Thursday, 17 March 2005
Volume 624
Sitting date: 17 March 2005
Thursday, 17 March 2005
Thursday, 17 March 2005
Madam 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 1-week adjournment. When the House resumes on 29 March, priority will be given to the Committee stage of the Appropriation (2003/04 Financial Review) Bill, a 4-hour debate, and the remaining stages of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill. Priority will also be given to any first readings on the Order Paper.
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National): I wonder whether the Leader of the House might tell us how many third readings he currently has on the Order Paper and intends to complete in the next short while, and also whether the much-promised Resource Management Act bill will see the light of day on the Order Paper before the House rises for an event later this year.
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House): I have one third reading on the Order Paper, and I hope to finish it by roughly 5 o’clock today.
Sittings of the House
Sittings of the House
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House): I seek leave for the House to meet on the ringing of the bell on Tuesday, 29 March and Thursday, 31 March, when there are State luncheons for the Prime Ministers of Bahrain and Malaysia.
Madam SPEAKER: There being no objection, that course will be followed.
Points of Order
Chamber—Television Cameras
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Under the Rt Hon Jonathan Hunt, cameras were not allowed to take pictures of Ministers or MPs asleep. I am interested in whether you, as the new Speaker, will be enforcing that rule, or whether that is no longer the rule. Could you please inform the House what the rule on cameras taking pictures of Ministers asleep is and, indeed, what action you have taken?
Madam SPEAKER: I have the matter under consideration. Once I have made a decision, then I shall, of course, inform the House.
Rodney Hide: Madam Speaker, my question to you was quite simple. We have a rule. Is it still the rule? Is the Speaker enforcing it—yes or no?
Madam SPEAKER: The rules have not changed, but I have the specific matter under consideration.
Question No. 5 to Minister, 16 March—Minister’s Replies
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. This is a new matter. I am sorry, but this will undoubtedly save time at question time. I want to raise with you something that happened at question time yesterday and a difficulty we on this side of the House have at question time. I want to take the House back to a supplementary question Heather Roy asked the Minister of Health yesterday. She asked—and I have the Hansard—“How many patients will die of the flu this winter because of this dodgy vaccine?”. It was very clear to the House that she asked how many would die of the flu. The Minister answered that no patients would die because of this dodgy vaccine. Then I asked whether the Minister would stand by that statement.
The Minister then said, with regard to me rewriting the question, that she had said it was not a dodgy vaccine. The Minister had actually said that it was. There was a series of points of order, then the Leader of the House, Michael Cullen, stood up and suggested that we were somehow trying to rewrite Heather Roy’s question, when the question was entirely about people dying of the flu. That meant we had to use another two questions.
On the third question that the ACT party asked, I asked: “How many people will die of the flu this winter because this vaccine does not vaccinate them against all three strains as promised?”. I am sure the House can appreciate that that was the same question. The Minister replied: “I do not have that information”. That meant that she did not know. My point is that that is what takes up a lot of time at question time and a great many points of order. The Minister could have said on the very first question that she did not have the information. It was not helpful that the Leader of the House tried to reinterpret the question. I ask you not to let the Government get away with trying to reinterpret Opposition questions, or forcing Opposition parties that have very little chance to question the Government to burn up their questions as they try to seek clarification.
Madam SPEAKER: The member is effectively debating the Minister’s answers yesterday. It is not a matter that the Speaker can resolve. There are occasions available to do that like the general debate, where that matter could be raised.
Questions for Oral Answer
Questions to Ministers
High-country Land—Tenure Review
1. LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) to the Minister for Land Information: What recent reports has he received on tenure review in the South Island high country?
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister for Land Information): I have received three reports in the last day: a report from Dr Don Brash stating that tenure review is a deliberate land grab; a second report, also from Dr Don Brash, conceding that the Government could not grab land that it already owned; and a third report this morning repeating the fact that it is a deliberate land grab. The gentleman is bewildered.
Lianne Dalziel: What other reports has the Minister seen on how much land is being freeholded or added to the conservation estate from the tenure review process?
Hon PETE HODGSON: I have seen one report from the aforementioned Dr Don Brash, which quoted a figure of at least 60 percent of land that is going into the conservation estate. He is wrong. The figure to date is not 60 percent, but about 35 percent. When advised of his error, he blamed runholders for giving him the wrong figures.
Simon Power: Has the Minister received any further reports, including a copy of the Department of Conservation’s last annual report indicating that the department failed to meet 21 out of 35 self-imposed performance targets in the area of the management of natural heritage, and does he think the department should concentrate on its core business of meeting those targets, rather than managing the South Island high country?
Hon PETE HODGSON: I do not receive those reports, because I am not the Minister of Conservation. However, it is my view that the Department of Conservation has a mandate far broader than just making sure that we do not lose endangered species. I would say to the member that improving access to the high country for the trampers and walkers of our nation is a good idea, not a bad one.
Rod Donald: Does the Minister agree with the submission made by the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society to the Finance and Expenditure Committee yesterday that the sale of Crown-owned pastoral leases to overseas interests should be prohibited, and that at the very least the tenure review process should be completed before any sale to overseas interests proceeds; if not, why not?
Hon PETE HODGSON: The member will be aware that the Overseas Investment Bill, currently before a select committee, proposes a somewhat more effective regime in this regard. I trust that the member will support it.
Hon Peter Dunne: Has the Minister seen comments made yesterday by Dr Hugh Barr for the Council of Outdoor Recreation Associations on the subject of the principal question; if so, what is his reaction to those comments?
Hon PETE HODGSON: Yes, in fact I have. The Council of Outdoor Recreation Associations has said: “Don Brash is way off target with his criticism of pastoral tenure review.” The Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society said: “Brash has an agenda to privatise the high country, and restrict access to it to a privileged few.”
Lianne Dalziel: What reports has he seen on attempts to restrict the role of the Department of Conservation, in light of the answer that he gave to an earlier supplementary question?
Hon PETE HODGSON: One report from Dr Don Brash, who would restrict the Department of Conservation to protecting flora and endangered species, curtail its advocacy role, and give it a new mission statement that would shut out the Department of Conservation from promoting public access to, and enjoyment of, not only the high country, but also our world-renowned network of tracks and huts.
Rodney Hide: Has the Minister seen the reports that the ACT party has not flip-flopped on its policies, that it does consider the land tenure review to be a land-grab, and indeed, right at this moment, Mr Gerrard Eckhoff is out campaigning against this Government’s land-grab along the country’s rivers and waterways, and our members will oppose it, just as we will oppose all the socialism of this Government?
Hon PETE HODGSON: I am delighted to observe that at least on one issue there is now agreement between the National Party and ACT, even if they are both wrong.
Question time interrupted.
Points of Order
Chamber—Absence of Members
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I wonder whether you could advise the House of either one of two things: first, whether the Government fulfilled its quorum requirements for the House today—I notice the very empty Labour back benches; and, secondly, is there some fire alarm that we have not been told about, or perhaps some caucus alarm that we also have not been told about? It is rather extraordinary that more than half of them are absent.
Madam SPEAKER: That is not a point of order.
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I assure Mr Gerry Brownlee that it is not a fire alarm; it is called a general election, and those Māori MPs are busy trying to get back some votes.
Madam SPEAKER: I call question No. 2.
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (ACT): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I think we have an obligation to inform the media on whether they can or cannot take pictures of the fact that the Government back-bench seats are empty. It is no good holding them up for breaking some rule next week if the rule does not apply.
Madam SPEAKER: The media understand the rules, I am sure.
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (ACT): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: I am ruling that the rules remain the same.
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE: I am somewhat behind the media and I do not know what the rules are. Please let me know what they are. Can the media take a photograph of the empty Government back benches, or can they not?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House): I assume the point of order is out of order because he is referring to the absence of members. Otherwise, we would point out that ACT has only four of its nine members present and National has only 16 of its 27—with 11 away. I think you will find the proportions are relatively similar around the House today.
Madam SPEAKER: I think that point has been well canvassed.
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I think the Minister might like to look at the numbers—29 present out of 51 or 52 goes way over the required leave allowance for the Labour Party. Even a dim light like me can see that that is the case. What about some explanation? Where are these people? If they are out there campaigning now, let us all go. If an election date has been declared, tell us what—
Madam SPEAKER: Please sit down, Mr Brownlee. That is not a valid point of order. We will now proceed to question No. 2.
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I think Mr Prebble has raised an important issue about the cameras in the House, because we can clearly see what has happened here. We know that the Labour Government wants to control the cameras in this House. It is very clear that the Government has shifted all its MPs forward so that when the cameras film what they are allowed to film, it looks like it is packed up. It is a deliberate ploy to try to trick the members and they have left all the back benches—
Madam SPEAKER: I have ruled that this is not a point of order.
RODNEY HIDE: It is a point of order.
Madam SPEAKER: Would the member please sit down. Mr Hide, would you please leave the Chamber. You did not sit down when I rose and asked you to. Would you please leave the Chamber.
Rodney Hide: This is a serious issue.
Madam SPEAKER: Would you please leave this Chamber.
Rodney Hide: Madam Speaker—
Madam SPEAKER: I will ask the Serjeant-at-Arms to assist you.
Rodney Hide: This is hopeless. You will not let the cameras go, you will not say what the rules are, and you will not let anyone do their job in here.
Madam SPEAKER: It is my job to rule on what is a point of order and to maintain order.
Rodney Hide withdrew from the Chamber.
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The circumstance that has just contributed to Mr Hide being asked to leave the Chamber is, in my opinion, entirely the problem of the Government. This is question time, where there is the opportunity to question Ministers. Repeatedly over the last 3 years we have seen Ministers offend in the House to a point where they should have been asked to leave. The previous Speaker—and I am sure it will be in the rulings that flow from his tenure—has said that if Ministers are to answer a question later in the proceedings they could stay in the House for that. I ask you to consider allowing Mr Hide to come back into the House to ask question No. 6. It seems to me that where a party has only limited opportunities to ask questions it should be given the full opportunity to ask those questions. Ministers have been accorded this sort of courtesy in the past, and I ask you to consider today allowing Mr Hide to come back to ask his question, question No. 6—which, of course, we know is going to cause the Government considerable embarrassment.
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House): Clearly what happened here, and is continuing to happen, is a series of points of order designed to challenge your authority. I have never seen any situation where a member continues to refuse to obey the Speaker’s ruling and does not end up being thrown out of the House. To now allow the member back in will be essentially to say that there is no real penalty for that persistent bad behaviour, and I am surprised that Mr Brownlee is associating himself with Mr Hide’s behaviour in that respect.
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (ACT): Actually, what we have here is a member raising a point of order—which he or she is entitled to do; members are entitled to have a point of order heard by everyone, including the Speaker—and the Speaker deciding, even though the person raising it was a leader of a party, to rise in the middle of a point of order and then push the member into a position whereby the right to raise a point of order has now been deprived of an Opposition party member. That has not been done by this Speaker to any Government member. Government members have been raising bogus points of order, as was pointed out by Mr Hide yesterday, which actually deprived our party of questions that we wanted to ask. That was not interrupted by the Speaker. However, you have got up now and have created, perhaps unintentionally, the impression that the Government is going to be protected from being asked question No. 6, which asks why its Ministers are seen to be asleep on the job.
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): I want to protest on behalf of New Zealand First at the way the question time has been conducted thus far today. It has been a gross waste of time, as have the points of order, as has the reference to the absence of members. In the case of the ACT members it is very obvious why it is—they are getting used to being out of the House permanently in a few months’ time, and I could say it is the same for the back bench over there. It is 20 past 2, and some of us have to catch an aeroplane. We are just wasting the whole time, and I think it is totally unacceptable.
Madam SPEAKER: The member whom I asked to withdraw had raised a point of order several times. I had ruled on that point of order and he continued to raise that point of order. I now wish to move to question No. 2.
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (ACT): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Thank you for that ruling, but the point is, as the whip of the ACT party, I would like to know whether Mr Hide can come back to ask his question No. 6. Could your ruling make that quite clear, please?
Madam SPEAKER: My ruling is, no, he cannot. The member is responsible for his own behaviour.
Question time resumed.
Questions for Oral Answer
Questions to Ministers
Influenza—Vaccination Programme
2. BARBARA STEWART (NZ First), on behalf of Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First), to the Prime Minister: Does she have confidence that her Minister of Health will ensure that elderly New Zealanders will not die as a consequence of the lack of a suitable supply of flu vaccine?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister), on behalf of the Prime Minister: I have confidence that the Minister is doing everything in her power to ensure that the health authorities obtain as much flu vaccine as possible.
Barbara Stewart: At what point did Pharmac discover that the Sanofi Pasteur vaccine was only half the required strength for protection against the Wellington strain of the flu?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I do not have information as to when the company discovered that. All I have here is information about when it informed us. The Minister was advised of the actual problem on 7 March. Almost immediately steps were taken to secure alternative vaccine supplies.
Dr Paul Hutchison: Why has the Prime Minister not asked the Minister of Health to resign, given that the Prime Minister confirmed to the House that Ms King was advised “of the issues” relating to the flu vaccine on 28 February, but Ms King did not make efforts to find out the nature of that vitally important public health issue, by her own admission, until 7 March?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The Minister was advised on 28 February that there was a potential problem with the flu vaccine, but not until 7 March of the exact nature of it. That problem, of course, applies to 70 percent of the supplies in the Southern Hemisphere, which all come from the same company. The Australian Minister is in exactly the same position as our Minister, and no doubt the Australian Labor Party is going through the same performance in the Australian House this week that we are.
Barbara Stewart: Did Sanofi Pasteur give a contractual guarantee that its vaccine would cover the Wellington strain of the flu?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I am not advised whether there was a guarantee. Certainly, it was contracted to provide a vaccine that would meet the Southern Hemisphere requirements, and clearly, as it accepts, this vaccine does not. Obviously, we may look to our remedies in relation to that, and I prefer, therefore, not to comment further.
Barbara Stewart: Is it accurate to say that only 50,000 people will receive the fully effective vaccine within the next few weeks, and that the additional 100,000 doses from Commonwealth Serum Laboratories may not arrive in time to be effective against an early flu outbreak; if so, what confidence can we have in the Government’s ability to deal with any outbreak of a more serious nature, such as bird flu?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: No, the technical advice is that a 2 to 3 week delay in the vaccine is not expected to make much difference, given the pattern of influenza in previous years. In relation to avian flu, of course, no vaccine has yet been developed against it. That matter is being taken up by the World Health Organization as a matter of some urgency.
Dr Paul Hutchison: I seek leave to table a paper published by Pharmac, in which it states that the flu vaccine will be available in New Zealand from 1 March.
Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.
Beneficiaries—Training for Employment
3. SUE BRADFORD (Green) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Does he accept that the provision of training is an important part of assisting people who receive invalids benefits and sickness benefits into the workforce?
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister for Social Development and Employment): Yes. For instance, over 1,000 invalids benefit recipients are receiving a weekly training incentive allowance for support with their study costs. Plus, one of the most important changes that will occur with the shift to the single core benefit is that people’s eligibility for programmes and services, including training, will be determined by their individual circumstances, rather than their benefit category.
Sue Bradford: Is the Minister aware that a sickness or invalids beneficiary needs to have been enrolled as a job seeker for 26 weeks in order to access the training opportunities programme, and is this not a classic catch-22, because to get a sickness or invalids benefit in the first place people will most likely be too sick or too disabled to work?
Hon STEVE MAHAREY: Yes, I am aware of that. It is one of the reasons, however, that we are changing to the new service model that will allow people who perhaps have a disability, but are seeking work, to access services around training much earlier when they are capable of going back to work.
Georgina Beyer: What is the Government doing now to put in place a more proactive approach to helping people who receive invalids benefits and sickness benefits?
Hon STEVE MAHAREY: In addition to the changes I outlined in my primary answer, the new service for sickness and invalids benefits recipients piloted last year is now being rolled out across regions. This includes cutting case manager loads by more than half, addressing medical needs that stand in the way of a return to work, assistance to employers, and tailored career services and skills identification. We have seen from these pilots between a 9 to 17 percent increase so far in people moving back into work.
Judith Collins: Has the Minister seen the statistics that show that there has been a 38 percent increase in the number of sickness and invalids beneficiaries since his Government came to power, and why does he not concentrate on fixing up that mess instead of focusing on continual administrative shuffle-ups like the “new service delivery model” he is introducing right now?
Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I thank the member for that question. I am aware that there was a 94 percent increase in these figures during the time of her Government, and, unlike that Government, we began piloting programmes last year that—and I will repeat this for the member because I like the sound of the figures—we have already seen from the 6-month pilot between a 9 and 17 percent increase in numbers of people going into work.
Sue Bradford: When will the new programme that the Minister has just been talking about actually start, and can he assure training providers and beneficiaries that in future sickness and invalids beneficiaries will be able to access the Training Opportunities Programme despite not having been registered as job seekers for 26 weeks?
Hon STEVE MAHAREY: The pilots started last year—in other words, we started them during 2004—and they are being rolled out this year, and the full new service model rolls out from May.
Sue Bradford: Why is the Government dragging the chain on expanding the Providing Access to Health Solutions programme that, in his own words, offers specially tailored clinical and social support for clients experiencing anxiety, depression, stress, or similar mental health conditions to ensure a speedy return to employment, and when will all the one in five New Zealanders who could benefit from this programme have access to it?
Hon STEVE MAHAREY: We are not dragging the chain. We need to negotiate the provision of service with providers like district health boards. Of course it takes time for them to put those services in place and we will do that as fast as we can.
