Wednesday, 13 June 2007

Wednesday, 13 June 2007

Wednesday, 13 June 2007

Madam Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Questions for Oral Answer

Questions for Oral Answer

Questions to Ministers

Corrections, Minister—Confidence

1. Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) to the Prime Minister: Does she have confidence in the Minister of Corrections; if so, why?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Acting Prime Minister): Yes; because he is a hard-working and conscientious Minister.

Hon Bill English: Does the Prime Minister believe that the Minister of Corrections has done the right thing in failing to hold his department to account for misleading the Ombudsman, an Officer of Parliament?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I am not aware that the Minister has failed to hold the department to account for that matter. I am prepared to discuss further with the member the issue of the exact nature of the reports of the Ombudsman.

Hon Bill English: How is it that the Prime Minister is unaware of whether the Minister has held anyone in the Department of Corrections accountable for misleading the Ombudsman; is it the case that she is not taking any notice because she does not think it is important and it is just time to move on?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I assume that the member is referring to the annual report of the Ombudsman for the year ended 2005, in which it was stated that in March 2004 the department had approved new standards in relation to certain matters, and that since August all new vehicles had been fitted with the appropriate heating and ventilation systems so that they met the required standard. That, in fact, was correct. It was also true that the department, by the stage of the release of that report, had made a decision to withdraw those standards but had not done so at that point.

Hon Bill English: What discussions has she, any member of her staff, or Cabinet had with the Minister of Corrections about the many weaknesses and continuous flow of scandals coming out of the Department of Corrections, and about whether that Minister is capable of fixing any single problem in the department?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: A range of discussions have occurred, and, of course, the Minister is responsible for ensuring that there will now be a major review of the head office and changes in the head office organisation to ensure proper lines of accountability, which only a few moments ago the member was calling for.

Hon Bill English: Why does the Prime Minister believe that this Minister is capable of carrying out a full review and correcting all problems, when the record of his stewardship since he took office is one of scandal, mishandling, delay, and misleading the public; and why is she so out of line with public opinion on this issue?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: It is clear there have been major failings in the Department of Corrections systems. It is also clear that escapes from prison custody have gone down by 78 percent under this Government, and that assaults on Department of Corrections officers by prisoners have reduced by 90 percent under this Government.

Hon Bill English: They can’t escape if they’ve been killed.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: That is a stupid comment coming from the member. One person, sadly, died in custody. That leaves many thousands of others that under a National Government would have been five times as likely to escape and 10 times as likely to have assaulted a Department of Corrections officer.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Which political party and Government introduced the privatised movement of prisoners, where the Department of Corrections is concerned?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The decision to privatise those services was taken under the previous National Government, which also wished to privatise the entire prison system—a move that was reversed by the incoming Labour Government.

Hon Bill English: Can the Prime Minister confirm that all the contracts with Chubb were renewed in 2004—under her Government—and that those contracts could be changed at any time but the Department of Corrections did not do so, and that the result was that Liam Ashley died?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Indeed, the contracts were renewed, but they were not responsible for Liam Ashley’s death. His death was due to a significant number of different failings within the system, including a communications failure between Department of Corrections and Chubb staff.

Nandor Tanczos: Does the Prime Minister have confidence in the Minister of Corrections’ decision to use waist restraints, which cuff people’s wrists to their waists, on prisoners being transported, when the Chief Ombudsman stated that the practice of Chubb to handcuff all prisoners is wrong and when the report clearly argues against the universal use of restraints on prisoners being transported?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I think it is worth reminding ourselves that this issue has arisen essentially because a young prisoner in custody was assaulted and killed by another prisoner. There is indeed a trade-off between so-called humane treatment and security, including security for other prisoners, within the same piece of equipment in which they are travelling. That trade-off is not an easy one. As usual, everyone wants to be wise after the event, no matter what decision was made.

Hon Bill English: If the Prime Minister regarded the death of Liam Ashley as so tragic, why did she not attend his funeral?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I do not think that is a question that deserves an answer.

Nandor Tanczos: Would the Minister please demonstrate to the House, using knowledge of physics, what is likely to happen to prisoners whose wrists are restrained to their waists should the van in which they are travelling, even at 50 kilometres an hour, hit a stationary object?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Very much what happens to any people whose hands are not strapped to their waists and who are not strapped into a seatbelt if they hit a stationary object. I point out to the member that we do not demand that school buses have seatbelts and restraints. I think the public would think it to be very strange if we insisted on such restraints for prisoners while not providing them for schoolchildren.

Headquarters Joint Forces New Zealand—Security Guard Services

2. RON MARK (NZ First) to the Minister of Defence: Has the New Zealand Defence Force selected a successful tenderer for the provision of security guard services at Headquarters Joint Forces New Zealand for the New Zealand Defence Force?

Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Defence): Yes, though no contract has yet been signed. As a result of information I now have about a serious lapse by the company concerned when contracted with another Government department, I have asked the New Zealand Defence Force to reconsider whether granting the tender to the company is appropriate, and whether the tenderer is still compliant with the terms of the contract.

Ron Mark: Can the Minister confirm from his very recent investigations that the directors of the successful tenderer are the same directors who headed Specialised Guard Services, which last year provided two unlicensed guards, one of whom was a gang member with convictions for rape and serious assault, and the other of whom had convictions for dishonesty, to work at the Wellington Central Police Station, supervising a suicidal female inmate?

Hon PHIL GOFF: I can confirm that, and it is the seriousness of that lapse by the company on that occasion that has led me to ask the Defence Force to reconsider the tender. I am advised that the overall reputation of the company concerned is generally reasonably good, but that lapse was clearly a very serious lapse. The same thing would not apply with the Defence Force, of course, with regard to its headquarters, in that a subsequent police vetting is required, followed by an SIS vetting. The vetting process within the Defence Force ensures that inappropriate people do not end up in jobs like that.

Ron Mark: Can the Minister therefore confirm to the House that he is now aware that Defence Force tenders required that the tenderers describe in their applications their experience and expertise in providing appropriate personnel, and to detail the security, vetting, and clearance procedures they use for assessing the staff they employ; and why, despite that clear requirement, was the Defence Force on the verge of signing up this company to a Defence Force contract to provide security at joint force headquarters?

Hon PHIL GOFF: I am advised by the Defence Force that at the time the tender process was conducted it was not aware of that lapse, notwithstanding the fact that it had been discussed in this House and was public knowledge. The Defence Force is now going back to look at the overall record of the company. In fact, I would have expected that, given the public nature of that incident, the company would have volunteered that information to the Defence Force, if it had been totally upfront.

Ron Mark: Would it, then, surprise the Minister to learn that, indeed, the Defence Force has known about this lapse in security, it has sought to defend it against inquiring individuals, and it has not disclosed those facts to him?

Hon PHIL GOFF: I am not aware of the material the member has just presented to the House. What I do know is that the contract will be re-examined. It has not yet been signed, so the Defence Force is able to re-examine it. Hard questions need to be asked of the company concerned, notwithstanding its having a generally quite good reputation around the country. This matter is something it should have disclosed to the Defence Force in its tender.

Ron Mark: Would it therefore concern the Minister to know that inquiring individuals were asking questions of the Defence Force at least, I think, 4 weeks ago about its intentions to give this contract to this company, a company that has changed its name and has operated under three different company names, that is still led by the same former National Party candidate for Parliament, Dale Stephens, and that was on the verge of getting that contract until the Minister made his inquiries this morning as a result of New Zealand First laying down an oral question about the matter?

Hon PHIL GOFF: I think it would be a very good thing if inquiring individuals came directly to the Minister; the Minister would take care of it.

Corrections, Department—Confidence

3. SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) to the Minister of Corrections: Does he have confidence in his department; if so, why?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Minister of Corrections): Yes, but there is always room for improvement.

Simon Power: Did his department deceive the Ombudsmen when it told them, in 2004 and 2005, that it had developed national standards for prisoner transport and upgraded its vans, when it clearly had not, leading the Ombudsmen to make incorrect statements in their own annual reports for those years?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: The information I have been provided with, in relation to this incident, says that there was no intention to deceive the Ombudsmen at all, and the information supplied was indeed accurate. I am not sure why the Ombudsmen may have misinterpreted that information, but it is something I will find out more about, and I will be happy to answer that question if the member wants to come back to me.

Simon Power: Does he stand by his statements in this morning’s New Zealand Herald that he had “not yet identified the person who may have sent that report to the Ombudsmen” and that it had “been difficult to isolate who was accountable on the issue”, when surely the people who are accountable on this issue are the chief executive and the Minister?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: I have one letter that was sent to the Ombudsmen from one of the senior managers. I am checking whether that was the information supplied, or whether there were other letters. That is something I will get to the bottom of.

Simon Power: How can the Minister have confidence in his chief executive, when the executive disagreed with the Ombudsmen’s finding that a lack of communication between the national office and frontline staff led to inconsistent practice, yet for a year and a half management did not bother to tell staff that proposed national standards for prisoner transport had been revoked and that in one case local prison staff were delivered a new vehicle and were left to design and fit the interior themselves when they had little or no idea how to go about it?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: The facts were, at the time, that the prison transportation system was run on a prison by prison basis. I have instructed the chief executive to change that and to have one national system that will better enable head office directives to go to each and every staff person regardless of the prison he or she works at.

Simon Power: Is the Minister now telling the House and the people of New Zealand that it is the Ombudsman’s fault that he misunderstood the reply of the Department of Corrections in 2004, or does he want to take this opportunity to revisit that answer?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: I am not blaming the Ombudsman at all. What I am saying is that the information I have access to, which was provided to the Ombudsman, is accurate. It may not have included all the information the Ombudsman wanted—that is something I am investigating—but it is reasonable to assume that the Ombudsman could have misinterpreted that information.

Simon Power: Does the Minister agree with the Prime Minister’s view that Barry Matthews is “an exceptional chief executive”; if so, how does he reconcile this with his statements to the media in the past 24 hours that his senior managers were “on notice”, that Mr Matthews “stays for the moment”, and that “he’s not a disaster every week”?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: The chief executive is exceptional but he has an exceptionally challenging job. He has to get on with that job and make the changes following the restructuring of the head office to ensure that clear lines of communication and accountability go from top to bottom in the Department of Corrections.

Nandor Tanczos: Can the Minister explain to the House his confidence in his department when one of the key criticisms in the Ombudsmen’s report—which is the lack of ability to monitor prisoners while they are in transportation—is an issue that would seem to be a question of basic prisoner safety and public safety; and how can he explain that his department has paid, seemingly, no attention to that matter to this date?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: We are paying attention to that, and all new prison vans, as they come into the system, have been redesigned to better facilitate the observation of each and every prisoner. The situation we have at the moment is not ideal, but as new prison vans come on stream and as the design standards are nationalised, we will have a better ability to observe each and every prisoner.

Nandor Tanczos: Does the Minister have confidence that the Government will commit to providing the resources necessary to implement the recommendations of the Chief Ombudsman’s report on prison transport, which is estimated to be a $30 million investment, in order to ensure safe and humane transportation of prisoners?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: I have said we accept all the recommendations. However, some of them are going to be difficult to implement and some of them require further negotiation with the Ombudsman—such as his wish to see prisoner vans stop whenever a prisoner wants to go to the toilet. I do not think that is reasonable. He also wishes to see prisoners have access to escape hatches. I think that is potentially dangerous and we need further discussions on that. There are a few issues that have yet to be resolved, but we accept the recommendations in the spirit in which they are made.

Nandor Tanczos: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I think the Minister has actually misrepresented the recommendations of the Ombudsmen’s report.

Madam SPEAKER: That is not a point of order.

Simon Power: Does he stand by his statement in the New Zealand Herald this morning that the department will implement all recommendations in the report?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: We will do so in a cost-effective and practicable manner. We will not implement ridiculous proposals that may put the public, prison staff, or prisoners in danger. We have to work through a number of those key recommendations to make sure they can be implemented in a sensible way.

Simon Power: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. My question was pretty straightforward. It required only a yes or no answer, and the question was whether he would implement all the recommendations of the Ombudsmen, as he stated in the New Zealand Herald this morning. I simply required a “Yes” or “No”.

Madam SPEAKER: As the member well knows, he cannot require an answer “Yes” or “No”, but the Minister in this case did address the question.

Question No. 2 to Minister

RON MARK (NZ First): I apologise; I should have done this at the end of my question, question No. 2. I seek leave to table the New Zealand Defence Force tender application documents, which require tenderers to describe their experience in providing appropriate personnel.

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

RON MARK (NZ First): I seek leave to table a list from the Ministry of Justice website that shows that the successful tenderer employed only 26 registered security guards.

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

RON MARK (NZ First): I seek leave to table an article from the Dominion Post dated 22 June 2006 that clearly identifies Specialised Guard Services and its failures at the Wellington Central Police Station.

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

RON MARK (NZ First): I seek leave of the House to table documentation that New Zealand First was able to glean from the Minister of Justice and the Companies Register in 10 minutes—information that the Ministry of Defence could not seem to find out in about 3 months.

Document not tabled.

Student Loans—Interest-free Policy

4. MOANA MACKEY (Labour) to the Minister for Tertiary Education: What reports, if any, has he received on support for the interest-free student loan scheme?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister for Tertiary Education): I received a report that states: “There are half a million New Zealanders who’ve now got used to not paying interest and we have to listen to that pretty carefully.” and: “… you’ve got half a million New Zealanders now with zero percent loans and that’s a pretty hard thing to turn around and say it’s over.” That is Mr Key’s answer to the question: “If elected Government, would National keep the student loan interest write-off scheme?”. It sounds like a tentative “Yes”.

Moana Mackey: What reports has he received indicating concerns about the student loan scheme?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I have received a number of written questions expressing concerns that “… interest free student loans are directing saving resources away from other priorities … while at the same time creating no obvious educational benefits.” and “What is fair about taxing people without tertiary education in order to pay for an interest free student loan scheme?”. Those questions came from the Opposition spokesperson on tertiary education, Dr Paul Hutchison. Those statements sound like a definite “No” to the question that Mr Key was asked.

Moana Mackey: What are the benefits of the interest-free student loan policy?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The student loan interest-free policy “cuts the cost to students of tertiary study and encourages skilled New Zealanders to stay in New Zealand.” It should be noted that Mr Key campaigned against it and voted against it.

Judy Turner: Does the Minister consider it reasonable that the number of students who must borrow living costs is almost the same as the number of students eligible for the student allowance; if so, why?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Ever since the modern form of student allowances was introduced—many years ago now—the allowances have been income-tested on parental income. Even now, despite the large number of people who go into tertiary education, there is still some bias towards people from higher-income groups compared with those from lower-income groups. I would not consider it unreasonable that those on higher incomes made some contribution to the cost of their young person’s education.

Early Childhood Education—Free Hours Additional Fees

5. KATHERINE RICH (National) to the Minister of Education: Why will some parents pay more in fees because their child is attending a kindergarten that has decided to offer 20 free hours of early childhood education?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education): I am not aware of any instance where parents who use their 20 free hours at a service that is a member of a kindergarten association would pay more fees.

Katherine Rich: Why does the Minister pretend that 20 hours free is free, when parents will pay for the policy through increased fees overall, reductions in service quality, and cross-subsidies from other preschooler-aged groups?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: Because I am not aware of that.

Hon Marian Hobbs: What advice has the Minister received about a proposal to abolish free early childhood education and reimpose fees on thousands of New Zealand families?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: My understanding is that there is a secret plan to that effect but it is being kept quiet at this moment. The aim at the moment is to sabotage free early childhood education and deny parents savings they would gain from it. But I know that as this policy proves to be the success we all know it will be, on the National Party side they will undoubtedly come around to John Key’s view that they have to flip-flop and support 20 hours free.

Katherine Rich: How can free be free when some parents will pay more for 20 hours free than they pay for early childhood education at present, and how can the Minister stand in the House and say he is not aware of any examples, when he needs only to read a newspaper or his in-tray of correspondence?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: As the member knows, 20 hours free means free. However, of course, as part of the policy there is an acknowledgment that in some centres they do things above the regulated level of quality education. So in some cases people offer an optional charge to be paid for some of those services. However, 20 hours free is 20 hours free.

Katherine Rich: Does the Minister know that the word “free” usually means no payment whatsoever, and how does he reconcile his own definition with the number of centres up and down the country that are planning to recoup costs by seeking charges from parents, reducing quality, and, in some cases, asking workers to take a pay cut?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: If the member has an example of that, she might like to bring it to my attention, because one of the things we are doing is visiting centres where they are not clear, and making sure that they are. For example, I thought that today the member might have raised the example of a private service that has identified itself as a kindergarten, since she has been asking questions about it. It is identifying itself as offering a surcharge of $20 a day. It previously charged $36. I have asked my officials to have a chat with that centre to make sure it understands that 20 hours free means 20 hours free, and that optional charges have to be genuinely additional and they have to be explained and agreed to by the parent.

Paula Bennett: Why do high-quality, responsible early childhood education centres, like The Treehouse Private Kindergarten in Tauranga, have to bend the free rules by announcing to parents that they will receive 20 free hours per week with a top-up quality education surcharge of $20 per day to cover things such as interesting and educational guests, and a beautiful and aesthetic learning environment; and how is this free?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I know that the member had lined up that question and therefore did not listen to my answer previously on this very centre, so let me just repeat it. That centre is asking for a $20 surcharge and has identified a range of services that it believes are above the regulated level that it wants to provide. I have asked the Ministry of Education to drop by and have a chat with the people at the centre to make sure they understand that 20 hours free is free and that optional charges have to be agreed to by parents.

Paula Bennett: As it is merely one example, if 20 free hours is really free, why has The Treehouse increased its fees for 2-year-olds, charging $20 per day for 3 and 4-year-olds, and why do those people on a Work and Income subsidy who were getting their early childhood education for free now have to pay $20 a day, as for them 20 hours free has simply morphed into $20?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I have no doubt there are some centres that are confused about this policy, given that Miss Bennett herself has been moving around the country trying to undermine it. As I said, I am well aware of this particular example. It is the only example the Opposition is giving today, and the ministry will be going to see the centre. But I say to the member too that I do appreciate her recent visit to Gisborne. As a result of her visit the number of people in free early childhood education has gone up. If she wants help to go to any other centre, I am more than happy to help.

Rodney Hide: Is the Minister not concerned that he is enhancing his reputation for being unnecessarily tricky, given that, with a solemn election promise of 20 free hours, he cannot tell the people of New Zealand just how many young preschoolers will qualify, what the actual cost to parents will be, or what the actual commitment from the Government is; what sort of election-year promise and policy is that, when the Minister cannot give us a clear answer on those three points?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: The member is enhancing his reputation for being premature, because if he had been following this policy he would know that since April people have been getting attestation forms, and filling them out and giving them to their centres. During June those forms are being put together, and those centres that are coming into the scheme are sending in their applications to be part of the scheme. At the end of this month, I think, there will be some reliable figures to tell the member. So if he just waits till then, I am sure I can give him the figures.

Paula Bennett: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I would just like to give the Minister an opportunity to correct his answer. The last time I was in Gisborne was in January at our caucus retreat, so he might like to take advice from the people I spoke to—

Madam SPEAKER: That is not a point of order.

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: The member was in Whakatāne but she is welcome in Gisborne, because I am sure they have got it there as well.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I noticed the Minister said he had seen only one example. I seek leave to table this week’s community newspaper in my own area, where Paula’s Preschool says that its 20 free hours policy will require a new, additional charge.

Document not tabled.

Early Childhood Education—Free Hours Availability

6. SUE MORONEY (Labour) to the Minister of Education: What steps are under way to provide New Zealand families with 20 hours of free early childhood education?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education): Coincidentally, I happen to have a similar answer to that to the previous question. In April early childhood services began ordering forms for parents to claim their free hours, and are now starting to have meetings with parents and to talk about the policy. The initial applications from services to take up free early childhood education are now making their way through the Ministry of Education, and the signs are looking good. This will result in tens of thousands of New Zealand families receiving 20 hours’ free early childhood education from 1 July, and as the policy rolls out over the next year I am confident that even more services will offer that policy to parents.

Sue Moroney: What feedback has the Minister been getting about the free early childhood education policy?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: The New Zealand Childcare Association says it is “an important step in the direction of publicly funded ECE and creates a level playing field where parents can choose the service they want, regardless of cost”. The Waikato Kindergarten Association calls it a wonderful initiative. The Lower Hutt Kindergarten Association says it is a fantastic opportunity to reduce costs to families. I was pleased to see yesterday that the Auckland Kindergarten Association, with over 5,500 children, is taking up free early childhood education. The Ministry of Education reports positive feedback from the 165 face-to-face meetings with services around the country, and I do want to repeat that I am delighted with the progress that Paula Bennett is making in promoting this policy. As I said before, after her visit to Whakatāne the numbers went up.

Katherine Rich: What sort of death wish does the Minister have, in arranging a patsy question to himself on the subject of 20 free hours, when the decision of the Auckland Kindergarten Association to implement his policy is the most reluctant so far, with its press release today using phrases like “reluctantly agreed”, “still real concerns”, “continual review”, and “If the financial position of the AKA is threatened, we will seriously consider withdrawing from this policy.”—it is hardly a ringing endorsement?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I just want to say to the member that I know this hurts, but the association is in.

Capital and Coast District Health Board—Chair and Deputy Chair

7. Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) to the Minister of Health: Has he discussed the circumstances of the “serious conflict of interest” involving his appointee as deputy chair of the Capital and Coast District Health Board, Ken Douglas, with the chair of the board; if so, when?

Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health): No.

Hon Tony Ryall: Why does the Minister think that the chairwoman of the district health board was concerned enough about Ken Douglas’s involvement to get two legal opinions, but this Minister will not even raise any concerns with her?

Hon PETE HODGSON: Because she is a conscientious and hard-working chairperson.

Barbara Stewart: Would Mr Douglas receive any pecuniary advantage in the event of a contract being awarded to Healthcare of New Zealand Holdings Ltd; and how does his situation compare with that of Dr Bierre?

Hon PETE HODGSON: A pretty interesting question! Mr Douglas stated in a letter to the chair a month or two ago—before he was deputy chair, actually—that he does not have any direct pecuniary interest arising from his shareholding as a non-executive director in Healthcare of New Zealand, and that he has no contractual—

Madam SPEAKER: Would the Minister please be seated. Members wish to hear the Minister’s answer. Would the Minister please start again.

Hon PETE HODGSON: Let me quote from a letter that Ken Douglas wrote to his chair on 29 March, where he says: “As a non-executive director I do not have any direct pecuniary interest arising from Healthcare of New Zealand Holdings Ltd’s contracts, and I have no personal contractual relationships with Capital and Coast DHB or any other DHB.” I would contrast that with National Party member and good mate of Jackie Blue, Dr Tony Bierre, who had a 15 percent shareholding in Labtests Auckland, and therefore a 15 percent share of the profits of a half-billion-dollar contract, when his contribution to the working capital of that company was zero—or zilch, or diddly squat—and that pecuniary interest was acquired through what Justice Asher labelled an improper use of knowledge. So there is the contrast: upfront honesty from a member of the Order of New Zealand, versus insider trading from another Tory.

Hon Tony Ryall: Is it appropriate for a district health board member to participate in discussions on a proposal to later contract out services, knowing that a company of which he is a director is going to bid for those contracts, without declaring that specific interest at the time—or does the Minister not care?

Hon PETE HODGSON: The management of conflicts of interest remain the problem and property of the boards. That is the law.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Oh, pass the buck.

Hon PETE HODGSON: That is the law—the law. That is the law. You see, black-letter law—that is what I follow. I follow the letter of the law. Let me give the House another quote from the letter from Ken Douglas to his chair of 29 March: “It would be helpful for the management to inform me of all possible areas of conflict, both current and in the future.” This is a man who not only declares his interests but who wants help from the management in managing his interests proactively—and that compares with a dirty Tory who decided that he would not tell all the truth, and therefore a half-billion-dollar contract went to ground.

Madam SPEAKER: Oh, that is inappropriate.

Hon Tony Ryall: Why will the Minister not answer the question of whether he would approve of a district health board member participating in a discussion on the later contracting out of services, when that member is a director of a likely bidder for those contracts and did not declare that specific interest at the time nor excuse himself from those discussions—why will the Minister not answer that question?

Hon PETE HODGSON: Staff from the Ministry of Health, who are my advisers, advise me even this week—even today—that they have no reason to believe there is anything untoward in conflict of interest management in respect of Ken Douglas or in respect of any other member of the Capital and Coast District Health Board.

Hon Tony Ryall: Is the Minister saying that because Ken Douglas wrote on 29 March to advise that he had an interest as a director in contracts between Healthcare of New Zealand Holdings and the district health board, that excuses his behaviour of attending a meeting of the Capital and Coast District Health Board on 7 February 2007 where he participated in a discussion on the later contracting out of community health care services, and where he did not specifically declare his interest as a director of a company that would be a likely bidder nor excuse himself from those discussions?

Hon PETE HODGSON: The member forgets that conflicts of interest are recorded in a conflicts of interest register that is itself a matter of public information that the member can easily get hold of should he wish. He can trail through the register and trail through the business of the board, and see whether he is comfortable. My advisers advise me that they are comfortable.

Maryan Street: For the information of the House, what is the difference between a conflicted district health board member who openly declares a conflict of interest so that it may be properly managed and a conflicted district health board member who does not do that?

Hon PETE HODGSON: That is precisely the point; that is precisely the difference between Mr Douglas and Dr Bierre. Mr Douglas has gone to great lengths to declare his interests in detail, so that they can be transparently managed. Dr Bierre’s history can be found in a High Court judgment on a case in which the contrast could not be more stark. He was a National Party member, a friend of Dr Jackie Blue, and the judge said that he made improper use of knowledge—he was an insider trader.

Hon Tony Ryall: In giving his answer to these questions and quoting from Justice Asher’s ruling, is the Minister also aware of Justice Asher’s ruling that in allowing Dr Bierre to continue to be involved in discussions about the services while he wished to bid for them himself, the board permitted that process to be damaged and that it was impossible for Dr Bierre to divorce himself of his knowledge of the board’s philosophy and wishes; Ken Douglas did not declare a specific interest involved in the contracting out of community services at the Capital and Coast District Health Board meeting of 7 February 2007, doing so only on 29 March, and will the Minister now answer the question of whether he would approve of that behaviour?

Hon PETE HODGSON: The board manages conflict of interest issues, but here is a clue: one person has a non-executive director role, and cannot be advantaged or disadvantaged by that company getting some value or not from a contract—cannot be personally advantaged, as he said in a letter. The other person had a 15 percent stake in an interest in a company, and would have picked up 15 percent of the profits of a half-billion-dollar contract had the High Court judge not stopped him. That is the difference between the two people. I wonder whether the member who asks the question can see the difference; I can.

Hon Tony Ryall: If Ken Douglas’ conflict of interest is so well handled, why has the chairwoman of the Capital and Coast District Health Board called for two detailed legal opinions on Ken Douglas’ behaviour, and does the Minister expect to wash his hands, like Pontius Pilate, of every seedy conflict in the district health boards?

Hon PETE HODGSON: Because she is a conscientious and hard-working chairperson, I strongly support her getting legal support if she feels that she needs it—[Interruption] The member is yelling back at me. Does he want to hear the answer, or does he not? He does not want to hear the answer; that is fine.

Taxation—Thresholds

8. GORDON COPELAND (Independent) to the Minister of Finance: Why has he now abandoned his Budget 2005 commitment to a small adjustment to the current tax thresholds, from $38,000 to $40,324 and from $60,000 to $63,672 to offset, at least to some extent, inflation for the 3-year period between 2005 and 2008?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance): Madam Speaker—[Interruption] Those members opposite just cannot wait for their extra $5 a week! Because that would have injected a further $400 million into the economy in 2008-09, and that would not have been responsible in the current macroeconomic environment. It was more responsible to enhance KiwiSaver. That is why I was pleased that at a pre-Budget meeting the member accepted that trade-off—however reluctantly.

Gordon Copeland: Does the Minister realise that a person on the then average wage of $36,000 in 2002 now needs to earn about $44,000 to cover the increases in the cost of living, and that as a result of moving from the 19.5c to the 33c tax bracket, that person is now almost $2,000 per annum worse off, after tax; if so, does he intend to fix that while he still has the opportunity to do so?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Real after-tax incomes have increased over the last 7½ years. Real household after-tax incomes have increased significantly over the last 7½ years. The member may have noticed that the Reserve Bank recently put up the interest rate. Had I injected another $400 million a year into demand, it is likely that those increases would have been higher, thus reducing people’s real incomes.

Hon Mark Gosche: Does he stand by his statement: “There will be a time for personal tax cuts as fiscal and economic pressures ease.”?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: As I indicated before the Budget, I hope to be in a position to announce the timing and shape of personal tax changes over the long term, in my next Budget. I note that Mr English has said that now is not the time for extensive tax cuts, thus agreeing with me. He has quantified the maximum amount available as $500 million a year, which would give most taxpayers no more than about $1 a week, and $5 a week if spread equally across the entire range of taxpayers. That is what $500 million a year is, I say to Mr English.

R Doug Woolerton: Does the Minister agree that our current high dollar and interest rate led to the intervention by the Reserve Bank on Monday; if so, does he believe that increases in tax thresholds at this time would only add to inflationary pressure?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: As the governor said quite clearly, the major factor in the rise was the proposed Fonterra payout injecting some $2 billion extra into the economy. [Interruption] Well, that is what the Governor of the Reserve Bank actually said. If the member wants to show the same contempt for the governor as he shows for the legal system, that is fine by me.

