Tuesday, 23 September 2008

Tuesday, 23 September 2008

Tuesday, 23 September 2008

Madam Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Questions for Oral Answer

Questions to Ministers

Electoral Roll—Enrolment Rate

1. Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Māori Party) to the Minister of Justice: What specific strategies has the Government initiated to improve the voter enrolment rate, given this morning’s reported comments by Kiwi Expat Association Chief Executive, Ivan Moss, who contends that there are about 750,000 missing voters, bringing the estimated enrolment rate down to 79 percent?

Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Justice): I am advised by the Electoral Enrolment Centre that the figures quoted by Mr Moss are purely speculative. However, there has been an increase in the number of people enrolled overseas compared with the 2005 figures, and a comprehensive enrolment strategy is in place.

Dr Pita Sharples: What particular strategies will the Minister be undertaking to encourage the Māori population of Australia—estimated to be between 115,000 and 125,000—to vote in the November 2008 election?

Hon ANNETTE KING: As I said, from the announcement of the election date quite a lot of activity is undertaken by the Electoral Enrolment Centre, including sending enrolment update packs to all overseas voters with postal addresses; sending voting information to all those enrolled with a postal address; providing advertising that targets New Zealanders overseas, encouraging them to enrol or to update their enrolment details; and providing information and enrolment forms through overseas posts. We also rely on informal networks of people, including people like the member who has asked the question and other members of this House, to advise friends and relatives overseas to vote if they are eligible.

Dr Pita Sharples: What does the Minister have to say about the findings of the Te Puni Kōkiri report Ngā Māori i Te Ao Moemoeā, which found that just under half of the 1,600 Māori living in Australia who were surveyed in that report wished to remain as citizens of New Zealand only, and what action has the Government taken to ensure that Māori living in Australia can enjoy that citizenship right?

Hon ANNETTE KING: All New Zealanders born in this country have a citizenship right. That is what most countries have—if one is born in a country, one is allowed a citizenship right. One can have a citizenship right by descent, as well. But if one has no connection with this country by birth, it is a different situation.

Dr Pita Sharples: What specific strategies will the Minister undertake to ensure that young Māori people aged between 18 and 25 years old, close to 50,000 of whom are estimated not to be enrolled, exercise their democratic right to vote?

Hon ANNETTE KING: We take the same approach to all young voters, whether they are Māori or non-Māori: we use a variety of media to get to them. We know they are not keen to vote and we need to encourage them. There are a number of events aimed at reaching young voters, the new electronic technologies are being used to provide information to them, and so on.

Taito Phillip Field: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I would like the Minister to clarify an earlier answer. She inaccurately referred to everybody born in New Zealand being a New Zealand citizen. I wonder whether she could consider how accurate that statement is.

Madam SPEAKER: I do not think that is a point of order. Does the member want to ask a supplementary question? Yes.

Taito Phillip Field: Is the Minister’s statement in response to an earlier question—that every person born in New Zealand is in fact entitled to New Zealand citizenship—accurate?

Hon ANNETTE KING: Most people born in New Zealand are entitled to citizenship; there are some exceptions to that.

Rt Hon Winston Peters—Ministerial Status

2. JOHN KEY (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: What is the status of the Rt Hon Winston Peters in her ministry following yesterday’s tabling of the report of the Privileges Committee?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister): Mr Peters continues to stand aside from his portfolios.

John Key: Does the Prime Minister stand by her statement in the House on Tuesday, 26 August, that she accepts Mr Peters’ word “unless something arises out of the Privileges Committee …”, and does she not see that the Privileges Committee’s clear finding that Mr Peters committed a contempt of Parliament, quite clearly comes within her definition of something arising from that committee?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I certainly will not listen to any lectures on truthfulness from that member, after yesterday’s revelations.

John Key: Can the Prime Minister confirm that the Privileges Committee has heard evidence from Labour’s biggest donor, Owen Glenn, from Mr Peters, and from his lawyer, and clearly accepted the evidence of Mr Glenn—the Privileges Committee accepted the word of Mr Glenn but not that of Mr Peters or of the lawyer—but that she has been happy to accept the word of Mr Peters over those people? Why is that?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: There is one person’s word I cannot accept—it is the word of that member to the public and the media.

John Key: Is the reason the Prime Minister does not want to answer any of these questions that she is locked at the hip to Winston Peters, and she has been covering up for him as well?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: The only cover-up in this House is by Mr Key, who in an 8-week period asked written and oral questions in Parliament, launched an Official Information Act request, bought and traded Tranz Rail shares profitably, and claimed he never spoke on the subject while he did that. That was false, I say to Mr Key.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Does the Prime Minister recall the statements by Mr Key just a few hours ago when he said he had forgotten about those extra shares, but now he would fill out the form and correct that; does that not remind members of the word that begins with “h” and cannot be said in this House?

Madam SPEAKER: That was unnecessary, so I ask the member to withdraw that word beginning with “h”. We all know what is meant.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Madam Speaker—

Madam SPEAKER: Please, just do it!

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I withdraw “h”.

Madam SPEAKER: Thank you.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The question itself is out of order. The Minister asked whether Mr Key would fill out a form. There was no Register of Pecuniary Interests of Members of Parliament until his party put it in place.

Madam SPEAKER: That is a matter of debate.

Hon Paul Swain: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I thought that was a bit unfair; I thought the “h” word the member was referring to was “hollow”, as in hollow men.

Madam SPEAKER: That was not a point of order, either.

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: To reply to the original question, I say there seem to be a lot of things Mr Key forgot: it was anywhere from 25,000 to 50,000 shares at any one time, and, oh, maybe it was 100,000 shares. I bet that the member, as someone who thought about his shares every morning when he woke up—unlike any normal person—would know that he bought and sold shares profitably while he was raising questions publicly in this House and in committees, and he did not tell the truth to the news media about it.

John Key: Can the Prime Minister explain why her Ministers, her staff, and her research unit have so much time to go through, line by line, my share dealings from 5 years ago—

Ron Mark: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I bring to your attention the obvious difference there. We were sitting in the cross benches trying to hear the Prime Minister’s answer and were totally unable to hear anything clearly—

Hon David Carter: Ha!

Ron Mark: It is a point of order, David. Shut up!

Madam SPEAKER: Please be seated. The member knows that that was inappropriate. Please withdraw that comment.

Ron Mark: I withdraw.

Madam SPEAKER: The point of order should be made succinctly.

Ron Mark: With the amount of noise, we could not hear the answer. By contrast, as soon as Mr Key got to his feet to ask his question, the rest of the House was silent so that he could ask it. I ask that from here forth we are able to hear the Prime Minister’s answers as clearly as we are allowing Mr Key to have his questions heard.

Madam SPEAKER: I think the level of interventions was getting to the stage where it was impossible to hear.

John Key: Can the Prime Minister explain why her Ministers, her staff, and her research unit have so much time to go through my 5-year-old share dealings line by line but she has absolutely no energy or interest to do the same thing when it comes to Winston Peters; or is the answer that she does not need to do that—2 years ago she knew he had accepted a donation, because she had arranged it?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: Of course, when Mr Key makes public statements saying he tells the truth at all times, we as a party opposing his party are going to see what the veracity of those statements is. We have proven that they have no veracity.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Can the Prime Minister comment on the previous question from the Leader of the Opposition, in which he admitted the transactions were his, when he told the media this morning that they belonged to a trust?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: That would be absolutely typical of the flip-flops of this member, who cannot keep to one straight answer from one hour to the next.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Has the Prime Minister got any reports that suggest that Winston Peters made even 1c out of his involvement in this legal case, in contrast—[Interruption]—I know that members do not want to hear it, but it will get worse shortly—to Mr Key, who apparently made thousands, which is a conflict of interest?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I have no evidence that Mr Peters made a cent, as he said. On the other hand, I do have evidence of parliamentary questions lodged by Mr Key in October 2002, April 2003, and again in April 2003, and an Official Information Act request in April 2003; then he purchases in his own name another 50,000 shares; then he meets with people who want to buy Tranz Rail, then he sells those shares bought in his own name, doubles his money, and carries on asking parliamentary questions, all the time—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Mr Key was again allowed to ask his question in relative silence, and then when the Prime Minister started, the braying began right around the National Party benches. This is not acceptable and they should be told to either desist or leave the House.

Madam SPEAKER: In fact, if that level of intervention is heard again—I had warned members once—then members will be asked to leave the House.

John Key: Can the Prime Minister confirm that it really does not matter what came out of the Privileges Committee, it really does not matter what came out of the Serious Fraud Office in relation to the allegations against Winston Peters, and it would not really matter what comes out of the police, because the Prime Minister will not sack Winston Peters, because if she did she would be sacking for the stupidity of getting caught—she arranged the loan through Mike Williams, she is up to her neck in it, and why does she not admit it; she is not an innocent bystander?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: All I can say is that that member can talk about getting caught, because he has been caught red-handed claiming he never spoke in this House while he was an owner of Tranz Rail shares when he was peppering the Minister of Finance with questions, and buying and selling shares at a profit through that time. He stands accused of not being clear and concise, to the point, and straightforward, in this House.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: Supplementary question, Madam Speaker—[Interruption]—well the member would have been busted long ago, if that were true. Can the Prime Minister confirm that the Leader of the Opposition just said that Mike Williams arranged the donation from Mr Glenn, but the entire case of the majority in the select committee is that Mr Peters asked Mr Glenn for the donation; and if Mr Key is correct, then how come a majority arrived at its decision on contempt?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: That is just more evidence that the Leader of the Opposition makes it up, just like he made up the idea that he was going to run a clean campaign, when Dr Smith and Mr English are at meetings in Nelson telling smutty jokes about the Deputy Prime Minister as part of their dirty, filthy, unclean campaign.

Rodney Hide: Is the Prime Minister telling the public of New Zealand that it is acceptable to her to have a Minister who is running a secret trust that is not known to his party—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. It has been made very clear to the select committee that that allegation is totally false. I should not have to have him corrected, but that is the kind of thing he has been doing around this country for months now. The committee all know, including his own member Heather Roy, that that is false, so would you ask him to desist from telling the House porkies.

Madam SPEAKER: Would the member who is asking the question please make his question succinct and get to the point of it.

Rodney Hide: Is the Prime Minister telling the people of New Zealand that it is OK for a Minister in her Government to have money go into a trust but which was meant for New Zealand First; to have money come from secret donors to the tune of $40,000 but not declared under the electoral laws and not declared in the register of pecuniary interests; and to pay that Minister’s legal bills, as reported to the Privileges Committee by the Serious Fraud Office?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I have no reason to believe that Mr Peters knew any less about the Spencer Trust than Mr Key knew about the Waitemata Trust, for which he personally raised money. But further, I have been advised by the senior Labour representatives on the Privileges Committee that it is not reasonable to hold someone in contempt for a retrospective ruling on what is a gift. If that were to be the case, I look forward to Nick Smith and Bob Clarkson now declaring their gifts on exactly the same basis, which they have not done.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I did.

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I said that Mr Smith had not declared a gift. It is my understanding that his return does not show the declaration of a gift. He declared he was a beneficiary of a trust. He did not declare that he received a gift from that trust.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I seek leave to table the letter I received this morning on this very issue—where Dail Jones had laid a letter of complaint—where you have dismissed the complaint.

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

Hon Jim Anderton: Why should the Prime Minister take any account whatever of the accusations that Mr Key has made against her, and others, over this political donations issue, when every single thing he has said about his own share transactions in Tranz Rail has proved to be false on almost every occasion?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: The member raises a fair point, because we now cannot believe anything Mr Key said in this House or to the news media, who have him on tape, on the issue of his Tranz Rail shares, which, I repeat, he bought and sold a portion of at a profit while he was peppering the Minister of Finance with questions in this House and through the Official Information Act. Mr Key failed to declare his interest in Tranz Rail, and that, in my understanding, is not acceptable behaviour for a member.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Has the Prime Minister received any reports of a present MP who failed, when the president of a political party, to disclose an interest in a trust called the Cargill Trust for $1.7 million—a matter that went all the way to the Privy Council, which found against that party—and is that MP Mr Rodney Hide?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I am not personally aware of that allegation, but I am all ears.

Rodney Hide: Does she accept the Serious Fraud Office evidence that $40,000 was given by one donor to the Spencer Trust, which was then paid—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The Privileges Committee heard no such evidence, at all, and Heather Roy, the member’s colleague, can tell him that. So would you please tell him to stop telling the House what is plainly false.

Rodney Hide: Does the Prime Minister accept that the Serious Fraud Office evidence was that $40,000 was paid by one anonymous donor to the Spencer Trust—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. For the second time, the select committee was told no such information by the Serious Fraud Office, at all, and Heather Roy, who is sitting there behind Mr Hide, knows that.

Rodney Hide: Does she accept the Serious Fraud Office evidence that $40,000 was paid by one anonymous donor to the Spencer Trust, which was then used to pay Brian Henry to cover—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. For the third time, Heather Roy, the member’s colleague, sat on the select committee and knows full well that that allegation, like every other one he has made, is false. I am prepared to ask the members of the committee who are here now for their word, but they know full well that no such information came in that way to the select committee.

Madam SPEAKER: I would ask Rodney Hide when he asks his question—otherwise we will be going on here all afternoon—that his question would, in fact, reflect what was in the report, and we might be able to make some progress.

Rodney Hide: Has the Prime Minister seen the wiring diagram from the Serious Fraud Office that shows that $40,000 was given from one donor to the Spencer Trust, which then paid the legal debt—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The Privileges Committee was given no such evidence, and every member on that Privileges Committee knows that, including Heather Roy. In fact, my memory is that the select committee was told that three donors made up the amount of $40,000—

Hon Lianne Dalziel: That’s right.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: —and Lianne Dalziel is confirming my memory of that at the select committee. So why is the member persisting and saying something that is plainly, palpably, demonstrably false?

Madam SPEAKER: We will have another try.

Rodney Hide: Has the Prime Minister seen the Serious Fraud Office wiring diagram presented to the Privileges Committee that showed, yes, separate legal entities controlled by the one donor gave $40,000 from the one person—from the one person—to the Spencer Trust, which was used to pay Brian Henry for Bob Clarkson’s legal costs; and does she think it is acceptable for a Minister in her ministry to be receiving $40,000—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The select committee was told that the Serious Fraud Office got its wiring diagram wrong, that it could not even analyse what they were reading, that it went from a law firm’s account to Brian Henry’s account to the National Party’s lawyer’s account to the National Party, which says that Mr Clarkson was on the same footing as Winston Peters; one rule for them, a different one for me.

Madam SPEAKER: I do not think we are making much progress here, so I will refer members to Speaker’s ruling 152/1. I shall read it; it is rather long: “Some supplementary questions are admitted which, if one had the time to analyse them in the way that primary questions are analysed, would be ruled out of order or would require further authentication. However, members should not be permitted to ask a Minister to respond to outlandish assertions. Supplementary questions will be disallowed whenever a member raises a serious objection to their factual accuracy so as to require that a question of that nature be pursued—if it is to be pursued at all—through the normal question system with notice.” I so rule.

Rodney Hide: Has the Prime Minister seen the wiring diagram presented by the Serious Fraud Office to the Privileges Committee with money routed through the Spencer Trust to cover Winston Peters’ legal costs to Bob Clarkson, and does she find money moved in that way acceptable for one of her Ministers in her ministry?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: The answer is no, I have not seen the diagram.

Rodney Hide: I seek leave, for the Prime Minister’s benefit, to table the wiring diagram.

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

Rail—Investment

3. Hon MARK GOSCHE (Labour—Maungakiekie) to the Minister of Finance: Has he received any recent reports relating to investment in rail?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance): Yes. I have reports showing widespread public support for the Government’s decision to purchase the rail operator and to establish KiwiRail. I have also seen reports showing public concern about National’s refusal to give a firm commitment not to sell off KiwiRail at some point in the future.

Hon Mark Gosche: What other reports has he seen relating to investment in rail?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I have seen various reports showing that in 2002 and 2003 as Minister of Finance I was asked both written and oral questions by, and received Official Information Act requests from, Mr John Key relating to the Government’s decision to invest in the rail network. Last night I saw a report showing that during that time, contrary to his previous assurances to the House and the New Zealand public, and despite making no disclosures of interest, Mr Key was purchasing shares in Tranz Rail.

Hon Bill English: Can the Minister tell Parliament why he paid for Toll Rail almost twice as much as the best official advice he could get on its valuation, and does that mean that because it is other people’s money, he is happy to be reckless with $350 million?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: As he sits next to a past money trader, the member should not talk about being reckless with other people’s money. But coming to the point of the matter, I say that half of the purchase price for the Toll operation was to buy it out of a contract that would have led to ever-growing subsidies being paid to an Australian operator that was repatriating profits back to Australia.

Hon Jim Anderton: Has the Minister of Finance seen any reports that when New Zealand Rail was sold by the National Government, it sold it for less than the price of the wooden sleepers on the tracks?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: That is certainly correct. The value of the business was vastly greater than was paid for it at the time, but subsequent asset-stripping occurred by a succession of foreign-dominated owners. Only New Zealand ownership, and Government ownership, with a long-term programme of investment will realise the full potential of rail.

Hon Mark Gosche: What reports has he received on investment in the rail network, as opposed to that in the rail operator?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I have seen reports that show that just like it did with the purchase of the rail operator, National initially opposed the purchase of the rail network. Of course, it is now apparent that at the time that Mr Key was leading the opposition to that investment, he had been trading in shares in Tranz Rail.

Taxation—New Zealand - Australia

4. Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by his statement that “If, as some have suggested, New Zealanders are fleeing as tax exiles to Australia, one can only conclude that those individuals are functionally innumerate, and we are probably better off without them”; if so, why?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance): That statement was made in July 2005, it related to tax rates at that time, and it remains correct in that respect. But I welcome the opportunity to remind the House that on Wednesday of next week Labour’s $10.6 billion tax cut package starts rolling out, and it will deliver between $12 and $28 per week to all workers.

Hon Bill English: Does he still believe that the tens of thousands of New Zealanders who left for Australia in the last 12 months are so innumerate that they have not noticed Labour’s economic record of zero growth, 4.5 percent inflation, climbing unemployment and bankruptcy, New Zealand slipping down the OECD rather than going up, and an opening of the books that will reveal very significant cash deficits in the Government’s books?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The record, of course, is one of growth that has equalled that of Australia and outstripped that of the United States, Britain, and the European Union; of reductions in unemployment to levels that the member previously described as a hoax; and of strong growth in household incomes. On the matter of the Pre-election Fiscal Update, yes, it will show a significant deterioration in the level of cash deficits, yet the member continues to promise billions of dollars of tax cuts. Apparently, Jacqui Dean was right—the money will come from overseas.

Sue Moroney: Has the Minister received any advice on the comparative financial position of individuals in New Zealand and Australia?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The most recent advice from Treasury shows that the real wage gap between Australia and New Zealand fell by 2.6 percent between 1999 and 2008. That compares with an increase of 50 percent during the 1990s, when that member and many of his colleagues were in Government. Real wages in New Zealand have grown faster than those in Australia since 1999, reversing a long-term, historical trend.

Hon Bill English: Can the Minister confirm that the figures that Labour, the Council of Trades Union, and the Public Service Association are using were calculated by Trevor Mallard, and they are wrong?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: No, I cannot confirm that, at all. In fact, I would be quite happy to table this particular piece of paper, for the member’s instruction.

Madam SPEAKER: Is leave sought to table it?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Yes, please.

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

Hon Bill English: Does the Labour Government think that the thousands of Kiwis who have left New Zealand in the last 12 months for Australia are so innumerate that they have not noticed the legacy of 9 years of mismanaged growth and lost opportunity, including the Minister promising tax cuts in 2005, then changing his mind after the election? One reason they have left is that they simply do not believe him.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: What I can say is that this Government has nearly trebled spending on infrastructure from the parlous level of spending it inherited from the previous National Government; it has massively increased spending on industry training, including such measures as Modern Apprenticeships; it has introduced major reforms into almost the entire education system; it has introduced KiwiSaver, which 800,000 Kiwis are now benefiting from; and it is working on further measures to improve the operation of New Zealand’s capital markets. Indeed, the real issue with Australia is its higher wages, not the level of the tax rate. During the 1990s, under a National Government, the out-movement to Australia grew every year, peaking in a net figure of close to 30,000 in 2000.

Hon Bill English: Why did the Minister promise tax cuts before the 2005 election, then break that promise; and why should any New Zealander believe he will implement another round of tax cuts in 18 months’ time, if he is re-elected?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The story is changing; he is catching “Key syndrome”, as it is called! On 1 October, next week, tax cuts come into force; tax cuts for Mr Key, who can go and buy some shares in a foreign rail company on this occasion. Of course, Mr English is trying to raise doubts about the 2010-11 tax cuts because he will pretend, when National announces its tax policy, that all its tax cuts are additional, and are not, in fact, simply sucking back money from what has been legislated already, handing out more at the upper end and taking it away from the bottom end, which is what he is planning.

Hon Bill English: Why is the Minister implementing tax cuts on 1 October, when for 8 years he bitterly opposed personal tax cuts and said that any cuts in taxes would have to be financed by borrowing, and now he is implementing tax cuts and is financing them by borrowing?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: If the member thinks about the logic of that, he will see that any additional tax cuts will have to be totally financed from borrowing.

Sue Moroney: Has the Minister received any other reports on tax obligations in New Zealand?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Yes. I am advised that when someone actively trades shares, he or she may have obligations to disclose profits on the sale of those shares as income, and to pay income tax on it. In other words, if somebody buys shares with the intention of selling them quickly, then, in fact, there is a question of intention of sale. I note that John Key said that when he bought the Tranz Rail shares in 2003, he bought them with the intention of sale. Let us see the tax returns, I say to Mr Key.

Free-trade Agreement—New Zealand - United States

5. MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) to the Minister of Trade: What progress is being made towards a free-trade agreement with the United States?

Hon ANNETTE KING (Acting Minister of Trade): Excellent progress is being made. Today the United States announced its decision to enter into comprehensive free-trade agreement negotiations to become a full partner of the Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership Agreement, or P4 group, consisting of Chile, Singapore, Brunei, and New Zealand. Today’s announcement is of huge significance and benefit for New Zealand. To have this commitment from the United States, in the same year as we have also concluded free-trade agreements with China and the ASEAN economies, is a great achievement and opens up the prospect of significant and sustained benefits to New Zealand businesses, employment, and the economy in general.

Martin Gallagher: What would be the value of a free-trade agreement between the P4 group and the United States for New Zealand?

Hon ANNETTE KING: It would be considerable. The United States is New Zealand’s second-largest individual trading partner and second-largest export market. New Zealand’s total trade with the United States in the year to June 2008 was worth $8.14 billion, accounting for 9.6 percent of New Zealand’s total trade. With the involvement of the United States, the P4 group is now poised to expand rapidly to encompass other countries in the Asia-Pacific region, and to lead to greater economic integration in the region.

Dr Russel Norman: Will the Minister publicly guarantee that he will not sign any trade deal with the United States that undermines Pharmac’s role as a monopoly purchaser of pharmaceuticals on behalf of all New Zealanders—yes or no?

Hon ANNETTE KING: As with all our free-trade agreements, in order for New Zealand to be able to agree to any outcome the agreement overall must be able to pass the test of being in our national interest. Those issues will be discussed and we will look at our national interest.

Martin Gallagher: What response to the announcement of these free-trade agreement negotiations has the Minister seen from industry and producer groups?

Hon ANNETTE KING: I have seen statements welcoming the significant benefits that will flow from the proposed free-trade agreement for many key sector groups, including Export New Zealand, Federated Farmers, the Employers and Manufacturers Association (Northern), and Business New Zealand. I have seen comments such as “would deliver a fantastic boost to exporters’ confidence …”, “the potential for New Zealand in this is immense.”, “a Free Trade Agreement with the world’s largest economy is something to be savoured.”, “The government is to be loudly congratulated for getting the US to the negotiating table on this issue. … it would be the most important trade development for New Zealand since the CER deal with Australia in 1983.”, and “the trade policy hat-trick announced this year—the China, ASEAN and now a potential US FTA—holds open the hope of significant growth in the future.”

Dr Russel Norman: Given the Minister’s previous answer, where she refused to publicly guarantee to protect Pharmac, will the Minister publicly guarantee not to loosen the current rules around genetic engineering as part of a trade deal with the United States—yes or no?

Hon ANNETTE KING: I repeat: as with all our free-trade agreements, in order for New Zealand to be able to agree to any outcome, the agreement overall must be able to pass the test of being in our national interest. Those are issues that we will look at.

Youth—Education and Training

6. ANNE TOLLEY (National—East Coast) to the Minister of Education: Does he stand by his statement that “Schools Plus articulates the goal of every young person being in education, skills development, or structured learning, relevant to their needs and abilities, until the age of 18.”; if so, how many young people are currently not engaged in education, skills development, or structured learning?

Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Education): Yes; although New Zealand students are performing among the best in the world, the 2006 census revealed that 9,300 15 to 17-year-olds were not currently engaged in education, training, or employment. We estimate that another 20,000 are in very low-skill jobs. It is exactly those sorts of students that Schools Plus aims to keep in education or training.

Anne Tolley: Can the Minister confirm that in 2002 his Government promised that by the end of 2007 every 15 to 19-year-old would be in work, education, or training, so the fact that we are talking about almost 30,000 young people not being in work, education, or training, as the Minister has just outlined, means that Labour has failed to achieve the goal it announced in 2002?

Hon CHRIS CARTER: The member never listens to the answer. She asked me about students who were in training or education, and she has now included employment. Actually, 6,000 young New Zealanders were unemployed in 2002; today only 250 are, which is a 96 percent reduction, as we promised the Mayors Task Force for Jobs. We are talking about students and young people who are in very low-skill jobs. We want to lift up their skills. We are proud of our employment record. We also want to make sure that every young New Zealander lifts up their skills.

Hon Mark Burton: What recent announcements has the Government made to support the implementation of Schools Plus?

Hon CHRIS CARTER: Last week at Massey High School the Prime Minister and I announced $39.7 million for the initial roll-out in 2009 of Schools Plus. This will include about $11.5 million towards improved careers guidance for schools; another $21 million towards an expanded Secondary Tertiary Alignment Resource course, which is an already successful programme; 100 new schools next year joining the Youth Apprenticeships scheme; more funding for pre-employment training; and a tertiary-secondary opportunity at the Manukau Institute of Technology. I contrast that with National’s plan—boot camps for bad kids.

Anne Tolley: When the Government set itself a goal in 2002, and the Minister today has admitted that it failed to achieve that goal for at least 10,000 17-year-olds, why is Labour now reheating that same goal of having all young people in education and training, and now asking the New Zealand public to wait until 2014 to get what Labour promised it would have done by 2007?

Hon CHRIS CARTER: The member criticises our Government for reducing the number of young unemployed people from 6,000 to 250, a 96 percent reduction. Somehow, she says, that is not good enough. Well, I say to Mrs Tolley that boot camps will not work.

Anne Tolley: If he were a schoolteacher, what would the Minister of Education say to a student who asked to have 5 years to achieve a task but failed miserably to do so, and who then came back 6 years later to ask for a 6-year extension; and does the Minister think the New Zealand public are foolish enough to listen to a Government that broke its 2002 promise, and is now shamelessly reheating that same promise and asking them to wait for another 6 years to get any results?

Hon CHRIS CARTER: For many years, I was a schoolteacher, and I would tell that student that I am very proud now to be the Minister of Education in a Government that has put an extra $5.5 billion into education, and that has come up with a revolutionary scheme like Schools Plus, brought in 20 hours’ free early childhood education, built 1,500 classrooms and 42 new schools, and increased teachers’ salaries by 38 percent. That student would be very impressed with that real achievement.

Judy Turner: Does the Minister agree that the Schools Plus policy will deliver very little to students if the New Zealand Qualifications Authority continues to refuse to receive achievement marks for students whose parents have failed to pay the New Zealand Qualifications Authority fee; and will he move to correct this so that students’ results are not lost due to the inability or unwillingness of parents to pay?

Hon CHRIS CARTER: One of the most important things about Schools Plus is that it is a collaborative approach involving schools, the community, trade unions, business, the New Zealand Qualifications Authority, the New Zealand Teachers Council, the teachers’ unions, and so on, so that we can get all of the ducks lined up to make sure it works properly. That is why it is being resourced by $40 million next year, and why it has a very long period of consultation—we want it to work. Yes, we will have to work closely with the New Zealand Qualifications Authority, and with every other stakeholder in education.

Judy Turner: Does the Minister agree that it would be preferable for the New Zealand Qualifications Authority to at least collect and hold all student achievement data—even if it will not then provide written evidence to school leavers if fees are not paid—to avoid the risk that currently exists of students losing their marks altogether; if he does agree, will he move to fix this so that Schools Plus qualification gains are not lost?

Hon CHRIS CARTER: I, like every other Minister in the Labour Government, am determined to make Schools Plus work, so that we can get the outcome we want, which is better skills and better training for all young New Zealanders. So, yes, I will be working closely with the New Zealand Qualifications Authority to make sure we have the most robust and best possible systems in place to make Schools Plus work for our kids.

Anne Tolley: Why is the Ministry of Education paying for 120 principals to fly to Wellington at short notice for a briefing on Schools Plus—that is, why is his Government using tens of thousands of dollars of taxpayer money, 7 weeks out from an election, to fly in principals for a briefing to publicise Labour Party election policy; and is that not a breach of the Electoral Finance Act?

Hon CHRIS CARTER: I am really delighted to hear, as no doubt every principal in New Zealand will be, that the Ministry of Education is assisting those schools. Usually I hear the opposite complaint—that we do not give schools enough support. I am glad the principals are coming to Wellington, because we want Schools Plus to work.

Anne Tolley: Can we sum up the situation in this way, then: in 2002, the Labour Government promised to have all of our young people in education, training, or work by the end of 2007, and it failed; now, a year later, it is reheating that same goal, giving itself another 6-year extension, and, to top it all off, it is using tens of thousands of taxpayer dollars to fly principals in, to brief them on Labour Party election campaign policy?

Hon CHRIS CARTER: I can sum up for the member in just a few words: in 2006, 6,000 unemployed youngsters; today, 250. Yes, I tell Mrs Tolley that our programmes are working.

Anne Tolley: I seek leave to table the letter from the Ministry of Education to principals, inviting them, at the ministry’s expense—

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

Government Initiatives—Implementation

7. LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What Government initiatives come into force next week that will benefit New Zealanders?

Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for Social Development and Employment): From 1 October New Zealanders will experience the benefit of a new low tax rate of 12.5 percent, the lifting of tax thresholds for workers on middle and high incomes, and increases to the Working for Families tax credits. These are just a few of the initiatives of a responsible, Labour-led Government, planning for a strong and sustainable future for all New Zealanders.

Lynne Pillay: Who will benefit from these initiatives?

Hon RUTH DYSON: All workers will pay less tax after next Wednesday, but in particular these initiatives will benefit those on low incomes, families with children, and superannuitants. Recent research shows that the gap between rich and poor in our country has reduced for the first time in over two decades. The 1 October changes continue our Government’s focus on delivering fairness.

Justice—Government Policies

8. SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) to the Minister of Justice: Has she asked the Prime Minister why there were no new justice policies mentioned in the Prime Minister’s statement that “In the next few weeks I will be announcing significant new policies in critical areas such as health, education and housing.”; if not, why not?

Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Justice): No. Unlike National, which has an inner clique that decides policy and feeds its backbench manure only, Labour has a proper policy process that involves all its members of Parliament. I point out to the member that the Prime Minister said “such as” in her statement; it was not restricted to just those three areas.

Simon Power: Why has the Minister of Corrections proposed looking at banning gangs, when the Minister of Justice has told this House three times that she did not believe it was feasible or possible to outlaw them, and when Labour did nothing about gangs for 2 years, then left a bill that increased the penalties for gang members in the drawer for a year after it had been approved by Cabinet, because the then Minister was too busy with the Electoral Finance Act?

Hon ANNETTE KING: The Minister of Police would be silly not to consider looking at legislation in another country if it works, and what the Minister of Corrections has said is that we ought to look to see whether it works. I totally agree with him. But I do not agree with the member’s saying that this Government has done nothing about gangs; we have done a lot about organised crime. The member does not recognise what we have done, because that would not suit his purposes.

Simon Power: Can the Minister confirm that there are no new justice policies because the Government still has not passed laws it announced much earlier, like the criminal proceeds bill promised at the last election, the corrections amendment bill first announced in June last year, and the Legal Services Amendment Bill, which she told the Sensible Sentencing Trust conference would be introduced in May and passed soon after, but has yet to receive its first reading?

Hon ANNETTE KING: I can assure the member that there will be a very strong justice policy from the Labour Party, as there has been in every election. I wonder how many members of the National Party know anything about their justice policy; I am pretty sure that they will not have been told it yet.

Simon Power: Can the Minister confirm that neither the new legislation to govern electronic bail, which the Prime Minister announced in June, nor the amendment to the Domestic Violence Act, which the Minister said would be introduced by July, has yet to appear before the House at all; and in light of the 43 percent increase in violence under her Government, why have improvements to laws dealing with family violence been put on the back-burner?

Hon ANNETTE KING: I can assure the member they have certainly not been put on the back-burner. We undertook a major review of the Domestic Violence Act, we consulted widely, the legislation has recently gone through Cabinet, and it will be in this House in due course. I look forward to the National Party voting for it. You see, it is very easy to sit there, shout, and interject; when National was in Government its record on law and order was abysmal—whether it was organised crime or domestic violence. It really disappoints me that, even today, National does not recognise that family violence is a major issue.

Simon Power: Does “in due course” mean that those bills I have referred to will be in the urgency motion this week?

Hon ANNETTE KING: The member will have to wait and see.

Simon Power: Can the Minister confirm that the Prime Minister’s announcement at the beginning of the year that Labour would investigate a victims compensation scheme rests on the advice of the Law Commission, which is not due to produce a discussion document until this month; and why has the policy not firmed up in the 14 years since her leader last announced it, in 1994?

Hon ANNETTE KING: The member is not correct in his comments about the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister ensured the passage of the Victims’ Rights Act in 2002. The National Government had 9 years to put in place legislation for victims in New Zealand; there was no legislation from National. Not only did we put in place legislation but this week we announce the victims’ charter, and we also announce an 0800 number so that victims can get information when they need it. We have put money and commitment behind victims; National has only ever talked about that.

Ron Mark: Would it be helpful, given that on 14 March 2006 the Government was dismissive of New Zealand First’s calls to pass legislation to outlaw gangs, and given that on 21 November 2007 the Government dismissed New Zealand First’s request that it look at the South Australian Serious and Organised Crime (Control) Act, which had been put through Parliament that day, if New Zealand First tabled for its first reading the Anti Gang and Organised Crime Bill that it has drafted, which blends the strengths of the South Australian Act with the Terrorism Suppression Act here in New Zealand and the US Congress’s Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act; would it be helpful if we tabled that bill now?

Hon ANNETTE KING: The member has every right to table whatever he likes. I would have no objection to his tabling whatever he wanted. However, we have said that we want to look at the South Australian legislation. The last thing we want to do is to put in place something that does not work, but we have the opportunity, because we work closely with South Australia, to look at how its legislation works, and then to see whether it can be applied to New Zealand.

Ron Mark: I seek leave for the Anti Gang and Organised Crime Bill to be introduced and set down for first reading as a members’ order of the day, despite Standing Orders 276(1) and 277(1).

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

Principles of Justice—Application

9. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) to the Minister of Justice: Does she agree that the principles of British justice, which have evolved in New Zealand, still apply in New Zealand?

Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Justice): Yes. New Zealand has adopted, through history and common law, many of the justice principles first articulated in the British justice system. Over time many of these principles have been refined in New Zealand legislation and judicial decisions.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is it one of those most basic, fundamental principles that one cannot be convicted of an offence that is not in the law?

Hon ANNETTE KING: Yes.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is it one of those basic, fundamental principles that there cannot be in a case retrospective legislation or retrospective rules, and then justice?

Hon ANNETTE KING: I believe that is correct.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is it also fundamental to our laws and our system that an offence is only applicable when the law or rules have been, in fact, put in place?

Hon ANNETTE KING: Again, the member is correct.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Does the Minister regard that as being game, set, and match?

Hon ANNETTE KING: All the issues the member has raised I gave affirmative answers to. If that is game, set, and match, then it must be.

State Services—Delivery

10. GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) to the Minister of State Services: Does he stand by his statement in June that “If State servants don’t deliver services efficiently and effectively, people lose faith and trust in the State Services”?

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of State Services): Yes.

Gerry Brownlee: Does he stand by his statement in June—I am sorry, Madam Speaker. My question is to the Minister—

Hon Member: Big words, Gerry—big words.

Gerry Brownlee: Yes, they are big words—that is right. Are services being delivered efficiently and effectively, when in the last 5 years the amount of floor space leased to house bureaucrats in central Wellington has increased from 313,578 square metres to 445,915 square metres; and how is that 42 percent increase in occupied floor space of benefit to the taxpayer?

Hon DAVID PARKER: I cannot verify the exact figures that the member used, but I am happy to accept his word. Three areas of costs that I, as Minister, have been moving to control are building lease costs, advertising costs, and air travel costs. The Government is paying attention to these issues.

Darien Fenton: What reports has the Minister seen on public servant numbers?

Hon DAVID PARKER: Of course, the big cost centre is, and always will be, wage costs—wage and salary costs. I have seen reports that John Key, Bill English, and Gerry Brownlee all say that National will not cut the number of public servants, yet we have National still talking about unaffordable tax cuts—tax cuts that would cost many billions of dollars on top of the amount that Labour is already committed to. If it is going to do that—

Hon Trevor Mallard: Reckless borrowing!

Hon DAVID PARKER: You have got it, Mr Mallard—reckless borrowing and substantial increases in Government debt at a time of international turmoil. Some might expect that from a party of paper shufflers and speculators, but I, for one, think it would be disastrous for New Zealand.

Gerry Brownlee: How can people—[Interruption] I am just waiting for the retiring member from Wanganui to finish. How can people have trust in Labour’s stewardship of the Public Service, when it is overseeing an increase in the amount of floor space leased to bureaucrats in central Wellington over the last 5 years that equates to an additional 13.2 hectares of office space?

Hon DAVID PARKER: No doubt the vast proportion of that increase relates to the increase in the number of public servants, which is at a lower rate than the increase in the labour force.

Gerry Brownlee: How can people have trust in Labour’s stewardship of the Public Service, when in the last 5 years it has chosen to create a 17 point difference—[Interruption] I am doing well! In the last 5 years—[Interruption] I know how they feel, Madam Speaker. It is their last day in those seats. It is like the end of a school year.

Madam SPEAKER: If the member keeps on chipping backwards and forwards, the question will go on forever, so just ask the question, please.

Gerry Brownlee: How can people have trust in Labour’s stewardship of the Public Service, when in the last 5 years it has chosen to create extra space for bureaucrats that is equal to the two new Auckland City hospitals, 27 new Sunderland Schools, or 1,470 State houses; and what are they doing in all that office space?

Hon DAVID PARKER: The country can be assured that if voters choose to return a Labour Government, we will prudently look after their money. We will not recklessly borrow to increase Government debt.

Gerry Brownlee: Has the Minister seen a report by Bayleys Research that states that the Government sector now occupies almost 40 percent of the total commercial space in the Wellington central business district; and does he agree with its analysis that the surge in floor uptake over the last 5 years involves quite staggering numbers, and serves only to illustrate how big the core bureaucracy in New Zealand has become?

Hon DAVID PARKER: As I said before, State servant numbers have decreased as a proportion of the labour force.

Gerry Brownlee: Can the Minister confirm that the cost of leased office space in central Wellington now amounts to at least $106 million a year; and is not the growing of the bureaucracy simply driving up costs for the taxpayer, who has to pay for further space to contain them?

Hon DAVID PARKER: What I can confirm is that it was the last National Government flogging off the Government-owned premises that has now increased the cost of the rent paid by the taxpayers. If National got on the Treasury benches, it would flog off the remaining assets that are owned by the taxpayers.

Food Labelling—Country of Origin

11. JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister for Food Safety: Does she stand by her statement that “country-of-origin labelling does not serve a food safety purpose”; if so, why?

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister for Food Safety): Yes; because all food for sale in New Zealand is required to meet New Zealand standards, no matter where it comes from. A label that advises the country of origin of the whole food, or of each or some of the ingredients, does not in itself provide information on the safety of the food, but provides information only on the origin of the food. That being said, I say the Government fully supports voluntary country-of-origin labelling as a service to consumers.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: Is it, therefore, the Minister’s opinion that New Zealand and China have equivalent food safety standards?

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: I should say that high-risk foods that come to New Zealand from anywhere are, in fact, monitored by the New Zealand Food Safety Authority. So it is not actually a question of the levels of standards that apply in individual countries; it is whether the food is up to the New Zealand standard when it arrives here. In that respect, it does not matter whether it comes from China or Timbuctoo.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: Can the Minister tell us what routine tests New Zealand applies for detecting melamine in dairy products imported from China; if there are none, how can she deny New Zealand consumers the right to know where their food comes from, so they can make their own decisions?

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: No country routinely checks dairy products for melamine. This has been a situation that has arisen in China in respect of the addition of melamine in the chain of supply, and, as I made the point the other day, one of the products we found that might potentially have had dairy product from China in it had come via Australia. The product did not, in fact, have melamine in it, so I hasten to reassure people about that. But the product had the country-of-origin labelling that is required in Australia, and that labelling said: “Made from domestic and imported products.”, and therefore it did not assist in identifying whether the product came from China.

Electoral Finance Act—Freedom of Speech

12. Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) to the Minister of Justice: Does she stand by her statement in relation to the Electoral Finance Bill: “This bill does not restrict free speech.”; if so, why?

Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Justice): Yes; and we are already seeing examples of people freely expressing their views in this election campaign. A good example is the untrue jibes about Dr Cullen’s sexuality, made at Dr Nick Smith’s campaign launch, which the member asking the question had no hesitation in joining in. So much for the clean campaign promised by John Key!

Hon Bill English: How can the Minister continue to defend the Electoral Finance Act when the New Zealand Law Society’s rule of law committee, which includes, as a member, the Deputy Solicitor-General, said recently that the Act is an “unwarranted intrusion on the right to freedom of political expression …”, and it is “fundamentally flawed and misconceived, and ought to be repealed …”; and why should we regard the Minister’s opinion on this issue as more valid than the opinion of the Law Society?

Hon ANNETTE KING: The New Zealand Law Society is exercising its right to free speech.

Hon Bill English: Well, under the law it would have to register to do that! What does the Minister think of the comment made by her Cabinet colleague Jim Anderton, who is now subject to two police investigations under the Electoral Finance Act, when he said that complying with the law is an extraordinary waste of everyone’s time; and was Mr Anderton not at the Cabinet discussions about this law?

Hon ANNETTE KING: Jim Anderton is also entitled to exercise free speech and is allowed to make whatever comments he wishes. In the end, it is up to the Electoral Commission. But I think that member has probably distorted what Jim Anderton said.

Hon Bill English: Does the Minister stand by her rather obvious statement that she is not an expert on this law but that the Electoral Commission is; and what does she think about the expert opinion of the chief executive of the Electoral Commission, when she said: “It is clear that having uncertainty remaining within the regulated period has had a chilling effect on the extent and type of participation in political and campaign activity.”; and also said: “The meanings of significant sections of this legislation are obscure.”?

Hon ANNETTE KING: Dr Catt is independent and she can hold her own views. However, I point out to the member that free speech is available and able to be used in this campaign, and that fact can be seen in these posters here, which have been put up on hoardings around Wellington. There are quite a number of them. People are allowed to do that under the Electoral Finance Act. They are authorised.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Table them.

Hon ANNETTE KING: I will table them. This poster shows Maurice Williamson when he had a beard and was allowed to speak! These pamphlets are an example of free speech in an election campaign. No one stopped this, because the organisation did it right; it followed the rules. The National Party does not want to follow the rules. It wants big business to be able to buy this election campaign. Well, it has failed.

Hon Bill English: Is the Minister not aware that it is a disgrace that the law that she passed has been described by the chief executive of the Electoral Commission, 2 months out from the election, as “having a chilling effect on the extent and type of participation in campaign activity.”, and that 2 months out from an election New Zealand’s top electoral official has said: “The meanings of significant sections of the legislation are obscure.”, which means that MPs, campaigners, and lobby groups who try to comply with this ridiculous law could easily find themselves in court and in jail after the election?

Hon ANNETTE KING: If it is so difficult, how did www.botheyesopen.org.nz manage to be able to work within the rules, put out posters like these, and not be caught by the Electoral Finance Act? They followed the rules. That is all anybody needs to do. But of course Bill English is on a mission to try to spread as much misinformation about this Act as possible, because the National Party wanted to spend its millions of dollars and it was not allowed to. It is a bad case of sour grapes.

Hon Bill English: Why is it that the Minister now professes to a detailed knowledge of the rules, when all the parties that voted for the Electoral Finance Act have been found to have breached the rules—namely, the Labour Party, New Zealand First, Progressive, and the Greens?

Hon ANNETTE KING: The point I was making to the member was that over and over again he has said that nobody could campaign; nobody could get out there and put up a hoarding or put out a pamphlet. He said that was not possible, but I say that it is possible, and that organisations are out there doing that right now and they could have been doing it from the beginning of the year. That member needs to get over his sour grapes, get out there and campaign, and do his best, but at the end of the day people will remember that he was “Mr Pension-cutter” for the older people of New Zealand.

Hon Bill English: Is the Minister aware that when canvassed on the doorstep, many New Zealanders are keen to get rid of a Government that has passed a law where one has to register to have a political opinion, where the rules are so complex that many people are too scared to have a go at campaigning, and where the chief executive of the Electoral Commission has said that the law has a chilling effect and that meanings of the legislation are obscure; and has any Minister done a worse job than her on this law?

Hon ANNETTE KING: There we go—“Mr Nasty” always makes it personal. I say to the member that I think he has lost the plot on this issue. It is his last shot on it; why does he not just get over it and get out and campaign? He has been whingeing and snivelling in this Parliament for most of the year when he could certainly have been out and campaigning.

Hon Bill English: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I think the Minister referred to me as personalising the issue and then went on to use some very unparliamentary and highly personalised language. I ask that she withdraw.

Madam SPEAKER: She may well have, but unfortunately members were shouting too much for me to hear. But if the member has asked for a withdrawal, would the member please withdraw.

Hon ANNETTE KING: I withdraw—I think the words were “whingeing and snivelling”, but I did not know they were unparliamentary.

Madam SPEAKER: It is all right; the member has withdrawn.

Hon Bill English: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The Minister is a longstanding member who knows the conventions around statements of withdrawal, and I ask that she be held to those conventions.

Madam SPEAKER: Would the Minister please withdraw and apologise, and do nothing else.

Hon ANNETTE KING: I withdraw and apologise.

Madam SPEAKER: Thank you.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I wonder whether the Minister would clarify for the House why those posters that were held up are in such perfect condition, when they are supposed to have come off lamp posts and when the organisation that put them there is not connected to the Labour Party? [Interruption]

Madam SPEAKER: The member has asked for an explanation; the Minister is to give it.

Hon ANNETTE KING: With very delicate hands one might be able to get them off a lamp post, but I can assure the member that these posters are available anywhere around Wellington. He can just go into any place and he will find them; they will be available for him. He can collect the whole set. There is a whole set of them. There are, in fact, three in the set. If the member is really lucky, they will give him the whole set.

Privilege

Consideration of Report of Privileges Committee

Members’ Pecuniary Interests—Gifts and Donations

PETER BROWN (Whip—NZ First): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. At the conclusion of this debate we will take a vote, and it is a very serious issue, to my mind. As you are well aware, I wrote to you and asked that it be a personal vote, in the interests of justice. You declined that, and I just wondered whether you could spare a few moments of the House’s time to explain why it was declined.

Madam SPEAKER: Is the member seeking leave to have a personal vote at the end of this debate?

PETER BROWN: If that is the option I have, then I seek leave for the vote to be taken on this debate to be a personal vote.

Madam SPEAKER: I thank the member. Yes, the member is quite right; he did write to me. I did consult with parties and the request was declined. But leave has been sought. Is there any objection? Yes, there is objection.

SIMON POWER (Chairperson of the Privileges Committee): I move, That this House take note of the report of the Privileges Committee on a question of privilege relating to compliance with a member’s obligations under the Standing Orders dealing with pecuniary interests; censure Rt Hon Winston Peters for knowingly providing false or misleading information on a return of pecuniary interests; order Rt Hon Winston Peters to file, within 7 days of this order, amended returns for the years ended 31 January 2006, 2007, and 2008 covering any gifts, debts, or payments in kind that he has not previously registered; resolve that the Standing Orders Committee review the Standing Orders relating to pecuniary interests; and resolve that the Clerk of the House of Representatives enhance the support available to the Registrar of Pecuniary Interests in order to provide an authoritative source of advice for members making returns of pecuniary interests. I stand today as the chairperson of Parliament’s Privileges Committee, with this report having been tabled late yesterday afternoon or early evening. Madam Speaker, I believe that it is appropriate you have remained in the Chair for the early part of this debate, at least, as this is a very serious matter.

Before turning to the detail of the report I will make a few introductory remarks. First of all, I thank the staff of the Privileges Committee for handling what at times have been complex and difficult issues. I also take this opportunity to thank all the members of the Privileges Committee, who approached this particular referral in a way that I consider to be appropriate and thorough. It is worth noting that in the recommendations in the report, the majority view in respect of the first and second recommendations includes representatives on that committee from National, the Greens, the Māori Party, United Future, and the ACT party. The minority report in respect of the first and second recommendations represents members of the Labour Party and New Zealand First. The third and fourth recommendations, relating to referrals of this matter and the Standing Orders Committee, are unanimous recommendations from all members of the Privileges Committee.

Madam Speaker, as I, as chairperson, have said on many occasions, both during the course of hearings of evidence and in private discussions with committee members, the terms of reference to the Privileges Committee from you were very narrow and specific. Despite the view some had that this inquiry may have been more wide ranging, it was not. Evidence that did not relate to the questions before the committee are not reported on.

Madam Speaker, on 5 August 2005 you ruled that a question of privilege arose from complaints that the Rt Hon Winston Peters failed to disclose a gift, and failed to disclose a debt and the name of the person who discharged it. That question stood referred to the Privileges Committee. I want to take a moment to outline the terms of reference the committee decided upon in respect of that referral. The terms of reference were as follows: the meaning of “debt” and “debtor” in the context of the register of pecuniary interests and the meaning of “gift”, similarly within that context; whether a debt existed and should have been disclosed; whether, if a debt did not exist, a gift was received from a person whose name was known or would be reasonably discernible, or a donation was made that covered expenses in an election campaign, and, further, if a debt or gift existed, whether Mr Peters knowingly provided a return that was inaccurate in a material way; whether the rules for disclosure of pecuniary interests required clarification or amendment; and any other matters.

In broad terms, the committee agreed to a process that saw it hearing evidence from Mr Peters and his counsel Mr Henry. We invited Mr Owen Glenn to appear before us to give evidence. Mr Peters and Mr Henry had a further opportunity to appear before us, following Mr Glenn’s appearance. Significantly, during the course of the committee’s deliberations we received a communication from the director of the Serious Fraud Office. On hearing further evidence from Mr Peters and receiving written evidence from Mr Henry, the committee determined that these matters did not go to the heart of the matter referred by you, Madam Speaker, to the committee. However, we note that if payments were made by a third party, these would have constituted a gift. We made Mr Peters aware of the draft findings and provided him with an opportunity to comment. Mr Peters’ response is appended to this report as Appendix N.

At the centre of the matter before the committee was a payment of approximately $100,000 from Owen Glenn to the account of Brian Henry. The fact of this payment was not disputed. It is worth noting that the committee, having heard evidence early on and having received specific advice on the issue, determined that there was no legal debt. The issue then quickly moved to the issue of whether a gift had transpired between the parties I have already mentioned.

Mr Glenn told the committee that after speaking with Mr Peters on or shortly after 5 December 2005, he sought Mr Williams’ view on whether helping Mr Peters would be helpful to the New Zealand Labour Party. Mr Glenn believed that this was discussed at a brunch meeting with Mr Williams on 14 December in Sydney. Mr Glenn told the committee he telephoned Mr Peters later that morning—11.16 a.m. Sydney time; 1.26 p.m. New Zealand time—to tell him he would contribute to the cost of the petition. Mr Glenn said that in the course of that conversation he offered to provide $100,000. Mr Glenn told us that Mr Peters then said his lawyer would send account details and requested that the donation be kept confidential. That evidence was disputed. Mr Glenn supplied us with a copy of the email he then received on 14 December from Mr Henry, which gave Mr Henry’s bank account details and referred to a conversation between Mr Glenn and Mr Henry’s client, sent at 1.40 p.m. New Zealand time. It was at that point that the Privileges Committee was required to balance the evidence that was before it. On page 12 of the report from the committee, it has set out how it went about the assessment of that evidence and, in particular, the standard it used in analysing and drawing inferences from the known facts.

Essentially, as I said earlier, the matter then drew very quickly to the issue of whether a gift should have been declared on the register of pecuniary interests. The committee considered that the payment was of benefit to Mr Peters. It is clear that the intent of the donor in this case was not to benefit the barrister, and the committee was of the view that it was the member’s legal expenses that were being contributed to, not the barrister’s well-being. Together, these elements show clearly that the payment did constitute a gift to Mr Peters.

At that point the matter became somewhat more complicated. The committee then had to move to determine the knowledge of the payment, and, in the words of the deputy chair of the committee, “at this time the committee was faced with two different narratives.” There were some points of agreement between the two narratives. Mr Peters and Mr Glenn agree that they met in Sydney on 13 August 2005. The parties all agree that on 14 December 2005 there was a telephone call from Mr Glenn to Mr Peters, which was followed immediately by a telephone call from Mr Peters to Mr Henry, after which Mr Henry emailed Mr Glenn with bank account details. Mr Peters and Mr Glenn agree they were both at the Karaka yearling sales on or about 31 January 2006.

The majority of the committee believe that it is extremely unlikely that Mr Peters and Mr Glenn could have had a conversation on that date without the issue of a donation being raised. A minority of the committee could not dismiss the argument put forward by Mr Peters that the money was not mentioned. In the end, the committee has delivered a majority report and a minority report. The majority of us consider that the sequence of telephone calls, followed immediately by an email containing bank account details, indicates that the topic must have arisen during one or both of those conversations.

The committee then moved to its finding of contempt, which is contained on page 19 of the report. We found that the payment, as I said, did constitute a gift, and we found no evidence that Mr Peters made an honest attempt to ascertain whether any donations had been received before making his return in February 2006, despite his knowledge of the arrangement with Mr Henry and the likelihood of donations being received towards his costs. For those reasons the majority of the Privileges Committee determined that a contempt had occurred.

Issues remaining for the Standing Orders Committee to consider are contained in the report. I emphasise that when you referred this matter to the committee, Madam Speaker, that was something you asked the committee to look at in some detail. I will finish where I started by thanking the staff of the committee and the advisers to the committee, as well as all members of the committee, for the way that the hearings, the evidence, and the deliberations were conducted.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister): I begin by recognising that in chairing the select committee, Mr Power ensured that due process was followed, and that all those who gave evidence to the committee were allowed to do so in a reasonable fashion and with a degree of protection against any undue activity on the part of any members of the committee.

It seems to me that there were three questions the committee needed to ask itself. The first question was whether Mr Peters knew about the Owen Glenn donation. The second question was if he did not, should he in any case have found out about it—for reasons that I will explore a little later on. The third question was whether he should have declared that donation on the pecuniary interests register. In order for the finding in the majority to stand, it seems to me that one has to answer “yes” to either questions one and three—in other words, Mr Peters knew and should have declared it—or to questions two and three, that he should have found out about it and declared it. If there is a “no” to either one and three or two and three, then in fact the contempt finding cannot be made. There is a high standard to apply, because the finding of contempt and a motion of censure is an extremely serious matter. I can find in Dave McGee’s book only three references to motions of censure in the last 35 years or so of this Parliament.

In relation to the first question, about whether Mr Peters knew about the Owen Glenn donation, we were faced at the time, as I said, with two conflicting narratives. Narrative A, Mr Glenn’s, was that Mr Peters contacted him on 5 December, leaving a message to phone Mr Peters. That conversation occurred on 14 December. During that conversation Mr Peters sought a donation. That donation was $100,000. Mr Peters then contacted Mr Henry. Mr Henry transferred his bank details to Mr Glenn. That narrative has a high degree of credibility about it, on the face of it.

