, they should lie and say they do not have one. It is absolutely hypocritical for us as a people to be doing that.

It is really interesting how things disappear by rewriting history in that way, simply because—and here is the justification that was offered—it shows compassion and it is proper to forgive. How significant is it—of what worth is it—to oblige local authorities all over the country to keep their records for 25 years when, if the records become inconvenient and offend someone, the ethos of the Government we have now is to wipe them, suppress them, make sure they are rewritten, pretend they do not exist, and airbrush them?

That is what happens when we show, through a Government measure, the truth that history does not matter. It may seem a bit of stretch to raise the matter of the Public Records Bill in relation to the clean slate legislation the Government forced through such a short time ago, but I believe that it shows a deep hypocrisy in the elite, ruling classes of this country when they can pretend such respect for history towards things that do not matter, then pass a law to instruct people to lie about things that do matter.

I also sound a note of caution that there are some pretty broad discretions in this bill, about declaring things as having to be compulsorily stored. We should remember just how hard it is now to store things. Really interesting things disappear. I am sure we have all had the experience of losing a document we have worked on for a very long time. It vanishes because electronic storage is hard for us to understand and control—and that is the situation when we really want to keep a document. How accurate will our future records be—of what we really thought and meant—when electronic records will be so easily culled, and for good reason? People will simply not want ever to dredge through an awful lot of the material now being generated in a modern bureaucracy, including material of a modern local authority.

So I ask the select committee when it looks at this bill to consider and keep in mind the reality of trying to require people to guard and protect records that they do not think are important at the time, when it is quite possible that the records that really matter—the records that show what was really thought and why things were really done—will be ephemeral or transitory. Such records can be removed or may not even be kept.

The other thing I was struck by was the Green member’s contribution that the unintended consequence of trying to force more openness than the actors in an event would want, is that they simply will not keep records. In relation to the Official Information Act, we have already had something of that effect. People do not keep minutes they do not want disclosed. Even that record from 1974 of the deliberately deceptive comment to the Fretilin member in East Timor, referred to in the Green member’s speech, may well not have been kept today, because it would be known that a record like that would be accessible under the Official Information Act.

So we should not think there are free lunches; we should not think there are costless solutions. I hope the select committee, when it looks at this bill, remembers that if it imposes any significant or too heavy obligations, the likely result will be that the record will either never be created or will mysteriously disappear. The difficulty of telling whether it is a mysterious and unintended disappearance or a deliberate disappearance will be too great for anyone to revisit. I hope the select committee will be realistic in looking at this bill, worthy though its intentions are.

BERNIE OGILVY (United Future): I just want to take a brief call in the first reading of the Public Records Bill. United Future wishes to see this bill go through to the select committee. By and large, we are quite impressed with both the content and purposes of this bill. We have been alerted to a history that has occurred over the last 47 years, and it is probably good at this stage to bring it into the 21st century with an appropriate update and empowerment in terms of record-keeping. To that end, we are very happy to see this bill progress.

On the other hand, as others have pointed out, areas of concern have been raised. The select committee in doing its task will probably look at those, and I hope will seriously consider some of the matters that have already been raised.

There are a couple of other matters that I would like to bring to the attention of the Minister and the select committee. One has to do with clause 14, which deals with the Archives Council. The clause states what the composition of the council ought to be, and subclause (3)(b) insists that there are at least two people on it who have a knowledge of tikanga Māori. I do not think anyone should have any problem with that, but I am concerned that it may be limiting when we compare it with clause 7 that talks about the well-defined Treaty of Waitangi rights and purposes.

There are other great peoples and languages in New Zealand. For instance, not too long ago we were looking at the role of the Chinese population as a wave of workers in our country, and this Parliament has made an apology to that population over some of the issues that took place. If I recall correctly, we made a clear statement to the Chinese people that we wanted to honour them.

I am sure, then, that some of the archiving of our history will require the use of other linguistic skills. Therefore, we need people on the Archives Council—or at least access to such people written into that clause—who can understand the languages of some of the other groups that have settled in New Zealand—Yugoslavs come to mind. It may be that we should not limit that clause just to the current position; so I would like the select committee to look at who is required to be on the council.

Other clauses worth looking at that I want to draw to the attention of the select committee are clauses 61 and 62—in particular, clause 62, which deals with penalties. I wonder whether the amounts of the fines—in the case of an individual $2,000, and in every other case a maximum of $5,000—will be adequate deterrents, and whether they will help in maintaining archives in New Zealand. Certainly, I think that that value system should be looked at.

It is on that note of referring those items to the attention of the select committee that I say on behalf of United Future that this bill is really worthwhile for our nation. I commend it to the next stage.

LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako): National also will support this bill going to the select committee. The Minister responsible for Archives New Zealand identified the purposes and objectives of the bill, and we have no difficulty with them. However, we do have some concerns about the proposition that I will flag now, and we will be looking closely at what submitters have to say when they have the opportunity to make their submissions.

The major issues that we contend need to be looked at more closely include the Treaty of Waitangi clause, which specifically identifies what are treaty issues rather than normal forms of the wording. We will have to pursue that further. The second point is the interface between official information and public records under the Official Information Act. It is not an offence to destroy official information, yet the definitions of “official information” and “public record” seem to overlap.

So there are some concerns. I note the Minister is still in the House. Those two areas are of concern to us, but I also note the work that was done way back in the earlier days when submissions took place in 2000 and 2001. I have here the submissions on the draft discussion paper on the proposed bill. They date back to June 2001. A number of issues were raised at that time. I will not ask the Minister about them now, because I know the time will come during the select committee stage and the Committee of the whole House.

I want to flag that a number of issues and concerns were expressed. Submitters were concerned that not enough time was spent in going through this. The No. 1 concern was that the process leading to the development and circulation of the draft discussion paper did not permit sufficient time for stakeholders to fully debate the issues raised. The ad hoc committee was convened to debate the proposition that was ultimately circulated. The result posed more questions than it answered. It is a very telling point that the result posed more questions than it answered and was short on firm proposals.

So I now flag to the Minister and officials that there are a number of questions we will want answers to. During the select committee stage an organisation like the Archives and Records Association of New Zealand will hopefully be a submitter, along with others. I have a list of those who made proposals to the draft proposition.

I am also specifically concerned about the carry-through into the bill from the existing legislation, the Archives Act. Specifically, I am looking at section 16(2) of the Act, which requires the preparation of schedules of classes of public archives that are considered to be suitable for destruction, and section 16(1), which permits the Chief Archivist to authorise the immediate destruction of any specified classes of public archives. That is an area that, along with section 17—in particular, section 17(2)—requires lists to be prepared of specified public archives or classes of public archives that are not worth permanent preservation.

At this stage National is happy to support this bill through to a select committee. I know there are some technical issues that will need to be worked through, and we will deal with those at the select committee.

Bill read a first time, and referred to the Government Administration Committee.

The House adjourned at 5.47 p.m.