Sue Bradford: Can the Minister assure the House that he has no plans to introduce work capacity testing of the accident compensation variety for sickness and invalids benefits as a means of classifying them as job seekers; if not, when will he introduce the new tests?
Hon STEVE MAHAREY: In the new model we intend to look at the capacity of individuals to take on part-time or full-time work. The mistake that has been made in the past was to simply categorise people as capable. That was clearly a disaster. But to look at the individual circumstances of a person and his or her capacity is something that has actually been asked for.
Influenza—Vaccination Programme
4. Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) to the Minister of Health: If an early flu hits New Zealand this winter, can she confirm that only 50,000 New Zealanders are likely to have been successfully immunised by the fully effective vaccine, and that the additional 100,000 doses supplied by Commonwealth Serum Laboratories are possibly still months away, thereby putting lives at risk; if not, why not?
Hon PETE HODGSON (Associate Minister of Health), on behalf of the Minister of Health: No. The 2 to 3 week delay in delivery of the vaccine is not expected to make much difference, given the pattern of influenza in previous years.
Dr Paul Hutchison: Why, when so many people’s lives are at risk, did she do nothing for a week but wait for a report, asking no questions, seeking no daily briefings, and demanding no urgent explanation?
Hon PETE HODGSON: It is a matter of record that Pharmac advised the Minister of Health on the evening of 28 February that there may be problems with the influenza vaccine. At that stage it was not clear what the situation was. The next day—1 March, a Tuesday—Pharmac started seeking alternative supplies.
Mark Peck: Who determines the strains that are included in the vaccine?
Hon PETE HODGSON: Each year the World Health Organization determines the strains that are to be included in the vaccines for the Northern and Southern Hemispheres.
Hon Ken Shirley: Since yesterday’s question time has the Minister found out how many New Zealanders’ lives are potentially at risk because of this shonky flu vaccine, and if she has not found out, why should we conclude other than the fact that she simply does not care?
Hon PETE HODGSON: We would expect there would be no lives put at risk, but we will know that with greater clarity next week—[Interruption] We will know that with greater clarity next week—[Interruption]
Madam SPEAKER: Would members please allow the Minister to complete his answer.
Judith Collins: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Are we not allowed to interject during a Minister’s answer? Those interjections were very reasonable, and the Minister was simply putting on an act to try to get some sympathy.
Madam SPEAKER: The odd interjection is permitted, but when they reach a level where it is difficult to hear the question or the answer, that is unacceptable. Would the Minister please repeat his answer.
Hon PETE HODGSON: We would expect further information—to more accurately answer the member’s question—next week, after the advice from the expert advisory group is through.
Hon Peter Dunne: How does the Minister reconcile her fulsome endorsement in the House yesterday of Pharmac’s sole supplier policy, with the fact that, subsequently, Pharmac has instituted an internal inquiry into the sole supplier policy, and bearing in mind that its experience with this vaccine is exactly the same as its botched experience with similar sole supplier practices in respect of gout medication and anaemia preparations, last year?
Hon PETE HODGSON: I am delighted that Pharmac shows the flexibility to look at its practices. However, should it decide to go for a multi-supplier future it will, of course, have a multi-increased chance of failure of one of the products.
Dr Paul Hutchison: Was she aware of the problem the Americans had 6 months ago with the supply of their vaccines, and what actions did she take at the time to assure herself that she could protect our nation’s vulnerable with adequate supplies here in New Zealand?
Hon PETE HODGSON: I regret I do not have the information the member seeks.
Peter Brown: Will the Minister clarify his answers? He said in answer to the principal question that a 2 to 3 week wait is not expected to make much difference, but he responded to the Hon Ken Shirley by saying he would know more in a few weeks’ time. Can we assume that “not much difference” means that a few people might die, that some people might die, or, in the worst circumstances, that a lot of people might die?
Hon PETE HODGSON: The reason the answers were different was that the first question was about timing and the second was about efficacy.
Dr Paul Hutchison: Can she guarantee effective delivery of the flu vaccine given the complex problems of choosing the most vulnerable for the fully effective vaccine, the problem that many may require a double dose of the less effective vaccine, and the added pressure on practices brought about by the meningococcal programme; if not, why not?
Hon PETE HODGSON: I am not sure what one does with that rap around the bushes but I would say to the member that the effective delivery of flu vaccine to the people of New Zealand this winter, in a timely way, is a matter that the Government is seized of.
Dr Paul Hutchison: I seek leave to table two reports. The first is a New Zealand Press Association item entitled “GPs will face problems on flu shots”.
Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. The document will not be tabled.
Dr Paul Hutchison: The second report is from the New Zealand Herald, and it suggests that had the health authorities taken action sooner, they might have begun the search for an alternative supply earlier.
Madam SPEAKER: Is there any objection to the tabling of that document? There is. It will not be tabled.
Industry Training—Targets
5. LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) to the Minister of Education: What progress has the Government made towards its targets for industry training?
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education): I am very, very pleased to report that as at the end of last year nearly 140,000 people were engaged in industry training.
Hon Steve Maharey: How many?
Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Nearly 140,000, thanks to my former Associate Minister Steve Maharey. We are well on track to meet the target of 150,000 by the end of the year. Funding for industry training has nearly doubled since we have been in Government, and it contrasts with the cuts made in the death throes of the former National Government.
Lynne Pillay: What progress has the Government made towards its manifesto target of having 7,500 Modern Apprentices by June 2006?
Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I am very, very pleased to say that not only will we meet that target but we will get there a year early. I am, however, sad to say that we are still to get an apology from the National Party, which said on the introduction of the Modern Apprenticeships scheme that: “$42 million is being spent on 3,000 apprentices who will not get any work.” There is a word for that, but I am not allowed to say it here.
Simon Power: Can the Minister confirm that in the last 2 years the Government has spent $159 million more on Te Wānanga o Aotearoa than it has on trades training, and that since 2000 the funding for non-formal education of the Twilight Golf and radio sing-along variety has increased at 15 times the rate of funding for trades training?
Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I cannot confirm that, but I can confirm that the National Party said that Modern Apprenticeships were pathetic and that it will get rid of them. That is National’s policy; it does not like trades people.
Simon Power: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The Minister’s rant about the National Party in no way addressed the specific question that I asked. I asked him to confirm the comparison of funding between the wānanga and trades training. I would ask that you ask him to answer that question or, at the very least, to address it.
Madam SPEAKER: The Minister did address the question by saying that he did not know. If the answer had stopped there, there probably would not have been a point of order.
Hon Brian Donnelly: Will the Minister confirm that there would not even be a Modern Apprenticeship Training Act if it had not been for New Zealand First?
Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Unlike the previous questioner, I am prepared to take that member’s word on that. [Interruption]
Madam SPEAKER: Yes, the Minister will withdraw and apologise.
Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I do. I withdraw and apologise.
Hon Brian Donnelly: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The point is: if the member has withdrawn the statement that he made, will he actually answer the question?
Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I can confirm what that honourable member said.
Bernie Ogilvy: Is the Minister willing to increase the target of industry training’s Modern Apprenticeships to 10,000, as advocated by the Industry Training Federation, and by United Future in its Budget bids; if not, why not?
Hon TREVOR MALLARD: The member will see the answer to that at the appropriate moment in the fullness of time.
Education, Associate Minister—Confidence
6. Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (ACT), on behalf of RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT), to the Prime Minister: Does she have confidence in the Associate Minister of Education, the Hon David Benson-Pope; if so, why?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister), on behalf of the Prime Minister: Yes, because he is a hard-working, conscientious, and, therefore, very occasionally somnolent, Minister.
Hon Richard Prebble: When the Prime Minister says that Mr Benson-Pope is a hard-working and conscientious Minister, can she confirm the belief that he rises at the crack of noon each day, works hard until the early hours of the afternoon, and then comes into the House to have a well-deserved sleep—is that his general work pattern?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: No. The member does not emulate the work habits of Rodney Hide.
Gerry Brownlee: Does the Prime Minister consider that the Associate Minister of Education’s attempts to cover up the scholarship debacle, his refusal to admit any problems with National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) results, and his telling parents concerned about NCEA to “get over it” were all results of his napping on the job just a bit too much, and does she intend to give him any time to readdress his work-life balance?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: On behalf of the Prime Minister and of all my colleagues, I can say that the Prime Minister is prone to ring up some of her colleagues in even the early hours of the morning, and that, I think, includes the Associate Minister of Education.
Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The Prime Minister’s nocturnal habits may be of interest to the Labour Party, but in no way do they address the question asked here about what she intends to do about giving Mr Benson-Pope the sort of rest that he clearly needs, with his having been a Minister now for at least 4 or 5 months.
Madam SPEAKER: I think that the Minister certainly addressed the question.
Hon Brian Donnelly: Is the Prime Minister aware that the New Zealand Teachers Council reported to the Education and Science Committee yesterday that large numbers of schools and pre-schools are not forwarding names of staff for police vetting, as they are legally required to do, and will she guarantee that the Associate Minister of Education will resolve that problem?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I am not aware of the first issue, but I am sure that the Associate Minister will take that up with his normal due diligence, as befits a person representing the great Dunedin South electorate.
Hon Richard Prebble: Do Mr Benson-Pope’s sleeping habits explain the NCEA mess; if not, does he do more harm when awake or asleep?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The Minister is working very hard on the NCEA scholarship issue. The NCEA itself is not under scrutiny in terms of the basics of that scheme. A number of issues need to be considered in relation to that. Regarding the scholarship issue, the member should tread very carefully. The main issues that emerged as a result of the recent study in relation to scholarship showed up things that have been happening for years in terms of the pass rates before scaling, in a number of science subjects.
Hon Richard Prebble: Can we take it from the Prime Minister’s vigorous defence of Mr David Benson-Pope that he is one of her more effective Ministers, even when he is asleep?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Around all his waking and sleeping moments, Mr Benson-Pope is loyal to the principles of the Labour Party. I just wish that that member had been when he was a Minister.
Avian Flu—Preparedness
7. SUE KEDGLEY (Green) to the Minister of Health: Is she confident that all health providers are adequately prepared for an outbreak of bird flu and have “access to the required personal protective equipment” as required by the National Health Emergency Plan: Infectious Diseases; if so, why?
Hon PETE HODGSON (Associate Minister of Health), on behalf of the Minister of Health: Yes. Personal protective equipment is currently stocked by all district health boards and is sufficient to protect health staff against an outbreak of bird flu.
Sue Kedgley: Do we actually have a national stockpile, or do we just have enough equipment to cover average usage, as the Minister stated last week in reply to my written question; how much do we have in the stockpile?
Hon PETE HODGSON: Although we have enough currently to meet the needs of all health workers, the Government is exploring the ordering of further supplies, the details of which I am afraid I am unable to make available to the House because we are in commercial negotiations, and if I give either price or volume, then we will destroy those negotiations.
Nanaia Mahuta: Can the Minister clarify whether a vaccine to protect against bird flu has been developed yet?
Hon PETE HODGSON: No, there is no vaccine to protect against bird flu. However, that issue is being pursued by the World Health Organization.
Sue Kedgley: Can the Minister confirm that the extremely limited stocks of antiviral drugs that we have in New Zealand—the 20,000 treatments in the stockpile—have already passed their original use-by date; and can she assure the House that the new stocks of antiviral drugs that have only recently been ordered are not also second-hand, outdated stocks that have passed their use-by date?
Hon PETE HODGSON: I cannot confirm either the first or the third part of the member’s question, but I can confirm that the increased doses were not recently ordered. The issue was first brought to Cabinet informally last year.
Sue Kedgley: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. It seems to me that a Minister of Health should be able to answer a question as to whether some very crucial antiviral drugs that we need to protect us from bird flu have passed their use-by date. Could I get an answer?
Madam SPEAKER: The Minister addressed the question. I do not know whether the Minister wants to add any further comment, as he was about to rise.
Hon PETE HODGSON: I regret not. The primary question was not about viral drugs; it was about personal protective equipment. Had the member stuck to the primary question, I would have been able to produce for her, I hope, good answers.
Hon Ken Shirley: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Now that we are safely past Mr Hide’s question No. 6, may I invite him to return to the House?
Madam SPEAKER: No.
Sue Kedgley: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Further to the Minister’s response, I point out that my question asked whether the Minister was confident that all health providers were adequately prepared for an outbreak of bird flu, and that the only way to be prepared is to have stocks of antiviral drugs, because that is the only protection—along with masks—that can be provided. So could the Minister please answer my question?
Madam SPEAKER: The Minister addressed the question. The member may not be satisfied with the answer.
Sue Kedgley: Further to the Minister’s earlier responses, is she saying that she has no idea how many of the essential surgical masks are stockpiled; if so, if the bird flu were to arise in the next few weeks or months, would she expect front-line medical staff to risk their lives by working without sufficient antivirals or even without adequate protective masks, and why has she not learnt from severe acute respiratory syndrome that we need to be prepared?
Hon PETE HODGSON: I have tried to advise the member that right now we have sufficient stocks for health workers. In the event of a pandemic, the need for protective equipment goes wider than health workers; it goes into the community. We do not currently have sufficient stock for that. That stock is being ordered. The quanta are significant; they are not, however, publicly available.
Paedophile—Supervision
8. Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay Of Plenty) to the Minister of Corrections: What did his department mean when it wrote to the people supervising Lloyd Alexander McIntosh on 10 December 2004 that: “It is essential we manage the costs of this contract within the expectations agreed by both parties.”, and on 23 December 2004 that: “there is a need to manage this contract within financial expectations.”?
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Corrections): What the department meant was that it has a responsibility to manage taxpayers’ funds prudently while not compromising public safety.
Hon Tony Ryall: When the Hon Phil Goff was looking after that portfolio as acting Minister earlier this year, did the department advise Mr Goff that the people who know McIntosh best said that any cut in his supervision would be unsafe and unwise, and that staff had grave misgivings; and did the acting Minister seek to discuss this directly with those people?
Hon PAUL SWAIN: I understand that there were discussions. As I understand it, an agreement was reached before Christmas. Then, after further discussions with the provider in January, it was agreed that the appropriate level of supervision while Mr McIntosh was outside would be two people. That is highly appropriate.
Russell Fairbrother: What reports has the Minister seen on sentencing options for serious child sex offenders?
Hon PAUL SWAIN: I have seen a report that changes by the previous National Government in 1993 allowed sex offenders like Mr McIntosh out into the community, despite the warnings from health professionals about the consequences of doing so. I have seen another report, from the Minister of Justice, that serious child sex offenders can now, under the Sentencing Act of 2002, receive preventive detention, which means that they can be kept locked up for life.
Hon Tony Ryall: How does the Minister explain the department’s view, issued by his colleague the then acting Minister, Mr Goff, that halving McIntosh’s supervision was appropriate to prevent him reoffending, when McIntosh himself warned that unless he had two supervisors he would be a risk to the community?
Hon PAUL SWAIN: Firstly, it was because the department had further discussions with the provider—as was the right thing to do. Secondly, the comments made by Mr McIntosh had nothing to do with the increase in supervision. Mr McIntosh has been making those comments for many, many months and years.
Ron Mark: How much will this high-risk paedophile cost the taxpayer over the next 10 years, given that the cost of his extended supervision has already skyrocketed to $350, 000—a figure that is four times what the taxpayer would pay to have him locked up in maximum security?
Hon PAUL SWAIN: It is hard to know what might happen in the future, but the member is right, it is a considerable cost. The member’s figure of around $350,000 is pretty accurate, but this is the cost of keeping someone like Mr McIntosh well supervised. If we compare this with what the previous National Government did, it let people like him out into the community, under changes to the 1993 Act, without taking into account all the things that people were saying, which were that it was the wrong thing to do.
Hon Phil Goff: Is it true that the first warning about the recidivist behaviour of Lloyd Alexander McIntosh was given in 1993 by a health professional who worked with him, that National Ministers ignored that advice but sacked the health professional who gave the warning, and that the result of releasing this man in 1993 without controlling supervision was that he immediately sexually violated a 2-year-old child, and can the Minister contrast that lack of control and supervision with what the Government is spending now to make sure Mr McIntosh does not do it again?
Hon PAUL SWAIN: I can confirm the facts. The reality is that the previous National Government let this man out, against the advice of health professionals. The National Government sacked the person who gave it that advice. As a result, Mr McIntosh went on to reoffend. Now we are in a position where, to try to keep the community safe, we are spending an enormous amount of money using the supervision type of regime. Many of these things would not have had to come before Parliament had the previous National Government listened to the advice that it was given by health professionals.
Hon Tony Ryall: Can the Minister advise the House what the agreement was that was reached before Christmas, whether Mr Goff, who was at the time acting Minister in his stead, was advised by the department that the people who knew Lloyd Alexander McIntosh best said that cutting his supervision in half would be unsafe and unwise, that staff had grave misgivings about it, and that the Minister did not even attempt to telephone those people about those concerns?
Hon PAUL SWAIN: As I understand it, an agreement was reached before Christmas. There were further discussions right through January until the end of January when there were further discussions with the provider and there was an agreement. I cannot understand what that member is now on about. What has happened is that this offender is now under the supervision of two people when he is out in public places. I thought that was what the member wanted.
Hon Tony Ryall: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The first part of my question asked the Minister to advise what the agreement before Christmas was. I was quite specific in asking that because, having got all the official papers, I cannot locate any suggestion that there ever was an agreement before Christmas. I am looking for the Minister’s explanation of that because I think it is a matter I might have to pursue further, if there was such an agreement.
Hon PAUL SWAIN: I advise the member that I have been advised that there was an agreement before Christmas.