Coroners—Appointment Process

9. CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) to the Attorney-General: Is he satisfied that the appointments process for the new coronial system has worked well; if so, why?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Attorney-General): Not entirely; overall success was marred by the fact that one of the proposed appointees in Hamilton had to withdraw over an oversight in the process, for which she was not responsible.

Christopher Finlayson: Is not the truth of the matter that the process is a shambles and an embarrassment to the Government, because the Minister, having been rolled by backbenchers Marian Hobbs and Charles Chauvel, has had to back down from his petty and catty decision not to make Garry Evans a full-time coroner, and now offer him a temporary position?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: First of all, I bow to that member as an expert on pettiness and cattiness; there is no doubt about that particular fact. Secondly, I have not been lobbied by Marian Hobbs and Charles Chauvel. Thirdly, Mr Evans has been appointed as a relief coroner, because Judge MacLean has discovered there is a 1,900 case backlog, which shows how much the system needed changing.

Charles Chauvel: What reports has he seen on whether those involved in the appointments process were satisfied with the outcome?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I have seen a report from the Napier coroner, Warwick Holmes, who was not appointed to the new, full-time position. He said: “You’re not hearing complaints from me or any other coroner of the appointments. What should be understood is that we endorse it, because we have been the people who have been collectively urging the changes.”

Christopher Finlayson: Will the Attorney-General now confirm that both the new chief coroner and the interview panel recommended the appointment of Mr Evans as a full-time coroner, and that the Attorney-General rejected those recommendations in his usual vindictive manner, much to the disgust of trade unions, Marian Hobbs, Charles Chauvel, the press, the legal profession, victims’ families, and, indeed, most of Wellington, and will he release that advice?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: No, I certainly will not. I would never release advice of that sort in relation to appointments. The member is falling into the same trap as the editor of the Dominion Post. Nobody was sacked. All current part-time coronial positions ceased, as the member should know because he participated, I assume, in the development of that legislation. One-third of the previous part-time positions became full-time positions. Many coroners were not reappointed. The new coroner for Wellington is a very outspoken person. The new coroner for Rotorua appeared on television opposing Government legislation.

Hone Harawira: Kia ora, Madam Speaker. Tēnā tātou te Whare. Has the Minister read the comment from Rima Edwards, the Chairman of Te Rūnanga o Muriwhenua, who said that the Coroners Act “will mean that bodies may be held for up to 6 days before being returned to whānau for tangi; that should the implications be devastating, as we think they will be, then we think our community should up rise to a peaceful protest”; and what will he be doing to resolve the concerns of Māori and others in the far north about the fact that from next month on there will be no registered pathologist north of Whangarei?

Madam SPEAKER: That question is quite wide of the original question, which related to appointments.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. May I ask the member whether he meant to say “coroner” not “pathologist”?

Hone Harawira: Coroner.

Madam SPEAKER: The issue really is that the primary question quite specifically relates to appointments. That supplementary question was quite broad. I do not know whether the Attorney-General would wish to make a comment anyway.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I have not seen those comments. I am concerned that there may be long delays. This is a matter that has been the subject of legislation since as long ago as the 1980s to try to improve matters in that regard. I would expect the new, full-time, professional body of coroners to be able to achieve, on average, faster results. The fact that 1,900 cases from the previous, part-time coronial system remain unresolved shows the need for change to that system.

Christopher Finlayson: What is more humiliating to the Government: Marian Hobbs rolling Rick Barker on funding for the Karori Wildlife Sanctuary, or Marian Hobbs rolling Michael Cullen over the appointment of Garry Evans?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I hate to disappoint the member’s fantasy life but I have not been rolled by Marian Hobbs—much as I might wish I could be.

3-D Digital Industry—Developments

10. DAVE HEREORA (Labour) to the Minister for Economic Development: Has he received any reports on recent developments in New Zealand’s 3-D digital industry?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Acting Minister for Economic Development): Yes, I have received a report on Nextspace, the research and innovation centre linked to Right Hemisphere. Nextspace will receive $7 million in funding over the next 3 years for a series of initiatives aimed at bolstering a range of Kiwi 3-D digital content and graphics firms and research institutions. Nextspace will leverage the Government’s agreement with Right Hemisphere by building an online graphics technology cluster for New Zealand.

Dave Hereora: Has he seen any reports on this Government supporting the development of a 3-D digital industry in New Zealand?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: Yes. I saw one in the New Zealand Herald that stated: “Officials and Ministers should not be searching the country for such opportunities.” The report was from Katherine Rich—who, incidentally, recently sided with Mr Key against Mr English on broadband. Unlike the National Party, this Government actively and unapologetically pursues well-targeted opportunities for New Zealand business. 3-D technology is a multibillion-dollar industry, where New Zealand already has an edge. The Government is committed to building on that edge.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Since the Minister has raised the issue of two members of the same party having a different view, particularly when they come from the front bench, and I know that he has not been in Parliament very long, but can he recall any time in the history of parliamentary parties since, for example, the days of John Marshall and Rob Muldoon, where two leading members of a party constantly and publicly dispute what the other one has said?

Madam SPEAKER: As interesting a question as that is, it is outside the scope of the original question.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The Minister put the matter at issue when he said that two members had sided in one party against their deputy leader. With that being the case, where he has put it at issue, I am trying to think of any time since John Marshall and Rob Muldoon, for example, way back in the 1970s, when that has ever happened. I think it is pretty apposite that the country needs to know.

Madam SPEAKER: I thank the member. I also draw the member’s attention to the fact that there is no ministerial responsibility for that.

Greater Auckland Council—Establishment

11. Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) to the Minister with responsibility for Auckland Issues: Does she stand by her statement that “The proposal for a Greater Auckland Council, with clearly defined responsibilities, would provide enhanced regional government as well as good local government.”; if so, will the Government be introducing legislation this year to actually establish a Greater Auckland council?

Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Minister with responsibility for Auckland Issues): Yes. The Government is yet to complete its discussions with Auckland’s local authorities and the Auckland Regional Council on proposals for strengthening Auckland’s regional governance. The need for, and timing of, any legislation will be made once final decisions have been taken.

Dr Wayne Mapp: In the event that the House ever actually sees this legislation, will the legislation ensure that all decisions of regional significance—for instance, regional roading or, indeed, the redevelopment of the waterfront—would be made by the Greater Auckland council?

Hon JUDITH TIZARD: The Local Government Act 2002 makes very broad provision for regional and local government taking responsibility for roading and other resource management issues.

The Auckland waterfront is jointly owned by Ports of Auckland Ltd, which is owned by Auckland Harbour Holdings, the Auckland City Council, and private owners. There has been significant discussion chaired mainly, I think, by the Auckland City Council on the future development of the waterfront. Local roads are now the responsibility of the Auckland Regional Transport Authority. Transit and local authorities, through the regional land transport committee, are responsible for strategic development of the transport network. I am sure that the work being done in Auckland will improve that process. It is reasonably well understood now by people in Auckland—except for the member.

Dr Wayne Mapp: Now that the Minister has outlined her plethora of organisations in Auckland to deal with all these important issues, including, apparently, the local crescent near my neighbourhood, will she ensure that one plan—one plan; not a series of ideas and strategies—would involve the amalgamation of all the district plans, so that ratepayers and businesses would have a single set of planning and consent rules to comply with?

Hon JUDITH TIZARD: There is a process, which is being described as the One Auckland Plan, which will bring together the strategic alignment of roading, economic development, some environmental water quality and air quality, and other issues, being developed now within the general framework of the regional growth strategy, whether Auckland chooses to have one scheme. But my particular concern is that we get on and do things practically, together, that we can now, as well as plan well for the future, rather than worrying about the structure first and the projects later.

Dr Wayne Mapp: Given the enthusiasm of the Minister to get things done now, what has she actually done to secure legislation to ensure that one plan will be introduced, or is she more interested in her busy diary and attending events like the brick exhibition, or the arrival of an 80-year-old tram; would it not be better for her to spend her valuable time dealing with the real, pressing issues of our city?

Hon JUDITH TIZARD: Events at the Museum of Transport and Technology, and arts, culture, and heritage events featuring one of New Zealand’s most well-known ceramicists at a new gallery in west Auckland, in Waitakere City, are great fun and also very useful. I have no trouble in multitasking, regardless of how hard that member would find it.

Hone Harawira: Tēnā koe to the Minister. Does she think a Greater Auckland council would have avoided the public relations disaster that occurred over moves to register the city’s volcanoes as Unesco World Heritage sites without bothering to consult tangata whenua, and what is she proposing to do about the cultural offence caused by that typically JAFA demonstration of cultural insensitivity?

Madam SPEAKER: Again, that is rather broad of the original question, but if the Minister would like to answer.

Hon JUDITH TIZARD: I know that the tangata whenua of Auckland have been involved with the Metro Project, the START project, most of the transport work, and many other processes that are happening in Auckland. I need to remind the House that Auckland does cover over one-sixth of New Zealand’s land area and has nearly one-third of New Zealand’s population. Things are not quite as simple as they are in Kaitāia. But I am very happy that Ministers, agencies, and local authorities are working very hard with iwi authorities and urban Māori authorities to consult thoroughly and well on all of these processes. Sometimes someone drops the ball, but I do not think it was anyone here.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I do not know whether you heard that, or intend to overlook it, but surely, so close to the proclamation of this very important code of conduct yesterday, which was signed by the Māori Party, we cannot have the kind of language we just heard, referring, appropriately or otherwise, to a member being just another JAFA. We know what that expression means, and I think if we are going to have a code of conduct, then surely it should last more than 24 hours.

Madam SPEAKER: I thank the member. I am sure that those who were listening have noted the comment and, obviously, will take that into account.

Māori Potential Approach—Assessment

12. Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) to the Minister of Māori Affairs: How does he measure the success of the Māori Potential Approach?

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Minister of Māori Affairs): The Māori Potential Approach is about how Te Puni Kōkiri thinks, and about the approach it uses to prioritise all of its efforts. The basis for measuring Te Puni Kōkiri’s effectiveness is described in its statement of intent; so are the outcome indicators that measure Māori success. Te Puni Kōkiri will monitor Government contributions towards Māori success.

Hon Georgina te Heuheu: Does the Minister count as one of the successes in terms of realising his Māori Potential Approach the fact that Māori unemployment has dropped more slowly than the drop for non-Māori, with the result that almost 37 percent of people now on the unemployment benefit are Māori, compared with just 31 percent when he first took over as Minister?

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: If we move it back to the percentages, let us remember that when we came in the unemployment rate was riding at 22 percent. That member is playing around with figures in different quantums. Right now more Māori are in work than there have ever been. The increase in the average income of Māori in the workforce is better than it has ever been. More Māori are getting degrees, more Māori are owning their own businesses, and more Māori children are in early childhood education. We are not a dependent people. More Māori are working, with different skills and at different levels, than ever occurred in the time that those people over there were in Government.

Hon Georgina te Heuheu: How will the Government help Māori to realise their potential, when it fails to address underlying issues recently identified by the World Health Organization in April this year, such as a shorter life expectancy, fewer disability-free years, higher rates of preventable illness, a poor prognosis for cancer, and increasing school truancy rates for Māori?

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: In relation to when we came into office, dare I mention that this Government has been talking about arresting obesity—dare I mention those issues—and diabetes, and everything else. We have made sure that schoolchildren are better fed, more healthy, and whatever else. Those issues have been around for a long, long time. I also say there has been a dramatic decrease in health issues under the great effort of this Minister of Health, Pete Hodgson.

Hon Georgina te Heuheu: How can Māori trust a Minister who promised to close the gaps between Māori and non-Māori, but who participated in cancelling the closing the gaps policy, then tried to hide his failure by telling the House in August 2001 that internal reports on closing the gaps would continue, although admitting in answer to a written question in April of this year—2007—that he has not received any such reports since May 2000, which is 15 months before he indicated that he was receiving some?

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: It was Tau Henare who said he would close the gaps; it was us who picked it up. Let us get the story right. At the end of the day, as we said in the select committee this morning, when we first came into Government monitoring and evaluation were about blunt instruments like policing at the end of the activity. This ministry and this Government have ensured that we get in at the front end, in the sense of developing the outcomes and making sure that a whole lot of the outcomes that are positive for Māori are recognised in this nation.

Hon Georgina te Heuheu: I seek leave of the House to table a series of papers. The first one is a document showing Ministry of Social Development statistics that indicate that the gap between Māori and non-Māori is widening.

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

Hon Georgina te Heuheu: I seek leave to table a paper referring to the World Health Organization report of 2007 that details inequalities among Māori communities.

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

Hon Georgina te Heuheu: I seek leave to table a paper outlining a series of question and answers before the Māori Affairs Committee in August 2001, in which the Minister indicated he was receiving reports.

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

Hon Georgina te Heuheu: I seek leave to table an extract from Hansard in 2007 with questions on closing the gaps and monitoring reports, which shows that 15 months before the Minister said he was receiving them, he was not.

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

Questions to Members

Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill—Postponement

1. PAULA BENNETT (National) to the Member in charge of the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill: Is she intending to postpone the second reading of the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill; if so, why?

LYNNE PILLAY (Member in charge of the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill): As the member should be aware, the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill has only just been reported back to the House. The bill is a local bill and I will be consulting with the respective councils, Waitakere City, Rodney City, and the Auckland Regional Council, in my capacity as the MP for Waitakere and the sponsor of the bill.

Paula Bennett: Is the member purposely delaying the second reading of the bill—as the Business Committee reported yesterday that the bill would be read for a second time today—because she no longer has the numbers in the House for it to pass?

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. There has to be some relationship to the truth, and the Business Committee yesterday was clearly informed the bill was still below the line today. So it cannot come up for debate.

Madam SPEAKER: Yes, that was a point of information. Did the member want anything more—

LYNNE PILLAY: No, Madam Speaker. The Minister has answered appropriately for me. [Interruption]

Madam SPEAKER: That was a clarification, which is often given in this House when there is a misunderstanding as to the nature of the House’s affairs, and it was to the assistance of members.

Urgent Debates

Corrections, Department—Ombudsmen’s Report

Madam SPEAKER: I have received letters from Simon Power and Nandor Tanczos, seeking to debate under Standing Order 380 the report of the Ombudsmen entitled Investigation by John Belgrave, Chief Ombudsman and Mel Smith, Ombudsman of the Department of Corrections in Relation to the Transport of Prisoners. The release of the report is a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility, and it does require the immediate attention of the House. I therefore accept the application. As Simon Power lodged his application first, I call on Mr Power to move that the House take note of the matter.

SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei): I move, That the House take note of a matter of urgent public importance. The Department of Corrections is the department that has in recent months brought to the New Zealand public massive budget blowouts in the building of four new prisons, corruption and contraband stories that have spread throughout the media for the last 12 or 15 months, and responsibility for large portions of the Graeme Burton debacle and crisis. It was also responsible for reports being written and for follow-up action in the Liam Ashley tragedy, about which the Ombudsmen have produced one of the most scathing and direct reports this House has seen in some time.

We found out today during question time the most interesting thing about the way the Minister has interpreted this report. Despite the Ombudsmen making it very clear that they were very disturbed to discover that their expectations—which they had been led to believe by the Department of Corrections were being met in respect of transport safety—had not been met. The Minister of Corrections, as if he was not deep enough in trouble, stood in this House during question time today and said that was the Ombudsmen’s fault for misunderstanding what the department had said. Well, I know whom I would believe. I know whom the New Zealand public believe, when it comes to pitting the word of the Ombudsmen—who were blatantly disappointed at having been misled by the Department of Corrections over its progress on prisoner transport—against the word of the Department of Corrections, which has had the worst 18 months of any Government department or ministry.

The Minister, having said in this morning’s New Zealand Herald that he would implement every single one of the recommendations made by the Ombudsmen in this report, stood in this House today and immediately began the process we have seen surrounding the Department of Corrections for the last 18 months. The equivocation began within 10 hours of the New Zealand Herald publishing the Minister’s statement that all those recommendations would be implemented. All of a sudden it became a matter of negotiating the implementation of those recommendations as they unfolded.

This Minister and department, over the last 14 or 15 months, have adopted three strategies in running that department: deny, deny, deny. It is always somebody else’s fault, and when the Ombudsmen, Officers of Parliament, table a report that is scathing of the department’s handling of prisoner transport, with virtually every page describing the department’s response to these matters as unsatisfactory, and with the words “disappointed” or “disturbed” appearing more than once, the Minister has the gall to stand in question time and say the Ombudsmen misunderstood the department.

The public of New Zealand will not buy that for one second, and the Minister knows that. The Minister knows that, because on the radio this morning, when asked whether Barry Matthews would stay in his job, the Minister said “He stays for the moment.” When the interviewer pressed Mr O’Connor on that issue and said “For the moment?”, Mr O’Connor responded “Absolutely.” So when asked about this matter this morning at the Law and Order Committee during the estimates hearing, Mr O’Connor confirmed that the chief executive of the department would stay for the moment. That is hardly a vote of confidence. This is the same man whom the Prime Minister has described as an outstanding or exceptional civil servant. Well, I say to the Minister, it is a slippery, slippery slope.

The Minister also found himself quoted on the front page of the New Zealand Herald this morning as saying all senior managers were on notice. When asked in the select committee this morning what that would mean if there was a bungle of similar proportions to this one further down the track, he said “Oh, we’ll have to see how we get on with that particular issue.”

Let us not forget that the role of the Ombudsmen is separated from the politics of the day—and thank goodness it is, because so many reports into this department have not been up to scratch, have covered up some of the more serious issues in the department, and have skated over serious matters that have been raised. But the Ombudsmen, in a fearless and an independent way, have put a report on the Table that is so scathing of the department that the Ombudsmen felt a qualifying statement had to be put at the end of the report, saying they hoped it did not look like “criticism for criticism’s sake.”, because so much is wrong in the way the department handles problems as they arise.

On page 35 of the report we see one of the most startling admissions by the Ombudsmen that I have certainly seen in my short time in this Parliament. The Ombudsmen tell the public of New Zealand they were deceived. The Ombudsmen were deceived by the department. Let us spend some time on this matter. The Chief Ombudsman writes in his 2004 annual report “we are pleased to report that the Department has developed and formalised minimum standards including ventilation and temperature control for all escort vehicles.” That is what he was told, and that is what the Ombudsmen have recorded in this report. They go on to state: “We have been most disturbed to discover that our expectations were not met, and have still not been met.” A more serious indictment of the knowledge and information that a department has passed to the Office of the Ombudsmen would be difficult to come up with in a dream, quite frankly.

The Minister, instead of saying he backs the independence that Parliament puts behind the Ombudsmen and will deal to the official who told them that deceitful statement, rose in the House in question time today and said the Ombudsmen had misunderstood the department, and it was not the department’s fault that the Ombudsmen got it wrong. Well I say to Mr O’Connor that I am sorry, but the public of New Zealand believe the Ombudsmen, not the department and not that Minister. We will take the Ombudsmen’s word over that of the Minister and his department any day. Let us not forget how serious the matter is when the Ombudsmen feel compelled to spell that out in such bald terms. For the Minister to come to this House and tell the Parliament and the people of New Zealand that the Ombudsmen got it wrong is not even worth the paper it is written on.

More disturbingly, the report goes on, on page 92, to talk about the way head office communicates with front-line staff. This is a major issue that I know Ron Mark has felt pretty strongly about over the years. You see, what the Ombudsmen find is: “Throughout the investigation, we were saddened to find a theme of lack of communication between National Office and front-line staff which has resulted in numerous different practices developing at the front line.” The problem with that is the report goes on to state “We find an echo of our remarks in the 2005 Report”. In other words, 18 months ago the same issue was raised with the department and its officials. The reports say that 18 months ago the relationship between head office and front-line prison officers was dysfunctional, and what has changed? Nothing. Nothing has changed. Every time, this Minister gets on his feet and says there will be a review, and that everything will change now that he has been made aware of the problem. How can the public of New Zealand trust this Minister to follow through on those undertakings, when he has not done it in respect of the relationship and communication between head office and front-line staff and the Ombudsmen feel compelled to point that out?

What is more, even if the Ombudsmen or the New Zealand public did believe Damien O’Connor and the department were capable of changing the culture, we cannot trust them to tell the Ombudsmen the truth about what has changed in the guidelines or in the way that the department does its business. As the Ombudsmen stated in this report, they were misled. So this Government’s ability to deliver on promised change is nil—it is absolutely nil.

The report goes on to ask a series of very, very serious questions. But before we talk about those, it is worth just noting that in relation to the communication between head office and the people on the front line, the chief executive officer of the department, during the time the Ombudsmen were investigating this matter, decided to write a letter to the Ombudsmen, stating that in his view “I do not agree that lack of communications between National Office and front-line staff is the reason why we have not developed national standards in the prisoner transportation area.” Deny, deny, deny! Every time a problem is put in front of this department, it says there is no problem. And how did the Ombudsmen respond? This is interesting. The Ombudsmen say “We note the response of the Department, but consider our remarks fair and appropriate.” In other words, the Ombudsmen do not believe the department.

The fact is that that problem remains, and the Minister’s assertions, or the fact that he is prepared to go into print and say that is not the case, hold no weight with the Ombudsmen who investigated this department. That is a crisis of confidence, not only in the chief executive of the department but also in a Minister who has been driven to the position where he defends his department day after day, rather than giving it political direction and political leadership. He is incapable of getting above the day-to-day bungling of the department and wresting political control back from the senior management, which is driving the department into the ground. The confidence of the New Zealand public in this department, as we know from polls, is at an all-time low.

More concerns, though, from the Ombudsmen involved things such as no specific duty on custodial staff to take any notice of judges’ statements that relate to the status of prisoners—whether they are at risk, and whether they need extra attention. The thing I found curious about the Ombudsmen’s report was that they felt compelled, on page 22, to point out that the time taken by the department to answer questions put by them led to this very report being delayed. Now that is nothing to be proud of at all. How can we have any confidence that the department is capable of managing an increasing prison population? How can we have any confidence the department is capable of implementing the Government’s flagship Effective Interventions scheme, when the Ombudsmen do not trust its word, when the Ombudsmen have been deceived, when the department disregards comments from the chief executive, trying to put at ease the Ombudsmen’s minds over national office and front-line communication lines?

We have here a department that is totally dysfunctional, and independent Officers of Parliament tabled a report in this House yesterday that confirms that fact.

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Minister of Corrections): The death of Liam Ashley was a tragic event. It should never have occurred, and it has been the subject of a number of investigations that have identified a number of mistakes that should not have occurred. I am determined to make the changes to the Department of Corrections to prevent such a tragedy occurring in the future. The safety of prisoners was the prime focus of this Ombudsmen’s report. However, the safety of the community, through the responsibility of the Department of Corrections, must be paramount for any administration in overseeing corrections. The safety of staff must be considered as well, as the Ombudsmen rightly point out. The safety of prisoners is also our responsibility.

The Ombudsmen moved further on to point to areas of comfort and to what he considers inappropriate conditions governing the transportation of prisoners. We accept this report, the spirit in which it is written, and the recommendations. We have already agreed to, and moved on, the majority of recommendations. However, there are still some we will need to work through to ensure that we can practically and honestly implement them in a consistent way.

My prime focus is the safety of prisoners. That is why we will introduce restraints, so that the terrible assault that took place in the back of that prison van by one George Baker cannot occur again, because in future the arms and wrists of prisoners will be constrained when inside prison vans, unless there is justifiable reason not to do so.

We need to ensure that the processes surrounding prison transportation are robust. The member has pointed to a number of issues rightfully raised by the Ombudsmen in regard to national standards in prison transportation. The fact is that the previous Government tried to introduce privatisation by signing with Chubb a contract for prisoner transportation and custodial services in Auckland and Northland. That was just an example of the regime that operated back through the 1990s and into the early 2000s. It is one where each prison decided to make calls on the types of vehicles, processes, and procedures for its prisoner transportation. I consider that to be unsatisfactory. That is why we will accept, have accepted, and have moved on the recommendations in the Ombudsmen’s report regarding national standards.

The Ombudsmen refer to an issue of directives from within the department to improve the standards laid down in 2004. The member who has just spoken accuses the department of trying to deceive the Ombudsmen. I do not accept that. I think inadequate information went across to the Office of the Ombudsmen, and, from the information I have seen and read, I believe that it is easy for misinterpretation to occur. I am determined to sort out that matter and to ensure that the Office of the Ombudsmen does have confidence in the information provided to him. I respect the independence of the Chief Ombudsman’s office and his right to investigate complaints and to look into any procedures that operate through the corrections system. It is important that he has confidence in that process, and I will investigate and clarify the points raised in this report.

The tragic loss of Liam Ashley, and the prevention of any such tragedy in the future, should be the prime focus of this report, and, as I have said, it is. I assure this House and the people of New Zealand that we acted immediately, following that tragic event, to make changes. I issued an instruction to make sure that no one under the age of 18 years should be transported in a compartment with anyone over the age of 18 years. That happened immediately. I issued instructions to clarify the procedures, the policy, and all the forms related to prisoner transportation, so that no confusion could occur in the future regarding the risk status or any other conditions that should apply to any prisoner while in transportation.

We have gone through and reviewed our entire system. We now have an opportunity, provided by Chubb’s announcement that it wishes to exit its responsibilities in this area, to explore the possibility of taking that service back in under the department’s arm. I intend to proceed with investigation of that. Chubb’s staff should not be alarmed. We still need personnel who have the skills, who have the training, who understand the procedures, and who have the support from head office, to carry out the over 200,000 transportations that occur each and every year.

The Ombudsmen’s report refers to issues, which some have called inhumane, that relate to the comfort of prisoners while being transported around the country. Three percent of transportations occur for longer than 1 hour. There are recommendations in the report that relate to squabs, seatbelts, speeding, comfort stops, the provision of water, and the provision of food. We accept those recommendations. However, the implementation of each and every one of those has to be done in a way that first considers the security of the community, and its confidence in our ability to keep dangerous prisoners locked up. We will not stop for toilet breaks whenever a prisoner wants to. That is simply unacceptable. However, the Ombudsmen recommend that we take that on board, and we will work through that with them so we can reach agreement on what an acceptable practice is. Once again, the security of the public, of the staff, and of the prisoners themselves is paramount.

The ability for prisoners to have access to escape hatches in the rare event of a traffic accident is something we accept, and that is something the Ombudsmen have recommended. But we have to work through that very, very carefully. We will not allow prisoners to walk out of prisoner vans at their will. As I have said, it is important that we have the confidence of the community—that none of these changes will lead to further security breaches, as has occurred in the past in both Department of Corrections and Chubb vans.

This Government is committed to running a fair, efficient, secure, and effective corrections system. As Minister, I am committed to improving the system. I acknowledge that mistakes have been made in the past, but I will ensure that we will run a better system that minimises the opportunities for those mistakes in the future. There has been a head office restructure. We are reviewing public prison services to ensure that the alignment of responsibilities, of instructions, and of accountability is quite clear from top to bottom, so that front-line officers—be they involved in transportation, in health services, or in custodial services—know whom they can go to for support, whom they have to answer to for their performance, and what the objectives of their jobs are.

We are committed to a secure prison system, but we have also clearly identified through effective interventions that we want to better rehabilitate and reintegrate prisoners back into the community at the end of their sentences. We have not lost sight of that. While improving the security of prisoners both within the prisons and through the transportation system, and doing it in a humane way, we are also conscious of the fact that prisoners have to be encouraged to rehabilitate themselves and to take the opportunities that we are now providing through the corrections system.

We have opened up two new drug and alcohol units and we intend to open up two more. I have issued instructions for more community-based sentences for drug and alcohol offences. We are making changes to contraband regulations. It is not appropriate that anyone should attempt to smuggle into prisons, in whatever way, any form of contraband, drug, cellphone, or whatever. We need to change the system, and we have. We will continue to work through the issues. Barry Matthews has a job on his hands to make sure that the head office restructure delivers effective, improved management of the corrections system. I accept that mistakes have been made. The Ombudsmen have identified some of those. We will clarify the issue of information flow between the Department of Corrections and the Ombudsmen, and report back.

I assure the public that we have a robust corrections system, and that each and every person in that system will be focused on improving the culture, on improving his or her performance, and on making sure that no such tragic events as the death of Liam Ashley will occur in the future. Out of respect for him and for his family, who have had to go through this very difficult time, I want to assure the Ashley family that the recommendations that have come through this report will be carried through, that we have agreed to them for the most part, and that we will work through the few that require further implementation, and that we will show due respect to them and to their son.

RON MARK (NZ First): Well, this is a sad day, and a very interesting day—unfortunately—for the listeners. For a start, let us be clear here. New Zealand First does not share the Minister’s view that the Department of Corrections did not seek to deceive or mislead the Office of the Ombudsmen. New Zealand First believes that it is very clear, from the report, in the rebuttals to Department of Corrections statements upon having read the draft copy of the report, and from the past track record of the Department of Corrections, that it has been for years engaged in deception and in public relations spin. It has been for years giving a succession of Ministers—I think we are up to the seventh Minister of Corrections since Labour came to office—incomplete, inaccurate, or deliberately misleading advice.

New Zealand First does not believe that putting the transportation of inmates back into the hands of the Department of Corrections will in itself change anything. You see, it is the Department of Corrections that has had the responsibility for formulating national policy and standard operating procedures, for auditing compliance, for giving contracts, and for assessing and vetting tenderers as to their suitability and ability to meet those nationally applied standards. It has been the Department of Corrections that has had that responsibility ever since the year dot. And it has failed—singularly, absolutely, and fundamentally—to meet its responsibilities. So it does not matter if we give the job of prisoner transportation to a contractor, according to Department of Corrections guidelines, or we give it back to the department. Unless there is some fundamental owning up to responsibilities and the failure to meet those responsibilities, nothing will change.