The alternative narrative is a different one; let us deal with the first narrative, first. Much of it depends on the reliability of Mr Glenn as a witness. Mr Glenn was fine, as long as he stuck to the carefully coached matters that he went through, rehearsed by his lawyer Dr Harley. Interestingly enough, Dr Harley was appearing pro bono publico—for no fees—despite being one of the most expensive lawyers in the country, and despite being at the middle of the wine-box affair in which Mr Peters had a starring role on the other side of the script. Mr Glenn, however, unburdened himself the next day of a whole series of statements, and indeed managed to contradict himself on many different occasions. He said the donation was to New Zealand First, then he said it was to Mr Peters. He said he made the donation to Labour because of the Exclusive Brethren—an impossibility, as the donation was made before the relationship between National and the Exclusive Brethren was known. Then this morning on Morning Report he contradicted himself yet again by saying the donation to Labour had nothing to do with the Exclusive Brethren. He claimed that Mr Williams had arrived at his home in the south of France uninvited, but Mr Williams produced the email from Mr Glenn that invited him. He claimed that Mr Williams asked for a job, when in fact it was Mr Glenn who had offered Mr Williams a job. He claimed to have been invited to the Karaka sales by Mr Peters, when in fact Mr Peters is not the person who invites people to tables at the Karaka sales; the person is one of the people who are involved directly in the racing industry. Mr Glenn claimed to have sat at the same table as Mr Peters, when a series of affidavits have shown in fact that they did not lunch together at that particular function. In other words, Mr Glenn was a not entirely reliable witness.

Furthermore, he showed extreme resentment at being questioned. He seemed to regard the New Zealand select committee as something that was rather like being in front of third-level flunkies in his organisation. If they were told what the facts were, those were the facts that were to be accepted. Indeed, he threatened to walk out, even though he was not questioned very hard, at all. I have seen much harder questioning, by members on all sides of this House in the select committee process, than what Mr Glenn was subjected to. In other words, he was a person used to getting his own way, and he did not like it when he appeared not to be getting his own way. That could colour his attitude on matters such as donations.

The alternative narrative, therefore, is that in fact—as Mr Henry submitted and Mr Peters submitted—Mr Henry made the approach to Mr Glenn for the donation, which is much more likely to have occurred, in any case, given the nature of those who approach people for substantial donations; that Mr Glenn indeed called Mr Peters, because that is absolutely clear, and during that conversation he mentioned that he wanted Mr Henry’s details; and that Mr Peters conveyed that fact to Mr Henry, and Mr Henry contacted Mr Glenn.

Those are two different narratives, and one can choose between them. Only those who have totally prejudiced minds, such as Dr Smith, will conclude that only one of those narratives has credibility to it. Both those narratives have credibility to them, and the majority found that the first narrative was correct. The minority has serious doubts about that narrative. But in fact it is the least important of the questions, because of course even if it is true, we have to proceed to question three.

Let us deal with question two. Let us assume that narrative two is correct and that in fact Mr Glenn was approached by Mr Henry for the donation, and the matters unfolded as I outlined previously. Then we have the argument that is based on the submission from the former Clerk of the House, Dave McGee—who was invited at my suggestion to make a submission to the committee—that one should have to make an honest attempt. And that meant a much more serious delving back into the past about where donations might have come from, based in this case upon the undisputed fact that Mr Henry indicated that he told Mr Peters that people had contributed to Mr Henry’s legal expenses—expenses that, of themselves, as Mr Power has just outlined, did not create a debt, and could not, because Mr Henry practised as a barrister sole. What is more, the committee was further told that if the money did not come forth and Mr Peters was unable to pay the money, there was no obligation upon Mr Peters, at all—other than a moral one, perhaps—to pay that money. In other words, any payment of Mr Henry’s legal expenses did not thereby reduce any kind of payment that Mr Peters might make to Mr Henry.

The problem with the “honest attempt” test, however, is that it is basically a construction arrived at by the select committee, on the advice of Mr McGee, and is imported backwards to the affair in early 2006. I invite members to think very carefully. This exposes many people in this House to risk, in terms of any wide range of donations and services, or of undercharging for services, such as legal services. I think there might be many members who may care to think carefully about whether the returns they made at the start of 2006 might be entirely accurate in all respects, in the light of that changing interpretation of members’ obligations.

But then there is still the highest hurdle to cross. Even if all those facts follow, and Mr Peters should have found out about the donation or already knew about the donation, the real issue that comes at that point is whether he should have made a return. The registrar told us that if members approached her for advice about whether a matter required a return, she would advise them to ask their lawyer and seek legal advice, which is why the committee has recommended that the registrar should make more rulings on these matters. But what if Mr Peters had done that and had approached his lawyer for advice on this matter? Mr Henry submitted that in fact a return was not required, on two grounds: on the first ground, that it was not a gift to Mr Peters, because there was no obligation to pay, on Mr Peters’ part; and, on the second ground, that it was an electoral expense related to the electoral petition, and electoral expenses are specifically exempted from the requirement to make a return under the pecuniary interests register. The committee concluded that both those points were wrong, but that is not the point. The point is that that is the advice that Mr Peters would have had, had he followed what Dame Margaret Bazley said should be done. In other words, how can one conclude on the basis of this—and engage in a motion of censure on a member—that he knowingly made a false return, when in fact if he had followed what was recommended through this process, he would have been advised that he did not need to make a return on these matters?

That is why the Labour Party will not be voting for this motion. There is a conflict of evidence here. A high test should be applied, in the end. A very serious motion has been moved, and I think the House needs to think very clearly whether, for political purposes, on the eve of an election, it should be engaging in this public hanging. No doubt Mr Brownlee, as an ex-carpenter, is the man keen to erect the scaffold.

R DOUG WOOLERTON (NZ First): I would like to take a very short call to propose an amendment to the motion. I move, That the words “censure Rt Hon Winston Peters for knowingly providing false or misleading information on a return of pecuniary interests” be deleted and the following words inserted: “note that several members of Parliament had legal fighting funds and did not disclose donations to these as it was unclear that this was required”. I have a further amendment to insert after “order Rt Hon Winston Peters”, “Hon Dr Nick Smith and any other member with relevant interests”. Thank you.

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National): Madam Speaker, the House would probably like some clarification about the process—whether we speak—

Madam SPEAKER: The normal process is that we would go around, with each party, but as the Green Party member did not rise I went to you. But the Green member has now risen—

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I am quite happy to concede.

Madam SPEAKER: —to speak.

Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green): It gives me no joy to be standing here and speaking to this report. It gives me no joy, as it is not something that I particularly wanted to get involved in, and it is not something that anyone who has looked at the issue will be comfortable with. But as a member of Parliament who was on the Privileges Committee, I had no choice but to consider the evidence that was in front of us, and we had a duty to work our way through it.

I would like to thank Simon Power. I think that the process the chair of the select committee ran was fair, and he gave everyone a fair go. They had a fair go to put their point of view, and I think that it was a fair process. I think that is essential to it. I think, also, that from my point of view, the key to it was to approach the whole question with an open mind. I did not have a view as to the guilt or innocence of any of the people involved when I entered the process, but my approach was that I had to look at the evidence and try to come to a conclusion. That is what we were required to do on that committee. So when we looked at the evidence we discovered there was a case to answer, and as we went through the evidence we discovered even more and more of a case to answer.

In terms of the tests we were to apply, there were a couple of different tests. One was a test on the balance of probability. We had to decide, on the balance of probabilities, whether Mr Peters had knowledge. That was one of the key questions that all of us had to address. At the beginning I did not have a view as to whether Mr Peters had knowledge. I actually did not know. But as time went past, there was more and more evidence around it. So there was the balance of probabilities test. I do not think that this was a 51:49 test, because clearly this was an extremely serious issue, and one could not simply say that the probability was 51 percent, so he therefore had some knowledge. It had to be higher than that. It is hard to put a number on it but it had to be higher than 51:49.

The second test, of course, is the “honest attempt” test. The “honest attempt” test has been brought up here and it has been claimed as a retrospective test. I guess, in some senses, perhaps, that that is true. But I ask members to cast their minds as to what was actually said, and I quote from the report: “It is appropriate to expect members to make an honest attempt to return all of the pecuniary interests that they hold. In order to make such an honest attempt, members are obliged to turn their minds to the interests that they have. The onus is on members to recognise and declare relevant interests.” It seems to me that this is the test that applied from the beginning. Who would argue that members should not have followed this kind of test when filling out pecuniary interests? It seems to me that an “honest attempt” is exactly what is required. Surely that is what anyone requires of parliamentarians—that they make an honest attempt. So to say that somehow, 3 years ago or however long ago it was, parliamentarians were not required to make an honest attempt, which seems to be the argument around retrospectivity, is to my mind puzzling. Are people really saying that a few years ago no one had to make an honest attempt? I just cannot buy that. I think the “honest attempt” test is a fine test to have.

There were two principles around this, to my mind. One was the public’s right to know. The whole idea of pecuniary interest and what goes around it—and it is kind of paralleled with electoral law—is the public’s right to know who is giving money to politicians, and who is giving money to political parties. On the other side we had the basic right of Mr Peters to have a fair go. He had to have a fair go to present his side of the story to the committee. So basically we had to try to meet both of those principles—that the public had a right to know that the pecuniary interest register was being applied properly, and that we also had to give Mr Peters a fair go—and I believe we actually went through that.

In terms of the evidence, I can tell members that in my mind it was difficult to try to put the witnesses’ words one against the other. We heard numerous stories. It was very difficult to know which was the right story when one was sitting there listening to them all. So I think one of the key issues for me was the events around 14 December. That was one of the key bits of evidence, because regardless of who rang whom before 14 December, something very important happened on that day. There were two phone calls and an email. The first phone call was from the billionaire to the politician—if we want to take people’s names out of it—and they talked about something. We do not know what they talked about; there are different stories. The politician rang the politician’s lawyer immediately after, and they talked about something. Then the lawyer sent an email back to the billionaire and said: “Further to your conversation with the politician, here are my bank account details.” This series of phone calls and the email were compelling evidence—they were strong evidence. The thing about them is that nobody denied this evidence. Nobody said “Actually, this didn’t happen.” Those three pieces of evidence and the way they are connected together are a central part of why, I think, the majority of the committee came to the conclusion it did. There is a lot else around this, but we know that those three pieces of evidence were extremely strong, and nobody denied those three pieces of evidence.

The question we got to at the end was around what to do about it. Once we came to the point of view that there was some knowledge of the donation—and I believe that there was some knowledge, and that it was a gift—the question was what we do about it. There were those who were calling for Mr Peters to be suspended from Parliament, for all manner of things. I thought that that went too far. I thought that the report itself is sufficient penalty. It says, basically, that Mr Peters gave a false return. It says he is in contempt, he is censured, and he is required to give an accurate return. I think these are quite severe penalties, and I think that it is a step too far, and too much, to suggest there should be some kind of suspension of privilege, or anything beyond that. So the report, to my mind, was an appropriate response, and an appropriate penalty for what we found out.

Finally, I think this shows once again why transparency around money and political parties is so important. The people out there want to know that the $50 billion - odd of taxpayers’ money that we are responsible for spending is not being spent in a way that is influenced by our campaign donations. That is what they want to know; that is what the whole transparency rules are about. We are responsible for $50 billion - plus of other people’s money. How do they know that the way we spend it is not being influenced by donations coming either to us personally or to our political parties? There needs to be transparency around this kind of stuff to reassure people, so that there is both the appearance and the reality that that responsibility is not influenced by those kinds of donations. We actually went through a tremendously important process in investigating what happened in this situation, but it is part of a much broader issue, and I think we need to make more progress, more broadly, on cleaning up the rules around it. Thank you.

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki): Tēnā koe, Madam Assistant Speaker. Kia ora tātou e te Whare. As my colleague Dr Russel Norman stated, this matter has been a rather difficult one for us. The matter before the Privileges Committee, to examine the question of compliance with the Standing Orders relating to pecuniary interest, has been one that the Māori Party has taken seriously. I acknowledge the officials who provided support to the committee and gave clarity to me on some of the key issues. I also acknowledge Simon Power, the chair, who led the process in a thoroughly impartial way and also assisted me, when asked. Ka nui te mihi ki a koe—thank you, also.

It was disappointing to learn of the Prime Minister’s comments about the process of the Privileges Committee, alleging that it was totally unsatisfactory in terms of any natural justice, and that the whole process had become politicised, favouring one side. That is not an observation I share, nor is it behaviour that we, in the Māori Party, have indulged in during the sitting of the Privileges Committee. I have appreciated the thorough way in which evidence was requested, the expert assistance of the officials, as I stated earlier, and the willing cooperation of those who forwarded information to us for our perusal. I will leave that matter there.

The allegation as to whether contempt of the House has occurred is one that challenges both the institution of Parliament and the constitution of our party as a whole. The issue is not about personalities; it is not about political agendas. For me and the Māori Party, at the heart of the allegation is whether the member had knowingly provided false or misleading information, or had knowingly failed to make a return of pecuniary interest by the due date—kāore i kō atu, kāore i kō mai; that is it. Now those are substantial issues, and I am clear that the committee gave them serious attention. I must say that a number of other matters were raised during the discussions, but I am pleased to say we were all kept on track and focused on the specific matters by the chair.

In considering the matters before the Privileges Committee, the Māori Party has the benefit of kaupapa that instruct us on serious matters of State. Those kaupapa tuku iho are the foundation principles of the Māori world and guide us as to the way in which we operate. There are tikanga that we apply to every situation, be they matters before the Privileges Committee or bills that come before the House. We are driven by the kaupapa enshrined in our constitution. Those kaupapa are, indeed, what distinguishes us as the strong and independent Māori voice of Parliament. It is not in anyone’s interest to burn bridges, to diminish the mana of individuals, and to conduct politics on the basis of personal attack, yet we have seen members indulge in that behaviour in this House from time to time.

Through our kaupapa we endeavour to express manaakitanga towards others, be they political allies or opponents. We believe that it is important to treat each other with respect and to act with integrity, at all times. We want to ensure that our relationships with all parties are elevating and enhancing. We are not into character assassination. It was good advice that our co-leader Tariana Turia gave to three of us new members when we arrived in this House. She said: “Throw a rock and expect to get a grenade back.” When we talk about rangatiratanga we want to ensure that the conduct and activities of the parliamentary team, the leaders in the organisation as a whole, are reflective of the attributes of rangatira. It is about walking the talk, following through on commitments made, and upholding due respect for honesty. We are dedicated in our pursuit of kaitiakitanga, which requires an active exercise of responsibility in a manner that is beneficial to resources and the welfare of the people. Those are just three of the foundation principles that I have tried to follow in the deliberations of the matter before the committee.

In looking at the whole matter, some key questions needed to be asked. One thing, amongst others, is clear: money went from a donor and it reached its intended person, a politician. The first question is: did the donation meet the standard of being a gift? As clause 7(1)(b) of Appendix B of the Standing Orders requires, a member needs to return a description of each gift, including hospitality and donations in cash or kind, received by that member with a value of more than $500, together with the name of the donor of the gift. In considering whether the payment was a gift, we must ask whether it would ultimately benefit the recipient. I was clear that it would. The intent of the donor was straightforward: to assist the member in being able to meet obligations. The second question is: did the recipient have knowledge of the payment before the deadline for making a return at the time? Although the evidence was conflicting, what happened on 14 December, as my colleague Dr Russel Norman talked about, led me to believe that the recipient knew that some money was to change hands in order to benefit him.

The third and fourth questions ask whether the gift met the threshold that would require it to be declared in the return of pecuniary interests, and whether the member made an honest attempt to account for the payment in his or her return. Well, as the Privileges Committee report states, “if a member knew of an interest and decided not to declare it, the member would have ‘knowingly’ failed to declare an interest if it were subsequently established definitively to be a pecuniary interest.” It seems to me that if someone received a koha, that person would at least be required to investigate whether it met the threshold. If that member was receiving advice from others, like lawyers, about money, then those people should have advised the member. That did not happen. According to the Standing Orders, neither of the people involved did what was required in order to meet the conditions set. The exchange of money was known about. There was an expectation from Parliament that koha be declared. It was not. Therefore, this case fits the definition of “contempt”.

Although a lot of evidence was provided for the committee to consider, for me those three or four questions were all that mattered—not the party, not the politician, and not the political agendas. There were gaps and inconsistencies of knowledge in all of the information, but at the heart of the matter was the subsequent obligation to report the payment in the formal disclosure of pecuniary interests. The Standing Orders are very clear about the requirement upon all of us as parliamentarians to make an annual return of pecuniary interests each year as of 31 January. In the case of a donation received from Owen Glenn, that process was not followed. Consequently, the majority of the committee has found the member to be in contempt. Although there are recommendations to come out of the report, with the election at hand we leave this matter in the court of public opinion.

I say from the outset that no one in the Māori Party takes any pleasure from the whole series of events, but honour is important to us, and it was important to our tūpuna that it must continue to guide us. As I believe Mark Twain once said, honesty is the best policy when there is money in it, and indeed the procedures around the register of pecuniary interest for members of Parliament have an important function in keeping us all honest and ensuring our transactions are transparent. This is a very grave matter for this Parliament, and we have formed the view that the censuring of the member is of sufficient concern to cause us all to reflect.

In referring this matter to the Privileges Committee on 5 August, Madam Speaker specifically referred to the implications of this matter for the reputation of members and the institution of Parliament. She said: “The issues raised are not peculiar to Mr Peters; they have the potential to affect members generally.” The Māori Party listened carefully to her kōrero, and we believe that it is timely, yet again, for all members to reflect on the value of having a code of conduct to assist us all in enhancing our public reputation. Perhaps it is timely for the parties that failed to sign up to the code of conduct—Labour, National, New Zealand First, and the Progressive party—to reconsider and to take the opportunity to sign up to the code, which will help MPs to carry out their duties, and, just as important, help the public to have confidence in their parliamentary representatives. That could be a positive outcome of this sad situation. Tēnā koutou.

Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future): I begin my contribution by acknowledging the role of the Privileges Committee chairperson, Simon Power, in steering a rather difficult course with a degree of aplomb, as the committee members have deliberated over the last few weeks. I also acknowledge the role of the Clerk, the committee secretariat, Mr Kós—our Queen’s Counsel in attendance—and others who advised us along the way, for carrying out their duties with a high degree of professionalism.

I am not going to dwell on the lots of extraneous noise that there has been about this case. There has been a lot of drama, and there has been a lot of claim and counterclaim, most of which has been utterly irrelevant to the proceedings at hand. I simply want to concentrate in my time on the events of 14 December 2005. Those events go to the heart of the issues we were forced to deliberate upon.

I want to pick up on the comments that Dr Cullen made about the double-track narrative. If we take those events and start to work through them, we find that the areas of difference are very slight. It is acknowledged by all sides that a telephone conversation took place, at the instigation of Mr Glenn, between Mr Glenn and Mr Peters. It is acknowledged by all sides that within a minute of that call terminating, Mr Peters contacted Mr Henry. It is acknowledged by all sides that within a very short period of that call terminating, Mr Henry emailed account details to Mr Glenn. What is further acknowledged is that, as recollections go, a substantial part of the conversation between Mr Glenn and Mr Peters dealt with trade, diplomacy, and matters of that nature. I will come back in a moment to the question of whether a request was made for account details. It is acknowledged by all sides that the content of the call between Mr Peters and Mr Henry clearly referred to the fact that there had just been a conversation with Mr Glenn, and certain details had been raised during that conversation. And it is acknowledged by all sides—because the record is there—what was contained in Mr Henry’s email.

When we come back and say there are two versions of the narrative, we find that the second version essentially hinges on what took place in the conversation between Mr Peters and Mr Glenn. The majority view, to which I adhere, is that during that conversation, from the evidence we have, there was a wide-ranging talk about trade possibilities and Mr Glenn’s views in that respect, and, at the end of that, a request was made for Mr Henry’s contact details. That is what prompted the second phone call and the subsequent email. When the committee members tested that point in evidence with Mr Glenn, he was adamant that that had been the case. When we tested it with Mr Peters, his indication was that he could not recollect whether that had been the case. He did not deny that it had happened; he said he could not recollect that that had been the case. He further acknowledged, in subsequent testimony, that when the three events were put alongside each other, it was reasonable to assume that there must have been a reference in the first conversation; otherwise, why would he have contacted Mr Henry?

The point I am making is that the actual area of difference between the majority view and the minority view is close to minute. It hinges on whether one believed the logic that during the course of this conversation about other things, Mr Glenn must have said words to the effect of “Oh, by the way, I need Brian Henry’s contact details.” If he did not do that, one has to ask oneself why Mr Peters, on getting off the phone, within a very short space of time thought: “I’ve got to ring Brian Henry to say I’ve just talked to Owen Glenn.”, and why, within a very short space of time of that conservation concluding, Brian Henry would say: “I’ve got to send my account details to Owen Glenn.” Mr Henry’s version is that he saw the call from Mr Peters to him as being a memory prompt, but it is a very convenient memory prompt within about a 15-minute window.

The majority formed the view, because of the evidence that was put before the committee and the lack of denial of this proposition, that at the end of or during that first conversation with Mr Glenn, there was a discussion about Mr Henry’s contact details. Mr Peters then rang Mr Henry to confirm that he had been talking to Mr Glenn, who had asked him for the details, which Mr Henry subsequently provided. On that basis, the majority concluded that the test of knowledge had been achieved. One does not have a discussion that requires one to submit account details without others drawing the conclusion that it must have been about money.

One of the things that I think is a slight red herring in this matter is the issue of the $100,000. What we were required to establish was whether there was knowledge of the gift, not knowledge of the particular amount. I think that knowledge of the gift was established. The question that then arose was whether it was a debt or a gift. The issue of a debt had been disposed of much earlier. The advice that we received from Mr McGee, who was the author, in many senses, of the pecuniary interests register, was quite categorical. He said that moneys advanced for the purposes of an electoral petition did not come within the definition in the Standing Orders of moneys advanced for electoral purposes, and therefore could be concluded to have been a gift. Therefore, the issue about disclosure of those in the return took effect. On that basis, it was relatively easy to draw a conclusion about what had happened and what the consequences should have been.

I say too that this process was difficult and complicated. It was not helped by some of the obfuscation we received in the evidence, particularly that provided by Mr Henry. I do not think he did his client a great deal of good with some of the evidence and some of the obfuscatory answers that he provided, when it was fairly clear what had actually been occurring. I think that is a matter he will have to deal with in due course.

This issue is an important one. It goes to the heart of why we have a pecuniary interests register, and it will have ignited some of the old debates about whether it was even necessary. We have one in place. It was noted—from memory, by Mr McGee—that we have one in the Standing Orders, not in legislation, and because it is in the Standing Orders, the standard of proof that is applicable is not of the same level as it would be if it were in legislation. That is important in the context of this case, because this is Parliament making a determination on the basis of the application of its Standings Orders, and the test that needs to be applied is the one that is appropriate in those circumstances.

This is not an issue that I think anyone can take a great deal of pleasure from. It is a sad occasion when a select committee has to speak to one of its own in the way that the Privileges Committee has. I do not think that the other matters—the intervention of the Serious Fraud Office, and other associated events—were, in the event, particularly helpful. I think, if anything, those events continued to cloud the occasion in a way that was not particularly positive or beneficial to those involved in them, or to the conduct of this inquiry.

It could be tempting, in such circumstances, to engage in a measure of triumphalism, and some will do so. I am not going to do that, because I do not think it is appropriate. This is a matter that the committee members sought to apply our best judgment to in the circumstances. I, for one, came to it completely open-mindedly. I did not think that the initial reference amounted to a great deal, until such time as the evidence started to unfold. In that respect, I note that when the issue of Mr Glenn’s appearance was resolved, the story started to become much clearer. I do think Mr Glenn’s behaviour after he left the select committee did not do much for his reputation, either, but the select committee had to focus on what he said to the select committee, not on what he said in every press conference he gave around New Zealand.

On that basis, United Future supports the recommendations. We do not support the amendments that are being proposed. We do so not with any great deal of alacrity, but with a heavy heart and a wish that the lessons of this case will be learnt and not repeated in the future.

RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT): I would like to move an amendment to the motion. I move, That the following words be added: “that the member, Mr Peters, be requested to apologise to the New Zealand Herald’s editor, Tim Murphy, and political editor, Audrey Young, for calling them liars and demanding their resignations, and that the member be suspended for the remainder of the day.”

I do so because I believe that a gentleman would do so, and because I think we in this Parliament, and we in New Zealand, want a press that is free and is not about to be bullied by Ministers and members of Parliament for simply telling the truth—as, indeed, the Privileges Committee has found. I also say that censuring a member of Parliament in this way is serious. I think it needs to be a bit more than just censure, and that is why I suggest that suspending Mr Peters for the remainder of the day—which means right through the urgency procedures—is appropriate.

I would also like to acknowledge and thank someone who, as yet, has not been acknowledged and thanked, and that is Mr Owen Glenn. Mr Owen Glenn has been a very generous man to New Zealand. He has also been a very generous man to the Labour Party and, indeed, to Winston Peters. He took the trouble of coming to New Zealand to give evidence. I am sure that that was at considerable expense and considerable inconvenience to him. I was ashamed to be a Kiwi and to be a member of Parliament, because whatever one might think of his evidence, the idea that he should come under such abuse and attack for taking the trouble to appear before the Privileges Committee was, I thought, bullying, and it showed a level of ingratitude by our country’s representatives that I found unacceptable.

The majority of the committee found that Mr Peters should have declared the $100,000, and, indeed, that Mr Peters in front of the committee, or his lawyer, did not tell the truth. I think we can be proud of the Privileges Committee for the way it went about its business. It is never easy taking one of one’s own through a process such as that. I am proud to be a member of a Parliament whose committee showed itself capable of going through the process in a fair and justifiable way.

I have to say, though, that I am very, very disappointed in the committee’s handling of the information provided by the Serious Fraud Office. I have some considerable knowledge of the operation of the Spencer Trust, and I have put that information before the Serious Fraud Office. I think the Privileges Committee made a mistake on behalf of the people of New Zealand by ignoring it. I believe that, at the very least, the committee should have said that the matter would need to be considered again once the Serious Fraud Office investigation had concluded. I am not happy that we have a situation whereby the Serious Fraud Office has come under attack. It is an independent law enforcement agency doing a difficult job, and I was disappointed to hear members of the committee say in this House that they wished that the Serious Fraud Office had not come forward. I am sure that the Serious Fraud Office would rather that I had not laid a complaint with it. I am sure that it would rather not have the information it had. It was in a very, very difficult position, and that an independent law enforcement agency is bullied in the way that it has been is, I think, a sad day for New Zealand.

What the Serious Fraud Office showed is that Mr Peters and Mr Henry did not tell the truth to the committee. Mr Henry initially, in answer to Mr Russel’s question, said that he had paid the $40,000 in costs out of his own pocket. After that—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Who’s Mr Russel?

RODNEY HIDE: I am sorry: Russel Norman. I apologise to Mr Norman. Brian Henry told the committee initially that the $40,000 had been paid by him, and he was firm on that point. The committee was subsequently told by Mr Peters that he had gone back and checked his records and had discovered that, no, he had reimbursed Mr Henry. He was firm on that point.

The Serious Fraud Office, in its investigations, came across information totally at variance with that testimony. It discovered that, indeed, the Spencer Trust had paid that money; that the Spencer Trust indeed had $15,400 on account, that the money had been given by donor A, that the trust took a loan to make it up to $40,000, that $40,000 was paid across, and that donor A then gave an additional four donations of $9,999, through separate legal entities, to the Spencer Trust, making a total donation to the Spencer Trust from donor A of $55,396. We know that something like over $200,000 went through the Spencer Trust, all of it undeclared, all of it not declared under our electoral laws, and all of it not declared on the pecuniary interests register.

I can tell the House that New Zealand First and its MPs knew nothing of the Spencer Trust, except for Doug Woolerton. He, in fact, knew about the Spencer Trust. He fully knew about the Spencer Trust. Mr Peters would sit in his office and tell his staff “Don’t worry; get Wayne Peters to pay for that.”

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. This matter was ruled out by the committee. It said so. Now a report is before this House, and Mr Hide seeks to relitigate material that was debunked by the committee—not accepted by the committee. The committee said the matter was settled, because there was no debt. So could you bring him back to the subject matter, if you can.

RODNEY HIDE: Speaking to the point of order, I say that the Serious Fraud Office information is contained within the Privileges Committee’s report. Surely I can refer to that.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs): I am sorry, the Rt Hon Winston Peters. If the material is in the report it is open for discussion.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. What is in the report is not $200,000, or anything of the sort. It is the matter of $40,000 that is in the report. It is in the wiring diagram. Mr Hide is now introducing new material that has nothing whatsoever to do with the report. That is my point. Look in the report. I have read it; it does not refer to that matter.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs): Thank you. I ask Rodney Hide to contain himself to referring to what is in the report and published before this House. Any other matters are extraneous and outside the debate.

RODNEY HIDE: Thank you. I certainly will do so. I will certainly talk about the process before the committee—as, indeed, is my right.

Mr Winston Peters in his office would instruct his staff “Wayne Peters will pay for that.” We had the Spencer Trust—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. There is nothing whatsoever in this report to suggest that. Mr Hide is just making it up, as he always does. I ask Mr Hide where in the report the matter he refers to is; I ask him to point to it.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs): Thank you, Mr Peters. Any comment, Mr Hide? If you are not referring to something that is in this report—and I have not read it right through—if you cannot show me that that discussion about Mr Wayne Peters is somewhere in this report, then it is not to be included in this debate.

RODNEY HIDE: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am certainly entitled to discuss the operation of the Spencer Trust. I am certainly entitled as a member of Parliament to get up and express my dismay at the Privileges Committee not ruling on the information from the—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs): Thank you, Mr Hide. Take your seat, please. There is a quite clear distinction. I took advice before I took the Chair. Earlier today when the Speakers met, the advice was that this debate was to be constrained to the material presented in this report. To talk—and it is in the Speakers’ rulings—about something that one thinks ought to have been in the report is not pertinent to the debate. Please contain yourself to comments on what is in the report.

RODNEY HIDE: Thank you. I refer to page 100 of the report. We see the wiring diagram provided by the Serious Fraud Office. The money goes into the Spencer Trust, and is paid across, actually, to Bob Clarkson. What is not clear from this report is who donor A is. We know that it is one person who has paid across $55,396—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs): Again, hear what I said. I said that you cannot presume what is not in here; you can talk about only what is in here.

RODNEY HIDE: It is in the report! If you have not read it—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs): Excuse me; sit down, please. If I heard you correctly then, you referred to donor A, and then you said “What is not there …” and you took off again. You must stick with what is here. Thank you.

RODNEY HIDE: The explanatory note says that the donations total $55,396. The point I was making is that all we know is that it was from donor A; we do not know who the person is, which I think I am still allowed to say in this Parliament. It is interesting that the Rt Hon Winston Peters is being asked by Parliament to fill out 3 years of pecuniary interests register. We know he will be required to detail the payments to the Spencer Trust and who provided them, because they are a gift to the Rt Hon Winston Peters—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. There is an old English saying that the malady of the ignorant is to be ignorant without knowing it. The law on trusts changed last year.

Nathan Guy: What’s the point?

Rt Hon Winston Peters: My point is that no such disclosure is required, because the law on trusts did not change until the Electoral Finance Act 2007.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs): Sorry, that is a point of debate; it is not a point of order. Thank you. Please continue for your remaining minute, Mr Hide.

RODNEY HIDE: Mr Peters will be required to provide those details, because that $40,000 is clearly a gift to him, just like the $100,000 from Owen Glenn has been ruled to be a gift to him. I say to Mr Peters that this House will be very interested to learn who donor A is, and to discover the link between that money and the policies that the Clark-Peters Government has introduced in its Budget. Thank you.

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I raise a procedural issue to do with the amendment in the name of Doug Woolerton, and ask you to rule whether the amendment is out of order. I refer to the second amendment, which states: “insert after ‘order Rt Hon Winston Peters’, ‘the Hon Dr Nick Smith and any other member with relevant interests’.” That is an amendment he is making to the censure motion, so if the amendment were to be accepted it would read: “censure the Hon Dr Nick Smith, and any other member with relevant interests, for knowingly providing false or misleading information on a return of pecuniary interests;”. I put it to you, Madam Assistant Speaker, that Parliament has actually devised a process for dealing with matters like this—matters of privilege where a member may have to be censured for knowingly providing false information—and it is called the Privileges Committee. Parliament has instituted it precisely to stop this kind of motion before Parliament being a motion that could censure anybody for anything on a simple majority.

Today we have seen the Speaker exercise her prerogative to take a complaint, look at its merits, and decide that it lacks the merit to go to the Privileges Committee. That is exactly what happened in respect of Dr Nick Smith. The letter from the Speaker to Dail Jones MP says: “I have considered your letter concerning a statement by the Hon Dr Nick Smith and have determined that no question of privilege is involved.” I do not believe it was ever the intent of the House that a motion such as this could be used to circumvent the Speaker’s decision—just given today—that there was no merit in the issue that was raised in respect of Dr Nick Smith. So, Madam Assistant Speaker, I am asking you to consider whether the amendment that censures not just Dr Nick Smith but any other member with relevant interests—whatever that means—amounts to an open-ended censure motion being put to the House. It is entirely inappropriate and should be ruled out of order.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs): Thank you.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): Madam Assistant Speaker, you have just heard from Mr Hide on a matter raised now as a matter of relevancy in respect of that motion—or the amendment of it—by Bill English. What Mr Hide just said was that the same thing that has happened to Winston Peters happened to Bob Clarkson, because the cheque on the diagram he cited ends up going to the National Party and not to Bob Clarkson. We cannot have one law for Winston Peters and one law for everybody else. Nick Smith’s letter today, which was dealt with by the Speaker, was on a complaint from Mr Dail Jones that he had misled the House some time ago, not that he had failed to declare, which is what Mr English is trying to construe it as being. Mr English has acknowledged—and I was at the ASEAN conference at the time but I have the Hansard—that he had a trust fund and that he had made declaration of that. Now if I am to be retrospectively required to do something, so must—surely, to be fair—Nick Smith. Or are we going to have a situation where there is one law for Winston Peters and one for everybody else? That is why the amendment should stand in the way it is.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs): Thank you, Mr Peters. I actually took some consideration and some advice on this as soon we received the motion. The original motion relates to a question of privilege relating to the Rt Hon Winston Peters and his returns of pecuniary interests. Any amendment that is put here must be relevant to the motion it seeks to amend. The problem is, as I think the Hon Bill English said, that the Privileges Committee deals with one issue, one person. If we were to suddenly extend this by adding as a second part of the motion “insert the words the Hon Dr Nick Smith”, then we are extending out the motion without it going to the Privileges Committee and having the entire work done that was done with the member, in the committee. The motion does not relate to any other member, and therefore the second part of Mr Woolerton’s amendment is, I declare, out of order.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs): Point of order, Winston Peters. I have made my ruling, though.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Why would you do that if the House is the master of its own destiny?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs): Then you can ask leave.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I am seeking leave because surely those who love the law, as I am hearing from members on my right, would want the law to be applied fairly. Nick Smith knows he had a trust account to meet his legal costs that was no different from mine.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs): Thank you. Leave has been sought to include the second part of Mr Woolerton’s amendment, which refers to the Hon Dr Nick Smith. Is leave granted? No, leave is not granted.

GORDON COPELAND (Independent): When I submitted my letter to the Speaker of the House on 21 July raising the possibility of a breach of privilege around the gift of $100,000 by Mr Owen Glenn to Mr Peters’ lawyer, Brian Henry—and I would say to Mr Brian Henry as the agent for the Rt Hon Winston Peters—I really had no idea that it would lead to such an extensive inquiry by the Privileges Committee, with all of the twists and turns that the inquiry has taken from then until now.

I would like to begin by congratulating the Privileges Committee. I took the opportunity to sit in whilst most of the evidence was presented to the committee, and I was also there for some of the discussions that occurred between committee members. I congratulate the chair of that committee, Simon Power. He obviously went to great lengths to ensure that the evidence was heard in an objective fashion, and I would say he bent over backwards to ensure that the principle of natural justice was extended to the Rt Hon Winston Peters. We really need to acknowledge that, and I am very, very saddened, as others are, that the Prime Minister has seen fit to actually criticise the entire select committee process in those circumstances, because the criticism does not stand up to analysis—I was present in the room as an observer, and she was not.

Peter Dunne mentioned that the heart of this matter goes to various conversations on 14 December 2005, and I agree with that. A phone call was made from Owen Glenn to Winston Peters at 1.26 p.m. on that day, and it lasted for about 6 minutes. We do not quite know what was discussed, but we know that when the phone call finished at 1.32 p.m., within less than 40 seconds the Rt Hon Winston Peters picked up the phone and rang Brian Henry. Again we do not know quite what occurred in that conversation, because neither Mr Peters nor Mr Henry, as I will mention in a moment, recalls the conversation. But we know that the conversation went for 6 minutes and 10 seconds in that particular case, and that within 40 seconds of that telephone call finishing, Mr Henry sent an email to Mr Glenn saying that further to Mr Glenn’s discussions with his client at 1.30 p.m., here were the details of his bank account.

I agree with Rodney Hide that this House and our country owe a debt of gratitude to Mr Glenn. He came here well prepared. He brought with him concrete evidence about those phone calls; he brought with him a copy of the email. If Mr Glenn had not been here, then I believe we would have had a very different outcome to this whole inquiry. So we are indebted to Mr Glenn for doing the decent thing and deciding to come here and lay his evidence before the committee. I believe that it was truthful evidence.

After Mr Glenn submitted details of his call to Mr Peters of 14 December 2005, Mr Peters said he had no recollection of, immediately after that call, making a call to Mr Henry. However, he did concede that he might have done so, since there was no other way of accounting for the fact that Mr Henry had sent that email to Mr Glenn. Mr Henry, in his subsequent evidence, also said he had no recollection of having sent that email to Mr Glenn, but then conceded that he must have done so because it had come from his personal computer. The credibility of both Mr Peters and Mr Henry is at stake here. The Privileges Committee had to make a judgment on the facts placed before it, and in my view and in my judgment the majority got it right.

I ask members to ask themselves this question: how likely is it that an experienced Minister of the Crown, in the case of Mr Peters, and an experienced barrister, in the case of Mr Henry, would forget about a communication, firstly, between themselves, a 6-minute-long conversation that obviously prompted Mr Henry to send an email to Mr Glenn giving his bank account numbers—what for; to receive a donation—and, secondly, between Mr Henry and Mr Glenn, when the subject matter was a gift of $100,000? How many people in this House, and how many people in New Zealand with reasonable education and with a reasonable memory, would forget about the circumstances in which a gift of $100,000 was given? I say it is most unlikely that any reasonable person would simply forget about all the details and have no recollection of the conversation. This issue all came to light only because Mr Glenn put that evidence before the committee. I think it is unlikely in the extreme that someone would forget such details, and therefore I entirely concur with the majority opinion that the Rt Hon Winston Peters be censured for knowingly providing false or misleading information in a return of pecuniary interests.

I now go on to the minority report expounded on today by Dr Cullen, who argued that the Rt Hon Winston Peters should not have been censured in these circumstances. I suggest to members that the integrity of the whole pecuniary interests scheme itself would be seriously undermined if we were to refrain from censuring a member of Parliament in these particular circumstances and based on this particular evidence. Members need to ask themselves where Dr Cullen got to at the end of his very lucid analysis of the two different scenarios. He basically concluded that it was not necessary to censure the member. Let us suppose that we were not right now, in the light of all of this evidence, censuring the Rt Hon Winston Peters. I believe that that would be a most unsatisfactory precedent in terms of upholding the Standing Orders of this Parliament in relation to pecuniary interests. Really, in those circumstances we would have set a new low benchmark.

I want to elaborate on that, Madam Speaker. In my original letter to you, on 21 July, I said surely the standard was that a member must know or reasonably ascertain whether a gift has been received. Would it be right to set that aside by simply having a member say to a third party—in this case, his lawyer—“Oh, by the way, if you get any gifts for me, just don’t tell me about them.”? That is what Brian Henry said at the original press conference. He said Winston Peters had told him not to tell him about those gifts, so he did not tell him, and therefore Winston Peters did not know about them. Now surely that, in the absence of a censure, would just open up a whole new can of worms. We would degrade the status of the pecuniary interests Standing Orders of this Parliament, and that would be a very, very unsatisfactory outcome. I have no doubt at all that the select committee has got this decision right. It has made the right decision; it has made the right judgment based on the evidence, and therefore I will support the censure motion.

I just add, in conclusion, that when I wrote my letter to you, Madam Speaker, raising this whole matter, I was not out to get Winston Peters. I was out to get to the truth, so that the integrity of the pecuniary interests provisions of the Standing Orders would be upheld. Under our Standing Orders I am obliged to bring a potential breach of privilege to your attention at the first possible opportunity. As soon as I heard that Winston Peters had received a gift of $100,000 from Owen Glenn, I had to ask myself whether it had been declared in the register of pecuniary interests. I, therefore, checked those returns for 2006, 2007, and 2008, and discovered that no such gift had been declared.

I want to say something also in relation to a point raised by Rodney Hide. He said it would also be necessary for Winston Peters to include in the register of pecuniary interests—and he now has to do a revised declaration for those 3 years, in terms of the motion before this Parliament—the gift of $40,000 received from the Spencer Trust. That may be the case, but I also point out that in any event, every member of Parliament is obliged also to list in the register of pecuniary interests any beneficial interest in a trust. Winston Peters certainly has a beneficial interest in the Spencer Trust in these circumstances. He also had a beneficial interest in Brian Henry’s trust account when it was receiving gifts that were intended to benefit him. So either way, it seems to me that we now need to ask the Rt Hon Winston Peters to come clean about all of those things concerning pecuniary interests, including his involvement in any trust of that kind. That is what the Standing Orders provide for, and that is what we should insist on. That is what I expect will happen.

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National): I was not on the Privileges Committee, but I must compliment the committee on the way it went about its business. The fact that the committee came to a majority decision involving a range of parties shows that due consideration was given to all the evidence. I think it is timely, though, that we stand back and ask ourselves why there was a privileges complaint in the first place. In many respects this issue is a fairly straightforward one. A Parliament by its own will has passed the Standing Orders around pecuniary interests, and I believe that when it did that it had an expectation about what the purpose of that register was. The purpose as articulated in the debate about that register was to make sure that there was full transparency about any interest in donations of politicians. Prior to that register being initiated, there were no particular rules in Parliament, although I think every MP was aware that New Zealand has among the highest standards in the world in respect of the relationship between politicians and money. In my view, and it remains the case, we did not need a pecuniary interests register to maintain that standard. It was always regarded as one that MPs would respect, and the punishment for not respecting those standards was members’ exposure in the media.

The Register of Pecuniary Interests of Members of Parliament has taken another formal step. We have every expectation that MPs would be open and transparent, as required by the register, about the payment of significant amounts of money. There is no denying that a basic fact at the core of this report is the payment, or payments—however confusing—of significant amounts of money.

I come to a couple of points that Dr Cullen made. He seemed to be positing some disagreement with the test that an MP should make an honest attempt to understand what has happened. I back up Russel Norman’s contentions on this. What else would Parliament expect? The register of pecuniary interests would have no meaning if politicians were not expected to make an honest attempt to find out their own circumstances. We are not being asked to inquire into anyone else’s circumstances—simply our own. It is no different from the way the law works in pretty much any other respect I can think of—tax law, for instance. There has to be an assumption of an honest attempt, otherwise the register is completely meaningless, and it could be rendered meaningless by MPs saying: “Well, because someone didn’t put in front of me, in large bold, black letters, details of the transactions that involved me, then I wasn’t obliged to declare it.” That situation would be ridiculous. I think the application of a common-sense standard is actually all that is required here.

Significant payments were made. Parliament is a pretty understanding beast, actually. If people genuinely did not know, or had a misunderstanding of the law at the time, I have no doubt that the conclusions of this report would be different. Parliament is eminently forgiving of human weakness, actually, in my experience, if people are open about it. In this case, it has not turned out that way.

I will come back to some of those issues, but in the light of the thrust of the Privileges Committee, which was simply to establish whether the declaration should have been made, I am very concerned about the way the Prime Minister has gone about denigrating the process. Through this whole process, at various times when the procedures of this committee have appeared to not suit the political objectives of the Prime Minister, she has had a crack at our public institutions. In one day she alleged that the Serious Fraud Office and the Crown Law Office were responsible for leaking details of fact to the Leader of the Opposition. I have to say I have not heard that type of allegation for a long time, in politics—to have a Prime Minister attack a couple of our legal institutions. Of course, they should not be immune from criticism, whatsoever, but to attack them out of political convenience is unacceptable.

The Prime Minister adopted the same strategy with the Privileges Committee, and I shall take members through a number of statements she made about the committee. On 27 August, when the procedures of the committee had already started she said she was awaiting the outcome of the Privileges Committee: “There is clearly a conflict of evidence, and I await the outcome of the committee.” And then on 28 August she said the report would be finalised and would be reported back to the House in time for that report to be debated. [Interruption] I am just coming to the point. On 15 September she said: “Unless there’s some devastating development which suggests otherwise, I would follow a process of procedural fairness.” On 17 September she said: “Well … the advice I’ve had from senior colleagues on the committee, and their advice is let the process continue.” On 22 September she said: “I’m saying that the whole process has been tainted from the outset …”.

How ridiculous is that from our Prime Minister? She spent a month endorsing the process. In fact, her principal weapon against political criticism about her own close involvement in this Owen Glenn saga was to say: “No, we have to rely on procedural fairness.”; yet, day by day, she had advice from Labour members. As she said publicly, she was being briefed by Dr Cullen on the proceedings of the committee. Then right at the end, when it became clear that even Labour’s support parties were going to have to deal with the evidence on its merits, she turns round—after full knowledge of all the proceedings for the whole month—and says the whole process has been tainted. I just remind this House what an outrageous statement that is by a Prime Minister about a committee of this House. That simply underlines the strategy of denigration followed by Labour—dirty Labour. Whenever a public institution, whether it is the Ombudsman or the Privileges Committee—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs): Can we come back to the report.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: —comes to a conclusion that the Government does not like, the Government accuses that institution of lacking integrity—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs): Could you take your seat, please. Can we concentrate on the report, because the debate is really moving towards a general debate rather than a debate on the report.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Madam Assistant Speaker, I am drawing attention to a simple fact: the Prime Minister of New Zealand has alleged to this House that the process of getting to this report was tainted, and I say that that allegation is outrageous. She has no basis for making that statement. Her lack of integrity is condemned by a month of statements that supported the process of the Privileges Committee. Helen Clark, it now appears, has no respect for this institution; no respect for MPs in here being judged by their peers; and because this institution, through this report, has not served her direct, personal, political interests, then it must be tainted, in the same way that as soon as it became clear her friend Owen Glenn was going to give evidence that was inconvenient, he turned into a drunken womaniser who had lost his marbles, rather than a friend of the Labour Party. Well, as it turns out, the public will get to make their judgment about Helen Clark and what she thinks about the Privileges Committee.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. That last statement made in this House by Mr English, which would be highly defamatory if it were made outside, has to be rebutted. It was Mr Glenn himself, on television, who said precisely that.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs): That is a debatable point, I am sorry.

GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): Firstly, I refute the comments made by Dr Cullen at the end of his speech. I found them to be objectionable, I found them to be an affront, and I found them to be quite unreasonable in the circumstances. It is not inappropriate, when we have a process like this, that there is—[Interruption]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs): There should not be a barrage, please.

GERRY BROWNLEE: Now—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Who paid your legal fees?

GERRY BROWNLEE: I will get to that, Mr Peters. Now, it is appropriate that when Parliament is considering the protection of its own Standing Orders—

Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. A couple of things are happening here. The first is the barrage of interjections, and the second is that although we have been told we have to constrain ourselves to the purview of the report, now we are having a long heckle apparently about Gerry Brownlee throwing Winston Peters down some stairs. I am not aware of that incident being mentioned in the report, and I think we should stick to the business at hand.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs): It is very hard to constrain people in their heckling, let alone to get them, in their speeches, to stay on the point. But I say the heckling is, at the moment, leading to disorder.

Ron Mark: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I think Mr Hide’s point of order was quite fair, and I would ask that in future if two people are interjecting and heckling, from any party, they be immediately brought to order, because today we were subjected to barrages—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs): That is enough. Take your seat, please.

GERRY BROWNLEE: It is appropriate that, when the Privileges Committee is considering matters, it should do so in a robust fashion. I remember, when I was first elected to this House in 1996, some time after the formation of the coalition, being in a social circumstance with a number of my new colleagues. We were in a discussion with a very senior member of this House, who offered the advice that one’s knowledge of the Standing Orders made for a better member, and that a member’s knowledge of them would give him or her greater latitude in participating in the business of the House. That member was Winston Peters. He is someone who has pitched himself, shown himself, to be a parliamentarian. So for him to be upset that the process he has just been through is too robust is, in my view, quite unacceptable and, frankly, somewhat sad.

How many times did the committee hear that this matter could be all tidied up in 5 minutes, that it could be all cleaned up in 5 minutes, if we were only prepared to listen? We heard that not once, not twice, not three times, but over and over again. Well, I ask members to let me reaffirm the comments made by the Hon Bill English. We would not be in this situation if it were not for the Parliament itself deciding to change the Standing Orders in order to require these disclosures. So the three questions that Dr Cullen raised become most important: did Mr Peters know about the donation, should he have known about it, and should he have declared it?

Other members today have talked about the way the committee went through the exercise of trying to hear from everybody in a reasonable fashion, and I join others in saying Simon Power did a wonderful job in organising the way that the committee worked. He was a very, very good model of how a chairperson should operate in such circumstances. It was not very easy, going into a committee with the expectation that the issue might all be cleared up in 5 minutes, to, first, be confronted by Mr Brian Henry, a man whom I would describe as confused, histrionic, belligerent, and evasive. I do not think that Brian Henry did Mr Peters’ cause one bit of good. Anyone who picks up this document and reads the transcripts from the start to the finish will be absolutely shocked at the way Mr Henry’s evidence shifted, moved, and ultimately changed to suit the facts that were coming out in all sorts of other directions.

In that regard I would also have to mention that if it were not for the clear and authoritative guidance given to the committee by Stephen Kós QC, the appearance of Mr Williams QC would have left the collective reputation of senior counsel in this country somewhat in tatters. It was an embarrassment to see someone with the public stature of Mr Williams struggling to understand which Standing Order he was required to work under. His comments, directed very much at some members of the committee, were, to say the least, vehement and bordered on the plain nasty.

The essence of this case, I think, becomes decided when anyone reads from page 205 through to page 209 in the report. Those pages, in essence, are where the transcript deals with the fundamental questions about what happened on 14 December 2005. We were told in evidence that there was an email, or a message I should say, from someone who Mr Glenn thought was Winston Peters—but Mr Peters denied that it was him—around about 5 December 2005, and that following that Mr Glenn consulted Mr Williams about whether he should make a donation, having previously turned down a request for a donation from New Zealand First. Mr Glenn’s evidence was that at a brunch in Sydney on 14 December 2005 he discussed the matter with Mike Williams, and, after that, he made the phone call to Mr Peters. At that point, although Dr Cullen talks about two narratives, other speakers have already said there was so much similarity and agreement over what took place, not only in the first phone call but also in the subsequent emails between Mr Henry and Mr Glenn, that there had to be a good basis for making assumptions about what that discussion was about.

It is interesting to look at the transcript, as I said before. When Mr Peters, in his second appearance before the committee, was confronted with the evidence presented by Owen Glenn, he stated: “I’ve got to say, looking at it all—and I’ve tried over and over again to look at that and make sense of it—I’m happy to say to you, look, it’s quite possible that happened, …”. Well, what was it that jogged the memory over the couple of weeks if it was not the evidence of Owen Glenn himself, the provision of the email traffic, and the strong and unrelenting assertion by him that a donation was asked for and a donation was given? The answer to the question simply, in the first case, as to whether Winston Peters knew about it could reasonably be assumed, I think.

In relation to the second part, which would require us to assume that Winston Peters did not know about the donation, then the question would be whether he should have known. We then go to the question of Mr Henry’s evidence. Mr Henry constructed for us the arrangement between Mr Peters and himself, whom he described as being like blood brothers. He stated further that he would go so far as to say he would go to considerable lengths to protect Mr Peters from the ravages of big business. That arrangement, which had existed for a long time, confirms in itself that Mr Peters must have known that costs were accruing somewhere that he might have to meet at some point, and in his own evidence he said that periodically he made payments to the lawyer to cover those particular costs. He indicated that at one stage he made a payment of $148,000 for some matter not related to this inquiry, which apparently he lost. It indicated certainly that the pattern meant that he would have known.

When it comes to the register itself, what would have been the problem with simply writing down that the money was received from the Spencer Trust, from Owen Glenn, and from anyone else?

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Because I didn’t know.

GERRY BROWNLEE: Well, that is the problem, I say to Mr Peters. There is the problem. We conclude from the 14 December 2005 traffic that it would be most unlikely for Mr Peters not to have known.

Stepping forward from that, I simply say the committee reached its conclusions after considerable debate. It is not easy to see a motion like this being moved. I know there will be people in the public gallery and other commentators who will want to continue to refer to the Privileges Committee as the “Wet Bus Ticket Committee”, etc. But for a member of Parliament, for someone who values the right to speak freely in this House, and for someone who sets himself up as being a parliamentarian above all else, it is a huge penalty to have a censure motion moved against him by the House. No one does that with any degree of comfort or malice. It is simply a fact that if we are to have a Standing Order that requires pecuniary interests to be declared, then we need to defend that pecuniary interests register with some clarity.

RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour): I take up Mr Brownlee’s last point. He is dead correct on that point. We do need to defend the pecuniary interests register with some clarity, but what the inquiry has revealed is a lack of clarity in the pecuniary interests register.

We find that in Appendix B of the Standing Orders, at page 126, clause 7(1)(b) speaks about what must be declared. I will read it, because it is the substance of the inquiry made by the Privileges Committee. What must be declared is a description of a gift “received by the member that has an estimated market value in New Zealand of more than $500 and the name of the donor of each of those gifts (if known or reasonably ascertainable by the member),”. It is a simple statement, but obtuse and unclear in practice, as we can see by the terms of reference given by the Speaker.

It is perhaps wise at this stage to reflect upon what the Speaker charged the committee to do. At page 5 of the report of the Privileges Committee, the charge from the Speaker was reduced to a single line that read: “… Winston Peters failed to disclose a gift, and failed to disclose a debt and the name of the person who discharged it.” However, the referral made by the Speaker, at page 23 of the report, is more detailed. It stated: “It is not disputed that legal fees were incurred and defrayed. Firstly, what is in question is whether a debtor-creditor relationship actually existed. If it did, then it is not unreasonable to assume that the member knew or ought to have known and should have disclosed a debt and the name of any other person who may have discharged it.” The evidence that was accepted quite early in the piece by all members of the committee was that because of the relationship between Mr Peters and Mr Henry—that is, Mr Henry is a barrister sole—there could not be a debtor-creditor relationship. That evidence was received from Mr Kós QC, and it was not challenged. It was the basis on which the committee proceeded.

So the committee had to move to the second part of the Speaker’s reference, which states: “Secondly, if a debtor-creditor relationship did not exist, was a gift received and was the name of the donor known or reasonably discernible, or was a donation made that covered expenses in an election campaign?”. This is where the committee had, I suggest, the most difficulty—when it came to determining that part of the charge, the issue of a gift. I will deal with that issue in a few minutes. But the Speaker added: “These matters are technical, but of vital importance to a proper understanding of the rules for the disclosure of pecuniary interests. They require investigation. It is not the Speaker’s role to investigate. That is the role of the Privileges Committee.” The Privileges Committee was charged with investigating whether the rules were clear, particularly as demonstrated by the allegations made that the Rt Hon Winston Peters had failed to disclose a debt.

The Speaker went on, at page 24, to state: “The issues raised are not peculiar to Mr Peters. They have the potential to affect members generally. The rules need to be clarified to assist members in making judgments about what is required to be disclosed as a pecuniary interest and what is not.

The House has an exclusive right to control its own proceedings. The Standing Orders are a matter for the House alone to determine. Members themselves must take responsibility for the rules for the disclosure of pecuniary interests.”

What we heard at the committee, as referred to by Dr Michael Cullen, was the current registrar saying that she would not give advice to members inquiring as to what was covered by the need to disclose, but would refer them back to a solicitor for advice. Of course, the member would then be bound by that solicitor’s advice, and no one would know what that advice was. This is where we got into the murky world of what Mr Peters may or may not have knowingly had in mind when he completed his declaration for the year 2005.

But the warning was given by Madam Speaker that the issues raised are not peculiar to Mr Peters. They have the potential to affect members generally, and we saw that in the evidence. We saw that from the intervention of the Serious Fraud Office and the chart that it forwarded to the committee. The notes attached thereto indicate that Bob Clarkson, who had acted diligently by declaring a Koru Club membership in his first year, and was told later on that he need not do that, did not disclose that his legal expenses were, in fact, a debt to the National Party, or a gift made by the National Party, because, on the Serious Fraud Office papers, the payment of that debt and the refund of the money from the Rt Hon Winston Peters went to the solicitors who held a trust account in the name of the National Party. I make no criticism of Bob Clarkson, but that demonstrates in a simple way that this area of pecuniary interest does need definition, and it has been the role of the select committee to bring that to the attention of the House. The simple finding of this committee is that we must be more careful in what needs to be disclosed.

