Thursday, 23 June 2005

Thursday, 23 June 2005

Thursday, 23 June 2005

Madam Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Business Statement

Business Statement

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House): At the conclusion of business today the House will go into a 4-week adjournment. When the House resumes on Tuesday, 26 July, priority will be given to the Appropriations (2005/06 Estimates) Bill. The first Wednesday of that week will be a members’ day.

GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National): Noticing the controversy that has arisen in the last couple of days around access to the Australian market for New Zealand apples, I wonder what the Government’s intention is for item 19 on the Order Paper, the Conservation (Protection of Trout as a Non-commercial Species) Amendment Bill, given that this would appear to be one of the major blocks to allowing Australian apples into New Zealand. Could the Leader of the House perhaps tell us whether this bill would allow that particular problem to subside?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House): I think it is most unlikely the bill will pass before the election. I am not aware of any applications by Australian trout to enter our waters, but, of course, we are keen that people can have access up our waterways to get to the trout.

GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I remark that, given recent events in the Immigration Service that have been pointed out by others, I do not think the member can be at all sure of that.

Madam SPEAKER: I thank the member for that comment.

Points of Order

Election Advertising—Speaker's Ruling

Hon KEN SHIRLEY (ACT): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Some 2 weeks ago, on 8 June, I wrote to you expressing concern about Labour election advertising being paid from the parliamentary budget. Because this is the last sitting day prior to a 4-week adjournment, I am inquiring as to when I might expect a reply, and whether you have received any reports from the Electoral Commission, for example, or from any other agencies, evaluating that situation.

Madam SPEAKER: That is not a point of order. As my office notified your office, I am considering the matter and will get a reply to you as quickly as possible.

Demonstrations—Access to Buildings

GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I do not want to prolong things, but I want to say that we have had another protest on the forecourt of Parliament today, and there was reasonably heavy security provided for that. The gates were locked and the protestors were contained in a particular space. Whether or not that is a reasonable approach is something people might consider—particularly given the latitude that Mr Donald appeared to have in his protest recently.

But the issue I want to talk about is that members of Parliament, noticing that people in the assembly are friends, or even family in some cases, may wish to invite them to come into the building in small numbers—perhaps for a cup of tea or something—but are unable to do so unless they get your specific approval. That places a difficulty on you, because you have to be around. One of our members yesterday made a request to bring some people in for lunch, but you were unable to respond to him until about 4 o’clock, which created a bit of a difficulty. I wonder whether there might be a more flexible arrangement available whereby members take some responsibility themselves for people they invite into the building.

Madam SPEAKER: I thank the member for raising that. I have been following the Speaker’s ruling of 27 July, 1999. It states that any deputation waiting on a Minister or member after a demonstration is limited to six. So that is the approach I have been taking so far. But I am, of course, very happy to reconsider that ruling. If members wish to make a contribution to that consideration, I ask them to put it in writing or to make an appointment to see me.

Questions for Oral Answer

Questions to Ministers

Expatriate New Zealanders—Return to New Zealand

1. DAIL JONES (NZ First) to the Minister of Immigration: Does current policy encourage expatriate New Zealanders to return to New Zealand permanently?

Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Immigration): Government policy is designed to improve and promote the opportunities in New Zealand, and it looks to attract highly skilled and talented people, including expatriates.

Dail Jones: Why, then, is a Mr Dean Kenny, a sixth-generation New Zealander and a former Otago, All Black, and New Zealand Māori player who has returned to New Zealand with his British wife of 8 years and their two children, being put through the third degree by non - New Zealand immigration officials in so far as his wife’s application to stay here is concerned?

Hon PAUL SWAIN: I am not aware of the particular case. There could be a whole pile of circumstances there. If the member would like to give me the details of the case, I will look into it for him.

Moana Mackey: Why is this a good time for expat New Zealanders to return home to New Zealand?

Hon PAUL SWAIN: Because—[Interruption] 1.5 percent and going down. It is a good time because under this Labour-led Government, unemployment is at the second-lowest level in the OECD. Over 2 million Kiwis are in work, and over 260,000 new jobs have been created. That is a far cry from the dark days of the 1990s under the National Government, when unemployment was rising and opportunities were declining.

Nandor Tanczos: Does the Minister agree that it would be a real incentive to return home if New Zealanders living overseas knew that a proportion of their student debt would be wiped for every year they stayed in the country and contributed through paid and unpaid work, as the Green Party policy suggests?

Hon PAUL SWAIN: People who want to come back home make that decision for a whole range of reasons. Of course, one of the issues will be that wiping the debts of people who are overseas is unfair on those people who have paid their way all through university, without taking out a loan.

Paul Adams: Can the Minister confirm that most expatriate New Zealanders live and work in highly diverse cultures overseas, and that one of the reasons they may be reluctant to return to this country is the small-minded, anti-immigration sentiment whipped up by New Zealand First?

Hon PAUL SWAIN: There is a range of reasons, but that could well be one.

Dail Jones: Why is it that immigrants such as Mr Dean Kenny and his wife have to produce passport documents twice, documents to prove that their children are actually theirs, photos of them holding hands, and numerous other documents to prove that they have been living together in a genuine and stable relationship, and have to wait for 12 months before they get a decision; and does an 8-year Western marriage with two kids not speak for itself?

Hon PAUL SWAIN: As I say, I do not know the details of that case. What I can say is that if the system was lax, the New Zealand First members would be the first to scream, whinge, and whine about it.

Dail Jones: Why does it appear so easy, instead, for refugees and other immigrants to bring family members here under the family reunification policies, as in the case of Najim al-Ali, who successfully brought in 15 family members, when New Zealanders, such as Dean Kenny, returning here with their families are being treated like criminals in their own country?

Hon PAUL SWAIN: Of course, the refugee reunification of families policy was supported when the leader of the party that member belongs to was the Treasurer. It seems inexcusable to me that New Zealand First now wants to make political points out of this situation, when it supported those kinds of policies as part of a National-led Government.

Child Poverty—Government Action

2. GEORGINA BEYER (Labour—Wairarapa) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Is the Government committed to ending child poverty; if so, what is it doing to achieve this?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister for Social Development and Employment): Yes. We have committed ourselves in the Agenda for Children in 2002 to ending child poverty and we are making excellent progress towards this goal. From a peak of 34 percent or one in three children living in poverty in the mid-1990s, poverty levels have been reduced to 21 percent by 2004, largely thanks to key policies such as income-related rents and strong employment growth. Targeted tax relief through the Working for Families package will reduce child poverty rates by a further 30 percent by 2007, taking the level on this measure to around 14 percent, or less than half what it was when the National Party was in Government.

Georgina Beyer: Is there widespread community support for ending child poverty?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: Yes, there is. This cause is championed by both the Child Poverty Action Group and Every Child Counts, which is a coalition including groups such as Barnardos and Plunket, nearly 300 other organisations, and thousands of individuals. Church leaders have acknowledged that real progress has been made in areas like housing affordability and levels of poverty amongst New Zealand’s children. But not everyone agrees with this scenario being a priority. One person, when asked about his policies, said he could not give any guarantee. He stated: “Look, there is a cycle to these things. They go up and down. I can’t promise anything in this area.” That callous attitude has earned criticism from Every Child Counts, which stated: “Dr Brash’s remarks about the impact of his proposed tax cuts on children are the sort of political attitude that Every Child Counts argues needs to change if we are to have a worthwhile future.”

Judith Collins: Can the Minister provide an absolute guarantee today that child poverty will not rise while Labour is in Government and, if it does, will he then resign?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: This Government, unlike the member’s party, has committed itself to ending child poverty in the Agenda for Children. I say to that member we are all waiting—thousands of organisations are waiting—for that party to commit itself to ending child poverty.

Judith Collins: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The Minister made absolutely no attempt to address the question of whether he could give an absolute guarantee to end child poverty or guarantee that it would not rise while Labour was in Government. He made no attempt to answer at all, after having taken a cheap political point in his second answer.

Madam SPEAKER: The Minister did address the question in his approach to the guarantee.

Sue Bradford: Is it not true that the abolition of the special benefit will actually cut the income of many families entering or re-entering the benefit system after 1 April 2006, and will the Government reconsider its decision to axe the last safety net available to the poorest families in this country?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: The answer is no. What we have done with the special benefit, of course, is to have increased it hugely over the last 5 years to compensate for the fact that the previous National Government had not given people access to that third tier of the system. As I have explained to the member on many occasions, we have moved that money forward into the first and second tiers of the benefit system, and we are now replacing it with temporary assistance so that people can still get assistance if they are in severe need.

Georgina Beyer: Has there been a reduction in poverty levels for older New Zealanders, given that they are another vulnerable part of the community?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: Yes, there has. The poverty rate for superannuitants fell by nearly 30 percent between 1998 and 2004, from 10.6 percent to 7.6 percent. This reflects—

Gerry Brownlee: All National’s work.

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: —firstly, Labour’s decision to reverse the cuts National made to superannuation, I say for Mr Brownlee’s information, and restore the married rate to 65 percent of the average wage; and, secondly, our restoration of income-related rents. None of those policies was National policy, and on these estimates we now have a falling rate of unemployment, which is supported, of course, by all superannuitants across the country.

Land—Public Access

3. Hon DAVID CARTER (National) to the Associate Minister for Rural Affairs: Has drafting of the bill to enact the Government’s walking access policy decisions begun; if so, when does he intend to introduce the legislation to the House?

Hon JIM SUTTON (Associate Minister for Rural Affairs): Yes, drafting is under way and, as I have said before, it will be introduced when it is ready. There are some policy issues—such as mechanisms for negotiating compensation, and what to do with the millions of dollars worth of public land in the form of paper roads that are being farmed rent-free by adjoining landowners—that still have to be clarified.

Hon David Carter: What does the Minister find “amusing and funny” about today’s farmer protest, as he stated in the Straight Furrow dated 21 June 2005?

Hon JIM SUTTON: Well, there are some things in which size does matter.

Peter Brown: Will the Minister clarify whether the proposed legislation, as outlined on Morning Report this morning, is simply to allow the public access to rivers, waterways, and beaches, or is that an oversimplification?

Hon JIM SUTTON: No, the member has got right to the nub of the whole issue.

Larry Baldock: Has the Minister received any advice that United Future would give any support to a Government proposal that denied the principle of private property rights, given that Gordon Copeland’s member’s bill before the House would enshrine those rights in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act; if not, has he therefore familiarised himself with United Future’s policies that promote a common-sense solution to giving New Zealanders recreational access to their birthright while respecting farmers’ concerns?

Hon JIM SUTTON: I believe that the bill the Government has in mind would represent a very common-sense compromise between private property rights and public access rights and, therefore, I am confident that that party will support the bill when we can get it introduced.

Hon David Carter: Does the Minister stand by his answer in the House last week, when he said: “I am confident that I have the support of my colleagues.”, particularly in light of John Tamihere’s statement in the Herald on Sunday of 12 June that he considered the access proposals to be “tantamount to the right to roam”, and that “any drongo” could see that the proposals put Labour in a “no-win position”?

Hon JIM SUTTON: I presume that my colleague was misquoted, because he would know, as other members of caucus know, that the policy is not for a right to roam at will.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: What will the Minister do to ensure that local authorities enforce the law on public access to publicly owned paper roads that are fenced off by adjoining farmers or planted over by forestry companies, or will he continue to tell people denied access that they will have to go to court?

Hon JIM SUTTON: I am sure that is an issue the Government needs to address, and it certainly interfaces with the walking access legislation under preparation. Exactly how that interface will function is something we have not worked right through yet, but I agree with the member that it is an issue that commands Parliament’s attention.

Peter Brown: Noting the Minister’s answer to my earlier supplementary question, will those rivers and waterways have to be fenced in similar fashion to the swimming pools of landowners, whose lands people will have to cross to get to the rivers and waterways?

Hon JIM SUTTON: No.

Hon David Carter: Will the Minister give an assurance today that the access legislation will be introduced into the House before the general election?

Hon JIM SUTTON: As I have pointed out to the House before, I cannot possibly give that assurance, because for one thing I do not know the date of the election.

Rodney Hide: In drafting Labour’s “land-grab legislation”, has the Minister given any consideration to the member’s bill of National’s Nick Smith, which takes riparian-strip land outright, or is Nick Smith’s bill considered too draconian a measure even for the Labour Party, notwithstanding that the bill has the full support of National?

Hon JIM SUTTON: Dr Smith’s bill is far too draconian for the moderate, centrist Labour Party, but I must correct the member who asked the supplementary question. The bill that I have in mind is not a land-grab bill; all land will remain in its existing title.

Hon David Carter: I seek the leave of the House to table the Straight Furrow, dated 21 June 2005, in which Mr Sutton says the protest was quite funny and amusing.

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

Hon David Carter: I seek leave to table the New Zealand Herald in which Mr Tamihere says the legislation is tantamount to the right to roam.

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

Rodney Hide: I seek leave to table the commentary on Nick Smith’s member’s bill, which has the support of the National Party but is considered too draconian even for the Labour Party.

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

Aotea (Great Barrier) Marine Reserve—Application Process

4. LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) to the Minister of Conservation: Does he stand by the statement made on his behalf regarding the marine reserve application process that “if it can be demonstrated that there is undue effect on any one of a number of categories, then the proposal will not proceed.”; if so, how does he reconcile this with his approval of the Aotea (Great Barrier) Marine Reserve?

Hon RICK BARKER (Acting Minister of Conservation): Yes, there was strong public support for the proposed marine reserve and after modifying the reserve boundary to mitigate some areas of concern, the Minister of Conservation was satisfied that none of the objections should be upheld under section 5(6) of the Marine Reserves Act on the basis of undue interference.

Larry Baldock: In light of the Minister’s disregard for the opposition by the Ngāti Rehua hapū of Ngāti Wai, the Auckland City Council, adjoining landowners, the Recreational Fishing Council, Option 4, and the Big Game Fishing Council, does he plan to rename the Department of Conservation the “Department of Confiscation”; if not, when will he rename it to bring it in line with public perception?

Hon RICK BARKER: There was an extensive amount of consultation. At least 27 meetings were held with the general public and others, and at least 12 meetings with iwi. I reject entirely that member’s assertion that this is confiscation; it is conservation. It will preserve a unique part of New Zealand for future generations.

David Parker: What concerns, raised in objections, did the Minister respond to in amending the boundaries of the reserve?

Hon RICK BARKER: The area around Whangapoua Beach was excluded, which reduced the size of the reserve by some 508 hectares. The adjoining estuary had already been excluded from the proposal by the department. Taken together, these exclusions ensure an opportunity is retained on this remote north-eastern corner for local residents, recreational fishers, and tangata whenua to take fish from the estuary and the sea for recreational and customary purposes.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: Has the Minister been advised by the Minister of Fisheries when concurrence is likely to be received for the five marine reserves that are still awaiting decisions, and would we not already have five new marine reserves if the Government had been prepared to proceed with the Marine Reserves Bill, stalled in the select committee, which removes the need for this concurrence?

Hon RICK BARKER: I am not able to give the member clear advice on the status of the concurrence by the Minister of Fisheries, but I will undertake to have that to her in writing after question time.

Larry Baldock: Does the Minister stand by his statements, repeated in the New Zealand Herald on 18 June, that the Marine Reserves Bill, which United Future stopped in its tracks, needs to be rewritten because “every proposal becomes a major battle” and also that it is “more sensible to do the negotiation at the beginning.”; if so, why does he show no respect for those who have opposed the Great Barrier marine reserve by trying to ram it through and confiscate this area from New Zealand recreational fishermen?

Hon RICK BARKER: Every respect has been shown to the people who put in submissions. Their points of view have been listened to carefully, balanced, and weighed. On that basis, the marine reserve proposal has been amended. In respect of the bill, it will be enacted next term and I can assure the House that it is the Minister’s intention to make sure that all the key principles in it are retained.

Larry Baldock: Has the Minister any indication that the Minister of Fisheries, whose consent and concurrence are needed for the marine reserve, will join in his plan for confiscation of one of Auckland recreational fishers’ favourite fishing spots; if so, will they be mad enough to do it before the election?

Hon RICK BARKER: My answer to that question is in part the same as the one I gave to Jeanette Fitzsimons, in that I do not have precise advice on the Minister of Fisheries’ position, but I will get it and will forward it to him. The second point is that this application was lodged under the existing legislation and it should proceed on that basis. The third point is that surveys have been done of the number of fishers in this remote location, and it is not densely fished.

Land—Public Access

5. GERRARD ECKHOFF (ACT) to the Associate Minister for Rural Affairs: How important are property rights in forming Government policy, and why does he believe that his proposal to have a 5-metre walking access way along significant waterways is not a “land-grab” or “confiscation”?