So what is the problem? Well, New Zealand First has long said in this House, for years now, that the problem lies at head office. Let us look at head office’s track record. What do we know about the emergency response unit in Christchurch, infamously known as the “goon squad”? Ailsa Duffy’s report states it quite clearly. Head office failed to put in place the correct structures. Head office failed to audit the procedures. Head office failed to ensure that Canterbury was not acting outside the brief for the pilot unit. When it was brought to the attention of head office that there were serious failures, and when frontline staff of the prisons concerned—and even members of the “goon squad” itself—raised their objections and their complaints, head office shrugged them off, dusted them off. It took 4 years to get to the truth of that matter, and that did not come through head office people volunteering the information.

It is clear in that report that Ailsa Duffy had difficulties in ascertaining the clear facts about the reasons for establishing that unit, because head office, again, gave inconsistent evidence and advice. There were rehabilitation programmes—and at the select committee this morning we had another little walk down memory lane on that one. Staff from the head office were running around the world—the world—telling other countries like Canada, the United States, and England that they were world leaders in developing criminogenic rehabilitation programmes that were succeeding, whilst all the time they knew that the data they were assessing was showing that they, at best, were not making an iota of difference; even worse, were not making a difference, at all; and terribly worse, were actually making the problem worse.

They did not front up with that information to the Minister. In fact, one year they omitted to put any information in the annual report, at all. But New Zealand First was not fooled by that, you see, because we knew what was going on. So when it came to the following year we were looking for those rehabilitation quotients, and we were looking for the evidence of success of that programme—and there it was. It was a little figure, minus 5, which when we sat down, scratched our heads, and interpreted it, actually said: “My God, the programmes are making it worse; as a result of doing these courses people are offending.” But head office people did not front up and say that they were sorry, that they had been running courses that had actually been making it more likely for offenders to offend than not to offend, and that they had made a big booboo. They said nothing until we, with the evidence we had, prised it out of them at a select committee.

I remember how head office dealt with the issue of inappropriate relationships. How ironic that Paul Swain is now sitting in the very seat he sat in as Minister of Corrections year after year. What was his response to corrections? He resigned; he gave it away; he got out of there. He says he is happy to be out of corrections—“Thank God for that.” New Zealand First asked him, in a question in this House, how many cases the Department of Corrections was investigating for inappropriate relationships between officers and inmates. Paul Swain gave an answer, based on quality advice from head office. The number was five. Well, New Zealand First had notification of 16 in its hand right there and then, so within a day he had to come back, bow his head meekly—Paul Swain is nodding right now—and issue a correction, because head office had misinformed him. It had misinformed him.

Year after year, in relation to the smuggling of contraband, front-line officers were saying that we were not hearing the whole story. Not only were they catching record amounts of contraband but no one was investigating how the stuff had got into the prisons. No one was actively or proactively looking for corruption. Head office people continued to say to their Minister that they had it all under control: “Gee, Minister, we got 10,000 items last year—or was it 5,000?”. New Zealand First’s answer was that it did not matter whether it was 5000 or 10,000; the questions were about how the contraband got there, and what the staff was doing to ascertain that. Did the department have corrupt officers? We have had those discussions, and the Minister and Barry Matthews now have a new unit, which New Zealand First applauds. We just wish it had happened 5 years ago.

The failure of home detention is an issue. How many times have we stood here and challenged, challenged, challenged? Yet we still get the tripe coming out from the Department of Corrections saying that it is a resounding success. I tell the Minister to stop. Front-line officers in the corrections and probation services are saying that half the reason the figures look good is that they are not reporting all of the breaches. Half the reason the figures look so good is that they will not report all of the breaches, because they have a system of categorising breaches. The question is: when is a breach not a breach, or a breach worth reporting? I mean, how did a man die of a P overdose while on home detention, and why was he baking it?

The fundamental root of the problem here is that the Ombudsmen now say that they are disappointed—I think, reading between the lines, that they are very angry—and that in some respects the Ombudsmen have been misled. Information has been put about that is not accurate. We in New Zealand First are saying that although we actually have great hopes for Mr Barry Matthews, and we think he is the best man in the country right now to do this God-awful job—but we suspect he wishes he had never taken it up—sitting underneath him are the same old faces, the same people, and the same senior managers, who for the last 7 years have misled people, deceived people, inaccurately advised people, hidden information from people, and colluded with each other, to ensure that their incompetencies were not known.

Well, it is over—it is over. One way or another, this will be over. New Zealand First is looking to see some changes in faces in that department, because, quite frankly, this country deserves better. This country must have prisons, it must have probation, and it must have community service. But it can have those things only if the staff who are responsible for managing it are competent and capable, and have integrity.

We take our hats off to the thousands of front-line corrections officers in prisons up and down this country who try desperately to get their voices heard, and who give information to senior managers only to find that they themselves are the ones under investigation. It would appear that some senior managers see a greater threat in whistleblowers than they do in the risks that exist within their prisons.

New Zealand First in some ways is once again hugely saddened and disappointed that we are back to this stage again. But we hope that this is the last time. We hope that in moving forward we will see changes in faces, changes in appointments, and a change in behaviour, from the Department of Corrections.

NANDOR TANCZOS (Green): I would like to begin by acknowledging Liam Ashley and his family. Liam’s death at the hands of George Baker on 17 August last year sent a shock wave through our country, and led ultimately to the Office of the oOmbudsmen conducting this inquiry. I hope this report gives the family some comfort, and the opportunity to heal some of their grief.

I think this report demonstrates the importance of the Office of the Ombudsmen as an independent Officer of Parliament. The report was conducted carefully and thoroughly, and its quality has reinforced the confidence that members of the public and members of this Parliament can have in that office. In particular, the ground-level scrutiny that was conducted has ensured a report of great rigour. The Office of the Ombudsmen was not satisfied with official documents or bland assurances. The investigators even went to the extent of riding in prisoner transportation vehicles themselves, and required physical demonstrations of how emergency hatches opened, and things like that. It is that thoroughness that has been the key to the solidity of this report. I want to thank that office for an extremely good piece of work.

I think that in that sense the report also emphasises the crucial need for a genuinely independent prison inspectorate, because this work should have been done not to respond to a tragedy but to avoid one. That is what we expect from a prison inspectorate. It is clear now, I think, that structural independence from the Department of Corrections is essential to ensure that this does happen, and the Green Party continues to work with the Government on developing policy in that area.

Independence from the Government in this kind of thing is absolutely crucial. I was deeply disturbed to hear the sniping by Government members on the Ombudsmen’s report, and, in particular, the gross misrepresentations of the recommendations made. Today during question time the Minister repeated those misrepresentations, claiming that the Ombudsmen have recommended stopping transportation every time a prisoner wants a pee and giving prisoners the ability to open escape hatches for themselves. I can only think that the Minister has not read the report, because I do not believe he would deliberately make misrepresentations. The Ombudsmen did not make those recommendations.

What the report does suggest is that prisoners who are being transported—some of them for up to 7 or 8 hours—need access to toilet facilities. His report outlines examples of inmates urinating inside vans because they are unable to hold on or, more frequently, suffering severe pain for having to hold on for extended periods of time. The report specifically recommends that the department review prisoner access to toilet facilities en route. It states that the department “should consider guidance to staff on stopping at specified secure areas, and take into account the existing communication difficulties within prisoner transport vehicles.” Of course, that raises the question of how the guards would even know a prisoner wanted to pee, seeing as they cannot communicate with prisoners in any way.

In addition, the Ombudsmen found that access to emergency exits was inadequate in most vehicles. When staff were asked to demonstrate whether the emergency exits actually worked—which one would think is a pretty routine piece of maintenance—some staff had serious difficulty opening the exits. In addition, the policies on emergency exits are wildly inconsistent around the country, and in some cases roof exits are individually padlocked from the outside, making unlocking them in an emergency pretty much impossible. Again, the report specifically recommends that the department “undertake a full review of the emergency facilities in prisoner transport vehicles; formulate evacuation procedures, and ensure escort staff are trained in, and have drills to practise those procedures; ensure that all cages can be opened without keys; ensure that all emergency hatches operate easily without keys;” and “formulate a policy with regard to whether prisoners should be able themselves to operate emergency exit hatches;”. The report does not say that prisoners should be able to operate emergency hatches; it says that a policy needs to be formulated to cover that area.

Now, I like Damien O’Connor, but the thing that really worries me about this report is not the litany of inadequacies, errors, and apparent deceptions it details, but the response of the Government to the report, which I think has been unnecessarily defensive and flawed. Misrepresenting—perhaps not deliberately—the report of this Officer of Parliament in order to achieve Government spin is in my view deeply offensive, and so is the false dichotomy the Government continues to assert between public safety and humane treatment. They are not incompatible requirements. In fact, the law passed by this Parliament in 2004 requires both, and that is the obligation of the Government.

Equally disheartening for me is the announcement of a proposal to secure all prisoners in waist restraints when being transported. To be clear, we are not talking about lap-belts as in seatbelts; we are talking about cuffing all prisoners’ wrists to their waists when in vehicles. This is directly contrary to the report’s recommendations. The Ombudsmen are explicitly critical of policies to restrain all prisoners in vehicles. Chubb currently handcuffs all prisoners in transportation, in respect of which the Ombudsmen say: “We consider the practice of Chubb to handcuff all prisoners is wrong. We recommend the Department review the different usual practices of handcuffing in prisoner transport vehicles, and establish clear national guidelines that will ensure consistency of decision-making.”

The Ombudsmen’s concerns around safety will be exacerbated when prisoners’ wrists are cuffed to their waists rather than in front of them together, as they are currently, because the ability to use one’s hands to protect the head is entirely removed in that case. What response will the Minister have when the first prisoner suffers brain damage because that prisoner neither is seatbelted nor has the ability to use his or her hands to protect his or her head in an accident? I think that in that regard, the Minister has ignored the report.

So what does the report actually say? It represents a major criticism of the Department of Corrections; almost every page contains criticism. It outlines a number of failings in the area of prisoner transportation. It states that conditions are inhumane for journeys, some of which may last up to 7 or 8 hours. Temperature extremes create significant discomfort, while ventilation and heating are virtually nonexistent in many cases. Access to food, and especially water, is a problem and often is according to the whim of staff. When we are talking about long journeys such as I have outlined, that is entirely unacceptable.

On the issue of safety the report is equally damning. The lack of seatbelts and inadequate access to emergency exits mean that transportation is often physically unsafe, a condition that will be made much worse by the universal use of waist restraints, because not only will prisoners be unable to protect their heads in an accident but they certainly will not be able to get out of an escape hatch, even if the staff can open it.

I want to highlight one area that was repeatedly mentioned by the report. This was an issue that was raised by the Green Party at the time of Liam Ashley’s murder. The report makes the point that resolution of this one issue would help resolve a number of secondary concerns. The issue is the inability in almost all transportation vehicles to adequately monitor all of the prisoners in them. It seems to me just incredible—absolutely incredible—that prisoner transportation vehicles do not already have the ability to monitor the prisoners in them. One would think it was kind of “Corrections 101”, really. First of all, there is a public safety issue. How do staff know that prisoners are not trying to escape, if they cannot see them and they cannot hear them? How do staff know that prisoners are not beating up on each other, if they cannot see them and they cannot hear them? How do staff know that prisoners are not trying to commit suicide, if they cannot see them and they cannot hear them? How do staff know that prisoners are not suffering a heart attack? I say that because the time lag between a heart attack occurring and the staff stopping at a secure facility and seeing what is going on with the prisoners inside could be the difference between life and death. I know cases of people who have died in Department of Corrections custody—not in transportation, but at a remote prison—where the time lag was an absolutely crucial issue, and it just seems to me extraordinary that we do not already have vehicles set up so that the guards can see and hear inmates, and thus check up on them.

My final word is one for the staff, and I echo some of the comments of Ron Mark. Like all professions, there is a mix of good and bad staff, and I would be very concerned if this was seen as a general attack on Department of Corrections staff, who I think have an enormously difficult job—a very difficult job. That is not to say that they all do their jobs well, but some of them do their jobs extremely well. I have met a number of conscientious, excellent Department of Corrections staff, who I think are genuinely committed to the work, to doing a good job, and to the rehabilitation of the people they are overseeing. I do not want to tar them with the results of this report, but the report does outline systemic problems of such magnitude that I strongly urge Department of Corrections management to get serious about communicating with its staff and to get serious about engaging with its staff—listening to them. These are the people on the front line. That is not to say that everything staff say will immediately be put into practice, but the management has to get better at listening to its staff, engaging with staff ideas, and using the ideas that have merit.

Management also needs to support staff to do the job to the best of their ability. There is a strong thread in the report that indicates staff are loath to take decisions that may result in more humane treatment because they are scared that if they make the wrong decision, they will be out on a limb and that will be them—they will be gone. So management needs to support staff when they are doing a positive job, while being unafraid to require accountability where necessary. It is hard to see how these problems, which run through the hierarchy of the Department of Corrections, will be easily resolved. I think it is an enormous job, and I congratulate Damien O’Connor for even taking it on—it is a hell of a job. I am convinced that an independent prison inspectorate, as advocated by the Green Party, is an absolutely crucial part of the answer. I look forward to the introduction of that legislation.

HONE HARAWIRA (Māori Party—Te Tai Tokerau): Kia ora, Madam Assistant Speaker. Kia ora tātou te Whare. Three years ago an 11-year-old indigenous boy was arrested for burglary, held in custody overnight, and then transported 500 kilometres in a police cage. The cops told his mum that they would not let him sit in the empty back seat, but that he would be comfortable lying on the floor of the “dog box”. Even though tribal leaders, elders, and civil rights lawyers condemned the action, the Minister of Police said the officers had followed all protocols.

This is one of the many true stories that came out of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody, and although it is about our Koori relations in Australia, it could just as easily have come out of the Belgrave-Smith investigation into the transportation of prisoners here in Aotearoa. Just like here, the ever-increasing imprisonment of indigenous people is reflected in Canada, Australia, Hawaii, Tahiti, and other places where colonial ethics still dominate. And folks, it is not a good-news story.

The 2003 Census of Prison Inmates and Home Detainees stated that 60 percent of female inmates and nearly 55 percent of male inmates on remand were Māori. That means there is a better than even chance that prisoners in transit will be Māori, as well. So when the Ombudsmen talk about the inhumane treatment of prisoners in transit, that means overwhelmingly Māori. I quote his concluding comments: “… needs are not being met. There is a lack of national standards for food, water and rest breaks. Some practices fall significantly short of meeting what we would consider reasonable standards.”

I had included this next comment in my speech notes and then thought: “Nah, things must have changed.” But I had written down that prisoners were urinating in the vans and not being fed because the escorts could not be bothered stopping, and that prisoners were being moved in the evening because there were not enough beds in prison. However, the reality is way scarier than the report lets on. I was going to take that comment out, because that is the way it was the last time I was in a police truck, back in about 1983. So it is not just about chucking rocks at Damien O’Connor; nothing has changed at all. In fact, it has become worse.

The previous speaker Nandor Tanczos said there is no way of knowing what is going on in the back of the truck, yet way back in the mid-1980s they had all of us sitting in one cage, and in another cage—before they had the cab with the truck—they had another officer sitting in there. So they knew all of the time what was going on. It seems things have gone backwards in the last 20 years. I do not know where, but I am not surprised, I have to say.

Not only are the basic needs not being met but also the report states: “Hard wood or metal benches for journeys of many hours in small cages without proper windows does not constitute a humane standard of transport.” We do not expect inmates to get the celebrity treatment that Paris Hilton is getting, but we do expect that their basic human rights will be met.

We do expect the Department of Corrections to ensure that custodial sentences “are administered in a safe, secure, humane, and effective manner” in line with its legislation. That was the standard in section C.O1 of the Policy and Procedures Manual, which was breached when Liam Ashley was killed in the back of a prison van. No doubt, it has been breached on countless other occasions all around the country before then and since then. That is a clear case again of corporate manslaughter going unpunished, because we do not have a law to deal with such poor behaviour by departmental officials.

Another section of the same manual states that prisoners on escort should not be placed in “unnecessary discomfort”, yet prisoners are transferred in small, closed-in cages, with poor light, bad ventilation, wooden seats, and metal floors. When people go to jail they should not have to forfeit their human rights, suffer the inhumanity of others, or be subjected to a life of perpetual and unrelenting cruelty. Yet, clearly, the Government has allowed that to happen during a time highlighted by this country’s continual dishonouring of international laws and conventions on human rights.

In fact, this Government’s failure to protect teenage prisoners from violent adult offenders was criticised in 2004 by none other than the United Nations Committee Against Torture—for heaven’s sake! It recommended that the Government take immediate steps to make the necessary changes.

Simon Power: That’s right.

HONE HARAWIRA: I pick up on the strident comments from Simon Power. The Government has ignored this recommendation, and the Ashley family has paid dearly. It makes the current prattle about “changing procedures and protocols” weak and rather pathetic. Resolving this crisis is not about chaining up prisoners; it is about the Government taking immediate action to address ongoing breaches of people’s human rights, particularly the rights of the most vulnerable.

We do not want to see any repeats of the “goon squad” in Canterbury, the serious assaults at Mangaroa, or the corruption at Rimutaka Prison. We do not want more lives lost because neither the Department of Corrections nor the Government is willing to accept its international, and most basic, human rights responsibilities. Jail is a sentence designed to punish people by depriving them of their liberty, but it should not expose inmates to behaviour that would be treated as criminal, if it were carried on outside the prison gates. That is where the Māori Party is most concerned about what is happening here.

Our society is struggling to deal with the way in which vulnerable people in our communities, those who are known as “low-income consumers”, battle to cope with the poverty that denies them access to the most basic of human rights. The last couple of weeks have shown a classic case of the nation erupting in outrage when agents of the State dealt with a family’s heartache and pain with cold and brutal heartlessness, and with an immediate refusal to accept responsibility. Yet here we have exactly the same thing—another tragedy, another life lost, and again a refusal by the agency responsible to say sorry.

The Ombudsmen’s report was clear: “Throughout this investigation, we were saddened to find a theme of lack of communication between National Office and front-line staff which has resulted in numerous different practices developing at the front line.” Again to tautoko the comments from Simon Power, that was almost word for word the same comments in the 2005 report, which described the conflict between the national office and frontline staff as a “major concern”; a “gulf”; and a “major ground for criticism of central management”.

Yet despite the repeated evidence, the chief executive can still say: “I do not agree.”, and he justifies his views by saying that his department is a very large organisation, with a lot of staff. Hello! Is that not all the more reason for sorting out communication problems? Former inmates, current inmates, prison support workers, Department of Corrections staff, criminologists, audit officers, and now even the Ombudsmen, all talk about dissatisfaction and low morale between national and regional staff—yet still the boss refuses to see what is right there under his nose.

During Nelson Mandela’s imprisonment by South Africa’s apartheid Government he kept long and detailed journals describing the inhumanities imposed by prison staff, in the name of justice. In one such letter he wrote this short comment, which is really quite moving: “There are times when my heart almost stops beating, slowed down by heavy loads of longing [for freedom].” We in this House have the power to make sure that this system never again allows a heart to stop beating through departmental incompetence and Government complicity in the denial of human rights. I urge us all strength in the pursuit of that goal. Kia ora tātou.

Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future): I want to begin by expressing my congratulations to Mr John Belgrave and Mr Mel Smith on what, I think, is an excellent report. It is clear, it goes to the heart of the issues at hand, and it provides a set of recommendations that deserve to be implemented in their totality. I think that is what we should expect of public officials of the calibre of our Ombudsmen, and it is one of the tributes we can pay to the strength of the ombudsmen system in New Zealand—the ability to be independent, to be clear, and then to make recommendations of the type that have been presented in the last 24 hours.

I want also to express my admiration to the Ashley family for their dignity and—really—their serenity, in the wake of this report, bearing in mind the events that precipitated it. I thought that it would have been understandable had they reacted by expressing a form of vengeance, seeking some retribution, and some, dare I say, revenge, but I thought their quiet dignity last night showed that here were a family who were accepting of the situation, who were determined to see good come from something that had deeply, deeply cut at their core, and who realised the futility of ongoing anger, when a constructive solution was at hand. So I salute them for the way they have reacted.

On the face of it, it is absurd, in the most perverted sort of way, in any civilised society to suggest that a person who is under police detention, and is being transported from one point to the other, is at risk of his or her life. It is simply absurd to suggest that that is even a possibility; yet that is what happened in this case. I do not know very much about Liam Ashley, I am not going to defend, or attack, the circumstances of his detention, but he had a right to expect, during that fateful ride, that he was at least going to be safe. He may not have been comfortable, he may not have been happy, but he had a right to expect some safety. The system failed him woefully in that regard.

So the question now becomes what to do. Is this an isolated event that this report provides potential solutions to? Or is it symptomatic of a much deeper problem within not the corrections system per se but the whole culture of correction in this country? I think it has elements of the latter, actually.

The previous speaker, Hone Harawira, made a very interesting speech, and I was supportive of most of what he said. He did say something that I disagreed with, however, and that was that everyone, even those people in detention, have their human rights—or words to that effect. The fact is, when people are in detention they have surrendered—or have had taken away from them—one of their most basic human rights: the right to freedom. What they have not lost, and should never be at risk of losing, is their human dignity. I think that is the distinction. In this instance, certainly, Mr Ashley’s dignity was destroyed. His life was destroyed and his family’s life was ruined.

In many other instances we see a much more deep-seated culture in the corrections system that produces in inmates a sense that their lives have been destroyed or ruined. Some of them are people we would find incorrigible, reprehensible, and totally unacceptable to see released into civil society. But there are many in whom we burn out all hope during that period of incarceration and treatment by the system because of the overriding culture, which is brutal. “Brutal” does not mean “firm” in terms of correction; “brutal” is “violent”. It is a violent system and it is an intolerant system.

It does not follow that the alternative is one where, in effect, there are no constraints or no limitations, because that is not the nature of incarceration. But it does follow that we have to be much more mindful of the fact that there are human beings involved here who have certain basic expectations. When they are being transported from one place of incarceration to another, be it to a court or between prisons, they have a right to expect they will be transported with a modicum of comfort—I do not mean “luxury”; I mean with a modicum of comfort, as the report identifies—and safely. Their lives should not be at risk in that process, be it from the system itself or from other inmates around them. When people are being held in prison, we expect them to be held in rigorous conditions; we do not expect to hear of examples, which we hear too often, of petty brutality and victimisation and a system that almost seems to encourage that.

It seems to me that there are immediate issues for the Department of Corrections arising from the report, and I think the Minister and his officials have acknowledged that these require their strong attention. Although correcting them will be an important part of restoring a modicum of confidence in the system in so far as this issue is concerned, what has been revealed by this incident and by many other similar incidents over the years—and there are many other questions that I do not want to go into right now relating to the behaviour of the department—is a much more fundamental problem with the culture of correction in New Zealand.

I can recall being the Associate Minister of Justice some 17 years ago. At that stage Corrections was not a separate portfolio; it came under my remit. We had a prison muster then in New Zealand of 4,800. The prison population now is 8,000, but our total population has not doubled between 1990 and 2007. We are clearly—in response to public opinion and other issues—imprisoning more people, yet every time we try to build a new prison, we all know the outcry: “Anywhere, but nowhere near me!” So we have this conflict. Our prisons are overcrowded and old. Many of them are dark, dank, neo-Victorian places. It is hardly any surprise that in that environment a crude, brutal culture of thuggery develops. I think that is at the heart of a lot of the problems we now see being manifested, certainly in the Ashley case.

I know—and my colleague Mr Tanczos will almost certainly agree with me—that we have to start to think about the basis of this system. Violent serious offenders deserve to be locked away, and I think there is a consensus around the House that they probably do not need to be shown a great deal of tolerance. But what about all the other people we are now routinely imprisoning almost up to that standard? We need to be more innovative in some of our solutions. We need to be taking the opportunities—such as the study group the Minister led to Scandinavia after the last election and the work that people like Kim Workman and those in the Salvation Army are doing—to provide a way forward. We need to be picking up that message. Yes, we have to take on board the lessons of the Ashley case, and, yes, there needs to be action arising out of the Ombudsmen’s report. But there are much bigger issues about this brutal culture of correction we have that we need to address if we are to ensure justice in this country.

Justice does not mean a soft approach. Justice is fair and justice is hard, but justice should not be brutal. I believe that is the real challenge that lies ahead of us. I hope that some of the informal discussions that have been taking place around this Chamber over the last few months pan out. Together we can start to develop a new approach that not only recognises the dignity of human beings in the corrections process and that society has a right to punish those who offend, but also recognises that the punishment—and I quote this from Gilbert and Sullivan often—should fit the crime. I think we have lost a sense of perspective over the years, and I hope that the outcome of this report on this particular incident may be part of helping to restore a fresh balance and a fresh approach on how we deal with these problems in our society.

Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty): I am pleased to be able to take a call in this debate, which is premised on the very sad events surrounding the transportation of Liam Ashley and his murder in a transport wagon those many months ago.

Like all New Zealanders, I was shocked that such a thing could happen to a 17-year-old. He was someone whom the rules said should have been transported separately, but he was not transported separately. Those were the questions that were brought to Parliament, and I must say that the Minister of Corrections handled them appallingly, with a lack of sincerity and a lack of action.

It is clear that this is a Minister who, without question, is prepared to accept the word of a department that this report shows has lied to the Ombudsman, an Officer of Parliament. In my experience of overseeing the Department of Corrections on the previous Law and Order Committee, that was par for the course with that Government department. The people who led the department did everything they possibly could to never tell the whole story and to never fess up when something went wrong, and it has continued under its current leadership.

How can Barry Matthews and Damien O’Connor hold their heads high with this report? How can anyone in that department hold their head high with this report? There comes a time in a Minister’s career when trying to whitewash everything and blaming everybody else have to come to an end. For Damien O’Connor to try to use this report as some sort of justification for his appalling leadership of the Department of Corrections is something that should be severely criticised.

That is the reason why New Zealanders are worried about this Department of Corrections. It is a department that fulfils an important role in public safety. It incarcerates people who, if they were out of prison, would more than likely be committing more offences and harming the people of New Zealand. It is vital that they be maintained safely and securely. But we know that it is failing in that responsibility. And how can it be that a department charged with teaching criminals to be honest and to rehabilitate could be dishonest itself? What sort of example does it set for prisoners when the people who are charged with rehabilitating them and teaching them to be truthful are not truthful themselves?

The lies of the Department of Corrections contributed directly to the tragedy that happened to Liam Ashley. If that department had done what it told the Ombudsmen it had done, then this tragedy may not have happened. This tragedy may not have happened if it had done what it told the Ombudsmen what it had done.

Chris Auchinvole: Avoidable.

Hon TONY RYALL: It could have been avoidable. Instead, we have a young man who had a troubled life, but who did not deserve to be treated in the way that he was. The department should have transported him separately from the hard-core criminals who were in the van on that day.

This is the department that told the Ombudsmen that it was dealing with the safety issues associated with prisoner transport, and it should have known better. That is what this debate is about today. What will be done about the Department of Corrections? A culture of deceit permeates from the highest reaches of that department and it is tolerated by the Minister and the Prime Minister. It is tolerated by both of those Ministers. Damien O’Connor, of course, is now trying to move the blame. I would ask whether members heard him on the radio this morning. He said that he had confidence in Barry Matthews at the moment. Well, we know what that “at the moment” means. It means that someone else is to blame.

In the end Ministers have to ask basic questions that the public would expect them to ask when something like this happens. We saw in question time earlier today that Mr Hodgson, as Minister of Health, is not asking basic questions that go to the heart of what is going on in his portfolio. Surely we have learnt that with the Bierre incident. Mr Hodgson asked one question, and one question alone, in the entire time before the court judgment that said that Dr Bierre was a crook came out. What has Mr O’Connor done? He has not asked any hard questions about the performance of his department. That is what the Minister’s job is—to ask the questions and to get to the bottom of the answers. He cannot believe what he is told in that portfolio half the time. That is why Ministers need to dig deeper.

Ministers should know that the answers their departments give when there is a problem are full of bureaucratese, obfuscation, and self-justification. That is why Ministers have to dig and ask questions. We have not seen that from Minister O’Connor. He is always prepared to accept every failure within the department that he overviews. How long can Damien O’Connor carry on mining the goodwill he accumulated as a backbench MP wronged by the Prime Minister? Because that is what he has mined as a Minister; often it is the only reason why he gets away with what he gets away with. People always see him as that wronged backbencher who tolerated all that Timberlands problem when he first came to Parliament. That is why he gets away with so much of it. But now that is gone, because he has been a Minister long enough to know that there are questions that should be asked, and this Minister has failed to ask those basic questions. Surely, he would have learnt his lesson from standing up in this House and giving answers prepared by his department. He should have known that they were wrong, misleading, and dishonest because he should have asked more questions.

When we read in this report about the deceit of the Department of Corrections, I am absolutely appalled, and I think it is time that heads should roll in that department. So what will the Government do? Will it rely on Damien O’Connor and Barry Matthews to fix the problems that they themselves have denied for so long? Can we expect the people who deceived the Chief Ombudsman to be the same people who will fix this problem? When we ask questions in the House in 6 months’ time about progress on this agenda and the Minister—whoever it is—stands up and says: “My department advises me that progress has been made in meeting these requirements.”, will we believe that Minister? It will be like a Lianne Dalziel answer in Parliament—we just will not know whether it is the full story. That is the problem. No one can have faith in what the Department of Corrections has done or have faith in the solution.