Hon Tony Ryall: To do what? That’s what I asked. What was the agreement?
Hon PAUL SWAIN: Shall we have a little tango across the House, shall we?
Madam SPEAKER: Would the Minister please continue with his answer.
Hon PAUL SWAIN: My understanding is that there was an arrangement that there would be supervision outside the facility with one person. Further discussions took place with the provider towards the end of January, because of the intervening Christmas holidays, and there was then a decision made and an agreement reached that there would be two people supervising Mr McIntosh. That is appropriate and I thought it was what the member was after.
Ron Mark: What is this Government doing to ensure that the provider, whom I have not named yet in the House, is not extorting more money out of the taxpayer by lobbying MPs, feeding the media, and colluding with McIntosh, who has already been reported in the newspaper as having written to the department saying that he wanted to be supervised by two people at all times or that he would go to the media if he did not get his way—because, many of us assume, Mr McIntosh likes having a butler, a footman, and a doorman to take him around town and look after his every need?
Hon PAUL SWAIN: I would find it extraordinary if members of Parliament colluded with the media to try to put pressure on the Government, using public fear. I would find that a strange thing and I cannot imagine that ever happening before. What I can say is that this supervision regime is costly and it is because it is important to ensure public safety as far as this person is concerned.
Family Group Conferences—Youth Offending
9. JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) to the Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment (CYF): Is she satisfied that family group conferences are successful in reducing youth reoffending?
Hon RUTH DYSON (Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment (CYF)): Yes, family group conferences, which deal with the 25 percent most serious young offenders, continue to be successful in reducing the rates of youth reoffending.
Judy Turner: Then why has the numbers of young offenders facing their second, third, fourth, fifth, or sixth family group conference all increased dramatically since 2001, with a handful even on their seventh, eighth, ninth, and 11th last year; and what makes her think that another family group conference, or even another 10, will succeed when the first one or two have failed?
Hon RUTH DYSON: I would like to make two points, if I may, in response to that question. The figures that the questioner has used actually included a number of reconvened and reviewed family group conferences, so they cannot be compared with new family group conferences. But leaving that aside, even if there are repeats, which there are for 10 percent of the family group conferences that have three or more conferences, and 18 percent have two, the remainder have only one. These family group conferences do hold the young person accountable for their actions, and that is a critical part of changing patterns of behaviour. They also, if required by the victim, involve the victim, and it has been consistently reported that this is a much more satisfactory involvement for the victim of the crime, in the first place.
Lynne Pillay: How does the Minister know that the short, sharp detention model used in other parts of the world is not more effective?
Hon RUTH DYSON: The family group conference restorative justice model that is used in New Zealand is viewed internationally as a best-practice model and literally has been picked up overseas, including in Australia, throughout the United States, and the United Kingdom. In the last year alone, Child, Youth and Family Services has had delegations from Hong Kong, Brazil, and Ireland to examine, with a view to copying, the successes of the family group conference model, and delegations from China and Singapore are expected this year. Other countries are giving up alternative models and following our family group conference model.
Judith Collins: How can the current rules regarding family group conferences be said to be effective against youth reoffending when one individual has had at least 16 youth justice family group conferences, and when will she accept the evidence and introduce a cap on the number of conferences available to individuals before they automatically have more serious action taken against them?
Hon RUTH DYSON: As with the previous questioner, the member’s figures actually include reconvened and reviewed family group conferences and are not comparable with the number of new family group conferences that are being held. Leaving that aside—but it is important to have facts as the basis of the question—it is an important process for holding young offenders accountable, and involving the victim in the way that person likes.
Hon Phil Goff: Can the Minister confirm that the National Party’s answer to this question—corrective training—was scrapped because it had a 92 percent reoffending rate within 12 months?
Simon Power: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The Minister has no responsibility for anything to do with the National Party.
Madam SPEAKER: Yes, I agree. The first part was—
Hon Phil Goff: What the Minister does have responsibility for was scrapping the previous corrective training programme, because her predecessor was consulted on that.
Madam SPEAKER: The Minister may address that part of the question.
Hon RUTH DYSON: That is correct. The previous model was rejected because of its total failure, as is being evidenced by the rejection of similar models throughout the world.
Nandor Tanczos: Does the Minister agree that despite the effectiveness of the family group conference model, a number of deficiencies have been identified—in particular, the lack of family group conferences happening within a reasonable time frame; lack of sufficient mental health, drug and alcohol abuse and anger control programmes; and a lack of adequate monitoring of the outcomes of those conferences; and can the Minister tell the House what she is doing to address those deficiencies?
Hon RUTH DYSON: Yes, I certainly do agree with the concerns that the member has raised. In fact, they were identified in the baseline review process as being part of the gaps in services that we would expect if we wanted much more satisfactory action from Child, Youth and Family Services family group conferences. As a model they are satisfactory, but, as with any good model, there can always be improvements in the operation.
Nandor Tanczos: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I think the custom of the House has been for Speakers to allow two questions to be answered. I was just wondering whether the Minister would tell us what she is doing to address those deficiencies.
Madam SPEAKER: That was not a point of order. In respect of supplementary questions, members are entitled to ask one supplementary, which the Minister addresses. On occasions there is more than one question involved in the supplementary question, but it is at the Minister’s discretion whether that is addressed. The member is perfectly entitled to ask another supplementary question.
Kenneth Wang: Does the Minister think it is acceptable that four burly thugs who burgled $30,000 from Mr Manchao Li should laugh all the way through a family group conference, safe in the knowledge that they will not be punished and do not have to pay back a cent, and what is the Minister’s justification for this outrage?
Hon RUTH DYSON: As the member probably knows, family group conferences are just one of the options available through the youth justice system; it is not the only one.
Judy Turner: Can the Minister confirm that one of the criticisms of family group conferences, which emerged from her own department’s report released last year, was that commitments made by the offender to apologise or recompense the victim were often not followed through, and does she agree that this failing jeopardises the very purpose of restorative justice, and sends the message to offenders that there are minimal consequences for their actions?
Hon RUTH DYSON: Yes, I certainly do agree with the assertion made in the member’s question about the findings of the report, and that is why this Government has taken that report seriously.
Tariana Turia: When will the department put into practice policies to empower and invest in families so that they can make effective decisions that address the offending that is often related to drug, alcohol, or violence?
Hon RUTH DYSON: As the member will be aware, there are is a wide range of policies delivered by a number of departments and agencies that do just that—invest in children, young people, and their families, as a cornerstone of our communities. But, as identified by the previous questioner, there has often been a gap in access to specialised services.
Dr Muriel Newman: Can the Minister explain to the House what she actually intends to do so that taxpayers’ money is not wasted on those out-of-control young offenders, such as the person we have heard about who has attended 16 family group conferences, and who does not take a blind bit of notice of them?
Hon RUTH DYSON: As I have indicated in answer now to three previous supplementary questions, that example is not of new reconvened family group conferences. They are family group conferences that have been reconvened for another reason other than a new offence. The family group conference does hold the person accountable, it does involve the victim, and it is not the only part of the youth justice system that is available in the case of young offenders.
Dr Muriel Newman: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The Minister was asked what she intends to do about the young people such as the person who attended 16 family group conferences. We are not litigating the 16 conferences, we are actually asking her to tell us what she intends to do, and she did not address that in her answer.
Hon Dr Michael Cullen: When a member asks a question with an assertion contained within it, it is perfectly open to the Minister to answer the question by disputing the assertion.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Minister is entitled to dispute the facts on any question. The second part of the answer, I think, addressed the first part of the member’s question.
Judy Turner: Does the Minister agree with the view of Principal Youth Court Judge Andrew Becroft and others that youth justice family group conferences need to be handled by an organisation with specific responsibility for youth justice, because Child, Youth and Family Services’ statutory role to protect children means that social workers are more focused on being the young offenders’ advocates rather than making sure they are made responsible for their crimes; if not, why not?
Hon RUTH DYSON: On this particular point, no, I disagree with Judge Becroft.
Nandor Tanczos: With regard to the Minister’s answer to my previous question, can she now tell the House what steps she intends to take to address those deficiencies that have already been identified?
Hon RUTH DYSON: As part of the ongoing work of ensuring that the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services is able to deliver all its legislative and policy services in a way that is satisfactory, a substantial increase in funding has been allocated, changes have been made in service agreements, and there is a constant monitoring of the implementation of the baseline review recommendations.
Judy Turner: Are victims who are asked to participate in family group conferences of offenders who are already on their second, third, fourth, or even their 11th conference made aware of the fact that these previous attempts have failed to stop offending; if not, does she think that victims have a right to know that facing their offender in a group conference is not likely to make any difference, based on previous behaviour?
Hon RUTH DYSON: Frankly, I do not know, but I think the member has raised a very good point.
Judy Turner: I seek leave to table an answer to a written question to the Minister that shows that the number of offenders on their second, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth family group conference have all dramatically increased.
Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Health and Safety in Employment Act—Application
10. PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) to the Associate Minister of Labour: Has she received any reports on the application of the Health and Safety in Employment Act 1992 in all companies operating in New Zealand?
Hon RUTH DYSON (Associate Minister of Labour): The Department of Labour provides reports and advice to me on the application of the Health and Safety in Employment Act on a range of issues relating to companies in New Zealand.
Peter Brown: Is it acceptable to the Minister that a principal organisation such as Carter Holt Harvey, for example, who engages contractors for a specific task or project, is exempt from occupational health and safety responsibilities, and that all those responsibilities fall on the contractor?
Hon RUTH DYSON: It is not correct to say that the company is exempt. For a prosecution to occur in New Zealand there has to be a natural person or a legal person in New Zealand who can be the focus of the prosecution. Where a company is not registered in New Zealand a prosecution could proceed against an individual working for that company in New Zealand, but not the company itself. Of course, there are also other actions that can be taken where work is not being undertaken in a safe environment, including the issue of improvement notices, and prohibition notices actually stopping the operation of the plant or factory.
Hon Mark Gosche: Has the Minister received any reports that would indicate how New Zealand workplace injury rates compare with Australian rates?
Hon RUTH DYSON: Yes, I have. I have received a copy of the sixth report to the Workplace Relations Ministers Council on comparative performance monitoring of the Australian and New Zealand occupational health and safety and workers compensation schemes. The report indicates that for the most recent figures available for the 2002-03 year the incident rate of injury and disease in New Zealand remains lower than the Australian average, at 11.8 claims per 1,000 employees, compared with an average of 16.1 claims per 1,000 employees across Australian states.
Peter Brown: Will the Minister answer this question specifically: is it acceptable that an Australian-based company that is operating here in charge of an operation and has a serious accident, is to be exempt from our occupational safety and health legislation, and will she tell the House categorically, yes or no?
Hon RUTH DYSON: If I may repeat the answer I gave in the primary question that did, categorically, without any qualification, answer the member’s question. Nobody is exempt from the health and safety in employment legislation. The ability to prosecute where a company is not registered in New Zealand is limited to an individual in New Zealand, rather than the company itself.
Peter Brown: Can I take it from the Minister’s response that an Australian-based organisation in charge of a group of people—and in this case a platform collapsed, a man fell from it, the platform hit another man, and debris from that hit another man—is exempt from being held to account for such an accident, and can I take it that that is what the Minister is telling me?
Hon RUTH DYSON: For a prosecution to occur in New Zealand there has to be a natural person, or a legal person, in New Zealand who can be the focus of a prosecution. Where a company is not registered in New Zealand a prosecution can proceed against an individual working for that company in New Zealand, but not against the company itself.
Peter Brown: I seek leave to table a letter that states that Carter Holt Harvey Ltd, Riteway Rigging Ltd, and Macarthur Engineering Pty failed to demonstrate acceptable levels of competence and good engineering practices.
Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.
Courts and Justice System—Student Initiatives
11. MOANA MACKEY (Labour) to the Minister for Courts: What initiatives has he undertaken to assist developing understanding of the courts and justice system for students?
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister for Courts): Today I launched an educational website called Access to Justice. That can be used in secondary schools as part of a social studies course and civics programme. It has information about how our courts work, how legislation is developed, and what happens when someone goes through the courts. I have also publicised open court days that are being held throughout New Zealand.
Moana Mackey: Is the site relevant only to teachers and students?
Hon RICK BARKER: No, I encourage all to take advantage of the website as it clearly sets out the structure of our justice system, gives examples, and shows the principles that underpin our justice system. With knowledge, people will have confidence in our justice system.
Hon Richard Prebble: Is the House to understand from this question that the Labour Government is proud of the fact that an increasing number of young people have come to have an understanding of the courts and justice system; if so, is that the reason why this Government is so soft on crime, George Hawkins is still the Minister of Police, crime is out of control, and an increasing number of young people every year get to obtain a developing knowledge of our courts and justice system?
Hon RICK BARKER: I am pleased to say that this Government has taken firm action on justice issues. When the previous National Government was in power the maximum sentence a person could get for life was 10 years. Now the minimum period for parole is 33 years in some cases. The number of people in jail has gone up. This Government has taken tough action on crime. It is important that people have an understanding of how our justice system works.
Question No 12 to Minister
BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. My question is set down to the Minister of Forestry. I note that he, along with most members of the Government, is not here today, so I seek leave of the House to have the question carried over.
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House): The member cannot refer to the absence of members. If the member had asked his shadow Leader of the House, who is a member of the Business Committee, he would know that there are people away at select committees today who are counted as being present for the purposes of voting. He cannot refer to the absence of members, otherwise I shall keep referring to the absence of most of the members of the Opposition.
Madam SPEAKER: It is not a valid point of order.
BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. My question is set down to the Minister of Forestry. I seek leave to hold the question over until he is in a position to—
Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought to hold the question over. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Forestry—Export Potential
12. BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia) to the Minister of Forestry: Does he agree with the statement of the Minister of Industry and Regional Development that: “Forestry has the potential to be New Zealand’s largest export earner.”; if so, when does he think this will happen?
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Labour), on behalf of the Minister of Forestry: Yes. I am advised that the Minister of Forestry always agrees with the Minister of Industry and Regional Development. He finds the Minister to be wise, intelligent, and committed to New Zealand’s economic development. The potential is there, because there is an increasing amount of timber available for harvest, and there is huge potential to add value on shore.
Brian Connell: How does the wise Minister of Forestry then reconcile that answer with these facts: since Labour took office in 1999 new plantings have plummeted from 40,400 hectares per year to a record low of 10,600 hectares per year—our third-biggest export earner is in free fall, and the Minister maintains he is wise, and sits there and fiddles?
Hon PAUL SWAIN: Skilfully.
Opposition Members: Aw!
Madam SPEAKER: The Minister addressed the question. The member may not be satisfied with the answer.
Hon Matt Robson: What is the Labour-Progressive Government doing to capture the potential of the forestry industry?
Hon PAUL SWAIN: I just so happen to have some of this information before me. The Labour-Progressive Government has, in contrast with the previous National Government, which shut the Ministry of Forestry down in March 1998, set up a partnership with the forestry industry—the wood-processing strategy. That has, for example, built desperately needed regional roads to access forestry production, established a centre of excellence for wood-processing training and education, developed a European market for high-quality New Zealand furniture, developed joint-venture research and development for wood products, and implemented a market access programme—and there is more good news to come.
Madam SPEAKER: That answer was too long.
Brian Connell: Why will this dodgy Minister not—
Madam SPEAKER: Would the member please withdraw that comment? I heard the word “dodgy”.
Simon Power: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Just yesterday that word was ruled in order when it was used by a Minister in answering a question in this House.
Hon Dr Michael Cullen: No, it was not. I suggest the member consult his Hansard. There has always been a difference in this House between describing actions as “dodgy” and describing the person as “dodgy”.
Madam SPEAKER: Would the member please withdraw the word “dodgy”?
Brian Connell: I withdraw. Will this wise Minister who has been engaged in some dodgy activities please explain why new plantings have plummeted to record lows, and, instead of treating the industry with arrogance and disdain, answer the question?
Hon PAUL SWAIN: With great delight. New planting has been falling since 1994, long before the Labour-led Government came into office. The new planting rate has tended to come in peaks and troughs. The last trough was during 1987 to 1991, and before that it was during the 1940s to the 1960s. New planting is mostly driven by economic factors, including a booming agriculture sector, which has meant a lot of land has been retained in agriculture rather than planted in forests. That has its benefits, of course, as we have had the strongest continuous economic growth for a generation right across every region. What a great Government we have.
Brian Connell: Why will the Minister not just acknowledge that the main cause for the decline is that this Government intends to introduce a land use change - tax and a deforestation tax?
Hon PAUL SWAIN: Because it is not true.
Bills
Ngāti Awa Claims Settlement Bill
Third Reading
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): I move, That the Ngāti Awa Claims Settlement Bill be now read a third time. I stand to acknowledge the significance of this day for the people of Ngāti Awa, a number of whom have joined us today in the galleries of this House.
The passage of this bill enables the people of Ngāti Awa to move forward beyond the historical grievances they have suffered at the hands of the Crown. The bill is equally significant for the Crown and for the people of this country, and it enables the restoration of the honour of the Crown. It represents a further step in the journey towards the reconciliation of the relationship between the peoples of this country and, importantly, between Ngāti Awa and the Crown.
This bill brings to an end the longstanding and significant grievances of Ngāti Awa, and settles all their historical treaty claims. The historical background to the claims of Ngāti Awa makes for sombre reading. It provides an account of New Zealand’s history wherein Ngāti Awa can be said to have been faithful to the spirit of the treaty partnership, in seeking to build strong relationships with its treaty partner. But the Crown did not reciprocate that behaviour. This bill contains a formal apology to Ngāti Awa for the breaches of the treaty acknowledged by the Crown.