Hon JIM SUTTON (Associate Minister for Rural Affairs): Property rights are important in the formulation of Government policy. In the case of the walking access policy, I do not believe that it is a land-grab or a confiscation, because this policy does not affect either title or land use.

Gerrard Eckhoff: Does he now accept that landowners in fact do own a bundle of rights to the property that they own, which includes the right of exclusive use of all their land; if he does accept that, would he please explain why his walking access proposal does not, in his view, take away that right of exclusive use?

Hon JIM SUTTON: It is a clear principle of the Government’s policy that there will be no interference with the right of landowners to use their land as they see fit, provided it is legal. What is not all right is for private property interests to capture sole use of public water for their personal private profit.

Hon David Carter: Why does the Minister continue to ignore the concerns of thousands of farmers and the advice of Land Information New Zealand, the Ministry for the Environment, Treasury, and his own Māori caucus, simply to advance Helen Clark’s personal agenda?

Hon JIM SUTTON: The member should realise that the overwhelming majority of New Zealand farmers did not participate in the little gathering in front of Parliament Buildings today, and he should desist from wilfully misquoting Government departments and members of parties other than his own.

Stephen Franks: Will his bill faithfully uphold and protect the promise in the precise words of article 2 of the Treaty of Waitangi—not the imaginary principles—to “confirm and guarantee” the “full, exclusive, and undisturbed possession of land for so long as it is their wish”; if not, what weasel words will be used to get round such clear, absolutely unequivocal language?

Hon JIM SUTTON: The Government is not proposing to offer members of the public exclusive occupation or use of other people’s land; it is proposing to give them certain and free access to the public water of which they are the owners.

Hon Ken Shirley: Given that this Minister’s and this Government’s proposal will certainly disturb the possession right of Māori land, does he not foresee and anticipate a treaty claim similar to the foreshore and seabed anguish that we have just had through the last year of this Government’s administration; and if he is thinking of exempting Māori land, why will he not apply the same principle to all New Zealanders?

Hon JIM SUTTON: As I have explained, there is a difference between exclusive use and occupation, and the right to access public water alongside land. I think members of this House should attempt to reach a reasonable balance between the public interest and private property rights, instead of taking the modern, selfish view of “Mine, all mine, and everyone else keep out or pay up.”

Rodney Hide: On reflection, will the Minister now apologise to protester Annie Carmichael, who called out to him in the protest: “It’s not a joke, Minister.”, to which the Minister shot back at her: “You’re a joke.”; if he will not apologise to Annie Carmichael, who made no personal attack whatsoever, why not?

Hon JIM SUTTON: The member’s friend was attempting to shout me down after I had been invited to address the crowd. I gave as good as I got. If people think it is all right to dish it out, then I think they should be prepared to take it, and should stop whingeing afterwards.

Gerrard Eckhoff: Would the Minister explain why this Labour Government is giving access over private property to everyone, yet I as an MP was denied access to Parliament grounds this very afternoon; is this not some form of hypocrisy, or is it just that the Government hates horses as well as cats?

Madam SPEAKER: I remind the member that the Minister has no responsibility for that matter.

Hon Richard Prebble: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I trust that the Speaker, who is helping the Minister out here, is not ruling out the question. The question was perfectly in order. It just asked the Government whether there is a bit of hypocrisy in the situation that the Government is allowing everyone—any Tom, Dick, or Harry—to go over private property rights, yet a Labour-appointed Speaker is denying an MP access to Parliament grounds, which is an absolute outrage. The member should be allowed to ask that question.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: The question had to be about two things for which the Minister is responsible for the non-usable word in Parliament to be used—that is, “hypocrisy”. What the member has now done, of course, Madam Speaker, is attack your independence on that matter. The fact that you ruled that a horse is not allowed in here does not seem to me to be, in any case, some kind of example of political bias, unless, of course, the ACT party gets horses voting on its behalf.

Madam SPEAKER: I thank the Minister. As the member knows, hypocrisy cannot be imputed, nor was the Minister responsible for that decision—the Speaker was. If the member wants to address that issue to the Speaker, it is not to be done in the House; it is to be done outside the House.

Hon Richard Prebble: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. With the greatest respect, a question was put to the Minister, asking whether a double standard was going on here. The Minister is entitled to have an opinion about that. Perhaps he supports having a double standard. But we should hear it and hear his reasons why he thinks this Labour Government can allow anyone to go over private property rights, but, when it comes to Parliament, if it does not suit it to have a demonstration occur here it is quite happy to refuse access. I think it was a perfectly reasonable question to put. If it can be seen on television, why can we not at least ask a question about it—or are we ashamed of our actions?

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: The member has now compounded the error. The Government is not responsible for decisions that you, Madam Speaker, make as Speaker about access. [Interruption] Indeed, the question did ask that. One cannot have a double standard on the part of the Government unless the Government is responsible for both decisions. The Government is not responsible for the decision about a horse coming into Parliament.

Madam SPEAKER: Ministers are responsible for matters that are in their responsibility, but if they do not have any responsibility for a matter, then they are not required to answer a question about their opinion—that is outside their responsibility. So it is out of order.

Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. In no way did the question ask about your decision. The question was about the bill, the legislation, for which the Minister is responsible. What it then did was contrast it with your ability, as the effective landlord of Parliament, to deny access, and was asking whether the Minister saw a problem with his bill. It was all about the Minister’s bill, not about your decision. Your decision was the comparison. The Minister is responsible for his legislation, and therefore the question was in order.

Madam SPEAKER: The matter might be resolved if the member—and I see he is writing—would like to put his question again in a way that falls clearly inside the Minister’s responsibility. It will not be an extra question. Could the member please restate his question.

Gerrard Eckhoff: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I shall attempt to rephrase my question so that the Minister clearly understands it. Would the Minister explain why this Labour Government is giving everyone access over private land, yet I, as an MP, was denied access to Parliament grounds? My question really is whether that is a double standard.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The member has repeated the same question with the same problem. If he cared to phrase the question along the lines of: “Is the standard being applied in the Government’s proposal on access to private land different from what was applied in terms of the access of a horse to Parliament?”, then the question would be in order.

Madam SPEAKER: Although a member cannot ask a question on behalf of another member, if that captures—

Gerrard Eckhoff: Hell will freeze over before I listen to what the Minister of Finance suggests I should ask as a question in this House. My question, as I have asked it, as far as I am concerned, stands.

Madam SPEAKER: Then I am sorry but the question is out of order.

Gerrard Eckhoff: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Some days ago I wrote to you, as Speaker of the House, seeking your permission on a matter, and giving you a complete and unequivocal assurance that the high standard of behaviour that you expect of MPs would be followed. I asked for the ability to bring our bus into Parliament grounds in order to have a better speaker system, and also to ride into Parliament grounds on a horse—giving an unequivocal assurance that I would not abuse that privilege or that right that I do think is expected of me as a member of Parliament. I wonder whether you could explain to me and, indeed, the House why you turned me down on that particular issue, given that I do have a right to enter the grounds of this Parliament. If I am allowed to come in on a skateboard, as Nandor Tanczos does sometimes, I fail to see why you denied me access on this occasion.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: That is not a properly raised point of order; it is a matter for correspondence. But I suggest that, perhaps, the member is unable to guarantee the behaviour of the horse—and some of us do have to walk across the forecourt afterwards. Nandor Tanczos’ skateboard is not able to engage in that type of behaviour.

Hon Richard Prebble: Horses were allowed in Parliament grounds for over 100 years, and no previous Speaker ever made a ruling against it. I think we are entitled to know; I think it is a reasonable question. Does this Government have a thing against animals? Is it just opposed to them? Or has it got a thing against protests—does it happen not to like them? If it does not, that is quite extraordinary, because one of the features of the New Zealand Parliament—and, I think, one of the best features—is that we are an open Parliament, and we allow demonstrations. We used to allow people, after they had taken part in a demonstration, to come into this building, because actually it is theirs, and we are just the custodians. We do not have the right to start saying who is to come in and when they cannot. I think it is extraordinary that the Green Party members, who support the Government, are allowed to come along on any sort of skateboard that they like, but the ACT party, which is strongly opposed to the Government, is told that it is not allowed to come and support ordinary New Zealanders exercising their democratic rights. I actually do think it is an outrage.

Madam SPEAKER: I thank the member. As the member knows, and as those who have contributed know, this is not a matter of order in this House, It is a matter that could have been raised with me—

Gerrard Eckhoff: It was raised.

Madam SPEAKER: No; contact was made, and I was told that you would get back to the Speaker. You did not get back to me, except in this House. That is not the appropriate way to handle it. But, addressing the point—please be quiet while I am speaking—the same rules were applied to the ACT party as were applied to others who had applied to demonstrate outside Parliament. There was no difference in the rules. I do not want to have any further discussion on this matter, because it is not a matter for debate in this House. This is question time.

Nandor Tanczos: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. In terms of being helpful to the House, Mr Eckhoff is welcome to borrow my skateboard any time he likes.

Water Quality—Lowland Rivers and Streams

6. ROD DONALD (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister for the Environment: What proportion of New Zealand’s lowland rivers and streams is she confident are safe to swim in?

Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister for the Environment): Data from the 2003-04 summer indicates that three-quarters of monitored swimming spots are safe for swimming. Having said that, water quality in our lowland streams and rivers is poor, which is something we are working to turn round.

Rod Donald: How does the Minister reconcile the statement she has just made with the scientific results of the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research study in 2004 that found all waterways in urban areas and 96 percent of rivers and streams in lowland farming areas had levels of E. coli that made them unsafe for swimming in, and levels of phosphates, ammonium, and nitrates exceeding guideline levels in 65 to 90 percent of cases?

Hon MARIAN HOBBS: Yes, a National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research report found that 95 percent of lowland rivers were not safe, especially to drink from. The institute then relitigated and re-looked at that figure, and changed it to 83 percent. The report from which I quoted was in respect of three-quarters of monitored swimming spots. Ninety-two percent of all local government undertake recreational water monitoring, and that is where that report and that figure came from.

Dave Hereora: What reports has the Minister seen about managing water quality in New Zealand?

Hon MARIAN HOBBS: I have seen a report that stated that the issue of water quality should be dealt with nationally rather than regionally. For us to centralise all the water-related activities of regional councils not only would reduce the quality of informed decision-making but could cost taxpayers between $35 million and $50 million per year. The idea came from the Hon Nick Smith, National’s environment spokesperson, and it is yet another policy that would not add up if it was intended to give all New Zealanders a $50 tax break.

Rod Donald: Will the Government introduce a national policy statement on water and a national environmental standard for water quality, as we have for air quality, which would require no further deterioration and a steady improvement in water quality, and leave it up to the regions to determine what activities would be encouraged or discouraged to meet that standard?

Hon MARIAN HOBBS: As the member is aware, we are in the middle of work on the Water Programme of Action. That programme lies around questions of water quality. It is not particularly easy when we come to make decisions about who is responsible for land use and for non - point source pollution—as in nitrates—and about what that may do to the right of farmers to use their land.

Peter Brown: Will the Minister for the Environment take a few moments to explain the logic behind opening up land for people to have access to rivers, some of which are fast-flowing, dangerous, and of poor water quality, yet prohibiting the farmer who has the land from opening up his or her swimming pool?

Hon MARIAN HOBBS: I find that extremely hard. It is a question about access rather than a question about water quality.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: What is the Minister prepared to do to require regional councils to lift their game in their management of rivers under the Resource Management Act, given the report of the Auditor-General, who told the Local Government and Environment Committee this morning that regional councils have unclear objectives, inadequate monitoring, and do little enforcement of compliance, and that river water quality is getting worse?

Hon MARIAN HOBBS: Following the Auditor-General’s report to the Local Government and Environment Committee this morning, I reported to that same select committee that the Resource Management and Electricity Legislation Amendment Bill gives the Minister for the Environment the authority and power to ask and demand of councils that they set appropriate standards for water quality. That is why work is continuing on the Water Programme of Action. You may think it is a mere talkfest, but there are actually complex arguments around ownership of property and the ability to make money from farming.

Madam SPEAKER: Please do not bring the Speaker into the argument.

Rod Donald: In light of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment’s report Growing for Good on the unsustainability of intensive agriculture, what is the Government prepared to do to make the agriculture sector more accountable and to take actual responsibility for the adverse environmental impacts on the natural water quality of the country’s lowland streams and lakes?

Hon MARIAN HOBBS: We recognise the problems the member is raising, and I have to say it is something we are dealing with. The example I give is the pilot work around Lake Taupō, which is absolutely to do with nutrients going into water. In that case, it is not lowland water; it happens to be a lake. What we learn from that work up there is very valuable in terms of working with the community to allow farming practices to continue but also lessening the amount of nutrients entering the water supply.

Health—Future Expenditure

7. STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) to the Minister of Health: What reports, if any, has she received concerning future Government health expenditure?

Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Health): I have seen a Treasury - Ministry of Health Budget bilateral report, which informed Government Budget decision-making. This paper identifies that the health sector is stable, and that a number of very significant policy priorities have been progressed within the vote. The report also mentions the review that the Minister of Finance and I have commissioned on the sustainability of health expenditure—further evidence that this Government is committed to continuing to spend money wisely.

Steve Chadwick: Has the Minister seen any other reports on health spending?

Hon ANNETTE KING: Yes. I have seen some very confusing reports about comments made by the National Party leader, Don Brash. On Tuesday morning Dr Brash said on National Radio that his party would spend more money on health care than we are doing now. Well, that is not hard; one would have to spend only a dollar more to say one was spending more. But something happened during the day. By Tuesday evening Dr Brash, when interviewed by Paul Holmes, refused to say whether he would spend more than is currently committed. Perhaps he had been told about—

Madam SPEAKER: Would the Minister please sit down. The first part of the answer was fine. You can refer to reports. But once you start to speculate on other parties’ policies, that is out of order. Would you like to reconsider your answer?

Hon ANNETTE KING: I was in fact quoting from those reports. The reports come from the transcript of the National Radio programme on which Dr Brash was interviewed, and from the Paul Holmes interview.

Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. What the Minister is doing now—

Madam SPEAKER: Members will be quiet. I cannot hear the point of order.

Rodney Hide: What the Minister is doing now is a direct challenge to the Speaker. You ruled that she could not answer with speculations on another party’s policy. You said that she could not do that. She then stood up there and tried to use the device that she was reading from a report, and carried on in direct defiance of a Speaker’s ruling. You have thrown me out for that—and quite rightly, because you have to maintain order in this House. A Minister is now acting, in her answer to a question, in direct defiance of your ruling.

Madam SPEAKER: I thank the member. Because the level of noise is slowly rising, I had not realised the Minister was still reading from a report. I thought she had moved from the report to speculation. She is perfectly entitled to make a reference to a report. Members must keep the level of noise down.

Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. So is it your ruling now that it is OK to speculate—

Madam SPEAKER: I am sorry, but I did not say that.

Rodney Hide: Let me finish. Is it your ruling that it is OK for members to speculate on another party’s policies, as long as they say they are reading from a Labour Party report? That is not allowed. Members cannot say they are reading from a report, and then speculate on policies.

Madam SPEAKER: I am sorry. That is not a point of order, and it challenges my ruling. If it is a reference to a report, that is fine. If it speculates on what may be, that is definitely out of order, because the Minister has no responsibility for that. But if it is in a report, yes, it is OK.

Dr Paul Hutchison: What will the Minister do about the facts that Treasury reports continue to show productivity concerns with regard to the health system, that successive health and independence reports show little evidence of improved outcomes, and that a report on primary health organisation management shows that many primary health organisations need propping up financially; is that not a pathetic record after spending an additional $3.5 billion?

Hon ANNETTE KING: No.

Peter Brown: What funding increases does the Minister believe there should be to the health budget on an annual basis to address the health problems of an increasing ageing population?

Hon ANNETTE KING: There is no right amount of money to be spent on health. Each country decides what the appropriate level of expenditure is. At this point, New Zealand sits at about the middle of the OECD in terms of expenditure.

National Immunisation Register—Computer System

8. HEATHER ROY (ACT) to the Minister of Health: What is the total cost to date of the computer system and software for the National Immunisation Register, including the cost of fixing the reported 150 bugs, remedying compatibility issues, and correcting data records, and how much is recoverable from suppliers in penalties, remedies, or non-performance fees?

Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Health): I am advised that the cost of developing the computer software for the National Immunisation Register is $4.256 million spread over 3 years. This is split into two systems: the National Immunisation Register, with a cost of $3.213 million, and the school-based vaccination system, with a cost of $1.043 million. I am further advised that there have been no costs to fix the bugs. Those fixes have been completed at the vendor’s cost, as required in the contract. There are no current compatibility issues that the ministry is aware of. There are no additional costs to the project for correcting data records. The contract allows for recovery of funds, if required, for non-performance.