There are many good people in the Department of Corrections—many good people who are doing their best to make this a safer community—and they are embarrassed by what they read in this report. If one thing is to come out of the Liam Ashley tragedy other than the fact that other young people may be protected in the future, it is that we go to the root of the deceit of the Department of Corrections. This Minister needs to come back to the House with the answer in regard to what to do about the dysfunctional leadership in the Department of Corrections, because it is clear from this report that it had a lack of leadership, focus, and acceptance of the responsibility of looking after a 17-year-old—a 17-year-old who was neglected and ignored. That is a really big responsibility, and this department has simply failed to accept it. I do not think that a Minister standing up, doing his “Oh, shucks!” thing, and smiling is sufficient to deal with the real issues that have been raised in this investigation by John Belgrave, the Chief Ombudsman. They are very, very serious issues. The last time an Ombudsman found that a department had lied to him, in the “lying in unison” scandal of the Immigration Service, heads rolled. Will any heads be rolling in this matter?

Hon PAUL SWAIN (Labour—Rimutaka): I will start my speech, as other members have started their speeches, by offering my condolences to the Ashley family. As the Minister has said quite correctly, this death should not have happened and that young man should have been separated from the older prisoners. I will say in defence of the Minister—and I congratulate him on this—that, not long after that event, he issued an instruction that all over 18-year-olds should be separated from all under 18-year-olds. I think that this one instruction targeted the critical issue that was identified at that particular time, and I congratulate the Minister on doing that. There was some obscurity about a lot of the instruction before then, because I think it stated “where practicable”. The Minister has now made it quite clear that it must be done in all circumstances. Again, I congratulate him on doing that.

We are here really to debate the Ombudsmen’s report, but people have said a couple of things that I would like to address, and I do this as a former Minister of Corrections. The first thing is that this area is a particularly difficult area of Government responsibility. With all due respect to my friend Ron Mark when I hear him talking about what he would do if he were the Minister, I tell him to be careful what he wishes for, because one day it may well come to pass. The important thing to remember is that this is a difficult area, because the Department of Corrections deals primarily with people whom other people in society do not want around them; they want them locked up and kept away from them. We designate a department to look after that group of people, and it is extremely difficult.

I agree with quite a lot of what Peter Dunne said, but I disagreed with him fundamentally when he said there was a climate of thuggery in our prison system. When I was Minister of Corrections, I went to every single prison. The vast majority of Corrections officers, who are often in charge of prisoners who are serving life sentences, are doing their damnedest, day in and day out, to try to turn round some of those lives. They are doing it humanely and with good humour, and are providing role models for those prisoners, many of whom have never had role models in their past. So I pay tribute to the vast majority of good, hard-working, and honest officers in the Department of Corrections.

As has been said, the Department of Corrections has two major goals: keeping the public safe—because that is what the public demands—and reducing reoffending. Of course we must do that, as Nandor Tanczos says, within a climate of dealing with people humanely, because that is what the Corrections Act rightly states. But the musters have doubled since Peter Dunne was in charge of this area, 17 years ago. It is due to the public’s response to crime, particularly serious crime, and the Labour Government has listened to that. That is why the musters have risen now to over 8,000. But we do have to explain why New Zealand as a country has the second-highest imprisonment rate in the OECD. I think that the biggest shame in New Zealand—one that is still not known widely enough—is that Māori, who represent 15 percent of the population, make up 50 percent of our prison population. We need to do more work on that issue.

However, the area is a difficult one, and Labour has done some pretty good things. For example, let us get some of this stuff out. In the last 10 years prison escapes have fallen 78 percent. I heard Mr Ryall dribbling on before. It is all very well to try to run this department from the Opposition benches, but the truth is that when the National Government had its chance back in the 1990s, the prison escape rate was 78 percent higher than it is today.

Hon Maurice Williamson: But why would you want to escape?

Hon PAUL SWAIN: Keeping the public safe is really important. The National Government was embarrassed, day after day—as I remember by Phil Goff. Of course, serious assaults on staff have reduced by 90 percent. A lot of fencing has gone up. The detection of contraband has gone up. Random drug testing showed that drug usage was at about 34 percent in the late 1990s. It is now down to about 13 percent. There are more and more activities to try to improve reintegration. A lot of positive things have been done and lot of effort has been made. As I said before, Mr Tony Ryall was advising what he would and would not do. He was a disaster, and a hopeless Minister when he was in charge of a department. It galls everybody on this side of the House to hear him lecturing on how the Government should deal with the justice portfolios.

Let us come to the Ombudsmen’s report. Overall, the report is a good one. It is important to have an independent assessment of these matters. I support the Department of Corrections independent complaints system, and, as Nandor Tanczos said, the sooner we get that into place, the better. I think that will improve public confidence on this issue. One of the Ombudsmen’s recommendations talks about the national office taking steps to acquaint itself better with all aspects of prisoner transport, as implemented in the different prisons, with a view to determining best practice. I agree that best practice should be in place on a national basis. I think that is fair and reasonable. Many of the recommendations in the report are good. Some of them are in place or are being done. There is no question that others need to be addressed, but they also have to be sensibly implemented, practical, and reasonable.

I want to address just some of the recommendations, because we have not heard much about them. As I said before, we are often dealing with extremely difficult people. The Ombudsmen talk about seatbelts and transportation. There is a lot of discussion in the report about prison officers saying that prisoners could wear them, with others saying no, that they could self-harm, and others saying further that if the vehicles had them the prisoners would not wear them. There is a lot of debate and discussion there. But it also has to be remembered that there has been discussion about having seatbelts in school buses, and, by and large, for a whole pile of reasons, that recommendation has not been followed. I think there would be public outcry if seatbelts were required in prison vehicles but not in school buses. Whether we should do both, I am not sure, but clearly there has to be a similar kind of standard.

Then the Ombudsmen talk about the need for seat squabs or padding, and I agree. Travelling a long way on a hard seat is extremely uncomfortable. He said that there is a degree of discomfort that is not acceptable, and I agree with that. But I am told by the Minister that the department has made a lot of effort to try to provide squabs that, first of all, are fire-resistant; secondly, stand up to the huge punishment they get from many prisoners; and, thirdly, are not used either to self-harm or to harm other prisoners. These are practical things. It is all very well to talk about them in this House, but these are the practical things that have to be addressed on a daily basis. People should be allowed to stop for toilet breaks, but this cannot be done all the way down the highway. They would have to be taken in secure areas, otherwise people will run away. That is what happens when we let people out of buses. Toilet breaks have to be taken at places like prisons and police stations. The report states that prisoners need exercise every 3 hours. That also has to be practical. We cannot have people wandering away from the bus, because, given an opportunity, they will wander away.

The report also talks about emergency exit hatches and their availability to prisoners. That is clearly impractical. The report states that in some vans the cages can be kicked open. But then again, if we do that, prisoners who should be segregated will be mixing with prisoners who should be separated from others. The issue of emergency exits has to be looked at. Also, there is the issue of having the means to fire raze, or the carrying of lighters. But, then again, if we get into strip-searching too much people will complain to the Ombudsman, who would probably disagree with that practice.

What I am really saying is that there are many issues in this report that need careful consideration. The broad thrust of it is that we need to do something about prisoner transport, and we need a national system of doing that. But some things in the report have to be thought through carefully. For example, if we allow self-exiting escape hatches, then everybody would be up in arms at the thought of people running around the countryside. We would have prisoners who have done bad things to the public running around because they have been able to get out of a prison van as a consequence of some concern about being able to get out if there is an accident.

I do believe that prisoners need to be transported humanely, but the solutions have to be practical. “Practical” is the critical word. I think it is important that people in this place—before they get on their high horse and talk about what should and should not be done—remember that by and large the Department of Corrections is doing a good job, and doing it with extremely difficult people. I do think we need to take the report seriously, and I hope the Minister will be working on it as soon as possible.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.

General Debate

General Debate

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National): I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. Today I asked Dr Cullen, the Acting Prime Minister, a simple question: “Why did Helen Clark not go to Liam Ashley’s funeral?”. He could not answer it. He could not answer because everyone knows now that Helen Clark does not weigh up these events in terms of human tragedy or accountability, but purely in terms of political utility. That is why Damien O’Connor keeps his job as Minister of Corrections. It is not because he should, but because for now it seems to suit Helen Clark. All that shows to the public is that she has lost her moral and political compass.

At the core of the Liam Ashley tragedy is the notion of accountability. If someone is in the care of the State, the State has a fundamental duty to keep that person alive. The duty is not to give those people underfloor heating, or comfortable squabs—maybe they should have that—or whether the handcuffs are just basic ones. The duty of human care is to keep them alive. I would have thought that Liam Ashley’s funeral was a funeral the Prime Minister might have gone to, because the State failed in its duty. The simple basic fact is that no single person anywhere has borne any accountability for the tragic death of a mixed-up young New Zealander in the horrifying, claustrophobic environment of the back of an inadequate prison van. Nothing that the Ombudsmen’s report brings forth has changed that.

Helen Clark still has not got the message. One would think that the polls would be sending the message to her, but no, she has not got it. She cannot tell the difference any longer between a failure of accountability, the duty to protect human life, and, to use that delightful phrase of hers, moving on. The reality is she has not yet calculated that it is in her political interest to sack Damien O’Connor. The day she thinks it is, she will.

Then there is another tragedy she has got mixed up in where a Government agency was said to be responsible. We questioned the Inland Revenue Department this morning about whether it knew whether the Muliaga family were getting all their Working for Families entitlements, which we estimate could have been as much as $400 a week. The Prime Minister has spent a week saying that these cases should be referred to welfare. Well, the Muliagas were not on welfare. They were a working family. They should have been the target of any family assistance package, but they might not have known that, because when they see the ads on TV, it is not families like the Muliaga family they see, is it? It is the people whom Helen Clark is politically worried about who are in that ad. They are a well-paid, comfortable, Pākehā family who can afford to text across the lounge. It is not the Muliaga family, and that is why the voters of Mangere know that the Government led by Helen Clark and Phil Goff has lost its direction.

The ads on TV are telling Labour’s core supporters who it is that Helen Clark really cares about—a family on $80,000 with one child who get assistance from the Working for Families package. They are not really the Muliagas, and that is why she had to turn up to the funeral—she was trying to make up the gap. She is playing catch-up politics and she got it wrong, but, then, she has got most major political decisions wrong since she got re-elected. She got the pledge card wrong, Taito Phillip Field wrong, and the smacking bill wrong. She was wrong to back it and then she was wrong to compromise with John Key to get it through. She got that wrong. She got the Department of Corrections and Damien O’Connor wrong, the Kuchenbecker case wrong, and the Ashley case wrong. Can Mr Goff get up and tell us one political decision Helen Clark has made of any difference since the 2005 election that she got right? The next one she will get wrong is rejuvenating the Labour Party—as if that were possible.

Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Defence): The list of things that this Government has got right is legend. There are 347,000 new jobs. The unemployment figure is a small fraction of the figure in the legacy left by the failed Government in which Bill English was Minister of Finance. We have a KiwiSaver scheme that is applauded for answering the longstanding problem of lack of saving in this country. We have a Working for Families package that delivers for people at the time they need it most—when they have kids and need help.

That member can talk all he likes about the prison system today. Sitting opposite me is Nick Smith, a former Minister of Corrections. When he was the Minister and when prisoners got out of Pāremoremo prison, the explanation given was that the boundary fence was not supposed to stop the prisoners escaping but only to slow them down. Then there was the guy who escaped from his security guard when he had a broken leg and was tied to a drip. The security service let him get away, and it could not explain that, either. That member knows that drug use was six times as much when he was the Minister of Corrections than it is today. He knows that. He knows that the escape rate was 78 percent higher. The member from wherever it is in the Manawatū knows that in his local prison at Linton they used to hand drugs through the window of the cells, because there was no fence around the prison. That is how bad it was under the National Government.

So let us not have Bill English come into this House with all the rubbish he is talking. He, Maurice Williamson, Tau Henare, and Tony Ryall are the failed faces of a failed National Government in the 1990s, when this country went backwards. We see the same old tired faces, but there are a few faces that we have not seen much of lately. Mr Ryall is kept off TV. Judith Collins is kept off TV. Gerry Brownlee—they try to keep him off TV. These are the faces that the public do not like to see, because they are the faces of a National Party that has very little appeal.

That National Party is essentially the same National Party that was in place at the time the emails were sent, on which the book The Hollow Men was based.

Hon Members: Oh!

Hon PHIL GOFF: That is right. They are the same people involved in that level of corruption, from the party that would have you believe that it stands for the common person, but when you read the emails, you see that what they actually believe is a different thing again.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order!

Hon PHIL GOFF: You can try all you like, Mr English, to repackage yourself. You can do that as often as you like—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order!

Hon PHIL GOFF: —but we know that what you are saying today is simply what you think you need to say to try to win public support. Yesterday the National Party—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order!

Hon Bill English: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The member sees himself as a young member and the face of the future of the Labour Party, but he has actually been here a long time—over 20 years, on and off.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Get to the point, Mr English.

Hon Bill English: He knows he cannot say “you” when he is addressing the House.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Thank you, Mr English. The member will recognise that in his speech.

Hon PHIL GOFF: The fact is that nobody can trust the National Party. Just a little while ago John Key and National members—every one of them—were against the Kyoto Protocol. John Key said in this House that global warming was a hoax. The next minute he was saying that global warming will destroy us and that the Government is not doing enough. What credibility can the National Party speak with when it flip-flops on those basic policies? National members are not to be trusted. They are the same people who disclosed what they would do, in the book The Hollow Men.

They are the people who would strip interest-free student loans away from students. Do I get a denial? Are they for them or against them? They will not say, but Paul Hutchison did. That is the party that will do away with the Working for Families, which helps people when they most need help. That is the party that will not commit itself to KiwiSaver.

There was a great scheme under Norman Kirk that would have made this country a wealthy country and would have created the capital to get the growth and savings we needed as a country—but the Muldoon Government destroyed it. The Key-led National Party is promising to do exactly the same thing, which is not in the interests of this country. Notwithstanding the re-imaging that National members are trying to do, from what National members are saying privately, that is clear.

John Key is going around the country saying to National Party branches: “Don’t worry too much about what you hear me saying, because when I’m in Government I’m going to do something different.” I ask Mr English to deny that. That has been reported back to us time and time again. John Key is saying that what he says publicly is for public consumption but that given the chance, he will act for what the National Party has always been—a party that governs for a small minority of people with vested interests and people with wealth. That is what the National Party believes.

R DOUG WOOLERTON (NZ First): This week we saw the unprecedented move of the Reserve Bank Governor intervening in the currency market, something we have not seen since the dollar was floated in the 1980s. That came just 1 week after the Reserve Bank Governor had raised the cash rate to 8 percent, the highest in the developed world. This, of course, caused the dollar to rise, and speculators and investment funds went on a buying spree. We are doing long-term damage to our exporters, and, in fact, this is as good as telling them to nick off.

The Reserve Bank Governor explained to the Finance and Expenditure Committee the other day that the proposed record pay-out of Fonterra was a concern in that it would add inflationary pressures to the economy. So dairy farmers who were looking forward to some debt repayment and to replacing some plant and machinery are suddenly disadvantaged all over again. In other words, we are killing the goose that laid the golden eggs, all because the Reserve Bank Governor is required to rely on one single blunt instrument, which is the inflation target of 1 to 3 percent.

In New Zealand we either export or die. Export growth is reliant on a favourable dollar. So much work has been done over the past year on Export Year with Business New Zealand coming on board, along with the Chamber of Commerce, and we are finally getting somewhere by forming strong Government agency and business links designed to bolster our exports. Now that is being undermined by the high dollar. The Reserve Bank Act is too restraining, the focus is too narrow, and the governor needs new tools that will recognise the uniqueness of our economy, not some other foreign economy. We need a Reserve Bank Act custom-made for us, not imported from one of the other countries and for the convenience of those on foreign shores.

Exporters—and here we are talking about everybody from agricultural industries to manufacturers to high-tech software companies and the like—need our help. They are our lifeblood, and right now they need a transfusion of new thinking. We must rewrite the Reserve Bank Act. It must consider more than just inflation alone. Right now the only people who are benefiting from the Act are currency traders and paper shufflers. Exporters must be the priority, not the afterthought when things have got out of hand. For far too long in this country we have seen an economy relying on consumerism and forgetting about the lifeblood, which is exporting. We risk losing so much of our productive sector if we do not act now. It was this Parliament that created this problem through the Reserve Bank Act, and it is this Parliament that now must do something to fix it up.

The two old parties in this Parliament have long held the view that we should have a hands-off sort of an operation when we come to monetary policy. In recent years—and particularly the last year—that has been shown to be at fault and we must do something about it. New Zealand First has said for years now that we cannot rely on just the one mechanism of inflation alone. We must have the Reserve Bank Governor looking at things like exporting. We must require him to take into account the jobs in this country before he goes out and raises the interest rates that so badly hurt our exporters. The sheep farmers, the foresters, and the fishers in this country are all suffering under this extremely high dollar—a dollar that has only been exacerbated by the rise in interest rates we have recently seen.

It is ironic that within a week—as I said before—the governor had to come out into the market and buy New Zealand dollars. We think that has gone some way towards alleviating the problem but commentators, countrywide and overseas, are telling us that that will not work for long and it is not a long-term solution, and we agree. Something has to be done and that something is to rewrite the Reserve Bank Act.

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Commerce): Last Saturday the Christchurch Press ran a story with the headline “John Key, overachiever”. It should have been headed “John Key, over-promiser”. The entire story represents an individual who will say anything to get elected, whose approach is to reflect the concerns of those he addresses, no matter whether they represent the party’s policy or not. This story confirmed the story I heard about a presentation to the party faithful in Christchurch recently where John Key said: “I will be saying things you won’t like hearing, over the next 18 months. Don’t worry, I am going to get us elected to Government.” That is what he said: “I am going to be saying things you are not going to like hearing, but don’t worry about it, I am just saying these things to get elected.” That is what he is saying very privately.

He is also saying, more publicly, that he will negotiate with any party because being in Government is what he wants to be. He does not care what he has to say or do in order to get here. That is because he has actually worked out something that Don Brash did not work out—that is, that one needs partners under MMP. I have to say that, despite his arrogant predictions of a landslide, he has finally worked out that he needs someone to negotiate with, and National has really trampled over every other party in this Parliament, and now he says he needs friends. He says terrible things about the Greens behind their backs when he thinks nobody is listening, but would offer them a Cabinet position in Government. All I can say to that is “Yeah, right!”.

I think this confirms what I read in the Independent back in April. This is a quote from an article on 18 April 2007: “One Auckland businessman said he attended a small, private dinner last month at which National’s deputy leader, Bill English, was a guest. English, he said, was open about the fact he and Key would do ‘whatever is needed’ to win next year’s election. National’s strategy, if one existed, was not about producing a coherent political vision or sensible policies to differentiate the Opposition from Labour. ‘They simply want to win at any cost,’ the businessman said. ‘Where’s the principle in that?’ ”.

Well, the bottom line is that there is no principle in that. Another businessman quoted in the same article said the National Party disappointed him. “ ‘Where is National’s direction and where is its traction?’ he asks. … This businessman says he cannot believe National is naive enough to try to tell voters it’ll sort out policy once it becomes the government. ‘They won’t get away with that,’ he says. ‘Voters aren’t stupid and National can’t constantly attack the government’s performance with no credible alternative. It takes a long time to put policy into place. We don’t have a hell of a lot of time and the expectations on the streets are enormous. But I don’t see too much articulate argument going on.’ ” I agree with that. I think that absolutely sums up the situation.

Let us look at the Press article. It states that John Key wants to know from the Press political editor what he thinks of the Prime Minister speaking out about the Muliaga tragedy. He actually wants to gauge what the media thinks before he decides what he will say and do. In this article John Key is asked the question: “Why vote for Mr Key?”. “Aspiration,” he says, “And we’re really nice people as well.” That was the answer he gave to students who are going to be voting for the first time in the next general election.

When he said National members were really nice people as well, he did not mention Tony Ryall running hospitals or Judith Collins running social development and employment. That is because—and I have heard this from many sources now—behind the scenes, he is telling people that if National did become the Government, the last person running hospitals would be Tony Ryall, and the last person in charge of social development and employment would be Judith Collins. He is telling people behind those members’ backs that they are holding those portfolios only in Opposition.

If members look at that article, the strategy that this guy has developed all becomes very clear. The students grilled him about whether National would keep Labour’s interest-free loan scheme. The answer was “probably”. As to whether tax cuts would drive up interest rates, he said: “Not if it’s done properly.”

KATHERINE RICH (National): That deep political insight was from Lianne Dalziel, underachiever, and what we have seen from what she has just outlined is a lack of understanding of what politics is about. She criticises John Key for working hard to get elected. Well, hello—what is the aim of every single political party that has ever come to Parliament in New Zealand’s history? It is to get elected and to be in Government. Then she criticises him for talking to journalists. Does not everybody? Does not every member of Parliament talk to journalists? Is that not what we are supposed to do? The whole idea that people can make small talk might be totally anathema to the Government side of the House, but on the Opposition side members are working very hard to get elected to govern.

One of the things we would like Labour members to do, to make sure they do not get elected to Government ever again, is to change their leader. I have an idea: they should appoint Steve Maharey. Steve Maharey, who has been the kiss of death for every single portfolio he has touched, would be the final nail in the coffin for Labour.

I would like to spend my 5 minutes talking about the failures of Steve Maharey, but I have to say there is not enough time to do so in any general debate. Do members remember the Community Employment Group? He was the guy who brought to us bread-tag earrings, hip-hop tours, and the much-vaunted social entrepreneur scheme that lasted all of about a couple of years before it died a slow death. When the Minister took over Television New Zealand, that company was worth in excess of $1 billion. It would be lucky to be worth a third of that now. He is the person who gave birth to the charter, which has brought us more reality shows than we have ever seen on New Zealand television before. He has created a television company that is now a mere shadow of its former self.

Then, of course, he got stuck into tertiary education. He spent $400 million just thinking about tertiary reforms. He took the Tertiary Education Commission from a staff of 30 people to a staff of over 330 people. We do not know what they are doing. He also oversaw the debacle that was the wānanga and the massive growth in community courses, which brought us highlights such as homeopathy for pets, pendulum swinging, colour selection, twilight golf—which was one of my personal favourites—and also the radio singalong courses.

Then, of course, the Labour Government, not content with causing chaos in those other portfolio areas, decided to inflict Steve Maharey upon every single New Zealand child by putting him in charge of the education system. If we look at what he has done with the 20 free hours policy, we see that that policy was very clear in 2005. Every single 3 and 4-year-old child was to have access to 20 hours’ free early childhood education come this July.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: 92,000 of them.

KATHERINE RICH: There were 92,000 kids who were going to get it. Parents will be very disturbed and angered when this thing rolls out to find that not only will they not have it locally in their centres but also they will be asked to pay money on top of that. I do not know what the Minister’s definition of the word “free” is, but on this side of the House we think it means no additional payment. The part charges, plus the reductions in quality, plus, in some cases, asking staff to take a pay cut will not wash with New Zealanders.

This week we heard his bizarre announcement about changes to tuck shops and canteens. The National Administration Guidelines state that only healthy food options will be sold in schools. But then the Minister—back-pedalling at a rate of knots during the day—proceeded to personally exempt foods. He issued a list of all of the foods that would be OK in tuck shops post the Steve Maharey regime. He listed pizza, cakes, sausage sizzles, sausage rolls, and pies. The humble pie was safe under his new National Administration Guidelines. I do not know whether the Minister does not understand what the phrase “only healthy options” means, but I would say that if he did a survey amongst Kiwis, none of the foods that he personally exempted would be included.

Finally, I refer to the National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA). After 6 years of this Government telling us that everything was OK with NCEA and that all the criticisms were unwarranted, it has come out and basically implemented the changes National has been calling for, for years. New Zealanders see through this Government. They are sick and tired of it, and that is why they will elect National come the next election.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Minister for Building and Construction): That was the Paris Hilton of the National Party. When she talks about fizzy drinks, we know which member has had too much Coca-Cola for many years—Nick Smith.

Only Bill English could stoop as low as he did today. Just after we had had the debate about the corrections tragedy, only Bill English, pretending to be some sort of statesperson, could stoop so low as to dance on the grave of someone who had died and play semantic political games.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: That’s what Helen Clark did.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: Nick Smith interjects on me. Of course, Nick Smith was the former Minister of Corrections whose claim to fame was that under his stewardship he signed the prison van vehicle contract with Chubb. I am told that, given his reputation, he was the first Minister of Corrections to have his own rubber cell.

National members would do and say anything to win. The facts are this—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The reference the Minister has just made is very typical of the personal denigration the Government makes when it is in trouble. We have just had a chat about—

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: What’s the point of order?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): There is to be no comment at all during a point of order. That is a yellow card, Mr Cosgrove.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: The personal denigration made by the Minister is, I think, quite inappropriate in this House. If we are to have members making those sorts of slurs on people’s characters, the standards in the House will really go through the floor. I would ask the member to withdraw and apologise.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I listened, I heard what the member said, and I waited for a reaction. I ask the member to withdraw.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: I withdraw, Mr Assistant Speaker.

This is a typical Tory party. These guys have had one or two good poll results, then what do we have? We have the typical slouching in the seat, the swagger down the back, and then they use the “L” word. John Key goes out and pronounces that there will be a landslide, the biggest since 1951. Here is what Colin Espiner said about this: “And yet Key should be extremely careful about using the ‘L’ word. Besides tempting fate, those who use it risk being branded arrogant and complacent by the electorate.”

I tell the National Party members to read their history. We now have John “Dewey” Key. I refer to Thomas E Dewey, the former Governor of New York and Republican candidate in the 1948 US presidential elections. The Republican polls had him doing over Truman. All the media said that he would waltz in; it would be a landslide. The day before the media ran the headline “Dewey defeats Truman”. What happened, of course, was that Dewey was so arrogant that the people worked it out.

I say that Tory arrogance is amazing. National members are going to their mates in the Business Roundtable and saying, as they did in 1990—as I was there, I remember it—“We will say and do anything to win. We will say we will give a tax cut. We will say we will adopt all the promises and all the programmes that Labour has done that are popular, and then say we will do even more.” They forget that people are smart. They forget that John Key speaks out of both sides of his mouth. Even the sensitive, delicate one over there, whom I point to—Nick Smith—knows that.

Nick Smith is, of course, an interesting guy. He yells out in the House: “Untruth! Untruth!”, when anybody refers, as David Parker did on Agenda, to the fact that John Key had a road to Damascus experience when he had said that climate change was some sort of big international conspiracy, but then John Key came back and said: “I am a believer.” When David Parker ran that one on Agenda the genius opposite—I will not use the other “L” word—said that. He just makes it up. He thinks that nobody reads what he said. Well, very few people read what he says, but the commentators do.

National members will not tell us what they will do in relation to student loans—we have now worked that one out. Will they tell us today whether they will keep apprenticeships? Will they? Will they tell us today whether they will keep KiwiSaver? In 1995 Nick Smith’s Government abolished the Apprenticeship Act.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Never did.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: He says it again. In 1995 National abolished the Apprenticeship Act. Would a National Government maintain the apprenticeship numbers? National members will not say. Would they do what they did in 1975-76 when they pulled the rug out from every pensioner and pulled the pin on the Kirk superannuation scheme?

I predict this. National members say they oppose KiwiSaver. They voted against the corporate tax cut, even though they campaigned on it. In a couple of months they will work out that these are not bad policies and that as a party they should just adopt them; they will work out that they should neutralise it and adopt anything that looks like a good policy because they do not have any of their own.

When was the last time Nick Smith got off the Diet Coke, got off the caffeine, and gave us a policy? He should name one. I ask the member to give us his policy on climate change. He does not have one. He is hollowed out, as people know.

Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore): The Minister who has just spoken, Clayton Cosgrove, was described recently by the Listener as too sinister to ever be a leader of the Labour Party. If we were to compare him to anyone, I would have to say Tony Soprano. He is the hit man of the Labour Party, more interested in spilling blood and dark deeds.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I take deep offence at being compared to Tony Soprano. He has more hair than I do and I do not think it is fair on him.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): No, that is a frivolous interjection that can lead to disorder. The member has his first yellow card.

Simon Power: You gave him a yellow card before.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): No, I did not.

Hon Maurice Williamson: Yes, you did.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): No, I did not. I know what I did.

Dr WAYNE MAPP: I have noticed that the position of High Commissioner in London will become vacant in March next year. That is the truth of it, and we just know that Helen Clark is looking at her bench mate, Michael Cullen, and thinking that there is something that could be done there. The Speaker, Ms Wilson, could go to London. Michael Cullen is the big embarrassment of the Labour Party; the man who denies New Zealanders, at every single turn, the opportunity of getting a tax reduction. Helen Clark is thinking it is time for him to go sideways to the role of Speaker. I was not at all surprised to see that Labour decided that Phil Goff would lead off today. Labour is grooming him and getting him ready for the role of finance spokesman. That is the truth of it. That is what Labour is trying to do, because it knows it is in a deep hole.

We had only to listen to all of those speeches today; all of those speeches were about National winning the next election. Labour members know deep in their bones that we will win the next election and that they are going to lose it. That is why they spent all their time complaining about how well we are campaigning, complaining about the policies we are developing, and complaining, for heaven’s sake, that we even talk to journalists. Can members imagine that? They are complaining about the fact that we talk to journalists.

In our region, the Auckland region, we have to listen to Labour’s failure, and Dr Cullen is leading that litany of failure. He has been going around Auckland for at least 12 months saying that he is the man to reform local government.

Hon Maurice Williamson: Ha, ha!