I go back to the warning given by Madam Speaker at the outset that these issues are not peculiar to Mr Peters. They have the tendency to affect all members of the House. I refer to the advice from Dave McGee QC, which we find at page 278 of the report. Bill English said in the House today that under tax law everyone has to make an honest endeavour to disclose his or her liability, which, of course, is not correct. Under tax law, it is very legalistic, and if the question of honesty were to come into it, then we would have many, many more people before the court on charges. The point made by Dave McGee was that the pecuniary interest matter was not left to legislation but was put one notch down, in the Standing Orders, because it related to the moral climate of this House, and members had to act according to the moral climate of this House, rather than legalistically, according to the law. So it was at that stage that Dave McGee—for the first time, it appears—opined the test of honest endeavour. That was where we found some difficulty in assessing where we should go in finding any culpability by the Rt Hon Winston Peters.

I want to make one or two comments on the select committee procedure. In moving to this area, I first want to acknowledge the chairmanship of Simon Power. The work of the committee was considerable. We got through that work very quickly. The committee was chaired very, very fairly by Simon Power, who managed to rein in his natural impatience remarkably well. He chaired the committee with a degree of humour that often diffused situations that could have flared up. Every member before the committee was given a chance to express his or her view, and every witness who came before the committee was given a fair hearing.

But that does not mean we should not make some observations on the process. The process of select committee hearings in this House is quite adequate when we are talking about general subjects, but when it comes to speaking about the integrity of individuals, then a higher standard is required. That was the advice given to us by Mr Stephen Kós QC, it is the advice that we sought to apply in the report, and it is the advice that the minority, in their report, tried to apply with some rigour. So when one is making a finding of credibility, one must apply a higher standard.

Owen Glenn was offered the chance to give his evidence on oath. He declined to do so. When challenged, he made reference to walking out of the committee, to taking up residence in Australia, and to other vagaries. For simple questions of fact, he referred to his lawyer, who was with him. As opposed to that, we had Brian Henry, who is a member of the Law Society and, as such, is answerable to the ethics of the Law Society, and we had the Rt Hon Winston Peters, who is a senior member of this House and, as such, is entitled to the respect that that brings. So we had three men give evidence of varying recollections.

The evidence revolved around the email of 14 December. The evidence that was unchallenged by Brian Henry was that that email arose from a conversation he had had that did not relate to money but was a request that he contact Owen Glenn, and that it was in the general rubric of endeavouring to keep intact the Labour Government coalition and working arrangements. He said it became a memory jog that took him back to an earlier conversation he had had with Owen Glenn, and so he attached the reference. Interestingly, the first email back from Owen Glenn is addressed “Dear Brian”, and has a degree of familiarity, which tended to add some veracity to the words of Brian Henry.

In this House today it has been easy to run down the evidence and the credibility of both Owen Glenn and, of course, Brian Henry, who is not here. The committee made no finding adverse to Brian Henry in its report, and it does not behove any member of the House to do so today. The credibility of the Rt Hon Winston Peters has been challenged, and the suggestion of his lying has been made. The process of the committee does not allow for exact and detailed examination of credibility in these issues. The committee lacked a prosecutor, it lacked a clarification of charges, and it was determined as we went along what evidence should be heard. So witnesses were recalled to rebut evidence that arose. Clearly, in my submission, the Standing Orders Committee should consider a process for establishing the inquisitorial role of the Privileges Committee in looking at issues as serious as these.

But, in conclusion, I want to say simply that when one has an inference, one can draw a conclusion to it. One cannot draw a conclusion if there is no evidence, because one has no evidence. If the inferences lead to a conclusion, that is the conclusion one follows; if they lead to two conclusions, one can draw nothing from them. So the minority report stated that there was suspicion but not grounds to make a finding against the credibility of the Rt Hon Winston Peters.

Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore): Mr Peters, a member of 27 years standing—in fact, the longest-serving member in this House—is judged as not telling the truth. That is not just National—and I make that point to New Zealand First—it is the members of the Green Party, the Māori Party, United Future, and ACT. This whole issue has turned wholly on the evidence, primarily of Mr Glenn but also of Mr Peters and Mr Henry. Up until then, there might have been suspicions that there may have been knowledge, but there was no evidence. It took the hearing of the Privileges Committee to establish the evidence.

The issue here is actually quite straightforward. Did Mr Peters know, or ought he to have known, when he completed his pecuniary interests form, that he was receiving donations? In truth, the first evidence of this actually came from Mr Henry in his first appearance. He was specifically asked whether he would have told Mr Peters that donations were being received for his electoral petition. Mr Henry said he would have told Mr Peters, and that would have been in early 2006. At that point Mr Peters would have known enough to disclose in the pecuniary interests.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: He didn’t say that.

Dr WAYNE MAPP: Mr Peters was saying he did not know that?

Rt Hon Winston Peters: He didn’t say that.

Dr WAYNE MAPP: I suggest to Mr Peters that he read the transcript. That part of the report is entirely agreed by all members of the committee, and in fact is highlighted in our principal report. At that point there was actually enough evidence to find contempt. But, of course, at that point the knowledge would have been only general and not related to any particular donor.

That is why the evidence of Mr Glenn was so important. There was a lot of extraneous evidence. I do accept that recall is not perfect and that details do get confused, and that is precisely why the conversations of 14 December were so important. The first call lasted 6 minutes. Interestingly, both Mr Glenn and Mr Peters seemed to have some reasonable recall of that. In fact, Mr Peters actually supplied a note dated 10 September setting out five issues that were discussed. Mr Peters did concede he must have been asked to supply the information to his lawyer.

I can understand that the issue of the amount was not discussed, but put it this way: Mr Glenn did not know the general proposition that one should not talk about money with politicians; that is why he was under no constraint. So he would have likely mentioned it. The issue here is not whether Mr Peters asked but whether Mr Peters knew, and the majority did find that there was a probability that he would have known, because immediately following that telephone call there was another call from Mr Peters to Mr Henry, a call that lasted also 6 minutes. Interestingly enough, of course, there was no recollection of that call by either Mr Peters or Mr Henry, yet there was an email.

I would suggest to New Zealand First members that it was reasonable for the select committee majority to actually draw the inference that money was discussed, and that is the only finding we make—just that money was discussed and that knowledge was possessed by Mr Peters, adding to the statement by Mr Henry that donations had been disclosed to Mr Peters in any event. I suggest to Mr Fairbrother that juries up and down this country faced with the same sort of evidence would have drawn the conclusion that money would have been discussed in those circumstances. And in this circumstance, so did the Privileges Committee, and by majority of virtually every small party in the Parliament.

So the finding is based on a reasonable interpretation of the evidence on the balance of probabilities, which is the very test that was suggested. The way witnesses deal with issues generally helps one to decide this issue. For instance, last week Mr Peters was specifically asked by Mr Brownlee whether he had reimbursed Mr Henry for $40,000 court costs. After all, he had told Grey Power in a written speech precisely that fact. What did he do? One would think the answer would be a simple yes or no. But he gave a long and elliptical answer, and frankly I could not work out whether he had said yes or no. We were entitled to conclude at that point that in fact Mr Peters had not paid, yet that was in direct contradiction to his own speech, written out for Grey Power. It was not something said off the cuff—in fact, it was also said in evidence before the select committee. When we are faced with that situation, we have to ask ourselves whether Mr Peters checked his records. Did he ask his lawyer? Well, apparently not, or, at least, the discussion was nebulous. That would also, had it been a gift, have to be declared and it is specifically stated in the Privileges Committee report that should that be the case, that there is a donation from the Spencer Trust, then that would have to be declared in the subsequent declarations of interest.

We were faced with this situation. Mr Glenn specifically said that money was discussed. Mr Peters did admit that information about the lawyer was required. But there was no recollection of any telephone call between Mr Peters and Mr Henry, even though it took place literally seconds after. I suggest to this House and to the people listening that it was reasonable for the Privileges Committee to draw the inference that Mr Peters had been informed that money was at stake.

Do members know the irony of this whole case? All Mr Peters had to do was simply to declare that he was receiving donations. That was all he had to do. In fact, other members of the House have done precisely that. [Interruption] The member was advised by Mr Henry, because he said so, that he was receiving donations. That is on the record. The member should read the report, for heaven’s sake! Mr Peters’ unwillingness to admit that he may not be right is actually the source of his problem. He seems to be unable to accept that maybe he is mistaken on this, that maybe he did not take enough notice of what his lawyer said, that maybe he did not make the honest inquiry—and that, I say to Dr Cullen, is not a new test. Could we imagine any other sort of inquiry? Surely members have to make an honest inquiry. That is not a new test, notwithstanding what the minority says. New Zealanders expect honesty from their members. They can expect an honest disclosure.

I have to conclude that Mr Peters has let himself down by not living up to his own standards. He has let this Parliament down, and his peers will be judging him accordingly. I suggest that the public will also make their own judgment.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): Over 29 finance houses have collapsed, owing $3 billion to mainly older New Zealanders. Hundreds of thousands of people face home affordability problems—

Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. We were pulled up vigorously by the Speaker even when discussing aspects of the Spencer Trust. If that is the rule, then it is impossible for the Rt Hon Winston Peters to get up and talk about elderly people and finance houses. The rule that was applied to me by the person who was in the Chair was that I could not even discuss what I knew about the Spencer Trust.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Thank you, Mr Hide. I say that Mr Peters had only just stood up, and he had been speaking for about 8 or 9 seconds. The Speaker ruled that the debate must stick to discussing the report. The member must discuss the report.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am just trying to start my speech and provide the environment for it, and this is a deliberate attempt to interrupt a member’s speech. I have spoken for only 9 seconds.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): That is right.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Can I start again?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Yes, you can.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Thank you. Over 29 finance houses have collapsed, owing $3 billion to mainly older New Zealanders, and hundreds of thousands of people face home affordability problems, and the ship “New Zealand” is sailing in troubled international waters. Against this backdrop there has been an attack on an MP and his party, premeditated, orchestrated, and relentless, in the hope of bringing him, his party, and the Government down. New Zealanders have become heartily sick of it. Every minute and every page that is wasted on that obsessive character assassination is another minute of another hour, or day, or another page of a newspaper, that is diverted from the real issues that face all of us.

This is a road seriously walked along before. Whether it be the Māori loans affair, the BNZ bail-out, the BNZ sale, or the wine-box inquiry, the constant hymn of hate has been consistent in the allegations made of my being a liar, deceiver, manipulator, or populist demagogue, or of cultism. The allegations have failed, of course, but what is common in those events is that there never was an admission of who was right and who deserved an apology. That is not important, nor is personal vindication in the pursuit of worthy causes, when one seeks to march to a different drum.

The issue here is that if an MP did not know about a donation, how could he declare it, if a declaration was, back then, in law, in fact required? My gratitude goes to those members of Parliament on the Privileges Committee who approached the inquiry with an open mind and resolved on “a high standard of proof”. That standard cannot descend to a judgment based on what most probably occurred. Those MPs left their politics at the door. They did not try the case through the media, like my political foes.

There are no clear guidelines in any of the Standing Orders and no precedent or reference to any past case. It has been fundamental to our law for centuries that one cannot be convicted of an offence that is not in the law. Further, there cannot be a case, retrospective legislation, or retrospective rules, and then justice. In our system, an offence is applicable only when the law or rules have been put in place. What is contemplated here is a new standard being applied that did not exist in 2005 or 2006. Members are being asked to accept that under this new moral requirement, a declaration should have been made to the Registrar of Pecuniary Interests of Members of Parliament. If there are new moral obligations, it is clear that every MP should be very careful about that, because for some MPs their lives will become dynamite and, I promise members, that will occur very soon.

The committee had set out to prove pecuniary benefit to an MP, on the basis of a second draft report. On page 13 it said “an election petition which, if it had been successful, would have been of benefit to Mr Peters in terms of both political capital and a higher level of funding available to an electorate MP.” The committee, or some members of it, persisted in that view of the law. I wrote, at 4.30 yesterday afternoon, to say that that advice was wrong. Again, it was brought to the committee’s attention that overexpenditure means a disqualified MP, which means a vacant seat, which means a by-election. The committee was advised that the argument that Peters would have got political capital and extra resources at the return of him as the Tauranga MP was utterly fallacious. In the final report, the committee, on page 14, acknowledges that. It dropped out all those words, and says it would have been of “political benefit to Mr Peters.” We can see how the committee predicated pecuniary interest. It was on the basis of a false belief in the law, even though there are seven lawyers in the National Party. That, in a nutshell, is it—the receptacle one needs to contain specious argument.

We have today a rule made retrospectively, applied retrospectively, and placed before a Parliament that has hitherto prided itself on its opposition to retrospective legislation. To single out an MP, whilst ignoring that many other MPs face legal costs that others have contributed to in whole or in part, is demonstrably and palpably unfair. One rule must apply to all MPs, and not to just one MP. To do otherwise simply violates natural justice. It censures an MP when others in the same circumstances, where others help with their legal costs, receive no such censure. Why is there one rule for Winston Peters and another rule for Nick Smith MP? The registrar of pecuniary interests said there was no clarity on the matter and she would have advised an MP back then to seek legal advice. Had I done that back then, no declaration would have been required. Mr Hide’s allegation of a debt failed. Mr Copeland’s allegation of a gift should have failed, likewise. The inquiry was about politics.

I give personal thanks to the thousands of people who contacted my office with their support for me and their concern about the conduct of the committee’s business by some committee members. Those people know the judgment is wrong, and the democratic foundations upon which this country is built have been weakened in the name of political bias and interest.

Here is a record of comments made by some members of the committee before and during the hearing. We heard Russel Norman from the Green Party, time after time. Then Wayne Mapp, on 21 August, went on there, before he had even heard the first day of the hearing—he is a law lecturer and thinks that that is respectable. We had Gerry Brownlee with page after page of his comments; and then the website of one Heather Roy from the ACT party had page after page of prejudgment and predetermination. Those members should have disqualified themselves. They failed in their duty. They tainted the hearings and rendered a serious matter into a banal, useless charade, a farce with some members being obsessed with acting as a kangaroo court. To use the words of Bernard Shaw: “We’ll hang him in the morning, but first we’ll give him a trial.”

I tabled 27 contradictory statements by the committee’s chief witness against me. There is a 28th one; it is that he gave $250,000 to the Māori Party. The Māori Party members deny that. So now, with 28 misrepresentations and falsehoods, why does the Māori Party believe him and not Winston Peters? Why do its members believe him after 28 falsehoods, and not Winston Peters? And why would they tell Māoridom, on the marae and over the airwaves, they supported me, when at the committee they did the reverse of that? They tried to ride the waves of sentiment, then lined up with John Key and Rodney Hide to sell me out, and soon, before their people, they will find out the consequences of doing that. The Greens fronted to the committee with their least experienced MP, one with absolutely no understanding of the law or the judicial process. Mr Norman commented in the media over and over again throughout the sittings of the committee. And as for those journalists who naively suggest that the Greens have no axe to grind with Winston Peters and New Zealand First, I ask them, who consigned the Greens to a position outside of Government for the past 3 years. How naive can they be?

Mr Key condemned me before he had heard any evidence. I tell Mr Key that being ruled against in a majority decision by a body split down party lines on an issue where one has gained nothing personally—not a cent—is one thing, but that being found to have misled the public and to have used one’s position to gain personally to the tune of tens of thousands of dollars is what we call in this business a knock-out. His explanation was that he did not release details of those shareholdings at that time, but in hindsight he realises he should have done so, and he is doing that now. So there is one rule for Mr Key and another one for Winston Peters.

Sitting on that committee was a man called Murray McCully. He got $3.5 million in a taxpayer bail-out, did not declare it, hid all the details—and members will hear more about that later—and was then made a Cabinet Minister! That man, who sat in judgment on me, spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in the public interest, and I have never enriched myself by one damn cent. Those members had the effrontery to line me up, in their bias, and they thought they would get away with it. I say this: the court that I will stand before is on Saturday, 8 November, and I will place my faith in the people of New Zealand to decide the outcome of this case. I rest my case in the judgment of the people of New Zealand, and the only people who are owed an apology are the people of New Zealand, who have sat through months of political posturing, grandstanding, bias, and prejudice.

I put on record also my gratitude to those members of the committee who tried to uphold the standards of a neutral, independent body as a tribunal and as a court of law. Those who did not do so shamed themselves. They shamed their practice, they shamed their profession, and they shamed Parliament. I asked for fairness. I got a farce. There is no morality or ethics in this motion today.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the words “censure Rt Hon Winston Peters for knowingly providing false or misleading information on a return of pecuniary interests” be deleted and the following words inserted: “note that several members of Parliament had legal fighting funds and did not disclose donations to these as it was unclear that this was required”.

Ayes 57

New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Progressive 1.

Noes 62

New Zealand National 47; Green Party 6; Māori Party 3; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Independents: Copeland, Field.

Amendment not agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the following words be added: “That the member, Mr Peters, be requested to apologise to the New Zealand Herald’s editor, Tim Murphy, and political editor, Audrey Young, for calling them liars and demanding their resignations, and that the member be suspended for the remainder of the day.”

Ayes 2

ACT New Zealand 2.

Noes 117

New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 47; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Māori Party 3; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland, Field.

Amendment not agreed to.

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

Ayes 62

New Zealand National 47; Green Party 6; Māori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 2; United Future 2, Independents: Copeland, Field.

Noes 56

New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7.

Abstentions 1

Progressive 1.

Motion agreed to.

Urgency

Urgency

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House): I move, That urgency be accorded the passing through their remaining stages of the Affiliate Te Arawa Iwi and Hapu Claims Settlement Bill, the Central North Island Forests Land Collective Settlement Bill, the Financial Advisers Bill, the Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill, and the Fisheries Act 1996 Amendment Bill (No 2); the first reading of the Education Amendment Bill (No 3); the third reading of the Te Roroa Claims Settlement Bill; the first reading of the Port Nicholson Block (Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika) Claims Settlement Bill; the first readings of the Government Superannuation Fund Amendment Bill and the Electricity (Continuance of Supply) Amendment Bill; the passing through their remaining stages of the Walking Access Bill and the Public Lending Right for New Zealand Authors Bill; the first readings of the Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill (No 2), the Whakarewarewa and Roto-a-Tamaheke Vesting Bill, and the Settlement Systems, Futures, and Emissions Units Bill; the passing through their remaining stages of the Financial Service Providers (Registration and Dispute Resolution) Bill, the Holidays (Transfer of Public Holidays) Amendment Bill, and any bills into which those bills may be divided; the introduction and first reading of Government bills; Government notice of motion No. 11; and any valedictory statements to be made by retiring members at the times determined by the Business Committee. This motion is moved to complete the Government’s intended legislative programme before the House rises for the general election.

A party vote was called for on the question, That urgency be accorded.

Ayes 69

New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Māori Party 3; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field.

Noes 48

New Zealand National 47; Independent: Copeland.

Motion agreed to.

Bills

Affiliate Te Arawa Iwi and Hapu Claims Settlement Bill

Second Reading

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): I move, That the Affiliate Te Arawa Iwi and Hapu Claims Settlement Bill be now read a second time. I am grateful to the Māori Affairs Committee for its work in considering the bill, for its report on the bill, and particularly for the speed with which it achieved that task. I would also like to thank the submitters for taking the time to participate.

The settlement of the affiliate Te Arawa iwi and hapū claims has been the subject of an extraordinary level of external scrutiny, right from the beginning of negotiations. No fewer than four Waitangi Tribunal inquiries considered issues of mandate, who was included in the settlement, and how the interests of overlapping claims are protected. These inquiries in turn considered the results of many hui among the iwi and hapū of Te Arawa. The select committee process is the final point at which members of the public can make submissions. This bill now, of course, belongs to the House completely.

Throughout these negotiations the input of the tribunal and others has resulted in significant changes not just to the settlement package that was initially accepted by the affiliates but to the settlement landscape in the central North Island as a whole. Parliament is in the process of considering legislation that implements “on account” settlements of the interests of a number of central North Island iwi in Crown forest land, and the affiliate Te Arawa iwi and hapū are party to that agreement. This settlement bill completes the resolution of their historical claims, and provides redress that is outside the scope of the Central North Island Forests Land Collective Settlement Bill, which the House will move on to upon the completion of this bill.

The Māori Affairs Committee recommended that the bill be passed, and noted that 18 of the 37 submissions were in support of the bill. It was almost inevitable, of course, that a number of submissions against the bill would be made. Most of the submissions in opposition raised issues that had been resolved or extensively covered in other forums.

I want to address three broad aspects of the settlement that the committee raised in its report. Firstly, I refer to the inclusion and naming of various iwi and hapū. Some submitters raised the concern that their iwi or hapū was inappropriately named or included within the claimant definition. These issues have been addressed at length by the tribunal, Ministers, and now the select committee. We are comfortable that Te Pūmautanga o Te Arawa has the support of its people for entering into this settlement. Moreover, it is inappropriate for the Crown to interfere with the internal workings and structures of an iwi organisation at the call of factions within that organisation. The best the Crown can do is ensure that the processes through which an organisation can make its own decisions are sound.

The second key aspect is the settlement of Wai claims through a comprehensive settlement. Some submitters raised the concern that this settlement extinguishes a number of Wai claims, without the direct involvement of the named claimants. The settlement provides redress to Te Pūmautanga o Te Arawa that the submitters would seek to have returned to them under their own exclusive Treaty settlements. I can appreciate the sense of ownership that many named claimants feel over their Wai claim, but since the inception of the Treaty settlement process it has been clear that if the Crown and iwi want to settle historical grievances within our lifetimes, we cannot afford to settle claim by claim. As of a few months ago the tribunal had over 1,400 registered claims. In the last month it reportedly received some 2,000 more, though it will be some time before we know how many of those will actually be registered. Without some kind of deadline, these historical claims, or more, would have trickled in over an indefinite period.

But even before the recent deluge, the need to group claims together for either inquiry or settlement was apparent. The tribunal deals with a number of historical claims by grouping them into district inquiries and issuing a report that covers the entire district or set of issues. Most inquiries are focused on the generic effects of the Crown’s acts or omissions in respect of any group. The Crown deals with a number of historical claims by negotiating comprehensive settlements at an iwi level, broadly speaking. These settlements, where possible, provide redress to recognised particular interests within the broader grouping. Although there is an air of justice to the idea of insisting that every single Wai claimant must approve a settlement that covers his or her claims, there are insuperable practical complications, not least of which is that it would incentivise the lodging of thousands more Wai claims by individuals seeking veto power over a settlement that they oppose. The mandate and ratification processes ensure that all members of a claimant group, whether or not they have a Wai claim, have the ability to have their say on settlement.

The third key issue is that relating to Ruamatā Marae. This issue was raised before the select committee, and had not been not extensively explored before then, through the negotiations process. Very late in the process, the marae reservation trust contacted the Crown and sought to have its concerns about low-flying planes on their way to the airport flying directly over the marae addressed through the settlement. It was too late to change the terms of the settlement, but there are genuine issues here about noise and disruption to the marae that need to be addressed. It is not clear at this stage whether that disruption constitutes a historical breach of the Treaty, or whether the Treaty settlement process can deliver a solution to that problem. Not every matter discussed between Crown and Māori has its roots in a historical breach, or its solution in a Treaty settlement. But the Crown is working through Te Pūmautanga o Te Arawa with Ruamatā Marae, the relevant central government agencies, and the Rotorua District Council to ensure that these issues are addressed outside of the settlement process. I will be moving an amendment to the bill in the Committee stage that will avoid any doubt that this bill will extinguish any specific Treaty of Waitangi claims relating to the airspace and the flight path. It will not, of course, remove the current Wai claim from the Treaty settlement, which the Ruamatā Marae trust does not want to see happen.

At the Committee of the whole House stage, the Government also intends to introduce a Supplementary Order Paper that will make the following changes to the bill: to provide for public access consistent with that in the Central North Island Forests Land Collective Settlement Bill; to provide for additional redress as a consequence of facilitative mediation with Ngāti Rangiunuora and Ngāti Tamakari, two hapū of the affiliate Ngāti Pikiao; to refine the definition of an affiliate group, Tūhourangi Ngāti Wāhiao; and to clarify and ensure consistency with regard to the treatment of redress involving conservation land.

This is the second reading of this settlement legislation. We will proceed to the Committee stage and the third reading, and then we will go on to consider the Central North Island Forests Land Collective Settlement Bill.

I thank once again the leadership of Te Pūmautanga o Te Arawa for its patience and perseverance with the Crown in the long journey towards this settlement, and, particularly, its generosity in holding back on holding the Crown to its previous commitments, to enable the central North Island forests land collective settlement to proceed. At that time I undertook that the final shape of this settlement would be no less, and preferably better, than what it had already agreed with the Crown. I look forward to being able to congratulate Te Pūmautanga o Te Arawa on the completion of this settlement process within the near future. It is my intention to try to manage the proceedings of the House—as best as a Leader of the House can—to arrive at the third readings of these bills, and the first readings of other settlement bills, on Thursday morning and early afternoon. Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker.

Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. I am pleased to stand during the second reading of the Affiliate Te Arawa Iwi and Hapu Claims Settlement Bill. I was pleased to hear the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations outline some of the changes that will be made by a Supplementary Order Paper. This is a very important settlement, and that was very clear from the first reading speeches of the members of this House. I remind members that the bill settles the claims of a number of Te Arawa iwi in the Rotorua and Kaingaroa area, representing 24,000 people, and addresses grievances that occurred quite some time ago. The Minister is correct in saying that this settlement has had a very lengthy gestation. Some mention should be made of the generosity, in the end, of Te Pūmautanga in setting to one side temporarily the agreement it had negotiated with the Crown back in 2004. But I would say that neither Te Pūmautanga nor the Crown had any choice, given that the brakes were pulled on this settlement by a quite scathing report from the Waitangi Tribunal, and also by court action by the Federation of Māori Authorities and Tūwharetoa—those who were concerned that this settlement would undermine other interests that traversed the central North Island as well.

But here we are today at the second reading. The Māori Affairs Committee was very pleased to give this matter the urgency it deserved. I make reference to the hearings that we held, one in Taupō and one in Rotorua, and particularly to the iwi representatives who came to the committee and made very forceful, in some cases, and comprehensive, in most cases, submissions. All of that process laid the settlement open to public scrutiny, which was good. In a settlement of this size and nature, that is always desirable. I add my thanks to those of the Minister to those submitters who responded and appeared before the committee.

I will address two or three issues, which have already been addressed by the Minister. On the issue of the flight path over the Ruamatā Marae, the Minister would have heard some signs of agreement on the course that he is taking to address that, so nothing further needs to be said on that. When there is a claim in front of the Waitangi Tribunal, and we see that that claim might be of no purpose once this bill is passed, then clearly it is an issue of great importance to those trustees that this matter is being addressed.

The other matter of concern to us as Māori—but to others as well, particularly those of us who are very proud of our own ancestral connections and very territorial about where we come from, and who should represent us and who should not—is those submissions that were raised in relation to the definitions of collective groupings under schedule 1, and, in particular, the submissions presented by Ngāti Wāhiao, in terms of its coupling—as it has been referred to—with Tūhourangi, and those of Ngāti Tahu and Ngāti Whāoa.

I certainly take on board the advice the officials brought to us in the select committee, but I personally also have some anxiety about the way entities that might have thought they were in existence on their own account are now suddenly coupled with another grouping in legislation. Certainly there are whakapapa relationships that bind various tribes, iwi, and hapū together. However, when sitting on the Māori Affairs Committee, we heard heartfelt and passionate submissions, particularly by a grouping of Ngāti Wāhiao. They take umbrage at being coupled with what is obviously seen by some as the senior—Tūhourangi—but none the less for themselves in matters of this nature it is pretty important because this has ramifications for the other bill coming down the line, possibly over the next day or so, which is to do with the Whakarewarewa geothermal valley. I have to say that my colleague Tau Henare and I were at pains to explore this issue, along with Te Ururoa from the Māori Party, because in the end we do not know what ramifications lie down the way, in the future, for couplings of this nature. I do not know whether there is a better word, Parekura, other than couplings—

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

Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU: —I am sorry, I am referring to Minister Horomia—but that is the way we have been describing it at the select committee.

There is the issue of whether Wāhiao, some of whom see themselves as an independent iwi or hapū with their own mana, their own standing, would become subsumed further down the track because they are now coupled with Tūhourangi as simply one of the affiliates of the Te Arawa settlement.

Of course, the other issue is Ngāti Tahu and Ngāti Whāoa. Ngāti Tahu in particular, in terms of physical proximity, are close to Tūwharetoa, my own tribe, and I have to say that over the years in which I have been involved in some of these matters it seems unusual to me that Ngāti Tahu and Ngāti Whāoa would be coupled. Again, the submitters who came to the select committee questioned the mandate of Te Pūmautanga to represent their interests in tandem with Ngāti Tahu, and now with Ngāti Whāoa. Those views are passionately held; but it is not only that—for some, it goes to the heart of who they are. Their whakapapa clearly says who they are, and if they are being lumped into a basket with someone else, who they did not necessarily think should be there—and now they feel they ought not to be there—then this is a real issue. As I say, I for one regret that the Minister has not been able to find some way of addressing that issue. I accept what the officials say, but I say to the Minister that in the end everything is possible. None the less, we support the second reading.

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

Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU: I will just mention a couple of other things before I take my seat. One of them is the issue around Tūkiterangi, the ancestor of Wāhiao. That was one of the other issues brought to us at the hearing. Wāhiao were somewhat aggrieved over the fact that they were being lumped under the one ancestor, Tūhourangi. I understand that the Hon Mita Ririnui went and did some work in this area, as I understand he did on the flight path issue, as well. The Government has acceded to including and recognising the ancestor of Wāhiao and having that inserted into the bill—putting Tūkiterangi into the legislation. I hope that that may go some way to appeasing Wāhiao on the fact that at this point nothing has changed in relation to the coupling of Tūhourangi Ngāti Wāhiao. Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker.

Hon MITA RIRINUI (Associate Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): Kia ora, Mr Assistant Speaker, and thank you. I was interrupted by my whanaunga mai i te rohe o te Waiariki. But kei te pai tēnā—kei te pai tēnā. As I said, he whanaunga.

Once again I say that, naturally, I stand in support of the Affiliate Te Arawa Iwi and Hapu Claims Settlement Bill, which today is having its second reading. But in doing so I think it is important to mention the Central North Island Forests Land Collective Settlement Bill as well, because these two bills are closely linked in terms of the assets involved, in terms of the iwi and hapū involved, and in terms of the business relationships that will develop in the future. I believe that at some time over the next couple of days we will have the opportunity to debate the second reading of the Central North Island Forests Land Collective Settlement Bill.

It is important to acknowledge the difficulties that the affiliate Te Arawa iwi and hapū have endured over a number of years to bring this settlement bill to this stage. It has been a combination of a lot of hard work, huge commitments, and, most important, compromise. Many will say that Te Arawa never compromise. Well, this bill states something else. It states very clearly that when it comes to the benefits of the whānau and hapū of Te Arawa, Te Arawa put their interests first and are prepared to compromise where it is in their best interests. Te Arawa has done that.

On a more historical basis, I say that, as we know, in 2002 dialogue was entered into between the Crown and the central North Island claimants—with the assistance of a person we know very well, the Hon David Caygill—on how Treaty claims in the region could move forward. In early discussions, that dialogue reached a stage where mandating and negotiations could begin with the affiliate Te Arawa groups in mid-2003. After many months of intensive discussion and hui, the Kaihautū Executive Council submitted a deed of mandate to the Crown in December 2003. The Crown and the Kaihautū Executive Council signed the terms of negotiations, which set out the objectives of the negotiations, on November 2004. The Crown and the affiliate Te Arawa groups also agreed to sign the deed of settlement on 30 September 2007.

Since then, much has happened. As members know, the central North Island settlement, also known as the “Treelords” deal, was signed only a couple of months ago, and we were graced with the presence of some 700 central North Island iwi members here in this House to witness the historical occasion and to support this Labour-led Government in our first reading of the bill. Much of that momentum and the opportunity was born from the affiliate Te Arawa iwi and hapū, which, having agreed to join the central North Island collective, also chose to make a significant compromise by passing the final decision about most of their forestry redress over to the largest forestry company in the country, for their benefit and for the benefit of other North Island iwi. Through their agreement to allow their forestry assets to be held over for the central North Island collective settlement, they also agreed to hold their own affiliate Te Arawa iwi and hapū settlement over until the central North Island collective claim had been put to rest. With the progress of the central North Island collective claim, we can now turn our attention to Te Pūmautanga o Te Arawa, to finally resolve their grievances and, in doing so, provide them with the cultural, financial, and commercial redress package that they well deserve.

It is true that, as with other Treaty settlements of the past, we are unable to provide iwi with, or return to them, the equivalent of what has been lost from them. However, I believe that this settlement will provide the affiliate Te Arawa iwi and hapū with enough to put them on the path of reaffirming and maintaining their status and development. The redress package includes the transfer of 19 areas of Crown-owned land of special significance to the affiliate Te Arawa iwi and hapū—redress that will enable increased input into management of Crown-owned land and protocols with certain Government agencies. In addition, to reflect the compromise made by the affiliate Te Arawa groups, additional redress has been negotiated. This includes the gifting of land under five Rotorua schools, with lease-back arrangements to the Crown; the gifting of Ngātamariki geothermal assets, based on a value of $5 million; a statement acknowledging the affiliate Te Arawa groups’ interest in the upper reaches of the Waikato River; and the forgiveness of the current Whakarewarewa Village debt.

I pay tribute to Te Pūmautanga o Te Arawa’s head negotiator, Rāwiri Te Whare—now in Italy—and its chairman, Eru George, for their commitment to reaching a settlement. It is also important that I acknowledge Hēnare Colbert, Ruka Hughes, Kere Cookson-Ua, and Brian Barge—also part of the negotiating team. Their work and dedication in reaching a resolution, despite what may have often felt like impossible odds, have been unwavering, and I commend them all. It is also important that I acknowledge the efforts of my esteemed colleagues the Hon Dr Michael Cullen and the Minister of Māori Affairs, the Hon Parekura Horomia.

I cannot stress how important this settlement is to Te Arawa, the Crown, and the whole of the central North Island. We have been experiencing a wave of Treaty settlements, and it is primarily due to this Government’s strong desire to settle historical grievances and to move forward with all Māori as Treaty partners into the future. Also, providing a positive platform for Te Arawa to regain some of the economic status that was taken from them through the acts of the Crown is a way of bridging the historical rift and creating a future of economic growth and development. Therefore, support by the House for this settlement is unanimous, because of the efforts of, particularly, the negotiators for Te Arawa.

I want to comment on the process that was undertaken over the last few years. In particular, I want to comment on the submissions we heard in Rotorua. Some people had longstanding issues with the claim. Some felt that the Crown should listen very carefully to what they had to say, and make genuine attempts to resolve those issues.

I want to speak to one matter in particular, and that is the reference to Ngāti Wāhiao - Tūhourangi. It was a very small amendment that was required—a very small addition. There is a history behind this reference. It goes back to the time of the eruption of Tarawera, when Tūhourangi Ngāti Wāhiao became united as iwi and occupied generally a similar area. In their speeches, their whaikōrero, and in a lot of their whakataukī, they are referred to as Ngāti Wāhiao - Tūhourangi. There is a group within Te Arawa who wish them to be referred to as Ngāti Wāhiao and Tūhourangi. They say the Crown should listen very carefully to this plea and include the word “and”. But my view is that this reference was a historical decision brought about by the displacement of one particular tribe and the compassion of another tribe in bringing them into the area where they lived, so that they shared a common area. If any changes are to be made in terms of the reference to these two iwi, then it is they that must do it, because it was their tūpuna who, as a result of the eruption of Tarawera, made the decision that from that time they would be referred to as Ngāti Wāhiao - Tūhourangi. No one—no one at all—should insist that the Crown be the adjudicator in this case, and that the Crown insert words to separate those two iwi; that is something they have to work on themselves. I am sure there are many in this House who think the Crown should do that; well, I am one who disagrees.

Once again, I thank all my colleagues, including those on the Māori Affairs Committee, for the contribution they have made to bring this important bill to the House today. Kia ora.

Hon TAU HENARE (National): Kia ora, Mr Assistant Speaker. I must digress just for a little bit and say how lovely it is to come into the House when you are in the Chair and hear those dulcet tones. Tēnā koe e te Whare. I am glad the member who has resumed his seat, Mita Ririnui, broached the issue of Ngāti Wāhiao and Tūhourangi, because at the Māori Affairs Committee that was one of the more interesting avenues of discussion that we went down. It is all well and good for Māori to say they want to come to an agreement with the Government and want that agreement to be put into legislation, but then on the other hand they are saying it should not be up to the House to be the adjudicator. But I actually think that our job is to be the adjudicator—a sort of benevolent referee—when there is an issue such as this one.

I do not profess to tell Te Arawa what to do, how to do it, and when to do it. I do not think anyone would be brave enough to do that, considering that we all have the same weapons these days. But I think that Tūhourangi and Ngāti Wāhiao should be uncoupled. I certainly think that there should be a reference in the bill to Tūhourangi and Ngāti Wāhiao, but just because of an eruption some 100-odd years ago and the move to somebody else’s area, that does not mean that they should be coupled. They have their own identities and their own ancestral identities. I suppose I can more easily explain the issue if I look at my own whakapapa—my own genealogy in terms of Ngāpuhi and Ngāti Hine. I would not like it if I or our people were to be referred to as “Ngāpuhi-Ngāti Hine”. Referring to them as Ngāpuhi and Ngāti Hine is not a problem, and—

Pita Paraone: Ngāti Hine and Ngāpuhi.

Hon TAU HENARE: —or Ngāti Hine and Ngāpuhi, as our chairman of the Ngāti Hine rūnanga has said—

Pita Paraone: Former chairman!

Hon TAU HENARE: Absolutely. The former chairman reaffirmed Ngāti Hine’s status as an iwi. But anyway, I digress. Also, it could be said that “Ngāti Hine-Te Rarawa” or “Ngāti Hine-Te Orewai” should be, for example, Ngāti Hine and Te Rarawa, and Ngāti Hine and Te Orewai. I think it is wrong to use the process of the House to give effect to a new group. I have always known Ngāti Wāhiao, and I have always known Tūhourangi; I have never known both to be put together.

The interesting thing is that when we asked a submitter at the select committee—and I will not mention his name—what he thought about the inclusion of the word “and” in between Tūhourangi Ngāti Wāhiao, he said it would not be a problem. A week later, because of pressure, I believe, that was brought to bear on that person, he recanted his acquiescence to the inclusion of the word “and”, and I thought to myself that that was wrong. I will not dwell too much on that issue, but I think it is an important issue of principle.

Another interesting fact that we came to hear about in the Māori Affairs Committee is that approximately 24,000 people are affected by the settlement, but that is not how many people there are on the beneficiary roll and that is certainly not how many people took part in the decisions. I always wonder how we are going to get around the issue of the mandate. Who holds the mandate: is it an organisation that the Crown is working with, or is it the number of people who turn up on any given Saturday, Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, or Friday? I am not trying to cast any aspersions on the mandate process here, but we always have to ask how the decisions were arrived at.

I also raise a concern that I was not aware of, even as a former Minister of Māori Affairs, and if the subject of that concern happened in my time I now want to publicly apologise for not keeping my eye on the ball. The concern is that in the settlement process, the schedule of the settlement bill has all those other Wai numbers attached to it; basically it is the extinguishment of all those Treaty claims. I have a big worry that in the process we go through, although we are all above board in terms of trying to sort out the bigger claim—the wider claim—there are always the little ones, or maybe not so little ones, that are lost in the negotiating and in the clamour to make an agreement. I specifically want to mention Ruamatā. For the Ruamatā people at the marae, the airport is an issue, and I am glad to hear through the grapevine that the Minister is going to move a Supplementary Order Paper that addresses that. But I think we should be very, very mindful of extinguishing claims to the tribunal without going through a process of negotiation, talking, or getting the bigger claimant to speak with the other claimants whose claims have merit. I do not think we should extinguish those claims willy-nilly.

I commend the select committee and its chair, Mr Dave Hereora, for a sterling job in getting this bill before it, asking for submissions, and listening to some quite detailed and intense submissions, both in Rotorua and in Taupō. So I commend my colleagues who acted on the select committee.

All in all, we can say that the outcome of this bill will be good for Te Arawa. It will be good for the majority of Te Arawa, but there will be some unfortunate claims that are lost in the clamour and in the backslapping, as well. That is unfortunate, and it is something that maybe the next administration—whoever is in it—needs to look at. Thank you.

PITA PARAONE (NZ First): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker, tēnā tātou o te Whare nei. Engari, i mua i te haere tonu o ēnei o āku kōrero, hiahia ana au kia mihi ki a koutou ngā iwi, ngā hapū o Te Arawa. Koutou tēnā pea e mātakitaki mai, e are taringa mai hoki ki ēnei kōrero i puta mai i te Whare i te pō nei. Nā reira, tēnā koutou.

[Greetings to you, Mr Assistant Speaker, and to us of this House. But before I continue with my address, I want to acknowledge the people and subtribes of Te Arawa as well, those of you who might be listening in or watching these proceedings in the House tonight. So greetings to you.]

I acknowledge the Te Arawa iwi and hapū who may be watching or listening to this debate on their bill, the Affiliate Te Arawa Iwi and Hapu Claims Settlement Bill. I am pleased to stand in this debate on behalf of New Zealand First to support much of the sentiment that has been expressed already.

Of course, we all know that this bill follows many years of groundwork and several months of intensive negotiations between the negotiators, Te Pūmautanga o Te Arawa and its team, and representatives of the Crown. To that extent, I acknowledge the team that made up Te Pūmautanga o Te Arawa. It was led by Rāwiri Te Whare of Ngāti Tahu and Ngāti Whāoa, and included Henry Colbert of Ngāti Ngāraranui, Ruka Hughes of Ngāti Rongomai, and Brian Barge of Ngāti Kearoa Ngāti Tuarā. I think it is to their credit that, having taken up the cudgels from the group known as Ngā Kaihautū o Te Arawa, under the chairmanship of Eru George, they have got to the stage where we are now debating the second reading of this bill.

The bill has returned to the House after the Māori Affairs Committee, of which I was a member, received and heard submissions on it. I was very proud to be part of the committee that considered the bill. It affects approximately 24,000 members of the affiliate. It follows the process of combining several claims so that they can be dealt with as one group. I ought to say that there has been a long gestation period for this bill, but we are now in what we might consider to be the last lap of the race.

I want to quote something that is attributed to Mr Te Whare of Te Pūmautanga o Te Arawa: “There is nothing just about a settlement. It is just a settlement.” I think that quote aptly describes not only this settlement but all the settlements that have preceded it. As much as we want to compensate the affected parties to the maximum extent, there will always be some concern about how fair and how just the final settlement is. Bearing that in mind, Te Pūmautanga o Te Arawa, with the authority given it by its beneficiaries, approved the settlement that is now being considered by this House.

I want to make reference to two things. The first is the issue regarding Tūhourangi Ngāti Wāhiao. The committee received some submissions stating that they would like to see the separation of Tūhourangi Ngāti Wāhiao into two entities, and they merely asked that the word “and” should be included. I suppose it is not very often that I agree with my relative who spoke just before me, the Hon Tau Henare, but I think in this regard he was quite right: this is not a matter for the Crown. This issue is based on tikanga, it is based on history, and therefore it should be left to tikanga and the future to decide whether those two tribes should be identified separately. I know that even today, outside of this whole process, in the kapahaka competitions that Te Arawa ran recently to identify which kapahaka group would represent their region at the forthcoming Te Matatini kapahaka competitions, one of the teams that participated was known as Tūhourangi Ngāti Wāhiao.

I took the opportunity during the hearing process to raise this issue with one of the elders from Tūhourangi, and he was quite clear in his response to my question. He said that Tūhourangi Ngāti Wāhiao were essentially one group. He was actually saying that, by virtue of whakapapa, they are quite closely intertwined. I do not believe that it is for this House or for anyone outside of Tūhourangi Ngāti Wāhiao to determine whether they should be separated into two separate entities. I can understand the concerns that those submitters raised about this issue, but as much as I might sympathise with their concerns, I do not believe that it is an issue for this House or for the Crown to determine. I am also mindful of the fact that when the House dealt with the Ngāti Awa settlement bill, New Zealand First opposed the stand taken by this House in giving due recognition to what we referred to as a new iwi grouping. New Zealand First continues to maintain that stance.

The other point I want to make is regarding Ruamatā Marae and its claim to the tribunal with regard to airspace. I ought to say that I mistakenly took its claim that is identified in the bill to be a claim about airspace. I was informed by representatives of the marae that that was not the case. I am glad to see that the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations has proposed an amendment that will reassure the marae that it can make a claim in regard to airspace.

In conclusion, I reaffirm New Zealand First’s support for the second reading of this bill. Kia ora.

KEITH LOCKE (Green): The Green Party will be supporting the Affiliate Te Arawa Iwi and Hapu Claims Settlement Bill. I am a stand-in today for our fine, upstanding member on the Māori Affairs Committee, Metiria Turei, who did all the hard work on the bill for the Green Party.

We acknowledge that the Crown and its representatives have breached, and continue to breach, Te Tiriti o Waitangi. We support the resolution of, and restitution for, all outstanding historical and contemporary breaches. There needs to be ongoing dialogue on the application of te Tiriti to the settlement process.

We understand that, on one side, there are still many hapū and iwi who are unhappy about this bill, just as, on the other side, there are many people who worked very hard to negotiate a settlement through a policy minefield, to deliver to their people. Although the bill will deliver to many of the hapū and iwi, it will also extinguish some claims, and without the consent of the people concerned. The Green Party, and Metiria Turei in particular, have campaigned on an ongoing basis against that practice, because one cannot resolve—particularly in any final form—a matter without the consent of the subgroup that took the claim.

The Greens have been somewhat critical of the overall Government Treaty settlement process, because it is not an optimal or truly just process to restore what Māori lost during the colonisation period. Like the previous speaker, Pita Paraone, we support the Government’s Supplementary Order Paper relating to Rotorua airport. It is good that it excludes from this bill any idea that local people cannot continue their historical claim concerning airspace issues around Rotorua airport. Metiria fought very hard on this issue at the select committee, and was disappointed when she did not appear to be succeeding. It is good that people gained a greater understanding, and that—as Pita Paraone has just explained—the Government has come round to her position and will table a Supplementary Order Paper.

The select committee heard submitters from Ruamatā Marae talk about the impacts of the airport on them, including cultural degradation, and hazardous health and safety issues stemming from the emission of noise, fuel residue, acoustic vibrations, and backdraught from aircraft. Some of the aircraft are quite low-flying. The Ruamatā Marae sits at the end of the Rotorua airport runway, and the effects on it are serious. In the period before 1992, the ancestral meeting house and associated buildings were relocated only metres away, on lower ground, as a result of the flight path being designated. The meeting house was deemed by the airport authority to be an obstruction to the flight path. The bodies and bones of the dead were violated as a result of the airport authority ordering earthworks to be done to lower the hill on which the urupā was located. The marae committee went into debt as a result of the Crown taking more than 10 years to reimburse the marae for relocating costs. So it was a rather sorry story that was told to the select committee.

The marae was particularly concerned about the effects of incoming aircraft, which often come in to the runway at no more than 50 feet in the air. People are getting whipped by the backdraught. Even in very important situations where people are burying their dead, the backdraught of descending aircraft is hitting them. Having the flight path very close to the marae affects a whole lot of its traditional ceremonies. Karanga, whaikōrero, waiata, and wānanga are all disrupted by aircraft noise emissions. Because of those things, people are deterred from booking the marae for important occasions—birthdays, weddings, etc.—and that makes it harder for the marae committee to generate an adequate income. There is even talk that the acoustic vibrations tend to loosen the nails on the roof; the people have to knock the nails back in every now and again. The effect is quite significant. Fuel residues from the aircraft are spread on the marae and on the kura grounds; kids use the swimming pool and the kura. The hāngi pits at the marae are also affected.

The situation could become worse if international flights start coming into the airport. The sound levels could go up to 60 decibels. That would be very disruptive to the domestic activities of the marae. If the situation became impossible and the marae were forced out—hopefully, it will not be, if it pursues its claim—there is apparently no legal obligation on the Crown, the airlines, or the airport authority to contribute to the cost of relocation.

It is a rather sad situation. The Supplementary Order Paper is very much warranted, and the Greens will strongly support it. Although Metiria Turei is quite proud that, after all her pushing, the change is being made and a Supplementary Order Paper will be brought in, she is somewhat saddened that more could not have been done to improve the bill. Thank you.

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker, kia ora tātou e noho nei i roto i te Whare i tēnei pō.

[Greetings to you, Mr Assistant Speaker, and to us seated here in the House tonight.]

In the first reading debate, I took the opportunity to outline the experience of my own iwi in, amongst, and at the side of, this bill. I recall that Mr Shane Jones raised the issues that I was raising for the marae. Me pēnei rawa te kōrero, i kōrerohia ērā take i runga i te marae, ā, i te kāinga i mua noa atu o te taenga mai ki konei, ā, ka mutu, koinā te take ko pupū ake te taupatupatu o te noho o ētahi o ngā hapū, tētahi ki tētahi, ngā iwi, tētahi ki tētahi. Hoi anō, he whakamārama noa ake tēnā ki a koe e te mema o te Nōta i ngā uauatanga e pā ana ki a tātou.

[Let me put it this way: those matters were debated on the marae and in the home, long before they came here, and as a consequence conflict welled up that caused friction between subtribes and people. However, that is a mere explanation to you, the Northland member, in regard to the difficulties that relate to us.]

I was saying to Mr Jones that the issues he raised in respect of the discussion on the marae did take place prior to the arrival of the first reading of the bill and probably continued to take place. Those issues have been a sore point in the past on various marae, and, although I did not like the comment at the time, I appreciate the sentiment about those issues. I wanted to make it clear to him that putting that kōrero on the record, as I have done, is something I needed to do to make sure that it is on the record, and to that end I leave the matter; it goes no further. It is time to focus on the future.

The essence of this bill, as with any other settlement bill, comes in the text of the apology. In this case it goes something like this: “The Crown profoundly regrets and unreservedly apologies for the cumulative effect of its actions over the generations, which have undermined tribal structures and had a damaging impact on the landholdings and development of the Affiliate.” That one sentence, I would suggest, has enormous relevance for the iwi and hapū of Te Arawa affiliated to Te Pūmautanga o Te Arawa Trust, and, indeed, almost every iwi throughout the motu.

Within that one sentence is a history dating back, as other members have said, to the first pre-colonial contact in the 1830s, a history in which contemporary title was converted into title derived from the Crown, and a history in which the Crown acquired Māori land to facilitate Pākehā settlement—land compulsorily acquired for public works purposes and land taken for roading, railways, internal communications, electricity generation, scenic reserves, forest plantation, and an aerodrome. Land was taken and, with it, went the subsequent loss of control and responsibility for our ancestral lands, our taonga, our wāhi tapu. E kī ana te kōrero, there is a saying: “Toitū te whenua, whatungarongaro te tangata.”—land is permanent, but people pass on.

The apology for the theft of land and the compensation for the illegal acquisition of it is important. For some of the Te Arawa people, this bill has been an opportunity for celebration and joy that at last grievances have been heard and the story told. It is also time to reflect on the long, frustrating, and emotional journey to this point that will come to an end—I think—this week, with many of the original Te Arawa kōeke claimants now having passed on. Many of those I mentioned at the first reading. E moe koutou whakangaro atu. [Sleep on and away from view.] Farewell.

I will signal one or two matters that came up, and other members of the select committee have moved into this area ahead of me. I wanted to focus a little more on these issues at the Committee stage, but I will start by heading to the issue raised with regard to Ngāti Whāoa. There was a call from some submitters for a full Waitangi Tribunal inquiry into Ngāti Whāoa claims, even though there are at least two or three Waitangi Tribunal reports instructing the Crown to deal with the uncoupling of Ngāti Tahu and Ngāti Whāoa. The focus from submitters was that such a move would reflect the separate status of each group more accurately. The argument came back to us from officials that such a change should be resisted because the coupling of iwi and hapū was the way it had always been, at least in instances dating back to 1990.

At the heart of the matter was the conflict of definition between Te Pūmautanga and some members of Ngāti Tahu and Ngāti Whāoa, and we could not say that it was resolved in this bill. But this is a significant matter, because the definition is relevant in the central North Island discussions and, indeed, in any future directions from Ngāti Whāoa. To that end I have been asked to present an amendment to this bill, and I intend to do so at the Committee stage. In essence, it is a request from Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whāoa.

The second matter is with regard to Tūhourangi Ngāti Wāhiao, a matter that other members have raised. A coupling concern that some submitters talked about was to do with requesting that the designation Tūhourangi Ngāti Wāhiao be changed to Tūhourangi and Ngāti Wāhiao, but there was also a recommendation that the tūpuna Ngāti Tūkitirangi be added to the definition, and hopefully we will hear about that when we get to the Committee stage.

Again, I have to say that the advice from officials did not inspire too much confidence. The comment provided by the Office of Treaty Settlements was that this was a relatively new issue and that the coupling of Tūhourangi Ngāti Wāhiao was well established and accepted by the Crown. Neither of these responses was compelling, in our view, so we look forward to at least placing this matter in front of the Committee by way of a Supplementary Order Paper at the request of the representatives of Te Maru o Ngāti Wāhiao, which will at least address their concerns and interests.

The Hon Tau Henare raised the issues of Waitangi Tribunal claims. The Māori Party was extremely concerned to learn that during the settlement process the Crown had extinguished a number of Waitangi Tribunal claims without either the claimants’ knowledge or the claimants’ consent. The explanation put forward was that this was a result of the Crown’s policy of dealing with large natural groupings. How can it be that the Crown can extinguish Waitangi Tribunal claims through the settlement process without the express knowledge and permission of the specific claimants? That just seems so unjust to me. Surely the people who placed the claim in front of the Waitangi Tribunal have the right to be formally advised that their claim is being settled and to seek their buy-in, as they have been the ones who have given the time, the energy, and even possibly the money in pursuit of the settlement of the grievance. Our comment in the select committee report expresses our concerns.

Other members who spoke before me have talked about Ruamatā Marae. We need to talk about the story of Ruamatā Marae, although other members have already broached some of the issues. Since the 1960s this marae has been continually hammered by way of the Crown allowing the use of the flight path over the top of the Ngāti Uenukukōpako people. I have used the word “hammered” quite deliberately. In the 1960s Ruamatā’s ancestral meeting house was hammered down to lower ground after it was declared by the authorities to be an obstruction in the way of the flight path. At the same time the hill on which the marae burial ground, the urupā, was located was hammered down by machinery, as it too was declared to be an obstruction to the flight path. All of this was despite the marae being in the area long before any airport was contemplated in Rotorua.

However, it is not just the marae tūpuna whare, the hill, and the urupā—the cemetery—that have taken a hammering. So too has the ability to develop homes on the ancestral land due to height restrictions imposed because of the flight path. Today the people of the marae continue to face many other impacts, and these were mentioned by Mr Keith Locke this evening when he talked about the aircraft noise, the deposits of aviation fuel, and so on. This is a real concern. However, one thing the authorities do not seem to want to hammer down are the nails that Mr Locke talked about that are popping out of the marae buildings. This is possibly caused by the acoustic vibrations from the low-flying aircraft—and I have been at a hui when those aeroplanes were going over the top.

Given all of this, it would be no surprise for members to hear that just over a month ago a historical claim was lodged with the Waitangi Tribunal on behalf of the people of the marae. Their claim is that they have been prejudiced by the creation of this flight path. Having said that, I was pleased to hear from the Minister earlier today that this issue has been looked at and considered. I appreciate it very much that that has been taken care of.

At this second reading I will just acknowledge that considerable progress has been made in seeking to improve the processes that govern the way in which mana whenua entitlement and determination is arrived at, and I acknowledge the work that Dr Cullen has done in respect of moving these settlements along. I also recognise the importance of the meetings held between the Crown Forestry Rental Trust, the Office of Treaty Settlements, and the Waitangi Tribunal to better coordinate resources and improve the models used. The perfect science is still a long way off, and although we commend the new approach—the emphasis on rangatira ki te rangatira, chief to chief—it is an approach that must continue to ensure that the success of settlements continues to move forward. We must do better, and we can do better, and hopefully in the next 7 or 8 weeks or so we will have the opportunity to add to the process that has been developed up to this point in time.

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Minister of Māori Affairs): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. I stand in support of the Affiliate Te Arawa Iwi and Hapu Claims Settlement Bill. The bill gives effect to the settlement reached between the affiliate Te Arawa iwi and hapū, represented by Te Pūmautanga o Te Arawa, and the Crown.