Heather Roy: Is it true that the Ministry of Health is paying a support contract of $25,000 per month for the computer system for the National Immunisation Register, that this is higher than the normal market value, and that the contractor is required to fix all bugs in a timely manner or incur a $1,000-a-day penalty—but that bugs are not being fixed and that no penalties have been charged—and what explanation can the Minister possibly give for this?

Hon ANNETTE KING: No, I cannot confirm that.

Dr Paul Hutchison: Does the Minister have any idea how many children who have had immunisations have not been placed on the register and, conversely, how many children who have not had immunisations have been placed on the register; and how could she have bragged about that register only last Friday at Wairakei when she must have known about the shambles surrounding it?

Hon ANNETTE KING: I can brag about the Immunisation Register, because it was asked for in the mid-1990s and was declined by Bill English as not being needed, yet anybody who knows anything about increasing immunisation rates knows that it is needed. Any bugs in the system were expected during its establishment. It has been in place for 11 months, and those problems are being sorted out.

Heather Roy: Did Orion Systems International receive that contract through a closed-tender process, and is that company also the supplier of the computer system and software for the other failed project, the health provider index information technology project—or have the Minister’s officials not told her of that failure, either?

Hon ANNETTE KING: No, I do not have that information with me, mainly because I do not get involved in contracts. I do know that Orion has done a lot of work in the health system and is one of New Zealand’s finest information technology companies. I have no idea why ACT is chasing after the company as if it has done something wrong.

Criminal Proceeds and Instruments Bill—Intended Impact

9. TIM BARNETT (Labour—Christchurch Central) to the Minister of Justice: What is the intended impact of the Criminal Proceeds and Instruments Bill introduced to the House this week?

Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Justice): The bill introduces a civil forfeiture regime. This allows for the High Court to order the restraint of assets where there is reasonable cause to believe that they are the proceeds of crime. Once the court has found on the civil standard of proof—that is, the balance of probabilities—that the assets are the proceeds of crime, the regime allows for the confiscation of those assets. These measures are important because they will enable the justice system to strip gangs of assets, seriously reducing the profitability of organised crime activities and disrupting the capacity of organised crime to finance further criminal activity.

Tim Barnett: Will the legislation apply retrospectively?

Hon PHIL GOFF: Yes, the legislation will apply retrospectively to all assets and benefits derived from crime over the 7 years immediately prior to its coming into force. The legislation will therefore not have to be in place for years before its effect is felt. Retrospectivity is appropriate in this case, and it is not inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. The assets confiscated will have been found by the court not to be legally in the possession of those from whom they are seized.

Dr Richard Worth: Why has the Minister set up in Part 1 of the bill a scheme whereby criminal gangs and gangsters are given rights to negotiate and challenge the values ascribed to their tainted assets with a non-criminal standard of proof required of them, leaving the way wide open for abuse?

Hon PHIL GOFF: This bill is modelled closely on legislation that has operated for many years in New South Wales. In that respect, the New South Wales authority has found that once the assets have been restrained on the basis of “reasonable cause to believe”, in 90 percent of cases the crooks give up and surrender the assets without further taxpayer expense and without requiring the involvement in the court system. That is a great thing.

Tim Barnett: What is the estimate of the level of assets that may be recovered from criminals each year?

Hon PHIL GOFF: Officials estimate that up to $14 million a year will be recovered under the new legislation. That figure indicates just how much more effective the civil forfeiture regime will be than the existing legislation, which has recovered just $9 million in criminal assets over an 8-year period—$14 million a year against $9 million over an 8-year period. Everybody in the House should welcome this legislation.

Health Services—Productivity Problems

10. Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) to the Minister of Health: Does she accept that there are productivity problems within the health system, and can she give assurances that she is doing something effective about them?

Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Health): I am pleased with the progress that has been made in additional operations and affordable primary health care. However, productivity in health systems around the world challenges Governments of all political persuasions—in particular, how to measure productivity. The assurance that I can give is that, for the first time, a Government is working with major stakeholders, to attempt to provide robust measures of productivity in the health system.

Dr Paul Hutchison: What action will she take, given that Capital and Coast District Health Board, Waikato District Health Board, Canterbury District Health Board, and Northland District Health Board—four out of five of the country’s heart centres—all did significantly fewer operations in 2003-04 compared with the year before on a case-weighted basis, despite her pouring an additional $3.5 billion into health and surgeons saying that increasingly patients are critically ill before they stand a chance of having an operation?

Hon ANNETTE KING: I am very satisfied with the number of heart procedures carried out in New Zealand. The figure has improved considerably since the late 1990s.

Nanaia Mahuta: Does the Minister consider the claims that productivity in the sector is stagnant or declining are accurate?

Hon ANNETTE KING: No. About 80 percent of Vote Health is spent by district health boards. Of the money provided to them, about 60 percent is spent on hospital services, but only 35 percent to 45 percent of hospital output by expenditure is centrally recorded. That means that the analysis of district health board productivity is restricted to, at best, 25 percent of district health board activity, or just under 20 percent of Vote Health expenditure.

Barbara Stewart: Does the Minister expect New Zealanders to accept that productivity problems in the health system caused by shortages of essential medical personnel can be solved while workforce planning is split between the Health Workforce Advisory Committee, the 21 district health boards, and the Ministry of Health—a total of 23 separate organisations?

Hon ANNETTE KING: The member makes a valid point, in terms of productivity, when there are shortages in the workforce. I have acknowledged that on many occasions, and this Government has worked hard to increase workforce numbers. We now have something like 3,500 more nurses, over 1,000 more doctors, and so on. Shortages do restrict productivity. However, in terms of workforce planning, planning has to be done by all those organisations, and particularly by the district health boards, because they do the employing.

Judy Turner: Can she confirm that children’s elective surgery at Starship Children’s Health has ground to a halt all year due to shortages of theatre nurses; if she can, what strategies has she implemented to ensure that the massive waits those children are needlessly enduring for basic surgery do not continue?

Hon ANNETTE KING: No, I cannot confirm that, but I can confirm that I have put additional money into elective surgery at Starship Children’s Health for scoliosis surgery, where there was a backlog. There will always be times when children who arrive at the hospital and who are acutely unwell will take precedence over those who are waiting. There will be workforce problems in all our health sector. I am pleased, however, that a lot of effort has gone into improving that situation by employing more doctors and nurses in the health sector.

Dr Paul Hutchison: Why has the Minister failed to act effectively on the recent report on the sterile supply at Auckland District Health Board, a report pressed for because human tissue had been found on operating instruments prior to operations, when still, a month later, “grossly contaminated instruments” are appearing from sterile supply, which wrecks operating lists and is one reason why critically ill heart patients languish in the wards without treatment?

Hon ANNETTE KING: Because the report has been made to the district health board. The district health board is taking responsibility for, and will rectify, the problem.

Dr Paul Hutchison: What action is she taking to remedy the disastrous situation at Auckland District Health Board, where a quarter of a million dollars’ worth of heart surgery per week is being lost while specialist teams frequently stand around idle, because nurses cannot park on site and many are not prepared to take a bus from Green Lane Hospital, on the other side of Auckland, where there is parking, and why is that gross inefficiency and waste continuing to occur at a district health board that is on intensive monitoring?

Hon ANNETTE KING: Perhaps the member would like to ask the previous Prime Minister why the parking, when Auckland City Hospital was being built, was made as it is.

Dr Paul Hutchison: I seek leave to table two papers. The first is from the clinical leaders at Auckland City Hospital, subsequent to the report on sterile supply, and states: “Systems at ADHB potentially compromise patient outcomes and add significant delays to the processing of patients.”

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

Dr Paul Hutchison: The second paper is from the New Zealand health statistics, and shows that four out of five of New Zealand’s heart centres carried out significantly fewer operations in 2003-04 than in the previous year.

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

Hon ANNETTE KING: I seek leave to table the transcript of Morning Report, where Don Brash said he would spend more on health care. I also seek leave to table the transcript of the Holmes show, where he would not confirm that National would spent more on health.

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

Judy Turner: I seek leave to table a report from the New Zealand Herald about nurses’ shortages at Starship Children’s Health.

Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection. Yes, there is objection.

Question No. 11 to Minister

RON MARK (NZ First): I notice that the Minister of Police is not here. I seek the leave of the House to have this question deferred and held over until the Minister of Police can bother showing up.

Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is. Would the member please ask the question.

Police—Funding

11. RON MARK (NZ First) to the Minister of Police: Is he confident that police funding is being used effectively?

Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade), on behalf of the Minister of Police: The Minister of Police has the flu at the moment. The answer is, overall, yes. The police are better resourced than ever before, with staff numbers about to top 10,000 for the first time, which is about 1,300 more than there were in 1999; and an annual budget that has been increased by this Government to $1.03 billion. The effectiveness of the huge investment in policing in recent years is evidenced in the fact that crime rates have fallen dramatically to levels not seen since the early 1980s; more crime is being solved than at any time since 1987; and the road toll is at a historic low.

Ron Mark: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Could you assist us on this side of the House. Nowhere in the statement of intent does it show that uniformed numbers will be over 10,000. Could you ask the Minister to correct his answer, please.

Madam SPEAKER: That is not a point of order.

Ron Mark: Well, it is about accuracy and not misleading the House.

Madam SPEAKER: That is not a point of order. Would the member please ask his supplementary question.

Ron Mark: If all the money allocated to policing issues in this country is being used effectively, could the Minister tell the House why we are continuing to pay a huge salary, and all the perks and baubles that go with it, to a Minister who refuses to front in this House and answer questions—not just today, but previous days, day after day, and now even on the hustings?

Hon PHIL GOFF: I deplore the fact that when a member of this House, from any side of the House, is ill in bed with the flu, and is not able to be here, another member makes a personal attack on him. That is really pathetic, petty politics.

Martin Gallagher: Has the Minister seen any reports of threats to the current effectiveness of the police?

Hon PHIL GOFF: Yes. I have seen reports that National is advocating cutting staff from core Government departments to pay for tax cuts. I find it hard to believe that anyone would want to cut police numbers—

Simon Power: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. This matter was ruled on earlier in the day when Mr Hide raised it with you. There is no such report. The Minister is creating a hypothetical situation, on top of which he has no responsibility for National Party policy, and is abusing his position in answering that question to make those statements.

Hon PHIL GOFF: Speaking to the point of order, I have in my hand a report stating that National has confirmed that it is eyeing up job cuts in the public sector to help pay for big tax cuts promised in its first year in office. That is the report. I am quoting from it.

Simon Power: That is not what the Minister said when he responded to the question. He made a specific reference to the police, not the public service. He has misrepresented exactly what was in that report.

Hon PHIL GOFF: Hansard will recall that I made no reference in my answer to the police.

Madam SPEAKER: I heard the Minister refer to a report. He then read from that report. I say it again, and I know we are in that period, that there cannot be speculation on hypothetical situations, but if statements are referred to they are perfectly in order—on both sides, whether it be in the questioning or in the answering.

Dail Jones: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The Minister is answering questions as the Minister of Police. He has just told us that he is referring to a report that made no reference to the police. Therefore, how can that report possibly be used by him with regard to answers about the police? He should be asked not to refer to it.

Hon PHIL GOFF: Madam Speaker, if I can finish my answer I will be happy to reply to the member.

Madam SPEAKER: Can we let the Minister finish his reply, and then we will see where we go from there.

Hon PHIL GOFF: I find it hard to believe that anyone would want to cut police numbers, but then I do recall in the late 1990s the last National - New Zealand First Government planned to cut 540 police staff in order to pay for the failed INCIS computer system.

Ron Mark: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. This is where we get ourselves into difficult situations. If a Minister blatantly says something that is not true, not just once in response to my question, but again, and now again, and he is not brought to task, it leads to disorder. Now, there are questions of not misrepresenting the facts in the House, not telling untruths, and not deliberately inciting disorder. The fact is that that man knows that the New Zealand First coalition agreement gave another 500 uniformed police, and he is deliberating seeking to mislead the House again. And you let him get away with it.

Hon PHIL GOFF: I seek leave to table the document for the edification of the member. It starts: “Treasurer and Deputy Prime Minister, Winston Peters, has confirmed up to 450 jobs could go within the bureaucracy with police restructuring.” They are—

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

Ron Mark: I seek leave of the House to table the New Zealand First - National Government coalition agreement, which makes—

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

Dail Jones: I seek leave to table the New Zealand First policy for the 2005 election, which states that New Zealand First will double the size of the police force—

Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. Can we get to a supplementary question please.

Larry Baldock: I seek leave to table the National - New Zealand First coalition agreement that promised the coalition would provide “sound and stable Government for New Zealand for a 3-year term”.

Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. We are getting to the point where the House is being brought into disrepute. I ask members to desist. Can we get to a supplementary question, please.

Dr Richard Worth: Why does the Minister have confidence that the Commissioner of Police will use the resources allocated to him in the recent Budget to fix the 111 system, in light of the commissioner’s view that the report into the communications centre was “provocative” and he believed that the 111 service was in fact already quite adequate?

Hon PHIL GOFF: The member forgets that the person who ordered the report was in fact the Commissioner of Police. Why do I have confidence in it? I have confidence in it because it provides an unprecedented $45.5 million that will allow additional staff, enhanced training systems, additional radio channels, and improved management systems and structures. This will resolve a very longstanding problem; a problem of long standing to the extent that this was a problem under previous administrations.

Ron Mark: In light of that answer, does the Minister not recall that he was personally informed of the failings of the 111 system 3 years earlier than the ordering of that inquiry, and was specifically warned that someone might lose their life; and why did Iraena Asher have to die before this Government acted?

Hon PHIL GOFF: The way in which a communication centre operates, by its very nature, is an operational matter. That is a responsibility of the Commissioner of Police, and the police commissioner has accepted that responsibility. The answers given time and time again by the Minister of Police in this House were that the review was ordered, and when we had the result of that review he would ensure that the funding was available to implement those recommendations from the review. The Minister was as good as his word, and, together with the Minister of Finance, provided $45.5 million to produce a system that will be truly world-class.

Employment—Jobs Jolt Initiative

12. JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Is he satisfied with the performance of the Jobs Jolt initiative, Activating Very Long Term Unemployed; if not, why not?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister for Social Development and Employment): Yes.

Judith Collins: Can the Minister confirm that the review of the 2004 performance of his Activating Very Long Term Unemployed stated that the impact of this initiative—in terms of getting people into work—was “considered zero”; if so, what does his persistence with failing Jobs Jolt initiatives say about his claim that his ministry makes policy changes only on the basis of “evidence-based research”?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: The latest Jobs Jolt quarterly report shows that the outcomes for this initiative continue to be significantly ahead of forecast and have had an impact; and because the number of very long-term unemployed have declined by 21 percent since we started this programme, I have now broadened its eligibility to include clients who have been on a benefit for 5 to 8 years rather than the original target group of over 8 years.

Judy Turner: Is he satisfied with the performance of another Jobs Jolt initiative, the ProCare pilot, designed to assist beneficiaries in Manukau with stress and depression, when only 52 have participated out of the original target of 120, despite the fact that these conditions alone account for 1,327 sickness and invalids beneficiaries in that area and that despite a forecasted success rate of 24 percent, only 13 percent have gone off the benefit, and half have left the programme without going off the benefit?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I actually am very pleased with the emerging results from the Providing Access to Health Solutions, ProCare, and Workwise programmes that have been piloted in the Manukau and Wellington regions. I have congratulated both the Ministry of Social Development and the two district health boards on the way they have run this pilot. The concept has proven itself to the extent that now we have extended it to the Western Bay of Plenty, and I am looking forward to rolling it out across the country in the coming year.

Judith Collins: Can he confirm that New Zealand taxpayers spent $761,000 on the Activating Very Long Term Unemployed initiative in the 2004 year for “zero effect”, and what does he have to say to the long-term unemployed people to whom he has provided a quarter of a million dollar programme that is nothing more than a public relations stunt?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: No, and the figures for long-term unemployment run like this: 2 years - plus since 1999, 34 percent reduction; 2 years - plus over the past 5 years, 61 percent reduction; 8 years - plus since we introduced that programme, 21 percent reduction; 10 years - plus since we came into power in 1999, 63 percent reduction; 10 years - plus over the last year, 35 percent reduction. My advice to the long-term unemployed is: “Stick with Labour.”

Judith Collins: In that case, has he seen Treasury concerns about Jobs Jolt, that: “Treasury believes that strong economic and employment growth has masked the relatively insignificant impact of the initiatives.”, and is he satisfied that the only appearance of success in the Jobs Jolt package is in fact the result of hard-working New Zealanders creating more jobs so that someone else can pay taxes?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I have seen a report that shows that the Jobs Jolt initiative to date has in excess of 7,000 people directly from the job. It is a 3-year programme. It is well on the way towards its 22,000 target. It would help if the member became literate and actually read the reports properly.