Ngāti Awa commenced direct negotiations with the Crown in 1996. The main components of the settlement package were finalised in October 2000. A deed of settlement, the formal Crown offer to Ngāti Awa to settle the claims under the Treaty of Waitangi, was then developed by the Crown and Ngāti Awa negotiators. A significant majority of Ngāti Awa participated in a postal ballot to confirm their support for the settlement. Accordingly, representatives of the Crown and Ngāti Awa signed a deed of settlement at Parliament on 27 March 2003.
The passing of the Te Runanga o Ngati Awa Bill last night enables Ngāti Awa to reconstitute its existing entity in order to receive the settlement redress. The passage of this settlement bill is the final hurdle to enable the Crown to transfer the settlement redress to Ngāti Awa.
This Government is fully committed to progressing the settlement of valid historical treaty claims. That is a two-way process—a process that seeks to restore a set of relationships that have not been maintained or, in some cases, even activated, and a process that seeks to resolve all the historical treaty claims of respected Māori communities, and to resolve longstanding and deeply-felt grievances.
Hon MARK BURTON: Over the course of a decade the Crown has developed and refined a process of settling historical treaty claims. That process is now leading to a steady stream of comprehensive settlements being reached. This Government has concluded four settlements in the past 2 years, and is currently in active negotiations with some 12 groups. We have also made some major inroads into progressing claims in the far north and streamlining the treaty settlement process.
The Crown has withstood challenges in the Waitangi Tribunal and the courts concerning its policy approach to settlements. Both the tribunal and the courts inquired into the Ngāti Awa settlement itself. I am pleased to note that those inquiries found in favour of the Ngāti Awa settlement process.
Now that the settlement process has been developed and has stood up to scrutiny, we are well placed to move forward, and this Government is committed to making positive progress in settling historical claims. We have continued, in the claims settled in this bill, and will continue in future settlements, to negotiate with the interests of all citizens of New Zealand in mind, so that as New Zealanders we can all be very proud that significant grievances are recognised and settled peacefully and within the law.
I am pleased to acknowledge all of those from Ngāti Awa and the Crown who, over so many long and arduous years, have given their all to enable us to get to this day. Their passion and commitment have greatly assisted the process. There are so many who deserve some acknowledgment. They know who they are, and they are entitled to feel great pride and satisfaction in their achievements.
In particular, I acknowledge Professor Hirini Mead, chief negotiator for the settlement of the historical claims of Ngāti Awa. I know that Professor Mead has worked extremely hard to bring about this day. His leadership and commitment have greatly assisted this settlement process.
I also acknowledge my predecessor, the Hon Margaret Wilson, for her fortitude and leadership in seeking the resolution of Ngāti Awa’s claims. I acknowledge my colleagues the Minister of Māori Affairs, the Minister of Conservation, the Minister of Finance, and the Associate Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, and all the Crown officials who contributed to this settlement.
I encourage all New Zealanders to read the historical account outlined in the Ngāti Awa deed of settlement. Indeed, it outlines a tragic history, but it is a history that I think we all must know if we are to recognise our common heritage and learn from it in order to move forward in a unified way.
I acknowledge the ancestors of Ngāti Awa, and extend best wishes for the future to its elders, descendants, and negotiating team. Their journey ahead looks bright, and I wish them well in their endeavours. The dignity, wisdom, and judgment they showed in the settlement process will, I believe, stand them in good stead as they enter the next stage of their journey forward. I commend this bill to the House.
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National): I stand on behalf of the National Party to indicate our support for the passing of this settlement bill today. We do so in an environment in which some of our political opponents would want to say that we do not have the right attitude towards settlement or, indeed, towards the Treaty of Waitangi and the consequences that flow from that. So I want to take a minute or two to discourage those views and to put very strongly on the record the reasons why the National Party strongly supports settlement of historical grievances.
We do not accept that the concept of the Treaty of Waitangi is about the partnership of two peoples. We see the treaty as being a point from which two peoples got together to become one nation. That might seem to be a very subtle point; nonetheless, it is a very important one. The genesis of our thinking might be best expressed in the Māori proverb, first brought prominently to the attention of the nation by Whina Cooper back in 1990—“He aha te mea nui o te ao? He tangata, he tangata, he tangata.” What is the most important thing in the world? It is people, it is people, it is people.
In settling grievances like this, it is simply a grievance brought by New Zealanders, who are Māori, to the Government, which now stands as the Crown, and the discussions that result from that grievance being laid on the table coming to a point where there is settlement. We accept that the settlements can never fully compensate for the loss—the loss on many levels—or for the full amount of grievance that might be taken. We acknowledge the generosity of Ngāti Awa and other settlor groups who accept that the Government is doing this in good faith. We will continue to seek settlement of treaty grievances on that basis.
However, it does raise the issue of how a settlement is mandated by those who are the recipients of it. I have expressed, a number of times now, my concerns about the very low levels of the vote in favour of settlement. It worries us on this side of the House that only about 30 percent of those eligible to participate in the vote that ratified the settlement chose to do so, and of those a lesser number actually accepted it. Although the Office of Treaty Settlements might want to say to the Government: “Go ahead with this anyway, because the rest of the people are so happy they don’t feel the need to vote.”, it does leave the uncomfortable feeling that at some time in the future there may be successive generations or future generations who say: “Well, our people didn’t sign up to this. We weren’t happy at the time and we’re not happy now.” That potentially threatens the idea that settlements are full and final, that there is a leaving behind of the grievance in the moving forward to a new future. So I want to put it very clearly on the record that this Parliament understands and believes firmly that what is before us today is a full and final settlement, and that Ngāti Awa will not be back for more.
There are also another couple of issues that I should raise. There was in this House a considerable amount of kerfuffle over the preamble to this bill. It is the first bill, I understand, that has a full text in Māori. It was, therefore, very important for that text to be reflected in the English translation, and we took some time to insist that that was achieved. That should not be taken in any disparaging way by Ngāti Awa; rather, it should be accepted that it was the start of a new way of doing things. Our point simply was that as we have had so many years of disagreement about what was meant in the Treaty of Waitangi, surely we should not have a bill settling a grievance that flowed from that time also creating the possibility of difference in the two understandings. I think we have now got to a position where we can say that that is not the case and that this bill is well understood to mean, in both texts, what exactly each understands of the other.
A question was raised yesterday in the debate that established the rūnanga organisation that will receive the settlement assets. There was a suggestion in that debate that this new entity was being exempted from many of the encumbrances, one might say, that go with trusts, companies, and other entities that hold assets on behalf of other people. I have some sympathy for the view that was expressed by the Hon Richard Prebble—
Hon Parekura Horomia: Oh, come on!
GERRY BROWNLEE: —but in essence, I say to Mr Parekura Horomia, what we are doing today is handing to a group of people assets that are theirs. The choice as to how those assets are administered, nurtured, and managed in order for them to grow belongs to those people. For too long, I think, Māori have had an excessive amount of Government involvement in their governance. Trust boards, and such, over the years have had pretty onerous duties put on them by this House. So a freer structure is something we are not too concerned about. But I say again for the record that it would not be appropriate for future generations of Ngāti Awa to come back to this House and say that the structure the House gave them in 2005 failed them—because it is not this place’s structure; it is Ngāti Awa’s.
Pita Paraone: The Act might be wrong.
GERRY BROWNLEE: Well, the Act is not wrong, of course, because it was Ngāti Awa’s Act that was brought here. It was a member’s bill, as the member will remember. It was not a Government bill, and that is the important thing.
I think I should conclude by saying to Ngāti Awa that the National Party wishes the iwi every success for the future. We are greatly encouraged by the way in which the plans for the future have been expressed to us, and we would want to support Ngāti Awa as New Zealanders as much as any others. We wish for them a governance structure that makes absolutely certain that the best of this asset will flow to the young people of Ngāti Awa in the future.
To those who took so many years to negotiate on behalf of the iwi, I say that they certainly have my respect. It is no easy thing to dedicate years of one’s life to a cause that at times must have seemed distant and lost. Today must give great joy to the heart as it comes to fruition. But its fullest fruition will be seen in the many years ahead when the benefits flow to the people of Ngāti Awa.
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Minister of Maori Affairs): E tika ake anō, ki te mihi ake anō i a koutou ngā tū pakeke o Ngāti Awa. Hirini, koutou katoa. Ka nui te mihi. E tika ake anō, ki te mihi ake anō ki a rātou kāre i konei, ngā mea kua haere anake ki te wāhi mahana e mau ake anō ō tātou tupuna. Ki a koutou mō tō kaha rawa, e mihi kau ana. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou.
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.]
[It is apt that I acknowledge you once more, the elders of Ngāti Awa, Hirini, all of you. It is a huge privilege indeed. It is fitting as well to acknowledge those who are no longer here, the ones who have merely gone on to the place that comforts our ancestors. I acknowledge the enormous effort that you have all contributed. Well done, and greetings to you all.]
I stand here today in support of the third reading of the Ngāti Awa Claims Settlement Bill. This bill gives effect to the deed of settlement between the Crown and Ngāti Awa regarding the final settlement of all Ngāti Awa historical claims. The preamble to the bill sets out an agreed historical background. It also includes an acknowledgment of treaty breaches and sets out the Crown apology for those breaches.
The history of the Ngāti Awa claim has already been well documented by my colleague the Hon Mark Burton, and I thank him for the effort he has put into his new role in the short time he has held it. I also acknowledge yourself, Madam Speaker, at this stage, just in case I forget, for the effort you have put in and for the steadfastness you have shown in coming through this. I acknowledge my colleague Mita Ririnui who is overseas and cannot be here today, and sends his best wishes. I acknowledge all those colleagues who supported the great achievements yesterday in this House, especially my Māori colleagues; I mihi to them.
In the bill the Crown acknowledges that the confiscation of approximately 250,000 acres of land rendered Ngāti Awa virtually landless. This constituted an injustice and was a breach of the Treaty of Waitangi. In the 19th century in particular, the treaty was breached with monotonous regularity by New Zealand Governments. Not merely was there a failure to exercise protection; the Crown was at times at the forefront of the process of dispossessing Māori of their language, lands, culture, and much less.
This Government recognises that putting right these grievances, acknowledging wrongs, and providing redress is a necessary phase of our history and of moving forward. It is not possible to fully compensate Ngāti Awa for all the prejudice and loss they suffered. Settlements must take account of other developments and commitments in our society today. It is to the credit of Ngāti Awa that they have negotiated with the Crown on the basis of those wider interests. Settlement in the bill includes financial redress of $42.39 million. In addition, it recognises that Ngāti Awa has traditional historical, cultural, and spiritual associations with particular places and sites. The bill enables Ngāti Awa therefore to exercise kaitiakitanga over those sites, and to also take advantage of any commercial management opportunities.
I would like to commend the Māori Affairs Committee for its thorough examination of the bill, and for its commitment to reporting the bill back to the House within a concise 5-month time frame, and I commend all of those officials who have supported this historic journey. I congratulate the Māori Affairs Committee on reporting the bill back to this House through the medium of te reo Māori; a recognised language in this House that some people struggle with and get nervous about. I want to say that quite clearly, because Ngāti Awa people have held on to their language with no help from the Government or from anybody else, and the strength in it is recognised. It is as strong as the tenacity that they have shown in the journey towards finalising this settlement on behalf of all their people. This is a significant action, particularly when we consider that the Māori language itself was the subject of a landmark claim to the Waitangi Tribunal. That claim resulted in te reo Māori being recognised.
This bill is not solely about completing a treaty settlement; it is also about building and maintaining the capability of Ngāti Awa, and ensuring sustainable success in relation to contemporary times. The gathering at the Hui Taumata saw that, and I am amazed at times when people discuss the exemption or the ability in relation to governance and management of groups like Ngāti Awa. I can certainly assure people that they are more than able to look after their affairs by themselves, for themselves, and that the Government is sometimes nothing but a conduit to help move them forward, which is all it should be. But, certainly, when nonsense pervades this House in the sense of trying to say that we should study it through exemption because those people are incapable, let us wake up and smell the roses.
The bill strengthens the relationship that exists between the Crown and Ngāti Awa. The Ngāti Awa people have shown good faith. On this great day, which celebrates the great ancestor of people like Mr Brownlee—St Patrick’s Day; the spirit of the Irish— I say that it is fascinating when people say: “Make the Māoris behave themselves and let’s all live like Māori or New Zealanders.” That is right! But when I say to the Scots and the Irish: “Let you all be English.”, they get nervous and they stutter. They do not like it, and I wonder why. But it is about redress, it is about their history, and it is about their culture.
Being a Māori from a small place called Mangatuna, I recognise that the Irish will get drunk in the streets of this country and will drink green ale today, but they will also celebrate their eponymous ancestor, St Patrick. Toroa, who is these people’s ancestor, and the great people who brought their waka Mātaatua here, have a lot to celebrate this evening, and it is timely that it is on the same day as other people, in another country a long, long way from here, still celebrate their cultural connection, their roots, and their great ancestor.
So, on behalf of all Māori, can I mihi to all the Irish and wish them well for today. I tell them to celebrate widely, and I ask the police not to lock them up just because they are merrymaking. I say to the Ngāti Awa people that they should remember that, on this day that the Irish celebrate, they have a lot more to celebrate. I thank my colleagues for supporting the bill. Kia ora.
PITA PARAONE (NZ First): Ā, e ngā rangatira, ngā kaikawe o tēnei kaupapa mō Ngāti Awa, e kara mā, e kui mā, koutou i haere mai i te hau kāinga o Ngāti Awa, mai hoki i te maru o te maunga tapu a Pūtauaki, nā reira haere mai, haere mai, haere mai. Haere mai ki tēnei Whare. Ka kite mai i a koutou, te puāwaitanga o tērā o ngā kākano i tō mai i ērā o ngā mātua, ngā tūpuna nō tērā rau tau. Nā reira, tēnā hoki koutou.
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.]
[Welcome to you the chiefs, to those who negotiated this settlement on behalf of Ngāti Awa, and also to the elderly men and womenfolk. You have come from your home winds and from the sheltering mantle of the sacred mountain Pūtauaki. Welcome, welcome. Welcome to this House. To see you all means that you have brought to fruition one of those seeds that the elders and ancestors of the past sowed last century.]
On behalf of New Zealand First—and I reiterate the point that we are the only non-aligned political party in this House—I rise to speak to the third reading of this bill. This bill will see the culmination of what has been a long and arduous period of endeavour for the people of Ngāti Awa towards a satisfactory claims settlement. The bill records the acknowledgment and apology given by the Crown to Ngāti Awa, the detail of which is articulated in the deed of settlement dated 27 March 2003, and it gives effect to the settlement of historical claims as agreed between the Crown and Ngāti Awa. It also passes governance responsibility of the assets from this settlement to the entity that the majority of the people of Ngāti Awa have indicated support for. We note that the level of support was deemed sufficient by Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Awa to proceed with the signing of the deed. New Zealand First supports the timely and satisfactory settlement of claims to the Waitangi Tribunal, whether by way of hearing or by way of direct negotiation. This bill is the outcome of an agreement reached by Ngāti Awa and the Crown.
Yesterday, when this House debated the third reading of the Te Runanga o Ngati Awa Bill, a concern was expressed by a member for the ACT party with regard to the apparent absence of any list of rules that the new governance body would be required to follow. It was his view that, in the absence of such a document, there remained a real possibility that the legislation could lead to further claims, which would thus put into question the durability of the present settlement. I want to assure that member that the Māori Affairs Committee would not have allowed the bill to proceed to the stage it has reached today without first sighting the charter and being satisfied that Ngāti Awa themselves have resolved to adopt such a charter.
Although New Zealand First does not support the reason given by the ACT member to question the durability of this settlement, we also question its durability, but for different reasons. As a consequence, New Zealand First cannot lend its support to this bill in its present form. We have two reasons, notwithstanding the desire and consent of Ngāti Awa. The first reason is with regard to clause 13(3)(a), which defines the “hapū of Ngāti Awa”. In particular, I refer to those hapū identified in the bill as “Ngāti Awa ki Tamaki Makaurau” and “Ngāti Awa ki Poneke”. New Zealand First believes that the inclusion of those two entities as “hapū” for the purposes of this bill is outside the traditional concept of what establishes or creates a hapū. It is well known that the social structure of Māori is made up of whānau, hapū, which is a number of whānau, and iwi, which is an amalgam of hapū that have a common ancestor. In the case of both those hapū, we are advised that their members descend from both the other hapū and iwi ancestors of Ngāti Awa. Essentially, this Parliament is being asked to include them in this bill to ensure that those members of Ngāti Awa living in Tāmaki and Pōneke are assured access to the benefits that this settlement will bring to Ngāti Awa.
During the submission process, one submitter pointed out that every member registered to those two hapū held whakapapa links back to their traditional hapū within the Ngāti Awa tribal area, in the same way as do other Ngāti Awa descendents who are resident elsewhere in the world. Notwithstanding the rationale for including those two hapū in the bill, and, in particular, the wish of Ngāti Awa, it is important to remember the following points. Firstly, the establishment of those hapū can be regarded as a creation of expediency and convenience. Secondly, should Parliament be vested with the authority to create new hapū? Thirdly, what of other Ngāti Awa descendents living elsewhere in the world? Why should they be expected to connect with their hapū at home while residents in Tamaki Makaurau and Poneke have the convenience, and even the choice, to connect with either?