I would certainly like to acknowledge at the outset the far-sighted decision of Rāwiri Te Whare and other Te Pūmautanga o Te Arawa negotiators to bring the affiliate Te Arawa settlement into the central North Island collective settlement. Alongside them was the Crown side, ably led by Dr Cullen and supported by the Associate Minister Mita Ririnui. The decision was subsequently ratified by Te Pūmautanga o Te Arawa beneficiaries, and it has paved the way for the finalisation of the affiliate Te Arawa settlement. The decision to come into the central North Island collective will allow Te Arawa and other central North Island iwi to determine amongst themselves the allocation of commercial and mana whenua interests within Crown-licensed forests. This bill shows the advantages of allowing Māori to resolve their own issues amongst themselves and of not trying to impose solutions from the outside. The fact that iwi leaders have been allowed to take control of the process is the reason we have made so much progress towards settling the claims of Te Arawa and the other central North Island iwi.

I note that several submitters to the Māori Affairs Committee have raised the issues of the coupling of Ngāti Whāoa - Ngāti Tahu and of Tūhourangi Ngāti Wāhiao together as affiliates of Te Pūmautanga o Te Arawa. It is important that iwi and hapū be allowed to define themselves for the purposes of Treaty settlements. Following exhaustive mandate processes—and they were exhaustive—the Crown was convinced that Ngāti Whāoa - Ngāti Tahu, and Tūhourangi Ngāti Wāhiao, wanted to be coupled together as affiliates and be party to the affiliate Te Arawa settlement. The couplings reflect the historic, geographic, and whakapapa ties of the groups. Nobody should undo those accountable and representative entities. This measure will ensure that the whole Te Arawa waka benefits from the settlement.

The Affiliate Te Arawa Iwi and Hapu Claims Settlement Bill also provides for significant cultural redress. Twenty-four culturally significant sites, including ones at Whakarewarewa, Te Ariki, Lake Rotokawa, and Lake Rotomahana, will transfer under this bill. Some of these proposed cultural redress transfers have generated debate within other iwi, but, again, iwi leaders have taken the lead in finding ways to resolve these differences, and by and large they have been resolved.

I again acknowledge the Te Arawa leadership. It was bold enough and generous enough to step back twice so that other people could come to the fore. That is something rarely seen in this country, but it most certainly is recognised. To Rāwiri Te Whare and the other leadership group, I say it was indeed an honour, a privilege, and a pleasure to work with them.

I commend the Affiliate Te Arawa Iwi and Hapu Claims Settlement Bill to the House for its second reading.

CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National): As previous National speakers have said, we will support the second reading of this bill. We will also support the Government’s proposed Supplementary Order Paper 250 and its amendment to clause 12. I am particularly pleased that the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations has tabled an amendment to clause 5, which we can deal with when the Committee discusses Part 1.

I would like to begin this speech by congratulating the Government on the accelerated pace of Treaty settlements in recent times. The last few months stand in stark contrast to the previous 8 years of abject failure and mismanagement. Indeed, this bill, when passed later this week, will double the number of Treaty settlements that Labour has taken from start to finish in 9 years. The central North Island iwi forests settlement, which the National Party enthusiastically supports and which, hopefully, will be passed later this week will triple that number. That in 1 year the Minister can match and exceed the total accomplishments of Mr Burton and Margaret Wilson in 8 years goes some way to showing how poor Labour’s record is in this area. It is only when Labour members are facing defeat at the polls—staring at complete defeat in the Māori seats at the hands of a capable, hard-working Māori Party—that they are bothered to put much energy at all into an area that is so important to Māori and so important to the country.

Let me turn to the bill currently before the House. I was most interested in the contribution of the Associate Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations Mita Ririnui shortly after the dinner break, because one could be forgiven for thinking that in his speech he attempted to pass over the history of this settlement. That is probably not surprising, given the shameful attempts by both the Prime Minister and him to rewrite history. Both have claimed this year—only by coincidence an election year, I am sure—that National has not supported a single Treaty settlement negotiated by this Government. That is an especially glaring lapse by the Associate Minister, who seems to have forgotten his own membership of the Māori Affairs Committee when National supported many settlements, including those of Tūwharetoa in the Bay of Plenty, Ngāti Tama, Ngāti Ruanui, Ngāti Awa, Ngāti Mutunga, and others. It is hard to avoid the conclusion that either the Associate Minister’s memory is so faulty that he is not up to the job, or he has deliberately misled the public. Such representations and selective memory are all too common these days amongst Labour members. They are desperate, and, indeed, they will say anything—including on Willie Jackson’s television programme—in a vain effort to cling to power.

Let us look briefly at the history of this settlement, which is not contained in the text of the apologies—and I see the Minister of Māori Affairs looking guilty, and he should look guilty. I have to congratulate Te Arawa on the patience they have shown towards the Crown, and on their commitment to the settlement process, which I truly believe to be commendable. Few claimant groups have had to suffer the poor standard of behaviour that this group has had to suffer under this Government. The Minister attempted to gloss over earlier tribunal reports, rewriting history so as to deflect attention from the shameful failings of his Government. We are supposed to forget that the tribunal said it could not support the settlement progressing in its earlier form, due to the lamentable behaviour of this Government. Not content with such a finding, the tribunal also found that Labour had usurped the rangatiratanga of iwi and hapū, had failed to act fairly and impartially towards all the claimants, had acted in a manner inconsistent with the principles of the Treaty, had committed grave breaches of the Treaty, had failed to act as an honest broker in the negotiations, had failed to discharge its Treaty and fiduciary duties to all Māori, and did not act honourably and with the utmost good faith. What an appalling performance!

Anyway, the select committee received 37 submissions. Eighteen of them supported the bill in its entirety, and 26 were heard in Rotorua. I join with Mr Henare in commending the chair for the way he dealt with the bill, and also the committee for the way it dealt with the submissions.

As the select committee report states, a number of issues emerged. The first set of issues concerned clause 11, which covers the meaning of “affiliate” and “affiliate ancestor”. Submissions were directed toward subparagraphs (vii) and (viii) of clause 11(1)(a). I must say that Mr Henare dealt with those issues very well in his second reading speech, and I will not attempt to repeat those comments here.

Secondly, a number of mandate concerns were raised, although the officials told us that it was the wrong time to be raising mandate questions, and the committee could not take up that issue during the hearing of submissions.

The third issue—and it has been referred to on a number of occasions tonight—related to the deletion of a number of Wai claims without the claimants’ knowledge, or as a result of the Crown’s policy of dealing with large natural groupings. The committee was told by officials that although individual redress elements may relate closely to particular Wai claims, the redress need not be specific to individual Wai claims, and this approach has apparently been recognised by the tribunal. I must say I share Mr Henare’s concerns about the extinguishment of Wai claims, and I think there is an argument that they should be formally dismissed on notice by the tribunal.

Finally, a question was raised about Ruamatā Marae, which has also been dealt with by a number of members tonight. The marae trust told the committee that the Crown breached the Treaty by designating a flight path immediately over the marae, which is near Rotorua airport, in the 1960s. It was said that this allegation had been made in a claim to the tribunal—Wai 918. The committee was advised, however, that the Wai 918 claim itself does not relate to that issue; it relates to the taking of land for the airport. The report of the select committee records an understanding by the Māori Party that a Government Supplementary Order Paper could include specific reference to the exclusion of an historical claim concerning airspace over the marae. That is dealt with in the amendment that was tabled this afternoon that adds to clause 12 a new subclause (5), which puts that issue beyond doubt, and that is a good thing.

Finally, I want to touch briefly on Part 4, which concerns commercial redress and is the subject of Supplementary Order Paper 250 of 23 September. Subpart 2 of Part 4 deals with licensed land and Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry forest land. I will deal with this issue more closely in the Committee stage. Suffice it to say at this stage that clause 130 deals with the effect of transferred land. The Supplementary Order Paper proposes to add in two new clauses immediately after it: the first, clause 130A, provides that public access is to continue, and clause 130B provides that public right of way easements may be granted. As I said, National members will support that Supplementary Order Paper in its entirety.

So this bill, apart from the minor changes set out on the Supplementary Order Paper, comes back to the House for its second reading. We support the second reading of the bill.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

Preamble

Hon TAU HENARE (National): Basically, the whole purpose of Part 1 is—if I might read out clause 3—“(a) to record the acknowledgements and the apology given by the Crown to the Affiliate in the deed of settlement …”. The interesting thing is that the purpose of this bill is to settle a grievance, but what it does not do, as we said in the second reading debate, is take cognisance of the Ngāti Whāoa, Tūhourangi, and Ngāti Wāhiao issues. The major issue that came up in the select committee process was the coupling of iwi and hapū under their own steam. The purpose clause should read that this bill is about Te Arawa and its affiliates, and it should include those issues that were brought up at the select committee. I think that is where we—

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I apologise for interrupting the member, but I think he is debating the first part of Part 1. We are on the preamble, which outlines the historical background.

Hon TAU HENARE: OK, we will skip that and get to Part 1.

Preamble agreed to.

Part 1 Purpose of Act, acknowledgements and apology, interpretation provisions, settlement of claims, and miscellaneous matters

Hon TAU HENARE (National): Let me start again. My humble thanks to the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations; the whip put me wrong, but I will not say which one.

It is quite important that this issue is sorted out. I would like to hear the Minister give his dissertation on why we cannot do it. I have heard other speeches made by other members in the House as to why the uncoupling cannot happen. I think Part 1 would be the most appropriate part in which to insert some acknowledgment that there is an issue in terms of why Tūhourangi and Ngāti Wāhiao should not be uncoupled. Part 1 is headed “Purpose of Act, acknowledgements and apology, interpretation provisions, settlement of claims, and miscellaneous matters”. There should be some recognition, at least, in Part 1 of the issue, because if there is not, then the issue will keep on going and going, and, whoever is in Government in, say, even 10 years’ time, people from Ngāti Wāhiao, from Ngāti Whāoa, and from Tūhourangi will be back here to try to sort out that issue. I can put a ring round it.

I think it is important to acknowledge that there is an issue. I think it is important to see whether there is a way that we could get through the issue. I would have thought that a Supplementary Order Paper along the lines of the uncoupling of Tūhourangi—[Interruption] I know that the Minister says no, and I know the reasons why. The Minister does not want to create another affiliate and therefore upset the quantum. But if we uncoupled the groups and said that it did not mean that there would be an extra affiliate, and that it would have no effect on the quantum, then we might be able to get round it.

I am interested in what the Minister has to say, and whether we could do it through Part 1, considering that it includes the purpose of the Act.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): I am advised that there is actually no practical way of achieving what Mr Henare wants. I think it is very dangerous to legislate on the floor of the House to change negotiated agreements, because it reopens the whole process of negotiation of Treaty settlements. It would be an endless process and quite a dangerous process. I was quite concerned about what happened in the case of Te Rōroa. Although there were some issues there, it seemed to mean that we were getting ourselves into potentially dangerous territory in revisiting details of a grievance by means of the parliamentary process.

This settlement is the clear expression of the process that occurred. Obviously, if at some future point there is a determination by those involved that they wish to separate, that could be relatively easily done within the confines of this legislation. They could separate into two groups within the affiliate structure. The structure is essentially the total settlement; the component parts can be revisited in that regard.

While I am on my feet I will mention again my amendment to clause 12 in relation to Rotorua airport. The amendment is specifically drafted in terms of “To avoid doubt,”. All the legal advice I have is that any claims in relation to the airport are not affected by the bill as originally drafted, anyway, and, indeed, the people from Raumatā Marae themselves are quite satisfied about that. But I am aware that at least two parties in this House do not entirely share that view. Again, I have some reluctance to intervene by way of an amendment on the floor of the House that runs against where the negotiators themselves have got to. The amendment expresses avoidance of doubt, to make it clear, in case anybody has any concerns about this matter, that claims in relation to the approach to, and airspace over, the airport are not included in this settlement. But I would emphasise again that the bill in its current form, before that amendment is passed, does not affect that claim, because the Wai 918 claim does not cover the issue of airspace over, and a flight path to, Rotorua airport.

Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National): I guess we can be grateful to the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations for that explanation. I just hope his not having done something about that issue during the negotiations will not result in problems further down the line. But I certainly appreciate the situation that, a deed having been negotiated, legislators can get themselves into a bit of a pickle trying to do something about it on the floor of the House. I guess that is why the purpose of this bill is so important and is clearly set out. Clause 3 states that the bill gives effect to a deed of settlement that has been negotiated by the Crown and certain representatives of the Te Arawa affiliates. Clause 4 states that the Act binds the Crown. That is a small provision but very important.

Part 1 also sets out the acknowledgments and the apology. Those, too, are extremely important. I have always thought it is important that a claimant iwi that is settling can see in legislation the things that are part of the settlement—the things that the Crown acknowledges date back to when breaches first occurred. Someone mentioned in an earlier speech that these breaches had occurred a long time ago. Yes, they did, but let us not forget that some breaches occurred recently as well—in the 1960s and the 1970s. In this case, some quite significant breaches occurred in respect of Māori Land Court title rearrangement and so on.

Then we come to the apology, which is hugely important. I am sure all members of the House understand by now, after the many apologies given by the Crown in this place, how important an apology is to the claimant group—the iwi or hapū in question. One can never underestimate the power of the Crown apologising to iwi. It is the Crown’s chance on behalf of New Zealanders to say sorry and also to restore to itself some of the honour that it lost when it breached the Treaty—in this case, in relation to the affiliates of Te Arawa.

Then we come to clause 11, which is what my colleague was talking about earlier—the designation of the affiliates and the affiliate ancestors. Given that we had submissions from Ngāti Wāhiao in respect of their designation alongside Tūhourangi as Tūhourangi Ngāti Wāhiao, and also from Ngāti Tahu and Ngāti Whāoa about their designation, I wonder whether the Minister might explain why clause 11(1)(a)(vii) reads quite simply and directly “Tuhourangi Ngati Wahiao”, and clause 11(1)(a)(viii) states “Ngati Tahu-Ngati Whaoa”. I wonder why that difference is there. Does it mean something? Perhaps Ngāti Tahu - Ngāti Whāoa—[Interruption] I see that Te Ururoa Flavell is giving me some advice on it, but I think I will get the Minister to enlighten me. The difference seems odd, given that those two designations sit one above the other in the text of the bill. The issue for the iwi involved seems to be the same, yet in the bill they are not described in quite the same way. It is amazing how that little hyphen has really excited my brain as to why that might be.

Lastly, I go to clause 12, which excludes all claims connected with the claims that are being settled here. I guess that, in a sense, although the iwi concerned often find that to be a very hard provision to accept, on the other hand I guess the Crown has to give some certainty to the public at large about what is being settled here.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): I will briefly respond to the last part of Georgina te Heuheu’s speech. Of course, full and final settlements can scarcely be full or final if the claims remain active subsequent to the legislation. It is important that the extinguishment occurs at that point. Of course, it is part of the actual deed of settlement that it is accepted that that is going to take place.

On the other matter, I might say as someone who has been around here for a while that I am so pleased when, in the Committee stage, we get back to being able to discuss a hyphen, instead of our simply having a great long second reading speech all over again, which has become the practice. I am advised that, in that particular case, that is how the groups choose to describe themselves. The bill is simply following their self-description in that regard.

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki): Tēnā koe, Mr Chair. Ki te Minita, tēnā koe. I will just say a couple of things, by way of introduction. I have put a paper on the Table with some amendments that basically deal with some of the issues that have been spoken about today.

I will just concentrate in the first part on the issue around Tūhourangi Ngāti Wāhiao. Mr Pita Paraone explained that at the Māori Affairs Committee hearing we heard that, yes, there is an association, obviously, between Tūhourangi and Ngāti Wāhiao, and during the select committee process we heard that Ngāti Wāhiao has mana whenua over the particular area of land around the tupuna whare that the Minister has been to. I tell the Minister that I think the issue here is that shortly, in the next day or two, we will be discussing the Whakarewarewa and Roto-a-Tamaheke Vesting Bill, and that the definition that is being sought here—and I have a letter on behalf of Te Maru o Ngāti Wāhiao—may well, I suppose, diminish, or, in fact, take away, what Te Maru o Ngāti Wāhiao believes are mana whenua rights in the Whakarewarewa Village. It was keen at the select committee to try to clarify the issue of the coupling, or at least the uncoupling, so that when we get to the Whakarewarewa legislation its mana whenua rights within the Whakarewarewa legislation will be protected, and that is why the issue has come almost backwards, if one likes, to this particular bill.

So at the hearing, as Pita Paraone and Tau Henare mentioned, the question was asked of one Rangipuawhe Maika as to whether, as a senior koeke of Tūhourangi, he would be amicable to the notion of the word “and” being inserted between the two tūpuna, Tūhourangi and Ngāti Wāhiao. At that hearing, as Mr Henare said, there was agreement to that, and he was quite happy with that. Then Rangipuawhe Maika went off, and after a week or so he came back and said that Te Pūmautanga o Te Arawa was not agreeable to that. At the heart of the issue is how it is possible for everybody else to make a decision in respect of the mana whenua that Ngāti Wāhiao believes that it may have. How is it possible that Ngāti Wāhiao has mana whenua for the particular lands that it has, yet a bigger group that does not have interests in those lands—except for Tūhourangi, which may well cross over those boundaries—makes a decision on the outcome?

The real fear from the submitters during the select committee process was basically about the loss of Ngāti Wāhiao as a tupuna, and, of course, Wāhiao is a tupuna. So I have put an amendment on the Table in respect of the addition of the word “and” between the two. Obviously we would have to vote on it, but it sets the scene for the Whakarewarewa and Roto-a-Tamaheke Vesting Bill, which is coming up, because mana whenua is a clear issue in that particular bill. There was a real desire on the part of Ngāti Wāhiao to protect its interest. We heard the story, and clearly, yes, Ngāti Wāhiao and Tūhourangi have for all intents and purposes come together over time, but there was no debate, certainly from those who presented to the select committee, over the fact that Ngāti Wāhiao is, in fact, an iwi in its own right, and it wanted to maintain that view.

The second point that I raise is in respect of the issue around Ngāti Whāoa. I do not think it is too much news that Ngāti Whāoa has attempted, over a number of years, to try to find its distinct place, separate from Ngāti Tahu. Now I speak specifically around Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whāoa, which is an entity in its own right and has attempted to find its space. It has been through two or three Waitangi Tribunal hearings and ended up in front of Judge Carrie Wainwright to try to facilitate the process. I say to the Minister that we heard at the select committee that from the perspective of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whāoa, it did not quite complete the facilitation process needed to allow it to move off in its own way. The fact of the matter is that one of the members of Te Pūmautanga o Te Arawa advised that he or she would wait until after the bill passed and then decide to separate out.

In representing the interests of the constituents—at least the group called Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whāoa—I was asked to place in front of the Committee an amendment to take out from the bill any reference to Ngāti Whāoa. In doing so, I am representing at least that rūnanga, and, of course, the Committee will make a decision on that amendment. I say to the Minister that I accept there are some complications regarding this matter, but I can say that the issue of Ngāti Wāhiao - Tūhourangi was definitely placed on the agenda at the select committee process, and we hoped that it would be dealt with. Unfortunately, of course, it came back from Te Pūmautanga o Te Arawa and it did not quite pan out, so I am obviously following a duty to place this issue in front of the Committee.

The other issue I raise is in respect of Ngāti Tūkiterangi. Again, I thought this issue had been dealt with relatively easily, because there was a select committee process and an agreement by those concerned and those at the hui that Ngāti Tūkiterangi is a part of Ngāti Wāhiao - Tūhourangi—it is a hapū. There was an agreement to that effect, and we thought Ngāti Tūkiterangi would take that away. I thought there was a clear agreement—and the Hon Tau Henare is nodding, too—that that could be added to the bill with not too much hassle.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: It has been.

TE URUROA FLAVELL: I am sorry, I did not hear that. I am sorry about that. If that has been dealt with, I am pleased. I heard from the Associate Minister, and I thought that matter had not been dealt with, so that is why I raised it. I am happy with that, if it has been dealt with.

Those are three of the issues I wanted to raise in Part 1. As I say, I have some amendments. I know they will go through the process, but at least I can say I raised those issues in the Committee. A real concern, as I say, particularly in respect of Ngāti Wāhiao, is its belief in wanting to maintain and set the scene for the Whakarewarewa bill, with a mandate from its organisation. Similarly, the concern of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whāoa is that the iwi be taken out of the bill. I have the minutes of meetings that Te Puni Kōkiri officials have been at where there was a desire on the part of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whāoa to be pulled right out of this agreement, for better or for worse. The rūnanga made that decision, and I place that in front of the Committee for consideration. I think at this point in time that those are the two or three issues that I wanted to raise. I will leave it there, maybe for a response from the Minister. Kia ora tātou.

CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National): I will take just a brief call on Part 1. It contains the usual clauses one expects to find in Part 1 of a settlement bill. It sets out the purpose, makes certain acknowledgments, contains the apology, and then has various interpretation and jurisdictional provisions. It may be thought that these are really boilerplate provisions, but those who think that would be wrong, because clauses 7 and 8 are at the heart of the bill. As Mrs te Heuheu mentioned, those clauses are very, very significant. Clause 7 sets out the text of the acknowledgments. I am intrigued that the New Zealand First Party, which earlier this year introduced legislation complaining about principles of the Treaty—

Pita Paraone: It’s coming.

CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: —oh, I see, it is coming, is it—is quite happy to support the legislation. I was going to praise New Zealand First for its sensible attitude. To say that one could remove all references in this legislation to the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles would be absurd, because that is at the very heart of it. But I had better withhold my praise until the member has made his contribution. I will be interested to hear what he says about clauses 7, 8, and 12.

The acknowledgments are there for all members to read, and they should be read very carefully because they outline a litany of woe on the part of the Crown, a litany of failings, which, as clause 7(5) records, results in a sense of grievance that exists even today. Clause 8 is an extremely important clause, and it should never be regarded as nothing more than a boilerplate clause, because it sets out the apology. It is all very well for the Crown to recognise the efforts and struggles of the ancestors of the affiliate in pursuing their claims for redress, and it is all very well for the Crown to profoundly regret and apologise for breaches of the Treaty in its principles, but, importantly, the Crown goes further than that. I refer to clause 8(4), which states that “the Crown seeks to atone for these wrongs and assist the process of healing with this settlement, and looks forward to building a relationship of mutual trust and co-operation with the Affiliate.”

So often in these settlements the Crown has apologised, has said it is going to atone, and then moves on to something else and promptly forgets that, once the bill is enacted, the relationship between the Crown and the affiliate has undergone a fundamental change. The Crown has obligations under this legislation that it must not ignore or forget. So often, in my experience, the Crown gets into trouble as it has no institutional memory, and therefore moves on to the next issue of the day and forgets that the relationship has indeed changed. It behoves this place to make sure that that never happens.

Next I refer to clause 12, which deals with the meaning of affiliate historical claims. The Minister’s amendment, which was tabled today, proposes an amendment by adding a new subclause (5). I must say I think that amendment is sensible, even though I share the view of the Minister that it is probably legally, or strictly, unnecessary and is there, as he says, to avoid doubt.

Subpart 3 deals with the mechanics of settlement—settlement of affiliate historical claims is final—and there is the consequential amendment to the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975. In particular, schedule 3 is amended by including this legislation once it is enacted. Subpart 4 deals with miscellaneous matters such as perpetuities, access to the deed of settlement, and the date on which actions or matters must occur. There is no real magic in that, and I need not detain the Committee by dwelling on Subpart 4. National will support the passage of Part 1.

PITA PARAONE (NZ First): Tēnā koe, Mr Chairperson. On behalf of New Zealand First, I say that it would be very remiss of New Zealand First not to once again make a comment, in respect of treaty settlements, about the inclusion of references to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, which are articulated in Part 1, and, in particular, in clause 7, “Text of acknowledgements”, and in clause 8(2). I can understand why those references are put there; without reference to the Treaty the whole settlement process could not proceed. But that does not diminish the concern of New Zealand First that those same principles, which are often referred to in legislation, do not have a clear definition set by this House. I know that other members of my caucus have often asked for those principles to be articulated by this House, and we have never received any response.

Christopher Finlayson: That’s not right.

PITA PARAONE: Oh, so that member will articulate—

Christopher Finlayson: No, I’ve already done so.

PITA PARAONE: Oh, OK. The other point I want to make about Part 1 is that I am glad that it actually identifies by name the parties to this settlement. When this settlement becomes history, the people who have expressed concerns, particularly concerns about the identity of their hapū—and there was discussion about whether groups should be identified separately—can point to the very people who signed up to the settlement. I refer specifically to those who expressed some concern during the select committee process regarding Tūhourangi Ngāti Wāhiao, and who also made references to Ngāti Tahu - Ngāti Whāoa. I totally support the response that the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations made in regard to Ngāti Tahu - Ngāti Whāoa. If that is what those iwi want to be described as, who are we to change that? I think any departure from that would almost see this whole process go back to the drawing board.

I just wanted to make those comments, and also to say that the descriptions of the affiliates are very important for the future of this particular settlement. Thank you, Mr Chairman.

Hon TAU HENARE (National): I want to make it clear to the Minister in the chair, the Hon Dr Michael Cullen, that National members will not be supporting any amendments or Supplementary Order Papers to uncouple Tūhourangi Ngāti Wāhiao. I understand perfectly well the constraints on the Minister. The Affiliate Te Arawa Iwi and Hapu Claims Settlement Bill involves a negotiated settlement between the Crown, the Government, and those people, so any change would have to have the acquiescence of both parties. I thought I would make that quite plain. I wanted to raise the specific issue of the coupling of Tūhourangi and Ngāti Wāhiao. As for the coupling of Ngāti Tāhu and Ngāti Whāoa, I absolutely agree that if that is their decision, it is their ball game. However, I believe there is enough talk around the traps to show that Tūhourangi Ngāti Wāhiao will become a problem later on—but that is for the future to decide. I just wanted to make it clear to the Minister that we will not be supporting any amendments about uncoupling.

Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National): Every time the honourable member Pita Paraone feels he has to raise the issue of the principles of the Treaty, I feel bound to take a call to say my piece about them. Although I have said it before, I think it is worth repeating that reference to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi first appeared in our legislation in the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1974, I think—

Pita Paraone: 1975.

Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU: —1975! Of course, that was a bill in the name of Matiu Rata, who might even be the member’s whanaunga. There is a good reason why that reference was put into the legislation, and not “the terms” of the Treaty. Part of the reason is that Māori mostly signed the Māori version of the Treaty, but also some signed the English version, so we have a Māori version and an English version in the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975. If we were to say “the terms” or “the provisions” of the Treaty, we would have to ask which Treaty, because there are, in essence, two Treaties, if we take the Māori and English versions side by side. Over the last 20 years, the task undertaken by the Waitangi Tribunal, which was given the job of measuring the Crown’s conduct against the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, has been to discern from the two versions the underlying essence, the underlying principles, of those versions. In a way, it is very apt. I think the process we have followed to settle historic injustice has been served very well by that statement. One day, I am sure, our friend Pita Paraone will discover those principles for himself. They are easily found in various judgments and reports.

Pita Paraone: But the laws are made here.

Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU: The laws are certainly made here, and they are made in the courts as well, I say to my friend Pita Paraone. Although we say Parliament is the highest court in the land, laws are being made daily in our courts as well. So there you go.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): The amendments in the name of Te Ururoa Flavell to subparagraphs (vii) and (viii) of clause 11(1)(a) and to paragraphs (g) and (h) of clause 11(2) are out of order because they are inconsistent with the deed of settlement.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 250 in the name of the Hon Dr Michael Cullen to clause 5, and the following amendment in his name to clause 12, be agreed to:

to add the following subclause:

(5) To avoid doubt, Affiliate historical claims does not include any claim submitted to the Waitangi Tribunal in accordance with the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 in respect of the airspace over, or the flight paths to, Rotorua airport.

Amendments agreed to.

Part 1 as amended agreed to.

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki): I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I do not want to take up too much time, Mr Chairperson, but could you give me some clarification in respect of my amendments to clause 11 being out of order. Is there some rule or explanation in respect of the amendments I placed before the Committee being automatically ruled out of order? Was it solely because they relate to a settlement that has been negotiated? I am seeking some clarification.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): Yes. These issues are pretty clear, especially when we are dealing with a deed of settlement that has already been signed. It is rare to accept amendments to it. I do not think I can be much clearer than that. It is a deed of settlement; it is different from normal legislation. It is a matter that has been agreed to. On that basis, the amendments were inconsistent with the deed itself. Thank you.

Part 2 Cultural redress

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): The debate on Part 2 includes clauses 21 to 87 and schedules 4 and 5.

Hon TAU HENARE (National): I will take a brief call, and it is about clause 21, “Authority to issue, amend, or cancel protocols”. Clause 21(1) states: “Each responsible Minister may—(a) issue a protocol to the trustees in the form set out in Part 1 of Schedule 1 of the deed of settlement;”. My issue is that if we want to find out a wee bit more about the form of a protocol, we have to try to find a copy of the deed of settlement. There is no explanation in the bill of the form of a protocol. I wonder whether Part 2 should have a form—it could even be a schedule to the bill—that sets outs the hows, the whys, and the why-nots of a protocol. My main concern about the protocols is that if somebody picks up the bill, looks at it, and says “OK, what is this protocol business?”, that person then has to try to get a copy of the deed of settlement. I wonder why we cannot have a form as a schedule to the bill.

That is all—a very quick speech.

Part 2 agreed to.

Part 3 Cultural redress properties and other properties

Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National): Part 3 deals with “Cultural redress properties and other properties”, and that is of course a very important part of a settlement. As all members of the House will understand, as we have been on this Treaty settlement process for a number of years now, iwi like many others have close associations with various landscapes in the area, and Te Arawa no less. I see some very important sites in the bill, and I guess those have all been worked out—obviously they have to be. The Minister might like to take a call and let the listeners know how they were worked out.

For instance, Te Koutu Pa is very ancient in Te Arawa history. Clause 90 states: “(1) The reservation of Te Koutu Pa under the Reserves Act 1977 is revoked. (2) The fee simple estate in Te Koutu Pa vests in the trustees.”, who become the trustees of the settlement itself. Others are listed as I look down clause 88: “(h) site adjacent to Orakei Korako:”, “(j) Te Wairoa:”. They are all important sites and it is clearly important to have them returned as part of this settlement. Clause 96 states: “The site on Horohoro Bluff ceases to be a conservation area under the Conservation Act 1987.”, and “(2) The fee simple estate in the site on Horohoro Bluff”—once the law goes through—“vests in the trustees.”, as well.

As I say, it is a very important part of the settlement, and it is very important that Te Arawa is recognised for its ancient history and for its history in the areas that are deemed to be theirs, and that in the modern day there are sites that can be returned to them—properly returned. My colleague, in referring to Part 2 of the bill, also previewed some of the deeds of recognition that give voice to Te Arawa’s association with their land, their landscapes, and their important places. It is quite in order that this settlement follows the way of other settlements and recognises their history, their traditions, and their associations.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 250 in the name of the Hon Dr Michael Cullen to Part 3 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

Part 3 as amended agreed to.

Part 4 Commercial redress

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): The debate on Part 4 includes schedule 7.

CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National): I will take a brief call on Part 4. I do not intend to say much about Subpart 1, which deals with the “Transfer of commercial redress properties”. These properties are defined by clause 10 as meaning “the licensed land” and “a deferred selection property”. That is all in order and can be supported.

Subpart 2 deals with “Licensed land and MAF forest land”, and a couple of amendments are proposed by Supplementary Order Paper 250. I referred to these in my second reading speech. The first of these, which the National Party supports, is the proposal to include a new clause 130A, so that where land has been transferred, public access will continue. This issue arose a couple of times, both in relation to this bill and the bill we will shortly debate. It simply states that “Clause 6.2 of the Crown forestry licence (which relates to public entry for recreational purposes) continues to apply even though the Crown is no longer the licensor under the licence …”. Clause 130B will be inserted by the same Supplementary Order Paper to ensure that public right of way easements may be granted. There is a reference to various provisions of the Crown Forest Assets Act and there is nothing in there that I need detain the Committee on. We are happy with Subpart 2.

Subpart 3 deals with the “Right of access to protected sites”, which are also defined, and that is all as it should be. The National Party supports those provisions, as well.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 250 in the name of the Hon Dr Michael Cullen to Part 4 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

Part 4 as amended agreed to.

Schedule 1

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): The amendments in the name of Te Ururoa Flavell to Parts 1 and 2 of schedule 1 are out of order as they are inconsistent with a deed of settlement.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 250 in the name of the Hon Dr Michael Cullen to schedule 1 be agreed to.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 1 as amended agreed to.

Schedule 2 agreed to.

Schedule 3

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 250 in the name of the Hon Dr Michael Cullen to schedule 3 be agreed to.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 3 as amended agreed to.

Schedule 4 agreed to.

Schedule 5 agreed to.

Schedule 6

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 250 in the name of the Hon Dr Michael Cullen to schedule 6 be agreed to.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 6 as amended agreed to.

Schedule 7 agreed to.

Clauses 1 and 2

Hon TAU HENARE (National): “The Parliament of New Zealand therefore enacts as follows: … This Act is the Affiliate Te Arawa Iwi and Hapu Claims Settlement Act 2008.” I again impress on people that I have huge difficulty with the coupling of what I think are two different entities—Tūhourangi and Ngāti Wāhaio. Either one is Te Arawa iwi, or both are Te Arawa iwi, or both are hapū. As far as I am concerned, they are separate entities. Their whakapapa is separate, they live in separate areas, and just because an act of God led to one group moving to live somewhere else does not mean they are one and the same. Although National members did not support the amendments, and I understand clearly the reasons that the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations moved them, I think that what we are doing here is an injustice to Ngāti Wāhiao—and I say that with all due respect to Te Arawa.

I must declare a bit of a conflict of interest in terms of my children. Their mother is of Te Arawa descent. I had better declare that conflict quick smart.

This is the first time that I have seen two different entities specifically put together in settlement legislation. We have done the Tūwharetoa ki Kawerau settlement; that group is specific to one area, and does not include the whole of Tūwharetoa. I have never seen a coupling of what I consider to be two different pods of—

Hon Member: Wakas.

Hon TAU HENARE: No, not two different wakas, because they came off the same one. But members get my gist.

I think it is quite telling that the title is “Affiliate Te Arawa Iwi and Hapu Claims Settlement Bill”. The way I see it through my urban Māori eyes, if Tūhourangi is an iwi under the Te Arawa affiliate and Ngāti Wāhiao is a hapū, then they have to be separate—they have to be. They cannot be together. They have never been together. If Ngāti Wāhiao is an iwi, then surely they must be separate from Tūhourangi. To my way of thinking, the title gives the game away. I have been known to refer to it before as mana-munching and some not-so-kind terms, but I really do think that somebody is being hard done by through this process. I do not for 1 minute think it is the Government’s fault, or that the Government set out to do it.

I stand to air my concerns arising from the select committee hearings in Rotorua. I have some major concerns. Maybe we will be lucky and this matter will not come back to bite us on the proverbial; maybe my concerns are just a figment of my imagination. Let us hope so.

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki): This is just a short call to follow on from Mr Tau Henare and to say that I agree, in this instance, with his kōrero, which is the reason why we put up the amendment in the first place. I reflect back, firstly, on the note that I have received from Te Maru o Ngāti Wāhiao. Here we have a legal entity that has been established. It has a track record, and there is a desire on its part to ensure that the issue of mana whenua for Ngāti Wāhiao, not only around this issue but, as I said earlier, around the Whakarewarewa Village issue, is maintained.

No one denies that at home, at home base, there is reference to Tūhourangi Ngāti Wāhiao. Other members talked about that before—the kapahaka and so on. I have no issue with that. But the real fear that was presented on the part of the submitters to the Māori Affairs Committee was that by coupling them up, the distinct entity called Ngāti Wāhiao would be basically wiped off the earth. That is how Te Maru o Ngāti Wāhiao viewed the situation. Whether that is true is not for me to say, but in representing the interests of the constituents that I represent, I say it was very clear that Te Maru o Ngāti Wāhiao felt that this legislation set up the fact that in time the iwi would basically be subsumed by Tūhourangi. The question would be whether it could live with that. I think the best perspective I got on that was that a number of the people who came to the select committee hearing said that their whakapapa is Ngāti Wāhiao tūturu. They said their mother was Ngāti Wāhiao and to all intents and purposes the other side of the bridge, the southern side of the bridge, was Ngāti Wāhiao land.

Mr Henare talked about the eruption of Tarawera and said Ngāti Wāhiao, out of aroha, gave some land interests to Tūhourangi to come and live on. Naturally, in living close to one another, they formed relationships and intermarried, and over time—and I have asked questions about intermarriage of a number of people—yes, there has been intermarriage almost to the point that some say it is the natural kōrero that Tūhourangi Ngāti Wāhiao are as one. But clearly, when a legal entity tells us straight up and down that it wants to ensure that its interests are protected in light of mana whenua issues, then we have to sit up and take some notice of that. More to the point, that was endorsed by a kaumātua, a senior kaumātua, of Tūhourangi, who said he had no problem with the notion of separating them out, yet lo and behold, as Tau Henare reflected, the pressure has come on regarding the issue of uncoupling.

I also respect the issues the Minister has to face around this issue, but I think it is important to note in Hansard, for the record, that at the heart of this is a serious issue for those associated with Ngāti Wāhiao, and it is not to diminish the relationship with Tūhourangi—not at all. There is, however, a concern to protect Ngāti Wāhiao’s mana whenua interests, particularly—this is what I got—in respect of the Whakerewarewa Village. Why? Because Ngāti Wāhiao has huge mana whenua interests there; it is mana whenua. It is set out in the Māori Land Court records that Ngāti Wāhiao holds mana whenua interests, and, because it has been coupled with Tūhourangi in this bill, it fears that when we get to the next bill—and we have had the signing and a number of statements in respect of that one, and no doubt we will debate this issue again when that bill comes to its first reading in the House—it wants to make its issues really well known and clear.

I just ask the Minister where he goes and what we do as members of Parliament when a legal entity that represents those people, in this case Te Maru o Ngāti Wāhiao, makes a statement and basically because of the time limits—Te Pūmautanga o Te Arawa has been carrying this particular settlement for some 5 or 7 years or so now—it has been caught up in the cogs and left to the side. I hope that we can look at some mechanism that will be able to address this particular issue. I recognise that that will probably not happen, but it is still important to at least look at doing that when the Whakarewarewa Village bill comes up. In fact, there is a desire on the part of those of Te Maru o Ngāti Wāhiao to meet with politicians and put their issues to them—at least to have the opportunity to do that. We cannot do much more than that. I stand to support—in some ways very much—the sentiments expressed by the Hon Tau Henare. I hope that in the future some way may be found of looking at this issue, in particular if there is a legal entity that is willing to put the issues on the floor.

Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National): I want to make a very brief call on clauses 1 and 2 of the Affiliate Te Arawa Iwi and Hapu Claims Settlement Bill. Because there is a lot of interest in seeing this bill pass into law before Parliament rises, perhaps the Minister in the chair, the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, might indicate when the bill would be endorsed by the Governor-General.

The discussion still centres on the inclusion in the affiliate of tribes that are coupled. Some representatives of those tribes or hapū do not want to be coupled in the way that they are. We have to remember, of course, that although some stand in this Chamber and say that Ngāti Wāhiao do not want to be coupled with Tūhourangi, in reality some of Wāhiao—presumably, a greater number—are already part of the affiliate. Yes, the Māori Affairs Committee heard some very passionate pleas for that uncoupling to take place. Again, those pleas were from only some of the Wāhiao tribe. That does not make the issue any less important, but as my colleague has said and as has been obvious, we have not supported that uncoupling in this place.

It is interesting that, with the long gestation of the Affiliate Te Arawa Iwi and Hapu Claims Settlement Bill, it is a big, big achievement that this settlement has been reached. Hopefully, those in the ascendancy have heard sincerely and genuinely the plea of those who worry that they might be subsumed. I hope they at least try to have some appreciation and understanding of the anxiety, of the fears, that some have that their mana, their standing, might become subsumed. That should not happen. Yes, in the end it is an internal issue for those groups.

Hopefully, this affiliate of Te Arawa iwi and hapū, once the bill passes its third reading and goes into law, will use the settlement in the way that one would expect such an affiliate to use it: as a springboard for moving forward, a springboard for embracing all of those who become part of the settlement—every single person, every hapū, every tribe. The settlement should become a springboard for moving forward, for development, for their tamariki, for their mokopuna. I suppose that if we all keep that in mind, then the promise of the settlement, as signified in the title, will become a reality and something that not only those groups are proud of but, indeed, all New Zealanders embrace because it is a good thing for our country.

I want to go through the groups listed in the meaning of “Affiliate”, in clause 11; it is the embodiment of the bill. They include Ngāti Ngāraranui, including Ngāti Tamahika and Ngāti Tūteaiti; Ngāti Kearoa Ngāti Tuarā; Ngāti Tura - Ngāti Te Ngākau; Ngāti Te Roro o Te Rangi; Ngāti Tūteniu; Ngāti Uenukukōpako; Tūhourangi Ngāti Wāhiao; Ngāti Tahu - Ngāti Whāoa; Ngāti Pikiao, excluding Ngāti Mākino; Ngāti Rongomai; and Ngāti Tarāwhai. This settlement is a big achievement for those affiliate groups. It is a pleasure for me to stand here tonight at the end of the Committee stage, which is the stage before the third reading. I understand that the third reading will proceed on Thursday.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): I will respond briefly to the point raised by the member. It is expected that the bulk of this bill—that is, the parts relating to the great part of the settlement—comes into force on 2 July 2009. It may seem a long way away. The reason is that the Central North Island Forests Land Collective Settlement Act has to comes into force first, on 1 July. The reason for that time-gap is to allow time for the necessary survey work to be done in relation to the Crown forest lands.

PITA PARAONE (NZ First): I am taking just a brief call in regard to the title and the commencement. I believe that the title is an apt one, because it gives due regard to all those hapū and iwi who affiliate to this settlement, irrespective of some of the concerns that some of us have expressed in regard to the names of the respective iwi and hapū who are part of this affiliate, and some concerns expressed by submitters that the names should be separated to give separate identities to those respective iwi. As I have mentioned before in this debate, I do not think it is the responsibility of this House to address an issue that clearly should rightly remain with the people who are affiliates of Te Arawa, whether they be hapū or iwi. I feel very strongly about that, notwithstanding that I do appreciate the concerns that submitters raised.

But I think as we have addressed all the settlements, and in particular this one, we have given due recognition to and acknowledged the leadership that has been exercised by those who have led this process with the Crown. I believe that the issues we have been talking about in regard to separate identities of the separation, or uncoupling—which is the word that is commonly used—of particular iwi, are for the leadership of those respective iwi and hapū to deal with.

To that end, I would like to say on behalf of New Zealand First that we certainly support the title. It is an apt title. It recognises all those iwi and hapū who wish to affiliate to this settlement. Kia ora.

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki): The Hon Georgina te Heuheu has reminded me of one other thing, and I place it before the Minister. As I understand it, Ngāti Wāhiao is not registered with Te Pūmautanga o Te Arawa; Tūhourangi has been registered with Te Pūmautanga o Te Arawa; thus the importance, I suppose, of raising this issue. I just raise this, because I understood that Ngāti Wāhiao has been separated out; it has not become an affiliate in its own right because of its desire to stand aside. That was a part of the court cases a couple of years ago. The information that I have received is that up until recently, for all intents and purposes, there was a desire to make sure that Ngāti Wāhiao’s interests were set aside, and they have not been brought into the collective.

That position was emphasised in terms of the vote around the participation in the Whakarewarewa thermal village vesting bill where there were two votes: the first was for Tūhourangi, which was affiliated and had a register, and the second was for Ngāti Wāhiao, which did it by attendance at the marae. That is my understanding of the issue, but I seek clarification from the Minister. It certainly places this issue before the Committee, together with the significance of the Supplementary Order Papers that I have tabled. It is easy enough to say that Ngāti Wāhiao can deal with it at some point in time but if, on the face of it, they are not a part of Te Pūmautanga collective, if you like, except by coupling up in this particular way, then for all intents and purposes I understood they had, shall we say, fought it all the way. I am hoping that the advice given by the officials might give me some clarity around that issue.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): I am advised that Te Rūnunga o Ngāti Whāoa has affiliated as a single trust to Te Pūmautanga o Te Arawa. In fact, there may be another body. That is not unusual in these matters, as I am sure the member recognises.

Hon TAU HENARE (National): I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I have a question about the ruling out of the amendments, and I thought I would bring it up now. I have looked through the Speakers’ Rulings and the Standing Orders, and if you can point me in the direction of either a Speaker’s ruling or Standing Order that deals with that, then that would help me a lot. I know there is ruling about a financial veto, and that is fine—I know where to find that. But I cannot seem to find the Standing Order or Speaker’s ruling that rules out an amendment in a Treaty bill. If the Chairperson could help us out, I would be much obliged.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): I think if one looks at clause 3(b) of the Affiliate Te Arawa Iwi and Hapu Claims Settlement Bill, one to some extent finds the answer in there, in that it states the purpose of the legislation is to give effect to certain provisions of the deed of settlement. Of course, the Crown and the Te Arawa affiliate are the parties to that deed. The Crown certainly does not support the amendments. If the amendments are moved, that would then render the bill inconsistent with the purpose clause, which in fact has already been passed at this point, since it was included in Part 1. So it seems to me that at this point, apart from anything else, the amendments would be ruled out as being inconsistent with the provisions the Committee has already agreed to.

Hon TAU HENARE (National): So by virtue of that, does that mean we have a new ruling, which will end up in Speakers’ Rulings somewhere so that in future people can refer to that ruling? That is just a question; I am not trying to hold things up.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): That is fine. I think what the Minister said was quite clear, and there is also Speaker’s ruling 110/2: “An amendment that purports to amend an agreement reached between the Crown and other parties is out of order in a bill to give effect to that agreement.” This is a bill to give effect to an agreement. One of the parties—the Crown—does not agree with the amendments, and that is about as far as we can take it. The Committee is constrained when dealing with settlement bills, as I have explained before. Amendments that affect the terms of the deed have to be ruled out of order, and I have done that. Thank you, Mr Henare.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Bill reported with amendment.

Report adopted.

Bills

Central North Island Forests Land Collective Settlement Bill

Second Reading

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): I move, That the Central North Island Forests Land Collective Settlement Bill be now read a second time. The Māori Affairs Committee has considered the bill and submitted its report to the House, and I thank the committee for its speedy consideration of this extremely important settlement bill. Both the report of the committee and the submissions expressed the widespread and strong support that exists for the bill and the settlement it embodies. Indeed, 133 out of 167 of the submissions were in support of this bill, and the strong voice of support echoes the support that was shown so strongly for the settlement throughout its endorsement process. It also acknowledges a very real and wide-reaching potential this settlement has to better not only the more than 100,000 people who constitute the collective iwi but also the central North Island and, indeed, the nation as a whole.

This settlement represents a significant step in healing the wounds of longstanding grievances of the collective iwi, as was evidenced in the Waitangi Tribunal hearings and findings of discussions the Crown has had with iwi to date. The transfer of 176,000 hectares of Crown forest land, valued at over $200 million, to the trust holding company will have widespread economic benefit for the collective iwi and more widely for the people of New Zealand. This will in turn empower each of the collective iwi to forge a new path ahead, providing opportunities for economic, cultural, and social growth.

We should reflect, I think, on three important aspects of the settlement that the submissions to the bill raised. The first aspect is the mandate of the Central North Island Iwi Collective to agree to the settlement of the claims included in the bill. The tribunal, the Māori Affairs Committee, and I have considered the specific mandate issues and we are comfortable that the collective and constituent iwi representatives do indeed have the support of their people for entering into this settlement. The collective iwi provided evidence of broad support for their settlement process. The iwi held some 66 information or endorsement hui, with each iwi in the collective determining its own endorsement process. Some used postal votes; others used hui votes.

The results from this endorsement process showed that the collective iwi overwhelmingly endorsed the settlement, except Ngāti Rangitihi. Ngāti Rangitihi did not endorse the settlement and are consequently not included in the bill. But in recognition of the iwi leadership’s contribution to the collective’s proposal, the Crown and the collective are holding open a window for Ngāti Rangitihi to agree to this settlement by 25 December this year, should they choose to do so. I very much hope they will. The various Ngāti Rangitihi groups are working hard to find a way through their differences, and Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Rangitihi is coordinating a further endorsement process that will culminate in a postal ballot to close on 10 October. Whether to endorse the settlement, of course, is a matter for Ngāti Rangitihi to make a decision on, and we will respectfully accept any decision the iwi makes. If they decide not to endorse the collective settlement, they will still be able to claim against the Crown’s proportion of the central North Island forest lands that remain. The Government intends to introduce a Supplementary Order Paper to provide a mechanism for adding Ngāti Rangitihi to the settlement, should they demonstrate broad support for doing this.

Key aspect No. 2 is the allocation model for the distribution of the commercial benefits of the settlement and the proposed tikanga-based mana whenua resolution process. The settlement has created an allocation mechanism unique to the Treaty claims settlement process. Although the Crown assessed the outcome of the commercial benefit allocation for fairness and relativity, the percentages themselves were agreed amongst the collective iwi. The separation of the commercial benefits—the accumulated rentals—from the ownership of land itself was an innovation developed by the collective. As set out in the bill, mana whenua will be the basis upon which the land itself is allocated. This land allocation process will be iwi led, and it recognises the fluid overlapping and complex layering of interests over the Kaingaroa and wider central North Island forest lands.

The collective iwi made compromises amongst themselves to make this settlement happen. In doing so, they enabled more forest land and rentals to pass to iwi than would have been possible under the direct bilateral negotiations between individual iwi and the Crown, because the Crown would always have to be keeping back sufficient for any other iwi that might be coming along. This, coupled with the iwi-led development of the settlement proposal, the mana whenua process, will enhance the durability of the settlement.

The third key issue is the preservation of existing public access to the central North Island forest lands—a matter close to the Prime Minister’s heart. The Crown and the Central North Island Iwi Collective have also been mindful of preserving this existing public access, and the collective has generously agreed to preserve existing rights of public access to the central North Island forest lands. I need to note here that the existing 1989 Crown Forest Assets Act provides for all such access rights to cease upon the land transferring into Māori ownership, so it was an important part of the settlement that this deed of settlement and the legislation remove that removal of those access rights and, therefore, preserve the rights of the general public in the future in that regard. So the settlement bill preserves the existing public access. When these lands cease to be licensed, clause 11 enables new public access easements to be created that mirror the existing public access provided in the current licences.

There will be a Supplementary Order Paper, as I have said, to provide for the possibility of having Ngāti Rangitihi join this settlement if they choose to do so. For example, that will correct the percentages set out in schedule 3 to match those contained in the deed of settlement, as well.

On an occasion such as this, it is appropriate once again to express my deep appreciation for all those who have been involved in getting us to this point today—my colleague the Hon Mark Burton, under whom this process began, but particularly the ongoing leadership of Dr Tumu te Heuheu, Te Ariki o Ngāti Tūwharetoa. Without Dr te Heuheu’s leadership this settlement would not have been possible at all. It was a risky venture, in fact, to try to lead a group of very disparate iwi with some very differing histories, and indeed some histories of long antagonisms between some of the iwi involved in this settlement, to bring them together into a single collective process.

I also want to thank Wira Gardiner, who provided inestimable support to me as the Crown facilitator in this settlement, and to place on record, once again, my gratitude to my wife for defeating Wira in the 1987 East Cape election, thereby ensuring that Wira was available for other and higher duties in the service of Governments of different hues, both now and, I am sure, into the future. Without the contribution of people such as Tumu and Wira, this kind of historic settlement, this kind of journey that we are entering upon now, would not be possible.

I look forward to the Committee stage and the third reading, and I thank all colleagues in the House who have been so generous in facilitating this bill, reaching this point at this stage.

Hon Tau Henare: Send him up north.

Hon Georgina te Heuheu: Send them both up north.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: We will have news for the members on up north fairly soon, I am quite hopeful.

CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National): National enthusiastically supports the second reading of this bill, which, as the report of the Māori Affairs Committee states, gives effect to the deed of settlement between the Crown and the Central North Island Iwi Collective, which was signed on 25 June 2008. The committee’s report—and the Minister has referred to this—records that there were 167 submissions, and the committee heard 42 of those submissions in Taupō on 6 August 2008. The committee’s report also notes the genesis of this settlement. The Central North Island Iwi Collective emerged out of a recommendation of the Waitangi Tribunal in 2007 that the Crown give time for central North Island iwi to develop a proposal for Crown forest lands.

As I have said before, the tribunal report does not make pleasant reading. It was highly critical of the Labour Government’s conduct of the Te Arawa negotiation. It said, among other things, that aspects of the Crown’s processes of dealing with overlapping groups were inconsistent with the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. It said the Crown failed to act fairly and impartially towards all claimants. It said: “Future settlements cannot proceed like this. The Crown cannot continue to ‘pick favourites’ and make decisions on tribal interests in isolation, based on inadequate information.” The tribunal said that the Crown’s failures in respect of consultation over commercial redress constituted a breach by the Crown of its Treaty duties to act honourably and with the utmost good faith, and failed actively to protect the interests of all Māori. The tribunal described the Crown’s failure to adapt its policy to the unique situation of overlapping cultural and commercial interests as inflexible, inappropriate, and inadequate.

On page 67 of its report, the tribunal said this: “We see Treaty settlements as critical to the future of our country. For this reason, we consider that any recommendation that a proposed settlement not proceed should be made only as an absolute last resort. However, on balance, we cannot endorse the KEC settlement in this form. We have not made this decision lightly, but we have grave concerns about the impact of this settlement on overlapping iwi, and on the durability of future CNI settlements.” So this damning report made it clear that the Labour Government had suspended the laws of averages. It got everything wrong. After 8 years of this Government, where little or no progress had been made on finalising Treaty settlements, 2007 certainly was a watershed year; doing nothing was replaced by a policy of messing up everything Labour touched.

The Minister generously referred to the leadership of Mr te Heuheu, and I endorse what he said. As a result of that leadership, ably assisted by Wira Gardiner, central North Island iwi came together and presented a proposal to the Crown. It was this proposal that ultimately led to the central North Island deed of settlement being signed on 25 June. In my first reading speech I praised the proposal, which, as the committee report said, was best summarised as being iwi-driven and regional. Stung by its litany of failures in 2007, the Crown, this year at least, did not get in the way and considered the proposal. The deed having been signed, the legislation came to the House and, as the Minister observed, has now come back from the select committee very quickly indeed.

In the course of his speech, the Minister addressed some of the issues raised by the select committee report. I endorse everything the Minister said about the hopes for a settlement involving Ngāti Rangitihi. I endorse what he said about the novel resolution process and, finally, what he said about public access.

In my first reading speech I indicated I had a real interest in the allocation model, and I want now to focus on this aspect of the bill. Several submitters opposed the commercial allocation model or the tikanga-based mana whenua resolution process. They said the allocation of commercial benefits, set out in schedule 3, was disproportionate because it ignored the extensive and legitimate claims of smaller iwi, thus depriving them of their rights over customary lands. When we come to deal with Part 2, particularly Subpart 2 on allocation principles, I will say something about clauses 14 and 15. The submitters also said that the commercial allocation model should be based on mana whenua, rather than on population, and that it was important to determine who held mana whenua before commercial benefits were allocated. In response, the committee was told that the proportions derived from the commercial allocation model, and included as schedule 3 to the bill, were the result of unanimous agreement and full consensus. They also said it was appropriate that iwi, rather than the Crown, determine title to the land through a tikanga-based mana whenua resolution process, which is set out in schedule 2. It was noted, also, that all the collective iwi had to compromise. Compromise was made possible by the separation of commercial benefits flowing from the land itself.

The committee also heard submissions on schedule 2, and when we come to the Committee stage I will certainly be looking very closely at that schedule, which sets out the steps required for a tikanga-based resolution process for Crown central North Island forests land. It is a very interesting process indeed. One of the issues will be whether it will oust in its entirety the prospect of judicial review proceedings, because I am well aware of what happened after the fisheries settlement in 1992. From 1993 onwards there were debates in the courts about the allocation of quota, or the leasing of quota, and of course there was the great allocation debate that went to the Privy Council, on three occasions, I think. It is extremely important, for the timely resolution of all these matters, that schedule 2 works and that it prevents unnecessary court proceedings, but I will be saying something about whether it effectively does so when we look at schedule 2.

The committee was advised that the collective decided to separate the allocation of commercial benefits of the settlement from ownership of the land, so land is to be allocated according to the mana that iwi traditionally held and exercised over the land, determined according to tikanga. This resolution process means that iwi, rather than the Crown, are primarily responsible for determining the allocation of the title to the forest land. Officials consider that this is appropriate and will enhance the durability of the settlement, and I certainly hope they are right. The collective does not expect mana whenua allocation to be in proportion to financial allocation. Those with greater mana whenua will receive greater land allocation and, after the agreed period of 35 years, the rental streams associated with the land.