Bills

Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi Claims Settlement Bill

Procedure

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House): Following agreement between the whips, I seek leave for the House to proceed directly to the third reading of the Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi Claims Settlement Bill, upon the completion of the Committee stage.

Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is no objection.

Points of Order

Parliamentary Accountability—Ministerial Statements

Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (ACT): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I believe that this is a very serious matter regarding the standing of this House and the principle of parliamentary democracy—that the Government should be held accountable by Parliament.

I also raise the question of ministerial statements under Standing Order 341, and I draw it to your attention that our Standing Orders are based on the Standing Orders of Westminster. Indeed, we used to acknowledge that fact in the Standing Orders when I was first a member. Standing Order 3, I think it was, used to state that when there was any doubt, then the precedents followed by Westminster should be followed.

There has been no change in the Standing Orders of Westminster; there is just the matter of interpretation. But the Speaker in Westminster, the Mother of Parliaments of our type, has now ruled consistently in Britain that the Government, when Parliament is in session, should make major statements in the House.

We have today an example of a Minister making a release—a release on race-based funding—that he put out this morning, embargoed to the media. I think it has to be noted that we are not fools; we know what is going on. When I came into the House today I was surprised to see that the press gallery was half empty, and I wondered what was happening. The reason was that the Minister had decided that at 2.15 p.m. that release would become public.

I think you should note, Madam Speaker, that a report on race-based funding is highly controversial; it can make quite substantial recommendations for change. If that report had been released earlier today I do not have any doubt that you, as Speaker, would have allowed an urgent debate. I have no doubt that over half the questions presented to the Government today would have been about that report. But, instead, here we have Parliament looking at an odd sight—that is, because of the Government telling the media not to tell MPs what is going on, what we are doing is not being seen to be relevant.

I say to you, Madam Speaker, that the way in which the British Parliament overcame that behaviour required some courage, but it was a decision by the Speaker. The Speaker had been extremely critical of Ministers behaving as Mr Mallard has behaved, and had said it was actually unparliamentary for a Government, when Parliament was in session, not to make announcements in the House.

I draw it to your attention that under Standing Order 341, “Ministerial statements”, which states how these things should be done, the Minister had, and still has, the ability to come to this House to make a statement to us on what is a major report on race-based funding, so that the matter can be debated and be subject to accountability. For the Speakership in New Zealand to say we do not have the ability to advise the Government that to do as the Minister has done today is unparliamentary and not in accordance with our Westminster system, just invites the Government to manipulate Parliament to lower the standing of this House. I think that that is deplorable, and I really do ask that you make some statement.

This is the worst case I have seen for a long time. The House is shortly to adjourn for a month. We, the elected members of Parliament, are to be excluded from discussing this report, and we are excluded fundamentally because the Speakership up until now has refused—I am not just criticising yourself, because previous Speakers have also refused—to stand up for the rights and privileges of members of Parliament.

One of those rights and privileges is that Ministers ought to be accountable, and if they can—and they could at this time—they ought to make a statement. I think you should invite Mr Mallard right now to make a ministerial statement under Standing Order 341 so that we can discuss that report—a report that the Minister thinks is so important that he put it out to coincide with the meeting of the House this afternoon.

Madam SPEAKER: I thank the member for that and draw his attention to Speaker’s ruling 115/4: “While it is eminently good practice for Ministers to make important policy statements in the House, it is not by any means a convention in New Zealand.” I also understand from recent reading that that convention has been weakened in the United Kingdom, as well. So I follow that Speaker’s ruling.

STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I ask you whether you would take time to review that ruling. Simply noting that it is weakened and relying on what is now a 4-year-old convention may be something that you would care to revisit as a new Speaker, bearing in mind the fact that when things start to weaken, what might have been unfortunate and infrequent can become normal. I invite you to come back to us on that in 4 weeks’ time, having considered it in detail.

Madam SPEAKER: May I invite the member to write to me on this matter, so that I can consider it then.

GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National): I seek leave for the House to set aside time now for an extended debate on the release from the Government of the report relating to race-based programmes, put out by the Hon Trevor Mallard today.

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

Bills

Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi Claims Settlement Bill

In Committee

Debate resumed from 22 June.

Schedule 1

A party vote was called for on the question, That schedule 1 be agreed to.

Ayes 109

New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 25; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Māori Party 1.

Noes 9

ACT New Zealand 9.

Schedule 1 agreed to.

Schedules 2 to 11 agreed to.

Schedule 12

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Murray Smith to schedule 12 be agreed to:

to omit from under the heading “Rauru of the gods, sky, lands, and seas”, the following wording: “Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi emanated from the cosmogenic tree of the gods. It came by way of the legion of spirits who were not seen but heard, down through the generations of the Kahui Rere and the genealogies of the ‘immediate assembly of elders’. In this respect, Rauru is a progeny of both ‘divine and human parentage’ and, therefore, so is Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi.

This divine origin is particular to the sacred, mystical, and theological insight of the people of Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi. The esoteric nature of these claims is expressed through their own pertinent whakapapa link. It is through a knowledge and awareness of this whakapapa that one is able to gain a perception of the attitudes of the tribe towards the almighty powers of the celestial realm, the cosmic emanations of the divine beginning, the world and its creation, and the evolution of earth and its people.

Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi makes a direct acclamation by stating its origins from the period of the Absolute Void to Rangi and Papa, to Rauru the man, and Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi the tribe. This claim draws together the spiritual and temporal manifestations of which Rauru is the central figure, it deals specifically with the origins of: the gods, man, vegetation, and taonga.”

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

Ayes 55

New Zealand National 25; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; United Future 8.

Noes 63

New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2; Māori Party 1.

Amendment not agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That schedule 12 be agreed to.

Ayes 63

New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2; Māori Party 1.

Noes 55

New Zealand National 25; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; United Future 8.

Schedule 12 agreed to.

Schedule 13 agreed to.

Clauses 1 and 2

GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National): Clause 1 deals with the title of the bill. There can be no doubt that the words in the title “Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi Claims Settlement” by and large reflect what the bill does. I do not want to argue that the title of the bill should change. What I have to say is that at the end of a very long process, we are very disappointed to have been put in a position today where it becomes almost impossible for us to support the passage of this settlement bill. One may ask why I bring that up now. It is because of the use of the very word “settlement” in the title of this bill, which is to become an Act. When that is considered alongside schedule 12, then I think that those who have read schedule 12 will begin to see the difficulty that the use of the word “settlement” in the title creates, because it confers something upon this particular iwi that is not there for other New Zealanders. We will speak further of that in the third reading debate, but I take this moment simply to indicate the difficulty the National Party is currently wrestling with.

PITA PARAONE (NZ First): Again on behalf of New Zealand First, I want to say that the title is quite clear. The bill is about a particular claimant group. The title identifies the name of the claimant group, and that is really what is needed from a title.

The previous speaker, Gerry Brownlee, said that this bill gives some rights to the claimant group that are not available to other New Zealanders, and I accept that he is quite right to raise his concern about that. But this bill is about Ngā Rauru Kītahi’s claim; it is a settlement between them and the Crown. However, we do express some concerns about some of the entitlements that it gives this claimant group that are not available to other New Zealanders, and that should signal to the Government, and therefore the Crown, that care and thought should be given when considering future claimant settlements that come before this House.

In terms of the commencement, again, I ought to say that there may be a technical reason why the bill cannot come into force until the day after the royal assent is given, but this claimant group has waited a long time for this settlement to take place. Although some people may consider that an extra day is not too long, I think that if it were technically possible, the bill should come into force the moment the royal assent is given.

On behalf of New Zealand First, I say we support clauses 1 and 2.

STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT): Before I start, may I ask for some guidance. I have assumed that the expanded form of preamble that is now in some of these bills is, in fact, part of the title. The title used to be called the long title, and this is a very, very long title. It seems to me that the preamble would not have been debated under any other heading, and I propose to address some parts of the preamble.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): The preamble has already been agreed to. However, the member may wander over any aspect of the bill, from the first page to the last—any issue at all.

STEPHEN FRANKS: The debate being a title debate—I understand. The matters I wish to draw attention to are matters that one day will be seen in the same light as the issue that Mr Brownlee has now indicated—and I think the people of New Zealand should be grateful for that—the National Party is starting to treat seriously, and that is the language that appears in settlement bills, and the importance that that language might have for future generations. We must try to make sure we actually are settling claims, and are not simply creating fresh foundation for new claims.

The title states that the legislation is a settlement, and it immediately follows a preamble that recites a series of events in what I imagine the Crown would argue are non-judgmental terms, but which I believe future generations will cite as some kind of parliamentary confession. There are statements about facts there, and there are statements that are probably highly controversial.

I do not know whether this particular claim and the lead-up to it were involved, but about 8 years ago I was told by one the Crown Law Office people who had been engaged on treaty claims work that when he left he could not stand the work any longer. He had been instructed not to challenge evidence that he knew came from people who were unreliable, their having been declared unreliable in completely unrelated court proceedings, and he was not allowed to put forward matters that he believed were relevant. I have no idea whether that relates to the Ngā Rauru Kītahi claim, but I am reminded of it because this title follows a preamble that records that the Crown gave the Waitangi Tribunal an indication of a number of matters on which it would not give evidence. It then recites what undoubtedly were very nasty events 150 years ago. But at the end of it the Crown says that the “disempowerment” recited by the Waitangi Tribunal, the “denigration and destruction of Maori autonomy or self-government”, is a breach of the treaty and its so-called principles.

That disempowerment theory, that autonomy notion, is at odds with the treaty itself. It is at odds with the principles on which any healthy society works. We simply cannot see around the world any prosperous, forward-looking, healthy society where people spend their time arguing about who has ultimate authority on a race basis. By reciting the disempowerment theory and the autonomy theory in the preamble to this bill, the Government is setting this country up for another argument in 20 years’ time. If the money runs out, if it is lost, if the settlement does not bring a new millennium of prosperity and happiness, there will be some people who come back to visit it. A document that purports to be a full settlement should not contain within it, by deliberate obfuscation, the seeds of more argument. We should know whether this bill is endorsing that tribunal decision. We should know whether this House, by simply recording that decision without comment, is trying to separate itself from it. I am sure that in 20 years’ time someone will say: “Parliament never meant to endorse it. It simply recited it.” But I believe that it has been put there to mislead the claimants into thinking it is being endorsed, and that is wrong. Either it is endorsed or it is not, and the legislation should state it.

The title talks about a settlement, but, as Mr Brownlee says, there will be no true settlement in a document that sets out to try to mean one thing to one side and another thing to the other side—or, maybe, multiple things. There may be more than two sides here. There may be those who oppose claim settlements on one side, and in the middle is the vast body of New Zealanders who want to see injustice remedied, who are embarrassed by what happened in Taranaki, and who wish they did not have to learn about Parihaka and the treatment of Māori rightly defending their property and existence—their tūrangawaewae. There is huge goodwill, and a huge wish that these things be put behind us. But by recording the autonomy theory and the disempowerment theory—as if disempowerment were itself a breach of the treaty—we are setting up this House, this country, and this Government to have the next generation come back and say: “Clearly, we still don’t have power. Clearly, we still don’t have autonomy. Clearly, there’s a standing breach of the treaty.”

I think there are very few, if any—perhaps the Green Party—in this Chamber who would agree with that. Perhaps Labour would have agreed until 2 or 3 years ago—until the Ōrewa speech, until Mr Mallard started his review of the effects of race distinctions. I think it is wrong to have a vote on this bill treated as a form of endorsement of a theory that, when the Waitangi Tribunal came out with it, immediately generated a storm of justified protest. I am not sure whether it was the interim Taranaki report that contained the famous holocaust words—[Interruption] It was. Well, that is not a report that this House should be reciting in the preamble to legislation as if it were something we endorsed. It was a report that discredited itself by its extremism. I am sure there was some very sound historical work in it, but the judgment that was applied to that work by the tribunal in the writing of the report means that it should not be given weight, and it should not be recited as if we accepted its authority. It appeared during a period of the tribunal’s outpourings that actually lowered the tribunal’s mana. It meant that the tribunal became something of a mockery after that. The recital of that report as authority immediately precedes the title provision, and Parliament is not doing itself any service by passing law in that form.

The Māori Affairs Committee corrected minor matters of Māori presentation. It went to the trouble of having a translation in the bill rewritten, but it did not look at the substance. The substance of the preamble is what people will look at in the future—not whether there was some clumsy translation.

In this Committee stage, I am glad to hear that National is actively considering whether it can vote for the bill as a whole. I urge Mr Brownlee to take into account, as well, the effect of voting for a bill that implicitly endorses the “holocaust” report, because I suggest that that is the effect that will be claimed in terms of recital (18) of the preamble, which precedes the title.

Clause 1 agreed to, and clause 2 agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment.

Report adopted.

Third Reading

GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National): There were negotiations earlier this afternoon about Parliament granting leave for this bill to progress immediately following the Committee stage. The reason for that was that we were told that a large number of people from the iwi were making their way to Parliament for the third reading. On that basis, obviously, we did not want them to come here for no purpose. I know we are not meant to refer to the galleries, but it is patently obvious that the group that is on its way has not yet arrived. Accordingly, I would seek leave that we hold this third reading for, perhaps, another 35 minutes or so, in order that the group may be able to be present in the Chamber.

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is.

Hon MITA RIRINUI (Associate Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): I move, That the Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi Claims Settlement Bill be now read a third time. In doing so, I acknowledge the significance of this day to the people of Ngā Rauru Kītahi and to the representatives who are in the House today to witness this very, very important occasion. This bill brings to an end the longstanding and significant grievances of Ngā Rauru, and settles all its historical treaty claims. The past actions of the Crown that are acknowledged in this legislation contributed to the dismantling of Ngā Raurutanga and the loss of Ngā Rauru Kītahi language, land, and social structures. That has affected the economic capacity and the physical, cultural, and spiritual well-being of Ngā Rauru Kītahi. What happened to those people in the past was at the very serious end of the scale, in terms of breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi. This bill contains the Crown’s formal apology to Ngā Rauru Kītahi for those breaches of the treaty, which are acknowledged by the Crown.

The historical treaty claims of Ngā Rauru Kītahi relate mainly to the wars in Taranaki and to the consequent confiscation of land from Ngā Rauru Kītahi. The effect of those actions on Ngā Rauru Kītahi was severe. Ngā Rauru people were forced by Crown troops to leave their homes and marae for several years in the 1860s and 1870s. When they joined the peaceful settlement at Parihaka, they were arrested and imprisoned. I encourage all New Zealanders to read the historical account outlined in the Ngā Rauru Kītahi deed of settlement. Stories such as that are scars on our history, but remembering them is vital to an understanding of the relationship between the tangata whenua of this country and those whose ancestors arrived later. We must know our history if we wish not to repeat it.

Ngā Rauru Kītahi started its negotiations with the Crown in 2000. An agreement in principle that set out the basis for settling the historical claims was signed on 16 May 2002. A draft deed of settlement was then prepared. More than 67 percent of the people of Ngā Rauru Kītahi voted on whether to accept that draft deed, and of those, 92 percent agreed to accept it. On 27 November 2003 the deed of settlement was signed. Ngā Rauru Kītahi has recently established a new governance entity, Te Kāhui o Rauru, to represent all 12 marae of Ngā Rauru Kītahi. The trustees have pledged to uphold and be guarded by manaakitanga, rangatiratanga, whanaungatanga, kotahitanga, wairuatanga, mana whenua, kaitiakitanga, whakapapa, te reo, and mātauranga. Their vision is to live as Ngā Rauru Kītahi, to enjoy good health and a quality lifestyle, to foster unity, and to enable their people to embrace Ngā Rauru Kītahitanga. It is a great challenge they have set for themselves, and we all wish them well into the future.

One of the key features of the negotiations has been an emphasis throughout by Ngā Rauru Kītahi on the need to enhance its relationship with the Crown into the future. I am encouraged by that fact. In negotiating its settlement, Ngā Rauru Kītahi expressed a desire to establish a forum to provide an ongoing relationship with the Crown. That has been done through the establishment of a paepae rangatira—a chief-to-chief forum. The forum will assist in contributing to the development of an ongoing and a positive treaty relationship.

The passage of this settlement bill represents the final steps of a journey for Ngā Rauru Kītahi and the Crown that began when the leaders of Ngā Rauru Kītahi courageously decided in 1999 to try to move from grievance mode towards a more positive future. I acknowledge that that was a very difficult decision for Ngā Rauru Kītahi to make. I commend it for negotiating with the utmost good faith and for demonstrating that it was willing to cooperate and compromise in order to reach an agreement.