Dr WAYNE MAPP: Yes, well, it is humorous—derisory, even, because even Auckland local authorities have given up on Dr Cullen. They know that he simply cannot deliver. The fact that Labour has Judith Tizard and Mr Burton as the lead players, along with Dr Cullen, says it all, really. No one in Auckland has any belief or faith in the possibility of local government reform before the next election. This Government is deeply beset by malaise. It has no traction. Everything is spin, everything is reports, everything is denial. Even the reports of the Ombudsmen are denied, as was so eloquently pointed out by Mr Power today. The Government is in complete denial of its impending fate, and the public are saying “Just go! We are sick of this Government, and we want to see the end of you.”

Whenever the public asks for something meaningful—that after 13 years of surpluses it is about time for a tax cut—what does the Government say? It says that KiwiSaver is as good as it gets. So we had to listen here, about a month or so ago, to 40 minutes of the Budget speech with only one idea: KiwiSaver. How important is that for the future of New Zealand? Actually, it is not that important. This Government has simply lost its way and it is evident right across all of its portfolio responsibilities.

We heard today the Minister with responsibility for Auckland Issues talk about action plans, strategy documents, planning bodies, and consultations. In fact, she was even confused about who is responsible for local roads. She happens to think that the Auckland Regional Council has responsibility for every little path and street throughout the Auckland region. With that level of knowledge, it is no wonder people have lost faith.

On behalf of the people of the North Shore, I have to say to this Government that they are sick of it. They are sick of this Government. The last thing they want to do is to have to wait right through until November next year for another election. They want that election now, because the alternative they are faced with is more malaise, more spin, and more opportunistic attendances at funerals—not with any real intent of faith with the family but simply to gain votes, and the public saw through that. They saw the cynicism of that, and they are sick of it. I have to say that when a Government has run out of ideas and when a Government has no policies, it is time for that Government to go.

Hon MITA RIRINUI (Minister of State): Kia ora, Mr Assistant Speaker. I listened to Dr Mapp’s speech with absolute interest. It was actually quite a good speech. There was not a lot of accuracy, but it was a good speech. As the saying goes, never let the facts get in the way of a good story. That is the only way I can describe that contribution to the House today. The member described the speech of the previous speaker, the Hon Clayton Cosgrove, as “quite sinister”. Well, I would describe his as quite cynical. However, that is the nature of the debate we have had in the House this afternoon.

I listened to the debate surrounding Liam Ashley’s tragic death, and I acknowledge the Ombudsmen’s report and the rigorous debate that followed in the House this afternoon. A lot of the issues have been debated quite well and quite appropriately, but I also want to join the leader of the United Future party in acknowledging the tragedy of Liam Ashley’s death, and, particularly, the impact it has had on his family. Their subsequent response to the Ombudsmen’s report demonstrates their humility. They could have taken a much stronger position, but they decided to maintain their dignity and to remain considerably silent, given the circumstances. That is something this House needs to acknowledge this afternoon. On many occasions it happens that we get so wound up in a debate that we forget the people who have been affected by the tragedy. I put it on record this afternoon that I do acknowledge the tragic circumstances surrounding Liam Ashley’s death.

There has also been a lot of debate around the polls and about John Key’s leadership. I have been in this House since 1999, and he is the fourth leader of the National Party since then. In every case, the new leader has gone up in the polls but has also fallen in the polls not too long afterwards. It is interesting, when one reads the papers, to see the similarities, in terms of popularity, that John Key has with Don Brash. Don Brash, who was the third leader of the National Party in my time, was gone by lunchtime. But is it not also interesting to remember that although Don Brash is gone, the Ōrewa I and Ōrewa II speeches are still with us? If we think that the National Party has softened its approach in terms of extremism, particularly on race relations matters—or the lack of race relations—then we need to think again.

Later on in this House we will continue the interrupted debate on Tony Ryall’s continued attempts to erase Māori and Pacific representation from the landscape of this country’s political environment. He is a person who has tried to do that on many occasions and who has made many public speeches about his views on Māori representation, particularly at local government level, and at central government level. He is the same person who has repeatedly attacked Māori attempts to improve the health statistics of their own communities. In fact, he has also attacked attempts by mainstream organisations to achieve the same. To add insult to injury, that person will also go out there and tell people that he is the friend of the Māori Party. I am sure the Māori Party does not agree with that. Why would it? But like the Hon Lianne Dalziel stated earlier on, it is about power at all costs. That is what it is all about for some parties.

Those members made it clear that they do not go to funerals, no matter whose funeral it is. They say that if the Prime Minister of this country decides that she wants to make contact and join in the tragic parting, and share her sympathies with constituents out there in the community, at the very bottom of the community, then that is a bad thing to do. Those members should wake up and get a life. Politics is not like that any more. If a Government wants to be caring and sharing, then it has to take notice of what is happening out in those communities, particularly in light of Liam Ashley’s case and the circumstances surrounding the tragedy for the Pacific Island family in Auckland. You, Mr Assistant Speaker, would probably be more in tune with those circumstances than I would be.

When Opposition members in this House stand up and criticise the Prime Minister’s attempts to share in tragic circumstances and to provide support to those families, what sort of description would we give to an Opposition party that carries on in such a way? I would give it this description—Don Brash is still here. The views that he promoted at Ōrewa in 2004, and again in 2005, are still here.

TARIANA TURIA (Co-Leader—Māori Party): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. Tēnā tātou katoa. You know, the general debate must be the worst hour of the week in the House—an hour where people are slagged off for 5 minutes at a time. There is no policy debate, and no one smiles. It is all based on the politics of nothing. There is a Nat King Cole song that goes: “Smile, what’s the use of crying? You’ll find that life is still worthwhile if you just smile”—and so it would seem. All the psychological studies tell us that doors open to people who smile, people listen to people who smile, and employers look favourably at job applicants who smile.

So today I want to talk about a serious primary health issue, and I have to say how disappointed I was when the Minister of Health today said that he did not believe that oral health issues were as significant as other primary health issues. Yet we in the Māori electorates know the significance that poor oral health plays, and its impact on the overall well-being in our communities. It affects something as simple as trying to get a job—if someone smiles, people can see the damage to that person’s teeth at that time.

Two days ago in my electorate I spent time with dental health providers who told me about being constantly blocked in their ambition to provide quality dentistry to low socio-economic and vulnerable communities—and it is not the first time that a dental health provider has raised these matters with me. They showed me the policy spin—the Minister’s pledge to address “Māori, Pacific, rural, and low socio-economic populations that are all showing progressively poorer oral health”—and they shared with me their ideas around providing services that address the very real barriers of cost, of access, and of fear. But, despite their innovation, and despite their commitment, they keep getting turned away.

The district health boards say there is no money for low-income adults, and Work and Income’s subsidies are limited to the relief of pain and infection—preventive oral health is not a priority—and essential dental contracts for community cardholders who have infection and pain are being denied. They shared with me their belief that their services can reduce the pervasive inequalities, as most dental disease is preventable. They talked, too, of the all-important need to address the whole person and to make the connections between one area of health and another.

Oral health is as important as, and must be considered equal to, all other primary health matters that are fully funded by the Government. Oral health is a core health service issue. We know that it is linked to other chronic health conditions, such as cardiovascular disease, malignant melanomas may appear orally, ulcers can indicate deficiencies in vitamins B and C, and infections may present first in the mouth. The World Health Organization has defined oral health to the extent that “an individual can eat, speak, and socialise without discomfort, pain, or embarrassment for a lifetime, and which contributes to general well-being.” It seems such a simple wish, a humble aspiration, to eat, speak, and smile. We have providers out there who want to meet those humble aspirations, and we know it can be done. In Rotorua, for instance, a mobile dental clinic operates under the Lakes District Health Board, and there is another two-chair mobile dental clinic that the Tipu Ora Trust will be shortly rolling out to service low-income families in schools. In Whakatāne there are six mobile dental clinics, which cover Tauranga, Whakatāne, Te Kaha, Murupara, through to Ruatāhuna. Yet, in Te Tai Hauauru, which has providers out there ready and willing, with mobile clinics, they are told it is not a key priority.

The Māori Party believes we can and we must return to a time when Māori again can have the finest teeth of any existing race, a time when the closing of gaps takes on another meaning—reducing regional difference, addressing whānau ora, and helping people to smile again. This is a Government policy that would go down well in Māori communities right throughout the country. I urge those Māori members on the other side of the House—who are talking and taking no notice of me—to introduce this into their communities. It might help them to do well at the next election. Kia ora.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): The bit the Government has simply not got in this debate is that the reason it is on the ropes is that in almost every area of Government policy we see major failures. Over the period of the adjournment, in corrections, our economy, the performance of our State-owned enterprises, and climate-change education—in one area after another—we have Kiwi dreams being killed off because of failed policy from the Government. My colleague Simon Power has done an extraordinary job of identifying the failures in the Department of Corrections. The reason the National Opposition is angry, and will continue to pursue the Government, is that there is absolutely no confidence that those problems will be fixed.

We have seen the tragedy of Karl Kuchenbecker and we have seen the failure in relation to the death of Liam Ashley. Yet still we get excuses after excuses from this Government. We saw over the adjournment the failure of Government State-owned enterprises. We had Solid Energy New Zealand, a Government State-owned enterprise, spying on ordinary New Zealanders. We saw the awful tragedy of another State-owned enterprise, Mighty River Power, with totally inappropriate systems for cutting off the power of New Zealanders, and we saw another State-owned enterprise, Landcorp, being prosecuted and found guilty of breaches of basic environmental standards.

Then we saw what I thought was really a summary of one aspect of this Government’s failure. We saw tax freedom day. This is the day on which New Zealanders could finally start working for themselves. For the first time in New Zealand history, tax freedom day made it into the month of June—6 June was the day this year when, finally, New Zealanders were able to work for themselves. That was 7 days worse than a year ago, 27 days worse than when Labour came to Government, 4 days worse than the United Kingdom, and 30 days worse than it is in Australia. But what this Government does not understand is that hard-working New Zealanders want to keep the efforts of their own work, and they do not want to see tax freedom day continuously getting later.

We also saw, over the adjournment, interest rates rise to the highest level of any country in the OECD. Why that matters is that ordinary New Zealanders are out there, struggling with the dream of owning their own home, but under this Government that dream is getting so much worse.

Let me take an area that I am passionate about, which is climate change. We have heard so much rhetoric from the Prime Minister in talking about carbon neutrality. Over the adjournment we had the most recent forestry data. It showed that in the last year we have lost 14,000 hectares of forest. That is over 2 million trees. It is not surprising that we did not have a single Minister this year doing a photo opportunity on Arbour Day, because it was a day of shame. What is going on out there in New Zealand is a chainsaw massacre—7 million trees lost in just 3 years. Why does that matter? Those 7 million trees represent 25 million tonnes of carbon. How can the Prime Minister have the audacity to talk about carbon neutrality when we have that sort of chainsaw massacre going on in New Zealand?

I asked a simple, straight question of the Minister: will he let New Zealanders who plant trees this year get the credits from those so we might change those appalling trends? We heard all sorts of weasel words, such as: “Well, if they’re permanent forests they might.” But the Government is continuing to deny credits for people who plant commercial forests this year. That means we have vacant land. It is bad for forestry and it is bad for the environment, and that is why we are seeing this Government on the ropes.

The Government just does not get it. We do not want more spin. We do not want more distractions. New Zealanders just want good, solid policy. They want to be able to keep their money, which they work so hard for. They want to see tax freedom day coming earlier in the year, not continuously later. They do not want the highest interest rates in the world; they want real progress on those issues that are so important to New Zealanders.

LESLEY SOPER (Labour): I was a young worker in my first job when the National Government scrapped Norman Kirk’s superannuation scheme in 1975. I remember that, and so do thousands of other New Zealand workers, many of whom still tell me at public meetings about the betrayal they felt from that National Government. I remember that, and I remember—as do thousands of other New Zealand workers—the lying National Government’s dancing Cossacks campaign. It was the lowest point reached in New Zealand political campaigning, only to be matched by the hollow men in 2005.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: You can’t say that.

LESLEY SOPER: Yes, I can.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): No, the member will withdraw.

LESLEY SOPER: I withdraw. The lowest point reached in New Zealand’s political campaigning was that vacuous dancing Cossacks campaign, only to be matched by the hollow men and the hollow women in 2005.

We see all the old retreads on the National benches today: English, Ryall, McCully, Smith—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): No, no. The member must use another member’s full name.

LESLEY SOPER: Certainly.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): It is Speakers’ rulings 26/6 and 26/7.

LESLEY SOPER: Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. We see all the old retreads on the National benches today: Bill English, Tony Ryall, Murray McCully, Nick Smith, and, of course, Mr Williamson. Leading them all is the man of shallow ambition—all style and no substance—the man with that disquieting smile and nothing behind it: Mr John Key. Mr Key reportedly leads the National Party. This is the same party that destroyed superannuation in 1975 and the same party that cut New Zealand superannuation to 60 percent of the average wage. It is the same party that abolished the Apprenticeship Act, instituted bed night charges in hospitals, and slashed benefits. It is the same party that brought us the “mother of all Budgets”, tax cuts for the rich, bulk funding, Work for the Dole, national testing and vouchers, and, of course, the selling of State assets.

Mr Key leads a superficial party, a party unable to come up with one new idea. It is a party with a leader that at the present time can only say that he will do everything Labour is doing but that people will get a tax cut, as well.

Hon Harry Duynhoven: Sounds like Muldoon.

LESLEY SOPER: Yes, funny that! National is a party that seems to be able to come up with nothing other than bribing New Zealanders with their children’s money.

Hon Harry Duynhoven: Sounds like Muldoon, too.

LESLEY SOPER: It sounds like Muldoon to me. Tax cuts, more roads, billions spent on broadband, bulk funding at the top rate—these are all some of the promises that have come from Mr Key and other National members recently. They are making promises left, right, and centre. Their numbers do not add up. How many nurses, teachers, and doctors will they have to cut to give their rich mates a tax cut?

Members should look at National’s track record of broken promises. The record shows at the moment that Mr Key seems to want to outdo the previous broken promises. He is promising different things to different groups, practically every day. He seems to be refusing to give straight answers on any questions, at all. Instead, he is telling people in every individual group what they might want to hear, or what he, as one of the hollow men, assesses that he believes they want to hear.

Interestingly, of course, the recycled leader-in-waiting, Mr Bill English, has had to contradict Mr Key a few times. They are obviously not agreeing on very much at the moment. And what do we think Mr Key’s real agenda is? It is the same agenda as that of the National Government in the 1990s—an agenda that drove good working-class New Zealanders into poverty. It is the same agenda as that which is detailed in The Hollow Men. In the end, Mr Key and his party are just the same old Tories with the same old agenda. Mr Key will promise Kiwis they can have it all, his party will promise Kiwis they can have it all, and in the end they will deliver nothing—broken promises; no goods.

KEITH LOCKE (Green): New Zealand is privileged to have the Dalai Lama visiting our shores next week. He is currently in Australia. It was a little disturbing to me when I asked the Prime Minister a question yesterday about whether she would be meeting the Dalai Lama to be told by the Acting Prime Minister that the matter was still under consideration. I was concerned that this shows disrespect to such an important world leader—a leader in the Buddhist community worldwide and a Nobel Prize winner for his contributions to peace in trying to help solve the situation of the Tibetan people under Chinese rule and enable them to have full rights within a truly autonomous Tibet. I was disturbed, because this visit has been long in the making.

The Prime Minister’s office has known about this visit from the Dalai Lama for a couple of years, and it is now just a few days away from his arrival. Obviously, putting two and two together, one would think there has been considerable pressure from the Chinese Government, which was certainly the case in Australia. The pressure there initially convinced the Australian Prime Minister, John Howard, and also the leader of the Australian Labor Party, Kevin Rudd, not to meet the Dalai Lama. But after a huge public outcry—of which the Australian Greens party was a part, particularly in the form of Senator Bob Brown—the Prime Minister John Howard suddenly found a little space in his diary, and the leader of the Labor Party, Kevin Rudd, also seems to have found space in his diary, to meet the Dalai Lama. That is very good, although, as an indication of the pressure from the Chinese Government, a spokesperson came out and expressed its “strong dissatisfaction and staunch opposition to the Australian side for allowing the Dalai Lama to (come to) Australia to engage in splittist activities,”—“splittist activities”, despite the fact that the Dalai Lama accepts that Tibet will not be completely independent, but will be, in his view, fully autonomous within China. Obviously, the Chinese officials are taking an interest here, too. The Green Party was visited and asked whether we would be seeing the Dalai Lama. Of course we are, and we will be part of a reception hosted by the Hon Nick Smith on behalf of the Parliamentary Lobby Group for Tibet next Tuesday afternoon at 3.30 p.m. I hope there is a good turn-out of MPs at that event.

I think it is important that the Prime Minister meets the Dalai Lama, because if she does not it could be taken as the beginning of a slippery slope. All sorts of interpretations could be put on the situation, such as that it is because of the economic power of China. It could be interpreted that somehow in the background is the issue of the free-trade agreement and that we do not want to upset the Chinese too much in terms of pursuing that.

I still have hopes that the Prime Minister will meet the Dalai Lama. Yesterday in the House in question time, the Acting Prime Minister, Michael Cullen, told me he thought the Dalai Lama said he was coming here as a religious leader not a political leader. I think that comment was used a year or two back, which was the last time a Government leader met the Dalai Lama—that they were meeting, but not in the Dalai Lama’s capacity as a political leader. It is true that the Dalai Lama does not have a formal political title, but he does represent the political aspirations of the Tibetan people to self-determination within China. When one reads his speeches, it is clear they are very much political speeches promoting a peaceful Middle Way. In that respect he is seen, politically, as not only a religious leader internationally but a leading political figure.

Another thing I will be doing is putting a notice of motion on the Order Paper so that the Parliament can recognise the visit of the Dalai Lama and welcome his visit here, as other Parliaments have done.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.

Bills

Farmers’ Mutual Group Bill

First Reading

Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Labour—Palmerston North): I move, That the Farmers’ Mutual Group Bill be now read a first time. At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be referred to the Primary Production Committee. This is a bill promoted by the Farmers’ Mutual Insurance Association, and I think the House will forgive me if I acknowledge that members of the association are in the gallery today. The organisation has its head office in my electorate in Palmerston North, and it gives me a lot of pleasure to therefore bring the bill before the House.

The bill supports and strengthens one of New Zealand’s long-established, and proud, rural service companies. The bill updates the legislation under which the mutual operates, and will undoubtedly assist it to continue to flourish in the future.

The mutual and its predecessors have provided general insurance and risk protection services to farmers and members of the rural community for more than 100 years. Mutual associations were first formed in 1905, after the passing of the Mutual Fire Insurance Act 1903. That Act allowed associations to be established to offer fire insurance to farmers and owners of isolated properties. These associations were called mutuals because they were owned by their policyholders or members.

In 1955 the Mutual Insurance Act was passed, which allowed mutuals to be incorporated and to merge. That Act also prescribed their powers and governance requirements. The Farmers’ Mutual Insurance Association is now the only mutual that is subject to the 1955 Act. In recent times it has become clear that the provisions of the 1955 Act are outdated and inappropriate for the operation of a modern insurance and financial services business. They are, after all, from the middle of the last century. Among other things, the Act inhibits the mutual from providing relevant products and services, and from competing effectively with its competitors.

The principal purpose of this bill, therefore, is to modernise the mutual’s powers and governance regime so that it can operate as a sophisticated modern business, consistent with contemporary, corporate governance principles. At the same time the bill preserves the association’s mutual status and ownership by members, and its principal business of providing rural risk insurance and advice, which is the business that the mutual was first established to provide. In essence the bill gives the mutual the same capacity and powers as a company, and a modern governance regime based on the Companies Act 1993, while retaining its mutual structure. It also gives the mutual a new name—Farmers’ Mutual Group.

The bill removes the mutual from the jurisdiction of the 1955 Act and the outdated requirements in that Act, and repeals the Farmers’ Mutual Group Act 1998. That 1998 Act proved to be incapable of delivering the required results, and will be repealed with the passing of this new legislation. This current bill has no impact on existing members’ rights to membership, or on existing insurance and other business.

The modernisation of organisations by means of private bills is not new to this House. We have seen it with others from time to time, especially trustee and insurance companies. This bill has been advertised in accordance with the Standing Orders, and all persons who have a direct interest in the bill have been notified of the intention of the mutual to promote it. In addition, the mutual has written to each of its 35,000 members advising of the bill and its contents, and inviting comment. Those comments were overwhelmingly positive and support the changes sought in this bill.

This is a bill that we hope will proceed rapidly through this House. I know that my colleague Simon Power, who has a direct interest in this bill too—not only because he is also a local MP for Palmerston North but because he worked in that building for some time—is keen to see it expedited. I have spoken with David Carter, chair of the Primary Production Committee, and he has kindly undertaken to progress this bill through his committee with all possible speed. So I commend the bill to the House and look forward to its short and speedy passage.

SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei): The National Party will be supporting the passage of the Farmers’ Mutual Group Bill and will be doing so along the terms outlined by the Hon Steve Maharey. We too want to see the matter proceed with some haste. I know that those from the Farmers Mutual Group, who have been listening to and watching the Parliament for the last hour or so, will be reassured that from time to time the Parliament does agree on certain pieces of legislation and important matters; this bill is one of those.

There is no doubt that the Farmers Mutual Group has a very strong place in the lives of the farming community in New Zealand. It has a very major presence at different field days around New Zealand, and, as the Hon Steve Maharey rightly pointed out, the Farmers Mutual Group has been providing insurance to the farming community of New Zealand for more than 100 years. During that time the focus has been on providing farmers with products that are relevant to the New Zealand culture.

I am advised that the Farmers Mutual Group grew from modest beginnings. During the late 19th century when farmers became more prosperous—those were the days—and began to look for fire insurance to protect their properties, they were astonished at the prices offered by established overseas-owned insurance companies. In the best traditions of the New Zealand agricultural community they did not sit around and whine about it but rather took matters into their own hands and formed the mutual group that we are now dealing with today, as part of this bill.

I know that members of the House are keen to see this bill progress with some haste. I am delighted that the Minister has had an opportunity to speak with David Carter. The bill itself is not overly complex, but one of the things that I was keen to be reassured of was the fact that farming members of the mutual group had been given the opportunity to express their views on the matter, and the Minister rightly points out that somewhere in the vicinity of 35,000-odd letters were sent out. Farmers must have been happy with the proposals, because, as I understand it, very few responded to that initiative, and those who responded did so in a very positive way.

It is probably timely for the Companies Act to become the applicable legislation for the way this organisation runs, and for a more corporate governance and legislative model to take hold. I assure those members who have an interest in this bill that the National Party will do its part to make sure this legislation has a speedy process through this House and I re-emphasise National’s support for the bill.

Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY (Labour): As a former resident of Palmerston North now living in Auckland, it is my great pleasure—

Simon Power: It’s not too late.

Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY: Yes, indeed, I do miss Palmerston North—

Hon Member: John Cleese visited it, too.

Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY: That is right. I shall be back there this Saturday, meeting my old mates. It is a great pleasure to stand up and support the Farmers’ Mutual Group Bill, which updates the powers, authorities, and requirements of the Farmers’ Mutual Insurance Association. It will also allow for a quality service to be provided to farmers and the rural community for general insurance, risk protection, and financial services.

The bill repeals and replaces the Farmers’ Mutual Group Act 1998. It gives the association the same capacity and powers as a company incorporated under the Companies Act 1993. The group, however, retains its ongoing mutuality. It can operate only within the limited powers conferred on it under the Mutual Insurance Act of 1955. The powers the group has in the 1955 Act are outdated, which restricts its ability to compete with others in the industry. The new Act will allow the group to operate more competitively and provide a quality service.

The bill continues the present identity and existence after incorporation of Farmers’ Mutual. It provides for the continuation of existing legal and other proceedings on and after the date of incorporation, and makes it unnecessary to amend any application, notice, or other documents to continue legal and other proceedings in respect of the group. The legal effect of the contracts and other instruments made by the association prior to the date of incorporation continues after incorporation. The appointments of the directors and the auditor made before incorporation are continued under the bill subject to the terms of the bill and the constitution. The bill continues the employment of all its officers. The terms and conditions of employment of each employee must remain the same as the terms and conditions of employment immediately before the date of incorporation.

I am delighted to support this bill. In particular, I welcome the people from Palmerston North from Farmers’ Mutual who are here today listening to this debate, and I will be delighted to meet with some of them tomorrow to discuss this issue further. It is my great pleasure to be able to support this bill.

Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First): As a former teacher who spent most of his teaching career in rural schools, I am very pleased to be able to make a short contribution to the Farmers’ Mutual Group Bill. New Zealand First will be supporting the bill going to the select committee. We believe it is simply a modernisation mechanism. It is really a bit of motherhood and apple pie, so we do not think we should waste a lot of time in debating it here. Obviously, the select committee will scrutinise its detail; that is what select committees are for.

I point out that one of the things the bill does is give the association a new name. It brings the newly named entity under the Companies Act, whilst at the same time it confirms its mutuality. In doing so, it removes some of the shackles that bound the group under the 1995 Act and, subsequently, the 1998 Act.

It certainly provides us with a great deal of confidence that 35,000 members have been advised of the proposed changes. As Simon Power said, the response to that, although small, was quite positive. That certainly concurs with the experience our caucus members have had, because not one of those 35,000 members has come banging on any of our doors to say they want this bill stopped or to ask for us to vote against it. Once again, I say that New Zealand First hopes to facilitate the speedy passage of this legislation.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Primary Production Committee.

Bills

New Zealand Day Bill

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 16 May.

KEITH LOCKE (Green): The Green Party is against changing Waitangi Day to New Zealand Day, and I am glad that largely there is a consensus in the House on that. The Treaty of Waitangi is our nation’s founding document. It is important that we keep the day named after the Treaty of Waitangi. It recognises the rights of the tangata whenua, and Waitangi Day is the day we celebrate the establishment of New Zealand as a bicultural nation.

During the discussions so far on this bill, members have put forward interesting ideas about other days, such as Mātāriki, which will be celebrated soon. In fact, the Green Party is holding a social event here in Parliament to celebrate Mātāriki. We as the Green Party and others in the community are increasingly celebrating Mātāriki. Perhaps we could commemorate “Mātāriki Day”. There are other possibilities, such as a “Human Rights Day” or a “Peace Day”. I am throwing these ideas about, because New Zealand probably deserves more statutory holidays. Norway and Sweden have at least two more statutory holidays than we have, plus unofficial holidays. It is a situation whereby people have a bit more time off. It would certainly be useful in the winter period to have more holidays, which is why celebrating Mātāriki perhaps with an official holiday might be relevant.

Yesterday in Parliament we celebrated the 20th anniversary of our antinuclear legislation. The official date of signature was 8 June, which is very close to the day on which we celebrate Queen’s Birthday. Perhaps another proposal—and I am just throwing these ideas around for members’ consideration—is that we could rename Queen’s Birthday as “Peace Day” and celebrate our nuclear-free status during that week. It is true that we already celebrate Anzac Day. Of course, these days Anzac Day does have more of a peace theme than it did in the past. I think that celebrating “Peace Day” in the middle of the year rather than Queen’s Birthday would bring another dimension to our celebrations and really emphasise our role as a peacemaker in the world, as a nuclear disarmament campaigner. It might be more appropriate celebrate a “Peace Day” instead of Queen’s Birthday, because I understand that the day on which we celebrate the Queen’s birthday is not her real birthday. She is a person who lives on the other side of the world, and I think we want a celebration and a name for that celebration that better fits our own reality here in New Zealand, particularly as a nuclear-free peacemaker.

Another concept for a public holiday is to have a “Pacific Day”, because more and more now we are celebrating New Zealand as a Pacific country. There was considerable mourning in New Zealand on the occasion of the death of the Samoan head of State, His Highness Malietoa Tanumafili II.

Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

KEITH LOCKE: In the theme of Peter Dunne’s original bill, where he wants to celebrate New Zealand’s national identity with a New Zealand Day, I was just suggesting an alternative way of going about reaching his aims. That would be to have a series of statutory holidays that together reflect our national identity in quite a complementary and comprehensive way. We could stick with 6 February for Waitangi Day and add to it Mātāriki in the mid-year as a statutory holiday in order to reflect the important bicultural foundation of our national identity, based around the Treaty of Waitangi. But we could then add to that because, if some of the economic pundits are right, we are becoming more productive and all the rest of it. We can afford to have more paid national holidays, therefore, and we could catch up with some of the European countries that have more holidays than we do. I suggested that we could perhaps have a “Pacific Day” to reflect the growing Pacific Island or Pasifika dimension of our national identity.

Of course, another sector of our society that is very much part of our national identity is remembered, supposedly, on Labour Day, and we could do much more to recognise that as a day for commemorating justice for workers. I think it would also be important to recognise Suffrage Day, on 19 September. It is now widely celebrated but it could also be a national holiday to reflect that part of our national identity—New Zealand being the first country to give women the right to vote—and we would make sure that feminism is very much a part of our national day by celebrating that.

I added “Peace Day” to that list when I spoke just before. I suggest perhaps changing the name of the Queen’s Birthday holiday to “Peace Day” in order to reflect the fact that 20 years ago we became nuclear-free on 8 June, which is close to Queen’s Birthday weekend. That would be more relevant perhaps than the Queen’s Birthday, which is not even commemorated on the Queen’s real birthday. Then we could add to that—although it might have a bit of an awkward title, and there could be a better one—“Human Rights Day”, to reflect the fact that we are projecting ourselves, nationally and internationally, as a country that upholds human rights for our citizens and for other people around the world.