Debate interrupted.

Sitting suspended from 10 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Wednesday).

Tuesday, 23 September 2008

(continued on Wednesday, 24 September 2008)

Bills

Central North Island Forests Land Collective Settlement Bill

Second Reading

Debate resumed.

CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National): Madam Assistant Speaker informs me that I have 1 minute and 30 seconds remaining to speak on the Central North Island Forests Land Collective Settlement Bill. I note that I started speaking last night at 9.52 p.m., so strictly speaking I should have 2 minutes, but I will not quibble with the Chair, because that would be inappropriate.

All I want to do in closing is address the question of public access. It has been comprehensively dealt with in the bill. It is not an issue between the parties. The deed of settlement requires the Crown to grant public access easements over the forests prior to the settlement date, and we can deal with that issue in the Committee stage. Clauses 10 and 11 deal with the issue, and they are substantially the same as the clauses that the Committee of the whole House debated last night in the context of the Affiliate Te Arawa Iwi and Hapu Claims Settlement Bill; I refer to Supplementary Order Paper 250, which brought into that bill clauses 130A and 130B. The intent is the same, even if there are minor differences in wording.

With those closing comments, I believe that all the issues have been considered and that there is no impediment to the bill proceeding through all its stages as quickly as possible.

Hon MITA RIRINUI (Associate Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): I naturally stand in support of the Central North Island Forests Land Collective Settlement Bill. I intend to take only a very short call. I listened very carefully to the Hon Dr Michael Cullen’s second reading speech in the House last night, and I am pretty confident that he covered all the technical aspects of the bill, and also highlighted some of the important issues around the process that was undertaken by the Central North Island Iwi Collective.

If I have any comment at all to contribute to this discussion, it is about the process. It is important to acknowledge the leadership of the iwi collective leadership by Te Ariki Dr Tumu te Heuheu, and also the efforts of his executive team and all those tribal leaders who made a contribution to the process and also to the manner in which the allocation of interests to all iwi concerned will be undertaken.

It is also important to comment about the effect that this particular process has had nationwide where there are collective interests involving a number of iwi over a number of areas, and relating to specific claims. It seems that a forum for the representation of common interests is very, very popular. I have met with a number of iwi around the country since the central North Island agreement was signed who wish to look at a similar process so that they themselves can resolve issues that they all share as iwi. For example, the Muriwhenua forum will look at a number of areas, including Te Oneroa-a-Tōhe, Landcorp farms, forests, rivers, and mountains. They themselves will decide how individual iwi interests will be represented and also how those interests will be distributed. Interestingly enough, I met with iwi from Wharekauri—Moriori and Ngāti Mutunga—who are also looking at a similar process. I am sure that over the next few months we will see similar arrangements being implemented around the country.

The way in which the central North Island settlement was reached has gathered a lot of momentum and a lot of support. It is important to congratulate all those who have been involved in the central North Island settlement to date, and to thank them for the contributions they have made. I thank my colleagues Dr Cullen and the Minister of Māori Affairs for the great work they did, and I acknowledge the independent facilitator, Wira Gardiner, who conducted the whole operation like a military exercise. I do not mean he shot prisoners; I mean he made everyone stand to attention—but I was getting worried sometimes! [Interruption] And Matt Te Pou; there are so many whom I could mention, but if I go through them individually, I am bound to offend by leaving somebody out.

I also acknowledge the contribution to this debate by Chris Finlayson. I was not sure whether he was talking about the bill or auditioning for a job as Crown prosecutor, but I thank him for his contribution. Kia ora tātou.

Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National): I am pleased to rise to take a call on the second reading of the Central North Island Forests Land Collective Settlement Bill. This bill came to the Māori Affairs Committee at the same time as the bill we dealt with last night, the Affiliate Te Arawa Iwi and Hapu Claims Settlement Bill, and the select committee travelled to the central North Island to hear submissions on the bills at the same time. I think it is a tribute to the significance of this bill and its ground-breaking approach that there was a very, very good attendance of the interests represented by this bill, as for there was for the Te Arawa bill as well, and that there was generally widespread support for it. So it is very good to be here this morning to see the return of the bill to the House and to anticipate its passing into law later this week.

This is an important bill, as has already been referred to. It is important to remind ourselves that it addresses only claims as far as licensed Crown forest land is concerned, and that there will be future negotiations over various packages for each of the iwi in the collective. I was interested to hear the honourable member who spoke previously, the Hon Mita Ririnui, talking about how this bill, and the approach in it, appear to have acted as a springboard for other settlements across the motu, in terms of the way it is possible for various iwi and various interests to come together in a settlement when there are interests in common. That obviously makes sense if having to wait to deal with them individually would not result in a better settlement and would also result in a further time delay. I look forward to the Hon Mita Ririnui outlining several other areas where the Government has been engaging with iwi over the last wee while since the central North Island settlement, and to seeing some of those settlements come down the line, as well. I am very interested also to see that progress appears to be being made in terms of settlements in Tai Tokerau.

I would just flag a slight anxiety of the Opposition members that there appears to have been a rush to settle these claims. That is not to take away from the importance of doing so or to take away from the fact that the iwi involved have been willing to engage in the process in this last 12 months. After all, they are not witless, either. They know when they are ready to settle, and if they see a readiness on the other side, which they obviously did, then they have been willing to move to the table. It bodes well for the future, and that is good, considering that there had seemed to be a bit of going to sleep on the job in the previous 8 years of this Labour Government.

In any event, we had very good gatherings at the select committee. I will refer briefly to one or two issues. The mandate issues that arise in all settlements certainly were not absent from the select committee hearings on this bill. Several submitters opposed the bill on the basis that the collective had no mandate to represent them, and that the inclusion of their claims in the bill was of prejudice to them, because it removed their ability to pursue their claims through other avenues, such as the Waitangi Tribunal or the courts. Issues of mandate were raised in relation to Ngāti Manawa, Ngāti Hikairo, Ngāti Whāoa, Ngāti Tahu, and Ngāti Rangitihi. The submissions from all of them were well put to the committee. They were certainly aired and given a good hearing.

But in the end what is unique here—and we have acknowledged this already—is that the Government has basically seen fit to let the iwi sort through issues that are internal to them. This has been unlike previous matters, where the Government has tended to go where it should not tread. It appears that in the end one has to accept certain mandates, because there seems to be a majority there, and because various interests have been mandated for other purposes. That does not mean to say that those who feel aggrieved ought to be ignored. Hopefully, the collective in time will find a way to bring those parties into this settlement as well. I understand that in the case of Ngāti Hikairo, since the select committee went to Taupō there may have been some progress on their issues in relation to the Taurewa Forest. If so, that is good.

I would again urge the tribes within the collective to take that issue seriously—I am not suggesting that they have not—and I hope that when this bill passes into law, they will take all possible steps to bring those interests into the settlement. This is a big settlement; it is a settlement that will provide a very potent springboard for the tribes of the central North Island. It is a very sensible one in the commercial sense, because it keeps the forest estate under one entity. That makes sense, undoubtedly. It also makes sense that everyone who is entitled to benefit from this settlement does so in the future.

The other matter that I would like to refer to is the allocation model and the tikanga-based mana whenua resolution process. I raised this issue in my first reading speech. We were interested as a select committee to explore the issues involved with submitters. The proposed allocation for the commercial benefits in schedule 3 of the bill appears to be problematic for some iwi, but, again, the collective itself proposed that to the Government. The tikanga-based allocation model, or resolution process for the allocation of land interests, of course, is still to come. It is still before us. There are some anxieties about that, as well. It interests me again that the iwi have proposed that to the Crown. It is good that the Crown accepted that, given the experience we had over the fisheries model—although it has been laid to rest some time ago, and we have seen the allocation of fisheries to iwi over the last 2 or 3 years.

This model tries a new approach, which leads us to the iwi themselves. After all, they are the ones who know best, or who ought to know best, who has mana whenua in the various areas covering the Kaingaroa Forest. So that does seem to be a sensible place to start. The Opposition will be watching with interest, and should we make it into Government we will certainly be monitoring and supporting the process. As I say, it makes sense to leave those internal matters to the collective itself, but it does require great leadership. Maybe it requires the various individual entities to put to one side their own interests, in an attempt to make sure that the collective remains strong and united, and to realise that everything is possible if one continues with dialogue and kōrero. Anything is possible, if one does that. So we look forward to seeing how that model works, and obviously if it is being followed elsewhere, then maybe that is the way that other tribes will be able to see their way forward too. Thank you.

PITA PARAONE (NZ First): Tēnā koe, Madam Assistant Speaker. I am pleased to take a call in the second reading of the Central North Island Forests Land Collective Settlement Bill. The Māori Affairs Committee heard submissions on this bill, and I was a member of the committee. This will be one of the few times I give some self-praise, because I think the way in which the committee handled the various views on this bill would have given all the submitters a sense of satisfaction that they had received a fair hearing.

One of the observations I made during that whole process, however, was that I was mindful of the oft-stated phrase used to advertise State of Origin rugby league matches in Australia: “state against state, mate against mate”. Well, in the case of this bill—and I am not wanting to be derisive about the whole process—the sad part for me during the hearing process was to see whānau against whānau, elder brother or elder sister against younger brother or younger sister. Although I sympathise with the views of both parties, I think when we have settlements affecting land, and, in particular, mana whenua, then certainly we will see more of that kind of division. That is the challenge that awaits the leadership involved in this settlement.

Having said that, I acknowledge the real leadership that was exercised by those who represented their respective iwi at the negotiating table. I think some of the decisions they made showed true leadership. One of those decisions was a preparedness to give up a percentage of what was already agreed to, to allow another iwi to have a bigger slice of the cake, so to speak. I want to acknowledge that sort of leadership.

There are a number of issues that are worth making mention of, and, in particular, the issue of mana whenua. Although this bill is essentially, in the first instance, about the allocation of rental funds held by the Crown Forestry Rental Forestry Trust, the fear of many of those who had some resistance to the bill was that it might set a benchmark in terms of the exercise of mana whenua. As I say, that will be a real challenge for those involved. I will give members an example. Part of this settlement is known as the Taurewa Forest. One hapū made private submissions to me to say that in their view, and not only in their view but also by virtue of their tikanga, they felt that that part of the settlement should be allocated to them. That is an issue that will have to be dealt with by the leadership.

The other point I will make with regard to the issue of mana whenua is that we received several submissions, both written and in person, from a particular submitter, all emphasising the fact that in terms of history and his tribe’s tikanga, his particular tribe owned a majority of the land that this settlement is about. His real fear was that if this bill was to go through in its present form, then the percentages that were used for the allocation of Crown Forestry Rental Trust funds and future rentals would determine how the land would eventually be distributed amongst the claimants. His concern was such that he has an application with the Māori Land Court, and I understand that he wanted an urgent hearing with the Waitangi Tribunal. But at the end of the day we have to take into consideration the fact that the negotiators, who may not have had a 100 percent mandate but certainly had a majority mandate, have made the decision. They have made the decision on behalf of their iwi. Who are we to amend that decision? Any amendment would take the whole process back to square one, and we all know that, for this particular settlement, the negotiators have had to travel a very long and rocky path to get to the point where we are at the moment.

I will also make reference to Ngāti Rangitihi, who were at the table very early in the piece, but, as part of the mandate process, quite clearly did not have the support of their people to accept the settlement. Whatever the argument might be as to why they did not get their support, I think it is to the credit of those who have negotiated this settlement that they have allowed an opportunity for Ngāti Rangitihi to get the required mandate. I understand that postal voting closes on 6 October—I am not quite sure about the date, but it is very soon. Those people have until Christmas Eve 2008 to indicate whether they have the required support, and I think it is to the credit of the negotiators of this settlement that they have allowed that to happen.

Suffice it to say, New Zealand First supports the second reading of this bill. Kia ora.

KEITH LOCKE (Green): The Green Party will be supporting the Central North Island Forests Land Collective Settlement Bill. It has been interesting to hear the contributions so far about the complexities of the process, about the submissions to the Māori Affairs Committee, and about how to resolve the unresolved issues. The Green Party will be supporting this bill.

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki): Tēnā koe, Madam Assistant Speaker. Kia ora tātou e hoa mā, i tēnei ata. The date 25 June 2008 was a unique moment in parliamentary history. The downside for me was that I was not here. I was, in fact, away at a tangi. I arrived back in the House to take a call in ACT’s slot, following on from my co-leader Dr Pita Sharples. But one could not help but feel, though, that something significant had happened on that day. I am, of course, referring to the first reading of the Central North Island Forests Land Collective Settlement Bill.

As the member of Parliament for Waiariki, I was very disappointed that I was not here to witness a piece of history. Engari, e kore e taea te karo i te karanga ā-mate. One cannot escape the call of those who have passed on. The taxi driver commented on the migration of Māori here, as we headed from the airport back to Parliament. He talked about, and the people talked about, kuia and koroua, whānau, children, babies in arms, all having been drawn to this place to be a part of history in the making, and about seeing that everywhere one turned, there were Māori. When I finally got into the House, the public galleries that were crowded earlier in the day had thinned out as people had moved off for kai and to celebrate the event.

The Māori Party acknowledges that day. We acknowledge those who made it happen, te ariki Dr Tumu te Heuheu, the iwi negotiators, Matiu Te Pou, the Ministers, and Dr Cullen in particular, and Wira Gardiner on the pursuit of kotahitanga as the underlying principle, the focus of unity. As I did during the first reading debate, I give credit where credit is due, and I acknowledge, as I say, Dr Michael Cullen for leading a new approach that sees us considering a heap of settlements prior to the closing-off of Parliament.

The Māori Affairs Committee report describes the complexity that is associated with the mandate issues of iwi within the collective, but clearly the approach taken to achieve kotahitanga within ourselves has been achieved, for the most part. We certainly heard in the select committee, as other speakers have spoken about, from those who had issues, but, considering the task, Matiu Te Pou and Wira Gardiner must take a great deal of credit for the result. This would never have been a straightforward procedure.

The iwi making up the collective, as we have heard, are Ngāi Tūhoe, Ngāti Manawa, Ngāti Tūwharetoa, Ngāti Whakaue, Ngāti Whare, Raukawa, and the affiliate Te Arawa iwi and hapū that are all detailed in the bill. There is space there for Ngāti Rangitihi, and I am hopeful of hearing in the Committee stage about the progress of the meeting that was held over the weekend. I have not been able to catch up on the detail of that. I am sure that the Minister will help us out on this occasion. The collective is a significant grouping of iwi.

Having followed this process from the start, it was pleasing to me to see the move away from caution like that shown at the hui held at Waitetoko last year, through to kotahitanga, to unity. I am clear in myself that getting to consensus views would not have been reached without fierce and robust debate in that sort of forum—and so it should be. There is much at stake here, so all of the lead-in should be given the utmost scrutiny.

Amongst all of this is Ngāti Whāoa, who, for all intents and purposes, may be classed as a small player. I spoke about this matter in relation to the Te Arawa affiliates bill. The desire on the part of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whāoa to uncouple itself from Ngāti Tahu is clear, and I have statements from Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whāoa to confirm that. I will raise that issue again in the Committee stage, but it is a major issue. Why? Because Ngāti Whāoa has not insignificant interests in the central North Island forests under mana whenua. It is a small iwi, with significant interests, but its place in the scheme of things will be gone, lost in fact by way of its being, firstly, coupled with Ngāti Tahu, then, secondly, wrapped into the Te Arawa affiliates. I will continue to do the best I can to represent the interests of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whāoa, which has asked me to take up its concerns.

We know that this settlement, like every settlement, carries with it the legacy of generations that have gone before. The central North Island settlement is no different from others; people have passed on but have left behind matters that can be addressed only within and between the hapū and iwi who form this collective. I remain hopeful that matters of concern will be sorted out internally, for it is clear that damage done between and among whanau, hapū, and iwi will be long lasting and talked about on our marae for years to come. Mr Pita Paraone spoke about that in his speech.

As we now know, mandate concerns were raised to do with Ngāti Manawa, Ngāti Hikairo, and Ngāti Rangitihi, and, as I say, Ngāti Whāoa and Ngāti Tahu. There were accusations of people feeling they were not receiving basic information, suggestions that there were inconsistencies around all of those who could say they spoke for the tribe, and reports of people being shut down at hui. Although I and other members at the select committee may have concerns about some of the accusations, it is significant that the Crown believes that those interests are best dealt with by those iwi and hapū themselves. I have to say I concur with that view. Iwi must hold their own to account and deal with issues internally. I must add, to be clear, that I mean this should apply when the disagreement is intra-iwi. Where there is inter-iwi disagreement and a settlement is at stake, I say the new model of rangatira ki te rangatira with experienced facilitators can work and would save a heap of stress at the business end. It is important that resolution is achieved if it results in long-term gains for the people.

Today we acknowledge the significance of the $400 million - plus settlement as providing a foundation for the future of the people of Te Waiariki. Much has been made of the return of 176,000 hectares of land, which will make Māori the largest forestry operator in the country. Much has been made also of the collective ownership, the large natural grouping, that brings together the seven iwi representing over 100,000 Māori. We know, too, that the settlement will make those iwi amongst the largest investors in Aotearoa. Those are all significant features of the settlement, but we cannot lose sight of the injustice that is part and parcel of every settlement process, which is that, at its core, compensation is only ever a fraction of the losses experienced.

The Māori Party will not be quiet about the ongoing anomalies that must be responded to in the broader context of settlement policy. We will continue to raise the issues around cross-claims and time frames, and around decisions being made in haste. But today is a day to recognise the precedent established by this bill. This settlement is innovative in the way in which it is iwi driven and tikanga based. The tikanga-based mana whenua resolution process, set out in schedule 2 of the bill, is a really interesting concept, which we welcome as the initiative of the iwi involved. The concept involved three different criteria, in the consideration of mana whenua, ahi kā roa, ahi tahutahu, and ahi mātaotao in three different tiers: negotiation, mediation, and adjudication. This provides an innovative model for other iwi to examine.

The matter of the splits of rental moneys to iwi versus mana whenua is at the heart of concerns by submitters, but I will talk about that at the Committee stage. Ngāti Manawa, for example, has significant mana whenua interests over the land, yet it gets only 6 percent of the rentals. An explanation of that would be appreciated. It is of note, too, that the Waitangi Tribunal, in its report on the Native Land Court’s investigation of Kaingaroa No. 1, suggested a fluid, overlapping, and complex layering of interests. It may well be that the process that the central North Island negotiators and iwi have come up with satisfactorily addresses that point, although the proof will be in the pudding.

Perhaps a mark of how people have viewed this settlement has been the lack of strong and coordinated public opposition to it. Although issues have been raised, it would be fair to say that the unique process the collective has followed has received a positive response. In fact, only a week after the signing, three northern leaders drew out comparisons for arrangements that might work, say, for Ngāpuhi, Ngāti Hine, and Ngāti Whātua. Rāniera Tau, Ērima Hēnare, and the Māori Party list member Naida Glavish have sent a call to their respective iwi organisations to explore the potential of the central North Island process for advancing their own collective plans.

At the other end of the country, Te Wai Pounamu, Ngāi Tahu has also been watching on, in terms of how this settlement will impact on its potential relativity top-up as it relates to the billion-dollar cap. In June my co-leader Dr Pita Sharples asked the Minister of Finance about the implications of this bill for the ratchet clause relativity mechanism. His response was that the point at which such a mechanism would apply could be expected to occur probably within the next 2 to 3 years, in terms of reaching the point expressed in 1994 dollar terms. But as Ōtākou rūnanga chairman Tahu Pōtiki pointed out, “there is definitely some subjectivity with the whole thing.” There are so many eyes on the central North Island, watching the progression of this settlement and contemplating what it will mean. There is every opportunity for the economic development of the iwi involved in the settlement to prosper, and every opportunity to increase the original investment and to generate greater value and higher returns.

And so we come to the culmination of over two decades of energetic and inspired negotiation to bring this claim to a conclusion—or at least tomorrow it will be concluded. This bill represents a great deal of work since the passage of the Crown Forest Assets Act in 1989. The central North Island forest estate is an area not just of economic value but of huge cultural significance as well. The generosity of iwi in agreeing to preserve and enhance existing public access is an incredible statement from the iwi to the nation. We in this House must always remember that gift. The Māori Party will support this bill at its second reading.

Hon TAU HENARE (National): I start by congratulating, first, the claimants themselves, then the Government, and then our little Māori Affairs Committee on a job reasonably well done. I will take a couple of minutes to talk specifically about what I think comes out of the Central North Island Forests Land Collective Settlement Bill. I will not talk specifically about what is in it, because I think although much is made of the allocation model, the tikanga-based resolution process, and although it sounds really good in a fantasy world, there are still people outside of that, even though we have a tikanga-based resolution process, who think the deal is not up to scratch. I suppose it tells us that no matter what system we have, there will always be somebody outside the process who might think the deal is not right.

One of the more interesting facts I found out about this bill during the select process was the result of a question I asked one of the submitters. It was about mana whenua, it was about property rights—it went down that avenue. I asked that person, who will remain anonymous, about the land shares that that person and that person’s family had had for years and years. The answer to the question was that they had gone back even further, to communal ownership. I thought, OK, I can cop that. I accept that that is a line of thinking that goes pretty well with the settlement. But I got to thinking about who compensates the person who had the individual shares. At the establishment of the Native Land Court, communally owned land was individualised, but now that we are going back to a point in time before the individualisation of land, who compensates those people who have just been left out, vis-à-vis the individual shareholders in the land? So whatever we do, out of this we will create, I think, another set of grievances, more than with any other settlement I have seen.

I am not saying this is a bad settlement and a bad bill. I am saying that out of this, we have created, most probably, if people are clued up—and I am sure they are—a situation where in 5 or 10 years’ time, they will trot back in and say they have been hard-done-by and can we please sort it out, because we were the ones who made the grievance and gave them the ammunition to have a go at us. National will support this bill going through, and I just wanted to raise that issue, because I do think it is a huge issue.

I will read out a little paragraph on the select committee’s report on the bill: “Ten submitters implicitly or explicitly disputed the mandate of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Manawa to agree to the inclusion of their claims in the settlement bill. The key concern underpinning all these submissions was that Ngāti Manawa should have done better out of the settlement, given their strong mana whenua interests in the Kaingaroa. Some of the submitters also asserted that Ngāti Moewhare … had been excluded from the settlement negotiations, or that Ngāti Manawa representatives had not had a significant role in” the central North Island negotiations.

I want to bring something up at this stage, and you can rule me out of order if you want to, Madam Assistant Speaker. This process raises the issue, when we are dealing with Treaty negotiations and Treaty settlements in the House, that it does not matter how many submitters the select committee gets, and it does not matter how many are opposed and in favour of the settlement, the select committee has no jurisdiction to change the settlement. In fact, the House itself does not have any jurisdiction whatsoever to change the settlement. So with all due respect to the mana of the House, this process is a bit of a farce. It is a bit of a farce in terms of when we expect the community to come to us and say: “Excuse me, these are my feelings on this legislation.” But we cannot change it, so what is the point? Is the point itself just giving the community the opportunity to say hello and air its grievances, and to then go away and nothing happens? I think that is a Clayton’s way of dealing with issues.

It might make them feel nice that they fronted up to the select committee and had their say, but nothing comes of it. I was not astounded but gobsmacked that there was a Speaker’s ruling on this matter that pertained even to an amendment to Treaty legislation. I can certainly understand why. I am not quibbling and arguing against it; I am just pointing out the fact that when we are dealing with these issues, it seems a bit on the nose that we call for submissions, that we spend money going up the line and hiring out a hall at the hotel, and that we call hundreds of people together so that parliamentarians can listen to their submissions, only to find out that we cannot do anything about it.

I just wanted to raise that issue. Maybe in the future a select committee, or even the House, can look at this issue in a bipartisan manner. How do we deal with the issue of submitters coming to the House and asking us to change something because of the way they feel about it? Instead of saying no, maybe in the future there will be some way of saying that we will look at it and see whether we can change it. That is one of the main points I want to make in respect of the Central North Island Forests Land Collective Settlement Bill.

The last point is that I think the people who have worked on this bill have come up with a way of dealing with issues that is particular and peculiar to them. So I commend those who have been involved; there are too many to name. I think this is a watershed time in terms of Treaty settlements, and, hopefully, some other people can look at how the process has been achieved and at the road we have gone down, so they can follow the lead of those involved in the bill. But we will not hold up the show too much longer. Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

Preamble

CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National): There is a certain air of unreality in going straight from a second reading to debating the preamble, and there is a danger that, in this air of unreality, there will be unnecessary repetition. Of course, the Committee does not want to hear unnecessary repetition from me. I must confess that my primary interest in the bill, and the area I want to speak on, is schedule 2, which is the tikanga-based resolution process for the allocation of land, so I will be reasonably brief in speaking about the preamble.

I simply say that I am particularly interested in recital (4), which talks about the way in which the allocation is to occur. It refers to the terms of the deed of trust. As we heard last night from the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, almost 86.5 percent of the beneficial interest in the forests is to be held for the collective, “and the individual beneficial entitlement of each member of that Collective is to be determined by reference to the allocation process that has been agreed amongst those members and is set out in this Act.” That is a reference, first, to schedule 3, which sets out the percentages for allocation of rental proceeds. I must say that I think those percentages have been prepared to an admirable level. For example, Tūhoe are entitled to 27.2987 percent of the total, and how that was worked out, I do not know.

More particularly, I will focus on schedule 2, which deals with the way in which the allocation process is to occur. As we can see from that schedule, which I will look at in far greater detail when we get to it, there are essentially three stages. I am particularly interested in stage 3, and the effect of that type of adjudication process on the ability of courts to interfere in any decision that may be reached.

The preamble is a quite straightforward part of the bill. It sets out the background, and it sets out that the Crown and the collective agreed to negotiate in good faith, have established a framework, and have established the percentages and a means by which each individual member of the collective is to be allocated a particular portion. I think that is all I need to say about the preamble; we must move on and get to the real heart of the bill.

Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National): My colleague Chris Finlayson is right, of course: the preamble is reasonably straightforward. It is important for the fact that it lays the groundwork for the rest of the bill, and sets out that “(1) The historical CNI forests land claims … are based on historical breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi by the Crown and the desire of [the iwi involved] to secure the return of that land”—basically, the land lying beneath the Kaingaroa Forest—“and to achieve an enduring settlement of those claims:”.

The iwi of the Central North Island Iwi Collective comprise over 100,000 individuals, and they have interests that span a major proportion of the central North Island. This settlement relates to 175,000 hectares of central North Island forest land, and has its genesis in that land and in the contention that has surrounded it for the last 20-odd years. Interestingly, the Crown Forest Assets Act was passed in 1989, so that is a long time for something to be done about this matter. I remember that Richard Prebble sat on the Māori Affairs Committee during his last term in Parliament. He was one of the main movers behind the Crown Forest Assets Act, and he shared with Māori Affairs Committee members at the time that the issues surrounding the sale of Crown forests, in terms of Māori interests—that is, the land—were meant to be settled within about 3 or 4 years. Here we are now, in 2008, and next year it will be 20 years exactly since that Act was passed.

It is important to remind ourselves of the Act that was passed then, because it sits behind the bill and its opening statements. Basically, Māori took an action to the courts, and, as a result of hard-fought and successful litigation on their part, that Act was brought in. A big part of it protected Māori interests in the land that is now part of this settlement—but not substantially, because the land interests still have to be dealt with, and some of us have referred to that in our second reading speeches. This bill deals with the commercial side of the settlement; as for the land issues in terms of allocation to the various iwi interests, that exercise is still to occur. The rentals from the licences were set aside upon the passing of the 1989 legislation, until the claims over the forests could be resolved. As I have already said, that has taken longer than anyone had ever dreamt possible. I guess we have to wonder about the development costs to Māori in terms of lost opportunities over the years, but I am very pleased that we are here today, discussing the bill and the settlement.

Recital (2) of the preamble sets out that the two parties, the Crown and the Central North Island Iwi Collective, agreed to negotiate in good faith. That has been referred to in previous speeches, as well. When a settlement of this type comes together in the way that this one has, with a long gestation, we may ask whether that says something about the slowness of the Crown, or about the various iwi interests not seeing a way to work together. Fortunately, those things have been worked through.

I think the preamble is fairly clear. It sets out what comes later, and we will refer to some of the issues that are raised behind the preamble as the Committee debate progresses.

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki): Tēnā nō tātou. I have a few questions for the Minister in the chair, the Hon Mita Ririnui, even though we are just starting to hook into the debate, and they are really just for clarification.

I note that the preamble refers to 86.4 percent of the beneficial interest, which I suppose implies that Ngāti Rangitihi, who were a part of the collective, come under the 13.6 percent of the beneficial interest that has been tagged for remaining beneficiaries. I want to check with the Minister whether that is the case, even though Ngāti Rangitihi are not named. I know that this issue crosses over into Part 1 and into the schedules as well, in terms of named iwi, but I want to check on the issues around Ngāti Rangitihi and where their part might be in terms of that matter.

Could the Minister also give us some information about whether any progress was made at the mandate hui held over the weekend? Although I have not had submissions from Ngāti Rangitihi or any of the factions, I want to ensure that we can say that Ngāti Rangitihi’s interests have been protected, and I want to know whether there are any implications—I think I know what those implications are, anyway—if they do not meet the 24 December deadline. Perhaps the Minister could give us some outlines around that matter.

My main interest in the preamble is recital (4)—namely, the 86.4 percent of the beneficial interest, etc. I seek clarification specifically about the Ngāti Rangitihi issue. I ask the Minister to take a call and give us some feedback. Thank you.

Hon MITA RIRINUI (Associate Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): For the benefit of the member Te Ururoa Flavell, I will be very specific in terms of his queries about the preamble to the bill. If the member looks at recital (4) very carefully, he will see that it is quite specific about the interests of Ngāti Rangitihi. He asked a question about the progress being made in resolving the issue of a mandate within Ngāti Rangitihi. I think it is too early to make any comment about that particular issue. It is an internal matter. There is a closing date for resolving the matter, but it is quite some time away yet. I think we should allow Ngāti Rangitihi the opportunity to resolve their internal matters and then come back to us and declare their position. Prior to that, I certainly do not intend to speculate.

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki): I am sorry to labour the point, but the key issue in the discussions at the Māori Affairs Committee, and, indeed, in the submissions made to the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, was that Ngāti Rangitihi was originally included in the bill. We know that there are mandate issues—that is not argued. I thank the Minister in the chair, Mita Ririnui, for at least saying that they are ongoing. All that I want to know is whether it is clear that Ngāti Rangitihi’s interests, which are not now specifically covered in this bill, have therefore moved to the other slot. That is all I need to know.

Hon MITA RIRINUI (Associate Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): The preamble of the bill does not specifically mention the interests of Ngāti Rangitihi in terms of the period for which the remaining beneficial interest will be held, but the member can take it as read that it is referring to Ngāti Rangitihi.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 230 in the name of the Hon Dr Michael Cullen to the preamble be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

Preamble as amended agreed to.

Part 1 Preliminary provisions

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 230 in the name of the Hon Dr Michael Cullen to Part 1 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

Part 1 as amended agreed to.

Part 2 Provisions relating to transfers of assets, allocation principles, Crown agreed proportion, and DSP properties

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs): The debate on this part includes clauses 6 to 29 and schedules 1, 2, and 3.

CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National): I am pleased that we will be debating schedule 2, because it would make no sense to debate Subpart 2 of Part 2 without looking at schedule 2.

Part 2 deals with provisions relating to the transfer of assets and to the all-important allocation principles. In my second reading speech I dealt with issues relating to public access. They are contained in clauses 10 and 11. They are in substantially the same form as the clauses contained in the Affiliate Te Arawa Iwi and Hapu Claims Settlement Bill, which we debated yesterday. I have no problem with any of that.

I come to Subpart 2, and particularly to clause 14, which is a very important clause. It sets out that “The iwi of the CNI Iwi Collective may, in accordance with the resolution process set out in Schedule 2, agree among themselves as to which specific area or areas of the CNI forests land is or are to be transferred to the iwi of the Collective.” When one looks at schedule 2 one sees that a very comprehensive resolution process is set out. The first stage is for the parties to identify their mana whenua interests, and this aspect is to be concluded by 1 October 2009. If there is a need for negotiation, one moves to the second stage, which will continue through to 30 June 2010—a very tight timetable, and I will say something about that a little later. The third stage will be to finalise the allocation agreement, which, hopefully, will be concluded by 30 June 2011.

There are two parts to the third stage. The first part is to go down the mediation route. The provisions relating to mediation are very sensible as to both whom the mediators are to be and the way in which they are to decide the matter. But if the matter has to go to adjudication, then the company has to appoint an adjudication panel. National members have no problem with the qualifications of the adjudication panel, but the way in which the panel is to reach its conclusions perhaps needs a little discussion.

Let me say at once, as one who was involved in the fisheries allocation issue for many years, that this provision is an admirable attempt to speed up resolution of any issues relating to allocation. Mr Shane Jones, of course, is the master of these things, because he was on the Treaty of Waitangi Fisheries Commission for many years—in the latter stages, as chair.

Hon Tau Henare: It doesn’t make him a master.

CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: It probably does not make him a master; I apologise to my colleagues for that unnecessary and undue praise. Members will recall that the 1992 Act was passed consequent upon the parties signing a deed of settlement, and the idea was that the commission was going to determine the allocation of quota. Almost immediately litigation started. It started first in relation to the lease round. Of course, the final allocation work had not been done, so the quota had to be leased. It seemed that every decision of the commission was subjected to judicial review. Then in 1996 the people of Muriwhenua commenced a claim against the commission, and that raised a huge number of issues. As I said last night, the claim went to the Privy Council on at least three occasions that I can recall. Finally, a couple of years ago, the Government passed legislation to give effect to an allocation model that had been finally worked out by the commission, but it was long, it was tortuous, it involved a huge number of proceedings, the legal expenses incurred were horrific, and the delay that occurred was most unacceptable.

That is why I think this model is an excellent attempt to speed up allocation issues. I have just a couple questions about the effectiveness of it. I agree that, as clause 6(13) of schedule 2 states, the adjudication panel appointed must have “complete discretion to determine the process and the timetable”. I also agree that it is desirable that lawyers not appear before the adjudication panel, unless all the parties agree. That may seem to be a startling statement, but one must bear in mind that we are dealing with allocation on the basis of mana whenua, and one would hope that lawyers would not get in on the act and, because of legalism, unnecessarily complicate things.

Another issue, which is extremely important and which we need to make sure we are very clear about it, arises from clause 6(15) of schedule 2, which states: “The decision of the adjudication panel will be final and binding on all the parties.” I want the Minister in the chair, Mita Ririnui, to comment on whether the Government intends that that will have the effect of ousting judicial review proceedings, because time and time again those sorts of clauses give rise to issues before the court. Let me give members an example from a judgment of Justice Temm in September 1993. A challenge was made in relation to payments made under the New Zealand Steel pension fund. Clause 18 of the trust deed set out as follows: “If any question shall arise as to the interpretation of these presents, or the rights or obligations of any member or other person hereunder, or as to any other matter touching or concerning these presents, such questions shall be decided by the trustees, whose decision shall be final and conclusive.” Members will note that those terms are similar to those contained in clause 6(15). The High Court said that that form of clause is commonly found in such deeds, but it has to be interpreted on the footing that the decision of the trustees has been lawfully made, and it must not be thought that a private transaction of this kind can prevent the courts from supervising the acts of trustees and persons of a similar status. So it did not oust the ability of the court to look at the issue.

Of course, the issue arose some years ago in relation to Mr Zaoui and his case against the Attorney-General and the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security. There was a discussion about the ability of Mr Zaoui to seek judicial review. I will not trouble the Committee with the detail of the case, but I will refer simply to a reference to a decision of Justice Tipping in a 1995 case called O’Regan v Lousich, where he said, among other things, that it is “possible for Parliament to provide, if it chooses, that the decision of a particular decision maker shall not be impugned on certain bases, or indeed on any basis. With most types of tribunal and decision maker there is a presumption that Parliament does not intend the decision to be conclusive irrespective of errors of law, unfairness or unreasonableness …”.

My position—and I do not know what the Government’s position is—is that the jurisdiction of the courts should probably be ousted, but I do not think that that occurs here, and I do not think that clause 6(15) would prevent judicial review. We need to be clear on it. It is in the public interest and it is in the interests of these iwi that this allocation process result in a resolution by June 2011, and that the iwi not be troubled by judicial review proceedings or other types of proceedings. I simply say to the Minister that this clause will not have the effect of ousting the ability of parties to seek judicial review. If it is intended that the clause will have that effect, then I think some stronger language is required. I will be very interested in his views on that. It is a very important issue, because unless we get some clarity on it now, the parties will embark down this path and there will be at least—I am prepared to bet on it—one or two challenges to the process. Maybe it is the intention of the Crown that judicial review of an error of law, for example, will be permitted. We need clarity, and it would be helpful to hear the Minister’s view.

Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National): Part 2 is the meat of the Central North Island Forests Land Collective Settlement Bill. I hope that the Minister will take a call to answer my colleague Chris Finlayson’s query about the ouster of judicial review.

The Minister may recall that National members flagged in our opening speeches our interest in the tikanga-based resolution process for the central North Island forests land, which is to be found in schedule 2. Although I applaud and support the fact that the Government has seen fit, on the motion of the collective itself, to bring forward or to promulgate an allocation process based on tikanga and matters that are of interest to them as iwi, and are known only by themselves, my colleague and I have a reservation about what happens if the various interests in the collective cannot agree on the allocation of the land interests. That is not to raise any doubt that they are not up to the job, but when the Māori Affairs Committee travelled to hear them it was very clear to me that they well appreciate that this area is a real test of the leadership of each of the iwi participating in the collective. It is a real test of their ability to recognise mana whenua interests of each of them in the collective, and a real test to lead and be generous in their thinking. That is what I took from many of the submitters.

But I come back to the point that, despite the best will in the world, there may come a time when agreement may not be possible. At that point I, too, am interested to know whether there remains the ability for aggrieved parties to go on judicial review. There is certainly nothing in the bill here before us that ousts it. If there were a disagreement at some future point—and we certainly hope there will not be—is there recourse to an independent outside authority? It would be an authority that is at arms-length to this process and to the iwi involved, and if called upon can address issues that may arise. Some people came to see me before the introduction of the bill and asked whether there might be room, for instance, for the Waitangi Tribunal to be that body should there be a disagreement during the allocation process. I said that I would raise the issue. I am looking forward to the Minister taking a call to tell us whether there is, in the event that it is required, recourse to an independent outside authority. I am sure that if he does not have the answer immediately, we might get that answer before the Committee stage ends.

In the end the allocation process is not a matter for the Crown. The issues of mana whenua are for the various iwi themselves to deal with. They know the principles that underlie the issues of mana whenua, and they ought to, and should—and I am sure they will, in this case—be able to resolve the allocation process without going off the rails. That is certainly what we hope.

A responsible Government acting on behalf of the Crown and the people of New Zealand has a responsibility to promulgate and pass legislation that gives maximum opportunity for the process that the iwi have devised to succeed. That process must be open, transparent, and on the record. Is it envisaged that there will be a record of the discussions that proceed when the allocation process for the land gets under way? That is important too. These things are important for future generations. It is only fair to future generations that they are able to see how the tikanga-based resolution process for their land interests was resolved. Again I come back to the point that it is important to know that there is an organisation at arm’s length should it be required. I am trusting in the leadership of each of the iwi in this collective. They have shown great leadership up to this point to bring to the Crown a model and a proposal that they largely devised. I am sure that that leadership will go on.

In fact, the bigger part of this exercise is still to come. The iwi may think they can breathe a sigh of relief because they have got over this significant first stage, but the bigger part is still to come, because they will have to manage that commercial asset. Part 2 sets out the basis on which the commercial interests—the rental proceeds and the commercial process—will proceed.

The bigger challenge is the division of the land interests, and that was certainly flagged by the submitters who came to the select committee—those iwi who feel aggrieved, who feel that the collective does not properly represent them. So there will be huge interest from all quarters in how this proceeds, not least of which, I guess, is the interest from the regions yet to settle. We heard from Minister Ririnui earlier about the ongoing work he has been involved in, in bringing other iwi into the settlement process. It looks hopeful, though. I have to say that the process that has been proposed to divide the forests land is ground-breaking. Of interest to me is that the division will not necessarily follow the percentages that have been reached for the allocation of rental proceeds, because, as I understand it, that was done on the basis of population numbers. Perhaps the Minister in the chair, the Hon Mita Ririnui, could just remind us of that. Even though Ngāi Tūhoe and Ngāti Tūwharetoa receive quite substantial rental proceeds, that is no indication of how the land interests will be divided. So that is good, something to look forward to, and hopefully something that is resolved with minimum fuss.

I must pick up on what my colleague Chris Finlayson said about leaving the lawyers out of the process. Of course, he is a lawyer, and law is my profession as well, so that could be a surprise to people. We have all seen how the involvement of the legal profession to date has been huge in these matters. It may be that the leaders, in their wisdom, devised this process partly so that the lawyers would not be there! As I say, it makes sense, because on the issues of mana whenua, iwi know best. That belongs to them. It is their tikanga.

Hon TAU HENARE (National): I want to make a brief comment on schedule 2, “Tikanga based resolution process for CNI forests land”. It will keep the lawyers at bay, and I think that is a great thing. Over the years, unfortunately, the legal profession has made a hell of a lot of money off the backs of both the Crown and the iwi at the heart of Treaty settlements. I do not want to be too disparaging of the legal profession and of my colleagues in that respect, but in the past they have played rather too large a part in the process. So the resolution process, in the way it sets out what is to happen, is a very good one. It is to be hoped that the allocation methods of settlements that follow can take a leaf out of this bill.

I note that schedule 2 says nothing about the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. The Affiliate Te Arawa Iwi and Hapu Claims Settlement Bill, which the House has just dealt with, specifically mentioned the principles of the Treaty, and I am staggered and gobsmacked that they are not mentioned in the bill that the Committee is debating now. I am waiting for the member from New Zealand First to stand up and say something about it. I think there should be a statement about the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. If it is good enough for Te Arawa, then it should be good enough for everybody else, for goodness’ sake!

Pita Paraone: Similarly, if it’s good enough for this collective, it’s good enough for the rest of the country.

Hon TAU HENARE: Well, there you go! That is a good point. I had never thought of it that way, but now that you bring it up!

Colleagues on this side have commented about the tribunal and judicial review. There has to be some sort of mechanism whereby if something goes wrong right at the end, if the parties have followed through the process but have hit a brick wall, there is some sort of final adjudicator. [Interruption] I heard you on the radio, mate—Phil Heatley, the new member for Whangarei. Whether it is the tribunal or the judicial review process, there must be a process whereby somebody adjudicates legally. I think we can work on that. The Crown, the Government, and the collective have a responsibility to ensure that the process entered into is transparent. It does not matter what system one has or what resolution process one has; there will always be people who disagree, so, for them, one has to have a transparent process. I am with my colleagues on that point.

I will turn briefly to schedule 3, “Percentages for allocation of rental proceeds”. Ngāi Tūhoe will have 27.2987 percent. That is down to the last piece of timber! I am not so interested in the amount of allocation to each tribal district—Ngāti Manawa, Ngāti Tūwharetoa, and so on and so forth—but I am interested in the way that the percentages were arrived at, and maybe the Minister in the chair, the Hon Mita Ririnui, can shed some light on that aspect. It is interesting to note that if one were to read the percentages for the allocation of rental proceeds, then one would think that they were right down to the last little growth on the tree, or the last little piece of grass in Murupara.

That is all. I think that, all in all, the process is a fantastic attempt at taking out the argy-bargy, the legalese, that we have seen before, and I hope that the process grows into something that we may be able to use later on down the track.

CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National): I would really be grateful to receive the comments of the Minister in the chair, the Hon Mita Ririnui, on an issue. In my earlier contribution I dealt in detail with schedule 2 and particularly with the adjudication part, which is to be completed by 25 June 2011. I focused on clause 6(15) in schedule 2, which provides that a “decision of the adjudication panel will be final and binding on all the parties.” I said the authorities have suggested that the effect of that clause would not be to oust the jurisdiction of the court in judicial review. My personal view is that maybe it should do so.

But I come to clause 7 in Part 2 of the bill, which may provide us with some guidance. Clause 7(1) is the standard privative clause, and it is not dissimilar to section 6 of the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975, as amended by section 40 of the Treaty of Waitangi (Fisheries Claims) Settlement Act 1992. In fact, it is very similar, because section 40 provides: “… the Tribunal will not have jurisdiction to inquire or further inquire into, or make any finding or recommendation in respect of,— … Commercial fishing … The Deed of Settlement … or … Any enactment …”. In a 1996 case the Court of Appeal stated that the effect of that clause—the so-called privative clause—in section 6(7) of the Treaty of Waitangi Act was to oust the jurisdiction of the tribunal.

Then we come to clause 7(2) of this bill, which is an interesting clause. It states that “Subsection (1) does not exclude the jurisdiction of a court, tribunal, or other judicial body in respect of the interpretation or implementation of the deed of settlement or this Act.” So any question of the interpretation of the legislation, which would include the schedules, obviously, would be available in jurisdictional terms for a court or a tribunal to consider, as would any question of implementation.

It would seem on the face of it that the jurisdiction of the court is not ousted and that clause 6(15) of schedule 2 may not be the end of the road. I really think that we ought to be crystal clear about this, because I believe, based on my experience of the fisheries allocation saga, that there could well be litigation, although I agree with what my colleagues have said—that given the parties involved and the desire to reach a settlement, one would certainly hope that there would be a conclusion of the allocation debate, if there is to be a debate, by 25 June 2011. But the Minister’s contribution on the allocation model and on whether it is intended to be final and oust the jurisdiction of the courts is very important, because on the face of it I do not think it does that.

Hon MITA RIRINUI (Associate Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): Kia ora, Mr Chairman. I will just respond to the questions that Chris Finlayson asked earlier in relation to the resolution process. I took my time in rising to respond to them because I thought that other speakers might also ask similar questions. I did note that after Chris Finlayson sat down, the contribution from the Hon Georgina te Heuheu was along similar lines, and she may have provided him with some answers to those particular concerns.

I think it is important that we understand that this resolution process was developed by the collective, and that clause 7(4) contemplates the possibility of litigation. I cannot give the member a guarantee that lawyers will not become involved, but it was certainly the view of the collective that due to their experience of lawyers, the role of lawyers should be minimised. Members should also understand that the decisions cannot be appealed, but a review of the process can be sought to ensure that the process itself is consistent with the tikanga-based process in schedule 2.

There were also queries about the proposed tikanga-based mana whenua resolution process that I just spoke about and also about the allocation model that was developed solely by the central North Island collective. As we heard from the submitters, by and large a large percentage of them had the opportunity to participate in the process of determining the model for allocation, and what we did find interesting when we came to the mana whenua concepts in terms of allocation, or in terms of rights, was that those concepts were defined as ahi kā roa, which translates as continuous, undisturbed; in other words, permanent occupation. I would think that every iwi involved in the central North Island collective would qualify on that particular principle.

But the collective also went to the extent of looking at other areas of mana whenua and other concepts. One that is new to me is ahi tahutahu, which basically means provisional, shared, looked after by somebody else. It also can mean temporary occupation. In other words, it suggests that a particular iwi may be transient, and may move around considerably. I do not know that any of those iwi that are mentioned in schedule of the bill are in that position. The last concept of ahi mātaotao, which I often hear about, is one of abandonment or lack of representation or underutilisation of land, or no utilisation of land at all. I could not imagine anywhere in the country where that particular concept may apply, although from time to time we do discover new iwi developing amongst the more known iwi, and these particular iwi become the centre of debate, whether or not they actually exist.

Those are issues that iwi themselves will deal with, and it is certainly not over to the Crown to determine whether a particular concept applies to particular iwi in a particular circumstance. I know I have just skimmed over many of the queries, but I found that although many of the speakers asked questions, by the time they resumed their seats they had actually answered the questions themselves.

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki): I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. My point of order is along the lines of what the Hon Tau Henare was discussing this morning. It has come out of the discussion about the provision for debate of amendments to do with Treaty settlements. By way of providing some background—I am not sure whether you were in the Chair at the time, Mr Chairperson—let me take you through the issue.

My amendments last night sought to amend clause 11 of the Affiliate Te Arawa Iwi and Hapu Claims Settlement Bill. They were ruled out of order in accordance with Speakers’ ruling 110/2, which states: “An amendment that purports to amend an agreement reached between the Crown and other parties is out of order in a bill to give effect to that agreement.” I ask that you as the Chair, or the Speaker’s office, or whoever deliberates on these issues, look at this particular issue, on the ground that the agreement that the Te Arawa bill gives effect to is not an agreement between the Crown and another party. The deed of settlement has been signed by the Government and another party, but the Government is not the Crown. Shall I carry on, Mr Chair? OK, I will carry on. The deed of settlement has been signed by the Government and another party, but the Government is not the Crown. The agreement becomes one between the Crown and another party only after Parliament has passed the legislation and the Order in Council has been signed by the Governor-General on behalf of the Sovereign. The point is one of, I think, fundamental constitutional importance: who and what is the Crown?

I emphasise that the Māori Party supports the legislation—this bill and the Te Arawa legislation—but we uphold the Treaty of Waitangi as the founding constitutional document of this nation, and we assert the value of the principles of the Treaty to regulate behaviour. It is incumbent on this Parliament to deal with matters involving tangata whenua in particular on the basis of Treaty principles—mutual respect, reasonable cooperation, and the utmost good faith. We are not advocating what are often termed in Parliament as frivolous, vexatious, or unreasonable amendments to legislation giving effect to agreements that have been reached between the Government and the Treaty partners. No, that is not it. Our question is one of a constitutional nature: what is the purpose of bringing this bill before Parliament, if it is true that the agreement has already been signed by the Crown? What is the purpose of seeking Royal assent to the Act, once the bill has been passed by Parliament? Where does sovereignty lie, if an agreement signed by a Minister of the Crown supersedes the authority of Parliament and the Executive Council?

As the Hon Tau Henare has talked about, we have called for submissions on Treaty settlement bills such as this one and the Te Arawa bill. The Māori Affairs Committee has listened to the submitters presenting reasoned and rational points of view. What is the point, if Parliament simply ignores what the people have to say because the deal is already basically done? It is a fundamental principle of Westminster democracy that Parliament is sovereign and regulates its own procedures through Speakers’ rulings, among other ways, and it has been that way since way back when—the Magna Carta of 1215. Established conventions separate the powers of the legislature—Parliament, that is—from the Government and the judiciary. Each guards its roles jealously. Parliament should not allow its powers to be constrained, or allow itself to be seen to be, in effect, just a rubber stamp for the executive.

Mr Chairperson, all that I ask, as a representative of the Māori Party, is that you give consideration to looking at this issue, to possibly giving a new ruling that might clarify it, and, more important perhaps, to having a debate in respect of what is fundamentally, from our perspective, a constitutional matter. I am sorry that I have taken quite a bit of time, but it was important to try to give you some background. I place the issue before Parliament at this point because we are in the Committee stage, there are a number of other speakers and provisions to come, and I want to take a call in respect of Part 2.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Thank you, Mr Flavell. I would like, first of all, to refer to the Speakers’ ruling you mentioned—110/2. It is quite specific. It states: “An amendment that purports to amend an agreement reached between the Crown and other parties is out of order in a bill to give effect to that agreement.” That ruling was made both in 2003 and in 2005. I understand that you were seeking to amend the names of the signatories, or the parties to the deed, and to take one group out. This Supplementary Order Paper contains amendments to the settlement agreement that have the agreement of the parties. Bills such as this are to give effect to the settlements; they are not to amend the agreements, unless both parties—the Crown and the signatories—agree. That is where the matter lies.

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki): I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I accept that that, on the face of it, is very much the case, and that was an explanation given by Dr Cullen. What we are talking about, however, is a bigger issue. Sure, the agreement has been done, but if you listened to the first part of the debate, you would have heard that it was very much about the notion of those agreements being between iwi and, under that particular wording, “the Crown”. The point I was trying to make was that the definition of “the Crown” within that is open to interpretation and is not clear.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Can I suggest, Mr Flavell—it cannot be done now—that there is always the opportunity to make amendments to the Standing Orders. The Speaker on a number of occasions has invited parties to do that. Maybe that is something the member needs to look at in the future, but we cannot go back and do that now, because we already have Standing Orders and Speakers’ rulings that govern the proceedings of this House, and that is how it works.

CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National): I have only one other question that I want to raise about schedule 2, and I would be grateful for the guidance of the Minister in the chair, Mita Ririnui. My question concerns clause 13(e).

Clause 13 provides—I think, sensibly—that the adjudication panel will have complete discretion to determine the process and the timetable for the hearing. That complete discretion is subject to certain requirements, and they are more particularly set out in paragraphs (a) to (g). For example, paragraph (g) provides that a decision is to be reached by 25 June 2011. But I am interested in paragraph (e), which states: “there is a right to question witnesses;”. What I would like to know, and maybe we need clarification, is whether that right to question witnesses relates only to the adjudication panel, or whether an iwi claimant can also ask questions of another iwi claimant. If I were to proffer an opinion, I would say it means both: that the panel could ask questions, but that iwi claimants should also have the right to test evidence by way of cross-examination—by asking questions of witnesses for other iwi.

What we do not want, in the course of the adjudication panel hearing this matter, is to have some kind of eleventh hour application for judicial review. I know that these sorts of questions have been subject to judicial review in the context of commissions of inquiry. I seem to recall a case concerning someone called Badger, where the person presiding over the commission of inquiry was a former Attorney-General, Dr Martyn Finlay, and the case was held up for some time while the parties went to the courts.

That is my interpretation, but I would be very grateful if the Minister could give some guidance. Does the right relate to the panel alone asking questions, or is there also the right of iwi claimants to ask questions and to test the written evidence that will have been filed by another iwi claimant?

Hon MITA RIRINUI (Associate Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): I say to the member Chris Finlayson, yes, iwi claimants can ask questions as well.

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki): Tēnā koe, Mr Chairman. There are just two issues that I want to raise. I agree very much with a number of the sentiments that have already been raised by other members that it is appropriate that iwi deal with internal issues themselves, and I touched on that point in the second reading. I am pleased about the approach of internal conflict resolution; I think it is a good idea.

The two points that I want to raise in particular are in respect of the notion of mana whenua, and they have been highlighted by way of two groupings in particular. One is to do with Ngāti Whāoa, under the mantle of the Te Arawa affiliates, and the other one is best exemplified by the Ngāti Manawa example.

The first issue, in respect of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whāoa, is in two parts. One is the point that Ngāti Whāoa’s claim has been included, and we have touched on that in debate on previous bills. How is it that a person, in a sense, puts forward a claim on behalf of others, then finds that, in the process of settlements, the claim has been put to be settled, yet there has been no formal notification, there has been no consultation, and, basically, the claim is taken out of that person’s hands and put smack dead in the middle of this particular bill? I refer in particular to the claim led by Mr Peter Staite. That is the first issue.

The second issue is in respect of this whole question of mandate. I know we did broach some of it in the debate on the Te Arawa affiliates bill, but it is an important issue, in this case in particular. According to what I have heard, at least, Ngāti Whāoa might be relatively small in numbers but, from their perspective, they believe that they have not insignificant interests. We know, firstly, that their interests have been included in the settlement under the Te Arawa affiliate bill, and that they have tried to get out of it in one form or another. I attempted to basically pull them out of the settlement last night, but my attempt was ruled out of order. They have tried to get out of it in a number of venues. There have been three Waitangi Tribunal reports. The Waitangi Tribunal, through Judge Carrie Wainwright, pulled the parties together and attempted to facilitate a process. It did not happen. I am told that the group they have a grievance with did not want to continue the facilitation process, so that was basically the end of the story. On top of that, they have been to the Office of the Ombudsmen.

In terms of this particular bill, the question is to raise issues about Ngāti Whāoa’s interest in all of this. The Minister in the chair, Mita Ririnui, talked about mana whenua, and I suppose the question is that their mana whenua interests have basically now been pulled into the big Te Arawa affiliate collective. My role as an MP is to represent their interests, and all I can do is put on the record that, from their perspective at least, their tamariki may well be back here at some point in time to reflect on this whole matter. Although we might say that those are internal issues, when the two parties do not want to come together or do not come together, then of course the matter will not move forward. As I said in the second reading, I would like the approach to be rangatira ki te rangatira, with facilitators to move the discussion along.

The second issue, which other speakers have taken up, concerns the divvy-up of the resources. I accept that the divvy-up of the resources is an internal issue, and, from what I understand of the collective, one representative from each of the iwi is sitting at the table and they make the decisions. It is a great approach for iwi to be empowered to make decisions about their own futures; that is fine. All we can conclude is that, in particular, around the rentals and the divvy-up of the land later on, on the face of it iwi have driven it, but the key thing is that some of the submitters told us that they had certain concerns about the divvy-up. It is not for me to say yay or nay, or which is the best way. As I say, I support the notion of iwi doing their own thing. But we have to wonder.