This is the third claims settlement bill to pass through the House this year. The additional effort this Government is putting into settling treaty claims is paying off. This year has seen three settlement claims passed—more than ever before in a single year. That means that three more claimant groups have had past wrongs acknowledged, and that there are three more groups with which new and better relationships with the Crown are now possible. I am pleased to acknowledge all those from Ngā Rauru Kītahi who have worked towards making this day possible: the kaumātua and kuia who provided leadership and support throughout, the marae delegates on the iwi authority, the authority’s chairman, Mike Neho, who made the hard decisions, and Martin Davis, the authority’s kaiwhakahaere, who led the negotiations with the Crown. I also acknowledge the previous Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, the Hon Margaret Wilson, for all the work she did in negotiating the settlement of Ngā Rauru Kītahi’s claims. I acknowledge my colleagues the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, the Minister of Māori Affairs, the Minister of Conservation, and the Minister of Finance, and all the Crown officials who contributed to this settlement.

I wish all the best for the future to Ngā Rauru Kītahi, to its elders and descendents, to the negotiating team, and to the trustees of Te Kāhui o Rauru. The trustees will shortly begin the task of managing their settlement assets. I am certain that they will do so with the judgment, tenacity, and commitment they have shown throughout the settlement process. It is important for the House to be aware that a son of Ngā Rauru Kītahi is currently the centre of attention on the world sporting stage—and I am talking, in particular, of Michael Campbell. His message to the people of Ngā Rauru and to us all here in Aotearoa is that if he can win a tournament like that, so can we all.

GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National): The National Party is very proud to have been the first party in New Zealand’s parliamentary history to settle, in a full and final way, grievances that have arisen out of treatment that reflected a lack of understanding of Treaty of Waitangi rights. We have, both in Government and in Opposition, participated in the process of settling grievances with good faith. We strongly believe that for these grievances to be settled in a way, a manner, and a style that is enduring, they should receive the overwhelming support of Parliament. That is why we are very annoyed to be put in the position we are in today.

We recognise that Ngā Rauru Kītahi have had a long wait for this settlement. But we find it amazing that at this point, things had to become rushed. Throughout the select committee process, the report back to the House, and the Committee stage we raised an important issue about this settlement bill with the Government. We still do not know whether the Government went back to Ngā Rauru Kītahi and asked whether there was something they could talk further about. We suspect it did not. The issue I raise is that of the points put forward in schedule 12.

Let me say, before I turn to that schedule, that we think it is appropriate that the Treaty of Waitangi is the document of reference when it comes to settling treaty claims. It may seem self-evident, but it does not appear to be all that evident in this case. One of the things the treaty did, under article 2, was to guarantee to all New Zealanders—and Māori, if one wants to make that separation—that there was freedom in this country to hold close to oneself things that were taonga. Surely, the most obvious thing for all people in that regard would be their spiritual and religious beliefs. A Government has no business, in a country like this, either putting down spiritual beliefs or, for that matter, promoting one particular type. The problem with schedule 12 is that that is exactly what the Government proposes to do.

I argue that if there are people inside the iwi who do not want to believe some of this, their treaty rights are being trampled on, because, once this bill is passed, the law of the country will prescribe this as being their belief and will determine that this is what their origin is. If that were not a big enough outrage, the law will also prescribe the idea that if one is of Ngā Rauru Kītahi, one is no different from the land, the sea, or the sky. That is what schedule 12 says. We know that in other settlement bills, various iwi have said that they have a special, spiritual connection. None of those bills has said that the connections are such that there is no difference.

I urge people to read very carefully all the aspects of schedule 12. There would be no problem at all with this statement being in a settlement deed, but there is a big problem with putting it into the law. As unbelievable as it might seem, schedule 12 states—and will cause the law to accept—that anyone who is of Ngā Rauru Kītahi is of demigod status. That has to be quite unacceptable. People might like to say: “Oh, no, that’s not right. That man’s being silly.”, but it is right here in the proposed law. I am very disappointed that those who were responsible for negotiating this particular settlement bill did not have this put into its right context. It means that this settlement will not endure, and it may be the first to come back to Parliament so we can have another look at it, because no sane Government will allow this sort of provision to exist in law.

I say again to those who think this is some sort of joke that it is, in fact, a breach of treaty rights to prescribe this in law. I see, on the other side of the Chamber, various people shaking their heads. By and large, they are people who do not respect the law. That is my observation. So I am unconcerned by the tut-tutting and finger-waving. This is an enormous decision for the National Party, and not one that anyone should think is taken lightly. We asked Ministers repeatedly through the Committee stage for answers, and we got silence or we got some sort of addressing of the question, which, in this Parliament, is acceptable even though it may not in fact be an answer. So we are left in the very uncomfortable position of having to vote against a settlement bill.

We are voting against it because it will not achieve settlement. There cannot be a significant number of New Zealanders marginalised in a settlement bill. I thought the reason we settled these issues was that all of us in this country have rights before the law, and that where those rights are trampled on and we have the appropriate historical reports, there is redress. But redress cannot go as far as conferring additional rights on some but not on others. These are not relatively small things like customary rights, which everybody understands; these are very strong rights inside the law. I thought that the Hon Richard Prebble made a very good point last night when he asked how a judge in a court would deal with something like this. We might like to speculate, but the only real conclusion that can be reached is that the judge would struggle and the decisions would cause trouble. So there cannot be a concept of settlement whereby people in this Parliament know that what they are doing will cause further trouble.

For that reason, with deep and sincere regret, the National Party cannot vote for this bill. We want settlements. We want iwi to get their assets. We want redress. We want acknowledgment of past grievances. But this has to be one of the most poorly negotiated bills ever to hit the floor of the House. We are saddened to be put in this position by a Government that seems to be in an awful rush to pass this bill.

MAHARA OKEROA (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): I see this as a very propitious occasion.

Pita Paraone: What was that word again?

MAHARA OKEROA: I am sorry. I am not here to close gaps in people’s literacy. I see this as being a very propitious occasion. It is propitious because the settlement before this House is taking place i te wā o ngā whetū a Matariki me Puanga, arā, ngā whetū e tohutohu mai ki te tangata o te ao. Mai rā anō ka puta mai te whtū a Puanga i runga i te maunga Tītohe o tātau Ngā Rauru, Ngāti Mutunga, me ngā kōrero e whakaputa ana.

[during the period of the stars of Pleiades and Rigel, indeed when they pointed the way to the people of the world. From the beginning of time, the star of Rigel has appeared above Tītohe our mountain of Ngā Rauru and Ngāti Mutunga with the stories.]

So it is propitious for that reason alone.

However, the timing of this bill before the House also coincides with three other magnificent occasions that are positive for Māori. Let me briefly talk about those, because they relate to my theme in terms of why I want to support this bill. A huge occasion for all of Aotearoa took place in Hamilton, kei roto Tainui—the Māori All Blacks versus the Lions. The second magnificent occasion was when we saw a gladiator transform himself into a twinkletoes. Then, on top of that, a descendant from Ngāti Ruanui in Taranaki achieved a global distinction kei roto i tētehi o ngā hākinakina.

[involved in one of the sports.]

What does this mean? How does it relate to this bill? It relates to this bill because each and every one of those individuals showed tremendous determination against great odds. Look at Jonno Gibbes. He got off the ground, tackled this fellow, then fell on the ground again. That shows strength of commitment and absolute concentration on the task. That illustrates what Ngā Rauru Kītahi have done, mai i te tīmatatanga o te raupatungia o te whenua, tae noa mai ki tēnei wā.

[from the time when land confiscation began, to the present day.]

Then we come to the transition of a gladiator to a twinkletoes. We know that our history has been characterised by actions that should never have happened. Last night Norm Hewitt talked about actions that should never have happened as far as he, personally, was concerned. But then he accepted the responsibility publicly. Māori have had to wait 200-plus years to get any apology at all. He did not wait; he gave his apology succinctly and publicly. So finally we get a Crown apology.

Let us look at what was achieved mai te uri o Taranaki in that golfing tournament of high esteem. It shows that Māoris have a character to match against trials and tribulations, both personal and professional. Nothing seems to stand in the way of achieving the goal.

In relation to Ngā Rauru Kītahi, in spite of what the previous speaker has said in outlining reasons why there should not be a codification of one’s spiritual beliefs and cosmology, I am of the opinion that if one wants to tell one’s story, one should do so. I think the decision to do that rests very firmly with the claimants. If that is the way in which they care to identify their mana tangata whenuatanga, then they have every right, as far as this side of the House is concerned, to express it in like manner so that it becomes part and parcel of the accepted beliefs that are shared not only by people who believe that a snake talked to a person about eating an apple. That has become part of an accepted cosmology—we have read about that. We accept that as being part of some people’s cosmology; that is fine. If we are to go forward together, then we must accept that there are other cosmologies that are relevant to our existence as a people going forward in Aotearoa. [Interruption] The member will have a turn to speak, no doubt, and he can add his own opinion.

Murray Smith: I will.

MAHARA OKEROA: Yes—and I would say that it is an opinion only. I would like to end this brief statement of total support by borrowing the quote “It is not the beginning of the end, but the end of the beginning.” In that context, Ngā Rauru Kītahi, ā, anei te kōrero tautoko mai i tēnei nā nō Te Āti Awa, Ngā Rauru, Ruanui, kia kaha, kia māia i a koutou i runga i te ara tika, ā, e takoto mai rā a ngā tauheke, pāheke mō tātau katoa, kia ora mai.

[And from this descendant of Te Āti Awa, Ngā Rauru, and Ruanui, a statement of support: be strong and bold as you make your way along the right path, for those who have passed on, for the generations to come, and for all of us, greetings.]

PITA PARAONE (NZ First): Ā, tēnā anō koe Mr Speaker. E ngā rangatira, ngā kaikawe o tēnei kaupapa mō Ngā Rauru Kītahi, e kara mā, e kui mā, koutou katoa i tae mai ki te Whare nei, mai i te hau kāinga o Ngā Rauru Kītahi, mai hoki i raro i te maru o te maunga tapu o Taranaki, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

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

[Greetings again to you Mr Speaker. To the chiefs and negotiators of this matter for Ngā Rauru Kītahi, to the men and women and all those who have arrived in this House from the home winds of Ngā Rauru Kītahi, from beneath the shelter of the sacred mountain of Taranaki, greetings to you and greetings to all of us.]

On behalf of New Zealand First—and I just want to reiterate that we are the only non-aligned party in this House—I rise to speak in the third reading of the Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi Claims Settlement Bill. This bill will see the culmination of what has been a long and an arduous period of endeavour for the people of Ngā Rauru Kītahi towards what we all agree is a satisfactory claims settlement. The bill records the acknowledgment and apology given by the Crown to Ngā Rauru Kītahi, the detail of which is articulated in the deed of settlement dated 27 November 2003. The bill also gives effect to the settlement of historical claims as agreed between the Crown and Ngā Rauru Kītahi. It passes governance responsibility for the assets from this settlement to the entity known as Te Kāhui o Rauru, which the majority of the people and the beneficiaries of Ngā Rauru Kītahi have indicated their support for.

New Zealand First supports the timely and satisfactory settlement of claims to the Waitangi Tribunal, whether by way of hearing or of direct negotiation. This bill is the outcome of an agreement reached by Ngā Rauru Kītahi and the Crown. I am happy to note that the people of Ngā Rauru Kītahi have supported the ratification of this settlement agreement, and that their support of the management structure put in place to receive and manage the settlement assets is almost unanimous. That bodes well for the future of the iwi, and it displays unity and concord. This agreement acknowledges that the Crown acted unlawfully during and after the colonisation period and, in particular, that iwi land was illegally confiscated during the war of the 1860s. It also acknowledges that the Crown acted abominably, both morally and legally, in its treatment of iwi members, including children. It acknowledges that many lives were lost in the Crown’s pursuit of its aims during that period.

New Zealand First supports the passage of this bill. In doing so, I would like to include a comment regarding the part of the bill that relates to cultural redress, for not to do so would be very remiss of me and the party that I represent. New Zealand First is of the view that the inclusion of a statement of the beliefs and values of Ngā Rauru Kītahi in legislation is actually erroneous. The references that describe the divine origins of Ngā Rauru Kītahi are clearly a matter for Ngā Rauru Kītahi alone. We in New Zealand First do not disregard or question the beliefs of Ngā Rauru Kītahi or, for that matter, the beliefs of any group, whether Māori or non-Māori, in that context. But we do question their place in legislation, and we believe that their inclusion may actually give credibility to them. That is not the purpose of this bill. This settlement is not about cultural beliefs, and we see no valid reason for their inclusion in the legislation for this settlement.

Of course, the inclusion of that statement of cultural beliefs raises further questions. The first one is what the effect is of including those beliefs in legislation, and I add that in considering that question we must look to the future. The second question is whether those beliefs are what future generations of all New Zealanders will now have to believe in. The third question is how the judiciary will be able to make judgments on issues that may arise as a result of the inclusion of those beliefs in this legislation. Last night that very question was posed, and although it may be considered that the response addressed the question, it certainly did not answer it. We note further that the exclusion of reference to those beliefs would have no effect on this settlement proceeding or on its durability. During the process that has seen the bill arrive at this stage, I heard that the inclusion of reference to the cultural beliefs of Ngā Rauru Kītahi was done at the insistence of the claimant group, and I ought to acknowledge that the Minister in the chair said, during the Committee stage, that an approach was made from the claimant group in that regard. I also heard reference to the tino rangatiratanga of Ngā Rauru Kītahi. We in New Zealand First do not question the tino rangatiratanga of Ngā Rauru Kītahi. We do note, however, that insisting on the inclusion of its beliefs in this legislation means the subservience of that tino rangatiratanga to that of this House and, indeed, to the tino rangatiratanga of the Crown.

Despite those comments, I extend my congratulations on behalf of New Zealand First to the people of Ngā Rauru Kīkahi. I sincerely hope that this settlement allows them to reach closure on past injustices and to move forward, creating opportunities for their tamariki and mokopuna. They are the future, and this settlement is ultimately for the benefit of them. I also acknowledge the ancestors and their descendants of the iwi who have passed on, and I express my sadness that they cannot be here to see this settlement.

In conclusion, I offer these words to the present and future leadership of Ngā Rauru Kītahi. Today they begin a new journey that will require them to lead their people to economic and social destinations never seen or imagined by some of them. However, that should not deter them in their endeavours in that regard. It is often said that we should never forget our past, for to do so may condemn us to making the same mistakes of that time. I say to the leaders of Ngā Rauru Kītahi that they should not live in the past and should not be afraid to take on the best people to take the iwi into the future, be they members of the iwi or not. I ask the leaders of Ngā Rauru Kītahi never to forget to look behind themselves from time to time, to ensure that the people they purport to lead are still there, behind them.

Nā reira e te iwi o Ngā Rauru Kītahi, ngā hapū hoki ō koutou, haere i runga i te huarahi i whakapai 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. Kei ia o ō koutou te kawenga ināianei ki te whāngai i a ia. Nā reira e te Whare nei, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, huri noa i tēnei o ō tātou whare, kia ora mai anō tātou.

[Therefore to you the people of Ngā Rauru Kītahi as well as your subtribes, travel along the pathway blessed by those elders who began this matter. The seed that they planted has blossomed for you and future generations. It is your responsibility now to nurture it. And so to all of us throughout this House, in this building, greetings, greetings, and greetings once again to all of us.]

STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT): I rise for the ACT party to speak on this third and final stage of the Ngaa Rauru Kiitaki Claims Settlement Bill. I stand in Richard Prebble’s shoes at the moment, having seen the speech notes of his contribution to the debate on the Committee stage. I adopt what he said, because in speaking for the ACT party on a number of these bills he has said it so much more simply and clearly than I could have attempted.

I express, endorse, and adopt his concern that in effect we demean this House by passing bills like this. We demean this House, because instead of confining ourselves to doing what a legislature should do, which is to authorise the redress of wrongs—and there were wrongs—we have got into the habit of using legislation to make rhetorical statements and, worse than that, of making a patently greasy submission to views and values that say this country is no longer protecting the notion of the secular State.

In a bill that goes so much further than is necessary, we are also recording apologies. All this bill needed to do was to authorise the transfers, and to record the status, of the lands being vested and the lands over which coast stewardship was being created. By having a bill that records apologies based on partial recitals of history, we actually make those apologies much more easy to repudiate. I think that a future generation will come to this legislation and say: “That was then; this is now.” A future generation will say that this bill can be read only as a creature of some very curious times—of times when two old political parties, who had got into the habit for over 20 years of consoling each other that although the rest of New Zealand did not believe a word of what they said in those areas, they, because they held hands and pretended they were on a sacred mission, could put anything in legislation provided they had the right spirit.