Together, if we add all that up, it makes quite a good description of what New Zealanders would see our national day to be. I think that this would be a very good alternative to what is being proposed in this New Zealand Day Bill. To me it would seem that to establish our nationhood and draw on the theme we were expressing yesterday in Parliament, that being a peacemaker is part of our national identity. We need to draw out all the different threads of what makes us proud to be New Zealanders. To reflect that in having a whole series of paid holidays would also extend the number of our paid holidays, and it would allow more leisure time for New Zealanders and their families, which again should be a part of our national identity. We are not the sorts of people who naturally like to work every hour of the day and be part of the rat race that is being driven by international economic globalisation. I think that the second part of reasserting our national day would be for us to have these extra holidays that together make up our national identity. Thank you.

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National): I stand to speak on the New Zealand Day Bill. I am a member—and have enjoyed being a member—of the Justice and Electoral Committee, which considered this bill. However, I rise to speak against the bill for three particular reasons.

The first reason is the timing. This is an ambitious bill, in my view. It seeks to achieve something in a cultural and social sense, ahead of a cultural and social reality of its acceptance. I think the idea is a very good one, and it is meritorious to have the bill before us and to have it being discussed, examined, and debated. I note that when the bill had its first reading, it received National Party support to be brought to the select committee. Like Katherine Rich on that occasion, I too think the idea of a New Zealand day is a great one, and I remember the two times we had New Zealand Day celebrations.

I shall never forget the pleasure I took in watching the television presentation of what is now called Norm Kirk’s New Zealand Day. I thought the pageantry was wonderful—the ships, the settlers, the missionaries, the use of Godspell music, the different nationalities arriving, and the spontaneous act of Norm Kirk holding the hands of two little children of different ethnic backgrounds. It was all wonderful. That was, though, completely in sync with the mood of the times, and I suggest that is why we had such success with those first two New Zealand Days. There is no doubting that the fact that it did not continue to be celebrated as New Zealand Day is a testament to the change in the cultural and social mood of the times. Do I share a feeling of nostalgia? Would I like to recreate that euphoric sense of nationhood that came from the New Zealand Days of that time? Of course, I would, but I do not think it would work just because I think it is a nice idea.

Naturally, I fully agree with the Hon Peter Dunne’s initial comment that contemporary New Zealand is becoming an increasingly diverse nation, culturally and ethnically. New Zealand is a modern, multicultural nation, but it is still New Zealand. We need to recognise that we are in a young, multicultural nation. That is a relatively recent development, and the opportunity to speak about this bill is a good step in the direction of encouraging dialogue between various citizens on important issues, such as whether we need to have a day on which to celebrate or reflect on the birth, I guess, of the country in its present state.

Members who spoke at the time of the first reading of this bill called for having a day as a developed nation when we can celebrate as one country the things that bring us together, not divide us, when we can have an annual holiday that all Kiwis can enjoy, and when they can think about the things that make us special as New Zealanders. I think the aspirations of the bill are meritorious; I do not think that the timing is right.

I remember having a discussion with the Rt Hon Mike Moore when he was the Minister of exports. We were in Auckland together. He had just been to a Labour Party conference in the same building, and he came along to our Export Institute meeting. Although he was not exactly fuming, he was certainly crotchety after having had quite a debate on the issue of multiculturalism versus biculturalism. He was certainly a multicultural person. I think that we would not be having a debate today on that issue to the same level of intensity as occurred then.

However, although I think that multiculturalism is an accepted reality in the cities, we still have quite a long way to go in rural communities. Living as I do on the West Coast of the South Island—part of the ever-increasingly marginal West Coast - Tasman seat—I am conscious that we are very much a Celtic people there. Naturally, we do have a certain amount of ethnic diversity, but I doubt whether it would go into double figures on a percentage of population basis. There will be other parts of the country that are similar to the West Coast. Although people everywhere are developing an acceptance of New Zealand’s multiculturalism, it is not a widespread phenomenon outside the cities as yet. One risks artificiality, therefore, in creating a celebration day, if indeed it is multiculturalism that one intends to celebrate by having a New Zealand Day.

The second reason why I oppose this bill is that it disguises the reality of Waitangi Day. I note that the bill proposes that New Zealand Day be celebrated on the day presently known as Waitangi Day—6 February. The bill then goes on to propose that in order to ensure the fullest range of commemorative celebrations can take place, and also to acknowledge the particular significance of the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi, New Zealand Day be regularised and held on the Monday of the week in which 6 February falls. At the same time the bill also intends, with the celebration of that day, to repeal the Waitangi Day Act 1976—here we go—thereby dealing in some minds something of a death blow to the whole event. We will have taken the day, called it something else, changed the date, and then repealed the initial legislation. If the purpose of this bill is to delete Waitangi Day, then that should be expressed in its title. The purpose of the bill could easily be perceived to be just that.

As National speakers have said before me, changing the label of our national day to New Zealand Day will not solve all the problems that many see in our having Waitangi Day each year. There is nothing in the explanatory note of the bill to indicate that there is any intention to disguise the reality of Waitangi Day, but that, in my view, is what would happen. However, I think that in the interests of the future of the nation, we have to sort out some of the issues to do with the Treaty of Waitangi and the debate that surrounds it. Changing the name of the day will not in itself make much difference in terms of healing any rifts; indeed, it could exacerbate them. In fact, the difficulties that people have could be made worse with the loss of the Waitangi Day celebrations.

I think we have only just started to come out of a difficult period with the Waitangi Day celebrations, and it would be a pity to lose that change in momentum. For many years I was privileged to live in Tai Tokerau, teaching agriculture at Northland College in Kaikohe. Waitangi was where we used to go for recreation. It is a sadness to me to see the day change from that celebratory function to one of protest and division, but I have to say that I regard it as evolutionary, rather than revolutionary. As an ethnic Scot who has Scottish characteristics in name, nature, and inclination, I tend to support those who feel they are suffering the consequences of domination by others. So Waitangi Day, during its protest period, seemed to me to be a clearing house for emotional and real grievances. Waitangi Day is morphing into a different way of celebration, and I think it will continue to do so.

Three years ago, in Greymouth, a place I live near, in the West Coast - Tasman electorate—the ever-increasingly marginal seat in the South Island—the local mayor, churches, and community leaders decided to have a Waitangi Day celebration. They suggested a picnic in Dixon Park. How did we get 1,500 West Coasters to come to a park on Waitangi Day?

Darren Hughes: Tell them you aren’t there.

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: No, tell them I am there. We simply offered them a free sausage and a cup of tea, and told them it was a picnic day. It was a sunny day, and 1,500 people came along. Indeed, it was a great celebration. Waitangi Day has continued to be celebrated in the same vein in the 2 years since then, and the numbers stay similarly high. I am sure it could be much the same in the rest of the country, and it very probably is. I think we have to live with Waitangi Day remaining as Waitangi Day, and celebrate the occasion in all its diverse meetings.

The third reason I oppose the bill is that I think it misses the target. It seeks somehow, in my mind, to displace the actual New Zealand day. The actual New Zealand day for me, and I think for the nation, is Anzac Day, 25 April every year. My relatives were not here in the First World War, but I had no difficulty at all this year in addressing the Anzac Day parade and service at Collingwood whilst wearing my father’s wartime medals on the right hand side of my chest. I had no difficulty in relating to the Kiwi soldiers who sacrificed everything. I had no difficulty in acknowledging that as they fell—be they Māori, European, or any other ethnic New Zealanders at the time—a nation rose. Anzac Day is New Zealand Day in my mind. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First): I do apologise but when the House last debated this bill so many weeks ago, I had just started my call. I think I had spoken for a few seconds, and I have 9-plus minutes left. I seek the leave of the House to continue my contribution—if not at this particular time, then at some later time.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): Leave is sought for that. Is there any objection? There is not.

PETER BROWN: Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker, and I thank my colleagues. I have to say that New Zealand First will not be supporting this New Zealand Day Bill. We question the need for a New Zealand Day. We have Waitangi Day and Anzac Day, and if we want a New Zealand Day, then maybe we should consider a separate new statutory holiday.

But I ask with some sincerity, why would we call anything after New Zealand at all? We have had the debacle of this contractor walking into a person’s house, saying: “I am just doing my job.”, and switching off the power. That makes me feel ashamed of New Zealand.

If anybody saw Close Up tonight and thought it showed an event that New Zealanders should be proud of, then I say we should hang our heads in shame. If members have not seen Close Up I will inform the House as to what was announced today. The Sunday News did an article. It made an agreement with a relatively young lady—young lady, when she is compared to someone my age—who had an involvement with a certain Brad Shipton some years ago. She divulged this information with videotapes, on a confidential basis and on the basis that she would not be named.

But what did the Weekend Herald and the Herald on Sunday do? They tracked her down and sent intimidating emails to her—threatening emails, in my view—that if she did not come clean and name herself, they would name her and publish everything about her. They did exactly that. On Close Up tonight it was divulged that she took her own life.

My God! What are we doing in this country? Why would we want to name anything after New Zealand when that is the way we operate?

What happened? Mark Sainsbury called for the editor and the reporter to front up, on the programme, and say why they did that and why they issued those emails. They did not come. Somebody told me that their parents were not married, and I believe that. I just say to these bastards: “Front up.”

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): The member cannot use that word.

PETER BROWN: If one’s parents are not married, that person is in fact a bastard.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): No, the member should withdraw that remark. It is not orderly.

PETER BROWN: I withdraw that remark, but I have to say I am incensed by this matter. This is not what this country is about.

We understand there has to be a competitive environment in the media. We understand the media has to search for stories. But to send what can only be termed intimidating emails to a person, saying that if he or she does not front up that person will be named and shamed, or whatever, regardless, is an absolute disgrace.

It sickens me that there is nothing in Parliament that I can think of that we can do about it; nothing at all. We have to tolerate it. I have heard MP after MP moan and groan about the media. It is not every MP, but many MPs do that. I have had some questionable—I was going to say awful—experiences myself. But this puts everything else to shame.

I say to the editor of the Weekend Herald and the Herald on Sunday—whoever published these articles without the permission of Debbie Gerbich—to front up and tell us why. The media should tell this country why they are operating in that sort of vein.

I have come to the stage right now where I would not name anything after this country. I certainly would not have a New Zealand Day. In fact, it is crossing my mind whether I should approach my colleagues and ask whether we should change the name of New Zealand First.

Russell Fairbrother: Waitangi First

PETER BROWN: Well, there we are. There is an option. What about Aotearoa First? There are other options. But that would take some effort on my part, and I do not want to lighten my contribution to this debate tonight. I am simply saying to the House, as sincerely as I can, that this is not acceptable.

I saw Debbie Gerbich’s partner, Bill, on TV—I did not catch his surname—and my heart goes out to him and to her family. This should not have occurred. This makes me ashamed of this country, and I say that with a very heavy heart, because I have been a proud New Zealander for as long as I have been here, and even before I came here I thought it was a magnificent country.

Tariana Turia: It still is.

PETER BROWN: It is not everybody; I take the point the member makes. But the publicity of this sort of thing casts aspersions on the image that we are all trying to make. I know there are some very, very decent New Zealanders and I do not want in any way to imply that there are not. The media in this country have a lot to answer for, and this is another sad episode.

I do not think I can say any more. I have expressed my disgust and my upset. I could not, in all sincerity, name a day after New Zealand, with the way I feel tonight. I hope my colleagues can be acquainted with the facts of that programme shown last night. I hope they see it on video. I hope that all MPs, if they have not seen that Close Up programme, do look at it. They can get it through the Parliamentary Library service. It is worth looking at. It is a darned good programme, and it illustrated to me in very real terms how low the media will go in this country to get a story.

I thank my colleagues for allowing me that contribution. I guess they did not expect me to come out with such an issue, but it is an issue that I think should be aired in this place. I think it is appropriate that I say to the House that, with the way I feel in particular, I could not name a day after New Zealand right now. I am very happy to stick with Waitangi Day. Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker.

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki): Tēna koe, Madam Assistant Speaker. Kia ora tātou katoa. Kia ora tātou i tēnei pō. Kei te rongo i te tangi o tēnei tū i mua i a au. Hoi anō ko tāku i te tuatahi me mihi ki a ia mō te wairua o tana kōrero.

Ka huri ki te kaupapa i tēnei pō, me pēnei rawa te kōrero, kua hoki ōku mahara ki te tau 1974 ki te tuaono o Hui-tanguru. Koia nei te wā, i tū ai a Waitangi hei wā whakatā ā-motu. Hei whakanui i te āhuatanga o taua wā, i hara mai a Kuini Irihāpeti te Tuarua mō te wā tuatahi. I te tau 1974 i haere ētahi o taku iwi o Ngāti Rangiwewehi me ētahi atu kāhui kapa haka toa e whitu i te hui a Matatini i tēnei tau tonu nei ki te marae o Waitangi mō tētahi kaupapa nui. Ko Aotearoa tērā. I muri mai o taua hui i puta te kōrero a te Kuini, ā, koia nei tana kōrero:

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

[Greetings to us this evening. I hear the lament of the member who spoke before me, so the first thing for me to do is to acknowledge the spirit of his address.

I turn to this evening’s matter by saying that I was thinking back to 1974 when 6 February became a national holiday, and, in recognition of the significance of that time, Queen Elizabeth II attended her first Waitangi Day ceremony. In 1974, members of my people, Ngāti Rangiwewehi, along with the other top seven teams at the most recent Polynesian Festival, joined together to present the pageant, Aotearoa, at te Tiriti o Waitangi marae. Speaking after the event, the Queen said:] “Waitangi will always remain an honoured name in New Zealand’s history. The Treaty signed on this spot in 1840 between Māori and Pākehā was based on compromise and tolerance and has set the keynote for this country’s development.”

Nā, he kōrero akiaki tonu tērā hei whakaoho i a tātou ki te āhuatanga whakahirahira rawa o te Tiriti o Waitangi hei kupu tīmatanga mai ka mutu, he kirimana ā-noho tonu, he kupu ā-noho tahi me te Karauna. Inā kē tōna whakahirahira, he oati ā-noho tonu, kāore i kō atu, kāore i kō mai. I tēnei rangi, anei tētahi pire hei whakararuraru i taua kupu pūmau nei. He pire tēnei ka tīni haere nei i ngā kōrero o nehe, ko tā koutou, ko tāku. Ko tōna pūtake kia riro te ingoa o Waitangi i a New Zealand Day kē, nā, ka memeha noa te tino hōhonutanga o te Tiriti o Waitangi. Kāore te iwi Māori i tuku i ō rātou waituhi, moko rānei ki te Tiriti o Niu Tīreni. Ehara i te mea ko te pūtake o te pire nei he whakatau i tētahi rangi hōu. Kāo! Ko tāna he whakakore i te Pire Waitangi Day Act 1976, mā reira, ka whakakore nei i tētahi wā whakanui i te Rā o Waitangi!

Kei hea kē mai te mutunga mai? Tērā pea, ka puta he pire hei tango mai i te Tiriti tonu i te National Archives. He pire pea hei neke i te Whare i Waitangi ki wāhi kē, hei aukati i te haere o te tangata ki te papa o Waitangi, tērā pea, ki te whakakore i a Waitangi mutu tonu atu. Ko te pūtake tonu o te Tiriti o Waitangi, ko te noho o te Māori me te Karauna. Kei tōna taumata, he hiahia nō te motu ki te whakanui i ō tātou kōrero o nehe, tō tātou tīmatanga mai, Māori mai, tauiwi mai. Me kaua tātou e noho whakakeke ki tērā i tūmanakohia e ō tātou tūpuna mō ēnei rangi, mō ngā rā o āpōpō.

I tēnei wā i te Whare nei, koia nei kei te pūtake o tēnei pire. He mea whakaparahako, he mea whakahāwea tonu i te tino hōhonutanga o te Rā o Waitangi. He take tēnei e whai haeretia e ētahi o tēnei Whare. Ko tā rātou, ko te whakaiti i te wāhanga o te Tiriti, otirā, ōna kōrero katoa. Nā, kia mōhio mai koutou, e kore, kore rawa mātou o te Rōpū Māori e whakaae ki tērā. He rā hokinga ō mahara, he rā whakanui i te Rā o Waitangi. Ko te whakakorenga o te Pire te Rā o Waitangi, he mea whakaiti nei i te haerenga whakamua o te motu i a tātou e whai nei i te huarahi o te noho tahi i raro i te kotahitanga ā-motu.

Nā, i āta titiro au ki ngā kupu a Pīhopa Jean Baptiste Pomaparie. Koia tētahi i kaha pakanga nei kia mau tonu te mana o te Tiriti o Waitangi ki tōna taumata. I mau kaha nei a ia ki te whakaaro nei, mā te Tiriti ka tiakina paitia te ao Māori. Anei tāna:

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

[With that, the nation was reminded of the honour in recognising Te Tiriti o Waitangi as our foundation document, our commitment to a developing social contract, a partnership with the Crown. It was a doctrine of the utmost importance, a solemn promise of nationhood. Today, we have a bill that threatens that promise. This bill threatens to rewrite our history, yours and mine. It threatens to rename Waitangi Day as New Zealand Day, thereby taking out the very significance of our founding document. We did not sign up to “te Tiriti o Niu Tīreni”. But what is worse, this bill does not just aim to invent a new day. It also plans to get rid of the Waitangi Day Act 1976, therefore removing any separate celebration of Waitangi Day.

Whatever will be next—a bill to remove te Tiriti o Waitangi from National Archives? A bill to remove the Waitangi Treaty House, close down Waitangi grounds, obliterate Waitangi itself from the map? The Treaty of Waitangi is absolutely quintessential to the partnership of Māori and Crown. It symbolises our quest for nationhood; it recognises our history, our cultural heritage. We must never shirk from our responsibility to uphold the promise that was anticipated when our ancestors signed up to a future.

At this time in this House we are debating legislation that seeks to undermine the historical, cultural, and social importance of Waitangi Day. The undermining of the role and history of te Tiriti o Waitangi is being pursued by members of this House. And we, the Māori Party, will never agree to that. Waitangi Day is a day of commemoration, a day of reflection, a day of celebration. Repealing the Waitangi Day Act will therefore diminish the amazing progress that we have made as a nation towards recognising the importance of national unity.

I was interested in thinking about the words of Bishop Jean Baptiste Pompallier, who was a key player in upholding the mana of te Tiriti o Waitangi. His legacy was the gift of faith, the belief that the Treaty of Waitangi guaranteed free and equal protection to Māori. As he said:] “According to the New Zealanders,”—by which he meant Māori—“New Zealand is like a ship that they own. All they have asked the British to do is to help sail it.”

Nā, i a tātou e mātakitaki nei i te pouaka whakaata mō te whakataetae Ipu o Amerika, tērā pea kei reira tētahi tauira. Tērā pea he waka tonu a Aotearoa, ā, ko te mana o runga kei te tangata whenua. Nā, ko te tino ngako o tērā whakaaro, arā, ko te noho tahi o te Māori me te Karauna, ko te tūmanako tonu kia tiaki pai a Ingarangi i te waka nei kia haere ai i tōna haere, mā reira ka whakairohia tō tātou tuakiri, tō tātou hanga ā-motu. Mēnā ka puta he raru ā-mānukanuka, ā-aha ranei, he ngaru nui nei kei mua i te waka, ehara i te mea me tuku i te waka ki ngā toka o te moana. Ko te huarahi kē, ko te whakapounamu i te moana, kia tere te kārohiroi. Koi nā te kōrero mai a te Haahi Tūhauwiri, Aotearoa New Zealand Religious Society of Friends. I whakamārama rātou i ngā mahi tinihanga a te Karauna i ngā rā o mua, i ēnei rā tonu nei, ahakoa ko te Tiriti o Waitangi. Ko tā rātou, kia kaua rawa e whakakore i te Waitangi Day Act, kia kaua hoki e whakakore i te Tiriti. Ko tā tātou, ko te whakatika i te hononga me ngā hapū, ngā iwi. Ko tā rātou, he hiahia ki te whakanui i te hainatanga o te Tiriti me te āhuatanga o te noho tahi, tētahi ki tētahi, Pākehā ki te Māori, Māori ki te Pākehā.

Waihotia te waka ki te haere i tāna haere. Koi nā te pūtake o te tono a Treaty Tribes Coalition me ōna kaihoe e 110,000. Hei tā rātou, he hē tonu te tīmatanga mai o te pire i a ia e mea ana ka taea te tahitahi ngā hiahia, raruraru rānei o te ao Māori ki raro i te whāriki, mō te ingoa hōu. Hei tā rātou anō, ko te mate kē o tō tātou kirimana ā-noho tahi nei, he kore mārama nōna ki te mana o te Tiriti i waenganui i a tātou. Ko tā rātou, kia kaua e waiho i ngā kōrero mō te Tiriti hei kupu kōrero noa iho engari, me whakatinana ki tōna tūturutanga. Ko te tango mai i te Tiriti i te rātaka o te motu he hokinga whakamuri i a tātou e rapu nei i te noho tahitanga o te motu e wawatatia nei e tātou. Pēnei i te Religious Society, ko tā rātou kia whai hua te Rā o Waitangi hei tauira mō tō tātou noho tahitanga, me kimi i tētahi huarahi kia puta ngā āwangawanga, ngā mānukanuka rānei, arā, kia wānanga i ngā momo whakaaro a tēnā, a tēnā.

Ko te tuhinga tuatoru e hiahia nei au kia kōrerohia, ko tērā i puta i te Taura Whiri i te Reo Māori. Hei tā rātou, ko te whakaingoa tuaruahia e pīrangitia nei, ehara i te mea he mea whakapōrearea i te hīkoi nei ki te biculturalism i tōna kotahi engari, anei kē tāna:

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

[As New Zealanders are glued to their television sets, watching the adventure on the high seas played out with the America’s Cup, I am interested in the analogy of Aotearoa as a ship that tangata whenua own. This concept of a partnership between Māori and the Crown, the expectation that the British would help this great vessel to sail, is integral to shaping our identity and image as a nation. If controversy has arisen, if the ship is facing tumultuous waves of discontent, the solution is not to embark on a shipwreck. The solution lies in smoothing the way ahead, as the submission from Te Haahi Tūhauwiri, the Aotearoa New Zealand Religious Society of Friends, pointed out. Their submission detailed the way in which the Crown has acted in the past, and continues to act in various ways in breach of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. The recommendation, however, was not to repeal the Waitangi Day Act, or to get rid of the Treaty. The submission promoted action to repair the relationship with hapū and iwi. The Religious Society also gave voice to the desire to celebrate, as well as commemorate, the signing of te Tiriti o Waitangi, by building a just partnership between Pākehā and Māori.

Steadying the ship was also the focus of the submission from the Treaty Tribes Coalition, a not insignificant coalition of some 110,000 members. The Treaty Tribes Coalition also believed that the bill starts at an entirely erroneous point by implying that Māori concerns over the Treaty can be swept under the carpet through a superficial name change. The coalition advised that the greatest shortcoming of our present constitutional arrangements is the failure to fully recognise the fundamental significance of the Treaty. Rather than our paying lip service to the Treaty, the Treaty must be given full constitutional effect. To remove the Treaty from our national calendar can only be seen as a backward leap in the journey towards nationhood. Like the Religious Society, they also suggested that the answer to making Waitangi Day a positive opportunity to celebrate our nationhood would come through providing constructive outlets for frustration and diverse viewpoints.

A third submission I want to highlight is that from te Taura Whiri i te Reo Māori. The Māori Language Commission stated that the proposed renaming would not only undermine any tentative steps towards biculturalism, but also:] “It would marginalise the use, recognition, and value of Māori language, culture, and recall of significant historical events.”

Nā, ko tā te Taura Whiri e kī ai, he tohu tonu te Rā o Waitangi mō te ora o te noho tahi o te ao Pākehā me te ao Māori. Ki te whakarere kē tonu i te ingoa hei tā rātou, he hokinga whakamuri i runga i te āhuatanga o tō tātou nohotahi.

Arā noa atu ngā tono i tae atu ki te Komiti Whaiti ā-Ture, ā, i te pūtake o tēnā, o tēnā, he anipā nui nei mō te whakaaro ki te tīni i te ingoa o te Rā o Waitangi. Kei te mārama tonu au, arā, te rārangi kōrero i puta i tēnei tau i kī, e 72 ō-rau o te Māori e whakaaro nei, ko ngā take ā-Tiriti he take whakaharahara i mua tonu o ngā take mātauranga, take hauora, take ture, he aha atu, he aha atu. Hoi anō, ko tā mātou o Te Pāti Māori, ko te whakarite i tētahi pire ā-mema nei, arā, mō te Ra o Matariki. Ko tā mātou e kī nei, me kimi tātou i ngā huarahi ki te ako, ki te tuku i ō taua tikanga, ao rānei ki ētahi atu, ā, me whakamātautau anō hoki tātou i a tātou anō mō ngā tikanga o ia iwi Māori mai, Pākehā mai. Me “Whakakotahi nei Tātou i a Tātou anō” ki te whakatau i te āhuatanga o te motu nei kia hui nei ngā tāngata katoa o Aotearoa ki te wānanga i ō tātou “rere kētanga ā-tikanga, ōritenga rānei”.

E hia kē nei ngā wā, kua kōrero Te Pāti Māori mō te Tiriti o Waitangi me ōna kōrero engari, kei tua noa atu ēnei whakaaro ki ērā o ngā kaitautoko o tēnei pire. Ko tāku, ko te akiaki i ngā mema Māori o tēnei Whare, ka mutu, ko nga rōpū katoa kia pana i tēnei pire ki tua o tāwauwau. Mā te whakakore i tēnei pire ka whakahēngia ngā mea e ngākaunuitia ana e ngāi Māori, ka kaha rānei te whakawhiu i a Māori – otirā, te whakawehe i a tātou katoa mō te koretake noa iho. Tū whakahīhī ana mātou Te Pāti Māori i tō mātou kaha whakahē i tēnei pire nā te hiahia o ētahi ki te whakakore i Te Waitangi Day Act. Kia ora tātou.

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

[The submission from Te Taura Whiri concluded that Waitangi Day symbolises and reflects the health of the relationship between European and Māori culture. It said that to change the name would be a retrograde step in all of our relationships as New Zealanders.

The Justice and Electoral Select Committee received many more such submissions, each outlining the intense concern that New Zealanders had in the proposal to rename Waitangi Day. And I am mindful of a poll held earlier this year, in which 72 percent of Māori polled considered Treaty issues the most urgent matter to be dealt with, far above education, health, justice, and so on. And it is in this light that we, the Māori Party, have been preparing a member’s bill to introduce the Matariki Day. We believe we need to create opportunities where we can not only learn and share our cultures but also challenge our perceptions and prejudices about each other’s cultures. We need to come to a common ground, in assessing the health of the “state of the nation”; to bring all New Zealanders together to debate the “cultural divide”.

The Māori Party has spoken often about the importance of te Tiriti o Waitangi but it appears its importance to Māori is still far from understood by the supporters of this bill. I urge Maori members of this House, and indeed all parties, to vote against this bill. Negating issues of major concern to Māori will almost certainly result in a strong Māori backlash—dividing us all, unnecessarily, once again. The Māori Party is proud to record its vote against this bill to repeal the Waitangi Day Act. Greetings to us all.]

RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour): It is indeed a privilege to follow the last speaker on this topic. I must say that to me it is probably one of the most important topics we can debate in this House, and I reflect back on the select committee process and the failure of Pākehā to engage in the debate that this bill invited during that process. As I recall, the Justice and Electoral Committee received about 22 submissions, most of which opposed the bill, but there was no serious engagement by those who supported the “one law for all” concept and mantra of previous days, whereby they could try to engage on the issues and address what it is like to be Pākehā coming to terms with a bicultural community. I would have thought this bill would give an opportunity to build on the work of the Constitutional Arrangements Committee of the last Parliament, which touched briefly on the bicultural elements of this country as it looked at the constitutional arrangements that existed as at 2005. The failure of the debate was not because of the failure of tangata whenua to get its head around the argument. The failure of the debate at the select committee was simply because one side did not show up with any reasoned argument or analysis.

I respect entirely the position of the last speaker on this bill, and I respect his efforts—in fact, his success—at tackling some of the key issues. I also reflect on the words of Peter Brown, who preceded that speaker. He raised an interesting question indirectly, when he stated that right then he was not proud to be a New Zealander and gave his reasons, on an emotional basis, for that. What he was really asking about, and what this debate is really about, is the question of who we are as a people. Who are we as a country? What is our ontology? What does it mean to us to be New Zealanders? What does it mean to us to be a country that has an active indigenous culture, an active indigenous society, and a proud history in relation to the country’s indigenous people? What is the difference between multiculturalism and biculturalism? What is wrong with the concept of one law for all? These are the questions of this debate that I hope will be tackled during the speeches tonight.

To me, Waitangi Day is more than a name. Sure, it is a name. It is a name, of course, and it is an important name. But we go to museums not to look at the pure beauty of the works of art, the taonga, and the symbols displayed; we go to museums, whether in New Zealand or around the world, to look at statues that have been dug up in Egypt or taonga that have been rescued in New Zealand, and to take ourselves back to the time when those objects were created. We try to imagine what the world was like then, and what the experiences were of those creating those taonga and those objets d’art. We hang paintings on our walls—paintings that are important to us not merely because of their colour and their prettiness but because they mean something important to us. They are symbols of who we are as individuals.

To my mind, the name “Waitangi Day” is entirely that. To use the term “Waitangi Day” is to name more than a holiday; it is to represent the history of this country, and the reaction and failure of many of us to engage in it from our perspective. There is still an absence of debate by Pākehā in this country on what it means to live in a bicultural country. In the main I think that is understandable, because we as Pākehā tend to see the world entirely from our perspective. We think that everybody in New Zealand should be able to live in the way we as Pākehā see it. We have that privilege because we are the vast majority in number. We control the levers of power. We operate in the institutions of finance and commerce, and we participate in the global market as if it were our own playground. We ignore entirely the damage done to those in our community who do not share in the joys of the global market—those in our community whose relationship with the land is more than a John Lockean, possessory, ownership thing, those who do not see that adding their labour to a common material gives them the right of ownership.