New Zealand First acknowledges the intent of Ngāti Awa to have a governance structure that ensures that their people can easily access the benefits of their settlement with the Crown, but we do not believe that what is proposed is a matter for this House, or, indeed, for the Crown. Of further concern to New Zealand First is our belief that to legislate for the creation of hapū, as proposed, will pose the question some time in the future as to whether the Crown can legislate for the creation of hapū over and above the traditional Māori social structure, as determined by tikanga Māori. If it cannot, why was this allowed to happen when so many Māori MPs are in Parliament at this time? The creation of hapū as proposed in this bill is not the responsibility of Parliament, nor should it be. Its inclusion in this bill is not essential, and if it were to be excluded, it would not affect the settlement or its durability. Furthermore, Ngāti Awa could still include those groups if they so wanted. It is their business, and theirs alone.
I want the record to show that the following Māori MPs, all members of the New Zealand First caucus, do not accept the right or authority of this House, and, indeed, the Crown and its bureaucracy, to legislate for the creation of hapū: the Rt Hon Winston Peters, Ron Mark, Jim Peters, Bill Gudgeon, Edwin Perry, and Pita Paraone. What is more concerning is that I know that a number of Māori MPs on the other side of the House agree with us but, for reasons known only to them, they have decided to remain silent.
The second reason that New Zealand First will not support this bill is the inclusion of the words “the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi”. Although I have articulated New Zealand First’s concerns on previous occasions, I think it is important to reiterate those, relevant to our doubt about the durability of the settlement. This settlement can still proceed without those words. We believe that their inclusion affects the possible durability of this settlement. I also point out to this House that it was suggested that those words—“the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi”—be included in the Foreshore and Seabed Act, and that it was at New Zealand First’s insistence that they were removed.
I need to ask where the principles of this Government were in relation to a bill that it perceived to be of such importance to this nation that it was quite happy to exclude those very words. Yet in this settlement it is quite happy to include them, which puts into question and doubt the possible durability of this settlement. We believe that the retention of those words will jeopardise the durability of this settlement.
In conclusion, I offer these words to the present and future leadership of Ngāti Awa: today they begin a new journey that will require them to lead their people to economic and social destinations, some of which they may never have been to before. I tell them never to forget to look behind them from time to time to ensure that the people they lead are still there.
Nō reira, e Ngāti Awa, haere i runga i te huarahi i whakapai hakapai ērā o ngā mātua tūpuna, i whakatīmata mai tēnei kaupapa. Kua puāwai te kākano i whakatōngia e rātou mō koutou me ngā tupuranga kei te heke mai. Nā reira, tēnā koutou.
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.]
[So to you Ngāti Awa, go forth on the path that those ancestors, who began this settlement process, cleared for you. The seed that they planted for you and the coming generations has blossomed. Congratulations.]
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (ACT): May I say first that I am a bit of a stickler for the rules, so I find it rather difficult to see members making speeches to the galleries, which is against the rules. At the same time, I can see why members are doing so: this is a historic settlement. Perhaps I can skate round the rules and say that I, too, wish that Ngāti Awa will do well. This is a substantial settlement of, I think, over $40 million. Not only is that the case but it also includes some land, and the bill provides—for the first time, I think, in one of these settlements—a right to a marine quota, so the total value will rise in the future. As people tend to look back at these speeches in the Hansard, let me acknowledge—and in this respect make it unanimous in the Parliament—that what happened to Ngāti Awa was a disgrace. There is no doubt about that. For the Crown to have declared people to be rebels when they were not is one of those things that I guess one cannot apologise for often enough. The ACT party acknowledges that, although in fairness one has to point out that previous Parliaments have acknowledged that there was a grievous wrong and have made attempts—generous by the standards of those times; we should not measure them by today’s standards—at settlement.
At this point I say that I wish the people of Ngāti Awa well. They come from the Bay of Plenty. They are a people with considerable resources, and with the amount of money in this settlement I hope they will do well. There has been criticism of comments I made yesterday. I am afraid I still think those comments are accurate. Indeed, I have been informed since then that the reason this settlement came before us as a private bill rather than a public bill is that civil servants also pointed out that the legislative structure the Crown was putting in place for Ngāti Awa to administer this $40 million was woefully inadequate. We pass protections for beneficiaries, infants, and the like with regard to assets, yet in this area we have failed to do so. I do think that that is a possible future grievance, so I have some doubts as to whether this bill will turn out to be a permanent settlement.
I listened very carefully to the remarks made by the New Zealand First member Mr Paraone, who said things that I think have a great deal of merit. How on earth can this Parliament start to define different hapū in a bill of this sort? One becomes extremely suspicious about that. I was a Minister when this treaty process first started; in fact, I was the Minister who had to do some of the original negotiations. I started from a point of not having as much knowledge as one would like, and I remember asking the officials how many iwi the Government believed there were in New Zealand. The first answer I got was that it was the same as the number of canoes, plus one iwi that came down in a ball of fire. I was later told that there were 24 iwi. Then the number went up to 48, and by the time I finished as a Minister, the Crown was recognising 120 iwi. Now it seems that the inflation of the number of iwi will become an inflation of the number of hapū. That is not an area where the Crown ought to be going, and it is certainly not something we should put into statute law.
That raises an objection of the ACT party to this process—an objection we have made in relation to every claim settlement. This process is actually an abrogation of Parliament’s rights. The Crown puts forward these bills, and then says to the House that they cannot be amended in any way. As a parliamentarian I object to that. When we see in these bills measures that are contrary to public policy, we are prevented by that ruling from making amendments. If New Zealand First had been able to put forward the amendment it suggested, I certainly would have supported it, and perhaps a majority of the members of the House would have realised that there was a mistake. But instead we have bills put forward in this way. I say with the greatest of respect to Mr Brownlee that National and Labour, the two old parties, have formed a club on these settlements. The speeches we are hearing today are no different from the speeches we heard when National was in charge. I objected to the process when National was putting such settlements forward, and I still object to it now that Labour is putting them forward.
I now turn to another criticism that New Zealand First and the ACT party have in common. I point out that the ACT party has actually raised this objection for longer than New Zealand First has, but I am glad to have the support of Mr Peters. We object to the phrase “principles of the treaty”. It is a meaningless phrase. It has caused enormous difficulty to the courts, which are unable to interpret it. There is now a growing body of academic literature that criticises this House for passing bills containing that phrase, undefined, and turning over to the courts a matter that is for Parliament to determine. That is why the ACT party has never voted for a bill that contains the phrase “principles of the treaty”. We have two members’ bills—and I think Mr Peters has one—to try to define clauses that contain that phrase. I have listened to Mr Peters and other members asking in vain for Government members to define what those clauses mean.They have refused to do so and we, as legislators, should not pass a clause when no member of the Government is able to tell us what it means. That is a further reason why we will not be able to vote for this bill.
I come now to another matter, which Mr Stephen Franks drew to the attention of members at the Committee stage. Again, it is very bad lawmaking. Part 4 of the bill requires the Environment Court and other Government agencies to give recognition to spiritual values. We do not know what they are; no one knows what they are. The Environment Court then gets claims regarding taniwha and the like. In a secular State, even one that respects religion, those sorts of phrases should not be contained in legislation. For that reason we will vote against this bill.
Having said all that, I still wish the people of Ngāti Awa all the best with regard to their claim—and that does not come from a desire to get a new job. I just want them to do well. I hope that they will be able to manage the settlement well, that it will enable the grievances of the past to be put behind us, and that it will turn out to be a very good thing for Ngāti Awa and the people of the Bay of Plenty.
METIRIA TUREI (Green): He mihi aroha ki a koutou katoa, Ngāti Awa.
[A fond greeting to all of you, Ngāti Awa.]
The direct negotiations, or deals, for Ngāti Awa are just about over. With the passing of this bill, Ngāti Awa will complete their settlement and, with the establishment of the rūnanga yesterday, will be able to pursue their interests independently without any further interference from the Government.
The Greens understand that there was little negotiation with the Crown over the amount of financial compensation eventually provided for in the settlement. Ngāti Awa presented its views, and the Crown came back with its own non-negotiable quantum. It is worth noting for the nation as a whole that Ngāti Awa are owed about 68,000 hectares of land, a situation arising from the historical confiscations and wrongful takings of the past. Under this settlement, Ngāti Awa will be returned only about 64 hectares of that 68,000 hectares still owed. That is less than 0.1 percent of what was taken from them. All New Zealanders should be filled with immense gratitude at the considerable generosity of Ngāti Awa in that respect.
For that the Greens sincerely congratulate Ngāti Awa. Ngāti Awa have been in negotiations with various Governments of various flavours since 1980. It is a settlement that has been 25 years in the making, with 10 of those years spent in the direct negotiations process. On reflection, the constant calls by some political factions on both sides of this House that the settlement process should be sped up and capped is entirely bizarre. Of course, it should not take an iwi 25 years to negotiate a settlement, especially one that does not return much more than the smallest possible fraction of the massive quantity of property and taonga that was illegally taken. Of course, restitution to iwi for the loss of life, hardship, and injustice suffered by them at the hands of the State should occur swiftly, without delay, and without undue cost to them, the aggrieved party. Perhaps if the negotiations process was a just process, whereby iwi and hapū determined and actively agreed to the restitution process, it would never have taken 25 years for Ngāti Awa to achieve their compensation.
We have to remember that it is the Government’s unilateral process that holds up settlements. It is the agonising pauperising of the iwi, whose funding is contestable and too hard fought for and who have to borrow against their meagre restitution, that holds up settlements. It is the unreasonable demands of the Office of Treaty Settlements, which puts its policies before the interests of iwi, that hold up the settlement process. On no account should any iwi or hapū be undermined by, let alone held responsible for, the failure of the direct negotiations process to operate swiftly and effectively. That responsibility lies directly within the sphere of the successive Labour and National Governments that devised it.
I will also talk very briefly about independence. Yesterday Mr Prebble criticised the rūnanga structure for not fitting his view of having appropriate trust accountability. He is entitled to his view, but it is a shame he holds it because he is wrong. He and others in this House forget that this restitution—the lands, rights, properties, and money that will be returned to Ngāti Awa—belongs to them collectively as their collective property. Frankly, they can do with it what they want. They do not owe anyone but each other. They are not accountable to the country or the public—only to themselves and their mokopuna. Their lands and taonga were stripped off them in the name of New Zealand as a whole. Restitution has now been made on behalf of New Zealand as a whole. Any interest by New Zealanders in Ngāti Awa’s financial affairs now ends. We now owe it to Ngāti Awa to leave them alone to pursue their interests and needs.
The Greens are highly critical of the settlement process—that will come as no surprise to anyone—when iwi have no authority over it. We understand that the necessary boundaries in a negotiation should be jointly negotiated if they are to be fair, but in the settlement process that has simply not been the case. The Government has set its policy with a “take it or leave it” approach. In our view, it is not fair negotiation but unmanaged bullying. The principles of fairness and justice that supposedly guide the settlement process are not a true reflection of it. It is a political process in which the Crown sets the framework and Māori are continually expected to compromise.
We are very pleased that Ngāti Awa have, as part of their settlement, a number of statutory acknowledgements, deeds of recognition, protocols, place name changes, and transferred sites. But the cultural redress package, and its protocols and advisory committees, is a poor substitute for the recognition of the treaty relationship, which, in the end, is the only means by which true restoration for the breaches of te tiriti can ever be restored. Providing for Ngāti Awa to express its views to Ministers on various issues gives very little practical effect to te tiriti and simply waters it down. The breaches of te tiriti involve the stripping from Māori of any real self-determination. Nothing has been done in this country to resolve that, and, in fact, the opposite continues to occur.
At the first reading of this bill, some months ago, the House was considering the Foreshore and Seabed Bill. At the same time that we were considering the Ngāti Awa legislation and the compensation being offered to Ngāti Awa for the unlawful taking of their lands, other legislation was proceeding that I signalled would again wrongfully confiscate land within the rohe of Ngāti Awa. Politicians on both sides of the House who argue for a time limit on the settlement process, or who either directly or indirectly blame iwi or hapū for their struggle in trying to achieve some compensation for the crimes committed against them, surely see the absurdity of their position. If they do not want the settlement of grievances to continue, they should stop stealing Māori land and thereby creating those exact grievances for the future. It is not exactly rocket science.
The Greens acknowledge that this settlement is the best that Ngāti Awa could have secured under the current settlement policy, and we sincerely congratulate Ngāti Awa on pursuing that restitution through a demanding and unjust process. We acknowledge that the settlement provides a measure of independence for Ngāti Awa, and we are very grateful for their tenacity and generosity to our country. The Green Party wishes Ngāti Awa the very best for the future.
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future): I rise on behalf of United Future to greet the Ngāti Awa representatives who have joined us here this afternoon, and to support the third reading of the Ngāti Awa Claims Settlement Bill. The bill records the acknowledgements and apology given by the Crown to Ngāti Awa, and it mandates the settlement of historical claims as agreed by the Crown and Ngāti Awa.
After reading the agreed-upon historical account, I have to say that what I found most devastating was the fact that generations have missed out on the use of substantial resources because of a death that was severely dealt with at the time, with multiple arrests, two trials, imprisonment, and execution. Therefore, setting the record straight and cultural redress are as important as the financial and commercial issues. The responsibility of the rūnanga to manage the resources from the settlement, which we do need to acknowledge can never be truly full, on behalf of all Ngāti Awa is an awesome challenge.
I hope and pray that those charged with this opportunity do so mindful of those who looked forward to this day, but never lived to realise it. The real challenge is not just what happens in the next few years, but to invest in such a way as to have the effects of the decisions felt by grateful lives in two to three generations from now. Thinking and acting with an intergenerational mindset takes a lot more courage than any quick-fix, short-term approach would require. However, on that matter, United Future feels confident that the intergenerational journey that brought Ngāti Awa to this point today will continue to serve them as they plot a way forward.
We congratulate Ngāti Awa today on their determination, their patience, their hard work, and their graciousness regarding this settlement. It is with great pleasure that we support the third reading of this bill.
MAHARA OKEROA (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): Before I start, I crave your indulgence. I understand that under the Standing Orders the use of “you” relates to speaking directly to the Chair, but we do have a customary practice of acknowledging the people; otherwise, if we speak with our back to them they are reduced to the mere presence of kēhua [spirits], which they are not. Thank you.
Ā, tēnā anō tātau te iti me te rahi me te katoa. Koutou e kopekope anō mai kai roto i tēnei Whare i raro i te tāhu kōrero, mai rā anō i runga i te tikanga e whakapuaki mai i te taha a rātau me te taha o tātau nei. Nō reira, tēnā koutou.
[And greetings once again to us all and everyone else in our various roles. Regardless of our Standing Orders about addressing each other, I seek your indulgence to address the people directly. Greetings.]
I do not want to make you hōhā, because we did have a go at doing that yesterday, but I do want to look at some of the ingredients that relate to you being here. Firstly, I think we need to pay proper homage to those people who are not here. A rātau rā kua tīmata ai o rātau nā pikitanga i runga i ngā taumata ki te mātōtoru me te nuinga o tātau nei.
[A vast number and a majority of us have begun the climb to the tops.]
So I think we need to do that in a way that remembers their contribution—not just to state that they are not here but to say also that they probably, like other members of other iwis who have been before us, will celebrate the whakatūtukitanga o tātau nei hiahiatanga kei roto i te Whare Pāremata, ahakoa ngā kōrero whakapuaki mai e ētehi o ngā mema ki te whakahē mai i ō koutou nei whakaaro kei roto i te pire nei.
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.]
[and to express what we want ourselves in Parliament, regardless of the views expressed by some members who oppose your thoughts in this bill.]
So to all the people who were originally part of the Ngāti Awa whānui, [greater Ngāti Awa,] who are not here, a mihi atu. [I acknowledge you.] We all have those pou tangata, pou wāhine, [mighty men and women,] who over time are no longer with us, and we need to pay that respect because they constituted the generation before you all who sit here, and they probably, in their own way, burnt the most kei roto ō rātau nei wairua. [of what was inside of them spiritually.]
I now want to talk about the statements about this journey that is taking place. Kei roto i te reo Māori, kua tīmata ngā hīkoitanga i runga i te ara e kore e mutu.
[To say it in Māori, the walk upon the road that has no ending has started.]
This is not about an ending. It is not even about a beginning, I suppose, in terms of te ao hōu, [the modern world,] it is about the continuation of the aspirations of your people with respect to what is happening today.
I do also, seeing I am a keen student of history, take issue with my honourable colleague Parekura Horomia. He mentioned that we are celebrating St Patrick’s day, and said that St Patrick himself was an Irish eponymous ancestor. Well, he was not. He was actually a Scotsman. I am very, very aware of who the eponymous ancestor of Ngāti Awa is, however, as there is a certain relationship between our ancestor Awanuiāorangi.
So having set that aside, I want to address another dimension, which I do not think has been addressed with any fullness so far. Given everything that has happened, both in the past and in the present, is it nothing less than a minor miracle that Ngāti Awa representatives are here at all. Because when we talk about the treaty partnership, that in itself, on one level, tends to disguise a whole range of other essential qualities that are missing. Let me first of all visit the word “trust”. It is an extraordinarily difficult challenge for the tribe, hapū, and whānau who suffered a huge consequence of a historical misdeed or breach, to then be able to, and be expected to, demonstrate trust in the Crown. I find that to be, as a claimant, an almost insurmountable hurdle. Because in order to establish that trust between two, at some times, adversarial groups, there must be some demonstration of goodwill. So to arrive at the stage where we are now, kei te noho koutou kei konei, [you are here,] would have required the group that was appointed as negotiators to get above and beyond that which caused the haehaetanga o te whatumana, [feelings to be divided,] in order to engage in a process that could be seen to be extraordinarily difficult, and at times overwhelming. So from that point of view I congratulate the representatives, on being able to get to a stage where, in spite of the piki me ngā heke, [ups and downs,] they can, at last, engage with regard to the resolution of a historical grievance.