Their spirit and their intention was good. They wanted to help settle grievances. They wanted the people involved to put behind them the brooding sense of injustice they had. But behind it all, too, were two decades of politicians who had been covertly using race as a means of distinguishing “them and us”—of deciding who were the out-group and who were the in-group.

So we have these fanciful “principles”. I do not blame judges for finding principles. The legislation told them they had to find principles. The legislation told them they had to develop a theory of why they were finding principles where there were none, so they invented a mythical partnership, and this House sent New Zealand down a long blind alley of race discrimination—when the treaty had been signed by people who knew it was intended to lead to our being one people!

ACT, then, will be obliged to vote against this bill, because we will not be party—as we have not been for years—to legislation that recites principles that do not exist, and that directs courts to take account of spiritual and cultural values on one page and then two or three pages later tells the courts they do not need to give them any weight but instead to act as if they were not there—in the sergeant’s terms: “As you were.” So we end up with a bill that is creating a form of power and authority; it has smoke but not substance.

The bill is not giving what it should have given, which is a clean break. Just as in matrimonial law the idea is that one does not force parties who have been unhappy with each other to spend time negotiating and continuing that relationship, this bill sets up the iwi to be involved in repeated discussions of trying to emphasis their heritage and of trying to assert their traditional views of what should happen in relation to land, with local authorities, with the Environment Court, and with ministries under protocols, when in fact all those bodies will be then told: “As you were—listen to them and then ignore them.”

That is the effect of those parts of the bill, and if this legislation had been a matter of a simple transfer of property, a straightforward endowment of money, or a restoration of something that had been lost, the ACT party could have voted for it. But instead we go through this bill and in so many places we see a Government that is deliberately creating dismissible legislation.

I say that honourable apologies are apologies given in full knowledge, with both sides fully accepting the position of the other and deciding to go forward on a basis that is a fresh start. This bill does not create a fresh start. It has a whole lot of words in it that for years from now—forever, if one believes the legislation—courts are going to have to grapple with.

What will it mean when a submission is made about a piece of Department of Conservation land by people earnestly believing they have been given a special right, and then the submission is ignored? Why do we put something in legislation that we direct the courts to take account of, but then tell the courts that the provision has no weight? Parliament is demeaning itself by passing that kind of legislation.

I am absolutely delighted to be in this House on the first day that the National Party has voted against one of these claims settlement bills. I hope the House will not be served up with anything like this legislation in future. These bills should be unanimous.

When the ACT party first voted against the Ngāi Tahu settlement, it should have been noted that that was a principled position. As the party that stands for property rights, ACT wanted to see the claims settled. We wanted to see property theft remedied and that matter put behind the claimants. All the other parties treated our protests—which were principled—as if we were racists. At last we are now seeing—

Dr Wayne Mapp: That is not correct. National did not.

STEPHEN FRANKS: Well, I am sorry; it certainly appeared that way, but I say let bygones be bygones on that.

I have now heard speeches from New Zealand First—indeed, a very fine speech made by the leader of New Zealand First on Tuesday—about treaty matters. To see at least some parties putting their votes where their mouths are is an encouraging sign for New Zealand.

However, I heard New Zealand First speakers indicate they were voting for this bill, despite the bill’s inclusion of the term “the principles” in, I think, seven places. That is a bit baffling, because if New Zealand First members were really going to be consistent—if they were really going to send a message to the public servants, who of course are required to negotiate those matters, that in future they had better negotiate with a different set of instructions, because otherwise they would run the serious risk of the House not approving the matters—then it would have been helpful to have them not only make fine speeches out in the provinces but use their votes to be consistent with what they had said.

The bill has four main flaws. The select committee did change the bill, although we have been told so often that it is not appropriate for this House to change a settlement bill. The select committee did change the bill—it changed some translation. It could easily have held up the report back, and come back to the House and said there were matters it was very uncomfortable about—for example, members of two parties did not wish to see religious views embodied in legislation. The committee could easily have suggested that the settlement would have been just as powerful without the reference to the so-called principles, and that would have made it acceptable to the ACT party and probably more acceptable to New Zealand First.

Instead, the select committee did not. It came back with a very unhelpful report, so the ACT party is left in a position where the only way we can mark that is by voting against a settlement that in its substance we want to see proceed. We want to see those properties vested, and we want to see those people’s grievances redressed.

METIRIA TUREI (Green): E te manuhiri tūārangi, ngā kaumātua, ngā rangatira, koutou Ngā Rauru Kītahi kua tae mai ki te tautoko i tēnei ahiahi, nau mai, whakatau mai, haere mai.

[To the visitors from afar, to the elders, chiefs, and those of Ngā Rauru Kītahi who have arrived here in support this afternoon, welcome, alight here, welcome.]

The Green Party congratulates Ngā Rauru Kītahi on its settlement. Many years and many dollars from pockets that can ill afford it have gone into the pursuit of this settlement, and that work will be rewarded at the end of today. We are very pleased to see the return of moneys and land to the iwi, who lost so much in the wars and in the past. We are particularly interested and pleased to see that Ngā Rauru Kītahi has put forward the proposal of the paepae rangatira, which has developed a new way for iwi and the Government to deal with issues between them. It is very innovative and exciting, and the Greens look forward to seeing it succeed. This settlement will provide Ngā Rauru Kītahi with enormous opportunities.

Much has been made during the discussion on the bill about schedule 12, and the iwi’s decision to include in the schedule a statement of association of values over an area of land. The Greens are fully committed to the iwi’s entitlement to have its legislation, its settlement bill, reflect its views in its own words. The complaints from various political parties in this Parliament have been immature and pathetic, and show just how desperate politicians can be to keep iwi Māori in their place—faceless and voiceless.

During the second reading of the bill the Associate Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations asked why the Greens treated this bill as if it were a black day for Ngā Rauru Kītahi. The Greens do not consider that this is a black day for the iwi. The Greens are prepared to face the hard truths about settlements, and to be honest about the real costs of settlements, both to the claimant groups and to those hapū, marae, and whānau for whom these settlements are not a resolution. We want to make sure that all the voices of the iwi and hapū are heard, not just those that the Government and the Office of Treaty Settlements have picked as today’s winners. We have to be honest about the real and full costs of settlements; otherwise, we will not continue to pursue the best, the most just, and the most equitable means to resolve the crimes of the past. If we cannot expose the difficulties and the inconsistencies in the direct negotiation process, then we are certainly committing further wrongs. Iwi and hapū have worked too hard, lost too much, and come too far to be left treading water, replacing one wrong for another.

Once this bill is passed, this Government and this Parliament will have no further control over the way that Ngā Rauru Kītahi manages its affairs. At last, the State will have to butt out and leave the iwi and hapū to get on with the job of managing their own resources and responsibilities, answering to their own people and not to this Government. This is not about getting out of grievance mode. It is not about moving forward. Those are platitudes and they mean nothing. Iwi and hapū must by now be sick of hearing these statements made by politicians that are designed to sound profound but are based fundamentally on ignorance. Iwi are not living in the past. Iwi and hapū have never been in grievance mode. They have struggled for years and years, for a modicum of justice in an inherently unjust system. Iwi and hapū do not have to move forward; they have never stopped moving. They have never surrendered their struggle. It is the Government, it is politics, politicians, and political parties in this House, that are in grievance mode. It is the Government and the State that now have to move forward and leave these people alone to exercise their own rangatiratanga.

This is a very short contribution because the Greens want to see this bill passed swiftly. The Green Party acknowledges the gift that Ngā Rauru Kītahi has made to the country in accepting this settlement. We wish it the very best for its future.

MURRAY SMITH (United Future): This is a very positive day for Ngā Rauru Kītahi. I therefore want to give a speech that is positive, not dwell on the negatives. I cannot avoid making reference to the spiritual values clauses, as it was my amendment that brought about so much debate on that issue last night. But I do want to be positive and congratulate Ngā Rauru Kītahi on reaching this milestone. It certainly has been a great week for them, with the passing of this bill at the same time as Michael Campbell won the US Open golf tournament. No doubt through his victory there has been an increase in the mana of Ngā Rauru Kītahi as well. I congratulate them on that double hit this week.

As I mentioned in the first reading of this bill I have historical connections with the Ngā Rauru Kītahi area, and in particular the infamously named town of Maxwell, through my great-grandparents and great-great-grandparents who farmed in that area and who no doubt had connections with the ancestors of Ngā Rauru Kītahi at that time. I have outlined in previous speeches the relationship there, and some of the events at that time—the infamous Handley’s woolshed being one of those—and my sadness about those events.

It is appropriate, with the third reading of this bill, that there is some reference to the history as it has been accepted by the Crown and Ngā Rauru Kītahi in terms of the wrongs that were committed. There is a lengthy historical account in the deed of settlement, which I am not going to read at length—partly because I would run out of time if I did so. But I do want to read an extract from it because I think it is important on this occasion, when we are dealing with the third reading of the bill, that at least some of the grievance that has been settled through this bill is put on the record. The deed of settlement states: “7.26 After Tauranga Ika Pa was abandoned as a defence stronghold in February of 1869, Crown forces pushed all Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi out of south Taranaki and pursued them into the interior, destroying crops, livestock and dwellings at every opportunity. Pursued by Crown forces and deprived of food and shelter, Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi were forced to place themselves under the protection of Whanganui iwi. Prior to 1873, most were forbidden by the Crown to return to their land. This was in response to both settler fears of Maori attack after the war with Titokowaru, and the desire of the Crown to settle military and colonial settlers on the land.

“7.27 The confiscation, which was to have such a long term and damaging impact on Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi, was effected by the New Zealand Settlements Act 1863. The preamble stated that the North Island had been subject to ‘insurrections amongst the evil-disposed persons of the Native race’. There was no mention of the Crown’s role in initiating the wars. The Act was used to effect the confiscation of land of Maori whom the Crown assessed to have been engaged in rebellion against the authority of the Queen since 1 January 1863. Where the Governor in Council was satisfied that an iwi or a ‘considerable number’ of an iwi had, since 1 January 1863, been engaged in rebellion, he could declare the district available for confiscation. Subsequent settlement of those districts by colonists was considered the ‘best and most effectual means’ of achieving the three purposes of the Act: permanent protection and security; prevention of future rebellion; and maintaining the Queen’s authority.

“7.28 The Act did not provide a definition of ‘rebel’. It did provide that no compensation would be given to those who had been ‘engaged in levying or making war or carrying arms against Her Majesty the Queen or Her Majesty’s Forces in New Zealand’ or those who had ‘aided assisted or comforted such persons’.”

That is just a taste of some of the historical grievances. The deed of settlement goes on to talk about the Sim Commission and the inadequacy of that commission in dealing with the grievance that was there. It particularly reflects on the importance of the land to Ngā Rauru Kītahi, as it is important to all Māori, and also on the importance of cultural redress. So it is important we note that, and acknowledge the serious grievances that are there. We can rejoice that this bill and the deed of settlement are resolving those.

I now want to talk about schedule 12 and the spiritual values matter, because that has played a big part in the debate and because of the amendment to schedule 12 that I proposed. I would like to express my thanks to National, New Zealand First, and ACT for their support of my amendment, and for the contribution to the debate they made.

It seems to me that we were dealing with two issues with regard to this matter. The first is the appropriateness of any theological or doctrinal statements in legislation. I do not want to talk at length on that, because it has been covered quite a lot in the debate in the House. I question whether it is appropriate even for a deed of settlement to include those sorts of theological statements, but that is a matter between the Government and the iwi group concerned and is therefore not a matter that the House should be directly concerned with. This House is concerned with the matter of the legislation it is passing.

What I intended to do, and endeavoured to do with my amendment, was to omit the relevant wording in schedule 12 that, effectively, will constitute a doctrinal statement. It has been rightly said that the difficulties in enforcing that statement are huge. No law should be passed in this House that is impossible to enforce. How can the High Court, or the Waitangi Tribunal if that should be the forum, determine whether the clauses that state that the Crown must acknowledge, reflect, and encourage Ngā Rauru Kītahi values have been complied with without first defining their meaning in contemporary terms? The court has to take a doctrinal statement of origin and somehow bring it into a contemporary situation before it can determine whether that contemporary situation has been fulfilled in terms of the legislation’s provisions. What authority does such an institution have to interpret theological statements? That is just the beginning of the problems we have in regard to this. Mahara Okeroa said that if the iwi wants to tell their story, they should be able to. I have no disagreement with that. Deeds of settlement have been the appropriate places for that to happen, but it should not be embraced in legislation.

The second issue is the specific language that is used, and I thank the officials for being willing to come to talk with me to explain the rationale of how they got there. Thus I can enlighten the House on that. The point that was made in terms of the technical language is that clause 88 states that the “Crown acknowledges Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi values”. But the term “Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi values” is then defined as being the statement made by Ngā Rauru Kītahi of their cultural, spiritual, historical, and traditional association. Therefore, it is thought that, effectively, all that the Crown is doing is acknowledging a statement, not those values. However, it seems to me that when a statement is made in legislation, then the drafting of the legislation—and I think that the Parliamentary Counsel Office should take note—needs not only to be precise but also clear. It needs to be clear to the lay person. The officials admit that it is confusing. I wanted to amend that by stating clearly that the Crown acknowledged the statement of Ngā Rauru Kītahi values, but it was felt by the Minister that it was impossible to go back and get Ngā Rauru Kītahi consent to make that alteration at the last minute, as would have been desirable.

The Government has, however, in view of United Future’s approaches and concerns, made a commitment to us. First of all, the Government will make a public acknowledgment that it was a mistake to have the theological statement in the legislation, and it will also make a commitment that doctrinal statements will not be included in future Crown settlement legislation, as far as this Government is concerned. On that basis, United Future has indicated that it will support the passing of this bill at its third reading. We do that not only because of that acknowledgment by the Government but also because settlements are important, and ever since we arrived in this House we have been at the forefront of pushing for treaty settlements to be resolved as quickly as possible. We have been instrumental in getting more resources dedicated to the Office of Treaty Settlements in order for that to happen.

We also think it is important, if the legislation is to be passed, that it be passed by a substantial majority, and I note that Gerry Brownlee said the same thing. For that reason United Future will, in fact, support the third reading. I also note that the Government indicated that it did not want to rely on the Greens providing support, which says something about them. So I congratulate Ngā Rauru Kītahi on the passing of this legislation and express United Future’s best wishes for their future.

JOHN TAMIHERE (Labour—Tamaki Makaurau): E tū ake au ki te tautoko ki te mihi i mihia mō ngā rangatira, mō ngā uri o Rauru Kītahi, ā, kei te mihi nunui ki a koutou, kei te mihi nunui ki a koutou. Kei te tautoko i te mihi i mihia mō ngā tīpuna ō rātau me ngā tīpuna ō koutou, Ngā Rauru Kītahi, nō reira, haere, haere, haere atu rā.

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

[I rise to endorse the greetings extended to the chiefs and descendants of Rauru Kītahi. A huge and immense tribute to you all. I endorse the tributes paid to your ancestors Ngā Rauru, and to ours as well, and so to all of them, farewell, farewell, farewell.]

I want to deal with three issues in relation to, firstly, the treaty principles as outlined in the legislation; secondly, the property rights expressed in the legislation; and, thirdly, Ngā Rauru Kītahi’s cultural and spiritual rights expressed within the legislation.

I first of all turn to Ngā Rauru Kītahi’s cultural and spiritual rights embraced within the context of the legislation. At 2 p.m. every day, when the business of this House starts, members track into the Chamber, sit down, and listen to the Speaker administer a prayer—a prayer to a supreme being; a prayer to suggest that we should have wisdom and a whole range of other things—

Pita Paraone: It’s not in law.

JOHN TAMIHERE: There we go—Pita Paraone says it is not law. It is not in law, because it pervades everything about the law that is embraced in this House.

Pita Paraone: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. When people refer to other members of the House, they should have the courtesy to pronounce their names correctly. For the benefit of that member, my name is actually “Pita Paraone”.

JOHN TAMIHERE: It is also translated as “Peter Brown”. I will use “Peter Brown” for him, because it is far easier to say, and because that is what it really is.

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member knows that he must refer to a member by his or her correct name.

JOHN TAMIHERE: So when we track in here, the very essence of this House in terms of the concept of Christianity pervades most things that we do, led off by that prayer. The fact that certain people here believe they come from Adam and Eve—good on them; right, that is great. But at the end of the day this House now has a right to recognise Māori rights and Māori issues, and that is what treaty settlements are about. They are not about pouring ourselves into the mould of others any more. New Zealand First knows that. It has six Māori members, supposedly led by one, but they do not want to admit that. The reality is that Ngā Rauru Kītahi has a right that has been expressed here.