I will choose Ngāti Manawa as an example because of their large number of submitters at the Māori Affairs Committee hearing. They say that they have far and away more than 6 percent of mana whenua interests. Some might say that, in comparison with the other iwi, they are a small player in numbers, but, nevertheless, in terms of their land interests they are very significant in the bigger picture. The concerns that were expressed by some of Ngāti Manawa—certainly not all—were about the weighting, and the allocation of the rentals. That was a key issue, and I would not mind if the Minister could elaborate on it. I know that that question was put by the Hon Tau Henare. The second issue was the weighting of ahi mātaotao, ahi tahutahu, and so on, and how they might play out. It might be said that that is an iwi issue. Sure, but, again, some of the submitters at the select committee suggested that they might lose their interest, because the bigger blocks might gang up on them. And we can understand that, because this settlement is probably the most significant settlement that they will ever see in their lives.

It is about simply trying to get to grips with understanding the issues, if the Minister is able to provide an explanation. The decisions might have been made behind closed doors. If it is all about those iwi making decisions for themselves, then, in the end, I suppose their representatives have to stand and fall on those decisions made at the table. All I am doing is representing the interests of those who have made representations to me to seek some clarification. I suppose, in the end, they are simply protecting their interests—making sure their interests are looked after. I am talking for some of Ngāti Manawa—certainly not the rūnanga, because it is in there. Some of the submitters presented the case that they are quite significant in mana whenua issues, yet they get a very small piece of the cake in terms of the rentals. They do not even know what their percentage of the bigger picture is, and they have some time ahead of them to debate whether they will get their fair share of mana whenua. They ask “What is the story? How do we protect our interests?”.

All I am doing is raising those issues, and perhaps the Minister might be able to respond, so that it will be on the record and I can tell some people back home. Kia ora.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 230 in the name of the Hon Dr Michael Cullen to Part 2 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

Part 2 as amended agreed to.

Part 3 Miscellaneous provisions

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 230 in the name of the Hon Dr Michael Cullen to Part 3 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

Part 3 as amended agreed to.

Schedule 1 agreed to.

Schedule 2

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): The question now is that schedule 2 stand part. All those in favour please say “Aye”—

Hon Members: Aye.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): —of the contrary say “No”—

Sue Moroney: No.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): The “Noes” have it?

Te Ururoa Flavell: The “Noes” have it.

Pita Paraone: The “Ayes” have it.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): The “Noes have it? The “Ayes” have it? Party vote called for? This is the vote on schedule 2. I will put the question again. Are we clear? The question is that schedule 2 stand part. All those in favour please say “Aye”.

Hon Members: Aye.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): And those against?

Hon Members: No.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): The “Noes” have it? The “Noes” have it.

SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei): I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. It is not for me to give an indication as to what the Government is doing, and I see that we have a senior Minister in the Chamber who might be able to help us, but we have the Labour whip calling one vote and the Minister in the chair, the Hon Mita Ririnui, calling for a party vote on the opposite position. That just cannot be right. We need some clarification about what is happening here.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): All right. Let us get some clarification from the Minister, please. OK. I want to get this right; this is the question that schedule 2 stand part. I understand that schedule 2 has to be lost because there is a new schedule 2, which will be put after this one. Are we clear now? This one, as I understand it, should be lost, but there is an additional vote for a new schedule 2, as set out on Supplementary Order Paper 230, and that is the one to be agreed to. So this one will be lost. Let me put it now, so that we are all clear. All those in favour of schedule 2 standing part say “Aye”—

SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei): I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I am sorry. I do not mean to be difficult, but it is an extraordinary situation when the Chairperson of the Committee of the whole House is saying, before we have a vote, that the vote is meant to be lost.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I understand.

SIMON POWER: I think that, in fairness to the Committee, we should have the vote, and then, if indeed there is an issue, someone can seek leave to amend it. It is most odd for you as Chair to be saying how a vote should go before you put the question.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Thank you, Mr Power, and I concur with what you were saying. I was trying to provide some leadership in the situation.

Schedule 2 not agreed to.

New schedule 2

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 230 in the name of the Hon Dr Michael Cullen to insert new schedule 2 be agreed to.

New schedule 2 agreed to.

Schedule 3 agreed to.

New schedule 4

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 230 in the name of the Hon Dr Michael Cullen to add new schedule 4 be agreed to.

New schedule 4 agreed to.

Clauses 1 and 2

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I call the Hon Georgina te Heuheu. I might add, for the member’s benefit, that clauses 1 and 2 are taken together, but there will be separate votes. So the member can debate clause 1 and 2, but there are separate votes.

Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National): I will take a very short call. We do not want to be seen to be dragging out something that we are all in support of, and that is obvious, but the title, the Central North Island Forests Land Collective Settlement Bill, is very important. It is a very proper title, obviously. But if one reads the title only, without knowing the substance of the bill, then one may not necessarily get the significance of what is being achieved here. It certainly is a collective, which is one that I do not think we have seen before; a number of iwi have come together in terms of the commercial side of interests that have their genesis some 20-odd years ago in the Crown Forests Assets Act 1989.

The bill makes provision for the allocation of land under the Crown forests, but the individual claims of the iwi involved are still to be completed. It is a unique initiative and one that, hopefully, will be repeated, if, in fact, it all appears that it is able to work the way it is obviously intended to work here. So it may be that we will see more region-wide settlements where we have collectives involved as well. This is the first one. It is unique. We support it. We would like to see it happen again.

My colleague Pita Paraone might suggest—[Interruption]—oh, OK. I will not say anything about the north then. But I was just hoping we might see that where there are similar iwi interests in a particular region, there may be room for similar legislation, so we might see this term in use again as we go forward. So it is pretty simple. I want to support clauses 1 and 2. Thank you, Mr Chair.

PITA PARAONE (NZ First): Tēnā koe, Mr Chair. I want to take a short call on clause 1, which is the title. First of all, I say that I support a lot of the sentiments of the previous speaker, the Hon Georgina te Heuheu. You know, we talk about the use of te reo Māori, and I wonder whether any consideration was given by the principals of each of the iwi groupings that came to the negotiating table to the opportunity of giving this particular bill a Māori name. I see that my colleague from the Māori Party is grinning—I do not know whether it is a grin of derision or a grin of support. In terms of promoting the use of te reo, I would have thought that this might be an opportunity to give the bill a Māori title.

I am very mindful of the fact that the spokesperson for Ngāti Manawa was very emphatic about what Ngāti Manawa meant in relation to his tribe. Of course, I can appreciate what he said. But I think that we will see similar titles in terms of collectives and affiliates, and I suppose this title does provide a blueprint for titles of similar settlement bills. There is an opportunity for both the Crown and negotiators to consider Māori titles for our legislation. During my first term in this House I can recall making references to the opportunity of giving bills Māori titles. If it is OK for the House to provide committee reports back to the House in te reo Māori, then I think that at some time in the near future we should be seeing bills that pass into law being written in te reo Māori.

New Zealand First does not have any concerns about the title of this bill or its commencement date. Kia ora.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 not agreed to.

New clause 2 Commencement

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 230 in the name of the Hon Dr Michael Cullen to insert new clause 2 be agreed to.

New clause 2 agreed to.

Bill reported with amendment.

Report adopted.

Bills

Financial Advisers Bill

Second Reading

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Commerce): I move, That the Financial Advisers Bill be now read a second time. I would like to begin by thanking the Finance and Expenditure Committee, in particular Charles Chauvel, the chairperson of that committee, and Simon Power, the lead member for the National Party. I also thank all of the officials for the work they have done. We now have a bill in this House that will accomplish its objective of encouraging the sound and efficient delivery of financial advice, which should boost confidence in the use of such advice.

A number of comments have been made in the last few weeks—and, indeed, seconds—suggesting that the Government should slow the passage of this bill, primarily because of the extent of the changes the committee has made. However, I have personally made the effort to speak to, or meet with, as many of those people as I possibly could, and I am confident that we now have a way forward with this bill. I thank the industry for sharing its expertise with me in order to help us get this right. As I said to the industry, I did not want to lose the 6 months that a delay beyond the election would entail, because those 6 months can be put to very good use.

That being said, I have taken on board the concerns expressed by those who fear that we may not have picked up everything. Given that a lot of the detail of the new structure will be included in regulations, I have decided to establish a working group that will encompass representatives of the industry, the Ministry of Economic Development, and the Securities Commission to provide a feedback loop as we go forward.

The committee has recommended changes to the bill that, first, focus on financial products, in contrast to financial decisions, as was originally proposed in the bill; second, adopt a tiered approach to the authorisation of financial advisers that will provide two tiers of advisers, category 1 and category 2, based on the complexity of the products they advise on, and enable the adoption of a qualifying financial entity model, which will ensure there is appropriate regulatory coverage of advisers within these institutions while minimising the compliance costs that would otherwise be associated without that model in place; and, third, ensure that the bill provides clear and appropriate exemptions from the definition of a financial adviser.

The most fundamental of these changes is the adoption of what the committee has termed a tiered approach to regulation. The risk-based approach will see more complex advice, such as advice on derivatives, portfolio investment entity products, and other complex securities or financial planning services, subject to greater regulatory control than advice on simple products. These category 1 advisers will need to be individually authorised by the Securities Commission to provide financial advice. They will be known in the future as authorised financial advisers.

This does not mean that advisers who advise on simple products will be totally unregulated. Rather, the bill provides that advisers, namely those who are providing advice on products such as consumer credit contracts and insurance products, must comply with basic conduct and disclosure requirements. They will also be required to be registered and be members of a dispute resolution scheme, and that is dealt with in another bill that we will be dealing with before the House rises.

The third category of adviser will be employees or agents of a qualifying financial entity, and I envisage that they will be banks and insurance companies, credit unions, potentially, and other organisations such as building societies—that sort of thing. The qualifying financial entity status will be granted to those institutions that have appropriate processes in place to ensure that any employees or agents covered by that status operate appropriately. These entities will be able to meet all of the registration and disclosure obligations on behalf of their employees and agents, and, indeed, the membership of the dispute resolution body, as well. However, employees who are category 1 advisers or agents working for those institutions, or working to them, will still need to be individually authorised. That means they will have to be authorised financial advisers individually authorised by the Securities Commission. This will ensure that there is a level playing field between advisers who work for such organisations or to such organisations as agents and those who operate independently.

The most fundamental change proposed by the committee was one signalled early on in the process, and that is the proposal to shift away from the approved professional bodies co-regulatory model, which I announced nearly 2 years ago. The committee has recommended that the Securities Commission undertake all regulatory oversight of financial advisers. I agree with that, and, as I have said on more than one occasion now, the co-regulatory model could not have survived the level of mistrust and anger that exists amongst an investing public who feel they have been betrayed. I wish that was not the case, but it is the case, and that is why we cannot go forward with anything that signals any form of self-regulation in this environment. In my view, such a proposal at this time would not be sustainable. My regret is that I was not alert to this issue before the Financial Advisers Bill was introduced.

Some industry organisations raised concerns about their ability to undertaken the disciplinary functions that were contemplated for approved professional bodies in the bill as it was introduced. If it had ensued that industry organisations did not have the capacity to undertake the necessary disciplinary functions, the Securities Commission would have been required to act in the place of approved professional bodies anyway. This would have required the commission to adopt an approach that catered to the diversity of standards that may have emerged across the industry. This in itself would likely lead to increased transaction costs for both the industry and the regulator. The approach we have adopted in the end aligns with the approach taken in respect of other occupational regulatory regimes in New Zealand, including the regulatory framework for accountants, lawyers, real estate agents, electrical workers, and architects, which means it is better placed for trans-Tasman mutual recognition, as well. Although some commentators have claimed that this would result in the loss of industry expertise and the development of rules, I believe that the committee has come up with a sensible and workable solution to alleviate this concern, as well. The committee has recommended that a commissioner of financial advisers be appointed to the Securities Commission, with the front-line focus of the commissioner’s work being on financial advisers.

A code committee and a disciplinary committee will be established under this bill, as well. Both committees will obviously need to include advisers with industry experience. This will allow industry representatives to be involved in the promulgation of the professional code of conduct to govern authorised financial advisers and the discipline of the profession. I think the select committee has done a good job of ensuring that we get the best of both worlds. Further, the code committee will obviously be obliged to consult with advisers more broadly, and with other stakeholders, when developing the code.

In conclusion, I reiterate my gratitude to the industry, especially to those who came to talk to me about their concerns; and to the Finance and Expenditure Committee. Again, I single out Charles Chauvel as an excellent chair of that committee, and Simon Power. They were both excellent to work with. The other thing I place on record is that I have really appreciated the fact that where there were concerns, people came and talked to me about them and we were able to address them in a sensible way. I also congratulate the officials, who worked long hours, well beyond the call of duty, and the parliamentary counsel officer assigned to work on the bill. This bill represents an extraordinary effort and a very good outcome. I commend the bill to the House.

SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker—

Hon Darren Hughes: Oh, Sarah Palin!

SIMON POWER: What does that member’s billboard look like! I take this opportunity to thank the Minister for her opening remarks. It seems that the Hon Lianne Dalziel and I ended up with two of the most complicated and difficult pieces of legislation to work on—this bill, and what is now the Commerce Amendment Act—over the course of the last 12 months. As I said also in the debates relating to that Act, the Minister has always been forthcoming, has made advice available, and has been pretty open-minded, on the whole, when I have made suggestions during the course of the development of this legislation, and I am grateful for that.

One or two things do need to be said in respect of the opening stages of this bill. First of all, the Minister has been generous in her praise of the officials, and I certainly share that view when it comes to the enormous amount of work those people on the committee did in the initial phases. But in fairness, and in no way reflecting on the Minister, who I think did her best in the initial stages, I say that the first draft of the legislation that was put before myself and others—and, to be fair, probably before the House—was poor. It was not up to scratch.

Hon Lianne Dalziel: Fundamentally flawed.

SIMON POWER: The Minister is prepared to say that it was fundamentally flawed, and good on her for saying that! Quite frankly, the legislation showed so many different drafting styles within the one bill that to the outside eye it was obvious that personnel and staff had changed during the course of the development of that first draft. It was hopeless legislation. It would have meant that the way financial advice was defined, and the way that financial advice was captured, was so random—for want of a modern term, for the sake of the Hon Darren Hughes—that big holes would have emerged instantly in different areas of financial advice. I think—and this is a personal view—that the first draft of the legislation that we looked at did not bear that good a resemblance to the original recommendations under the review of financial products and providers done by the ministry. To be fair to the Minister, when those issues were raised with her she took them on board and asked those officials for some changes.

It became clear early on that trying to define advice by occupation was simply not going to work. That meant, for example—and I know the Minister tires of me using these examples, but it is my 10 minutes—that if a bank teller standing behind a counter told a customer who had $10,000 in a savings account that the money should be put on term deposit, the bank teller would have been caught for giving financial advice. If a real estate agent put an advertisement in the paper to say that a rental property was currently returning a 5.7 percent yield on investment in rent, and that that was what it would continue to return, should the property be purchased at the current price, in my opinion that would also be financial advice. If a travel agent told a customer what insurance product the customer should purchase for his or her trip, that would be financial advice. We may not think about it in those terms, and, frankly, for nine out of 10 people purchasing travel insurance it probably would not have made the slightest bit of difference. But for the one out of 10 instances where someone in the family ends up ill—and I myself have been in this position—what is given in the advice and what is contained in the insurance policy does matter. But, again, that is financial advice, because it will have an immediate financial implication on what a traveller can or cannot do, based on the wording of the policy.

So then the Minister decided that we would try to look at it from a product perspective, which I thought was a more sensible approach. It became clear, though, that even within that approach, trying to create a layered level of differentiation and differing regulatory environments, depending on the level of advice or product—whether it was simple or complex—provided its own difficulties. In that case, it would have been difficult to provide an overall framework that then allowed those more distinguished categories to fall underneath it. This was where the beauty of the select committee process was so helpful. On the first day of the select committee hearing, the chairperson of the committee, Charles Chauvel, decided that he would allow everybody 10 minutes speaking time—he had negotiated with me; there was nothing wrong with that. But it became clear, after we had heard a 35-minute submission from the first submitter, I think, from memory—it was certainly well over 20 minutes—that we would have to use the submission process to try to rewrite the bill. So at that point, as submitters were coming forward, I and others on the committee—the Hon Paul Swain was there; I remember that clearly because he had his disc with his CV on it, on the table—started negotiating in a way that put ideas on the table, at the time, for submitters to comment on. That was a bit unfair to the submitters, because they had not come prepared for that type of approach. But I think, in the time I have been here, it was one of the most constructive discussions we were able to have. Then we decided that an interim report was appropriate, in the first instance, and then, extraordinarily—in my time here I cannot remember this happening before—a second interim report would be made to the House, consequently driving further consultation with the industry, which was absolutely essential because of the massive changes being made.

I remember sitting in the committee one day and the poor chap from the Parliamentary Counsel Office was sitting opposite. We said at that time: “OK, if we were to make these changes, how much of the existing legislation would remain in place and how much would you have to redraft?”. He said we could keep the first three clauses. At that point we knew we had a big job on our hands—a big job on our hands. But to be fair to parliamentary counsel and to the officials on that committee, who were just stunning in the way they approached it, we managed to get the job done.

I do not think that the job is finished. I still think there will be a much more subtle refining of the categorisation of financial product, as time goes on, and I think that the flexibility around the regulatory regime at that level is important. That will develop and mature as time passes. I hate to say it but I do not think we have seen the last of a discussion about financial advisers legislation. I still think we will have to refine it as we go along. Having said that, I say that National certainly supports this bill in its second reading and believes it is an extremely good step in the right direction.

When we come to the detail of the bill in the Committee of the whole House—the financial accreditation—the Securities Commission as the sole regulator is a model that is absolutely correct. The Securities Commission should be the sole regulator. I believe that that is absolutely the right move, but I will talk about it in more detail during the Committee stage.

Before we move to the Committee of the whole House—and I know there will be other members in the House who will want to make a contribution—I say that I was very interested to hear the Minister of Commerce talk about a working-group being set up for further discussion. I think that is a good move. I believe she said that industry representatives, representatives from the Securities Commission, and officials from the Ministry of Economic Development would be involved. When we get to the Committee stage, I will be interested to know whether we will have any investor representation on that working-group—in other words, whether we will hear what the users of those people who are providing the product would be looking for. I would be interested in any comment the Minister might want to make in that regard.

We are dealing with an industry that we can talk about having losses or funds at risk in the billions. This is an extremely serious matter. It is a matter that the National Party will not delay during this urgency motion, because we are keen to give a signal very early on, as John Key did when he wrote to the Prime Minister many, many months ago to say we would work with the Government in a bipartisan way on this issue. I was then dispatched to deal with the Minister of Commerce, and this matter has been dealt with in a bipartisan way. Sometimes in politics, issues are too big for political discourse, and this is one of those issues. We have an obligation as a Parliament to ensure the security of our financial markets. This is a step in the right direction. We will deal with the detail in the Committee stage. National will support this legislation.

R DOUG WOOLERTON (NZ First): I will take just a short call to say New Zealand First supports the passage of the Financial Advisers Bill. As the Minister of Commerce and Mr Power have said, this bill is long overdue. A few financial advisers and people who came before us in the Finance and Expenditure Committee thought there should be no more regulation around their activities. They believed that their business was a fast-moving one, and that the people they were talking to could judge in their own best interests whether the advice they were given was good or bad. Obviously, we disagreed with that, and so did the majority of the people involved in the industry. It was heartening to see that, with a few exceptions, people had a responsible attitude to the proposed legislation, and were keen to help.

We have also heard from the two speakers earlier that a lot of changes have been made to the bill. In fact, when we look at the bill, we see there are many pages of ruled-out text, with new text following that. That is the way it should be. It is not until we come face to face with the participants in the industry, not just the ones chosen to help officials through the process of preparing the legislation—although that is a good process, as well—but the ones who are actively involved, day to day, with their customers, and until we hear about their problems, the distinctions they have to make, and the care with which they have to approach these issues that we can actually get a full handle on the situation. I also agree that refinements will be made to the legislation in years to come. It was admitted during the hearing of submissions that every time new regulation comes into force, somebody out there will find a way around it that is not in the clients’ interests, and that will need to be blocked off in the future.

There were days, years ago, when the Government of the day believed that there was no need for any of this regulation, and that both those who were seeking help with investments and those who were giving advice on investments could go about their business without any need for the Government to be involved in those transactions in any way whatsoever. We have come to rue the day when those thought processes were the rule rather than the exception, and we are now seeing something rather nasty start to happen in this country, of a similar nature to what has occurred elsewhere. In America we are seeing the Government has had to hop in and prop up institutions where the people involved were not, in fact, qualified to know what was going on and did not know what was going on, but proceeded without any caution nevertheless.

Just as with any other industry, the public have a right to know whom they are talking to when they seek financial advice. They have a right to know the qualifications of that person, the experience of that person, and whether that person has been involved in any shonky dealings hitherto.

Hon Darren Hughes: Like John Key.

R DOUG WOOLERTON: I could not possibly comment. This legislation provides some of those assurances. I have to say, just before I sit down on this part, that it will not take away the risk to the public. It cannot do that, and it is not professing to do that. But it will give the public an indication of whom they are dealing with, and, in another bill, an avenue to redress the situation as well, because this is part of a suite of bills.

I say New Zealand First supports the Financial Advisers Bill, and we will be supporting the other bills that surround this issue.

Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Māori Party): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker, tēnā tātou katoa. The Māori Party is pleased to support the Financial Advisers Bill, to enable a clear distinction to be made between financial advice that carries significant risk for consumers and advice that carries minimal risks. The intention of the bill is honourable, but the bill is well overdue.

An analysis of 25 financial advisory firms by Stephenson Thorner and fi360 Australasia, released earlier this year, concluded that many financial advisers may look trustworthy but are potentially risky. The risk factor is all around the concept of trust. The study showed that most New Zealand advisers ran their businesses with an inadequate duty of care. In fact, the study went as far as to say their reports verged on becoming dysfunctional. Just how dysfunctional some of the sharks in the industry have been is old news now, given the fact that more than a dozen New Zealand finance firms have gone under in the past 18 months. That is nearly $2 billion of investors’ money gone down the tubes. It is not in dispute that something had to be done. There have been frequent and increasingly urgent calls for tighter Government controls, to tidy up the sector and make it more accountable to investors.

It is not as though we have not been down this road before. Many of us remember the mortgage scandals of the mid-1980s, when an unregulated sector of the finance industry extracted millions of dollars from what could only be called unsophisticated investors. That is a flash name for what the industry calls mum and dad investors: a segment of the population, including Māori, who have been investing their savings without necessarily realising the risk—

R Doug Woolerton: Most of the population.

Dr PITA SHARPLES: —yes—that they were exposing themselves to. In the 1980s the contributory mortgage companies screwed millions of dollars from New Zealanders lured by the promise of a quick buck and high interest rates. The classic was Registered Securities Ltd (RSL), which, when it collapsed in July 1988, had ratcheted up loans to the sum of $97.8 million. Overnight, more than half of that was deemed to be irrecoverable.

But there is a startling difference between the contributory mortgage companies and the risk of the non-regulated financial companies and financial advisers. Back in mid-1988, when RSL hit the bottom of the market, the then Minister of Justice, Sir Geoffrey Palmer, immediately took decisive action by amending the Securities Act. His amendments covered contributory mortgages and introduced sector-specific regulations, yet here we are, 20 years later, finally getting around to introducing regulations to increase prudential standards—a move we support, but action that should have taken place a lot earlier than it has.

The point is, we are not talking about people getting sucked into the Nigerian multimillion-dollar banking scams. Members know the type: “A tragedy has befallen us. Your long-lost Uncle Nigel has drowned, leaving you as the sole benefactor of his estate. All we need is your bank account.” Everyday New Zealanders—the mythical middle New Zealanders—are being stung here. We are not talking about businesses or corporates; everyday citizens have been placed at risk. We are talking about the people whom successive Governments have ignored: humble, trusting investors, many of whom have entrusted their life savings to finance companies. Their lives have been turned inside out by the callous squandering of their funds. Worse, not only do they have to endure the shame and guilt of having their funds squandered but also they are literally powerless and unable to afford the cost of legal advice.

The Māori Party has always stood up for people who too often are voiceless in the corridors of power, and our support for this bill is no exception to that. Sure, the bill is a good thing. The regulatory framework should promote confidence and participation in the financial markets by investors and institutions. That is all positive. But what about those who have been burned by financial advisers and who are teetering on the brink of collapse? What measures have been put in place to look after their interests? Will the Securities Commission launch an inquiry into how those large-scale losses were able to occur? What support will be available for clients who have lost money to enable them to launch court proceedings against financial advisers who have been negligent?

The issue all comes down to the basic truths around justice and the nature of power. One of the tikanga of the Māori Party around kaitiakitanga encourages us to promote the active exercise of responsibility in a manner that is beneficial to resources and the welfare of the people. In everyday language, that means we promote the goals of living in a society where crooks and shonky advisers are not welcome. In other words, there should be sanctions in place to ensure that those types of people—people who are negligent in their responsibility to care for the resources and collective good of their community—are not able to prosper.

One could say, as the National Business Review has said recently, that there have been sanctions against murderers and robbers for centuries, but society still has not been able to eradicate such crimes. But for my money, I want to live in a society where careful analysis and prudent assessment of risk are routinely part of the package for any financial deal, where credibility and experience matter, and where an individual can make an informed judgment about the qualifications and professional standing of a financial adviser before leaping in. In reality, Māori businesses do not usually use finance companies to finance their business developments. The interest rates are too high, and often security is required over land, so it is a no-go area. Banks are more likely to secure loans over cash flow, stock, equipment, and machinery, without having to rely on putting our whenua at risk.

The Māori Party will support this bill. We think it provides changes that are necessary to allow deposit takers to be better monitored and evaluated, and at the end of the day that has to be better for the nation and for all our people in moving forward. But, notwithstanding all the regulations, approvals, enforcement, and remedies included in the scope of the legislation, the key to success will rest in the conduct obligations outlined in the bill. The bill specifically obliges financial advisers to act with integrity and competence. Integrity cannot be regulated for, but it nevertheless must be a foundation in order for the changes to actually work. We need to have protection for consumers, and we need to have the changes provided in this bill in order to ensure an effective environment operates.

Finally, although we support this bill at these final readings, we wonder why it was separated out from a bill that is on the Order Paper to come up later, the Financial Service Providers (Registration and Dispute Resolution) Bill. Surely logic would demand that the two bills be read together to ensure due focus on the health of the sector. Thank you.

CHRIS TREMAIN (National—Napier): Thank you for the opportunity to speak on the second reading of the Financial Advisers Bill. I pick up where my lead speaker, Simon Power, left off. He said that we are dealing with an industry where the losses are in the millions of dollars. I add to that by saying that the focus is not just on the industry, where the losses are in the millions, but, more rightly so, I think, on the consumers who have invested in those businesses and who have lost multiple millions of dollars in the process. That is really where the focus of this legislation should be. At the end of the day this House stands to protect the rights of individuals in the community, and to understand that there will always be risk in any investment across the range, but that, ultimately, we should be there to try to protect consumers as much as possible in their decisions around investments.

I want to pick up on the losses, just to make it clear to people who may be listening to this debate on this Wednesday morning what we are actually dealing with.

R Doug Woolerton: Not that many!

CHRIS TREMAIN: Not that many! We are talking about $1.925 billion of losses, which is significant. That was highlighted in the May Financial Stability Report. That is huge money. We are talking about $300 million out of Provincial Finance, $459 million out of Bridgecorp, $149 million out of Nathans Finance, $187 million out of Capital + Merchant, $127 million out of Lombard Group, $141 million out of Geneva Finance, and $319 million out of MFS Boston. This is huge money—$1.925 billion. These companies have gone into receivership or into moratorium over that period. There have been a few more since that financial stability report came out. By no means have all these companies fallen over because of shonky dealings—not by any stretch. It was due mainly to the credit crunch and not due to fraudulent activity. It is important that people understand that.

Hon Lianne Dalziel: How do you know that? There are still investigations going on.

CHRIS TREMAIN: I am saying that by no means did all of those companies fall over because of fraudulent activities. I think the Minister would have to acknowledge that. Certainly some of them did. The credit crunch has caused a run on funds. Many of those companies, under the market as it was before, had quite sound—

Hon Lianne Dalziel: The failure of Bridgecorp caused the run in New Zealand.

CHRIS TREMAIN: —just listen—balance sheets. Some of them have fallen over because of the credit crunch, not because of fraudulent activities. A number of high-profile companies outside the finance sector have also recently gone into liquidation, and I will talk about Blue Chip properties, which have gone under in very dubious circumstances, and are still under investigation.

Hon Lianne Dalziel: What’s that got to do with the Financial Advisers Bill?

CHRIS TREMAIN: A heck of a lot. The member will understand that many financial advisers actually recommended their clients to go into that company, and that is whom we are trying to regulate.

Hon Lianne Dalziel: Not any I know.

CHRIS TREMAIN: No financial advisers that the member knows? A heap of them out there recommended Blue Chip properties. I ask the Minister what world she is living in.

Hon Lianne Dalziel: No, they were specific Blue Chip advisers.

CHRIS TREMAIN: No, there were not. Third party advisers were recommending Blue Chip. That is for sure.

Hon Lianne Dalziel: Name one.

CHRIS TREMAIN: I could do that, but I think I would be breaching parliamentary privilege. I will not go there. I will not enter into that argument. Most of the investors were referred by way of a strong commission incentive and were referred by financial advisers around the country.

A number of constituents have come to see me in my office about this particular issue. One woman, whose husband died in the middle of the process, had been encouraged to gear up her house to buy not one but two apartments. Recent valuations on two properties she owns show that if she sold on today’s market she would stand to lose the majority, if not all, of the equity in the property that she owns. She is faced with the liquidation of Blue Chip and no rent guarantee. She cannot afford the monthly commitments to mortgage costs and has therefore been forced to sell her apartments at a significant loss.

Financial advice like that puts some people into very difficult situations. With all this contagion around the global financial market place, the Government has seen fit to introduce a suite of legislation not to remove the risk from financial investments, as there will always be risk, but to raise the bar on those who enter the financial markets either to provide investment products or to proffer advice and to benefit from that advice by way of a fee or a commission. The Reserve Bank of New Zealand Amendment Bill (No 3) was the first in this suite of legislation. That bill addressed prudential requirements of the non-bank deposit takers, and it was passed during the previous sitting period. National supported that legislation.

The Financial Advisers Bill, together with the Financial Service Providers (Registration and Dispute Resolution) Bill, aims to address the regulation of financial advisers, and to lift the benchmark and rigour around those who can be financial advisers, their qualifications, and the means by which consumers can seek to resolve disputes with financial advisers and those who provide financial products. The Financial Advisers Bill is being debated in its second reading today, and quite clearly National supports it.

The purpose of the bill, which we will cover in the Committee stage, is quite detailed in Part 1. The first purpose is to require disclosure by financial advisers, and the second purpose is to require increased competency in the financial advisers who are proffering a range of products. Some advisers out there—and the Minister begs to differ with me on this—were proffering advice not only on financial products but also on some real estate investments in Blue Chip. The third purpose of the bill is to ensure that financial advisers are held accountable for the financial advice they give.

The first round of submissions on the bill received much debate and we have covered that in the debate today in the House. The draft legislation hit the Finance and Expenditure Committee, which my colleague Craig Foss and I are on, and was ultimately thrown out. In fact, as the Minister agreed, it was totally amended.

There are four key areas of change that I would like to address today in my remaining time. Firstly, the bill now amends the coverage of the bill—whom it applies to and what is covered. Secondly, the new legislation amends the Securities Commission, which will now have the sole responsibility to undertake the regulatory oversight of financial advisers. As such it is proposed that the commission will be responsible for approving, monitoring, and having oversight of all financial advisers. The third area of change is to amend the bill in relation to statutory offences, obligations, and a penalty framework. I propose to spend the rest of my speech focusing on the coverage of the bill where there have been five significant changes to the bill as first mooted.

Firstly, the focus now shifts to financial products whereas the original focus of the bill was on financial decisions. We now have a definition, which we will cover in the Committee stage, for two categories of financial product: category 1 and category 2. There are effectively seven products that have been divided into two tiers of financial product. The seven products are complex securities, investment broking, savings or investment planning, simple securities, insurance, credit, and real estate. These are very important distinctions now, because the complexity and level of risk that accompany these products are significantly different between each product. Some products at the higher end certainly involve a lot more risk, and we believe more regulation needs to be provided for the level of advice given in the higher categories. We heard in the select committee process from many different submitters, from the high end to the low end, but it was in respect of those who provide financial advice at the lower end—the salesperson at the Noel Leeming store who is providing pretty basic advice under the Credit Contracts Act—that the level of financial regulation that we were initially looking to impose was really out of control.

The second area of change is the adoption of a tiered approach to the authorisation of financial advisers, which I have spoken on briefly. Effectively, the products I have just described are broken into two tiers and there will be two levels of regulation that deal with those two tiers.

Thirdly, we are going to ensure that those providing financial advice on securities or investments, savings, and planning now become authorised financial agents. Members will see references to “authorised financial advisers throughout the legislation. An authorised financial adviser will be required to have certification to deal with tier 1 advice on tier 1 products.

Fourthly, in terms of changes to the bill, we will be adopting certified financial institutions. Large institutions dealing with significant franchise networks will be able to apply to be a certified financial institution and effectively take responsibility for their advisers and make sure that they are imparting not only the knowledge but the responsibility and accountability for their advisers going forward.

Lastly, the amendments that relate to the scope of the bill will ensure that the bill provides clear and appropriate exemptions from the definition of financial adviser. I will use my time in the Committee stage to focus particularly on the exemption of budget advisers, who originally were in the legislation but have now been taken out of it. Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

CRAIG FOSS (National—Tukituki): I rise to continue the National speeches in support of the second reading of the Financial Advisers Bill. Colleagues have talked about the suite of bills—and I am sure that the Minister of Commerce covered it; I missed her speech—that hold hands with this particular bill: the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Amendment Bill (No 3) and the Financial Services Providers (Registration and Dispute Resolution) Bill. It is all good stuff and quite timely—even more timely now, I guess, given the condition of, and events in, the financial markets since this bill was referred to the Finance and Expenditure Committee on 19 February 2008.

There is one thing. My colleague Mr Tremain gave the example of someone caught up in the current crisis, and I heard someone from the Government side of the House—I do not know whose voice it was—say that real estate agents are exempt from this bill. Yes, real estate agents are exempt from this bill, but that comment showed the incredible naivety and the lack of financial literacy of whoever it was who shouted it out. The commentary on the bill talks about “category 1 products (complex products such as a security other than …”. The bill excludes property quite explicitly—that is right. But if members look at the cause of the current subprime mortgage crisis around the world, they have to ask what a subprime mortgage is. It is not the initial transaction of purchasing a property for sale; it is the ongoing leverage or de-leverage of the financing of property. That is what a subprime mortgage in the United States is. Investors around the world, including some in New Zealand, have been caught out by lending on property with a somewhat dubious valuation and, perhaps, associated transactions and fees. So, yes, those investments in property are affected by the intent of this bill; they will be caught up by it.

At the end of the day, it is all about asset classes, be it hard assets such as property, the derivatives of property, or financial instruments down the chain. They will all be picked up. Property is explicitly excluded here in the first instance, but if we go down one or two generations of any transaction, of any of the current crises, we see that the core asset devaluation, the core deflation of those balance sheets, is about property. Yes, those investors might not be the initial owners of the property, but if we look down the titles, we see that they are guarantors and there is cross-party lending on the titles. Yes, this bill and the other two bills pick up some of those issues, but let us try to talk sensibly about the financial markets.

I have here the first version of the bill, which was referred to the select committee. I notice only one Government member of the committee here, and I am looking forward to her speech on this bill. The bill that was referred to us on 19 February 2008 and the bill that we have before us are a credit to the process, but, goodness gracious me, the first 70 pages of the original version are struck out—the first five parts are totally gutted, struck out, rewritten. That is a good reflection of the process, which Simon Power alluded to—well done. Yes, we acknowledge the Minister and her ambitions to have good, robust, and long-lasting legislation—we fully appreciate that—but we went through a fair few hoops on the way to get there. Who is to blame? I do not know. Perhaps those who were involved in the first draft needed a bit more input from the real world. What we see before us now is a better reflection of the real world, because it is a reflection of the risk of investments and advice, and that is entirely what financial markets are about. They are about the pricing, applications, and return—reward—of risk, rather than individual occupations, individual products, etc. As Mr Power said earlier, there is still some work to do, but this bill is a good start. I am pleased to have been able, with my colleagues on the select committee, to contribute to the bill before us now.

My colleague Mr Power also made the point about travel agents. I remember during the submissions process asking about travel agents, and we seemed to park that issue, saying that it was just travel agents and insurance. But we made the point that many people ask their travel agent when they should buy some foreign exchange. They say they are going to the United States, and they ask whether they should buy US dollars now or in 6 months’ time when they go there—and we have all seen the volatility of the foreign exchange markets. The travel agent’s response qualified as financial advice; the travel agent is doing his or her best, and maybe is just reading something off a computer screen, but, under the original bill, that information would have constituted financial advice. There are myriad different examples like that, from the hire purchase example in the commentary to the car salesman who offers advice on which loan to take, or even which deposit to make—a 3-month, a 6-month, or a 12-month one—if the rates for each one are the same, because, as those with some financial literacy will know, they are not actually all the same.

My colleagues have spoken about the current conditions in financial markets around the world, which are under major stress. I think about $5 billion is either frozen or very, very stressed within New Zealand. But I acknowledge that New Zealand has many robust institutions—banking and non-banking—that are performing very well, and their depositors’ funds are very, very safe indeed. I acknowledge those institutions, and I appreciate the tough times they are having as they search for funding and capital.

I would like to make the point that the original bill was referred to the select committee on 19 February 2008, and the closing date for submissions was 4 April 2008. As submission after submission came in, goodness gracious me, it was pretty obvious by that stage that the bill would need amending. So there was the first interim report, and the closing date for submissions on it was 16 May 2008. Then the second interim report came out, and that is pretty much what we have before us today, and the closing date for submissions was 22 August 2008. I sat in on many of those submissions and there were common themes. As I said before, I acknowledge the path that this bill has taken to get to the more realistic and real-world form that it is in now, but again I question why it needed to take such a tortuous and long path in the first place. It was almost an example of real-time submissions and bill-making, as Mr Power alluded to earlier. Engaging with the submitters was a very healthy process. They knew their stuff, and, for a lot of it, they knew it better than many of the members sitting round the committee table did.

It is interesting to have this example, because, at least, better legislation come out of the select committee process. Imagine if that process had been extended to the Electoral Finance Act, which was raced through under urgency prior to Christmas last year. That legislation is creating all sorts of problems. Imagine if the same process had been extended to the emissions trading scheme bill. A thousand amendments to that bill were not submitted on, and another 785 amendments were made to the bill that arrived back in the House. A total of 1,785 amendments that had not been submitted on were raced through the House under urgency. Even KiwiSaver was in the same bucket. Good legislation does take good select committee time, but most members would acknowledge that they are on a select committee to, at least, make legislation as good, robust, and long-lasting as possible.

During the Committee stage I will be picking up a few points. My colleague Chris Tremain picked up that about $5 billion is under stress at the moment within New Zealand. Some of that is because of allegedly fraudulent and dodgy activities, but much of it is from the market going against the investors—whatever they were. We have to distinguish between the two, because the Serious Fraud Office, the Securities Commission, and the police are investigating many of those instances right now.

I again make the point in this House that in the current environment—and I am sure the Minister said the same thing—with the stress in the financial sector, now is a terrible time to be getting rid of the Serious Fraud Office. This bill is forward-looking—it is not retrospective—but at least we have the Serious Fraud Office to look at alleged misdemeanours that this bill cannot address, yet the current administration is trying to wipe that office off the face of the earth. What an absolutely absurd time to do that, with the stresses and the strains that the financial markets are under!

I look forward to the Committee stage. I look forward to robust speeches from the other side; as we are sitting under urgency, they must urgently want to speak. I will speak again in the Committee stage.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

Part 1 Preliminary provisions

SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei): I have to confess that I may have misled the House during the second reading of the Financial Advisers Bill. I made the statement that advisers had told the House that only three clauses of the original bill would remain in the event that matters were completely redrafted from start to finish. Now that I have had a closer look at the bill, it seems there are only two: clauses 1 and 2. In the bill as reported back to the House it now seems that pages 9 to 70 have been struck out, with a fresh start being made on page 70 with clause 3, relating to the purpose of the bill, which is, of course, what we are here to discuss in the Committee stage today.

If we work our way through Part 1, and I know we are anxious to take a few calls—not several calls, but a few calls—on each part as we work our way through the bill, we find that the stated purpose “to promote sound and efficient delivery of financial advice, and to encourage public confidence in the professionalism and integrity of public advisers” is a pretty good summary of where we are at today. As I said in the second reading, it is impossible for any legislature to attempt to pass legislation to eliminate risk, and nor should a legislature attempt to do such a thing, because risk goes hand in hand with return. But this legislation seeks to require disclosure by financial advisers, in order to ensure that decisions about whether to use a financial adviser are informed. It requires competency on the part of financial advisers to ensure that this advice is available to investors and consumers, requires that they have the necessary experience, expertise, and integrity—I am not quite sure how one legislates for integrity—to effectively match a person to a financial product, and requires that financial advisers are held accountable for financial advice that they give.

Those are three broad and meritorious statements. The point of the three of them is that where an investor approaches a financial adviser and seeks advice on a financial product, whether it be a simple or complex product, or where an investor seeks advice on a more complex financial transaction that is to do with, for example, reverse mortgages, different superannuation schemes, and property investment companies, the idea is that a certain level of disclosure and a certain level of competency should be available to the investor at the time that that advice is sought. The purpose clause attempts to capture the essence of the following: it is not the intention to legislate to prevent the loss of money in investments, because that would have the outcome of putting the Government into the position of being a guarantor, effectively, of investments, and that is not the way that markets work, nor is it appropriate for Governments to find themselves in that position. But investors are entitled to a degree of advice and competency from those from whom they seek advice, so that they are put in a position where they are best able to make decisions.

What we heard at the Finance and Expenditure Committee was quite interesting, on some days. On one particular day, I recall the committee receiving a submission that went something like this: there were some financial advisers who were not disclosing the commissions that they were receiving when a particular product was sold, but, worse than that, where they were conceding that a commission, or a benefit, was accruing to them if a particular product was sold, not all of the benefit from, or the discount on, that product selection was being passed on to the investor. In fact, on some occasions, we were told, a portion of that benefit was being retained by advisers themselves. We found, at that point, that the legislation needed to be broad enough to make sure that disclosure did cover off those sorts of situations.

I think the other important thing about the disclosure regime is that even investors who consider themselves to be quite skilled and thorough—investors who may have a legal background, or may have been in Parliament for some time—and who go along to their financial adviser out of a sense of nervousness, to make sure that their investments are all in the right place and have sufficient protection, would find themselves in an unenviable situation if they were confronted with a 5 or 6-page document to sign on the spot. What we need to avoid with this legislation is the situation where investors are put in that situation and told: “This covers that stuff. Just sign here, and everything will be fine.” Even the most careful and confident of investors would not want to be confronted with that type of paperwork at that time, prior to receiving the advice, and feel as though they must execute those documents.

This legislation has to avoid that situation occurring, and I am sure the Minister in the chair, the Hon Lianne Dalziel, will give us an assurance in that regard. The legislation has to avoid the situation where an investor is simply presented with a wad of documents, told to sign them on the spot before financial advice is given or received, and then that, in effect, releases the financial adviser from any of the obligations contained in this legislation. The short question to the Minister is, can a financial adviser contract out of the provisions of the legislation by presenting the investor with a disclosure document that the investor executes at the point the advice is received, and are we making sure that pushing on the investor, at the time that financial advice is offered, will not create any problems for the investor at that point? I think we are all keen to know exactly how, in practice, the Minister sees that particular set of circumstances working, because the last thing we want to do is to put in place a necessary and comprehensive piece of legislation to deal with financial advice, and then find from day one that the financial adviser can simply contract out of it, or assume that those obligations are discharged on the spot because a particular document has been executed. We will be interested to receive the Minister’s advice on that point.

Let us move then to clause 5, “Interpretation”. We see that “document” is well defined there, as is “Commissioner for Financial Advisers”. I say that is an exceptionally good idea and one that National is supportive of. Although “financial adviser” is defined in Part 1, the definition refers to “section 8”, or clause 8 of the bill, which is slightly further on. That definition warrants some attention at this point, but before I come to it I just point out that Part 2 deals with financial advisers and their disclosure and conduct obligations, but the definition of “financial adviser” is contained in Part 1, just in case members are concerned about that.

Clause 8 states: A financial adviser is an individual who performs a financial adviser service …”—yeah right! That does not really clear very much up. Clause 10 defines a “financial adviser service” as one performed by a person who gives financial advice, makes an investment transaction, or provides a financial planning service. So I have one more question for the Minister, and it relates to the definition of “financial adviser service”. When we were on the select committee, we heard about the distinction between financial advice and opinion. I note that the reference to opinion is not contained in the definition of “financial adviser service”, and I would be interested in hearing from the Minister on the issue of an opinion that is given by a financial adviser. Clause 11 defines when a person gives financial advice. I presume that financial advice is—oh, here we go. Clause 11 states that a person who gives financial advice “makes a recommendation or gives an opinion or guidance”—I take it all back Minister; it is crystal clear there—“in relation to acquiring or disposing of … a financial product.” So that issue is covered; I give my apology to the Minister.

But we look forward to hearing from the Minister about the signing of documents at the point of investment advice being sought, and what that means for any downstream effects or for the protection that the legislation may offer.

CRAIG FOSS (National—Tukituki): It is with great anticipation that I rise to speak in the Committee stage of this bill. I would like to touch on clause 6, “Act binds the Crown”. Obviously, the Crown is exempt from the regulations around this bill. But, firstly, I shall turn to clause 3, the purpose clause.

Clause 3 states: “The purpose of this Act is to promote the sound and efficient delivery of financial advice, and to encourage public confidence in the professionalism and integrity of financial advisers, by”. I was thinking somewhat laterally, as I do, about a situation in which the Crown were to give financial advice, then to renege on that financial advice—and I know that the Crown is exempt from this legislation. I give the example of the “chewing gum tax cut”, where people were given advice in a Budget, they made financial decisions and plans based on that advice, then the Minister of Finance reneged and took the “chewing gum tax cut” off the table. I would be interested to hear the Minister in the chair, the Hon Lianne Dalziel, make any comment at all on that matter. I know that it is a lateral thought, but if the public are to have confidence in the financial services industry, as is outlined in the purpose clause, then surely they need first of all to have confidence that the regulator, the Government of the country, will be true and hold to its word.

I turn to the interpretation clause and the definition of “advertisement”. It is plainly obvious that it is some form of communication. We recently had an example in Wellington that is not addressed by this bill or the disputes bill, but may fall under the Commerce Act, I guess. An organisation had a billboard outside its retail outlet offering funds at 8 percent interest, and at the bottom of the advertisement was the statement “8 percent p.w.”—per week. Most people who went in there to borrow money had no idea what “p.w.” meant. In fact, 8 percent interest per week compounded amounts to thousands of percent per annum. Under the Commerce Act, that organisation was being quite open, because the billboard stated “p.w.”, but the people using that service did not have the financial literacy to know what it meant. Perhaps we need some more financial education in the public domain, in our schools—and probably in Parliament.

I go back to a point I made before. Someone was interjecting on one of our previous speakers, who was speaking about real estate. I note the definition of “category 1 product”. Whoever interjected said that real estate is excluded, but the definition states that “category 1 product” means “any estate or interest in land for which a separate certificate of title can be issued …”. There you go! That is a derivative, because someone can own the land, can use it as a guarantee, can use it as collateral, can use it as security, and, way down the chain, someone can borrow against it to buy a car—someone whom the landowner has never ever met. There may be three people in the chain. That is why real estate is a category 1 product. I would be interested to hear the Minister clarify that. I do not whether she was the interjector. I give her the benefit of the doubt—perhaps she was not.

Complex derivatives, etc., are also category 1 products. The definition refers to futures contracts, or any other contracts that may be specified along the way. The crisis we currently have in the financial markets is in and around those complex products. Events that occurred initially in New York and Cleveland are affecting people right down here in New Zealand. Unfortunately, or fortunately, that has been part of the global financial system we are in.

In looking at clause 5, “Interpretation”, I point out the obligations of financial advisers, and who they are. As earlier speakers have noted, they are not liable for the return on any investment, as long as everything is declared upfront and disclosed, be it a category 1 product or a category 2 product. That is all well and good, but we must distinguish what they are, because in these current times, when New Zealand is in a recession, many people are looking at the advice they were given. They need to determine whether they were given the full information, and if they were not given it, whether that impacted on the return on their investment. Someone may advise someone else to invest in, say, Australian equities, and that adviser may forget to give that person the relevant foreign exchange advice. As I said earlier, it is all about risk.

I would be interested to hear other members speak about trust accounts. I refer to the definition of “trust account records”. Under this bill, we interpret “trust account records” to mean “records relating to a trust account; and (b) includes any information that relates to a trust account and that is recorded or stored by means of any tape recorder, computer, … and any material subsequently derived from information so recorded …”. As we all know, and without going into the detail, interpretations of trust accounts and what goes through them—the interpretation of them—and the impact on not only the trustees but the beneficiaries of those trusts, declared or otherwise, is a very pertinent issue before this House and before the public right now. On issues like that, the public has to have full confidence that the legislators in this House abide by the same rules that we ask the public and the financial advisers for whom we are regulating to abide by. We should put ourselves under the same microscope and regulation that this bill will put the financial sector under. Thank you, Mr Chairman.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): The question was that Part 1 stand part, and we have—

Simon Power: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairman. I am sorry for interrupting when you are just about to take the vote, but there were a couple of questions, and one in particular, that I had asked the Minister in the chair, the Hon Lianne Dalziel, during my contribution on Part 1. They related to circumstances where financial advisers were asking clients to sign documentation relating to disclosure. I just wondered whether before you put the vote, in order to keep the Minister’s contribution in order, she would be prepared to offer me some advice on that matter.

Hon Lianne Dalziel: Part 2.

Simon Power: Part 2?

Hon Lianne Dalziel: All the disclosure is in Part 2.

Simon Power: OK, well I am happy to wait until Part 2.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 253 in the name of the Hon Lianne Dalziel to Part 1 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

Part 1 as amended agreed to.

Part 2 Financial advisers and their disclosure and conduct obligations

SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei): This is a slightly more complex area than Part 1, and one of the most interesting measures in this part is clause 12. Clause 12 relates to when a certain person is not performing a financial adviser service when giving advice or doing a transaction. Of course, my colleague Craig Foss would have noted that real estate agents are mentioned in clause 12(g). I am not sure whether that is a desirable policy outcome, but I would certainly be interested in what other members think on that issue. Likewise, although we are fully supportive of the legislation, as members know, I am not 100 percent sure that also excluding lawyers and chartered accountants is a particularly good policy initiative, in the sense that in much of the work that I recall doing as a lawyer, during the short time that I had in that job, there was certainly a financial component to the advice that was given on a reasonably regular basis. I am sure that is equally so, or more so, in the case of chartered accountants, although I have never been in that profession.

One thing that is particularly interesting about clause 12 is the very important inclusion of a person providing free budgetary advice as part of a budgetary advice service offered by a non-profit organisation. As is so often the case at select committees, some of the most powerful submissions that came before the Finance and Expenditure Committee were not from the big business organisations or the big unions, but from the individuals who come before the committee. One particular individual, whose name I am afraid escapes me, came before the committee to express her concern that budgetary advice offered by citizens advice bureaus, or similar sorts of budgetary services, would, on a reading of the bill, be caught by its provisions. I think that the inclusion of clause 12(k) is an extremely important one, given that we certainly do not want to put people who are giving voluntary budget advice into a difficult position when they are undertaking what is, essentially, an unpaid voluntary community service.

Other people are included, of course, in the category of non-performance of financial advice services, such as teachers, lecturers, journalists, or State services employees who give advice in the course of working in those occupations, as are a Minister of the Crown and a member of Parliament—both in the course of performing their duties in those respective roles. As I have said, the list includes a lawyer, a chartered accountant, a tax agent, a real estate agent, a member of the board of a Crown entity, a Crown organisation, the Reserve Bank, a person providing free budgetary advice, and an employee giving advice to, or making an investment transaction on behalf of, his or her employer.

There are some references to KiwiSaver, investment transactions, and the offerer or target company in the course of a takeover. That is quite an interesting little inclusion there. In particular, the choice of words in clause 12(p) is, I think, quite odd, because we are saying that a person does not perform a financial adviser service if the person is “an independent adviser giving advice in the exercise of that person’s functions under the Takeovers Code”. The use of the language in the first part of that sub-definition would make one think, on first reading it, that that is exactly the type of person who is supposed to be captured by this legislation. The Minister is shaking her head, so no doubt we will hear from her on the issues relating to the Takeovers Code that need the provision of a special exemption.

Then there is the case of a person giving general commentary relating to a financial market. Again, that is quite an interesting little definition, because we could have regular columns from financial advisers, where one would write in and ask, say: “Dear Mr Foss, I have $10,000 sitting in a bank account. What is your recommendation? Should I put it into KiwiSaver or should I use it to pay my increased ACC levies?”. In that case, with regard to the response that Mr Foss gives in the media—hypothetically, of course—I would need to be convinced that the definition of general commentary is enough to exclude the appropriate general comments made about the nature of some of these investment schemes. But, of course, if one of these commentators makes the remark, in passing, that today the ASB is offering 9 percent over 30 days. as opposed to the BNZ offering 8.75 percent over the same period of time, and offers no specific advice in respect of those two current products on the market, I ask whether that steers an investor in a particular direction by its nature or inference, or whether it is general commentary, thereby excluding itself from that definition.

I suspect—and others in the National Party have said this during the second reading debate—that some areas of refinement will still be needed in this area after the election, regardless of who sits next to you, Mr Chairman, during the Committee stage of that refinement. I wonder whether we have made that provision certain enough. I see that the officials are busy chatting about these matters, and I would be interested to know exactly where we are heading with that particular point.

It is also interesting to note—

Mark Blumsky: That’s a good point.

SIMON POWER: I thank Mr Blumsky. We will miss that sort of input when the member leaves! The other thing I am interested in is clause 13, “Meaning of financial advice clarified”. Interestingly, in financial advice we do not include a prospectus, an investment statement, an authorised statement, a bank disclosure statement, a document or documents issued in lieu of a prospectus or investment statement, or a disclosure statement. One of the things I am interested in is the role of the corporate trustee when it comes to the process for having discussions about financial advice. The Minister knows, because we have shared the platform on one occasion recently at a financial advisers’ conference, that I am a bit keen to look at the front-line regulator, the corporate trustee, and make sure that its obligations and its role as a front-line regulator are being exercised in an appropriate way, to ensure that investors get the full picture. So we want to make sure that clause 13 does not let the front-line regulator off the hook, and I would be interested in receiving some guidance on that.

I will leave it there in terms of Part 2 of the bill, but I am keen to make a short contribution on the remaining parts.

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Commerce): I thank the member. I think that this is an appropriate time for me to do the mea culpa. People have asked who is to blame for the quality of the original bill as introduced, and I accept full responsibility for that. But there is one thing that I will say in defence of the line I took in terms of the occupational approach.

Simon Power: I wasn’t blaming you.

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: Other members made certain comments, so I thought I should accept responsibility. The point I want to make is simply this: if I had introduced a bill with a very narrow focus, nobody who ought to have been covered by this bill would have put their hands up and said: “Excuse me, you’ve left me out. Please include me.” By including everyone, by having a really broad definition, those who were not appropriately covered by this legislation were very quick to put their hands up and say: “Please take me out.” I still think that that was a good process in terms of getting everyone’s attention focused on who should be covered by the legislation. I do agree that shifting from the individual occupation to the type of advice they are giving, based on the product and the financial services planning, or the financial planning approach, is absolutely the right way to go.

I just draw the member’s attention to the Supplementary Order Paper, because there are some changes here that have picked up on some of the omissions. One is in respect of registered valuation, where, obviously, there could be potentially the giving of financial advice as a necessary incident of that work, so we have included that as well. We have picked up on the issuers and trustees.

Simon Power: Excluded that one, as a financial adviser.

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: Excluded—excluded. We have also picked up on the question of issuers and trustees, although I think that the point the member raises about the trustees, the front-line supervisors, is a very real one, and it is part of the next stage of the Review of Financial Products and Providers, which we have already announced is being held back a little while we do some further work arising very specifically out of the finance company failures of the last 2 years. There is further work to be done with regard to the front-line supervisors. We have already announced some of the original decisions that were taken, but I have made the statement publicly that there is further work to be done in that area.