I listened with some intent to a speaker who said we have some difficulty with the expanding number of iwi and hapū. There were different numbers when he initially had charge of the process, and I am thankful it is not current any more. Now, the state of that knowledge is not actually our fault, because we are very sure about how many hapū we have, how many iwi we have, and how many waka we have, which is not just seven. So that becomes part of an accepted mythology, if one likes, about the reality that other people paint for us. So this journey highlights that it is not about conforming to the edict “go forth and multiply”, but, rather, that some credence should be paid to the fact that we do have what we say we do have. In that regard, the fact that we have packets of settlements that apply to Ngāti Awa, kia ora koutou, [well done,] whether it is above the sea, below the sea, or on the land—it is just a little part of the original estate that was confiscated.
I wish Ngāti Awa well. I totally support the idea that you are going to be the navigators of your own destiny, unfettered and untrammelled. As I have found out in my experience, there is nothing like being totally responsible to Māori beneficiaries. It is not by any means of the imagination an enviable task. So those people who find themselves at the helm, kei te kei o te waka, [at the helm of the canoe,] the responsibility that is inherent in that is absolutely awesome and absolutely demanding, and sometimes one thinks: “Is it worthwhile doing?”. So Ngāti Awa, nā koutou katoa, tēnā koutou. [it is all yours, congratulations.] I shall leave the closing address from our party to the eloquence of John Tamihere. I wish Ngāti Awa well in their ongoing journey. Kia ora mai tātau katoa.
[Good health to all of us.]
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National): E Pūtauaki e mihi nei ki a koe me tou ake mana, mai i te maunga o Tongariro. Ngā mihi whānui ki a koutou e Ngāti Awa huri noa ki a rātou kua ngaro atu me koutou e noho mai nei i tēnei Whare. E mihi nei ki a koutou, ki a tātou katoa.
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.]
[Pūtauaki, I, Tongariro, greet you and your very own mana. Greetings to you Ngāti Awa, to those of you present in this House, including those who have gone from us. I greet you and all of us as well.]
I am pleased to speak to the third reading of the Ngāti Awa Claims Settlement Bill. It is a very important thing that we in this Parliament do today. With the passing into law of this bill we will put the legislative stamp on the settlement that Ngāti Awa have negotiated with the Government in satisfaction of their claims under the Treaty of Waitangi.
This is an important act in itself by this Parliament, but more important is the significance of the action. With the passage of the bill into law this Parliament gives vindication to those grievances that Ngāti Awa have sought to set right for generations—indeed, since 1866—when, wrongly, they suffered raupatu at the hands of the then Government, who declared them also to be rebels in their own lands, and when they consequently suffered the alienating circumstances that flowed from that action.
This Parliament salutes Ngāti Awa for their fortitude, doggedness, application to principle, and what was tika, despite rejection by successive Governments. I trust that by this action today a sense of justice is restored to Ngāti Awa—a feeling that the might of the institutions of the law and the Government can be extended to them when it is right and proper to do so. That is a legitimate right of every New Zealander, not least of Ngāti Awa.
The other side of the equation is that we, the current parliamentarians, by our action today go some way to restoring the honour of the Crown, and that is important. We can speak of the mana of Ngāti Awa and their status in this place and this land, but we must also be mindful that by the steps we take today we also restore the honour of the Crown.
New Zealand is a country that prides itself on having one standard of citizenship. The injustices suffered by Ngāti Awa fly in the face of that principle, and that is why it is so important that we as a nation commit and devote our energy and resources to bringing forward the truth of that principle: equality before the law for all New Zealanders, not least Māori, and not least Ngāti Awa.
I want to comment on an issue that was raised by an earlier speaker. Although Ngāti Awa are entitled to formulate the settlement according to their preference and on their own terms, we recognise that that is their right and that that is an exercise of their rangatiratanga. But in this respect I do, to a degree, support the issue raised by the member Pita Paraone, so I just ask the question—and it is not to be answered today—of whether Parliament should be asked to legislate for new hapū. If Ngāti Awa wish to recognise their own, because that is their right to do so, why then should Parliament be asked to put a legal stamp on that, if indeed there is some other way of allowing them to recognise their own without this Parliament having to put it into the law?
The other matter I will comment on is an issue raised by the Hon Richard Prebble, who talked about the insertion into legislation of the notion of the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. He might reflect on the fact that it was a Labour Government in 1975 that first introduced that notion into legislation, with the passing of the Treaty of Waitangi Act. I am not sure whether he, indeed, was a member of that Government at that time. Be that as it may, it is a fact today that that notion, that principle, that statement—that is, the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi—has come into much disrepute.
It may be the fact that New Zealand First has today, for the very first time, voted against a settlement bill that might prompt the Minister to give some thought as to whether future settlement entities wishing to use that statement will perhaps find another way to do it, rather than to have it inserted into an Act of Parliament. It is the case that settlements really do need the almost universal support of this Parliament. So it is a disappointment, given that the ACT party, as far as I am aware, has never supported a settlement bill, that now another of the political parties is doing the same thing.
Having said all that, though, I affirm that this is Ngāti Awa’s day. It is good to see them in full force sitting in the gallery. Indeed, it fills a person with much arohanui for their 14 years of negotiation and, especially, for those who have passed on in the hope of seeing this day come. Again, I congratulate Ngāti Awa.
I think that we in New Zealand are very fortunate that we have found a way to resolve matters of this nature. We look across the Tasman to our Australian cousins. They clearly have some difficulties with issues concerning the first people of that land. Here in New Zealand we have devised a process, a framework, that is not perfect by any means but by which we can steadily work our way through these matters, with a certain amount of dignity and certainly with a lot of good faith.
It takes a bold and courageous step for a tribe finally to settle its grievances and look forward to the future. Slowly but surely, and hopefully in a more timely fashion under the new Minister, we will see more of these settlements occurring. Fortunately, they are occurring against the backdrop of a great renaissance of Māori pride, Māori culture, and Māori entrepreneurship. We should all be very pleased about that.
Madam Speaker, of course, has had a part to play in this process. I also want to acknowledge the Hon Doug Graham, although when I salute him, and the efforts he put into this settlement, the issue is again highlighted that the Ngāti Awa settlement has indeed been under negotiation for quite some time.
I give my congratulations to Ngāti Awa. I wish them all the best—and I wish us all the best—for the future. Ngāti Awa has already started to move forward; they have not just been waiting for this settlement, which is good. Clearly, this settlement will add to the initiatives they already have in place, and we can look forward to a better future for them.
JOHN TAMIHERE (Labour—Tamaki Makaurau): E te rangatira rongonui, a Hirini, me te whānui o koutou a Ngāti Awa, kai te mihi, kai te mihi, kai te mihi nunui ki a koutou. Kei te tautoko i te mihi i mihia e Parekura rāua ko Mahara mō ō koutou tūpuna, ā, moe mai, moe mai i te moenga roa.
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.]
[To you Hirini, the well-respected chief, and to you the multitude of Ngāti Awa, greetings, greetings, and important greetings to you. I endorse the tributes accorded to your ancestors by Parekura Horomia and Mahara Okeroa. Rest there the ancestors. Slumber on and sleep the long sleep.]
I want to commend the last speaker. It is most regrettable that Georgina te Heuheu is no longer the Opposition spokesperson on Māori Affairs. Her contribution was a marvellous contribution, unlike the one made by her colleague.
Before I turn to the bill and commend it to the House, I want to comment on some of the gratuitous contributions that have been made by colleagues opposite. I tried as hard as I could to be awfully commending of the contribution made by the National Party’s spokesperson on Māori Affairs in the House today. However, if I were to commend him for it, I would be breaching the Standing Orders and Speakers’ Rulings, and I do not want to mislead the House. The reality is, try as hard as I might to defend the terrible comments made about him by the president of the ACT party, I do think that he is a bright bulb on a very dim tree. So, to that extent, I want to acknowledge him. I also want to note very carefully that his knowledge of treaty jurisprudence is somewhat strange, if not interesting. I strongly commend to him a seminar to be conducted by the Hon Georgina te Heuheu so he can be upgraded in his knowledge of the principle of partnership that has been clearly asserted with regard to treaty relationships by the Hon Doug Graham, leading directly on to the evolution of treaty jurisprudence.
I now turn to the position that New Zealand First has taken. Its approach is absolutely shameful, and I can say only that it is an election year stunt. The reality is that Pita Paraone has made much ado out of chairing the Treaty of Waitangi commemoration committee in Waitangi. Today he stood up in this House and said—and I am sure Kawiti, a signatory of the treaty, must be turning in his grave to hear one of his uri say this—that he would not support the principles of the treaty. It is an outrage. Furthermore, I say to Mr Paraone that it is not for Ngā Puhi to stand up here and to tell Ngāti Awa what to do. I can assure members that when Ngā Puhi’s treaty settlement comes into this House, Ngāti Awa will not be in here banging away. The reality is that they will determine their hapū and their destiny. It will not be that member, or any other person from the north, who will do so—notwithstanding that rumour has it the member is somewhat related. As for the contribution from the ACT party—well, that is a 1-minute silence. That party will be gone in 6 months.
I now want to acknowledge the contribution made by Metiria Turei in the Māori Affairs Committee, when she is here. It is always good to know that there is somebody who lives in a perfect world and who has a total perfect world view of how things should be. She is wonderful at making those sorts of contributions, but I regret to say that the world does not work in that way.
I commend, first, you, Madam Speaker—prior to this incarnation that we see today—and acknowledge the significant work you have put in over the last 4½ to 5 years to a huge number of treaty settlements that are nearing closure. I also acknowledge the fine work done by the Hon Mark Burton in taking over and filling some rather big shoes. Georgina te Heuheu acknowledged that work, and I support that.
Of course, I must make a comment about the Māori Party—
Pita Paraone: Why? She’s not here!
JOHN TAMIHERE: The reason I have to is that I do not know what the policy of the Māori Party is. At least I know New Zealand First will vote against the bill. That party has six Māori members, but normally only Winston Peters is allowed to talk. But we do not know what the policy of the Māori Party is on treaty settlements. We do not know anything about the Māori Party. However, we do know that a Labour Government delivers, and continues to deliver, to Māori communities, whether in education, in health, or in here with our fingerprints all over this closure. Was it tortuous? Was it difficult? Yes, it was. Is it hitting closure today? Yes, it is. It is another delivery mechanism. As a consequence, I want to commend Parekura Horomia for championing the entity bill for Ngāti Awa.
I commend the bill, and I now pay a special tribute of acknowledgment to Ngāti Awa. On a number of occasions I had the opportunity to hear some of the submissions they made at the tribunal. I regret that a lot of their leaders and elders are not here today to witness this closure. We acknowledge them and remember them. However, I do say that they are one of the iwi, contrary to what Mr Richard Prebble might say, that are led by people of significant integrity and credibility. They will be sustainable, and they will go forth and, as Mahara Okeroa said, multiply. I commend the bill to the House.
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore): I first of all want to acknowledge the people of Ngāti Awa today. I realise this is a historic day for them and that they have fought hard over literally decades to achieve this settlement. But I also want to express my surprise at that bitter speech made by a former Minister of Māori Affairs. I have to say that speeches like that will keep him “ex” for a very long, long time. That was just an extraordinarily wasted opportunity, when he could have lifted aspirations and tones but instead lost that opportunity. I think that is fundamentally why Labour will lose the confidence of Māori voters up and down this country. In fact, the risk is that the member will not be just a former Minister but will be a former member of Parliament, as he gets booted out by the Māori voters in his electorate.
I would like to turn my attention to, firstly, the fundamental goals of settlement. What are they? Why do we do this, as a nation? It is hugely important that we recognise that we are doing these settlements as a nation, and that it is no accident that when Governments, either Labour or National, enter into settlements, we refer to the “Crown”. It is done quite deliberately, because the settlements are intended to endure across generations. The integrity and honour of the Crown is placed on the record as a commitment by the people of this nation—both Māori and Pākehā—that these are solemn testaments to be honoured not just by the Crown but also by the Māori claimants, and that they are enduring, permanent, and final settlements. The words are not just put in there as a kind of cosmetic dressing. When it is said that the settlements are final, and when the claimants go through a very considered process of ratification, consultation, and so forth, that is intended to be an enduring commitment not just for the current generation but also for future generations. We are settling our history in these claims; we are settling our past. We do that by recording the history. There will always be some disputes, I acknowledge, as to what happened, who did what, and whether something is a true and an accurate reflection of what occurred. Perhaps we should not get too bound up in such detail when deciding whether we support a settlement, because what we are supposed to be doing is looking forward.
I do want to note the comment made by Mr Shane Jones, who I am sure will be a member of Parliament within a few months—[Interruption] Mr Dave Hereora and a number of other members on the Labour side will be displaced. The Labour Government will promote Mr Shane Jones, and a number of current Labour members of Parliament should be looking in the “Situations Vacant” column. Mr Shane Jones made it very clear that these settlements are actually a 20th century business, and that for the 21st century the aspirations of our country and of all the peoples in it should be to look forward. I thought the whole process of the Hui Taumata was very significant, because of the way in which, unlike the situation in 1984, there was much less focus on the problems of the past and much more focus on self-autonomy going into the future. Labour does not really understand what happened there, ironically. Labour does not quite get it, because Māori have signalled to Labour that they want to escape the clutches of dependency. They want to escape the clutches of the State and of social welfare, and to build autonomy and independence—
Ron Mark: And self-respect.
Dr WAYNE MAPP: —and self-respect, because progress does depend on self-respect, both as a people and as individuals.
I also want to say some other things about the nature of these settlements. This issue is not quite as evident in this bill as it is in the upcoming Ngāti Tūwharetoa bill, and it is the issue about how we cast our legislation. I have looked at the legislation for Tainui, for Ngāi Tahu, and for a number of other settlements, and what I see is a creeping insertion into our legislation of reference, initially just to the words “spiritual values”—nothing more than that. It does not go much further than that in this bill. But I have to note, by reference to the Ngāti Tūwharetoa bill, that there is a complete recitation there of the myths and legends of Ngāti Tūwharetoa. Now, I do not deny that those are important to Ngāti Tūwharetoa, but there is a reason why I am referring to that bill here today. I do not deny that those legends are important. They are important not just to Ngāti Tūwharetoa. Every young New Zealander needs to understand the myths about the volcanoes coming from Hawaiki and the legends around Ngāuruhoe. But we would not expect to see that kind of reference then recorded in legislation. The reason I say that is that it is not the business of this House when passing public legislation, the law of the land, to put mythology into statute. They exist by their own force of creation and by the commitment in the hearts and the aroha of the people.
We are going into dangerous territory, I believe, when we start inserting into our legislation reference to those kinds of myths and legends.
Why do I make that point? I make it because this nation is founded on the basis that we are all equal under the law and that we are a secular society. That does not mean to say that we are an irreligious society, and it does not mean to say that we have no respect for religion. Obviously, we do—this House starts each and every day with a prayer. What it does do, however, is to say that that belongs in the public domain—in the civil society. Each person and each group is free to practise their religion, their beliefs, and their fundamental driving forces. Those things are part of civil society, and we have very deliberately kept that aspect out of our public laws. That is what it means to be a secular society. It is rooted in the idea of equality—that we will all be treated equally, that we are all free to practise our religions and our beliefs, and that the State does not prefer any particular religion or belief. That is what a secular society means; it does not mean that we are an irreligious society. I give notice to Government members that if they keep putting that kind of reference into legislation, they will break the consensus that rests around settlements.
I want to conclude on this point. These settlements are crucially dependent on consensus. They endure because they have a consensus on them, both from Māori and the general community alike. When we make reference to the Crown in the settlements, it signifies that we want them to endure, and that they are intended to record our past and allow people to build for the future. I want to acknowledge that I wish the people of Ngāti Awa well in the use of their settlement. I am sure it will build confidence in the iwi, and will allow people to move past the events of the past and into development for the future.
Rt Hon JONATHAN HUNT (Labour): I want to say very briefly that the aim of this bill is to record the acknowledgments and apology given by the Crown to Ngāti Awa in the deed of settlement dated 27 March 2003 between the Crown and Ngāti Awa, and to give effect to the settlement of historical claims as agreed by the Crown and Ngāti Awa in that deed. In all the time I have sat in this House, I must say that this is a particularly proud moment for Ngāti Awa and for the Minister the Hon Parekura Horomia, and for those people involved in this bill. I wish everybody all the best for the future.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill be now read a third time.
Ayes 96
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Māori Party 1.
Noes 19
New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6.
Bill read a third time.
Waiata
Bills
Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill
First Reading
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Labour), on behalf of the Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Commerce): I move, That the Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill be now read a first time. At the appropriate time I will move that the bill be referred to the Government Administration Committee for consideration, that the committee present its final report on or before 31 March 2005, and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time during a sitting of the House, except during questions for oral answer, during an evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, despite Standing Orders 191 and 194(1)(b) and (c).
This bill corrects an inadvertent addition to three Acts. As at present worded, sections of the Building Act, the Commerce Act, and the Health Act all require those with delegated or statutory responsibility to make material incorporated by reference under those Acts, such as building standards, available free of charge on the Internet. Despite those well-intentioned additions, it has become apparent that those changes have, of course, given rise to concern as to the level of copyright protection afforded third parties, both in New Zealand and internationally.