I go to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi and the way in which the great Māori speaker on behalf of the National Party expresses himself. I have never known a member to stand up in this House and not have any knowledge whatsoever of the subject matter of the legislation talked about—and Gerry Brownlee expresses that very well. Even with the meandering, moaning, all-over-the-place member Wayne Mapp, even in the tortuous requirements he presents in this House every time he stands up to speak, at least there is a modicum of some sense in it. The member who is the National Party spokesperson on Māori showed not only a distinct lack of knowledge, of education, but had not done any work on this legislation whatsoever. That is a disgrace.

Bring on Georgina te Heuheu! I note that she will not take a call in the third reading debate. I note that she does not accept National voting against this legislation, and that is a fact.

I shall move on to property rights. As for Mr Stephen Franks and his well-moneyed mates in the ACT party who will be around another 12 weeks, I wanted to say and express quite clearly that when it is not their property, they can have a go at it; when it is their property, they will have a go at it. I suspect he is wearing the Destiny ribbon. Brian Tāmaki is the only one who will save Stephen Franks.

The reality is, and I shall conclude on this as we move on, that I am grateful for the support of New Zealand First. It is great that its members can talk absolutely against the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi and then vote for it. It is great that United Future will also support this legislation, the Greens are supporting the legislation, Labour is, and we now know that it is a dirty election campaign, because National will not, and that is an absolute disgrace.

Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore): All I can say is that I hope the previous member is proud of that speech, because it will be his valedictory. That is the reality of it. The member knows that, and I know that, because I know literally hundreds of people in Tamaki Makaurau who will be voting against that member. That is the reality of it.

Darren Hughes: Name them.

Dr WAYNE MAPP: Most of my relatives, actually. The third reading is the opportunity to give voters powerful symbolic value. National is voting against this legislation, because we are expressing our deep concern about the trend in these settlements. Members should look at schedule 12 of this bill. I have been examining a number of settlements that, over time have ramped up, if you will, the inclusion of references to spiritual values, beliefs, ideas, and so forth. Frankly, I have never read anything like schedule 12 of this bill in any other legislation. Just a month ago we were debating the Tūwharetoa legislation. I raised my concerns at that point about some inclusions in that legislation. They amounted to maybe one particular line. But this bill has pages of arcane references to all sorts of beliefs, ideas, and values that have, as other members in this House have said today, no place at all in our law, and we debase our law if we make those references. So it is right in a third reading speech to express our deep concern about that.

A month ago the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, Mr Mark Burton, said that the Government was going to look at this issue. He was very clear that it was an error to include those kinds of reference in legislation, and that the Government would re-examine the issue. What do we have, instead? Not the same, but more of it—more intensified and deeper references. Frankly, that serves only to bring views and values into disrepute. That is the real problem, is it not? The Government does not understand why this nation has secular values at the heart of its belief system. The issue is about respecting everyone’s belief. Mr Murray Smith acknowledged that particular point in his contribution. How can one do that if one elevates one particular belief above all others, by putting it into law? There was not even just a general reference to it in this bill, but page after page of detailed references to the microcosms of belief. That is simply wrong in principle, so National is using its third reading vote to record its deep displeasure about that inclusion, which goes completely contrary to what Mr Burton said just a month ago when he said the Government was going to re-examine the issue. It has not done so. The Government has, in fact, made the situation worse.

I also wish to refer to another issue, which is the way that we record our history. I think we are falling into error there, as well. We are getting a very distorted view of our history, which can only do damage to race relations. That is what I suggest to members on the Government side of the House. There is a distorted view that says that the Crown is completely wrong and Māori are completely right, and an abject apology then flows from that, when people know the history is actually different from that view. Civil war—because that is what it was—has a much more complex origin than this deed of settlement records. We are damaging people’s understanding of the history. We lack the honesty to take an approach that avoids doing that. I suggest that when we undertake these settlements, we take a more critical analysis that enables the recording of history to more properly reflect the nuance of what occurred back at that time.

Those are two profound points. National is putting them on the record because our approach to settlements will be different in the future. It was different in the past. National Governments did not make the kinds of references to beliefs and values that the current Government has done—and the Government is intensifying them. National will take a more measured and considered approach that respects all the beliefs of this nation; it will not ask that beliefs be put into law. When I heard the Minister say in his opening speech that the references were put into this bill at the request of the claimants, all I can say is that that Government misunderstands the role of the House. We are not here as supplicants; we are here to make the law of the land. When people ask for their beliefs to be put into the law, frankly, we should say to them that that is interesting, and that they are entitled to their beliefs, but that we, as legislators for all New Zealanders, decline to do as they ask. Labour, in an obsequious way, has simply agreed to include those references, so we are using our third reading vote to record our displeasure about that.

I conclude on this point. National acknowledges that wrongs were done in the past—Mr Brownlee acknowledged that wrongs were done in the past. We acknowledge that a settlement was required in this particular case. There is no question about that. We have no quibble with the vast majority of this settlement. If schedule 12 had not been there, particularly in the way it is phrased in this instance—as opposed, for instance, to the phrasing of the Ngāti Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill—we would have been able to come to a different view. But National is using this third reading vote to make a statement of intent for the future: that there will be a different way of doing settlements. We can stand proudly on our record on settlements, actually, because we have done many settlements in the past. National’s record is different from that of another party in this Parliament, which votes only in one particular way—and we know which party that is. In this particular situation we are using our vote to indicate that there is a right way to do settlements, which is, in fact, the way of the right, and that there is a wrong way to do settlements, which is the way of the failed, left Labour Government.

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

Ayes 83

New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 8; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Māori Party 1.

Noes 34

New Zealand National 25; ACT New Zealand 9.

Bill read a third time.

Motions

Reserve Bank Funding Agreement—Ratification

Debate resumed from 21 June.

CRAIG McNAIR (NZ First): On behalf of New Zealand First, I want to speak briefly to this funding agreement entered into by the Minister of Finance and the Governor of the Reserve Bank pursuant to section 159 of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act 1989. I note that this is not the only agreement between the Minister of Finance and the Governor of the Reserve Bank. I note that the policy targets agreement is also a major agreement between the two parties. New Zealand First will address the policy targets agreement when the opportunity arises.

The funding agreement, the subject of today’s debate, is something of concern to New Zealand First, although we will support this motion.

Clayton Cosgrove: Are you sure about that?

CRAIG McNAIR: We do, absolutely. We see the importance of supporting our Reserve Bank. But I want to express our concern at the amount of money being appropriated—$34 million, commencing in July 2006, and then $43 million in 2009. The amount of money being appropriated to the Reserve Bank also represents the increasing amount of money that is going into our bureaucracy. New Zealand First is the only party that is willing to put its money where its mouth is on this issue. We are the only party that has a policy to reduce the number of MPs to 99. The people of New Zealand resoundingly want a reduction in the number of MPs, and we are the only party that is supportive of that wish. National is screaming and saying that too much money is going into agreements like this one. But New Zealand First is the only party that is willing to say no to having 120 MPs. It represents the fact that when we have a concern about the amount of funding going into agreements such as this one, we really mean it when we say we will address those issues.

In closing, New Zealand First supports the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act funding agreement, because we see the need to have a thriving, strong, transparent Reserve Bank. But, like I said, there are issues that New Zealand First will address when given that opportunity. We support this motion.

Motion agreed to.

Appointments

Deputy Police Complaints Authority

Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Justice): I move, That pursuant to section 8 of the Police Complaints Authority Act 1988, this House recommend Her Excellency the Governor-General to appoint John Alexander Lemon Gibson QC, of Wellington, as the deputy to the Police Complaints Authority for a term of 2 years.

It is the function of the authority and any deputy to investigate complaints alleging any misconduct or neglect of duty by a member of the police, or concerning any practice, policy, or procedure of the police that affects a complainant. Section 8(1) of the Police Complaints Authority Act 1988 provides: “There may from time to time be appointed a deputy to the person appointed as the Police Complaints Authority,”. The position has been vacant pending the passage of the Independent Police Complaints Authority Amendment Bill, which is currently before the House and awaiting the Committee stage. That bill allows for a three-member authority, but in the meantime the Government would like to move now to provide some additional support to the authority, which is under some pressure due to the number of complaints.

As the Deputy Police Complaints Authority, John Gibson QC will oversee the decision making of investigations and the administration of complaints. The Act requires that a deputy authority be a qualified barrister and solicitor of the High Court and possess suitable legal experience for the task. Mr Gibson has had a distinguished legal career and has an extensive range of experience in criminal law, which will equip him well for the work with the authority. Mr Gibson was appointed as a QC in 1986 and remains in practice in Wellington. He is a former chairperson of the New Zealand Law Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal, and until recently was chairperson of the New Zealand Stock Exchange disciplinary committee.

I note that with the exception of one party, this appointment is supported by all parties in the House. The current Police Complaints Authority, Judge Borrin, also welcomes the appointment of John Gibson QC, and he joins me, along with the majority of members in this House, in wishing Mr Gibson well for his future position as Deputy Police Complaints Authority.

Dr RICHARD WORTH (National—Epsom): This is a Government motion to appoint a deputy to the Police Complaints Authority for a term of 2 years. As the honourable Minister of Justice said, National opposes this Government motion, which seeks to appoint the nominated individual.

The timing of this appointment is unfortunate because of two particular instances. First, the Independent Police Complaints Authority Amendment Bill has not been passed. The bill has a long legislative history. It was introduced on 4 December 2002, referred to the Law and Order Committee on 20 February 2003, and not reported back until 17 November 2003. It is a disgrace that the legislation should have been delayed for as long as that. As members will know, the customary report-back period, set by default in the Standing Orders, is 6 months. The bill languishes on the Order Paper now. I see that yesterday it was in position No. 6 and today it is in position No. 11, awaiting the Committee stage.

The bill, which arose out of a review of the Police Complaints Authority, seeks to change the name of the authority to the Independent Police Complaints Authority, and to increase the authority’s membership from one to three persons, including a chairperson who is to be a current or former judge. The bill also makes it clear that the authority may defer taking action on a complaint if a criminal investigation, disciplinary investigation—or both—is being conducted by the police in relation to a matter. It allows the authority, when deciding whether to hold a hearing, to have regard to whether proceedings or a coroner’s inquest is pending or reasonably contemplated. It confers on the authority appropriate powers under the Commissions of Inquiry Act for the purposes of holding a hearing. It sets out a procedure that enables the authority to disclose information that has come to its knowledge, through the exercise of its functions, about a defendant who has been charged with, or convicted of, an offence punishable by imprisonment. Finally, in general terms, it provides for a number of matters relating to the appointment of members and the administration of the authority that are consistent with the Government’s Crown entity reforms.

But, very significantly, the Independent Police Complaints Authority Amendment Bill does not provide for the office of deputy. Yet here we are confronted with a motion that proposes that the deputy have a tenure period for a term of 2 years. So the Government is making an appointment for a term when it knows that the appointment will be overtaken, perhaps quite swiftly, by the passage of the amending legislation. That is an illustration of bizarre Government activity. That is the first reason. Why is this being done when there is a bill sitting on the Order Paper that will do away with this office? It may be that the Minister will have an opportunity to explain why it is being done.

The second reason why National opposes this appointment is that it has indicated—and I and others have clearly indicated it in this debating chamber—that it proposes to reconstitute the Police Complaints Authority by incorporating within it an independent prisoner complaints authority. I spoke on this issue as recently as 5 May, and endeavoured to put the case as to why that reconstitution and incorporation proposal is appropriate. It is a pity that we are, apparently, about to surge ahead with the present appointment with that issue similarly unresolved.

I do not wish to debate the issue of the suitability of the nominee. That is not appropriate. But I would say that whatever Mr Gibson’s qualifications and experience for office might be, it is clearly inappropriate to proceed in making that appointment now.

RON MARK (NZ First): I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to support the motion. The profile of Mr John Gibson QC is interesting. I see that he is from Wellington; he is a graduate of Victoria University; he is an associate of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators—some may say he will need those skills; he was a partner in the firm of Stacey, Smith and Gibson and has practised as a barrister since 1978. He has been a member of the Wellington District Law Society council for 5 years and has served on a number of law society committees, including the Wellington District Law Society committee on the role of women in the profession. He is the chair of the society’s committee on children and the Family Court. He has been chair of the Motor Vehicle Dealers Licensing Board since its inception in 1980, and has acted as a police disciplinary tribunal member.

A number of people have spoken very highly of Mr Gibson QC. Among them are the Attorney-General of the day, the Rt Hon Geoffrey Palmer, and the Hon W P Jeffries, a former Minister of Transport. New Zealand First has no objection to his appointment to the board, but we have to mention here today the function and the purpose of the Police Complaints Authority. We note, sadly, as Dr Worth pointed out, that the Independent Police Complaints Authority Amendment Bill still languishes on the Order Paper. How bizarre it is, given the type of legislation we have seen go through this House and the many hours we have spent in urgency chasing a raft of trivial legislation—the many, many hours that have been devoted in the House to such issues as civil union, prostitution; a number of things that seem to be the penchant of Labour MPs and seem to be foremost in their minds these days—that we do not seem to progress legislation that is vitally important to the police.

The Independent Police Complaints Authority Amendment Bill has been languishing on the Order Paper. That legislation is particularly important, considering the loss of confidence that the public has suffered as a result of a very inept performance from a Minister over the last 5 years and the policing priorities that have been accorded by this Government, specifically with regard to its focus on traffic issues. The reason, which the Minister himself has alluded to, that the Government is moving forward with this appointment of a Deputy Police Complaints Authority concerns New Zealand First. Mr Worth is quite right. There is no provision for a deputy, but I say to the National Party that for every appointment throughout this land, there is a deputy somewhere. The Commissioner of Police has a deputy somewhere, and there is a raft of deputy commissioners behind the deputy. It makes eminent sense to New Zealand First that a deputy is appointed now.

But one of the things the Minister mentioned in his speech is that the need for this appointment has arisen because the Police Complaints Authority is under extreme pressure because of the large number of complaints. Therein is the real issue here. We have not ever seen a time in New Zealand when there have been so many complaints left on the back-burner and so many complaints still under investigation. I have in my possession right now a file concerning a police officer whose case has been dragged out to be what we in New Zealand First would consider as unacceptably long. Both of the complaints lodged against him have taken a year to come to the stage where a prosecution has been laid. I am totally convinced that at the end of the day this man will be found innocent. Then we will deal with the issue of he himself having laid complaints against the police, through the Police Complaints Authority.

An unacceptable policy is being allowed to exist by this Government, whereby police officers who have had complaints laid against them are left hung out to dry for months—years. The Government touts itself as being the great protector of the working-class people of this nation and a great advocate for State servants. The Minister raves on endlessly in this House about how supportive he is of the police. For him to say that, while the Government ignores the plight of police officers who are under stress, under pressure, and overworked, who sit on suspension waiting for investigations to be concluded, and whose families are under pressure because of the focus upon them, is totally unacceptable. It belies the Government’s true feelings towards police officers—men and women—and it actually paints the Government as being one of the worst employers in this country.

Who else would allow a police officer to be left under investigation for 12, 15, or 18 months, then just before Christmas, only when he rings in and asks what is going on with the investigation against him, to be told offhandedly that it has been decided to charge him? What sort of Government allows that kind of administration within the police? New Zealand First has been inundated with letters from members of the public telling us stories of situations when the police will not investigate crimes. Our normal advice to them is to lay a complaint with the Police Complaints Authority. Sadly, these people come back and ask why they would do that, when it takes months or years to get even a hearing, let alone a result.

We know that the Police Complaints Authority is under huge pressure. We know that the workload is immense. We know that the workload in terms of investigating cases is immense. But this situation is occurring only because we have a fundamental problem in the police. The problem is that they are under-resourced and understaffed, and they make mistakes. When they get it wrong—for all the reasons that exist out there—the citizens of this country lodge complaints, and those complaints are not acted upon in a timely manner.

I draw the House’s attention to page 6 of the Statement of Intent 2005/06, which states police values. The first is: “Maintain the highest level of integrity and professionalism.” The second is: “Respect individual rights and freedom.” My message to this Government is to apply those values as a good employer to the men and women in blue who work for it. They have a right to see the police commanders, the men and women who command them, held to the highest levels of integrity and professionalism. The individual rights and freedoms of police officers must be respected. They should not be treated as second-class citizens just because they happen to wear the blue uniform. To allow complaints against them to sit festering for months and years is totally unacceptable.

I note with interest on page 16, under the general heading “Police’s Organisational Development Focus for 2005/06 and Beyond”, the heading “Integrity: Police Integrity and Professional Standards”. I signal in this House today, and have it put in Hansard, that we have grave concerns about the professional standards being policed within the police force. It seems to us that some people in the police who hold such appointments actually get a buzz out of targeting their own. We have the gravest fear that their performance is assessed on how many charges they can bring against their own, whether or not there are solid grounds for those charges.