As I as Pākehā struggle with my concept and try to understand taha Māori, I find that I try not to see it through Māori eyes because I can never do that. When I try to imagine myself speaking te reo or speaking on the paepae, I remind myself of those early photographs of New Zealanders and of Māori who wore top hats and jackets, and ties sometimes, and who had full-face moko. Often they were queuing up outside the Native Land Court, which is even more tragic, and I think they were people who were trying to live like the increasingly dominant culture, but they just did not get it right. When I endeavour to speak te reo and when I go on to a marae, I feel just like one of those images. I can acquire some of the trappings but it is not me—it is not my lifestyle, it is not my ontology. My ontology is Pākehā, but I struggle to understand what it means to be a Pākehā as I struggle to understand what the impact of the indigenous culture of this land is on this land. It is a struggle that will have no end—and it should have no end—and that is why I am not fearful of the dissent and the aggravation attached to Waitangi Day.

Throughout the last 7 years in Hawke’s Bay, at the Clive River, Waitangi Day has been celebrated by Ngāti Kahungunu in an increasingly flamboyant and popular way. In the first year when it started it was really a parade of waka and a small amount of activity right along the edge of the river. These days the activity fills the whole of Farndon Park. I think I have attended every Waitangi Day celebration at that river, except for the time I went through to Waitangi itself in about, I think, 2003, the year the Prime Minister was roundly abused by Hone Harawira in the meeting house—in the wharenui—at Waitangi itself.

The press of people there and the risk of violence were great and intense, but I do not think that that was a bad thing. Sure, it was bruising; sure, it was insulting to the Prime Minister; and, sure, she felt humiliated and threatened—I respect that entirely—but it is important to articulate the aggravation behind that. The messages it contained are important for all of us as New Zealanders to understand. If we dismiss that protest as being an inconvenience that we should remove by changing the day, then we are holding ourselves back in developing as New Zealanders.

That takes me to Peter Brown’s speech, when he asked what it means to be a New Zealander when our media, for the sake of selling a few more newspapers, can take such a cruel and heartless approach to a woman recently deceased. The question that this debate is all about is what does it mean to be a New Zealander.

I as a Pākehā cannot tell Māori how they should live their lives from their perception of the world. It is a strange fact that the indigenous people of the world are not just Māori. There are indigenous people in almost every continent, in every country. Indigenous people are discovering that their boundaries often cross nationalities, because the boundaries of countries have been created by political powers that often ignore the ontological histories of indigenous people.

But all indigenous tribes are struggling with the concept of autonomy. To be autonomous within a country is not to be rebellious. If we are going to give expression to our indigenous people in New Zealand, we must have regard to arguments for autonomy. Sure, our Local Government Act and our Resource Management Act provide some provisions for it, but to be autonomous is not to be disruptive. To be autonomous is not the same thing for everybody in every region, and we do not need to have just one model of autonomy. In some instances autonomy will be expansive; in other instances it will be more closely aligned to the area, the hapū, and the people to whom it relates.

Surely the role of Government is to deal with matters of State and matters on the international scene. With that role there is room for the development of autonomous rights that are related to the cultural and inherent essence of being a New Zealander. Of course, it is a bicultural country because we have tangata whenua and tangata tiriti. I like that expression—I think it came from Sir Hugh Kāwharu—and the breakdown into those two concepts. I am tangata tiriti because my forbears are here by right of the Treaty.

I do not regard the Treaty as a partnership; I regard it as an expression of two people endeavouring to live together. If we talk about partnership, we talk about the dominance of one and negotiation on equal terms. Sometimes one of the cultures in this country is not equal. Sometimes the power rests with one, and at other times the power rests with the other.

We saw that in the debate at the select committee, as I said at the start of this speech. Generally, Pākehā do not front on that debate. Even with this opportunity, brought forward by Peter Dunne in a bill that I could never support—although it was supported by our party through the first reading—the debate has never taken off, because Pākehā, my culture, have refused to engage. Most of us cannot get past the one-liners of “One law for all”, “Iwi/Kiwi” and expressions like that. They sound funny and clever, but at the end of the day they have a cynical undertone that diminishes the mana and status of one group in the debate.

So we as Pākehā failed at the select committee by not bringing in a reasoned argument as to why we should not continue with Waitangi Day. We are still left with it as a symbolic day—which is a term I do not necessarily like—a day that means to all New Zealanders that this is a country that is unique, and that to be New Zealanders is to be people who cannot live anywhere else in the world, whether our skins be white, yellow, or brown. That is because in being New Zealanders we have an indigenous culture that is part of us as Pākehā, just as to be the indigenous people is to be part of the Pākehā world, as well. It is how we manage that that is the issue in this debate.

NICKY WAGNER (National): I rise to speak to the New Zealand Day Bill. As we know, the bill seeks to change the name of Waitangi Day to New Zealand Day. This is not the first time that politicians have argued over the name. Our national day has had a very interesting history.

In the 1950s and the 1970s it was frequently suggested that provincial anniversary days, such as Auckland Anniversary Day and Canterbury Show Day should be abolished as the provinces had not existed for many decades. At the same time Māori, particularly Ngāpuhi, had been campaigning for Waitangi Day to be a public holiday, in recognition of the Treaty of Waitangi. The promise of a new public holiday was part of Labour’s 1957 election manifesto. When Labour was subsequently elected, it decided that New Zealand could not afford another public holiday.

The subsequent Waitangi Day Act was a sham. It was a compromise that allowed Labour to claim that it had kept its promise, but without actually creating a holiday. The Act established that 6 February would be known as Waitangi Day and “shall be observed throughout New Zealand as a national day of thanksgiving in commemoration of the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi”. But people did not get the day off. It was not a public holiday. However, the Act did allow the Governor-General to declare Waitangi Day as a public holiday in any region, as a substitute for the region’s anniversary public day. So, yes, one could choose to have a Waitangi Day, instead of, say, Auckland Anniversary Day or Canterbury Show Day—

Hon Brian Donnelly: We used to in Northland.

NICKY WAGNER: —and Northland did just that, but there was no new day off.

Not surprisingly, people were generally disappointed by the Act, and they continued to press for another day off. When one reads Hansard, one will see that the National Party, in Opposition, spent most of the debate on the Act berating the Labour Government for breaking its promises. Has anything changed?

It was in 1973 under Norman Kirk that, finally, the New Zealand Day Act was passed. It did make 6 February a public holiday and Kiwis really did get their day off. But that day was renamed New Zealand Day, and at the same time the first Waitangi Day Act of 1960 was abolished. Many people were disappointed again. They felt that the new name drew attention away from the Treaty of Waitangi, and they campaigned to change the name back again.

It was with the change of Government in 1975 that the new National Government passed the second Waitangi Day Act in 1976, which changed the name back to Waitangi Day. It also gave Northland its own anniversary day back, and included an English and a Māori language version of the Treaty of Waitangi in its schedule.

So this legislation is Groundhog Day—another attempt to extend the focus of the day beyond a celebration of the Treaty of Waitangi. The explanatory note to the bill states that it seeks: “a designated day to which all sectors of our society feel able to contribute.” I agree with that, and most submitters did too, but few felt that just changing the name would achieve that. Many felt that discarding the name Waitangi Day would be disparaging to the Treaty and what it stood for. It would be divisive and increase social conflict, rather than enhancing New Zealand’s identity. There is a strong belief that as the Treaty is the founding document of the modern-day Aotearoa New Zealand, it is appropriate to have Waitangi Day as the name of our national day. Others wanted to induce yet another new holiday, and helpfully suggested that it should be in the holiday drought between Queen’s Birthday and Labour Day.

Although there was some concern that the day has often been marred by conflict and tension, most Kiwis can appreciate the importance of the Treaty to our country, and, equally, the importance of free speech, so that the often tense incidents on this day are all a part of giving every Kiwi a fair go. My favourite quote is from Neville Robertson from Hamilton, who ended his submission with the statement: “I want to commemorate our national day in a way which is honest, robust, brave and generous. This bill reflects none of those qualities.” I and the National Party agree with him.

DARREN HUGHES (Junior Whip—Labour): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I noticed my colleague Shane Jones attempting to make a call from an Opposition bench, which I am pretty sure is out of order, and that if he were to return to the Government side, he would be entitled to seek a call—would that be correct?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): Yes.

SHANE JONES (Labour): With references like that, it will not only be the member’s hair that is red by the end of this evening.

Tēnā nō tātou katoa. I stand to endorse the remarks made in what I think was a great speech from my colleague Mr Fairbrother. It referred to this ill-conceived attempt to cast us adrift from the day, and from the foundation document, that enables all New Zealanders to trace their roots to a point of shared history.

Along with Te Ururoa Flavell, I remember how little we were actually taught, in terms of the interaction of the races and the pressures and forces that were visited upon our Māori tribes at the point at which the Treaty was signed. Then we came forward during the 1970s. There was the nascent period where there were stirrings with Dame Whina Cooper, supported by various small groups, including one, Ngāti Wai land retention committee, which was advised by Winston Peters as a young lawyer. Then it followed through to various parts of Aotearoa, to the point where Māoridom itself was of a single voice—that we should stand and that we should endorse and claim a day with the right name that reminded us of our distinctive origins.

So to see this bill—misjudged, in my view—disappear is a very happy day. Not only should we be seeing in this bill the closing of a chapter, where people see our national day and the story of the Treaty just as a tale of discord; we should also be looking into the future, and, as more and more people, generation after generation, claim this country as their home for their children and their mokopunas—despite the best efforts of John Key to chase everyone to Australia—they too will find in the institution of the Treaty, and in the culture surrounding both the Crown and the original Māori tribes that conceived the Treaty, a platform and a great kaupapa to forge and fashion our future identity. That is why this notion of calling Waitangi Day “Niu Tirani Day”—and I am also told that “New Zealand” itself may have been poorly spelt at the beginning—

Hon Brian Donnelly: That’s what’s in the Treaty, though, Shane.

SHANE JONES: No, Niu Tirani is also a transliteration that is reflective of the imbalance of power at that period in our colonial history. I actually prefer—

Hon Brian Donnelly: But it’s in the Treaty.

SHANE JONES: That is quite true, but history is not fossilised. History is dynamic. The future moves. It is like that Māori proverb: ka riro he au heke, e kore e hoki ki tōna mātāpuna anō—the flowing current never returns to its source. It is in the movement and in the spirit of progress. So Aotearoa is a better name, despite the attempts of Ngāi Tahu to claim Waipounamu as a name to cover the entire nation. Unfortunately, they need to focus a little bit more on the water problems around Canterbury before they lecture us northerners on what the right Māori name for Aotearoa is.

But we did support this bill going to the select committee, and we stand very happily tonight, along with Russell, to say that the bill has served its short but uneventful life, and that we ought to look forward to contributing ideas to a larger constitutional debate. Russell Fairbrother drew on the work that had already taken place, but these things are organic. They cannot be just rammed down society’s collective throat; it takes a while for ideas of ownership to take root, and for people to feel confident and reassured that our overall system can change.

Of course, we cannot borrow the recipe of Tariana Turia and others who, with a snap of a finger, want to create something akin to Czechoslovakia, in terms of having two States. That will never work. That is far too expensive and divisive. What we need is something that reflects a fusion—a melding, a whakakotahitanga, a coming together. That lies for the future, and it will never come to pass while we allow bills of this nature to gather pace, driven by fear and ignorance. The sooner we see an end to that, the better for Aotearoa. Kia ora tātou.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Immigration): I rise to oppose the New Zealand Day Bill. The first time I visited the Waitangi Treaty site, Te Tii Marae, I had one of those experiences that I will never forget—the feeling of goose bumps up my spine, as I knew that I stood in the place where our modern nation was founded. I want to discuss several reasons why I think that uniqueness is more important now than at any stage in our past, and why I believe the retention of Waitangi Day is one small element of our moving forward to a shared future, rather than backwards to one that does not truly honour our collective past.

Sadly, the “British conquest” of New Zealand—

Tariana Turia: They didn’t conquer us; they did not.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: —in quotation marks, I tell my learned colleague—was unique in the sense that at its best it was not a conquest; it was an understanding that developed between two peoples. That distinguishes it from the experiences of European settlement in Australia, in Canada, in the United States, and in many other Anglo-European societies we would sometimes compare ourselves with. That Treaty, signed at the place Waitangi, embeds some of the highest ideals of our nationhood. It is important that we continue to celebrate it.

Why is that unique identity more important now than perhaps at any other time? Firstly, it is because we live in an age where people are more mobile around the planet than at any previous time in human history. Our population as a consequence is more diverse. My learned colleague Mr Fairbrother, agreed with by Mr Jones, said we need to understand better the differences and overlaps between biculturalism and multiculturalism—and so we do. But it has to be, however we describe it, a positive kind of blend, and one that honours the founding identity and the unifying myths, history, and constitutions of this unique place called New Zealand. As our community becomes more diverse, those unifying myths and histories become even more important.

Secondly, we face now, as at no other time in our history, new and powerful challenges to our very sovereignty. I heard yesterday that 92 percent of the Internet traffic by New Zealanders is to offshore sites. Of the 8 percent of New Zealand traffic, half of it is to TradeMe. Another quarter is utilities and banks, so only 2 percent of the Internet sites that New Zealanders visit are ‘endemic’ or ‘creative’ sites in New Zealand. Therefore, almost nothing that our young people see on the Internet is endemic. We live in a global “McDonald’s” cyberspace, and we will lose our very identity unless we are very clear what it is, and unless we fight to retain and develop it.

In addition, our economy faces waves of global capital and, currently, waves of Australian private equity, buying up every company that is not literally bolted down, an agricultural cooperative, or a State-owned enterprise. There are not many left, actually—

Shane Jones: And John Key wants to sell everything.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: —and John Key wants to sell what is left. He wants to have tradable shares in Fonterra, and he wants to flog off State-owned enterprises—goodbye economic sovereignty! Unless we are very careful, we will be hollowed out by the winds of capitalism. Therefore, it is even more important that our cultural identity is robust and secure.

The third reason why I think it is essential that we not only retain but build on our Waitangi heritage is that it represents for many New Zealanders the highest ideals of our shared history. We call to it, not to the Land Wars, when we remember our past, because we want to honour a deep sense of partnership and justice, not because we want to honour or perpetuate raupatu. We want to restore justice, we want to heal hurt, we want to move forward together, and te Tiriti gives us a basis for doing that. For all its imperfections, for all the differences in translation and understanding, for all the conflicts that have surrounded it since, the essence of Waitangi is that it calls to the highest angels of our nature. It calls us on to a better future.

So those are three reasons why we must not only retain but build on Waitangi. Firstly, it represents a unique part of history. Secondly, now more than ever before, we need to maintain that uniqueness in the face of unprecedented globalisation; and, thirdly, it calls to the higher angels of our nature and our sense of innate justice.

When I visited Te Tii and Waitangi that first time, I imagined that it might be the site—on the 200th anniversary of the signing of the Treaty, in 2040—of the declaration of our republic. For me, the final reason why we need to go forward is that New Zealand’s future has got to be constitutionally unique. It does not make sense for us always to think of ourselves as a British dominion. Sure, we will always be a Commonwealth country, but does it make sense for us to be a British dominion? Or are we a truly independent and unique Asia-Pacific nation, punching above our weight, secure in our identity, prospering in our destiny, providing for our children, and building a better future—a unique future? I believe that that is what our future is, as a Commonwealth republic.

I believe that once we have settled the outstanding Treaty claims by 2020, over the next two decades we will be able to unveil and develop a new constitutional arrangement, whereby the obligations on the British Crown are transferred to a constitutional form that is fully appropriate to, and accepted by, iwi. It will anchor our future, but it will anchor it in an identity that is endemically and perpetually our own, rather than one that has been inherited from colonial masters from whom my forebears—my whakapapa—seven generations ago fled to avoid an oppressive class system. They were miners in Lancashire, they were agricultural workers in Kent, but they came to these fair shores because they wanted a freer, better, and unique future. They did not want to be “Brits”. Britain is a marvellous country but I am a New Zealander.

When I travel, I understand that my identity as a New Zealander depends upon my bicultural heritage, depends upon the Treaty, depends upon my understanding of what it means as a modern New Zealander, and sharing in it. It is part of my combined bloodlines, part of the future of my children, and part of the future of the whenua that we, and they, will inherit. It is a precious thing—it is such a precious thing. Can members imagine New Zealand without the Treaty? Can they imagine us without the potential of a unifying myth? Can we imagine ourselves without a past we can call to? It at least has a spark of justice and honour that we can aspire to for our future. Imperfect as it was, conflicted as it was, dishonoured as it sometimes was, we have the opportunity to honour the Treaty now, and to build a future that is based upon it. Let us oppose this silly bill and take on that challenge for our children’s sake.

Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health): I thought I would rise and make a brief contribution to this debate in order to oppose the New Zealand Day Bill and to explain my position. Like many other speakers on this bill, who have made some personal remarks, I have my own to make. My great-great-grandfather arrived in New Zealand—I am not sure from where; perhaps from Cornwall, I think—in 1819. He was a 17-year-old. He was an early European to arrive in New Zealand. He arrived, of course, in the Bay of Islands. It was the only place where people arrived from other parts of the world in those days. He spent a bit of time in Paihia, and he was involved in the building of some very early buildings—certainly the first church in Paihia and certainly Kemp House, or Kemp homestead, depending on what one wants to call it—because he was a carpenter by trade. He learned that trade pretty much on the job, given that he arrived here before he had much time to do any apprenticeship.

My great-great-grandmother arrived a few years later—I do not know what year she arrived—and the two of them got married in Waimate North. I do not know the date of that event either but I think it was probably about 1828 or 1829. They had the first European marriage in New Zealand. My great-great-grandmother’s sister had arrived in New Zealand at the same time as my great-great grandmother, and the two of them, with their two husbands—for by then there had been a second European marriage in New Zealand—travelled north from Waimate North to settle in Kaitāia. They found a nice place to stay, which was pretty much the Awanui Flats between Kaitāia and Awanui, and they bred. They kept breeding, and the generations kept coming. They asked the local Māori if they could stay, and the local Māori said sure. So they did stay, and they lived amongst Māori. They drained the swamps and started farming the land, and as the family grew they started to acquire more and more land. Then, as property law started to arrive in New Zealand, so, too, they started to assume ownership. They were part of what is now the Muriwhenua land claim.

My great-great-grandfather and his brother-in-law were both Anglican missionaries. Only one of them was able to be a reverend—because, to make sure they were spread around a bit, the Anglican Church said that there could only be one reverend in one place—but my great-great-grandfather remained as a sort of a lay preacher for all his life. He remained in Kaitāia and the surrounding areas, and found himself preaching to Māori up and down the Aupouri Peninsula and around greater Kaitāia. This meant that by the time he was in his mid-twenties, he was pretty fluent in Māori and was assisting other missionaries in translating the Bible from English to Māori. For all of these reasons he found himself quite a valuable bilinguist, and as 1840 approached he was more and more involved in the lead-up to what became the Treaty of Waitangi and the signing of it. Indeed, if members look at the Treaty they will see that his name is there. Very often people think that only Māori signed the Treaty of Waitangi; that is not the case. It was signed by a number of Pākehā, as well.

Te Ururoa Flavell: What was his name?

Hon PETE HODGSON: If the member wants to find his name, his name was William Gilbert Puckey—not Paki; a European or Cornish version, Puckey. There is plenty more I could say about the life of my great-great-grandparents, or, indeed, their descendants. [Interruption] Well, I will tell that story. In the mid-1830s my great-great-father used to travel up the Ninety Mile to Maunganui Bluff in a land yacht, which was made, of course, of canvas of the day and wooden wheels from carts. There he would preach and try to get some sort of outbreak of peace amongst the tribes of Muriwhenua, which he was unsuccessful in doing and which no one has been successful in doing since.

But the point of the story is, quite straightforwardly, that my great-great-grandfather’s signature is on the Treaty. I am committed to that Treaty if only for that reason. I am committed for many other reasons, as well, but I thought I would tell members that story because not too many people think about Pākehās signing the Treaty. My great-great-grandfather did, and his great-great-grandson is not walking away from that commitment one bit.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the New Zealand Day Bill be now read a second time.

Ayes 2

United Future 2.

Noes 117

New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Māori Party 4; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland, Field.

Motion not agreed to.

Bills

Kerikeri National Trust Bill

Second Reading

JOHN CARTER (National—Northland): I move, That the Kerikeri National Trust Bill be now read a second time. I guess there are two issues that are a bit ironic. The first is that at the end of this speech I will be asking everybody to vote against the bill, for the very reason that it should be discharged—and I will explain why. But I think it is also ironic that we have just had a debate on the issue of Waitangi Day, which is something that is obviously very historic and very dear to most New Zealanders’ hearts. We are now talking about another issue that is just as historic, and that is the issue of the Kerikeri Basin.

Let me explain the purpose of the bill and why it should be discharged, because I am sure a number of people in the House will not know the history of it. In about 1995 there was a move by a number of people, in Kerikeri particularly but in Northland generally, to bring together under one umbrella all of the people who have a direct interest in the Kerikeri Basin. In the same way as we have the Waitangi National Trust Board it was envisaged that we would set up a trust called the Kerikeri National Trust that would administer the basin and the surrounds of the basin on behalf of all New Zealanders. The reason for that is that the area of the basin is hugely unique, not just in New Zealand but in the world. It is the only place that I, or anyone I know of who has searched, can find where a modern-day settlement that met with the indigenous people, and where the two peoples came together and started a nation, is not now covered with high-rise buildings, being land-claimed, and being made to disappear.

The area is still unique; it still has the history there in one piece. The whole purpose of the bill was to ensure that the basin remained in its unique state. The area contains Hone Heke’s pā. There was a move by a developer, I think in about 1975, to buy the pā, to level it, to do away with all the history of Hone Heke’s pā, and to build houses. Fortunately, the good people of Kerikeri fought against this and preserved the pā. This is also the area where Ngāti Rēhia had their village. I should say that it is also the place where the Kerikeri Stone Store is. This is our most famous stone building and was New Zealand - built in 1835. Kemp House, built in the early 1800s, is also there. There is actually a building in Kerikeri that is the oldest wooden building in New Zealand. It is a little wee garage that most people do not notice, but it is the oldest building that is still standing in New Zealand. The area has other history; it is where the first European garden was established, for example.

So the area has the pā, it has the possibility of a replica of the pā being established, and it has the possibility of the village being re-established, which the local iwi are very keen to be involved in seeing happen. The Kerikeri Stone Store, of course, is still preserved, as is Kemp House. In respect of the restaurant that is there, there is the view that we will build a blacksmith shop and an old bakehouse in replica form, so we will have the history of the nation as it was first seen when first European settlements started. We would then move up the hill to where there is a building that was built in the 1920s, then, moving through the history of the nation, go to the top of the basin and see where there is the modern-day technology. So basically we have, in a valley—in Kerikeri Basin—the start of our modern-day nation, linking us to Māori history, which goes back, of course, several centuries right up to modern day. So the area is hugely historic.

The reason the bill was put on the Table was that back in 1995 and earlier, parts of the basin were administered by the Department of Conservation, parts were administered by the Historic Places Trust, part of it was privately owned, and part of it was owned by the Church. So it was a real mishmash of ownership and people trying to do their own things. The community of Kerikeri came together with a view to bringing all of the area together under one umbrella and to preserve it for all of us, not just for our nation but also so that visitors from overseas could see it in its original state and enjoy it, and see part of our history, be part of our history, learn part of our history, and actually be active in it.

So that was the reason why this bill was put on the Table. In fact, there is a little bit of a history to it. When I first brought this bill into the House, Jonathan Hunt was the senior Opposition whip and I was the senior Government whip. I was due to go overseas on the Tui to protest against the French tests on Mururoa Island, and because the bill was there Jonathan and I, one evening on a member’s day, did a deal. Instead of the bill having to go to the ballot, we just quietly moved that it be put in to have its first reading and be sent to the select committee. So the bill is unique in that regard, as well.

It is also unique because in those 12 years a lot has happened. Parties that were not talking or coming together to try to retain the Kerikeri Basin and develop the basin have come together. There has been a lot of discussion with local iwi, a lot of discussion with the Department of Conservation and the Historic Places Trust, and a lot of discussion with local landowners and the Church. So all the interested parties are now coming together with a view to saying that it is unique, that they understand its uniqueness, and that they want to retain it as it is. Therefore, the development is moving ahead, as was envisaged back in 1995 and earlier.

So the need for this bill has now gone. It was originally kept on the Table just in case. As the people involved came together and decided they needed to have legislation to support their endeavours, the bill could have been expanded or changed and used as a means of this Parliament supporting those activities and endeavours. But, of course, things have now moved on. The bill has been sitting before select committees for 12 years. I have had to explain, from time to time, to new members of those select committees and new members of Parliament, why the bill was sitting there doing nothing. I have even had to defend it to members of the public up in Kerikeri, who from time to time have thought: “What is behind this bill? Why is it hanging on? What secret deal is John Carter doing with this Kerikeri bill? Is he going to take over the Kerikeri Basin himself and run it?”. It was none of that. The bill was always there for the good purposes of just trying to make sure that our history was preserved.

Chris Auchinvole: I’m sure the people trusted you.

JOHN CARTER: The people, of course, continue to understand that, because they continue to support me.

The fact is that the Kerikeri National Trust Bill has done its job. It has brought together the various parties who were interested. The discussion is going on. The developments are taking place. Progress will be made; past and present will be brought into it. The area already is, and will become, a place of huge pride for all of us—indigenous people and settlers. It will become more so as we go on into the future. In a way, I am proud that I and this Parliament tonight will play a part in ensuring that that happens. Even though it is ironic, as I say, that the way we will play our part is to vote against this bill at the end of this debate, the fact that we have done so nevertheless recognises the importance of what we tried to achieve in the Kerikeri Basin and the surrounding area, which is so hugely historic and important to all our peoples. Therefore, I thank this House for its time, I thank this House for its support, and I thank this House for voting against my bill.

MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West): First of all, I commend the previous speaker, John Carter, for being a very long-serving member representing the far north. I am also aware that my very good colleague Shane Jones will take a call, and I accept he will be far, far more authoritative than me in terms of his deep and profound understanding and appreciation of the unique and iconic area of the Kerikeri Basin. I acknowledge also Hone Harawira in that context.

I speak primarily as a member of the Local Government and Environment Committee. Unfortunately, Steve Chadwick, the chair, cannot be here tonight. She would very much like to have made a contribution with regard to consideration of this bill and to state very clearly for the record the fact that although at the end of the debate this bill is likely to be voted down, that in no way detracts from its purpose. What it does say is that as we understand it in the select committee and in terms of the advice we have received, history essentially has moved on.

For the benefit of those who are listening to this debate, I would certainly make the point that this bill has been a member’s bill that has survived several Parliaments. It is in the name of John Carter, the previous speaker, who is the local member for the general seat in that area. As I have already acknowledged, Hone Harawira is the other member of Parliament for that locality. The bill’s purpose is to consolidate the heritage and scenic assets of the Kerikeri Basin, and to establish a Kerikeri National Trust to manage and promote the area. Obviously, the consolidation and preservation of the heritage and scenic assets of the Kerikeri Basin remain crucially important to us as a nation, but that preservation process is going down a different path from that provided for in the bill.

The bill was introduced in the forty-fourth Parliament, way back in 1995, and was referred to the then Internal Affairs and Local Government Committee, which received and heard submissions on it. The Department of Conservation, among others, provided advice to the committee. It considered that although there was general support for the bill’s intention to provide for integrated planning and the coordinated management of the heritage values of the Kerikeri Basin, the provisions relating to the establishment of the Kerikeri National Trust were, at the time, somewhat controversial. The department believed that the bill would need to be substantially redrafted to achieve its intent. That was obviously all before people such as me came on to the select committee. Unlike the previous speaker and other members of the House who will make a contribution on this bill, I certainly do not have a close and intimate understanding of the unique history behind this bill.

I note that in 2001 this Labour-led Government agreed to fund a planning process to ensure a more sustainable future for the Kororipo - Kerikeri Basin. Its objective was to produce a long-term plan to protect the cultural heritage, environment, and resources of the basin, and to serve as a guide for its future well-being, enhancement, and prosperity. I also note that the purpose and content of the resulting plan have much in common with the intention of the bill, which was retained by the committee at the time as a possible legislative vehicle in support of the plan. I understand that the sustainable development plan is in the process of publication, and is subject to consultations with iwi. The potential for the bill to offer legal support for the plan has consequently diminished. That was our understanding on the committee, and that is contained in our report. Indeed, amending the bill for that purpose would require substantial redrafting.

As I pointed out before, the bill has been before select committees for more than 11 years. In the light of that, the committee has recommended that the bill not proceed. But let me state very clearly on the public record that the issue of the preservation of the Kerikeri Basin is of critical and crucial national importance. John Carter made reference to what were some appalling development plans. Indeed, I remember way, way back, as a young person, seeing a hideous proposal that the Stone Store would be surrounded by imitation colonial houses—a sort of housing development. That was but one of them at the time. I am very thankful and grateful that those plans, which were motivated purely by money and private interests, never, thank goodness, came to pass. There are other parts of New Zealand that, sadly, have not been as fortunate as the Kerikeri Basin has been. We are very lucky, actually, that over many years the community of the far north—and I say this as a New Zealander who is domiciled in the Waikato—has had a collective vision and has collectively understood, absolutely, the iconic historic heritage that exists in the Bay of Islands - far north area, of which the Kerikeri Basin is a very, very important component.