The amendments proposed in this bill endeavour to strike a balance between the facilitation of access to material incorporated by reference, and the legitimate commercial interests of the owners of copyright in standards and other material that may be incorporated by reference. The changes are minor, but they are also urgent. Although the inadvertent addition has yet to take effect, with reference to the Building Act, it will do so if not removed by 31 March 2005.
The Government is grateful to United Future for supporting the bill. Its provisions, as they affect the Building Act, have been improved as a result of our discussions. The Government and United Future both agreed that copyright protection needed to be restored, and I am sure that all members would agree with that. We also wanted to ensure that builders had ready access to standards for design and construction, in a way that did not impose additional costs on the industry. The agreement reached allows precisely that.
The Government has also agreed with United Future to consider a further change to the Building Act, in order to require the publication of compliance documents on the Department of Building and Housing’s website to be free of charge, and for the chief executive of the Department of Building and Housing to report to Parliament, through the department’s annual report, on the measures taken to facilitate access to material incorporated by reference.
The bill proposes amendments to the Building Act in order to remove the positive obligation on the chief executive of the Department of Building and Housing to make material incorporated by reference available free of charge on the Internet. Instead, there will be a requirement on the chief executive to make available for inspection free of charge at the department’s regional offices, material incorporated by reference in regulations and compliance documents, including standards used by building practitioners in areas such as the use of timber and concrete in the construction of buildings, the design of buildings using timber and concrete, plumbing installation, access for persons with disabilities, and energy efficiency.
The chief executive will also be required to make copies of all material incorporated by reference available for inspection free of charge, at the department’s head office at Wellington, and to make copies of all material incorporated by reference available for purchase, either online or by way of request form, at all the department’s offices. In addition, the chief executive may also make material incorporated by reference available in any other way that he or she considers appropriate in the circumstances.
The bill also proposes amendments to the Health Act and the Commerce Act, in order to remove the positive obligation on the Director-General of Health and on the chairperson of the Commerce Commission to make material incorporated by reference available free of charge on the Internet. That will be replaced with a provision allowing the director-general or chairperson to make material incorporated by reference available in any other way they consider appropriate in the circumstances.
Further, the bill proposes an amendment to the Copyright Act. Legal advice has indicated that there are two possible interpretations of section 27 of the Act. That raises doubt as to the status of the copyright of third parties whose material has been incorporated by reference into legislation. Therefore, the bill amends the Act to clarify that the copyright of third parties is not affected when material subject to copyright is incorporated by reference into legislation. I commend this bill to the House.
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): What a disgraceful stuff-up we have in one of New Zealand’s most important industries. The building industry represents $18 billion of economic activity per year, and this Government’s track record on building law is simply appalling. What the Minister has said in the House today is that when the Government rushed through the Building Act last year, it stuffed it up. It made a mess that has compromised New Zealand’s intellectual copyright to its building standards, so we have to rush a bill through the House in 12 days in order to fix that. That is what he should have said. He should have apologised to the House, to the building industry, and to the people whose intellectual property this Government’s botched law has compromised.
It is interesting to note that when I asked the Parliamentary Library who has been the Minister in charge of building law under this Government, it contacted the Building Industry Authority. Do members know the response I received from the library? The authority was not sure who the Ministers responsible for the building industry have been for the last 5½ years. Can members believe that? The authority does not know who has been the Minister in charge of an $18 billion per year industry. We know that Mark Burton, George Hawkins, and Lianne Dalziel were responsible for a while. We know that Steve Maharey was the responsible Minister for a while. We also know that Margaret Wilson was the Minister for a while. We know that John Tamihere was the Minister too, and we know that it is Chris Carter now. But are any of those Ministers in the House today to speak on the bill? No, Paul Swain is doing that. It is little wonder that we have this sort of chaos within the building industry when that is the sort of game of pass the parcel that this Labour Cabinet plays in its approach to building issues.
Let us just recite this Government’s record in this important area of law. We know the history of the botch-up with George Hawkins. People were writing to George Hawkins, stating that there was a huge problem with leaky homes, and he did not get the letter.
Brian Connell: He didn’t get the letter?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well, he replied that he had not read the letter, and nor, it seems, did he respond to the issue. Let us remind ourselves of how serious that botch-up was. I know of families whose homes were built after the Minister and this Government were told of the problems, and who are now bankrupt because of the Government’s failing. That is the human toll of this Government’s mess in the area of building law. But it goes on and on. I am disappointed that the Government has not fronted up with regard to all the other problems in the new building law that will come into effect in 13 days’ time. This bill is just the tip of the iceberg. The industry is in chaos. Yesterday I visited the Auckland City Council and met with its building consent department. Those people are pulling their hair out with frustration because of this Government’s incompetence in the area of building law.
We need only to talk to the families that are dealing with the Weathertight Homes Resolution Service to know the sort of botch-up we have in this area of law. The Government promised that the resolution service would offer a speedy resolution of the problems experienced by the owners of homes that were leaky, rotten, affecting people’s health, and driving people to emotional torment. How fast has it been? Of the 2,800 claims before the resolution service, do members know how many have gone to adjudication? Fourteen. Do members know that eight times as many claims are being lodged per month than are being settled? Eight times as many claims are being lodged each month than are being resolved. That is a disgrace, and thousands of New Zealand families are at the end of their tether because of the mess the Government has made in this area of the law.
Then there are problems for the building industry itself. There are requirements in the Building Act that are in contradiction with contracts. So the poor builders have the choice of either breaking the law or breaking a contract. That is the dilemma that this Government has created for the thousands of people who work in the building industry. Homeowners are also caught. The Waitakere City Council, one of the great friends of the Labour Party, has put out a news release today, stating that there is no way it can process the number of consents applied for, as there is mad chaos as we approach 31 March.
This is a disgraceful bill. Let us recall what the Minister said. He said he would move that this bill be reported back by the Government Administration Committee not in 6 months, which our Standing Orders require, but in 12 days. That is what the Minister said.
Simon Power: That’s exactly what he said.
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: That is exactly what he said. I say to the Government that it is no wonder it keeps screwing things up and getting things wrong. How can we possibly scrutinise this legislation and make sure that in these pages of law there is not yet another stuff-up, when the Government will give the select committee only 12 days to fix it?
I say to the Minister that we knew about this problem 3 months ago. It was in the Aussie newspapers. The Australians were able to pull down intellectual property information from the Internet and print it for nix. The Government knew about that 3 months ago, and 12 days before the new building law comes into effect, it puts forward a sneaky little bill, just before a recess, to try to cover up its incompetence. That is not good enough. Where is the Minister? Chris Carter has been in charge of this area for the last 4 months.
Hon Ken Shirley: Oh, no!
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: That gives Ken Shirley great confidence that all will be hunky-dory! But where is Chris Carter in this debate—and why has nothing been done for 3 months?
Hon David Carter: It’s in the name of Pete Hodgson.
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: My colleague David Carter points out that this legislation is in the name of Pete Hodgson. Let us hang on a sec! According to the ministerial list that I have here, the Minister for Building Issues is Chris Carter. I know we have had eight Ministers in charge of building in the course of the 6 years of this Labour Government. Do we now have a ninth? What is going on?
Finally, I say to the Government that it is absolutely inevitable that the Department of Building and Housing will be breaking the law on 1 April. What sort of Mickey Mouse Government do we have? It knew 3 months ago that there was a problem in the legislation, and 12 days before it comes into effect it has sneaked in a bill to try to fix it—a bill that, because of the way it is drafted, will give the Department of Building and Housing no choice on 1 April but to break the law. That is how much respect for the law this Government has. It says people should do as it says, not as it does. Why is it OK for the Labour Government to break the law, when everybody else in New Zealand has to follow it? The scandal that is breaking out in the building industry through this Government’s incompetence will be one of the reasons why New Zealand will reject Labour at the election later this year. This bill is about the Government’s rushed legislation being wrong, and having to be patched up in a way that is quite unsatisfactory and will involve the Crown breaking the law. It is just further evidence that this Government has absolutely no competence to deal with New Zealanders’ most important assets: their homes.
TIM BARNETT (Labour—Christchurch Central): I am delighted to speak in warm support of the Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill. This legislation amends four existing Acts: the Building Act, the Health Act, the Commerce Act, and the Copyright Act. In all those situations it restores copyright protection. It ensures that builders have ready access to standards for design and construction in a way that does not impose additional costs on their industry. It amends Acts that require somebody to make material that is incorporated by reference available free of charge on the Internet. These are minor changes to the legislation.
The issue at the heart of this bill is that it is important to strike a balance between enabling access to material incorporated by reference, and the legitimate commercial interests of the owners of copyrighting standards and other material that may be incorporated by reference. The process being undertaken through this bill can best be described in one word: tweaking. This is a tweaking of legislation. This bill is turning very good law into excellent law, and I commend it to the House.
SUE KEDGLEY (Green): The Green Party will be opposing this bill, for many reasons. I have to say that I am astonished that a member of Parliament whom I greatly admire, Tim Barnett, would stand up and utter such—in my opinion—twaddle. He said that this bill is just tweaking the legislation, that it will just make minor changes to the legislation, and that builders will have ready access to the Building Act.
I want to raise an issue here. Yes, the Green Party acknowledges that there are some copyright issues and that these do need to be addressed. But this bill, in the guise of addressing copyright issues, actually removes freedom of access to heaps of important information. Instead of basic standards—building standards and so forth—being available on the Internet, where people can have access to them, suddenly this access is being taken away. And guess what? It will now be possible to charge people to get access to basic information, such as building standards. It will be extraordinarily difficult.
Far from what Tim Barnett said—that builders will have ready access to Building Act material—a great deal of it will, in fact, be available for inspection at the office in Wellington. How will that benefit a builder in Dunedin or in Whangarei? That builder will have to fly to Wellington and sit in the office there to look at the material. Maybe, if they are lucky, some of the material will be available in the regional offices.
Murray Smith: All.
SUE KEDGLEY: No, the bill does not actually say that it will all be available. Would that it did! It says that some of the material will be available in the regional offices.
I have recently had some experience of this sort of legislation, with the Food Act. Recently, as members know, we lost our sovereignty over making decisions about our food. All these decisions are now made over in Canberra by Food Standards Australia New Zealand, a body on which New Zealand has one vote out of 10. Nick Smith constantly goes on about what a great success this arrangement is. His Government, the former National Government, negotiated for New Zealand to hand over our sovereignty to a body on which we have one vote out of 10—and Nick Smith constantly holds this up as a good piece of legislation. We have one vote out of 10. Have we no self-respect, that we gave up our sovereignty and gave ourselves one vote out of 10?
Anyway, as a result of that, I have tried to get access to various documents held by Food Standards Australia New Zealand—for example, applications for genetically engineered foods. These documents are available at the office in Wellington—700 pages. So I have to go there, sit in the office, and look through 700 pages. As if that were not bad enough, now when we want to get basic information about food labelling and other such issues—standards that were freely available on the Internet—we suddenly find that we have to pay for it. This is what this legislation is all about. Where things relating to the Health Act and other areas were freely available, suddenly we will have to pay for them. And they are using the guise of copyright.
Certainly, in respect of the Building Act, there are some standards that are international and could breach copyright, and we accept that we do not want to breach international copyright. However, most of the standards are owned by the New Zealand Government, so why could all those standards not be available free of charge? Why should we have to fly to Wellington, or pay in order to look them up on a website? One of the reasons behind the leaky building scandal, which Nick Smith has told us about, was that people had not looked at the standards. They were not properly aware of the standards, and what we are doing here is making it more difficult to access and to know what the standards are. We will be setting ourselves up for another leaky building issue.
Why should we not make every single New Zealand standard available for nothing on the Internet? Why are we not making it absolutely easy and simple for builders all through New Zealand to access these standards? Instead, they have to fly down to Wellington, or pay to see them on the Internet. This is a basic issue of freedom of information. It is also setting a precedent, so that instead of having information available, for example Health Act information from the Ministry of Health—[Interruption] I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I seek your protection. I am being distracted by a conversation.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
SUE KEDGLEY: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I thought members were not supposed to speak right next to the person who has the call.
Hon Ken Shirley: Particularly the Leader of the House.
SUE KEDGLEY: Particularly the Leader of the House—absolutely. He is setting a very bad precedent.
The point is that this bill has been rushed through the House in 12 days. There should be legislation that prohibits rushing legislation through in 12 days. It is a disgrace. The ink on the Building Act is barely dry, and we are rushing through an amendment to try to change the law in 12 days. It is absolutely disgraceful. We are sneaking in a Trojan Horse. We are setting up a precedent so that we will suddenly have to pay for information that is owned by the New Zealand Government—statutes, building codes, and so forth—and should be freely available on the Internet. We will have to pay for it or fly to Wellington to see it. What nonsense!
Why should aspects of the Health Act no longer be freely available on the Internet? Everything in respect of the Ministry of Health is owned by the Government. This bill is setting up a situation whereby we will have to pay to get information that ought to be freely available. Surely, in respect of the Building Code, one would think that we would have learnt from the leaky building disaster and would be doing everything in our power to make the information available to builders around New Zealand. We should enable them to look it up on the Internet. If builders are required to go to a couple of regional offices, or to fly to Wellington, they will not do it. Guess what happens then? They will not comply with the standards and we will be setting ourselves up for a leaky building sequel.
In summary, we are totally opposed to this hastily cobbled together legislation. We believe that it undermines freedom of information. We believe that one of the intentions of the bill is to sneak in the precedent that we will pay for information that should be freely available on the Web. We have had experience of this through Food Standards Australia New Zealand, and it is a disaster. If there are international statutes that have copyright, then, sure, that is OK, but this bill applies to all New Zealand legislation and all New Zealand standards that are owned by the Government. Frankly, it is a disgrace.
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (ACT): It is interesting to note that in this debate it seems the National Party is opposed to the bill, New Zealand First is opposed to it, the Greens are opposed to it, and—I can tell the House—ACT is opposed to it. This is shoddy, shoddy catch-up legislation that the Government has brought to the House on the last day before we rise for an adjournment. Quite frankly, I do not think that the Government has the numbers. I see the Leader of the House scurrying around. He has suddenly realised that he does not have the numbers on this bill. I think the Government is in trouble. The key question is whether it is a supply or a confidence issue. The Government could fall by the end of the day over such an important piece of legislation.
We heard from the Hon Nick Smith that there are eight times more complaints being received by the Weathertight Homes Resolution Service per month than are being resolved.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: That’s right.
Hon KEN SHIRLEY: I have just had confirmation from that member. There are eight times more complaints being lodged each and every month than are being resolved. That highlights the enormity of the problem, and really underscores and emphasises the botch-up that this Government has made of the whole tragic leaky home problem.
I think we all know that the problem is grossly under-reported. People are very reluctant to rush off to their council and declare that they have a problem. They might want to sell their house, but they know that if they do rush down to the council the problem will go on the LIM report or on the building file, and that it will certainly be discoverable. They are living with the problem and hoping it will be resolved. It is a terrible, billion dollar - plus problem and, right from the start, the Government has done a botch-up on it.
The Government has done some foolish things like banning Oregon pine timber. What on earth was the purpose of banning untreated Oregon pine, when it cannot be treated and it does not need to be treated? That was a key point. But one of the first things the Government did was to run out and ban Douglas fir, which is Oregon pine. It was a very foolish move.
I suspect that the Government has never actually got to the core of what the problem is with the leaky home issue, because there is a whole lot of nonsense spoken about the use of untreated timber. In fact, we never ground-treated our framing timber with copper chrome arsenate—it was only boric treated. Boric treatment was not meant to combat moulds, slimes, fungi, and algae, which is the problem with the lack of weathertight homes. Boric never protected people from that; it was only copper chrome arsenate that did that. We used to add a substance called pentachlorophenol, known as PCP, which was put in the boric bath in the sawmill. It had nothing to do with leaky homes. It was to combat the blue stain that timber gets, which makes it unattractive in the marketplace. Because of lobbies from people like the Greens and others, and because it is a toxin—and yes, it is—it was banned. So since about 1990 it has been a banned substance, which has really triggered the problems that we now have with leaky homes, because the pentachlorophenol prevented the mould, the slimes, the fungi, and the algae from growing in our walls.
The Greens would argue, of course, that it was toxic so it had to be banned. But I put it to the House that the health risk and the risk to humans from the diseases spread by some of those slimes and moulds, which are naturally occurring, is actually much greater than the risk from the pentachlorophenol, which we banned. It is just cause and consequence. Some of the issues have not been thought through properly. Some people argue that we should ground-treat all framing timber with copper chrome arsenate. Again, that would be foolish.
What also happened through the 1990s was that we changed our architecture. We dropped eaves off designs, so water was more likely to get into the wall cavity. But the other reason was also a function of the Greens’ lobbying, if you like. It was that incredible drive for energy efficiency and insulation to the point where there was no vapour movement. The traditional Kiwi home always breathed, but as the designs changed through the 1990s, the walls stopped breathing. If we put in impermeable vapour barriers so that hot air condenses immediately in the wall cavity, there is moisture. Very significant volumes of water are trapped in the wall cavity, and that is when the moulds, the slimes, and the fungi take off. That move coincided with the use of air-dried timber, and the dropping of the pentachlorophenol because of the boric treatment that we used to provide. So those are the real reasons, and I observe that this Government has never actually got on top of the cause.