I have on my files evidence of a man, a police professional standards officer, bringing charges against police officers, having those charges investigated, and having people put through the wringer—through the mill—for many months, only for those allegations to be totally dismissed and totally disproved. He has been reprimanded—but what is the point? The issue here is what happens then to the police officer who has been falsely accused, held up to criticism and ridicule, and put on the line and tested for months and months, only to be found to be as innocent as he said he was all along? I look forward to seeing a Police Complaints Authority that is truly independent and that takes seriously its responsibility to expedite investigations and inquiries in a very, very timely manner.

STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT): I, too, will take the opportunity to comment on the general issue that overhangs the proposed appointment of John Gibson QC to this post. Mr Gibson is a man of considerable experience. He has a very extensive knowledge of the criminal law. He has held semi-judicial offices and will be very experienced in dealing with the kinds of issues and procedures that will be involved in this office.

But the office is under a cloud. To appoint someone to a position like that for 2 years raises the whole problem that our legal traditions and conventions try to avoid—that of officers in judicial roles looking as if they might be beholden to the Government. A man who has a 2-year appointment, and who thinks it is a job he would like to keep, will obviously be suspected of kowtowing to those who appoint him. It is completely wrong to appoint someone to that position for a 2-year period, even though the Government has done so probably not because of a deliberate expectation that it will be able to suborn or influence him—I do not think that it will, and I doubt whether that was the Minister’s intention—but because of utter incompetence in deciding on the future of the Police Complaints Authority.

Three and a half years ago when the Police Complaints Authority was very much flavour of the month, there was grave concern that it had lost its public reputation. People had lost confidence in the authority, and nothing whatsoever has been done to repair its reputation. At the very least, the Government could have resourced the authority enough to make it administratively efficient.

If there is one group that ought to have been out there campaigning to keep the Police Complaints Authority in its current form, it is the police, because it has offered them something that I think is of value. It has offered the police a modicum of self-regulation: the police have provided the staff for the Police Complaints Authority, and its investigative work has been done by senior, respected men from within the police. Any disciplined uniformed force should value that, because it means that its members know they will be judged by people who are equipped to understand the pressures on them.

But instead of enabling the Police Complaints Authority to have champions even within the police, the Government has allowed it to get into a position where it is hopelessly overwhelmed. Certainly, the appointment of an extra authority in the person of Mr Gibson should help. But many complaints actually result from inattention, failure to act, lost evidence, and other mistakes—possibly even disciplinable mistakes—that are inevitable in a service that deals with the volume of crime we have.

The Police Complaints Authority itself must feel embarrassed at having no moral authority to criticise. How can the authority come out with robust findings on some of the complaints made against the police for inattention, oversight, or delay, when the authority itself must know, even as it is writing reports, that it can be rightly criticised for the same problem—for the inability to put the right resources on to the job? I respect the people who man the authority, and I respect the judge. I am sure that he agonises, but there can be no doubt that he must feel squeamish when he writes reports, knowing that his own office, were it to be subject to the same kind of review, would be unavoidably in the position where it could not perform to the standard he would want.

The Minister has left this bill languishing, not because Parliament would not have passed it, even though I expressed the ACT party’s reservations about moving to a system that was completely divorced from the police. We have those reservations for the simple reason that although it sounds great in theory to have an entirely independent authority, it is very easy for disciplined forces to close ranks against outsiders.

One of the advantages of the current Police Complaints Authority regime is that investigations have been done from within. That is a disadvantage as well, because it means there has been a fear that perhaps those inquiries might have been influenced by too much of the “there but for the grace of God go I,” idea. That is the price we have paid for having a tradition of cooperation from the police with investigation.

That bill has been sitting there, and those proposed reforms were issued, with his usual throbbing intensity, by the Minister of Justice in vowing he would get on top of it—and nothing has happened. Nothing has happened in the whole area of—

Ron Mark: Police!

STEPHEN FRANKS:—reviewing police injustices—the police—but that is due not just to the gormless and hapless Minister of Police but also to the foaming and gormless Minister of Justice.

Members might remember that we heard there would be a review of the exercise of the royal prerogative. We heard we were to have an independent authority that would be a little like the British criminal review body—which examined cases where the watchdogs had failed, and where the watchers watching the watchdogs were under suspicion—but nothing has happened. We have not heard a thing about that for nearly 2 years. What have been the Government’s priorities, instead?

Ron Mark: Civil unions and prostitution.

STEPHEN FRANKS: Civil unions, as Mr Mark points out, and the Prostitution Reform Act. But, of course, there have been far more urgent items in the justice portfolio—the New Zealand Council of Law Reporting Amendment Bill, and the Oaths Modernisation Bill, which was introduced to change the word “honest” into the word “faithful” in our oaths and declarations.

Ron Mark: They don’t want to be honest.

STEPHEN FRANKS: No, the Government does not like being honest. Those are the sorts of priorities that Mr Goff’s team has managed to bring into this House. [Interruption] They want faithful servants!

It is interesting that our poor candidate, Mr John Gibson QC, will probably be one of the last ones to swear an oath—if there is an oath, and I am sure there is—that he will be honest, because by the time that this Government is through, we will probably have people swearing to be faithful. I ask: faithful to what? They will be faithful little lapdogs to their appointing masters. That is what a 2-year appointment does.

In fact, the same Minister, George Hawkins, has done this before. That Minister has made a whole series of short-term appointments to the Film and Literature Board of Review. The Government has been tinkering around with the appointment provisions of the Waitangi Tribunal, too, so that the chairman of the Waitangi Tribunal can stack divisions as he sees fit.

The attitude in this Government towards judicial office is destroying the need for the mana and authority that is derived from public trust and respect. The Government does not actually give a toss about whether the Police Complaints Authority is chaired by people who can feel proud of what they are doing. If it did, it would have added more money to its budget than it has. I think that the increase in the budget for the authority, if I recall rightly, is $29,000. I mean, that is absolutely trifling. The Government has given $454,000 to the Human Rights Commission to develop our national plan of action for human rights, which will be a whole farrago of—

Judith Collins: Let’s export it to China.

STEPHEN FRANKS: We should export it to China, as Judith Collins said. The Government has given $454,000 to that commission, but it has given only $29,000 to a body that is really defending human rights—that is going right to the core of our confidence in the integrity of policing, that reassures people who complain that their suspicions were unfounded, and that is doing the real work of defending citizens—the Police Complaints Authority. The Minister can correct me if I am wrong, but my recollection from having flicked through the Budget was that it received only $29,000 extra, or maybe that was $29,000 for new initiatives. But, if I am correct, whatever the figure was it was absolutely derisory.

If Mr Gibson is listening to this debate, I would tell him to think again before accepting office for a body that is set up to fail under the current regime, the current budget, and the current priorities. The Human Rights Commission bunch of tossers will get half a million dollars, but the body to which Mr Gibson is going will not have enough money even to pay for extra staff.

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

Ayes 93

New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Māori Party 1.

Noes 26

New Zealand National 26.

Motion agreed to.

Bills

Courts and Criminal Matters Bill

In Committee

Debate resumed from 14 June.

PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First): Last week, whilst the Committee was in urgency on this bill, New Zealand First made a mistake in its voting in certain places. I seek leave to alter the New Zealand First vote from 12 against to 12 in favour in respect of the party votes on the amendments in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to Part 2 and Part 4 of this bill.

Hon Rick Barker: Does that alter the outcome of the votes?

PETER BROWN: No.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): Leave has been sought for that course to be followed. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. The results of those votes will be so altered. The outcomes of all the votes are unchanged, and that is that the amendments are not agreed to. Copies of the altered votes are available at the Table for members to inspect if they wish. We are now considering Part 9.

Part 9 Tax Administration Act 1994 (continued)

BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia): I start by saying that Michael Cullen must be highly embarrassed to have this bill still before the Committee, as it formed part of his urgency motion. It is symptomatic of a Government that is on the way out that this Government had to throw in the towel and could not get the legislation in its urgency motion passed.

Pansy Wong: Bye, bye.

BRIAN CONNELL: Bye, bye, as my colleague Pansy Wong contributes. Part 9 deals with the Tax Administration Act 1994. I want to reflect on clause 35, and on subclauses (1) and (2), in particular. Clause 35, “Disclosure of certain information in relation to fines defaulters”, states: “(1) Section 85A(4) of the principal Act is amended by repealing paragraph (c), and substituting the following paragraphs: ‘(c) the telephone number of the fines defaulter;’ ”. I think we can all agree with that. But the subclause goes downhill from there, when it goes on to state: “ ‘(d) the name of the employer of the fines defaulter; and (e) the address of the employer of the fines defaulter; and (f) the telephone number of the employer of the fines defaulter.’ ”

That suggests to me that there is a problem, which is this: why has all the responsibility for fines collection been loaded on to the shoulders of the employer? Employers do not mind—

Pansy Wong: Labour hates employers.

BRIAN CONNELL: Labour hates employers—

Simon Power: Hates risk-takers.

BRIAN CONNELL: —and hates risk-takers. Whatever it may be, employers do not mind making their contribution and doing their bit, but the message here is that fines defaulters are not being asked to take sufficient responsibility for themselves. The bill has some improvement to the law in it. The National Party accepts that there are some improvements, but we are concerned about the concept of a lack of responsibility—

Pansy Wong: A lack of personal responsibility.

BRIAN CONNELL: —yes, a lack of personal responsibility on the part of fines defaulters.

Subclause (2) of clause 35 states: “Section 85A(6) of the principal Act is amended by repealing the definition of fines defaulter information, and substituting the following definition: ‘fines defaulter information—(a) means information that identifies a fines defaulter; and (b) includes—(i) the name, address, and telephone number of the fines defaulter;’ ”. That is great, but then it goes on to state: “‘(ii) the name, address, and telephone number of the employer of the fines defaulter.’” Why on earth would one want to have that second component? Maybe the Minister in the chair, the Hon Rick Barker, can explain that to me, but I do not see why that is necessary.

What is missing, though, is the IRD number of fines defaulters. That is the real reason that fines defaulters are not found in sufficient numbers. If the Minister would only allow that requirement to be inserted into the bill, we would not need to have all that other nonsense. What happens when bailiffs go around to serve—

Clayton Cosgrove: You’d know.

BRIAN CONNELL: I think I may have to take another call, just to defend my position on that. The member for Waimakariri has made a scurrilous attack on me, by saying that I would know what bailiffs do. Well, I can say that I do not know, in terms of my own personal situation, what bailiffs do. Now that the member has made that remark, though, I feel that it is only reasonable that I am in a position to defend myself. The point I was going to make is that when a bailiff goes around to serve a warrant for arrest on a fines defaulter, the bailiff finds all too often that the person is no longer at the address that was given. But if one had an IRD number, one would, in most cases, be able to find those people.

The message that is being sent is that we are not terribly serious about our fines regime. Let us look at what is in play here. We see that $650 million of fines have been incurred, of which $350 million are overdue, and we are about to pass legislation that will collect $1.5 million. The situation is worse than that. To collect that $1.5 million will cost $1.7 million a year.

CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri): I move, That the question be now put.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 35(1) be agreed to:

to insert in paragraph (d) of section 85A(4) after the word “employer”, the words “or any former employers”.

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

Ayes 48

New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9.

Noes 70

New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2.

Amendment not agreed to.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The amendments in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 35(1), to insert words in paragraphs (e) and (f), are out of order because they are contrary to the previous decision.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 35(1) be agreed to:

to add to section 85A(4) the following new paragraph:

(g) or any other information held which may assist in the location of the fines defaulter.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 35(2) be agreed to:

to add to paragraph (b) of section 85A(6) the following new subparagraph:

(iii) the name, address, and telephone number of any former employers of the fines defaulter.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 370 in the name of the Hon Rick Barker to clause 35 be agreed to.

Amendment agreed to, and Part 9 as amended agreed to.

Clauses 1 and 2

SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei): The National Party, as the Government will know, is keen to facilitate the passage of the bill, and we are pleased that a number of amendments put forward by the Hon Tony Ryall were accepted by the Minister and have made this bill stronger in two respects. The Minister acknowledges that fact, and I thank him for being one of the few Ministers, in my time in the House, who has sat in the Committee chair and genuinely looked at amendments being proposed by the Opposition. The Minister has, although not always to the liking of the Leader of the House, engaged in the debate with members and managed to get off his seat and debate some of the issues, and to be fair to the Minister, I note that he was convinced on two points, I think. Those are now incorporated into the bill and will be forever known as the Ryall amendments.

I say in conclusion that there are aspects of this bill that the National Party has tried to amend on the way through the Committee stage; two of them were successful, many were not. Tony Ryall put a lot of effort into making sure that those issues were addressed. I see latterly that New Zealand First has agreed to support those amendments, and the National Party thanks New Zealand First. On that basis, we look forward to the third reading debate, although we do note that under urgency the Government was unable to move this matter through the Committee stage. We would like to indicate our cooperation in expediting the Committee stage this afternoon.

RON MARK (NZ First): In speaking to clause 1, I guess now that after a speech like that we could aptly rename this bill as the forerunner to the “Grand Coalition National-Labour Coalition Government Bill”. I have to point out that the honourable member—and Simon Power is an honourable member; a good, hard-working member, from what I hear up in the Rangitaiki—is wrong. The Minister presented an appalling bill to the select committee. [Interruption] The original presentation of the bill was appalling. It took a lot of work in the select committee. In fact, most of the ideas surrounding the use of the Inland Revenue Department and the Department of Work and Income were all New Zealand First’s suggestions at the select committee table.

We acknowledge the hard work of the staff who went back and convinced the Minister that he could get a lot more traction than he thought he could, by amending this bill. But sadly, as we have gone through the part by part exercise, exactly what New Zealand First predicted has happened. All the substantive amendments that would have improved this bill were knocked back by the Government. The Government consistently refused New Zealand First’s motion to grant leave to have the bill sent back to the select committee so some steel and some spine could be shoved into it. It is appalling.

This bill should be titled the “Oh We Missed a Great Opportunity Bill” because we have not put into this bill the ability for the courts to access the Inland Revenue Department information that would so easily wrap up all these little ratbags who deliberately hide from their bills. The consequence of that? Well, I will use Labour’s own words. Without this sort of revenue coming in, we forgo a lot of cataract operations, hip operations, and opportunities to improve road safety. The $650 million sitting on the back-burner, not being recovered, is nothing to be sneered at. It is a lot of money.

By allowing that sort of debt to build up, we are undermining the very work that this Government puts police officers out there on the road to do, and that is an issue: infringement notices. I ask the Minister what point there is in targeting an extra 30 percent of infringement notices in 1 year—this is from the statement of intent last year for the police—if one has no intention of actively going out and getting the money from the fines that have been issued. One is actually directly undermining the work of the police. To then come into this Chamber and tell people that the Government is standing up to support the police is a load of—to quote the words of an up and coming leader—“baloney”. It is baloney. It is rubbish.

New Zealand First intends putting this bill back to the floor to give it some teeth, to give it some spine, when we are in Government. My only message to the Labour Party is that it is nice to see that some of the arrogance has gone, and people now realise that they probably will not be in Government. But if one is expecting an opportunity to be in Government, one had better get ready to put some of the issues that we tried to discuss at select committee, in respect of the Privacy Act, off to one side and deal with the issues of Inland Revenue Department information and Department of Work and Income information, and making that available to the courts.

We tried desperately to get amendments to the bill. We tried desperately to get this bill back to the select committee so we could toughen it up and strengthen it. We know that the advisers are telling the Minister that a lot more could be done, and the Minister himself in one of his speeches acknowledged that more can be done. Indeed, he went further, to say that he sees the need to readdress some of these issues.

I will come back to what I said. New Zealand First thinks this bill could have been titled the “Oh We Missed a Golden Opportunity Bill”, because the Government seriously has. It has not read the mood of the public, in respect of these issues, at all well; but then, that is nothing new. We are seeing that daily, are we not?

STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT): I certainly wish to endorse some of the comments from Mr Mark. I cannot resist a small comment before I pass to the substance. Yes, arrogance does seem to have been thrashed out of the other side. Those members are a lot more humble. But the mantle of arrogance seems to have moved. It has not got lost in the Chamber; it has just shifted across to the kingmaker, but never mind. We will see how it goes in 2 or 3 months’ time. But in looking at this bill, which increases the collectibility of fines, I certainly endorse the comments about missed opportunities that Mr Mark made.

Progress reported.

Report adopted.

Points of Order

Upper Hutt Premier Rugby Team—Swindale Shield

Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Labour): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek the leave of the House to move, without debate, Government motion No. 3.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): Leave has been sought for that course to be followed. Is there any objection? There is.

The House adjourned at 5.57 p.m.