In respect of the budget advisers, I was very, very concerned to make sure that budget advisers, who help people who are struggling to cope on minimal levels of income, would not be caught by the Financial Advisers Bill, which is about protecting people from the risk of losing their life-savings when they have money left over to invest. I wanted that dividing line to be even clearer than as reported back from the select committee, so we have actually picked up some concerns that have been raised by the citizens advice bureaus. So now the clause will exclude people giving advice or making an investment transaction in relation to a category 2 product, or providing a financial planning service, taking that in the broader sense, if the advice is given, the transaction is made, or the planning service is provided without charge in the course of a service offered by a non-profit organisation. So that really should clear the decks for those people to feel comfortable that they can just get on with the job of providing that support.

The third area I should highlight is the question of an employer providing assistance to an employee with the implementation of a decision to acquire or dispose of a financial product made available through the employee’s workplace. Not all workplace superannuation schemes will be KiwiSaver, for example, so I think it was important to focus more broadly on employers giving supportive information in order to assist the implementation of decisions that their employees make.

In respect of the comment made by the member in relation to the Takeovers Code, I should make the point that, yes, I know the language does sound difficult, and we do speak of financial advisers not including independent advisers giving advice, but the people who are appointed to enable people to make decisions as to whether to accept offers in a takeover situation are appointed under the Takeovers Act. Their independence is assured by that process, and the question around disclosure is covered by the independence that operates under the Takeovers Act. It is all monitored by the Takeovers Panel, and I think that is why it is excluded here. They do not have to go through having to disclose all of their situation, under this particular legislation.

Simon Power: So it’s not designed to exclude investment bankers.

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: It is not designed to exclude investment bankers, but this is a particular function that they have under another Act.

The last thing I want to comment on is the question of disclosure. I draw the member’s attention to the provisions of the bill, which talk about disclosure having to be in the form required by regulation. I think that that is one area about which I want to give the member some comfort. I remember going to a meeting of financial advisers, which included some of the representatives from the Australian industry. They talked about the number of pages that had been increased by the particular regulatory framework they had adopted over there. I have asked my officials to make sure that when they do this work on these regulations—and subsequently on the changes they will be making in the Securities Act area, which will cover investment statements—they make them short and simple, in plain English, and make them very accessible to those who are seeking to rely on them. The last thing we need is to have complex difficult documents. We want people to be able to access the level of information they need.

I think it is very important in this environment, where we have advisers being paid by way of commission from the people who are selling the products, that people have not only the information about the nature of that commission but also a comparator with those other commissions that might be available. Unless people know that their adviser is being paid a lot more to offer them a particular product, over and above something else, and all the other issues that the member raises, then I think it does not address the fundamental flaw that exists in the current arrangement. This bill is designed to address that, and I know that members of professional organisations now—and this is why I always recommend that people use financial advisers who are covered by professional organisations—require their members to disclose this information up front already. At this stage, people do not have to wait for the legislation if they use people who are members of professional bodies.

CHRIS TREMAIN (National—Napier): I want to pick up on what the Minister was speaking about during the commencement of her speech. She felt that the process she had undertaken had been a good one, in terms of spreading quite a large net in a catch-all situation, and then expecting people to put their hands up to say: “No, leave us out of this process.” I want to discuss it in terms of the danger of bureaucracy, which is something National bangs on about, in terms of bureaucracy creep and getting down to people who should not be involved in unnecessary regulation. I guess no more can it be said for the budget advisory community, which is referred to quite well in clause 12(k), whereby budget advisers are exempt under the auspices of this legislation. I think it is important to understand that initially budget advisers clearly came within the catch-all of the Act. As the Minister has quite rightly said, these are the people in our communities who deal with people who do not have a lot of money, such as beneficiaries who might have only a couple of hundred dollars, week in, week out, to work with. I am talking about citizens advice bureaus, and in my own electorate of Napier, the Napier budget advisory service that is run by two or three volunteers who sit up there in Community House. I am talking about the Napier Family Centre budgeting service, which has a number of volunteer budgetary advisory people.

They deal with members of our community who do not have a lot of money to rub together. We are not talking about the investment of life-savings of $200,00, $300,000, or $400,000 into different investment categories. We are talking about people who have had a pretty tough life and are struggling to make the best of $200 or $300. This bill initially looked to encapsulate the budget advisers within the legislation and to put regulation around them. Funnily enough, one of the first submissions that came to the table was from the budget advisory association. This association supported the legislation and said that its members should be a part of the additional regulation. I could not believe it, but that is what it said. But back in our electorate offices we were getting visits from budget adviser volunteers saying: “Crikey, we don’t need this sort of regulation. If we have to be accredited, it’s going to mean that we will need continuing professional development and there will be costs involved.” Quite frankly, a whole lot of volunteers will leave this service, and it will not be available to some of these hard-working Kiwis.

Then the Minister said she was keen to get rid of it. But, actually, I say to the Minister, one of the first amendments to the clause that came back from the officials, was that budget advisory services would be exempt, but only those funded by the Ministry of Social Development. I do not know whether the Minister remembers that particular clause, but that is what came back from the officials in the first instance. It was the National members of the committee, I have to say, who put up their hands and said: “Look, this will get rid of all the people who are involved in the voluntary sector.” As long as it is not for profit, that clause has to change. We felt it was important that the voluntary sector was exempted totally, and I am pleased to see that happen.

People often bang on about National going on about bureaucracy, but this is the type of bureaucratic creep that we get through this type of legislation, and that is just crazy. Certainly it is not necessary for volunteers in the voluntary sector.

I will give another good example. I was up in Māhia the other day, with the volunteer firefighters. Volunteer firefighters are now required to have New Zealand Qualifications Authority qualifications, for goodness’ sake! We are almost getting rid of the good Samaritan opportunities in our community, and that is just crazy. We have to make sure that we allow volunteers, whether they be budget advisers or firefighters, to continue to do their work, without massive bureaucratic creep and without additional costs. It is important that the officials consider those volunteers out there and the work they are doing, and that they do not unduly bring a whole lot of additional bureaucracy into it. I saw that happening firstly with the budget advisers. We are not axing them. We will take out only the budget advisers who are funded by the Ministry of Social Development, and then finally all budget advisers will be totally exempt. Thank you, Mr Chair.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 253 in the name of the Hon Lianne Dalziel to Part 2 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

Part 2 as amended agreed to.

Part 3 Authorised financial advisers and qualifying financial entities

SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei): This is the part that attempts to deal with how to define authorised financial advisers and qualifying financial entities. I think that it is the most elegant part of the legislation but it is an extremely tricky thing to legislate for, and the officials are to be congratulated on coming up with such a neat way of categorising advice, in such a short period of time. This is essentially the part of the bill that creates the tiered approach, if you like, and National is supportive of that approach, as we modestly suggested throughout the process that such an approach would be appropriate.

One thing about institutional accreditation still sits in the back of my mind. I am pretty sure, although I stand to be corrected by Charles Chauvel or any other member of the committee who was there at the time—in fact, the officials might be able to correct me, directly through the Minister—but I think it was Sam Stubbs from Tower who came before the committee and made a comment that went something like this. When it comes to dealing with a professional after something has gone wrong, and what I think he termed the eye-to-eye conversation across the kitchen table has been had with that individual about the particular advice or product—in fact, I think he drew a parallel with a dentist, if I recall correctly—the responsibility should lie with that individual, in the event that the financial advice has proved to be inadequate or inappropriate. That issue has sat for the last 2 or 3 months at the back of my mind—a reasonably crowded and cluttered place for it to sit, over the last 7 or 8 weeks—

Hon Mark Burton: It’s such a small receptacle.

SIMON POWER: I say thank you to Mr Burton. I will miss those sorts of comments after the election, although I am sure it was meant in good humour, as all of the member’s comments have been over the last 9 years.

In the situation where that individual who sat across the kitchen table gave financial advice to the person concerned—after a level of trust was built between them, and discussions occurred; it was that personal connection that saw the investment decision triggered—we do not want to create a regulatory framework that sees that individual escape responsibility or escape accountability because he or she happens to belong to a large organisation that is institutionally accredited for the range of advisers who come under its umbrella. I think the submitter who raised that issue raises a fair issue. We cannot afford to have a group of financial advisers structure themselves in a way that sees that grouping being given an accreditation at an institutional level, and thereby inoculating its individual salespeople, financial advisers, representatives, and financial planners, from any direct accountability or responsibility for the very nature of the trusting relationship that that one-on-one discussion built.

That is the only question, the only comment, and the only thing on which I seek feedback from the Minister in Part 3. Thank you.

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Commerce): I am happy to respond to Simon Power’s comment on accountability and say that that is the reason why the qualifying financial entity approach that has been adopted in the Financial Advisers Bill is, as the member himself described, such an elegant solution. It says that the qualifying financial entity, which is required to meet a standard in order to have that status acquired through the Securities Commission, takes responsibility for defining who falls on either side of the line. On one side of the line we have the ones who are to be individually authorised and therefore individually accountable, like any other authorised financial adviser. On the other side of the line we have the category 2 advisers, who are dealing with the lower-level products based on that risk assessment. I think that is a neat way of allowing the institutions to take responsibility for employees and agents who are operating to sell, essentially, products that are in that lower-level risk category; the higher-level advisers will be required to be authorised financial advisers.

To go back to a comment another member made about the sequence of events around budget advisers, I say that is a very good example to use to explain how we have got to this particular position. When we started off by defining people by their particular occupations, we ended up in a situation where budget advisers necessarily were included in the definition because it was so broad. We are trying to bring that back but at the same time we are very mindful of the fact that if we exclude an occupation, then all of a sudden people will redefine themselves as budget advisers instead of financial advisers in order to avoid coverage, which is why we tried to link it to the funding from the Ministry of Social Development. That was not the best mechanism. The select committee came up with a better one, and I am grateful to it for that. Then the officials and I have come up with an even better one, which is the one in the Supplementary Order Paper.

But that is the exact point I am making: that the qualifying financial entity actually taking responsibility for dividing the two groups—one requiring the individual authorisation of the Securities Commission and the other coming within the responsibility of the qualifying financial entity—is, I believe, the best of both worlds. We get really good coverage and we get that eye-to-eye contact for those who have made bad professional judgment.

CRAIG FOSS (National—Tukituki): I thank the Minister of Commerce and acknowledge those points. I agree with the qualified financial entity part of this bill—Part 3. It is another part that was totally rewritten, and for the better, as we have all acknowledged. I have some questions, though—and perhaps I need to read somewhere else—about the qualified financial entities.

Many of the submitters, particularly the larger players, are already doing something along those lines anyway, so the burden is not huge. They operate across many jurisdictions, and therefore need to keep control and account of who is doing what everywhere. In this mobile world, where one can call a local bank and end up talking to someone overseas, keeping control does become tricky, and the bill acknowledges that we can go only so far here in New Zealand.

Among the three obligations and responsibilities of qualified financial entities that are mentioned in the bill—and I agree that the Securities Commission having that call is exactly right; it is the gateway of all things regulatory around financial markets, along with the Reserve Bank; I think it is a good fit—is to ensure that staff are authorised. Most of them took that on board, particularly the larger ones. They do not really have a problem with it, because all their staff are authorised in some way, shape, or form in order to get into the building, to use their websites, or to do whatever it might be.

They are also obliged to provide a list of names to the Securities Commission, and to keep that list up to date. I would be interested to know what “up to date” means. I had a quick look at the definitions and I did not see it there. Common sense would say it meant quarterly reports, or something like that, but it could cross a financial year, or it could be an entire cycle. What is up to date for one qualified financial entity operating here in New Zealand on its own may be different from what is up to date for a qualified financial entity that is incorporated here but is essentially overseas owned. Is there consistency of timeliness? I am sure the Securities Commission would give encouragement and guidance, but perhaps it is one of those areas that the select committee could have defined a bit further. I am open to be advised that the definition is somewhere in the bill.

My colleague Simon Power pointed out earlier that all of us here agree that the single regulator model of the Securities Commission—leaving the expertise in that place—is very good. The bill acknowledges that a Commissioner for Financial Advisers will be appointed. The commissioner will be a member of the Securities Commission, and that is all very well and good. I presume that more funding will be required to enhance whatever operations it does.

Also in this part—and I acknowledge the foresight of this provision—is alignment of the fines outlined in the Securities Act, those in this bill, and those in the Financial Service Providers (Registration and Dispute Resolution) Bill, which I assume we will be talking about this week. There will be consistency across the sector, and that takes away the ability for someone to do regulatory arbitrage, to exploit one piece of legislation over another—to do fine arbitrage, if one likes. In this bill as it was first drafted, there was the possibility of five industry bodies, and one person could have moved around the other bodies.

National members are voting for this bill and this part. We endorse where it has got to now. We endorse the consistency of it, and the recognition of where the expertise lies in this particular sector. I think it is very good. I acknowledge the qualified financial entity model and the authorisation of two tiers, category 1 products and category 2 products—complex and run-of-the-mill, if you like. I think it is a very good fit. Yes, there may be further work to do.

I shall talk a little about the types of institutional accreditation. There are those registered under this bill as category 1 products and category 2 products, and authorised by the Securities Commission. That is nice and clean. There are bound to be some organisations that fall outside or very close to it, but I am sure we will find them on the way through. Having category 2 will totally do away with all the fears of the various insurers, agents, and people who operate call centres for banks. Basically, they are transacting run-of-the-mill business. I acknowledge the Minister in regard to where we have got to on that. On a cost and compliance issue, it was a great leap forward, because everyone had looked on it in horror.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 253 in the name of the Hon Lianne Dalziel to Part 3 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

Part 3 as amended agreed to.

Part 4 How financial advisers are regulated

CHRIS TREMAIN (National—Napier): I rise to speak to Part 4 of the Financial Advisers Bill, which deals largely with how financial advisers are to be regulated. Essentially, as the legislation is now to be enacted, it will be under the guide of the Securities Commission, which was established in Part 1 of the Securities Act. It was going to be product regulation based under the Securities Act and the Securities Markets Act on the one side, and then, as we have discussed in previous parts of the bill, financial adviser regulation with supervision of both qualified financial entities, as Mr Foss just spoke about, and of the accredited financial advisers, as Simon Power spoke about earlier. Clearly, under the Securities Commission there will be enforcement of the statutory obligations of each of those organisations.

But what is now being proposed in Part 4 is how we are going to regulate financial advisers through the establishment of a Commissioner for Financial Advisers. That is dealt with in subpart 1 of Part 4. The commissioner will be a member of the Securities Commission. If we look back to the legislation as originally proposed, if I recall correctly, we see that the idea was that we would set up a number of bodies under each industry organisation that would then be responsible for the accreditation of the financial advisers within their own industry.

Hon Lianne Dalziel: They would apply to be—

CHRIS TREMAIN: Yes, that is correct. Then there would be a default provider if there was nowhere to go. It all got a bit complicated at the end of the day, and everyone in the House agreed that going to one body, with the default provider being the Securities Commission and therefore the Commissioner of Financial Advisers, was by far the best alternative in terms of stopping duplication. Everyone knew where to go, and we have come up with the best solution.

Essentially, the functions of the commissioner are dealt with in clause 77, and they are as follows: “(a) to appoint members of the code committee:”. As I understand it, the code committee will be responsible for establishing the code, writing it, and updating it as time goes by. The other functions of the commissioner are “(b) to review the code and propose changes to the code as required: (c) to act as a chairperson of the disciplinary committee:”—because a disciplinary committee will be established under the commissioner for dealing with complaints and disciplinary actions—“(d) to oversee and expedite the work of the Commission in relation to financial advisers:”. Lastly, it is the function of the commissioner to exercise and perform such other functions, powers, and duties as are required of the commissioner.

Clause 82 deals with the content of the code that the commissioner will be required to put in place. What we have done in the legislation is outline some of the key criteria that must be part of the code. It must provide for minimum standards of professional conduct. As one would expect, this includes things like the standard of competence that must be required from financial advisers or from qualifying financial entities, the level of knowledge and skills that these individuals or qualifying organisations must have, and the level of ethical behaviour and client care that one would expect from a quality financial adviser.

The code must also provide for continuing professional training for authorised financial advisers, which is something we have seen come across a number of professions, whether for plumbers, electricians, or financial advisers. We have seen that ongoing requirement for continuing professional development, and more recently we have seen this come into the Real Estate Agents Act, where both licensees and real estate salespeople who remain independent contractors will be required to undertake ongoing continuing professional development. Lastly, in terms of establishing the code under clause 82, subclause (3) states: “The code must specify different standards for different classes of authorised financial adviser.” That deals largely with the fact that there will be a two-tiered system where financial advisers will need to attain a higher level of qualification to advise on category 1 products versus category 2 products. I think that is good.

Subpart 2 of Part 4 deals with complaints about financial advisers and how that will be dealt with. It is pretty straightforward. Any person now may complain to this one body, and it will be far clearer than it was under the original legislation that was proposed. Thank you.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 253 in the name of the Hon Lianne Dalziel to Part 4 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

Part 4 as amended agreed to.

Part 5 General provisions

SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei): If I had not received such a pleading look from the Minister Lianne Dalziel not to stand, I would have sat down. I just make the point that Part 5 relates to general provisions and appeal of decisions, the right of appeal of the commission—interestingly, on the issue of authorisation—and the potential decline of qualifying financial entity status. The District Court, apparently, will make those decisions. I suppose on an issue like that there does need to be a procedure for appeal, and I guess, on balance, that the District Court is the appropriate place for that.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 253 in the name of the Hon Lianne Dalziel to Part 5 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

Part 5 as amended agreed to.

Clauses 1 and 2

SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei): We come to the only two surviving original clauses of the Financial Advisers Bill, which, as we said earlier in the debate, has been completely rewritten, with 61 pages being deleted from the bill.

Hon Lianne Dalziel: A hard-working committee.

SIMON POWER: It is pretty hard-working, all right! Sixty-one pages have been deleted, but what stays? Since this bill was referred to the Finance and Expenditure Committee in February of this year, or thereabouts, what has remained from the years of work and reviews, stakeholder meetings, workshops, and the like that occurred? What is left is the title—the Financial Advisers Act 2007—and the Government is to be commended for retaining that during this process.

Secondly, what has also remained during the last 8 or 9 months is the commencement date. That is clause 2(1), and it will come into force on a date to be appointed by the Governor-General by Order in Council. Secondly, clause 2(2) states: “One or more Orders in Council may be made appointing different dates for the commencement of different provisions.” That is it. They are the only two clauses that survived the original bill.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: We listened!

SIMON POWER: That is right—it is a listening Government. So we wiped out 69 pages of ineffective legislation and replaced it. But, as we said earlier, that was the right thing to do, and we now have what we view to be a crucial first step in workable regulation around this industry. I think it is worth noting that the Minister has always been careful in her public statements, and particularly in her press releases and speeches—which we have followed pretty carefully—to make the following two statements in either this form or in a form similar to it. The first statement is that she is not inclined, she tells us, to regulate for regulation’s sake, which is something that we support. We believe that regulation in this case is necessary. Secondly, the Minister has made the statement many times that we cannot legislate to prevent risk, and that is also a position that the National Party endorses.

I have to say that I think this is the only time in my short time here that I have seen legislation so thoroughly amended by the select committee process. It was not comprehensively amended, of course, because we still have clauses 1 and 2, but it was thoroughly amended during that process. That tells the Committee that the select committee process adds value to the final product, and it also tells the Committee that where a Minister is prepared to allow the legislation to form up following further input and advice, from officials, other political parties, and the select committee, the Parliament can find itself with workable legislation. I will make some comments on the future of this legislation in the third reading debate, but I will leave my comments on what are now really known as the enduring clauses of this legislation.

CHRIS TREMAIN (National—Napier): I would like to speak to the enduring clauses of the Financial Advisers Bill, and to beg to differ just slightly with my colleague Simon Power, who claimed there are only two enduring clauses. When we look at the amended legislation in the mark-up version, we see that in fact only one clause remains in the legislation. If we look at page 9 of the new bill, we see that only the title has remained the same from day one. Clause 1 states: “This Act is the Financial Advisers Act 2007.”, and everything apart from that clause has changed. The commencement clause has quite clearly been changed. In the first draft there was an original provision there, but that has actually been changed.

Sitting suspended from 1 p.m. to 2 p.m.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Bill reported with amendment.

Report adopted.

Third Reading

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Commerce): I move, That the Financial Advisers Bill be now read a third time. The progress of the Financial Advisers Bill has not been as easy as I first thought it would be. The failure of a string of finance companies last year brought me to the conclusion just before Christmas last year that the bill as introduced was not the best way forward. After advice from industry, I concluded that the co-regulatory model would struggle with the disciplinary workload that could arise and would not survive the loss of confidence in the sector, which is the inevitable fall-out of finance company failures. It was necessary to make significant changes during the select committee process. At this point I again express my thanks to members of the Finance and Expenditure Committee and officials, who have engaged with the industry, the wider sector, and the public. I also acknowledge the Opposition’s commitment to working with the Government on finding a solution to these issues. In particular I acknowledge Simon Power, who has been open about concerns, and we have worked together to resolve them. I commend the whole committee’s engagement with the industry, and its willingness to listen and make such changes at a late stage. I am confident that the committee has produced a bill that is far more practical and suitable for its purpose.

Specifically, I support the bill’s new focus on financial products in contrast to financial decisions, and the development of the two-tier approach to authorised financial advisers, and other financial advisers, advising on category 1 and category 2 products. The bill enables the adoption of a qualifying financial entity model to reduce compliance costs for institutions with a large number of advisers, as well. Finally, the bill provides clear and appropriate exemptions from the definition of a financial adviser, so that people offering budget advice, for example, are not captured by this legislation.

I will just place on record here that in the legislation itself the definition of financial advice uses the words “recommendation”, “opinion”, or “guidance”. These are words that need to be read together; one follows from the other. “Guidance” does not simply mean setting out options for people then to take advice on or make a decision on. I want to make it absolutely clear that citizens advice bureau advisers will not be captured by the definitions in the legislation.

I will not go over the details of the legislation again. Suffice it to say that the bill’s passage today will ensure that the election period can be put to good use by officials from the Ministry of Economic Development and the Securities Commission, and by the industry as a whole, to inject the detail into a regulatory framework that should reinvigorate a much-needed sector. I say that it is a much-needed sector because we all need to be able to rely on advice in order to be guided to make good investment decisions, where we do not have that expertise ourselves.

I will make two more statements that again cover issues that have not necessarily been raised in this debate. If people are taking advice from an adviser now, I urge them to use one who is a member of a professional organisation that can hold that adviser to account. But I warn them not to use that advice as a proxy for their right to know the details of the investments being made, and the level of risk they are exposed to. The Securities Commission has a good range of information available, and I do ask people to use it. It provides good advice, including the advice not to be afraid to say no if the level of risk is outside people’s risk appetite.

The second issue is the question of financial literacy. We can build a strong regulatory framework, as we have done with this bill, but inexperienced investors must still understand basic financial principles, such as risk and return. That is why the Government has committed to the National Strategy for Financial Literacy, led by the Retirement Commissioner, engaging as it does with the private sector and the non-governmental organisation sector, as well. At the same time, the companies that have taken the hard-earned money of people who have saved over a lifetime owe a duty of care not to abuse the trust that has been placed in them. New Zealanders who have lost money, or whose funds are frozen, are disgusted by the flaunting of wealth by those who have left behind them a trail of devastation. Corporation law was designed to protect entrepreneurs from personal liability, so that they could take risks without facing financial ruin every time an idea did not pay off. But to see people driving around in Porsches and living in luxurious mansions, when others are seeing their life-savings go up in smoke, creates challenges for those of us who defend the underlying principle. It is a disgrace, and they should be ashamed.

Financial advisers stand in between those companies and clients, and it is their duty to identify the risk profile of their clients and to do the homework their clients cannot be expected to do—work up a balanced portfolio, read any prospectuses, identify where the risks are, ask whether the risk is appropriately priced, and be alert to the potential motive behind higher than usual commissions. It is very easy in this climate to blame all financial advisers, but I warn against imposing too high a standard on those who were faced with misleading prospectuses or who could not have foreseen the domino effect of the flight to quality that followed the initial failures.

In conclusion, I believe that the Financial Advisers Bill now meets the objectives I set for it when it was first introduced. It brings financial adviser regulation into the 21st century, aligns us with international best practice, and provides for an appropriate level of investor protection in New Zealand. I commend the bill to the House.

SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei): The Financial Advisers Bill has enjoyed support from the entire House from its first reading, and through the select committee process in the Finance and Expenditure Committee, its second reading, and the Committee of the whole House, and I suggest that that support will continue for its third reading. That tells us, as a Parliament, that the House regards this issue as being, in many respects, above the usual day-to-day political discourse that occurs on most of the legislation before it. Many, many New Zealanders have lost money through finance company and mortgage trust collapses. Many billions of dollars have been lost because of those failures. It is critical to rebuild trust and confidence in our capital markets. The issue of the disclosure of fees and remuneration contained in this legislation is a key part of reforming the sector.

I echo the Minister’s views when I say that many investors have received poor-quality financial advice. We in the National Party agree that there is a need to update the legislation that governs the activities of financial advisers, and since the time when the Leader of the Opposition, John Key, wrote to the Prime Minister, offering the assistance of the National Opposition with that process, the issue largely became a depoliticised process. I was dispatched on behalf of the National Party to be briefed by the Minister’s advisers, to discuss and negotiate with the Minister, and to cajole her into accepting the differing views on the initial version of the bill. I will return to that matter shortly.

One of the things that the Minister of Commerce and I, and, in fact, that Labour and National, agreed on very early was that it is impossible to eliminate risk from financial decision-making, and, indeed, that it is impossible to legislate against such risk. So a balance had to be struck between minimising the risks for investors and minimising the costs of a new regulatory regime for investors. Of course, legislation is not the only response to minimising the risks of financial investment. Improved financial education and literacy need to be part of improving New Zealand’s investment culture. Fundamentally, the proposals in this legislation to require greater disclosure of financial advisers’ remuneration, commissions, royalties, and other such payments, greater disclosure of qualifications and conflicts of interest, and a higher level of competency on the part of financial advisers are necessary. So too is the need to hold financial advisers accountable for the advice they give.

This bill, very appropriately in our view, establishes the Securities Commission as the sole regulator of financial advisers, and abandons the original co-regulatory model. It allows institutions to be accredited and responsible for their employees, rather than, in many instances, requiring all individual employees to register. The two-tier regime, which provides heavier obligations for more complex advice and lesser obligations for more simplistic products, makes sense and is practical.

On the issue of the financial adviser, the definition of that term has been covered extensively during the Committee stage. There was no doubt that the attempt in the original bill to define advice given by referring to the occupation of the individual or the organisation giving that advice was based on a faulty premise, not because that was not a good place to start the discussion about what a regime should look like, but because it provided too many loopholes for people to avoid the regulatory framework. Indeed, on the other hand, it would have captured, in our view—and, in fairness to the Government, in its view as well—a group of advisers who were never intended to be caught by a more complex regulatory regime, rather than a more simplistic regime relating to more straightforward financial products.

During the select committee hearings we saw the emergence of a model that virtually developed itself as submitters gave their views to the Finance and Expenditure Committee. It was actually quite a remarkable discussion, with members of the committee putting alternative models to submitters as the submitters appeared, and asking for their comment on the workability and practicability of those models. As those discussions went on, it became clear that they were forming up in the minds of the committee, and of the chair, Charles Chauvel, a useful model to explore beyond the model first offered at the bill’s introduction and first reading. To the credit of the officials who were advising the committee, they swallowed hard and started, effectively from scratch, to draft the legislation that is now before the House in its third reading.

During the second reading debate, I said that parliamentary counsel made a remark in the drafting stages, when I asked how much of the original bill would stay intact—my recollection was that the answer was three clauses. We later found out that it was two clauses, and there was a suggestion during the Committee stage that it was only one clause. That meant there was a buy-in by the committee and by the Minister, who corresponded with the committee on at least one occasion that I can recall, offering to buy into that model and offering some suggestions about how it could work in a more practical way. I have to say the bulk of the work and, if I can reuse the word I used in the Committee stage, the elegance of the legislation that was put before us was largely a burden that had to be shouldered by the officials who advised the committee on that matter. They are to be commended for and congratulated on those efforts.

I conclude by thanking the Minister of Commerce for making the officials available, and for discussing this legislation in a positive and constructive way. I think, in the end, the House has delivered legislation that will begin this process in a comprehensive and thorough way.

I will finish by saying one thing—and the Minister will be relieved to know that I am the only National Party member who is taking a call in the third reading—which is that this legislation, in itself, will not prevent people from losing money when they make investments. That is a very trite thing to say, but it is an important statement to make, because whatever happens after the election on 8 November, and whoever occupies the Government benches, will not change the situation that some people will lose money on various investment vehicles. All that the Government, or for that matter, Parliament, can do is to provide a regulatory and legislative framework that is designed to put the best possible information before investors, and to ensure that those people who are in the investment advisory business are competent and are required to disclose matters material to the investment decisions that are being made. The legislation cannot prevent loss and it cannot prevent risk, but it does go some way towards requiring those who are giving financial advice to meet a far higher standard than that they have had to meet up until now.

R DOUG WOOLERTON (NZ First): New Zealand First supports the Financial Advisers Bill, as we do the suite of bills that surround it. We look forward to bringing to this House in the next Parliament other measures to help investors in this country. We need to encourage people to invest in our businesses, and the sort of behaviour we have seen recently does exactly the opposite. Successive Governments have tried to steer people in this country away from property, which New Zealanders have a preference for, and one cannot do that if people see their money disappearing down the tubes. This bill goes some way towards making sure that the people who advise investors are at least registered, which means they can have some faith in the advice that they get.

I think it is great that the people who advise at the budgetary advice level, like those from citizens advice bureaus, have been left out of this bill, thus ensuring that people who give advice to others, like my friend Clayton Cosgrove, are not caught up by this sort of thing. Where Mr John Key gets his advice from for his share trading we do not yet know—that has yet to be seen—but we suggest he would probably come into a category 1 or 2 situation whereby the level at which he operates is somewhat more sophisticated. We were pleased to see that those who advise people in good faith and without receiving any recompense need not feel that they could suffer a fine because of their good works. We think that is absolutely appropriate.

As I said at the beginning, and I will finish on this note, New Zealanders need to have faith that the investments they make, usually at the latter end of their working life, do have some sort of surety around them and, in particular, that the people giving them advice are qualified to do so, that they understand the situation people are in, and that they give advice appropriate to people’s age, their risk profile, and those sorts of things. This bill goes some way towards ensuring that without taking away any of the entrepreneurial activity that we seek to encourage in this country.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Financial Advisers Bill be now read a third time.

Ayes 118

New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 47; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Māori Party 4; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland, Field.

Noes 2

ACT New Zealand 2.

Bill read a third time.

Bills

Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Commerce) on behalf of the Minister for the Environment: I move, That the Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill be now read a second time. Since the aquaculture reforms were enacted in December 2004, a number of issues have arisen with the legislation. This bill contains amendments to deal with those issues that have arisen from a May 2006 decision of the Environment Court in the case of SMW Consortium Ltd v Tasman District Council. The effect of this decision is that applications can be made for aquaculture outside of aquaculture management areas, even though they cannot be granted. This could have the effect of blocking the allocation of space to iwi under the terms of the aquaculture settlement in the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Act 2004. It could also create problems in processing other applications and in developing aquaculture management areas. We cannot allow a loophole to block aquaculture settlement obligations being met.

The bill cancels any applications that were made after 9 May 2006—the date of the Environment Court decision—that do not relate to aquaculture management areas in operative regional coastal plans. As far as officials know, there have been no such applications. The bill also freezes applications made outside of operative aquaculture management areas between 1 January 2005 and 9 May 2006. I thank the Primary Production Committee for clarifying that this amendment applies only to applications outside of operative aquaculture management areas. These applications can be processed only if the relevant area becomes an aquaculture management area in an operative regional coastal plan. In the event that the relevant area does not become an aquaculture management area in an operative regional coastal plan within 10 years of commencement of the amendment bill, the applications will be cancelled. These applications are the ones that were the subject of the Environment Court case.

The bill also clarifies, in light of the Environment Court’s decision, how aquaculture management areas are created. The bill makes it clear that from 1 January 2005 aquaculture management areas can be created only through the post - aquaculture reform provisions of the Resource Management Act, by either developing a regional coastal plan that provides for aquaculture management areas, and completing the interim aquaculture management area process set out in a regional coastal plan, or deeming marine farms approved under old legislation to be aquaculture management areas.

The bill also amends the Fisheries Act 1996 and the Aquaculture Reform (Repeals and Transitional Provisions) Act 2004, to ensure that the Ministry of Fisheries is not prevented from carrying out an assessment of any undue adverse effect on fishing. The select committee has assisted by adding clarification in clauses 9A and 9B as to whom aquaculture agreements should be made with, when an area is covered by a reservation. Supplementary Order Paper 251 provides an additional technical fix to ensure that the fisheries register records a memorial against all quota stocks affected by a reservation. This keeps those trading quota supplied with the information that agreements could have been made that might affect the value of the quota. The Environment Court’s decision has highlighted a small number of consequential issues that provisions in the bill also address.

The bill makes amendments to the Resource Management Act, to ensure, first, that councils cannot grant coastal permits for non-aquaculture activities in an aquaculture management area, except to the extent that the activity is compatible with aquaculture activities. Secondly, an amendment to the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Act 2004 ensures that applications that are not cancelled do not prevent allocation of space to the trustee. Thirdly, there are amendments to the provisions relating to the assessment of undue adverse effects and the definition of “new space” in the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Act 2004.

The select committee has added a definition making it clear that unitary councils—and Tasman District Council is one of those—are regional councils for the purposes of the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Act 2004. This is a very sensible clarification. I thank the select committee for its speedy and detailed consideration of the bill, and commend the bill to the House.

PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei): I acknowledge my colleague and the chairman of the Primary Production Committee, David Carter—a man who is quick to his feet, with a sharp mind, and who helped navigate the select committee through its consideration of the Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill. I look forward, like most members of the House, to—

R Doug Woolerton: He’s got no idea what he’s talking about.

PHIL HEATLEY: Oh well, there is Doug Woolerton toeing the party lie. We see that he is over there, contributing to this House, and we look forward to his integrity perhaps shining through when he speaks about this bill. I imagine it is very difficult to present that type of face to the country at the moment.

I will return to the legislation. As the Hon Lianne Dalziel said, on behalf of the Minister for the Environment, this bill amends four Acts: the Fisheries Act 1996, the Resource Management Act, the Aquaculture Reform (Repeals and Traditional Provisions) Act, and the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Act. That is why this legislation will be divided into four bills.

The bill addresses the Environment Court decision of 9 May 2006. There was a difficulty there where a whole bunch of investors had applied for aquaculture space—marine-farming space—that was not deemed an aquaculture management area through the processes of the new Act, which came into effect on 1 January 2005. Two things fell out of that. Firstly, there were difficulties over what effect on fishing the marine-farming area would have and, secondly, there was an issue around the settlement with Māori—the 20 percent provision of new aquaculture space that was to be passed over to Māori as aquaculture developed in this country. Of course, that was the provision of 20 percent of existing aquaculture space that Māori were entitled to in the form of cash, aquaculture area purchased by the Crown, or new aquaculture space. Those applications at the top of the South Island threw a spanner in the works, so to speak, and a court case ensued. This legislation seeks to fix that.

There is some irony, particularly in the Minister’s speech where she talked about the need for this legislation, that in the relatively small area applied for, Māori will get 20 percent of the marine farm area to be developed down there in the future. I say that because it has been over 1,300 days since the Labour Government’s aquaculture reforms came into effect. The total area of new aquaculture management areas, which are the areas where marine farming that did not previously exist, that has developed in those 1,300 days of marine farming now amounts to—and members need to get their pens out, because I need them to write down this number—zero. I want the House to know that none, zero, zilch, zip, nothing has been created in the way of aquaculture management areas in over 1,300 days—over 3 years—since those reforms were put in place. No new aquaculture management areas, new marine farms, or new areas have been created in that time under Labour’s legislation. Is that not absolutely appalling?

Māori were to get 20 percent of the new space that was to be created—that is, one-fifth of the new space, for those members who are struggling. I want members to get out their pens and paper again, because we will do a little sum. Are members ready? Essentially, Maori have one-fifth, or 20 percent, of however much has been created in 3 years. So 20 percent of zero, or nothing, zip, or zilch, means that Māori have not received a single square metre of new marine-farming space in over 3 years anywhere in the country. Is that not an absolute disgrace?

But the Minister has brought into this House some legislation that will patch up a small area at the top of the South Island, and I tell members that the National Party will support it. Why are we supporting it when it goes very little towards fixing a 3 or 4-year problem? We think that anything we can do to help marine farmers is at least something, so we may as well support this legislation, even if it is only incremental. Could the Labour Government have done much better? It certainly could have done better than zero. We will help it to do this small amount; we will be supporting this legislation, particularly given the input of National members on the select committee.

The irony of the Minister’s initial speech about passing this legislation for Māori is, of course, that Māori have received nothing in terms of aquaculture space—20 percent of new space created—because no new aquaculture space has been created anywhere in New Zealand. Marine farmers, in a mainstream sense across New Zealand, have not received any new space, and Māori have certainly not received any percentage of that. Therefore, they are no better off after the promises of over 3 years ago.

Hone Harawira might remember that there was a bit of quid pro quo 3 or 4 years ago when Labour said to Māori: “We will do you a deal. Stop marching for the seabed and foreshore and we will give you some marine-farming space.” Māori now have neither, so I will be very interested to hear Hone Harawira’s speech shortly.

It is true that this bill is very, very complex. It reflects some of the fundamental problems with the underlying legislation. We know that it will go only a small way to fix it up—it is a sticking plaster approach—but we are happy to support it.

During the course of the Committee stage I will speak about particular areas and particular clauses of the bill, because we had some issues to resolve when the legislation first came to the House. The first issue regarded the way that new marine-farming space affects those who fish. Members can appreciate that if there is a marine farm across the surface of the water, it is very difficult for fishermen to run a trawl line, to run nets, or to fish in that same area. They are essentially locked out of a geographical area of the sea. What happens is that there is a fisheries test—an impact assessment, if you like—to show how a marine farm put in that area would impact commercial, recreational, or customary fishers.

Unfortunately, previously the Act was not clear about the negotiations between marine farmers and fishers to make it fair for parties so that they could both be satisfied that a marine farm could be put in place. It states that the parties have 6 months to undertake those negotiations, but it was not clear as to when the 6 month-period started. The 6-month period was a bit open-ended, so we have closed that loophole and identified when it is to begin.

We have also looked at the issue of the regional council definition, because, believe it or not, when the original Act was passed the Government, when it identified regional councils in the Act, it did not put in a definition of what a regional council was. Unfortunately, under the Local Government Act, the councils of Marlborough, Tasman, Nelson, and Gisborne, which are all unitary authorities—they have regional and district council functions—are excluded from the Act. But in this legislation before us we say that those councils should be recognised as if they were regional councils.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): The people of this country have had the pleasure of hearing the National Party’s spokesperson on fishing.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Who?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: That is a very good question, so for the public’s information I will say his name is Mr Heatley, from Whangarei. I recall at the fishing meeting we had at Onerahi in Whangarei some years ago, he told people there that he was going to be the next Minister of Fisheries. I think they are probably still laughing, but the fact is that he has come out today and pretended he is on the side of Māori. That would be the world’s best kept secret, because hitherto, until National members have most recently aligned with the Māori Party, they have been anything but. On this bill we have had Mr Heatley speaking; and, of course, the chairman of the committee that looked at these four bills, and this one in particular, is one David Carter.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Who?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: David Carter is a front-bench MP for the National Party but he is known—

Hon Rick Barker: I thought he left at the last election.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I thought he left at the last election, because there has been no evidence he has been here since then.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: He carved his name on the desk.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: He has carved his name on the desk, that is true, but that would take a bit of work, of course, and doing any work on things to advance the economic and social interests of the people of this country is not what the National Party has done lately. No, National has been engaged not in terms of aquaculture and the hopes and dreams and aspirations of people on the coastline of this country, and investors and shareholders in what should be a burgeoning economic aquaculture future, but has been obsessed with character assassination, day in, day out, until, of course, its lead man, Mr Key, was caught out again. I am speaking because I am from the tribe called Ngāti Wai, and that means people of the sea.

Hon Member: A great tribe.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: It is a great tribe, and we have a serious interest in unlocking the aquacultural potential of this country in the interests not just of the Māori people but also of the region up north and of the nation, so that people can make a full economic contribution, hopefully, as exporters to add to this country’s wealth. Every time Māori sell a product offshore they bring home money for the family New Zealand, and that is the economic inspiration and vision that the party I am proud to be part of, New Zealand First, has always believed in. The areas designated in this legislation can be employed for only aquacultural purposes. I just want to put one thing on record here, because I heard a Māori Party spokesperson say—

Phil Heatley: Apparently, you are Italian. Does that go on the record?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I tell members why he said that. When I was young I did not sit on my backside sunning myself at Christmas time, lying around, surfing, and leading the rich man’s life that Mr Heatley used to lead. No, I used to work on the then new Panmure bridge for an Italian company called Codelfa-Cogefar.

Hon Member: What’s this got to do with aquaculture?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: He raised it. They do not like it. They put up something smart and when they get the retort they do not like it. But just to finish off, I used to be the union delegate on the bridge, working every day in the rigging, getting things ready, doing something productive for New Zealand, and getting paid. I was a poor, humble student, unlike Mr Heatley and Mr Carter, who inherited all his wealth, and he is not prepared to share it with anyone at all. He watches every cent. He criticises me for the magnificent causes I have run in my life—and they have cost a fortune—and he has not been prepared to spend a cent himself but has criticised and passed judgment on a member of Parliament who is engaged in worthy causes, including suing him for saying defamatory things. Guess what Mr Carter said when he got to court?

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

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I will get there very quickly. The case was about fishing. He told the court through his lawyer that nothing he said ever meant to impugn the honour and integrity of Winston Peters. That was his defence. There is a word for that that starts with “h”.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): No, no.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Oh, yeah! He is a big man in Parliament, he is a big man out there, but he gets to court, with all his millions, and he is dead scared.

Hon David Carter: I’m never scared. You lost.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The member has not won yet.

Hon David Carter: I have.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The member and Bill Ralston and Television New Zealand and Radio New Zealand? No, no. Tell the truth. Last December the judge said that there was a prima facie case to face here. In other words, when Mr Ralston goes on TV spewing his bile, it is because he is the one I sued, and he is losing. He does not look too flash now. Mr Carter is a mere bagatelle, so I thought I would let him go. Listen to him! Let me tell members something. He is not so happy about that, because he thinks he might have won, but when one is down the tubes $180,000 to one’s law firm as he is, do members think he has won? I do not. If I were the member, I would keep my mouth shut. I would not try to criticise Winston Peters and try to defame him. I say to the member to get up and tell the House now—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Can we get back to the debate.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I would love to. Let me say that the Government is, through this bill, enabling Māori—because of the Waitangi settlement—to have 20 percent of this future resource. Why is that apposite now? Well, the Māori Party actually said that New Zealand First does not support the Treaty of Waitangi. That of course is not true. What we do not support is the phrase the “principles of the Treaty of Waitangi” that not one Māori member can tell me they can describe, not one historian can tell me what it is, nobody at law school can tell me what it is, and nobody in this House can tell me what it is, but they would love to have it in the law. When one asks what the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi are, one is told that it is a sort of catch-all phrase.

Pita Paraone: A feel-good phrase.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: A feel-good phrase. It means whatever one wants to say it means. There is one party in this country that does understand Māori, and once, when we were better understood by Māori, we won all the Māori seats, which the Māori Party never will. One way to get offside Māoridom is to say one thing on the marae, one thing over Māori radio, and then do something privately that is different. That is what happened here. To put the record straight, I came down to the House because it was chance to say to Māoridom—and I know that they are listening in their tens of thousands now that they know this debate has started—that what they are hearing over the airwaves from the Māori Party is not the truth.

Hone Harawira: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I see I have struck a nerve.

Hone Harawira: I ask you, Mr Assistant Speaker, to ask the member to come back to the bill.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: That is what is in the bill. The 20 percent is the Waitangi settlement that the Government has agreed to, as to their fair proportion. That, after all, is the deal that was struck with Māoridom. The chairman of the select committee that sat on this bill, Mr Carter, can call it a load of rubbish. That is his speciality—a load of rubbish. But he obviously did not do anything when he was on the Primary Production Committee.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: He was sent here to be kept out of the family business, wasn’t he?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I cannot be certain of that, but if it has any truth to it I can understand why. If there ever was a cowboy in this place it is David Carter, from the South Island. In fact, Federated Farmers said: “Who on earth appointed him to that role?”. They want to know what they did to deserve him as the National Party spokesman on agriculture.

Hon Member: Invisible man.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: They called him the invisible man, but unfortunately not the silent one. He is still interjecting in this House.

The New Zealand First Party is pleased to support this legislation, and to put a few things on the record that are factual—which are to do with the truth—rather than have ourselves so vilely, unfairly, demonstrably misrepresented.

Hon DAVID CARTER (National): For a start, I want to put on record my thanks to Winston Peters for the cheque of $9,600 that we received last week as full and final settlement of a case that he lost. Thank you very much, I say to him. It took a long time to get it. It was probably the threat of bankruptcy proceedings that did it.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You cannot have a man get up and say that a transaction was done because of the threat of bankruptcy. That is humbug. The member has no right to make that sort of statement, at all. We paid Mr Carter because we always have paid people when we have to—not for the kinds of vile, selfish, venal reasons he has, but because it is called honour.

Hon DAVID CARTER: Speaking to the point of order, I want to say that payment was received only after the second letter was sent to Brian Henry saying that unless money was received, bankruptcy proceedings would be initiated.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: There he goes again. That cannot possibly be true. As he well knows, any such letter had to be sent to the instructing solicitor, who is Dennis Gates—not Brian Henry, who is the barrister sole and does not get such correspondence. Whether the member’s lawyers are so stupid as to send it to the wrong man, I do not know. But I know that the cheque that Mr Carter got came from Dennis Gates. I ask the member whether the cheque came from Dennis Gates—yes or no. [Interruption] The answer is that, yes, he does not know what he is talking about.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I think that we have had our fun, and I think that both members have made a contribution.

Hon DAVID CARTER: I would certainly like to speak to the Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill, which the Rt Hon Winston Peters has just spoken on—probably as the deemed Minister of Fisheries in the Labour - New Zealand First Government. Of course, in recent weeks he has had more contact with the fishing industry—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You cannot, surely, have a front-bench member of the National Party demonstrate his hopeless ignorance by referring to a Labour - New Zealand First Government. There is no such thing.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): It is a debatable point, Mr Peters, and I will not tolerate frivolous points of order.

Hon DAVID CARTER: The Labour-Progressive Government has been supported ably in recently months by the New Zealand First Party as it has maintained its position in Parliament.

I was saying that Mr Peters has had more contact with the fishing industry than the actual Minister of Fisheries, particularly over the last few weeks, with regular contact with the likes of Mr Simunovich and Mr Vela—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Can we just keep to the bill, please.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. See, he is at it again. He is making it up as he goes along. I have had no contact whatsoever recently with Mr Simunovich. I would not even know where he is living. That is the kind of deceit that member engages in all the time.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): What we are having may well lead to chaos, and I am not going to have that in this House. We will have order. This is a place for full and vigorous debate, but contributions will be made with respect for the traditions of the House as enshrined in the Standing Orders. That is why I am on my feet—because I represent those Standing Orders. I crave your respect for them, and your understanding. Let us get back to the debate.

Hon DAVID CARTER: The biggest contribution that the Labour Government, supported by New Zealand First, has made to aquaculture during the last 9 years is this pamphlet I have here, produced in June 2007. It is a very fancy brochure and states: “Now is the time to get out on the water, whatever the weather, and join the journey.” Join the journey! The brochure is signed by six Ministers. The first is the Hon David Benson-Pope, the Minister for the Environment, but he is not that any more; he was fired. Then there is the Hon Chris Carter, the Minister of Conservation, but he is no longer the Minister of Conservation. Then there is the Hon Parekura Horomia, the Minister of Māori affairs; he is the only one who has kept his job. Next is the Hon Trevor Mallard, the Minister for Industry and Regional Development, but I do not think he has that job any more. Then there is the Hon Jim Anderton, the Minister of Fisheries. Last is the Hon Mark Burton, the Minister of Local Government, but he is another one who has been fired.

I make the point to Clayton Cosgrove, who is interjecting, that despite producing a very expensive and fancy brochure, the Labour Government has done nothing to promote the aquaculture industry. The industry, both domestic and international, is currently worth about $300 million, and it has potential to do significantly better. All that the Government had to do was to pass legislation that would facilitate aquaculture development. The member Winston Peters was in this House supporting the Labour Government’s legislation in 2004, and, as my colleague Phil Heatley has pointed out, subsequent to that legislation the amount of new aquaculture space that has been created in this country is zero. I say to Mr Peters and the Labour Ministers: “Well done on producing a fancy brochure!”.

We are today passing this little bill in an attempt to patch up what was completely unworkable. Doug Woolerton was not on the Primary Production Committee in 2004, but what the select committee told the Minister at the time—

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: How did you mess up that selection?

Hon DAVID CARTER: I think Mr Cosgrove might have been on the select committee in those days. The select committee told Mr Benson-Pope, as the Minister, that the legislation would not work. Mr Benson-Pope did not listen to the select committee, but the proof of the pudding is in the eating, because the legislation has not worked. Today we have a little bill that patches up but one court case.

R Doug Woolerton: The actual fact of the matter is that the area has now been filled with product.

Hon DAVID CARTER: Mr Woolerton sat on the select committee. He heard people saying that not one new aquaculture area has been created, and he is now saying there is lots of product. Mr Woolerton should listen when he is sitting on the select committee. What we have today is this single piece of legislation, and all that it does is attempt to sort out a mess that we knew was likely to occur. It concerns a particular area in Tasman Bay where some resourceful fishers under the name of SMW Consortium applied to occupy space before the Tasman District Council had actually deemed it to be an aquaculture management area. All that we are doing now is pass legislation, in the dying days of this Parliament, to patch that up. If we look further down the Order Paper, we see another bill of a far more technical nature, we are told, which will try to further tidy up the mess.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: You will struggle.

Hon DAVID CARTER: If Clayton Cosgrove had only listened when he sat on that select committee as a humble backbencher, he could have worked with us in 2004 to pass legislation that would allow this industry to reach its potential. He could have been part of historic legislation being passed through this House. It would have had the label of the Labour Government on it, and it would have been successful. But Mr Cosgrove would only do what David Benson-Pope would tell him to do. As a consequence, no new aquaculture spaces have been created, and we have a little bill today to patch up but one silly mistake made by David Benson-Pope, and another bill sitting on the Order Paper to try to further patch up the mess. But they will not be enough. Mark my words, the aquaculture industry will not get ahead until satisfactory legislation comes before the House that recognises the potential of the industry and allows our space to be utilised.

Hon Rick Barker: Why is that member running a family business?

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: He is running it into the ground.

Hon DAVID CARTER: Minister Barker asks why I am not running a family business. Well, for that Minister’s information—and what it has to do with aquaculture legislation, I do not have a clue—I do run a family business, and I do it with substantially more success than that Minister will ever do anything. That is the difference between this side of the Chamber and that side. Over here we have people who have run businesses and understand what makes businesses work. On the other side they have nobody. They had one guy called Jim Sutton. He knew how to fill out a GST return, and they fired him. Helen Clark fired him. That is the difference between this side and the other side. We actually know how to run businesses. The select committee in 2004 heard from a substantial number of submitters who ran small family businesses in the Marlborough Sounds and they said to the committee, in front of Mr Cosgrove: “You get this legislation right, and we’ll stay in New Zealand, but you get it wrong, and we’ll take our expertise to Australia and Chile.” Does Mr Barker know what happened? Those people have gone to South Australia. Who is the loser? Well, certainly the Labour Government is the loser, and deservedly so, but the real loser is the whole of the New Zealand economy.

R Doug Woolerton: They have not gone, at all. Rubbish!

Hon DAVID CARTER: Doug Woolerton can chip in all he likes, but he was part of the party that supported the Government to pass legislation that has not worked and will not work. This bill is a small band-aid to patch up the problem. It will not be enough to fix the underlying problem and to give the industry a real chance. The industry has huge potential, billion-dollar potential, and could be a goer, if only we had a Government that knew a little bit about business, knew a lot about fishing, and would create the legislative framework to get the industry going.

Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Building and Construction): Tēnā tātou, Mr Assistant Speaker. In inverse proportion to the speech given by the last speaker, this speech will be short and will point out that in actual fact this simple, legal modification closes a gap brought about by an unwise decision flowing from the Environment Court.

Hon David Carter: No, it didn’t make a mistake.

Hon SHANE JONES: Yes, and the Tasman District Council, etc., will enjoy a higher level of clarity. I say the notion that investors are leaving in droves from the industry is absolute rot. I am glad to hear that all members of the Primary Production Committee supported this improvement. They realise that from time to time members of the judiciary do come up with decisions that are beyond the purview of the original legislators when they are passing legislation. It is not unusual for that to happen.

I am looking forward to the fact that speaking in the House today, from the Māori Party, is Hone Harawira, who, I have no doubt, will support this bill. Had he been here, he would have supported Winston Peters. Had he stayed on the Privileges Committee, he would have supported Winston Peters, unlike the wittering we heard from Te Ururoa Flavell, who fulfilled that great Māori proverb: “Kei runga te kōrero, kei raro te rahurahu.”—there is wittering upstairs; noises of a different nature are being emitted downstairs. Those members will be punished for that type of rauhanga, which is what we in the Ngāpuhi call it. However, it will be good to hear Hone Harawira speak shortly and support this bill, which will drive aquaculture forward. That will make a small step towards atoning for the very unwise, short-sighted decision made by Mr Flavell to cuddle up to John Key.

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

Hon SHANE JONES: I will come back to the bill, Mr Assistant Speaker. I am just pointing out that that Māori member will stand to support this bill, because it is good for our Māori claims process. That other Māori member did not stand with another Māori who deserved to be given a fair go. Kia ora tātou katoa.

METIRIA TUREI (Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. The Green Party is supporting this Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill, so I will take just a short call on it.

In our view, aquaculture can be a growth industry, and it can be a very good supplier of an alternative source of seafood for New Zealand, particularly while our wild fisheries recover from the incredible over-exploitation of those stocks that is going on as we speak. But, really, aquaculture is useful for this country only if it is done sustainably and excludes any kind of genetically engineered aquaculture. Aquaculture processes must protect conservation values and the public recreational and customary rights that our community has to the resources and places of the coast. It must avoid damaging fish-breeding grounds and valuable aspects of the coastal ecosystem. It must not pollute; there is always a serious risk of that with aquaculture. It must not pollute, it must be sustainably managed, and, what is very important, it must involve the public in decision making on aquaculture management areas. There is considerable uncertainty as to whether the current regime—with or without this amendment, and with or without its more substantial brother bill, which the House is yet to debate—can adequately do that.

The National Party has described aquaculture as having stagnated under Labour. Although there are complications with the resource management of aquaculture, it does not mean that all aquaculture development has been stalled, at all. I am advised that the Northland Regional Council has approved many aquaculture management areas recently, with only six applications out of 25 being contested. Most of them have gone through relatively easily. That said, it is also suggested that the council railroaded the community and non-governmental organisations in some of those instances, and there is considerable disquiet in the area about the loss of public coastal places to marine farming. It is our coast, it is not the developers’ coast, and the community has the right to have a say. The public must never be shut out.

The Minister of Conservation must also have a say, lest our marine ecosystems are sacrificed simply for profit. National’s intention to liberalise coastal management will be disastrous for the community, for the habitat, and for conservation values.

I know that there is a particular Māori interest in aquaculture. It has been discussed here before, and, no doubt, it will be discussed later this afternoon. I had the privilege of talking with the Wakatu Incorporation about its aquaculture proposal in Nelson. It is very exciting. The Greens are looking forward to that development.

National’s policy is about certainty for investors. National’s policy is about having the freedom to change species, about reducing bureaucracy and cost, and about removing—entirely removing—conservation from the picture of aquaculture management. This means that National would shut out conservation and shut out the community; it would shut out those interests from decision making over commercial projects, so that those projects can reduce costs and can have more freedom to make a profit at the community’s cost and expense. That is not what New Zealanders want to see happen with their coastal areas. They want to have a say. There is no doubt that there are opportunities for development, and for local and regional economic development, in this area, but not at the cost of destroying the environment, destroying the habitat, and preventing people from being involved in those decisions.