The Government has rushed around doing foolish, political knee-jerk reactions, but it never really got on top of the cause of what I believe is a huge problem in this country. It is much greater than most people are prepared to admit, because people do not like advising the council. They keep quiet, they do not want it recorded on the LIM report or on the building report, and they live with it until the walls virtually start falling apart. I believe that in years to come, and progressively over the next few years, there will be a lot more exposure of some very serious problems in our buildings.
This legislation does absolutely nothing to address the basic problem that we have in buildings. I am appalled. I think Mr Tamihere was the Minister for Building Issues for a short period of time. I ask Mr Tamihere whether that is right. He seems to be enjoying himself today in the House, but he was the Minister on watch for a short period and he was in charge of building. Again, how many Ministers has the Government had in charge of the building industry?
Hon Dr Nick Smith: Eight.
Hon KEN SHIRLEY: Eight Ministers! It is like revolving doors—the Government just moves them on. Any Government that took this problem seriously would have appointed a senior Minister and left that person there to address the problem. Instead, we have fits and starts and bad policy, and what we have before us today is just a continuation of that approach. The bill fails to address the basic problems, and it does not address the issue that it purports to address.
MURRAY SMITH (United Future): I want to begin by thanking the Minister for his recognition of United Future’s role in the drafting of the Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill. That demonstrates the very good working relationship that United Future and the Government have had during this term of Parliament, and United Future’s effectiveness in bringing about positive changes to legislation. After eight meetings with the Government and numerous telephone calls, United Future’s involvement has dramatically altered the original bill. I want to thank particularly Michael Parker, who intervened after we started to get a bit frustrated, and Suzanne Townsend, who knew exactly what I was trying to achieve with this bill, agreed with me, and helped to bring about a workable solution.
The background of this bill is that building compliance documents, the documents that all trades people and designers have to follow, refer to standards such as New Zealand standard NZS 3604, which is the basic standard used by builders. The Government Administration Committee, when considering the Building Bill, felt that if building practitioners were expected to follow those standards, then they needed to be readily available at a reasonable price. At the time, officials thought that could be done by making them available free of charge on the Internet, and the select committee added provisions to the bill to enable that to occur. I must say that the National members on the committee agreed with that point of view without dissent, and were therefore aware of the provisions at the time. However, it has become clear to all concerned that copyright prohibits that from happening, simply because standards associations rely on the sale of standards in order to fund their production of standards. If they were made available by New Zealand free of charge on the Internet, then the whole world would be able to access them and standards associations would not be able to profit.
The Government’s solution initially was to delete the requirement for free Internet access and to simply replace it with a discretion on the part of the chief executive of the Department of Building and Housing to make copies of the material available in any way he or she considers appropriate. New section 410(1)(d), inserted by clause 5 of the bill, would have been the solution. United Future was not prepared to agree to that course. The Government then proposed that the materials be made available for inspection in Wellington, as shown in new section 410(1)(b), also inserted by clause 5. But as far as the material referred to in section 410(1)(a) of the Act is concerned, it was also unsatisfactory to us that copies of that material be available for purchase only in Wellington.
The problem that United Future saw and wanted to be covered by this legislation is this. “Bob the builder” may wake up on Friday morning, receive a phone call to say that the job for the Browns is off, see it is a fine day and say that in that case he will get the retaining wall done for the Blacks. He may then dig out the engineer’s plans and suddenly find that the retaining wall is an unusual one; it has to be built in accordance with “NZS 5678”. He scratches his head. Usually he builds retaining walls under “NZS 1234”, so he does not know what the unusual standard “NZS 5678” is about. Under the Government’s first proposed solution, there was no guarantee that Bob would be able to get a copy of “NZS 5678” without writing to Standards New Zealand and waiting for it to arrive. Under the Government’s second option Bob could go to the Department of Building and Housing in Wellington in order to get a copy of the standard, which also would be clearly unsatisfactory, or he could hope that the local council had a copy. It may or it may not have one. He may then decide that he does not want to waste his time in trying to track a copy down, and go ahead and say he wants to build the wall on that day, so he will build it in accordance with “NZS 1234” and hope for the best.”
United Future’s solution, which is implemented in this bill, enables a builder to inspect any standards that he or she needs to access on a computer at any Department of Building and Housing office throughout the country, or to arrange the purchase of them through that department. I would have liked to have stocks on hand at each office, but was convinced by the Government that that was impractical and would be too costly, given the number of standards involved. However, “Bob the builder” can go to the local Department of Building and Housing office, knowing for certain that he will be able to access the standard free of charge and get the information that he needs. The result is that Bob is encouraged to build his wall correctly. The wall is built correctly, and everybody benefits. Better still, through United Future’s negotiation with the Government, the Government agreed to provide the extensions to availability within its existing Budget constraints, so that there is no additional cost in terms of an increase in the building levy in order to provide this additional information.
I would like to point out to the House—and particularly to enlighten the “Dark Greens” on this—that the list in new section 410(1)(c), inserted by clause 5, is a restrictive list on the face of it, in terms of the standards that it provides. However, as explained in the explanatory note of the bill, the standards that are set out in that section are all the standards that a builder or designer will need to access. The officials advised us that some 378 standards were incorporated by reference, but the vast majority—indeed, all but about 40 of those standards—relate to product standards and to product-testing standards. Clearly, those standards need to be available only to manufacturing companies, and it is reasonable that they obtain them from Wellington only. The companies are able to do that because those standards will not be needed at short notice. What is needed at short notice by architects, designers, and trades people are the standards that relate to design and construction, and all those standards will be available for inspection, free of charge, from every Department of Housing and Building office throughout the country—some 22 of them.
There is also a requirement, which United Future insisted on, for the chief executive to report to Parliament on an annual basis as to the steps that he or she is taking to facilitate access to such standards. That flows on from the requirement in the bill for the chief executive to make copies of material available in any other way that he or she considers appropriate. The chief executive must respond in terms of how he or she has carried out that requirement.
The Minister also acknowledged that he had agreed to consider, in terms of future amendments to the Act, a provision for all compliance documents that do not incorporate standards to be made free of charge on the Internet. That was something else that United Future wanted to have included, but we were advised that it was outside the scope of this bill, in so far as this bill amends a number of Acts regarding incorporation by reference. We thank the Minister for that acknowledgment and for looking at that issue.
This bill also amends three other Acts, the Commerce Act, the Health Act, and the Copyright Act, and it would be helpful for me to make some comments on that. In regard to the Commerce Act, the only requirement is for the materials to be available in Wellington. The Commerce Act provisions relate solely to the pricing thresholds for large electricity lines generators. At present there are no standards incorporated, and clearly if there were such standards they would apply only to large corporates involved in electricity lines generation. It is quite appropriate, therefore, that the standards be made available in Wellington, but there is no necessity that they be made available on a local basis. The Health Act provision is similar. It applies solely to the National Cervical Screening Programme. Again, there are no standards currently in place, and no standards that are expected. Even if there were, then the district health boards would be the ones that would require them, and again it is appropriate that they be available in Wellington, but there is no necessity that they be available on a local basis. As has already been indicated, the changes to the Copyright Act simply correct a doubt that existed as to whether the Government, by incorporating material by reference, was effectively breaking copyright. There had been some legal argument that simply incorporating material by reference into a document effectively incorporated the material itself, and copyright was lost. The amendment to the Copyright Act simply puts beyond doubt the issue that the incorporation of documents by reference does not take away the copyright that producers of the standard have.
In conclusion, I say United Future has demonstrated through the changes to this legislation the value of having a small party under the MMP electoral system. United Future has shown its concern for small trades people rather than the bureaucracy and, in particular, its concern to stand against a tendency by Governments to give chief executives discretion instead of obligations, so that they are less accountable. United Future has always been concerned to ensure, since the Building Bill was tabled, that the Building Act—as it is now—is workable in practice, and concerned to encourage compliance with its provisions at a grass-roots level. The changes that United Future has brought about in this legislation do that. We have also been concerned to keep costs down, and the fact that there is no levy increase as a result of the changes we have made is a real plus in terms of the industry. United Future commends this bill to the House, and will support it going through the select committee process.
JOHN TAMIHERE (Labour—Tamaki Makaurau): I commend the Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill to the House for its first reading and, in so doing, want to acknowledge that very fine contribution by the member from United Future. I listened very carefully to it, and I accept that members were not as diligent, whilst working on the Government Administration Committee that reported the initial bill back to the House, as they should have been. I was the Minister in the chair that oversaw the last of the Committee stage and the third reading so, to that extent, if there is any blame or difficulty for an error in the legislation as it went through, I accept Murray Smith’s apology. But, no—I acknowledge that we are having to correct the legislation at this stage, because of an oversight. Oversights do happen and mistakes do happen. [Interruption] Yes, that is right; Helen Clark never calls me an oversight!
I want to make a number of other contributions, though. The Building Act came about because of an implosion in standards, not only on the supply side but also in the standards and ethics of our actual trades people. It required a significant legislative change.
The National Party presided over a Building Act in 1991 that destroyed more than just the training arm and apprentice system of this country. We have a lack of capacity, capability, and competency because of what those people on that side of the House—and they will stay there a very long time, I might say—did, and failed to do. We in the last wee while have had to effect some significant change, a shift, both in standards and apprenticeships and in the way in which we regulate the building industry. I can say that the building industry has been awfully supportive in that regard.
The problems with leaky buildings have come directly out of a National-led Government, with its henchmen ably supported in the ACT party. The problems that we have, and that we are having to fix up, I tell the Hon David Carter, are all of the National Party’s making. I regret saying that, particularly this late on a Thursday.
I commend the bill to the House for a first reading, and I acknowledge my colleague Tim Barnett. I do not accept what the member of the Green Party said about his contribution; I do not believe that he talks twaddle. Again, I commend the bill to the House.
RON MARK (NZ First): I am rising on behalf of my colleague Brent Catchpole, who will be sitting on the select committee that considers this bill and hears submissions, but I have a couple of things to say in reply to the debate that we have had—and let me make that very clear.
Is this it? Is this bill the United Future party’s election winner? Is this the one that will move mountains, bring the mountain to Mohammed, and ensure that Murray Smith claws his way back into Parliament after this next election? Is this the issue? I have just heard the Minister of Labour, in introducing the bill, heap laurels and bouquets all over the United Future party, which describes itself in its own words as a small party; I heard some unkind person say “small poodle”, and that is the way it will be seen. I have listened to every word uttered by Murray Smith in support of this bill—as long, and as boring, and as well read out as his speech was. There was a time when people would come into this House, stand on their own two feet, and articulate their views, without once looking at notes, but not that man. He gave me a great, detailed rundown on what this legislation will do, by reading out his speech. He could have saved us all the problem of taking an unwanted Mogadon, by just tabling the speech.
But he did it, and he did it because he truly believes that this is it—that this bill is the one thing that United Future has done for New Zealand that will save that party’s bacon. It is nothing. That party campaigned vigorously on such moral issues as traditional family values. It was going to stop prostitution in its tracks, it was going to stop all the evils and the ills that are pervading New Zealand society, and the Christian coalition and all its entourage leapt on board behind the United Future party. And what do they get? They get the Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill. One cannot even read the title without being bored to tears. This is it. This is the United Future party’s last gasp. I have only one thing to say to the United Future party: it should roll up its sleeping bags, pull down its tents, pack up its placards, and go home. It is over. This House will not remember the United Future party for this bill.
What it will remember is a Government that rammed legislation through—the Building Act—in a great hurry. What it will remember is that successive Ministers have sat in the chair during the Committee stages of bill after bill, in urgency, and ignored pleas for changes, ignored Supplementary Order Papers, and voted them down, without ever once accepting constructive criticism from the Opposition benches. And only a few short months later we have to revisit the same legislation—passed under urgency—with the Government introducing a new bill that it wants to rush through in 8 working-days. The report back is expected to be tabled in this House in 8 working-days.
Our spokesperson has looked at this bill and has said: “Fair go; if this bill will help some people out there who have been ripped off and raided, who have had no assistance from the Government whatsoever in solving their problems, and who have been forced to the verge of, and sometimes over the top and into, bankruptcy, we will sit on the select committee and listen to it; we will support it going to a select committee.” But New Zealand First is looking for results, and New Zealand First is looking for accountability, because, after all, Prime Minister Clark promised us a new era of accountability.
I listened to the Hon Nick Smith’s speech, and he is quite right. We should look at the people who are behind this bill. Chris Carter has got this issue now, but, by golly, is it any wonder we hear George Hawkins has had involvement in it—George “Halfway House” Hawkins, the “Minister of Everything That Is Not Done Properly”. It is probably a good thing that some of these houses have to be demolished. We would hate to think that the occupants would ever have to dial 111 to get some help. Maybe that is the way people could get some help with their houses—dial 111 and say: “George, I can’t get any response from the Government in solving the problem, and now we’ve got this bill, the Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill”—
Brian Connell: Scream loudly!
RON MARK: If they dial 111 and scream loudly, maybe George Hawkins will hear them.
I have to make a couple of other points about this bill. Firstly, this Government was notified of these problems in December, and now we are rushing legislation through and asking for a report back in 8 days. That is not good enough. If an amendment comes forward—and I think there probably will be one, from either the Hon David Carter or the Hon Nick Smith—then we will support it.
Secondly, it worries us in New Zealand First that this problem has been with us for so long, and many promises have been made, but the solutions have been long in coming, and the Government has been short on delivery, and we ask ourselves why. Why is this Government so tardy in dealing with the leaky buildings problem? Maybe I have the answer. I have learnt one thing about this Government: it has no time for private citizens who are independent, and it has no time for private citizens who have the gumption to save money for a deposit to build a home. It considers them all to be rich. If they work they get no assistance. If they have children—and half the Labour caucus would not know what that is all about—if they save their money, the Labour caucus is not interested in them. The Government views a lot of those people with nice, flash homes as being rich, wealthy, and therefore not deserving of its protection or care. That is why we continue to see, as recently as last night on Close Up, more of the sad stories unfolding, and so few of those people getting satisfactory assistance, and so few of those claims being addressed. Does the Government care? No, it appears not.
It seems that United Future cares. United Future would have us believe that it has spent the last 2½ years beavering away producing this bill. Well, I simply say to United Future members that it is over, they should pack up their poodle and go home, and no one will remember this bill. The only thing people will remember is that for 5 years they waited in vain for meaningful assistance and meaningful help to rebuild their homes, rebuild their lives, and recover their lifetime investments—investments that they will never see. It does not matter about the protections that Mr Murray Smith talked about—the terms of the copyright, who has the information, or where it is accessed.
There is great suspicion in New Zealand First that this bill is just another revenue-gathering exercise by this Government. It has a long track record, supported by United Future, of dreaming up new revenue-gathering methods, such as the petrol tax, which United Future approved by giving supply of money, and by giving confidence in terms of the Budget. That is the bottom line for United Future. Those members can bleat on, harp on, pat themselves on the back, and congratulate themselves all they like, but the sad reality is that everything this Government has done—or has not done—that New Zealanders will be asking questions about in the election has been made possible by United Future. The only thing those members will be able to stand up and say is that they provided stable Government. In other words, they provided the doormat for Helen Clark to wipe her feet on every time she went into her office, every day of every week of every month of every year that she was in power. I say: “Well done, United Future!”. We thought it might have done something to stop some of the issues that were so dear to the Christian Heritage party.
From the perspective of New Zealand First, we will support this bill going to the select committee. We look forward to an adjustment right now in the report-back date, so that there can be meaningful examination and so that we can get to the bottom of what this bill really means. But, beyond that, our support will depend entirely on what the final product looks like, and entirely on how meaningful it will be in practical terms for those people who have invested their life-savings in their homes.
Hon DAVID CARTER (National): I say at the outset that this legislation will spell the death of United Future, because what we are witnessing today is the dodgiest legislative process that I have ever seen in my time in this House. There is an urgent mess to tidy up with the Building Act, and the Government is trying to avoid scrutiny and media damage by not passing the bill under urgency, thereby dodging the select committee process. Instead the Government comes into the House and says that it will refer the bill to a select committee for 8 working-days.
The Government knows full well that by introducing the bill at 5 o’clock on Thursday, 17 March, as the House is about to rise for an adjournment week, this legislation will not go to the Government Administration Committee until at least Tuesday, 29 March, which means that this Government, supported by United Future, is giving the Government Administration Committee 2 days—
Lindsay Tisch: How many days?
Hon DAVID CARTER: It is giving it 2 working-days to consider this legislation. [Interruption] Murray Smith says that that is not the case.
Murray Smith: It won’t even pass its first reading by 29 March.
Hon DAVID CARTER: I say to Murray Smith that that is exactly my point. The legislation will not be debated and finalised until 29 March, yet the Minister has instructed the select committee to report it back by 31 March. It is an absolute outrage.
The second point that I make for Mr Murray Smith concerns the name of the legislation. The Government could not be dodgier if it tried. The explanatory note states that the bill amends the Building Act. To anybody who has been here for any length of time, that means that this legislation should be called the “Building Act Amendment Bill”. But Murray Smith of United Future and the whole of the Labour Government are so embarrassed that they have dreamt up the name Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill, and have put the bill not in the name of the Minister for Building Issues—now the Hon Chris Carter—but in the name of the Hon Pete Hodgson. Members cannot tell me that Pete Hodgson is now the ninth Minister for Building Issues that we have seen during this Government’s administration. Jim Anderton, Lianne Dalziel, George Hawkins, Steve Maharey, and John Tamihere have all been associated with the mess that the Labour Government has made of the building industry in 5½ long years.
The sad thing is that the leaky homes mess was on the front page of the New Zealand Herald day after day.
Debate interrupted.
The House adjourned at 6 p.m.