On a very personal note, I say that I am typical of many Kiwis of my age. In 1958, when I was 6 years old, mum and dad took me camping in the Bay of Islands area. One of my first abiding memories of Kerikeri was visiting the amazing Stone Store, as we knew it then. I do remember it; it flashes up in my memory as something I experienced as a 6-year-old. It is one of my memories because it was a very important, unique, and significant building. That was imparted to me as a 6-year-old. As I said, that was back in 1958, during the term of the great second Labour Government, under the great leadership and premiership of Sir Walter Nash. If there is any sense of a degree of privilege and pride, it is that I as a 55-year-old now stand in Parliament and talk about this amazingly iconic building in an amazingly iconic area.

In acknowledging John Carter as the member in charge of this bill, we also acknowledge the international significance of this part of the world in terms of visitors. So not only do we want to preserve the Kerikeri Basin for us as New Zealanders; we also wish to make sure that we preserve it for the benefit of international visitors. It is, in my view, a world heritage area, both in terms of our Māori history—it was settled by Māori hundreds and hundreds of years ago—and our more recent European settlement. In the spirit of non-partisanship, I want to acknowledge John Carter again and to commend him for his work. As I understand it, this is a good example of a good local member, over many years, supporting a bill in consultation with local people.

I do not come from the far north, so I do not have an intimate understanding of the communities in that area. I am from the Waikato, so of course I do not have the intimate understanding of the far north that other members of Parliament may have. But my observation, looking on from afar in another region, is that a whole lot of people are working together in a very, very constructive way. I just make the point that the outcome of that constructive process of working together will be of huge benefit, not just to this generation—and I know I am stating the obvious, but I think it is important to do so—but to future mokopuna, grandchildren, great-grandchild, etc. This basin is one of the jewels in the crown of Aotearoa New Zealand. Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

SHANE JONES (Labour): Kia ora nō tātou. I say to all of our New Zealand whānau listening up in Tai Tokerau, in the event that they include the three or four people in New Zealand who know about the Kerikeri National Trust Bill, that this evening this legislation is being consigned to history. The bill was one that flowed from the efforts of my colleague from the far north John Carter to try to coordinate a planning and resource allocation effort around a particularly important site in respect of Aotearoa’s history—a site of great beauty to those of us in the far north. The site I refer to is in the township of Kerikeri, the name of which means “to dig”. It is a term that reminds us that prior to European settlement Kerikeri was already known as a place highly admired for gardening. It was a horticultural paradise. Unfortunately for some of our Māori whānau, gardening traits do exist in our mokopuna, but they grow something else somewhere else. There will be more on that at a later date, or people can take their inquiries to the Māori Party.

The name Kerikeri was laid upon that particular locality through Te Hōtete, the father of the great and fearless Ngāpuhi warrior chief and tupuna to my whanaunga here, Hone Harawira: Hongi Hika. Hongi Hika had his pā at a small hill known as Kororipo, which is just to the south-east of the current location of the bridge. I say “current”, because that bridge is soon to go, despite the best efforts of a small group of active but ill-informed voters in the Kerikeri region. That group has yet to realise that there has been a massive injection of both interest and capital towards the upkeep of the environment around Kororipo and Kerikeri through the Prime Minister taking an interest in the Kerikeri Stone Store, Kemp House, and the general tone and qualities of the basin.

Let me just traverse—not for too long, Mr Deputy Speaker—more of the history that no doubt informed Mr Carter to ensure that the House endeavoured to do something to aid the efforts of maintaining this site. Te Hōtete moved from an area inland, currently known as Waimate North but which we in the north call Tauhara. He had a pā there called Whakataha—Mr Hodgson spoke about his missionary tūpunas getting married there. There is a great deal of history and heritage around this area. The Ngāti Rēhia people, along with their tēina from Ngāti Torohina have taken an active interest in it. Indeed, in earlier decades, an actual marae was planned. That was in the time when our kaumātua Tū Kemp, who has long since gone, was a young man.

I must in this speech acknowledge Rēmāria Kapa, who recently passed away—I say to Mr Carter—and who was a great supporter of goodwill between the Kerikeri community and the Ngāti Rēhia people.

Ngāti Rēhia and Ngāti Torohina have maintained an active interest in the area. Local families, local ratepayers, and local residents joined together to preserve part of the local nature heritage and created Rewa’s Village. Of course, Rewa, along with Tāreha, is one of the Ngāti Rēhia tūpuna. So this is an area where the people descend from some of the original tūpuna who accepted, embraced, and cared for original pioneers and missionaries. After Samuel Marsden came to Aotearoa he was first out at Ōihi, the site where our first missionary kauhau was offered. Then, when he fell under the korowai of Hongi Hika, he came into Kerikeri.

So this site actually deserves the level of attention that it is getting. It certainly will benefit from the leadership shown by Helen Clark in improving its priority in the Budget list of items for the Ministry for Arts, Culture and Heritage. Although the bill we look at tonight is consigned, it has been overtaken by another exercise that may turn into legislation. As I have reflected to Mr Carter, if the current group of advisers and people working with Mr Mike Simm do not get it right, then I look forward to possibly another bill coming to the House to make sure they damn well do get it right.

It is essential that the final kaupapa, planning, framework, and resource allocation strategy put together for this site involves the tangata whenua. It does not involve people who may come from my tribe further north, but it involves the people who actually know the names and the history—the urupās and the wāhi tapus—and are able to give some life and colour to that particular area. Although others of us in the north do have a connection, our connection is nowhere near as intimate as that of the people of Ngāti Rēhia, and no doubt we will hear more about that in the future.

The bill reflects the fact that, despite the best efforts of Don Brash, there was someone in the National Party who was interested in heritage and biculturalism, and who respects the fact that in order for these sites in our part of Aotearoa to be suitably protected and enjoy good stewardship, it has to be done by both peoples. I commend him for having made the effort. I share a little bit of his confidence that the work that is under way at the moment will actually deliver a tauira—an example of how these sites can be guarded, shared, and developed by both the tangata whenua and representatives of the Crown.

The people of Kerikeri must all understand that they live in an area that contains some of the oldest colonial sites. As time goes on, these sites will be seen as an iconic reflection of the early times when the races met, co-mingled, and occasionally fought. Right in front of the Kerikeri Stone Store lie many sites of history that take us back to the battles between the various Māori tribes, the encounters between the missionaries and the chiefs, and the attempts of the granddaughters and grandsons of the chiefs to embrace English language, education, etc. I think that as time goes on we in this House should encourage not only the bureaucrats and ourselves but also all New Zealand families to respect, cherish, and own all these sites as a part of our distinctive history in Te Moana-nui-a-Kiwa Aotearoa. Kia ora tātou.

Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First): We in New Zealand First applaud John Carter, the member for Northland, and we applaud the intention behind the Kerikeri National Trust Bill. I speak here as someone who selected to be a Northlander, after having grown up in Auckland.

That whole area, and not just Kerikeri, is really the cradle of our nation’s history. I say that very judiciously, because I am talking about our nation. Obviously, things went on in New Zealand that were important long before that, and I think that people need to realise that the concept of history is more than something that began only when we had written records. We in the South Pacific particularly need to resist that particular concept and reject it because history is carried in whakapapa and it is carried in mōteatea and tauparapara and a whole pile of other things. So we need to expand that academic definition. But as a nation, this is the area in which our history is cradled.

Earlier on we were talking about Waitangi and its importance and why we should have Waitangi Day. It was at Waitangi that the document was signed upon which our nation—our nation—was founded. Whenever I visit Waitangi one of the things I am left with is the fact that if our ancestors had gone the length and breadth of this country, they could not have found a more majestic place to create such an important piece of our history. This whole area is important, and I think it is often neglected.

I have to say one little thing to Mr Carter. Shane Jones is right: Hone Heke had his pā at Kerikeri. He had it at Te Ahuahu, where he was shot after Despard got his butt kicked in at Ōhaeāwai. Therefore, he was a bit late for Ruapekapeka. I am very, very sad to see the number of cars that go up and down that highway and do not stop to see Ruapekapeka, because that is a piece of living history. We can actually see not only part of our history and the courage and ingenuity of people like Kāwiti and the people who were with him but also the grit of the British, who brought those guns all the way up from Kawakawa to be able to drop the shells down onto the Māori.

The important thing is that what Kāwiti did there with some of the fortifications actually had an impact upon the World War I fortifications. The earlier fortifications went into the establishment of those later fortifications. We have a World Heritage Site there, and most New Zealanders just go up and down the highway and do not even realise it is there. It is a magical place, and I would just put in a plug for people to stop there a little more often. The intention of this bill is terrific, and we can understand the outcomes. The House is saying tonight that it will be scrutinising the activities of the people up in this area closely, and I think that we all agree that if, for example, they go mad, then we will put through legislation like this.

I will just tell a story because I think that Pete Hodgson told a wonderful story before. Back in 2004 the parliamentary rugby team decided that it would go to the Cook Islands and, because I had played rugby for the Cook Islands, I thought that I had better go. Unbeknown to me, I found out that they were to have a practice game at Miramar. I was caught up in a ruck and had my leg broken in two places. It was the worst thing that had ever happened to me. So when a reporter came to me and asked how it happened, I said that it was John Carter’s fault, because he was supposed to be supporting me and he was not there. So the reporter went to John Carter, who said that my leg could not be broken at all. He said that it could not be broken, because I was moving too slowly to break my leg.

I look at this bill, and I think it proves my case, because John Carter put in the bill in 1995. How slow is that? It has only just got to its second reading! So I rest my case that in fact the real problem was that John Carter was too slow to catch up to me on the paddock that day—not the other way around. New Zealand First will be supporting the call made by the member John Carter for this bill to be discharged, but we also congratulate the member on the endeavours he has made in this particular case.

HONE HARAWIRA (Māori Party—Te Tai Tokerau): Tēnā koe. I am lucky that I am Māori and a member of the Māori Party because, as Parekura Horomia well knows, being Māori means one learns to wait and wait for years before anything gets done. But waiting for 12 years for John Carter to write a speech to get rid of this bill is pushing it a bit—12 long years! That is about as long as it will take my relation from Waimaru, kia tae atu ki te taumata o tōna pāti. [to reach the standard of his party.] Nō reira, tēnā koe, Shane.

But I am glad that this bill came up during the time of the Māori Party. It gives me a chance to add a bit more Māori spin to it, because Kerikeri holds a very important place in all our history. It also gives me a chance to pronounce a lot of these names properly. Judith Binney, a professor of history at the University of Auckland, said that the Kerikeri basin is the most significant visual testimony that we have to the meeting of two worlds in Aotearoa New Zealand.

Writings of the time record radical change between Māori and Pākehā, including some of the major players of the time—Hongi Hika, Hone Heke, Rewa, Tītore, Waikato, Samuel Marsden, Governor George Grey, the Williams family, and Thomas Kendall. Our oral histories tell us of a thriving Kororipo Pā before the arrival of European settlers, and Kororipo would later become an important gathering place, not just for people but also for the distribution of resources and also as a gathering place, often, for other raids. Our waiata, our haka, and our histories speak of a pā at Whakataha, the people of Ngāti Rēhia and Tākou Bay, home of the Mātaatua canoe, and heaps and heaps of kai moana. We know of Hongi’s journeys up the Waitangi River and on to Waimate. They speak of the protection given by Te Paihi to the local people from the attacks of lawless whalers, and of the cultivations of kūmara at Te Puna and Rangihoua and of the massive forests of tōtara and tawa.

We know too of the lives and of the stories of rangatira from the area, from the local hapū, and of the resting place of Te Hōtete. Indeed, the whole area is packed with historical references to Māori who lived and died there for many, many generations. Ruatara Pā, on the other hand, also gives us an opportunity to witness the forging of a remarkable relationship between a chap by the name of Ruatara, an entrepreneurial kind of a guy, and the missionary Samuel Marsden. Ruatara knew Marsden wanted to bring in Christianity, so he talked him into teaching him some new agricultural techniques because of the area. In return, he helped him to introduce the gospel in 1814 and to start his mission.

St James Church is also a sign of earlier times when the mission station was established in 1819, and indeed the memorials in the windows, and the Butler and Kemp tablets, pay tribute to the original whare karakia. The Stone Store itself was built in 1832, originally as a storehouse, and later on as a trading post for the burgeoning kauri gum trade in the late 1800s. In fact the store was once owned by John Black, who was also responsible for the first school at Kerikeri. Of course, we all know that 110 years later the school was reopened after major renovation work and under Historic Places Trust designation. Also associated with the mission was Kemp House, the oldest surviving European building in the country. It was built in 1819, on land granted to Marsden by Ngāpuhi chief Hongi Hika and used as a mission house and a home for lay missionary James Kemp, whose descendants lived there until 1974, when it was finally gifted to the New Zealand Historic Places Trust.

Such, then, is a taste of the meeting of the two worlds. This was the original purpose of the bill—to recognise the important place of the Kerikeri Basin in the history of Aotearoa, and to preserve, protect, administer, and promote its historical, cultural, and natural heritage. There is nothing wrong with any of that. Members of the Māori Party have been kind of surprised at some of the reactions in this House when we seek to do just that—preserve, protect, and promote the historical, cultural, and natural heritage of the tangata whenua of this land, and of this land itself.

The Māori Party supports the notion of safeguarding heritage and scenic assets in Kerikeri and other places. We welcome the opportunity for the debate and discussion that that provides, because it is the tension and the battles of history that help to define and shape us as a people. I saw something that Olympic multi-gold medallist and black athlete, Jesse Owens, once said. He said: “The battles that count aren’t the ones for gold medals. The struggles within yourself—the invisible, inevitable battles inside of all of us—that’s where it’s at.” Indeed, that is exactly where it is at, when we look back at Kerikeri.

We look back with pride at the generations of settlement prior to the coming of the European. We look back in anger at the unnecessary fighting and killings that were part of the joining of the races. We look back with wonder at the enthusiasm and entrepreneurship of Māori and early settlers. We look back in awe at Hongi Hika, allowing himself to be feted in courtly England, so that he could come home with the muskets and powder that he was really after. Those are the struggles that we must face and that we must understand if we are to be truly part of our history.

The Māori Party has considered all of the challenges that come with this bill. We support the unanimous view of the select committee that the bill should not proceed, but we do so with two very important riders. We are convinced of the remarkable heritage value of the whole Kerikeri Basin, and indeed the greater Bay of Islands itself. The second point is that we would not have been able to support this bill anyway, unless we were truly satisfied that tangata whenua had been involved in a real and meaningful way. That was not the case in the bill we saw before us tonight.

I thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for this opportunity to speak. I would also like to thank Pete Hodgson for letting us know that his tipuna signed the Treaty of Waitangi. Was that at Waitangi, I ask Mr Jones? It was signed up there. I also thank Brian Donnelly for his own little history lesson, and John Carter as well for sticking with this bill all the way to its end. Tēnā koutou. Kia ora tātou katoa.

Motion not agreed to.

Bills

Local Electoral (Repeal of Race-Based Representation) Amendment Bill

First Reading

Debate resumed from 22 November 2006.

JOHN CARTER (National—Northland): I want to speak to this bill and to explain why the National Party has brought this bill into the House, and I want to do it in the context of Northland. It is ironic that in an area like Northland—in many of the areas, particularly in the far north and the Hokianga—the citizens are predominantly of Māori descent. Indeed, I think in the far north now the make-up of 60 percent of the population is of Māori descent. [Interruption] My colleague Hone Harawira says he is doing his best, along with a number of his whānau. Therefore, it is ironic that a place like Northland would even need to contemplate a bill like this. In fact, one of the ironies I guess, given that Hone has spent a great deal of his life speaking for the minority, is that if this bill is not passed then I assume that he will want to introduce a bill to ensure there is proper representation of non-Māori in the far north on local government—if he iintends to stick to his convictions and I know he does.

Hone Harawira: He has many convictions.

JOHN CARTER: He has many good convictions, might I add. But I make the point that race-based representation is absolutely unnecessary. There is only one local authority, to my knowledge, that has taken it up—the Bay of Plenty Regional Council.

Hon Brian Donnelly: That was done before this legislation.

JOHN CARTER: That is right. So it has not actually been picked up. But actually the representation is causing problems and it is now causing problems amongst Māoridom in that local authority, as well. It has become the case that this bill has now become essential to assist, and I hope that the House feels that it can support it.

One of the ironies is that because of laws like this, where maybe the intention was right but the outcome is wrong, Māori can often become disadvantaged by it. I am one of those people who is a strong believer in saying that if I take what I know of the far north, and indeed of Northland, that Māori have the ability to stand on their own feet. They are just as good at putting their point of view as anybody else. They are quite capable of getting the support of the people, whether they be Māori or non-Māori. In Northland we pride ourselves on the fact that we have good representation right across the whole region. It is not based on race, it is based on the fact that people have ability and are capable.

Indeed, when I was a servant in the Hokianga as the county clerk, the local authority there had a predominance of Māori councillors—not because they were Māori, but because they were people who were supported by the people. They did not stand there and say: “You have to vote for me because I have Māori blood and I have some reason that I need to have extra support.” They were good, competent, and capable people who were able to express their view and to put their point of view across and attract the support of the people of the Hokianga. I have seen the same thing happen on school boards in Northland. I have seen it happen at a number of elections.

One of the good things that I feel happens in Northland is that whoever it is who is standing for whatever position, that person is not judged on whether he or she is Māori or non-Māori, but on his or her ability. This bill is all about that. I hope that the House has the good sense tonight to support it. What it shows is that our nation is growing. It will show, if this bill is supported, that we have come to recognise that people, regardless of their race, have ability, have the opportunity, and can contribute to our nation. All of us should be encouraging that to happen. I hope that this bill gets passed tonight. I certainly will support it.

DAVE HEREORA (Labour): I take this call to confirm on the record that I oppose this bill, the Local Electoral (Repeal of Race-Based Representation) Amendment Bill, and I confirm that the entire Labour caucus also opposes this bill. I have three reasons surrounding that position, but firstly can I say that the debate this evening has been about the acknowledgment of our history and our nationhood. It has been about identifying our tīpuna, our marae, and the place of Māori within the history that has formed our nation.

The first point I want to make is that this bill undermines the very essence of our national identity. The sponsor of the bill argues that there should be no racially based electoral representation in local government. It is my view that that is a modern-day, contemporary attack against local democracy. We must ensure that within local government there is a level of representation that does reflect our communities.

In looking at some of the history surrounding this bill, I reiterate that Judge Peter Trapski conducted an inquiry into Māori representation on the Bay of Plenty Regional Council and the establishment of the Māori wards. Over a 9-year period leading up to the year 2000, the people of the Bay of Plenty, the Bay of Plenty Regional Council, its councillors, all 33 iwi, and the four tribal confederations, including 133 hapū within the Bay of Plenty area, met to discuss the problem surrounding the lack of Māori representation at local level. In terms of a large group or a mandate, I do not think one could get a better mandate from those groupings to discuss that issue. They all concluded that it was necessary to support an Act—a bill at the time—to encourage Māori representation within local government.

The Local Electoral Act 2001 enables councils to make a decision as to whether provisions for Māori representation are appropriate for their community. For instance, the people of the Bay of Plenty chose to have Māori representation on their regional council in 2001. I think that was great. I think that provided the platform to ensure that, at the very least, there was a level of Māori representation at that level. We are so used to hearing that currently there is a level of Māori representation through various functions that are held by councils within their areas, and that representation generally is by holding a pōwhiri at various functions—that is, our kaumātua and kuia getting out and supporting the pōwhiri for those functions within those areas. It is time that we supported and encouraged the opportunity for Māori to move into the positions where decisions are made. I am talking about the positions on a council itself. So that is the first reason why I think it is important to oppose this bill.

The second reason is that we have to think why this bill has been presented in the way it has been, to abolish or repeal race-based representation. I think that that is the precursor leading to the policy of abolishing the Māori seats in general, and I think that is unacceptable.

The third reason I oppose this bill is that I think it is important that the sponsor of the bill and its supporters listen to today’s society. Today’s society is saying that it is acceptable to ensure that people and groups within communities are represented on local bodies and central government. So we must ensure that we support and encourage every way possible to ensure that that happens. Kia ora.

Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First): I have to say that I endorse very much the comments made by John Carter, the member for Northland, in terms of the experience of Northland and Northland local government. I mention people like Kahu Sutherland, who is on our local council, who is not only steeped in Māoridom but he has made an enormous contribution to and is held in extremely high respect in Whangarei. He would be able to run against anybody and beat that person, hands down, in his own right because he has the essential strengths to be able to do the job and do it well. We had a mayor, for example, who was Māori—Stan Semenoff, which sounds a bit Russian, obviously. Our regional council chair for many years was Māori—a certain Jim Peters. Our mayor at the moment happens to be a Peters also.

So New Zealand First has always believed from the time the Bay of Plenty bill came in—which we resisted quite strongly, as members may remember—that creating this situation, which is a quota system, is patronising to Māori. Until the Māori Party came into this House, New Zealand First had the highest proportion of caucus members who were Māori. They believed that Māori could achieve as well as anybody else, as they have achieved on the sporting fields and in fields of endeavour such as the armed forces, etc., and they can equally achieve in this particular area, and Northland is one such area. We also had a guy by the name of Isopo Samu, who was Tokelauan. He was voted in by the citizens of Whangarei because of the sterling work he had done within the community and the respect he was given. He gained the support of the people there.

Therefore New Zealand First will be supporting this bill. We do not believe race-based representation is needed. In terms of the Māori seats at national level, as members well know New Zealand First does not put up members to fight those seats. However, we are not saying that we would abolish them; we actually believe there is a process that needs to be gone through that requires the consent of the Māori people in the first place, before those seats are abolished. But in fairness to the position that we hold, we do not put up candidates for those particular seats. Yet we still have managed to have very high levels of Māori representation within our party. Therefore we say that this bill is unnecessary.

John Carter made an interesting point. Since this legislation was put in place, which gave capacity to local governments to put in place seats based upon an ethnicity, not one council has actually taken it up. They have not taken up the offer. The only situation that exists is the one in the Bay of Plenty, after a special bill was put through by Mita Ririnui, and the effect of that was to reduce the number of Māori members on that council from three to two. That was the actual effect of that legislation going through.

I want to finish off because pretty obviously New Zealand First will be supporting this particular bill. We support the notions and the concepts behind it. We believe that Māori are capable of achieving in their own right, without the necessity of having these sorts of protectionist mechanisms. A couple of years ago Mahara Okeroa and Dave Hereora came to Whangarei to open a Ko Tawa presentation at the Whangarei Museum. There was an absolutely fantastic presentation of stuff that had been collected by Colonel Mair. Mahara Okeroa, as an Associate Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage, made—I would have to say—a very impressive whaikōrero and I thought “This guy’s really got it.” But when it came to doing the waiata, he turned round and looked first at Dave. It ended up with the Pākehā boy from Northland having to do the waiata on behalf of Dave Hereora on that occasion.

Hone Harawira: Shame, shame, shame!

Hon BRIAN DONNELLY: Yes, that is exactly right. So I make the point that not only can Māori do as well as Pākehā but in some cases Pākehā can do as well as Māori. New Zealand First will be supporting this legislation.

SHANE JONES (Labour): Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker. I stand to take a short call on this wretched bill, put forward by Mr Ryall, trying to foster discord, no doubt, in the Bay of Plenty. There is something very interesting in the general policy statement of the bill. It states “At present the Local Electoral Act 2001 provides the option of Māori wards and constituencies at district, council, and regional council levels, and the Bay of Plenty Regional Council (Māori Constituency Empowering) Act 2001 mandates such seats in that region.” There is something very important here surrounding the word “option”.

The people in Te Moana-a-Toi mai i Ngā Kurī-a-Whārei ki Tihirau, of course, Mr Ryall is completely oblivious of. We see it every day when he is feeding some half-baked mix of a toxic diet to the people of the Bay of Plenty. Well, we are not going to have it, not for the iwi and the tangata whenua of that area. They deserve a far better mix of ideas and leadership, which is why I follow, with a great deal of confidence, my friend Mr Hereora, and my Pākehā kaumātua from Tai Tokerau, Mr Donnelly. I stand with Mr Hereora to condemn and consign this piece of irrelevancy to the dust heap of history. We only hope that Mr Ryall soon goes in that direction.

The notion of an option is that people in that region decide what is best for that region; they have a shot at choosing what is going to suit their circumstances. Why is it that he, single-handedly, should believe that this House would want to support him in overwhelming the goodwill, the common sense, and the vision of the vast majority of the people of that part of Aotearoa, who want Pākehā, Māori, and whoever else that is there, to live harmoniously? They do not want to see his divisive plots littering the floor of this Chamber. That game was run by Mr Ryall and a few in The Hollow Men. Of course, in that book it was evident that Mr Ryall had his knickers in a twist, or as I said, that the ladder in his intellectual stocking was well and truly evident. No, we will not have any of that. We will not allow that type of poor thinking and those kinds of ill-conceived ideas. It is almost as if something lurks there, hiding. No, we cannot allow that to intrude upon these matters of national identity and regional leadership on questions of identity in Te Moana-a-Toi, Bay of Plenty.

Despite the best efforts of Mr Carter reciting a potted history of social relationships in Tai Tokerau, aided by Mr Donnelly, a part of what they say is inaccurate, because they overlook the word “option”. That lies at the pith of why this side of House sees no drama, no angst, and no danger in initiatives of this nature. The people in that region have the choice as to how they believe their community can be strengthened and enriched so that the representatives not only have to speak for the majority culture but come via different conduits and speak for the entire region.

It is a region with a great deal of potential despite the nature of its current representative. It is a region that deserves the scope and the latitude to make its own decisions about matters that are at the grass roots—the flax roots. The less we hear from Mr Ryall about these matters of sensitivity—

Hon Member: Scratching the itch.

SHANE JONES: No, I will not go there on the question of itch. He knows exactly what he is doing, and the sooner we dismiss this bill and rule him completely out of order on matters to do with race relations, the better. Kia ora tātou.

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Minister of Māori Affairs): Mr Speaker—

Bob Clarkson: Tell us about Hone Heke.

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: Hone Heke was a great warrior, and he came from the north, not from the Bay of Plenty.

Bob Clarkson: And he’s pronounced Hone Heke!

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: He was a great warrior. He did not come from Mauao, where people put up grand racetracks and ignore the rights, as they still do, of local Māori.

It is imperative that at local government level there is representation that reflects our communities, especially in the Bay of Plenty. If we recall, Judge Peter Trapski conducted an inquiry into Māori representation on the Bay of Plenty Regional Council and also into the establishment of Māori wards. Mr Ryall has a very selective memory, because over 9 years all the iwi, all the hapū, and all the straight-thinking Pākehā and councillors got together in the Bay of Plenty and agreed there should be specific representation in relation to the Māori seats.

So it is a nonsense when we hear the platitudes in the House, foisted on us by Mr Ryall and by Hone Carter, that this is a distant, damaging factor in the relationships of us forging together as a nation. Remember that the Treaty was signed by two people—those people who were visitors then, who have etched their way into this ground going forward, and the people who were already here, us Māori. It is a known fact that Māori are under-represented on local bodies. They make up 5 percent of the participants. That is shocking.

People are saying in this Chamber tonight: “Hear, hear!”. Mr Ryall and co. would like us to go back to the old-fashioned days when councils and authorities of governance were just mirrorings of the counties of England, and a person used to run around the town ringing the bell going “Hear, hear!”—the town crier. That is exactly what Mr Ryall has done.

Eric Roy: Hear ye, hear ye!

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: Hear, hear! That is exactly what Mr Ryall has done—hear, hear, no place for these Māori, leave them out. It is disgraceful. Most Māori representation on councils over the last 20 years has been via secondments—you know, put a bit of Māori on there, get a Māori advisory group. It is shocking.

Let us cut to the chase about the Bay of Plenty. Nearly 53 percent of the land is owned by Māori. The biggest owner of fish assets in that area is Māori, so it would be common sense for those who want to imbue a good strong commercial base, to enable Māori to participate. Certainly what is important in my mind is that dealing with that under-representation needs to be supported, as my learned colleague Shane Jones said, rather than foisting and placing toxic views on something that is a serious way forward for our people in this country.

It is so exciting that at the moment we have a Chinese Mayor in Gisborne, who has taken the time to learn a third language, the language of the tangata whenua in this country. He is Chinese and is living on Māori whenua with a whole lot of Pākehā constituents. That is what I believe is great stuff in relation to local authorities. If they have that asset, if they have the desire to be part of the councils, then why at the end of the day do we have this bill in the House placing this nonsensical issue before us?

We will be supporting the holding of those seats because it is more than a right; it is more than being fashionable; it is about Māori who have the assets in that place, who have a major percentage of the population, and who are not represented on those councils.

Hon Tau Henare: Why not?

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: It is because some people calculate out how to block and make sure that Māori do not get on there. At the end of the day it takes a great effort, and there are those issues that are relevant to making sure that Māori get a say—not people who are given tokenistic roles in parties and who foist platitudes on other people, or culture, as we say, and do nothing for their people; nothing whatsoever.

We will be supporting the retention of those seats, and it is a wise and wonderful thing to do. If we are serious about nationhood and about Māori having a standard, then what is so wrong about this? Do not let that sneakiness come out in the sense of stiff kakī whero, those people who preach and leech on about the place that Māori should not be. People preach and leech about how it is no good having Māori in there, and say: “Let us just use their assets, let us just get them to come and do the haka for us, we will just let them be at our beck and call.” Well, those seats need to be there. Kia ora.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Local Electoral (Repeal of Race-Based Representation) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 56

New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; Independent: Copeland.

Noes 62

New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Māori Party 3; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field.

Motion not agreed to.

The House adjourned at 9.52 p.m.