There is considerable concern about GE aquaculture. Members will remember the threat of GE king salmon back in the 1990s. The Greens fought GE aquaculture hard then, and we will continue to do so if it rears its ugly head again. The world does not want GE, and our New Zealand brand advantage, including the brand for aquaculture, is clean, green, and 100 percent pure. GE aquaculture would erode and, indeed, destroy our competitive advantage. It is not only that; the biosecurity risk of GE marine organisms is very high, as the ocean is a very dynamic environment. They would put at risk our marine environment, for no benefit whatsoever to the community or to our industry.

This bill is very technical. The Greens look forward to its brother bill being debated in the House. We are pleased that the bill restricts applications to approve aquaculture management areas only, and we support it.

HONE HARAWIRA (Māori Party—Te Tai Tokerau): Kia ora, Mr Assistant Speaker. Kia ora tātou e te Whare. I was really pleased when Rāhui Kātene, the Māori Party candidate for Te Tai Tonga, proudly told me about Nelson’s Wakatu Incorporation, which has just released plans for a 78-hectare Horoirangi Centre of Seafood and Aquaculture Innovation. It will include fingerling fish hatcheries, high-value extraction and aquaculture research facilities, and complementary activities including seafood and marine education and Māori cultural tourism. I congratulate Wakatū on their vision, their leadership, and their enterprise in the face of adversity.

I say that because, although we know well the tremendous commercial opportunities that can come from aquaculture, we know too that the iwi from Te Tau Ihu have not exactly had a lot of support from the Government. The crux of the matter for Te Tau Ihu is that although they were promised 20 percent of new aquaculture space, there is nothing left, so they were given nothing. They were forced to pursue a cash settlement because the Government refused to offer them anything at all.

Putting all that aside, this Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill will be important for iwi wanting to get into aquaculture in that it defines what aquaculture management areas, or AMAs, will be available, although we also note that this bill will stop iwi from developing aquaculture projects outside of aquaculture management areas, which Te Tau Ihu did in 2006. We understand the need to clarify the way in which aquaculture management areas can be established, and we are glad that the bill confirms obligations to provide new space to iwi, but we will not be holding our breath waiting for that to happen anytime soon, given the fact that although the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Act was passed in 2004, the agreement to provide iwi with 20 percent of aquaculture space simply has not happened.

We are not surprised to hear, though, that all of a sudden the Government is running a consultation exercise with iwi, just prior to the election, about aquaculture space allocation. What it is not bragging about, though, is that what it is talking about with this consultation exercise is what it was supposed to do in 2004, and now will not be doing until 2014—if we are lucky. We are also mindful of the recent aquaculture consultations, which the Government called a success but which cost the taxpayer $180,000, and some hui attracted only five people. Given how poorly those consultation exercises have been to date, and given that this is election campaign time, it would not be unrealistic for people to think that this exercise was nothing but a publicity spend to profile the Government. The Māori Party co-leader Tariana Turia summed up the situation perfectly when she asked the Minister of Māori Affairs last September: “Since the legislation, can the Minister tell the House how many new aquaculture farms have been established by and for Māori, and where they are?”. The Minister’s response was “None.”

The Māori Party will support the bill in the interests of trying to get the Government to honour the Māori commercial aquaculture settlement, but we do so mindful of the bad faith and broken promises that have characterised this Government’s commitment to Māori aquaculture development. Sorry, I apologise; this Government did keep one promise to Māori. It promised to steal our foreshore and seabed, and it did exactly that. Kia ora tātou.

Bill read a second time.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): This bill is set down for Committee stage forthwith.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Mr Clarkson wants to make his valedictory speech early. Do you see, Mr Assistant Speaker? Oh, he has pulled the sign down. It will be a short speech. He has been totally incomprehensible since the day he arrived. He jumped before he got pushed.

BOB CLARKSON (National—Tauranga): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have just two words, Mr Assistant Speaker: good bye.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: That’s his valedictory.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): We must be in urgency, I think.

GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I appreciate the opportunity to make a contribution to the proceedings in the House this afternoon, as we appear to have reached some form of impasse, whereby the Government is not able to proceed with its business, because the Minister has not turned up.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I thought that was going to be a point of order, Mr Brownlee.

Hon Members: What’s going on?

GERRY BROWNLEE: I sought the call. You gave me the call. I assumed that—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): No, I did not give you the call, Mr Brownlee. Please be seated. I was under the impression that you had a point of order. I declare the House in Committee for consideration of the Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill.

In Committee

SUE MORONEY (Junior Whip—Labour): I seek leave for the bill to be considered as one question.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): Leave has been sought for that course to be followed. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.

Clauses 1 to 22

Hon DAVID CARTER (National): I simply want the Minister to clarify one point with regard to Part 3, “Amendments to Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Act 2004”. The reason I want clarification is that some quite differing information was given in the previous debate on the second reading. The principal question I want answered by the Minister is—

Hon Lianne Dalziel: Say it slowly.

Hon DAVID CARTER: I will say it very, very slowly for the Minister and member for Christchurch East. How much new aquaculture space—new aquaculture management areas, as they are called—has been created since the passing of the original legislation in 2004? In my contribution and the contribution from my colleague—

Hon Lianne Dalziel: Do you know the answer?

Hon DAVID CARTER: Yes, I do know the answer. When the Minister does her homework she will have to stand and say that no new space has been created. The reason I think that should be clarified is that the Green member, of course, suggested in the debate that some new space—new aquaculture management areas—had been created, particularly in Northland.

The reason this does need to be satisfied with regard to Part 3 is that if new space has been created, then effectively 40 percent of that space must now be made available to Māori. I suspect, from the contribution of the Māori Party in the second reading debate, that they are not aware of receiving any space, and I suspect that in this case the Māori Party is absolutely right. They will not have received any space, because no new space has been created. That is why this legislation is so critical. It is but a band-aid to fix a far bigger problem.

In 2004 the Government passed legislation that the then Minister, David Benson-Pope, announced as being groundbreaking legislation that would lift this industry from, at that stage, about a $200 million industry to a billion-dollar export industry. That has not occurred, and I think the Minister should take time to clarify with the officials immediately behind her, to find out how much space has been created—

Hon Lianne Dalziel: You have already answered the question.

Hon DAVID CARTER: I think that the Minister needs to answer, for the sake of the Māori Party members. They need to have accurate information, and they can then be informed how much space has been created since 2004. I am sure they will find the answer is zero. Therefore the Minister might also like to rise and give me an explanation as to what else she is proposing to do to fix the legislation beyond this particular measure to ensure we do get enabling legislation to allow this industry to reach its potential.

The Minister will be well aware of this very fancy document I am holding. I think she must be about the only Minister who actually did not get to sign it. Everyone else has put their name on the bottom of it, but I do not see Lianne Dalziel’s name there. It is a particularly glossy brochure. It points out the potential of this industry. It is not a laughing matter, I say to the Minister.

Hon Lianne Dalziel: What year was it?

Hon DAVID CARTER: This was June 2007, and the member was a Minister then?

Hon Lianne Dalziel: Yes.

Hon DAVID CARTER: Only just, or just about to go out? I cannot remember the details.

Hon Lianne Dalziel: Minister of Commerce.

Hon DAVID CARTER: Minister of Commerce!

Hon Lianne Dalziel: Women’s affairs, and small business.

Hon DAVID CARTER: This is important—Minister of Commerce. This Minister of Commerce should be enabling legislation to allow the aquaculture industry to reach its potential, which is a billion dollars - plus.

Phil Heatley: What did she know that the others didn’t?

Hon DAVID CARTER: No—I suspect it is because perhaps there was a fall-out between this Minister and Benson-Pope, because Benson-Pope did not ask for her signature; I am not sure. But every other Minister certainly managed to sign it. A lot of them are not Ministers any more, but I guess that is not the point.

The final question, I think, is one for the Minister to confirm for the sake of the debate today. How much new aquaculture space has been created since that wonderful piece of heralding legislation was advanced by the Hon David Benson-Pope in 2004—legislation that the National Party strongly said at the time would not work? If the answer is that no space has been created, it is—

Hon Maurice Williamson: Can’t be no space, I’m sure. Must be some space.

Hon DAVID CARTER: I am sure there will be, but we are waiting for the Minister to take a call. I am sure that that is absolute proof that the National Party was right about this legislation and the Labour Government, supported by New Zealand First, was, as expected, absolutely wrong about it.

PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei): Perhaps I could describe the smoke and mirrors being used by the Labour Party up and down the country when it comes to aquaculture. Of course, it is a fact that no new aquaculture management areas have been created anywhere in the country in the last 3 years. The Labour Party says that new marine farms have been created, but of course although they might have been started only recently, they were created under the old legislation, before Labour supposedly fixed it. The new marine farms that are coming on stream today—the farms that came into play recently—were created under the old legislation. Since the new legislation came in 3 years ago, the Labour Party legislation that apparently fixed the industry, no new marine farms have come through. So when Metiria Turei talks about new areas up in Northland, which of course is my home patch, she is talking about either farms that have been in existence, which automatically have become aquaculture management areas, or new farms that have become aquaculture management areas passed under the old legislation.

Hon David Carter: Did those few new places lose 20 percent of the market—who was the real Minister?

PHIL HEATLEY: That is exactly right. I want to inform the Committee about an issue concerning clause 11(3) on the definition of regional councils. An intelligent person like Maurice Williamson will weep when he hears this. I have not explained it to him before, but I would like to explain it to him now. When Labour passed the Aquaculture Reform (Repeals and Transitional Provisions) Act over 3 years ago in 2004, it said that regional councils would have a specific say. But members know, I know, and half the country knows that Tasman, Marlborough, Gisborne, and Nelson are—are what, I ask Mr Williamson? They are unitary authorities. They have the functions of both a regional council and a district council. There is no “Marlborough Regional Council”, because the Marlborough District Council, the Tasman District Council, the Nelson City Council, and the Gisborne District Council are all both a district council and a regional council. That is unlike the situation in Northland, where we have the Northland Regional Council and also the Far North District Council, the Whangarei District Council, and the Kaipara District Council. But the Marlborough, Tasman, Nelson, and Gisborne councils are unitary authorities. They have both regional council and district council functions.

Believe it or not, when the Minister passed that Act over 3 years ago he never put in the definition to say that where most of the aquaculture happens, those district councils would have regional council functions. That means, in effect, that the most important district councils in the area are ignored in this legislation, yet they are dealing with coastal activities, aquaculture, and marine farming all the time. My question to New Zealanders asks how they can trust the ability of a Government that does not even realise that four district councils across this country—or actually three district councils and one city council; I think Nelson has a city council—which have as much to do with aquaculture as does any other council in the country, have only regional council functions, and that by passing the 2004 Act we could have gone by the Local Government Act definition that does not recognise the regional council function in those councils. Today, thankfully, we are passing legislation that will secure in ink, through this Parliament, the recognition of the regional council functions of those four councils in this country. Thank goodness that has happened, over 3 years on; we are pleased about that.

I would like to ask the Minister of Commerce, who did not sign the “glossy” that came out a few years ago, why she did not sign it. Was it because she was suspicious that there would be no progress in aquaculture going forward? Was it because there was no room for her signature, because everyone else had signed it? Was it because she knew that a number of Ministers would resign their portfolios or, like David Benson-Pope, be fired from their portfolios, and she did not want to be one of a number of signatories to a document that was clearly cursed right from the beginning? That is my first question. My second question asks whether she was aware at the time of the legislation being passed over 3 years ago that her Labour Party Cabinet colleagues did not know that those unitary authorities had regional council functions.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 251 in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

Clauses 1 to 22 as amended agreed to.

Bills

Supplementary .

The Committee divided the bill into the Aquaculture Reform (Repeals and Transitional Provisions) Amendment Bill, the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 2), the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Amendment Bill (No 2), and the Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2), pursuant to Order Paper252

Bill reported with amendment.

Report adopted.

Third Readings

Third Readings

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Commerce) on behalf of the Minister for the Environment: I move, That the Aquaculture Reform (Repeals and Transitional Provisions) Amendment Bill, the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 2), the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Amendment Bill (No 2), and the Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a third time. I do not intend to traverse the very extensive coverage that I gave to the issues arising out of this legislation that I gave in my second reading address. I simply place on record my gratitude to members of the Primary Production Committee for their very hard work on this legislation. I know that they had a shortened period of time to look at it, because it was technical legislation addressing, as it does, the outcome of an Environment Court decision that allowed applications for aquaculture activities to be made before aquaculture management areas were defined in regional coastal plans. Addressing that matter was the primary intent of the legislation. Yes, we did tidy up other matters, as identified by Mr Heatley during the Committee stage, in respect of unitary authorities.

It has been very good to have such good assistance from members of the select committee and the Opposition in facilitating the passage of this legislation. I place on record as well the thanks of the Minister for the Environment to the officials who supported the select committee in that work. I commend the legislation to the House.

PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei): The National Party will be supporting this legislation. It does address the findings of the Environment Court, made on 9 May 2006, that clarified that the applications for aquaculture space can only be inside aquaculture management areas. The intent of the law was that marine farms be inside aquaculture management areas only.

This legislation does freeze applications between 1 January 2005 and the court decision, such that they can proceed only if the area becomes an aquaculture management area and it cancels applications made after the court decision. Of course, the applications that are frozen are still able eventually to be involved in marine farming if the area becomes an aquaculture management area within the next decade. If not, of course, those applications will fall void.

It is true that this legislation is very complex. It reflects the fundamental problems with the underlying legislation. The progress of creating new marine farming spaces has been very slow. No new significant aquaculture management areas have been created in the last 3½ years, which, quite frankly, is a disgrace. It means that no 20 percent settlement has gone to Māori in that same time period of 3½ years. This legislation, along with the Fisheries Act 1996 Amendment Bill (No. 2), which we will be debating probably today also, will simply secure the current process—a process that clearly needs streamlining.

The industry wishes us to support this legislation and we are happy to do so. On behalf of the National Party I do say that it is an interim measure. It is a sticking plaster to temporarily deal with some pressing matters affecting the industry, and more fundamental changes need to be made, particularly to the overarching Resource Management Act. National supports this legislation. It is making some progress, but certainly not the progress that we want to see over the next decade.

Hon DAVID CARTER (National): In rising to support the Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill I acknowledge that legislatively this is a difficult area. It is an industry that I think has huge potential, but there are also difficulties around environmental issues and certainly the occupation of space, which people with competing interests feel they have a right to be involved in. The solutions are not easy.

In supporting this particular narrowly focused legislation, which tidies up one quite specific issue in Tasman Bay, I note that there is further legislation on the Order Paper that may or may not be referred to a select committee before the election. Even that legislation, I suspect, when passed through its full parliamentary process will not be enough to ensure that we harvest the potential of this industry. I look forward to the day when Parliament can have a realistic and unemotional debate on what we can do that is right for the New Zealand economy. We have huge potential, because of our unique location in the world. We have a very large ocean area that is ours, and the trend throughout the world now is to farm fish rather than harvest wild fish. Therefore I think that as that trend accelerates and the demand for fish products grows exponentially, the potential for New Zealand is huge. We cannot harvest that potential unless we have the correct legislative framework. As I said earlier, I think the passing of this legislation today and the subsequent legislation, if it does receive a third reading before the election, will in itself not be enough to unshackle this industry and let it go forth.

PITA PARAONE (NZ First): Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. It is my pleasure to participate in the third reading of this legislation and to signal our support for it. I want to acknowledge the work of the Primary Production Committee; although I am not a member of it I did participate in the final areas of debate before the legislation was reported back to the House. Although I did not have any voting rights I want to accord my appreciation to the chairman for allowing me to contribute when I wanted to.

Aquaculture is an industry that has great potential for this country. Unfortunately we are not seeing the full benefits of this particular industry for whatever reason, be it political or otherwise. But this legislation will go a long way to see the acceleration of this industry as a major export source for the betterment of our country. I am particularly pleased to see that the issue of Māori fisheries has been addressed. I know that those in the industry, particularly those interested in Māori interests, are very supportive of this bill. I know that Te Ohu Kai Moana made representations on behalf of the Māori interests in fisheries, and came out in support of it.

I do not have too much more to say other than to say that this legislation is timely and I look forward to seeing this whole aquaculture industry grow not only for the benefit of those who will participate in it but for our country as a whole. Kia ora.

Bills read a third time.

Bills

Fisheries Act 1996 Amendment Bill (No 2)

Second Reading

Hon STEVE CHADWICK (Minister of Conservation) on behalf of the Minister of Fisheries: I move, That the Fisheries Act 1996 Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a second time. This bill amends the Fisheries Act 1996 and it is particular to section 13 of that Act. The provisions of the bill address an issue pointed out by the High Court in February 2008 in a case reviewing decisions on total allowable catch for the area 1 stock of orange roughy. The court pointed out that the practice of the past two decades in the management of many of New Zealand’s fisheries has been inconsistent with the current wording of the Act. This effectively disabled the key management measure for the majority of our fisheries—that is, the setting of total allowable catches under section 13 of the Act.

This short bill addresses the problem identified by the court and restores the ability of the Minister of Fisheries to set catch limits for all quota management system fish stocks. It introduces new subsection 2A into section 13 of the Act. This new subsection will enable catch limit decisions to be made for quota management stocks where full quantitative estimates are not available for the current biomass of the stock and the biomass that would enable the maximum sustainable yield to be taken. It is intended to preserve the balance of consideration in setting total allowable catches under the Act that has prevailed in recent years, providing for the utilisation of fisheries while ensuring sustainability. It replicates as much as possible the language and concepts of the existing provisions as they have been applied to date.

The new provision will not only be used where quantitative estimates of biomass as required by the existing provision are not available at reasonable cost, effort, or time; it also requires that decisions must not be inconsistent with the objective of managing fish stocks at or above a level that can produce a maximum sustainable yield. In short, the new provision restores the ability of the Minister of Fisheries to set sustainable catch limits for all fish stocks and allows the management of fishing to continue as it has in the past.

The Primary Production Committee reported this bill back to the House with minor amendment only, to cross-references under clause 4(2) that correct a drafting oversight. Essentially, the committee agrees that this bill does what it sets out to do and that it is important to focus on this task alone. Submissions made to the committee asked for a variety of additions and alterations to be made to the bill. However, anything that departs from the simple task of restoring the ability of the Minister to set total allowable catches for all stocks with the best available information will inevitably be controversial and delay this important bill, and it is important that this bill is passed into law this week.

The Minister of Fisheries has total allowable catch advice put before him at this very time every year and in March so that fisheries may be managed sustainably. The current decisions need to be finalised and gazetted by 1 October if they are to have effect in the coming fishing year. The need to expedite this bill is not to deny the work of many of the submissions made to the select committee. The Fisheries Act could, of course, be improved, and a forthcoming review of the Act has already been signalled by the Ministry of Fisheries. The ideas for new approaches put forward in submissions will be taken forward into that wider view of legislation.

This bill contains provisions that will correct the deficiencies in the Fisheries Act 1996 that were identified recently by the High Court, and it will allow our most important fisheries management decisions to be made in a timely manner, consistent with practice in recent years. This will restore the ability of the management system to fulfil the purpose of the Act, which is to provide for utilisation of fisheries resources while ensuring sustainability. I commend the bill to the House.

PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei): The National Party supported the Fisheries Act 1996 Amendment Bill (No 2) going to the select committee, because we believed the ministry, Crown Law, the Minister, and the industry when they came to us and said that the law needed clarification. There was no will on the part of the National Party to change the law; what we wanted to do was clarify the intent of the law, and we believe that the legislation does that.

This bill amends section 13 of the Act to allow the continuation of what has always been done—that is, to use a range of methods and management strategies in the setting of a total allowable catch. The ministry claimed that clarification was necessary following a recent court case decision where the total allowable catch and the total allowable commercial catch settings of orange roughy were successfully challenged. Although there was at that time dispute over whether it was the interpretation of the law that led to the judgment against the Ministry of Fisheries, rather than poor advice from the ministry, the fact is that since the judgment commercial fishers, the ministry, and Crown Law agree that the intent of the law needs to be clarified. We welcomed that into the select committee. We understand that the industry, the ministry, and others agreed on wording that does not extend the current law and does not curtail the current law. It does not extend current practice when measuring fish stocks, and it does not curtail current practice in measuring fish stocks; it simply endorses both.

Current law and current practice allows the Minister to set the total allowable catch and total allowable commercial catch based on a maximum sustainable yield that has been estimated using a range of methods, not just a single method. The law as it currently stands could be interpreted to say that there is only one way to estimate the maximum sustainable yield. We would not like to see the Ministry of Fisheries restricted to using only one method to estimate the maximum sustainable yield, simply because that would mean that the vast majority of fish stocks would not be able to be measured in this way, and certainly the resources to do so are limited, so it would just not be practically possible.

This amendment has no relationship, we should add, to the section 10 fisheries amendment bill that was languishing on the Order Paper with no political or industry support. We saw that in the mid-year. The section 10 legislation was to clarify the law that the Minister must take a cautious approach where there was inadequate information on fish stock health. I have to say again that this legislation here has no relationship to that section 10 legislation; this legislation deals with section 13 only.

National agrees that the current Act is not explicitly clear. We agreed to clarification, not change. We can say, particularly to recreational fishers who are concerned that this legislation makes a change that favours the commercial fishing industry, that members of the select committee—members from Labour, National, and other parties across the debating Chamber—were very careful to ensure that this legislative change that we are debating today made no change at all to the intent of the Act or to how the Act currently works. There is no shift of the goalposts, at all; we have been very careful to make sure of that. We agree that the current Act is not explicitly clear. We agree to clarification, we do not agree to change, and we believe that this is what this legislation does achieve.

SUE BRADFORD (Green): The Green Party believes that the Fisheries Act 1996 Amendment Bill (No 2) is a necessary fix to one of the many flaws in the Fisheries Act 1996. Given that for many, if not most, fish stocks we have very limited actual biomass data, let alone good enough data to accurately estimate what sustainable yields are, it is an unacceptable situation for the Minister to not be able to set or change the total allowable catch for those fish stocks. A number of alternative methods for guesstimating maximum sustainable yields are required for fish stocks without good biomass data. As a result of a High Court decision, those are unavailable to the Minister. The bill amends section 13 of the Act, to use the best available information to estimate the maximum sustainable yield.

The Green Party believes that fisheries management in New Zealand is fundamentally unsustainable, with fish stocks continuously being depleted, and that deep quota cuts are required. Orange roughy is the classic example of that, having been fished almost to death by bottom-trawling. Since quotas were reduced in some areas in the 1990s, the state of the fish stock has hardly even begun to recover. The hoki fishery, despite recent recertification by the Marine Stewardship Council, is heading in the same direction, as are many of our other fish stocks. The Minister may describe the New Zealand quota management system as a world leader, but the sad fact is that it is not. It could be a world leader if the Fisheries Act was based on a precautionary principle, if the sustainability of fish stocks in the wider marine ecosystem was paramount, if customary and recreational interests came before commercial interests, if the Minister mandated best-practice fishing and by-catch avoidance methods, and if foreign fishing vessels were restricted in New Zealand waters.

The fish in New Zealand waters are a natural resource that belongs to all New Zealanders, yet since 1992 the commercial fishing industry gets to catch them for free, provided that it owns quota. The public of New Zealand get no return on the use of that resource. If commercial fishing was required to pay resource rentals for the fish it profits from, our fisheries management would be better and fairer. When total allowable catches are based on treating biomass maximum sustainable yields as targets, we regularly overfish the stocks. The biomass maximum sustainable yield should be treated as an absolute maximum in setting the total allowable catch, not a target. I have learnt that only 24 of the 629 fish stocks managed under the quota management system have quantitative estimates of current biomass and maximum sustainable yield. By number that is just 3.5 percent of all fish stocks, but due to many major fish species being in the 24, by volume it is actually 24 percent.

In addition to general concern about the inadequate precautionary and sustainability principles in the current fisheries legislation, this bill raises a more specific issue about research. We can estimate fish stocks in ways other than quantitative estimates, but we must not rely on them. There are woefully insufficient incentives for the fishing industry to do the necessary research to obtain hard evidence of the sustainability of fish stock and catch levels. I am advised that we invest less today on stock assessment research than we did 15 years ago. Taking inflation into account, it is under half what was spent in the early 1990s. The investment dropped drastically during the period when the National Government was in charge and the Hon John Luxton was the Minister. Those were dire days for fisheries management. The current Government has improved things somewhat, but it is still a fact that we invest significantly less in research than we used to. That has to be addressed.

The Green Party amendment to this bill would help. It says that if the Minister has to set a total allowable catch under new section 13(2A), inserted by clause 4 of the bill, he cannot increase the total allowable catch. In order to increase the total allowable catch the Minister would need to be satisfied that there is sufficient information on the stock. Where there is uncertainty, then the precautionary principle would apply and the total allowable catch would not be increased. It could be reset at current levels or reduced, depending on what the limited information available suggested was prudent. The incentive should be that if one does more research, one gets estimates of sustainable yield that comply with section 13(2) of the Act, and then one can increase the total allowable catch if the reliable estimate can sustain that. The second part of the Green Party amendment simply ensures that the broader purpose and principles of the Act are taken into account when setting a total allowable catch using the new section 13(2A) and section 13(3). We commend this amendment to the House, as a way of ensuring that the bill does not have the perverse outcome of allowing catches to be increased in the face of uncertainty.

Finally, I say the test of this legislation will come when the Minister sets the total allowable catch allocations for the major bluenose stocks, which have one stock with a quantitative estimate that has not been updated since 1991 and no estimates for other areas. Limited evidence suggests that this fishery is actually unsustainable. This legislation should allow those total allowable catch allocations to be reduced. For that reason the Green Party will support this bill, even if the House does not accept the Green Party amendment.

Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Māori Party): Tēnā koe, Madam Assistant Speaker. Well, we know only 44 days are left until an election, when suddenly everyone wants to consult “the Māori”. Curiously, this bill, the Fisheries Act 1996 Amendment Bill (No 2), is being debated at the same time the Ministry of Fisheries is consulting tangata whenua about ways of improving the processes for working together on fisheries management—interesting! Some 12 years after the Act was introduced, the ministry now deems it appropriate to talk with Māori about ways to implement the requirements of the Act. The Ministry of Fisheries is going around the country, between now and 31 October, asking Māori what participation looks like. Twelve years later, the ministry is asking the people what the Act means when it allows the Minister of Fisheries to approve measures “to better recognise the rangatiratanga of iwi and hapu over their non-commercial customary fisheries.” We are not criticising the fact that there is consultation; quite the contrary. Engaging with Māori before making sustainability decisions, such as changes to catch limits and amendments to regulations, is absolutely fundamental, and consistent with the Fisheries Act. But we are concerned about why it has taken until now to willingly involve tangata whenua in fisheries management—and I take this time to commend the Minister of Fisheries, the Hon Jim Anderton, for taking particular care to ensure that tangata whenua are consulted.

This bill was always inevitable. The problem identified by the High Court in relation to setting the total allowable catch had to be rectified, and there is a particular reason why we have supported the section 13 amendment coming up under urgency. That is, of course, the fact that this time next week—1 October—signals the start of the new fishing year, and so the amendment is needed to establish new catch limits. We acknowledge the pressure that a tight time frame has placed upon the sector, with literally the whole process being tied up within the space of 8 weeks. The amendment will enable the Minister of Fisheries to determine the catch limit decisions for fisheries in the quota management system, according to established practice and using the best available information. The emphasis on established practice and best available information is of particular interest to the Māori Party. The Fisheries Act requires that the Minister must provide for the input and participation of tangata whenua, and, additionally, have regard for their kaitiakitanga in matters such as changes to catch limits.

We are pleased that the Minister has initiated a more robust consultative process with Māori fisheries. We are aware, however, that not all parties are satisfied, and that non-commercial fishing representatives, both amateur and customary, are concerned that the amendment was reached without sufficient input from them. Demands were also made at a recent hui of the Hokianga Accord, the mid-north iwi fisheries forum, for a more open and democratic process before making such a significant change to the Act. The concerns from the Hokianga Accord, the New Zealand Big Game Fishing Council, option4, and other non-commercial fishing representatives spoke of the vital need to work together, to ensure sustainability, and to avoid international condemnation of fisheries management in New Zealand.

In thinking about an international context, I want just to mention a recent announcement from the United Nations that has confirmed New Zealand’s rights over seabeds outside the country’s exclusive economic zone. It is a fascinating irony that a Government that was hell-bent on taking the foreshore and seabed off Māori has, at the same time, been negotiating for 10 years to extend the outer limits of the continental shelf. And it is with even more irony that we learn that the new continental shelf boundary will enable what the Prime Minister describes as “New Zealand” to exercise its rights to resources such as minerals and petroleum. I cannot help contrasting this new-found enthusiasm for rights to petroleum with statements back in 2000 in response to the claims by ngā hapū o Ngā Ruahine o Taranaki and by Ngāti Kahungunu of Hawke’s Bay and Wairarapa in relation to their interests in the petroleum resource. In that significant finding, the tribunal concluded that the claimants had a subsisting Treaty interest in the petroleum resource, and that they were accordingly entitled to redress beyond that to which their historical land-loss grievances entitled them. But of course it is history now—that the Government briskly moved to reject the findings, and to ignore the conclusion that this was a breach of the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, and to quickly rule that oil and gas were public assets.

As I have found in this place, political intelligence is all about connecting the dots, pointing out the inconsistencies, and addressing the anomalies. It would appear that the fisheries area has more than its fair share of loopholes and fishhooks, trapped within the sector. This bill, we believe, is an honest attempt to untangle one of the more recent issues impacting on quota management stocks, and we welcome that. We do not believe that it will create major change for the general approach of the Fisheries Act, and we do, as I said earlier, have the concern that we do not want to delay decisions on catch limits before the start of the new season. We are very aware that the current status for the majority of the 629 fish stocks in the quota management system is such that the information threshold can simply not be met. So we hope that this amendment will enable due process to occur, with best practice and robust information, to set catch limits without incurring unreasonable cost, effort, or time, across the sector. The warning is there, however, that effective progress in fisheries management will come only with full, frank, and informed consultation with all parties.

I end with a concern that the Hauraki Māori Trust Board’s spokesperson, John McEnteer, has raised, regarding the seabed decision I referred to earlier. His comment was that with the foreshore and seabed legislation, the Government grabbed more than $100 million of assets from Māori, and in excluding Māori from the new development—the additional 1.7 kilometres of seabeds—it continues to marginalise and ignore the rights of Māori even further. The Hauraki Māori Trust Board suggested back in 2004 that moves to claim the continental shelf should be done in partnership with Māori, but the Government refused to do that. What is worse, when Mr McEnteer has gone to officials for robust information, they have refused to give it, claiming the matter is confidential. All that such action does, of course, is to further erode the confidence of Māori in the Government, and ultimately affect the perceptions around the integrity of the consultation process. The fisheries sector is very familiar with the notion of the precautionary principle—that we should not introduce a new initiative unless we are convinced that it is safe for us and for the environment. The Māori Party recommends that this same precautionary approach is considered of value when thinking about consultation on anything relating to fisheries management. We will support this bill at its final readings, and we signal our support for the ministry and the Minister to continue to demonstrate their commitment to consultation. Thank you.

PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I did not want to interrupt Dr Sharples in his speech, but when he was talking about seabed exploration he mentioned an Andrew. Was it a place name or a person’s name? It was Andrew, I think, and I did not catch the surname. Or did I misinterpret? I am just interested in that.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs): I think you might have to settle that out of House time. Is that all right? It is perfectly legitimate.

PHIL HEATLEY: OK.

PITA PARAONE (NZ First): I say to the member that the name of the person I heard referred to is John McInteer, who I understand is a member of the National Party.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs): Does the member wish to seek the call?

PITA PARAONE: Tēnā koe, Madam Assistant Speaker. I stand on behalf of New Zealand First to take a short call, and to indicate that New Zealand First will certainly be supporting the Fisheries Act 1996 Amendment Bill (No 2). The bill imposes a technical change in regard to section 13 of the Fisheries Act 1996, where it provides for the continuance of established practice by the Minister of Fisheries when setting a total allowable catch for a stock covered by the quota management system. It would allow a total allowable catch to be set even where estimates of the current and target biomass of a fish stock were not available. The bill is a response to a recent High Court ruling, which found that as the principal Act stands, the Minister must be provided with estimates of the current biomass of a stock, and of the biomass that can represent the maximum sustainable yield from that stock, before setting a total allowable catch.

Reference has been made by a previous speaker that two particular lobby groups within the industry expressed some concern about the short notice and, possibly, about the lack of opportunity to be consulted on this bill. I say that around about this time last year I, and a number of members of this House, attended the quarterly meeting of option4 and the Hokianga Accord. At that particular conference this whole fishing issue was discussed. I extended an invitation for the members of that conference to come and visit New Zealand First to clarify the concerns they might have, but I can report that from that day to this day neither I nor any of my caucus colleagues have received a visit from either of those groups. We have heard today that they have been making approaches to some parties, complaining about the process this House has adopted, but they have not wanted to express their concerns to other parties.

Suffice to say, this bill will certainly give more clarity and, dare I say it, more authority to the Minister of Fisheries. If I had a personal concern, it is that it may become the norm, rather than the exception, for the Minister to exercise his or her prerogative to issue, or not to issue, a particular quota for a particular species, irrespective of there not being sufficient evidence or documentation to prove that that species is under threat. New Zealand First supports the second reading of this bill. Kia ora.

Bill read a second time.

Instruction to Committee

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House): I seek leave for it to be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House that it take the Committee stage of the Fisheries Act 1996 Amendment Bill (No 2) as a single debate, with the relevant questions put at the end.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs): Leave is sought to do this. Is there any objection to that course of action? There being none, that instruction shall be given.

In Committee

Clauses 1 to 5

The question was put that the following amendments in the name of Metiria Turei to clause 4 be agreed to:

to omit subsection (2A)(c)(ii) in subclause (1) and substitute:

(ii) that is consistent with the purpose and environmental principles of the Act; and

to add to subsection (2A) in subclause (1) the following paragraph:

the Minister may not increase a total allowable catch under subsection (2A).

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

Ayes 10

Green Party 6; Māori Party 4.

Noes 107

New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 47; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field.

Amendments not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Metiria Turei to clause 4 be agreed to:

to add the following subclause:

(3A) Section 13(3) is amended by omitting “the Minister shall have regard to such social, cultural, and economic factors as he or she considers relevant” and substituting “the Minister shall, consistently with the purpose and environmental principles of the Act, have regard to such social, cultural, and economic factors as he or she considers relevant”.

Amendment not agreed to.

Clauses 1 to 5 agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment.

Report adopted.

Business of the House

Business of the House

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House): Pursuant to discussion I have had, and for technical reasons to enable the bill we are dealing with at the moment, the Fisheries Act 1996 Amendment Bill (No 2), to be assented to by 1 October 2008, I seek leave for Government order of the day No. 16, the second reading of the Financial Service Providers (Registration and Dispute Resolution) Bill, to be taken at the conclusion of the third reading of the Fisheries Act 1996 Amendment Bill (No 2).

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs): Dr Cullen has sought leave to change the order of business slightly. Is there any objection to that course of action? There being none, it is agreed to.

Bills

Fisheries Act 1996 Amendment Bill (No 2)

Third Reading

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Minister of Tourism) on behalf of the Minister of Fisheries: I move, That the Fisheries Act 1996 Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a third time. The Fisheries Act 1996 Amendment Bill (No 2) amends the Fisheries Act 1996, and, in particular, section 13 of that Act. The provisions of the bill address an issue pointed out by the High Court in February 2008 in a case reviewing decisions on total allowable catch for area 1 stock of orange roughy. The court pointed out that the practice of the past two decades in the management of many of New Zealand’s fisheries has been inconsistent with the current wording of the Act. It has effectively disabled the key management measure for the majority of our fisheries—that is, the setting of total allowable catches under section 13 of the Act.

In short, the bill addresses the problem identified by the court, and restores the ability of the Minister of Fisheries to set catch limits for all quota management system fish stocks. It introduces a new subsection (2A) into section 13 of the Act. The new provision restores the ability of the Minister to set sustainable catch limits for all fish stocks, and allows the management of fishing to continue as it has done in the past.

The Primary Production Committee reported the bill back to the House. Essentially, the committee agrees that the bill does what it set out to do, and that it is important to focus on this task alone. I acknowledge the amendments put forward by the Greens, but it was the view of the Committee and the House that the bill as reported back achieves what we set out to do—that is, to take a precautionary approach but allow enough flexibility for the Minister to set total allowable catches.

The bill contains provisions that will correct the deficiencies of the Fisheries Act 1996 identified by the High Court ruling, and allows the most important fisheries management decisions to be made in a timely manner, consistent with practice in recent years. That will restore the ability of the management system to fulfil the purpose of the Act, which is to provide for utilisation of fisheries resources while ensuring sustainability. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon DAVID CARTER (National): National will support the Fisheries Act 1996 Amendment Bill (No 2). We also were happy to grant leave to Dr Cullen 5 or 10 minutes ago to change the Order Paper specifically so that this legislation and others could be enacted by 1 October this year. It is critical that this legislation be dealt with by the Primary Production Committee, passed through the House, and enacted by 1 October, so that we do not have any difficulties—or have fewer difficulties—with the setting of total allowable catches for the coming fishing season.

The fishing industry is intensely litigious. This legislation is before us today because of a decision made by Justice Miller in February 2008, when Antons Trawling Co. Ltd took a case against the Minister of Fisheries regarding his establishment of a total allowable catch for area 1 orange roughy. Antons Trawling challenged the establishment by the Minister of Fisheries, Jim Anderton, of a total allowable catch, and, on the basis of a ruling from Justice Miller that it was necessary to establish the maximum sustainable yield, the original quota decision of the Minister was overturned.

We now have about 629 species in the quota management system, and those total allowable catches are set annually—in many cases, without the information necessary to establish the maximum sustainable yield. Although the ruling by Justice Miller is, obviously, the strict interpretation of the original legislation, for a long period of time now the sustainable yield has been established on a variety of information. Clearly, the cost and complexity of having to establish total allowable catches based on only full information about the maximum sustainable yield would make it be impractical. National acknowledges that and is happy to support the legislation.

The Minister of Fisheries should have done a lot better for this industry. The original decision from Justice Miller came out in February of 2008. Mr Anderton sat on his hands, aware of that decision and of the difficulty of establishing total allowable catches from October this year. He then rushed legislation into Parliament on 11 August, and told the select committee that it had to report it back to the House by 22 August. The select committee did that; it reported it back by 22 August, and the bill has sat on the Order Paper for the last month, when we have had the ability to get it through Parliament. That is just typical of the Minister of Fisheries. He has been absolutely hopeless for this industry. He has never been interested in the portfolio, and, consequently, it is of little surprise to me that his relationship with the fishing industry is similar to the relationships that he has established with the farming industry and the forestry industry.

The Primary Production Committee received a number of submissions, and many of those submitters made points that were outside the scope of the bill. I am comforted by the fact that the Ministry of Fisheries acknowledged to the select committee that it intends to conduct a wider review of the Fisheries Act 1996. It is very complex legislation; it provides a ground-breaking mechanism for managing fisheries and fishing stock that is well regarded around the world, but it is not perfect. It is timely that a review be undertaken, and I hope that that review will find ways of addressing some of the submissions that came before the select committee.

It is with pleasure that National members support the legislation. It needs to be passed by 1 October. I certainly hope that, in setting fishing limits for the coming season—which starts on 1 October 2008—we do not then see too much litigation, with too many challenges from the industry to the Minister’s decision, which, after all, is about ensuring that we have a sustainable fishery into the future.

PITA PARAONE (NZ First): Tēnā koe, Madam Assistant Speaker. New Zealand First, of course, supports the Fisheries Act 1996 Amendment Bill (No 2). We are indeed pleased about the fact that it is being passed at this stage, because that will then allow the Minister of Fisheries to start the process of issuing the various quotas that are required for the beginning of the fishing season, which starts on 1 October.

One of the things I note about this bill is that it came about because of a court action. Like the previous speaker, David Carter, I hope that as a consequence of this bill we will not see any further litigation in this regard.

The bill provides for a precautionary approach to be taken, and it is great that it is being passed at this time. This country has a resource that many other nations would like to have—I am not quite sure whether they would like to share it. But certainly we as a nation, because of the proximity of the various fish species and the importance they have to our economy, should ensure that, one, we have processes in place to protect that resource, and, two, we are able at the same time to get the maximum return and the maximum benefit from it not only for the people of New Zealand but for ourselves as a nation. With what seems to be the trend of entering into free-trade agreements, I suspect that the fishing industry will have a major input into increasing the benefits that such agreements provide for our nation.

In conclusion, I reaffirm that New Zealand First supports this bill.

Bill read a third time.

Bills

Financial Service Providers (Registration and Dispute Resolution) Bill

Second Reading

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Commerce): I move, That the Financial Service Providers (Registration and Dispute Resolution) Bill be now read a second time. This bill requires that all financial service providers must be registered with the New Zealand Companies Office, from banks right the way through to moneylenders, including the loan sharks that prey on vulnerable people. I know that in a previous debate we heard mention of a particular moneylender who was advertising rates at 8 percent, but only in the small print did we notice that that was 8 percent per week, not 8 percent per annum. These are the people who will now have the spotlight put upon them by the requirements to be registered. We will know who they are, we will know where they operate, and we will know what services they offer. The register will provide a very useful resource for consumers, the industry, and regulators, by providing a searchable access point for information on all financial service providers in New Zealand. The register will also enable New Zealand to meet certain of its anti - money-laundering obligations under the Financial Action Task Force’s requirements.

I am aware that the Opposition spokesperson on commerce may be somewhat surprised that we are dealing with this bill in the order that we are, so I think it is probably worthy of a slight diversion from my speech to say that one thing that had not been appreciated—something that I had overlooked myself—was that there are cross-references to the Financial Advisers Bill. For that bill to take effect in the time frame we want, we have to pass this bill pretty much at the same time, so that the cross referencing can take effect at the point that both bills are brought into—

Nathan Guy: It’s good you’ve got that organised.

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: Yes, I apologise to the House if that has caused a problem. The bill also requires all financial service providers who provide a service to the public to belong to an approved dispute resolution scheme. Approved dispute resolution schemes will, hopefully, build on the existing industry-led dispute resolution schemes in the financial sector. I pay particular tribute both to the Banking Ombudsman and Insurance and Savings Ombudsman schemes, and to the organisations that have established them, because the banking sector and the insurance and savings sector have set up schemes well ahead of the Government’s requiring such schemes to be set up. I think the Banking Ombudsman scheme has been in place for something like 13 or 14 years. It is a tremendous resource and support for consumers of the banking industry, and the level of work that is done is considerable, given the complexity of some of the issues that have to be dealt with. The bill provides that the Minister of Consumer Affairs may approve industry-led schemes that meet the principles of accessibility, independence, fairness, accountability, efficiency, and effectiveness, as well as fulfil a number of operational and capability requirements.

Simon Power: No—make the Minister of Commerce do it!

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: The very generous Opposition spokesperson on commerce suggests that it should be the Minister of Commerce who takes up that role, but in fact, the Banking Ombudsman and the Insurance and Savings Ombudsman, and the codes of practice they operate under, directly relate back to the Minister of Consumer Affairs, and it is the Minister of Consumer Affairs who has oversight in that area. Therefore it makes sense for consumer dispute resolutions services to sit with the Minister of Consumer Affairs—it just makes very good sense—and it enables the very good Minister of Commerce to get on with the job of dealing with the more detailed elements of the Review of Financial Products and Providers that are yet to come, because these bills are the first of several bills and maybe the member has forgotten that nine discussion documents resulted in the legislation we have now, and in future legislation to come.

The legislation will also establish a reserve scheme, so that financial service providers who are not members of an approved industry-led scheme will be able to meet registration requirements. One of the issues that came very, very clearly out of the Finance and Expenditure Committee was that there is very much a need for certainty for consumers, so that when they make an initial approach it is almost like a single entry point for any dispute resolution. I think we are going to be working very closely on the development of the regulations around the various schemes that will operate in this space, to make sure there are no wrong doors and that anyone who makes an inquiry in this area is able to get the assistance needed.

I will not go through the detail of the changes that were made at the select committee. Again, this select committee focused its attention very much on legislation that is detailed, but the committee probably did not have some of the more difficult elements of the preceding legislation. There was good support on both sides of the House to see this legislation pass through the House. I am not going to hold it up any further; I simply commend the bill to the House.

SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei): I was minding my own business in my office when I got the call that the Financial Service Providers (Registration and Dispute Resolution) Bill would be proceeding a couple of days ahead of time. That means my evening has now been altered beyond recognition. Nevertheless, that is a small price to pay for the continuation of this suite of legislation, which is designed to deal effectively with what has happened. It was not the intention to do this when the review of financial products and providers was first undertaken, but since that time a range of finance companies have collapsed, tens of thousands—if not more—of New Zealanders have been affected by the collapse of those finance companies and mortgage trusts, and literally billions of dollars have been put at risk as a result.

I have to concede to the House and to the Minister of Commerce that my attention over the last 12 months has been very much on the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Amendment Bill (No 3) and the Financial Advisers Bill. It is really Craig Foss who is the expert on the Financial Service Providers (Registration and Dispute Resolution) Bill. I myself was involved with another committee for much of the time that this bill was before the Finance and Expenditure Committee. I was effectively drafted on to the committee to deal with other bills, but I have to concede that this was not one of them. Having said that, I can say that this bill falls within my area of responsibility, and it is one of those bills that seeks to regulate the financial service providers in the same way that the Financial Advisers Bill does. I am sure that the Minister Lianne Dalziel is right when she says the two bills are joined at the hip, as it were, and that one cannot proceed effectively without the other. Therefore, being the flexible party that we are, here we stand ready to debate this legislation through all its stages—for the rest of the evening, I imagine.

This bill seeks to reinforce that suite of legislation that Doug Woolerton spoke about so eloquently during the day. It seeks to establish a registration system for those service providers. It requires—and that is an important word—them to join an approved industry-led dispute resolution scheme, or what the legislation and the Minister describe as the reserve scheme. As the Minister alluded to, we have already dealt with the Financial Advisers Bill and the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Amendment Bill (No 3), which dealt with the regulatory framework on—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs): You have 2 minutes.

SIMON POWER: How can that be possible? I have just started. Madam Assistant Speaker, are you sure that you did not start me at the end of the Minister’s time?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs): That is exactly what has happened. I duly apologise.

SIMON POWER: The Minister Lianne Dalziel and I have got on well in recent months, but this is getting ridiculous; I am not sharing a call with her!

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs): I apologise to you, profusely.

SIMON POWER: There is an election coming up—we have to differentiate on some issues! There are some things that the Minister and I do not agree on, and sharing calls in this House is probably one of them, unless the Minister wants me to answer the questions—but there are no question times left, so I cannot do that!

Clauses 5 and 6 determine the application of the legislation that defines those activities considered to be financial services. I presume that that is consistent with the suite of definitions that were offered in the financial advisers legislation considered earlier today. Importantly, clause 13 sets out the matters that disqualify a person from registering as a financial service provider, and is amended to specify the types of offences that would count as fraudulent or dishonest. That is an important qualification because it sets the legislation up in a way that makes it clear that there are legislative parameters rather than codes of conduct or industry understandings that relate to the registration process. I think that that degree of statutory rigour is required in this industry, given the recent events we have seen.

We know that the bill covers things like the deregistration of financial service providers and, indeed, the reregistration of financial providers. The bill establishes the register itself and outlines access rights to that register. The dispute resolution regime and scheme is also outlined. Interestingly, in the same way that the Commerce Amendment Bill did for decisions of the Commerce Commission on price setting, any decision of the registrar that is subject to an appeal remains in force. That brings some clarity to the process, and it provides some consistency with other legislation in this area that we have debated in recent days. The bill also sets out the number of schemes that are available for registration, the public access to information, and the rules of those schemes. It imposes duties to cooperate and to communicate in certain circumstances, and, of course, it requires the appointment of a reserve scheme from an established recognised dispute resolution service. I imagine there are good reasons for that requirement.

I believe that the House is unanimously supportive of the passage of this legislation—certainly, I have not had any indication up to this point that any party present intends to vote against it. Any legislation that is put in place to add rigour to the financial advice industry should be welcomed, but with the following rider—and it is the same qualification that I put forward in my third reading speech on the Financial Advisers Bill.

People who choose to invest their money in New Zealand should not form the view from the passing of this legislation that no risk accrues to those investment decisions. Ultimately, the Government has a role in providing a safer environment for investment by way of a sturdy, transparent, and accountable regulatory framework around those investment protocols. In the end, Governments cannot be vicariously liable in many situations, but they have a responsibility to provide mechanisms to people who wish to invest their moneys in order to ensure that those people are as safe as they possibly can be.

I probably have 4 minutes left on my call—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs): You have 2 minutes left.

SIMON POWER: OK. I do not intend to labour this matter any further, other than to say that Craig Foss will also be taking a call on this bill. He is, as I said, the expert from the Opposition side of the House on the technical aspects of this legislation. He will have some comprehensive views to share with the House on the matter of the registration and the reserve schemes as they relate to the provisions of the legislation dealing with the registration, dispute resolution, and appeal processes. I will certainly be hanging around to listen to that discussion.

As we head into the Committee stage I suspect we will hear from a range of other members of Parliament on this side of the House. As I said during the debate on the Financial Advisers Bill, we are in no way attempting to delay or slow up the passage of this legislation. In fact, as I said endlessly during the debate on that bill, the Opposition has worked cooperatively with the Government on this suite of legislation and will continue to do so—although in a slightly surprised way—throughout the remaining stages of this legislation, which has come up a little earlier than we thought it would.

On that basis I will resume my seat and say to the House that no doubt Doug Woolerton will have plenty to offer on this subject matter. As a permanent member of the Finance and Expenditure Committee—which I am not—he has taken some interest in this issue. I am sure that Lindsay Tisch, although he is not on the select committee, will make a contribution that is worth listening to. But it is really Craig Foss whom we are looking to on the more complex and technical matters contained in this bill.

Hon Shane Jones: They want to hear from him in Flaxmere!

SIMON POWER: That is the former chairperson of the Finance and Expenditure Committee yelling out from over there. Perhaps he would like to take a call and express a view on these matters. I am waiting with some interest for Mr Foss to cover the technical aspects of clause 10, particularly in respect of the provisions relating to the licensed service offence. National will support the Financial Service Providers (Registration and Dispute Resolution) Bill through its second reading.

R DOUG WOOLERTON (NZ First): New Zealand First is supporting the Financial Service Providers (Registration and Dispute Resolutions) Bill, which, I guess, is the disciplinary side of the Financial Advisers Bill. I will not be taking a long call. In fact, it will be for only a couple of minutes, because we have other business to get through before the House rises. Like all my New Zealand First colleagues, I am looking forward to fighting an exceptionally good election campaign, and to New Zealand First returning with increased numbers. We are keen to get on and not hold up the process.

I think we cannot have a registration process, as proposed in the Financial Advisers Bill, without some disciplinary procedures to go with it. This bill provides that. There is a fairly decent amount of industry involvement, so that these people will not be judged just by some cold, harsh people. They will have an involvement in the disciplining themselves. This legislation was intended to be light-handed so that we do not stifle entrepreneurial activity altogether in this country, and to give some surety to the public so they can have some confidence in the people who are giving them advice. For them to know that the advisers are subject to some disciplinary action just adds to that surety. That is all I want to say. We intend to sit here and support the bill to its conclusion, and to listen to the contributions of my colleagues. Thank you.

DAVE HEREORA (Labour): I take this opportunity to speak in the second reading debate of the Financial Service Providers (Registration and Dispute Resolution) Bill. In doing so, I want to highlight some of the benefits for consumers that will occur following its enactment. The introduction of freely accessible dispute resolution for all consumers is not only something that is based on a moral principle; it is also a practical initiative that will increase confidence in the financial sector.

Currently, there are a large number of consumers who are using financial advisers and non-bank credit providers and who cannot access consumer dispute resolution. When consumers are in dispute with their financial provider, be it a mainstream bank or a local service, they can feel quite powerless and not sure where to turn. Under this bill, consumers who have a grievance with their financial service provider will always have somewhere they can go to get a fair hearing. The framework established by the bill supports the formation of industry-based dispute resolution schemes. These will be approved if they meet the benchmarks of accessibility, independence, fairness, accountability, efficiency, and effectiveness. Experience suggests that industry-led schemes are particularly flexible and responsive in addressing consumer complaints.

This bill represents a win-win situation for consumers. It provides a free service to assist with the resolution of disputes against financial service providers, and it incentivises providers to put in place good complaint resolution processes and to be more responsive to consumers. Consumers will be able to confront any unethical or sub-standard dealings from a provider, through challenging behaviours that do not meet acceptable practice. Consumers will help to raise the quality of financial services in New Zealand, and to that end I stand in support of the bill.

CRAIG FOSS (National—Tukituki): Like earlier speakers and colleagues, I say the debate on the Financial Service Providers (Registration and Dispute Resolution) Bill is like déjà vu all over again. We debated the Financial Advisers Bill this morning, and, for the record, it was debated under urgency. It surprises me that we are under urgency on the Financial Service Providers (Registration and Dispute Resolution) Bill and that it is deemed to be more urgent than other bills. But I noted in the Minister’s speech the reason for moving this bill further up the Order Paper. She spoke about the cross-references between this bill and the Financial Advisers Bill, which we passed a few hours ago. When I was looking through the Financial Advisers Bill it occurred to me that there are a lot of cross-references, and in fact all the way through the process we have dealt with these bills in partnership. Anyway, we are now debating the second reading of the Financial Service Providers (Registration and Dispute Resolution) Bill.

An earlier speaker raised a concern that this legislation will come under the portfolio of the Minister of Consumer Affairs rather than that of the Minister of Commerce, and I missed the bit about the Banking Ombudsman’s recommendation. I think it was that it be put under consumer affairs and not commerce.

Hon Lianne Dalziel: It was preferred that it went under consumer affairs rather than commerce.

CRAIG FOSS: I thank the Minister for clarifying that point. I realise this is not the Committee stage of the bill, but it is all very friendly in here at the moment.

On looking through the bill I see some issues that I started to raise in the debate on the Financial Advisers Bill are also pertinent to this bill. There was a part in that bill where we talked about information sharing, and, of course, as the Minister earlier noted, this bill forms a suite of measures—not only the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Amendment Bill (No 3), the Financial Advisers Bill, and this Financial Service Providers (Registration and Dispute Resolution) Bill but also a raft of other bills. I think there were nine papers in total, all around money-laundering, etc. and a total review of all things financial in New Zealand. I think there are a few more discussion papers out there. That is good policy development, and we are happy about that. We have enjoyed being part of the process around this bill and helping to make it better legislation.

Earlier speakers have noted the events that have occurred subsequent to this bill appearing before the Finance and Expenditure Committee, which I think was on 9 February this year. The financial crisis around the world has become much tougher. It has hit home here in New Zealand much deeper and quicker than many people thought it would, but as we are part of the global financial system we will always be impacted on by what happens around the globe. The sad fact is that New Zealand, as a debtor nation, faces an increased interest premium that we have to pay, and as we are No. 22 in the OECD we are at the back of the queue, so any impacts and effects on economies around the world will be felt exponentially down here. Hopefully, a change of direction—a change of Government—will start to address that position.

I will look at just a few issues in the bill. There is a Supplementary Order Paper with this bill: Supplementary Order Paper 254 in the name of the Hon Lianne Dalziel. Again I give my apologies for missing this in my first speech, but around the not-for-profit organisations in the Financial Advisers Bill there was a bit of sneaking in the door, in that the only not-for-profit organisations that were originally to be covered were those that already had some contractual obligations or arrangements with the Ministry of Social Development. The Finance and Expenditure Committee in its wisdom did very well and turned that round, talking about not-for-profit budgetary advice institutions, etc. We had many, many submissions from such groups, and sometimes there were conflicting views, which we found somewhat curious at the time. The core argument was about the cost of compliance for those organisations, which may have annual budgets of only $25,000 or so. The cost of initial set-up here would have been quite onerous for them.

But I did note that the Minister had an amendment to the definition of a not-for-profit organisation in the Financial Advisers Bill. I have just glanced through Supplementary Order Paper 254, and although I may have missed something, I do not see any new change there to the definition of a not-for-profit organisation. Perhaps I am missing something, because, like previous speakers, I fully expected to debate this bill not tonight but perhaps tomorrow, so I have not gone through that Supplementary Order Paper. I am quite happy to be corrected, but I cannot see an amendment to that definition at the moment. Perhaps that issue may be addressed by officials or the Minister later on.

There is good consistency between the two bills, and again I say it would have been more consistent if we had debated this bill in conjunction with debating the Financial Advisers Bill earlier today. But much of the select committee’s work was about the consistency of definition and of process, given what I have just said about not-for-profit organisations, just to make sure the terminology we used was the same, there was no arbitrage between the two bills, and there was no opportunity for either bill to be exploited. Wherever possible across the select committee we did use the same definitions. We had the same discussions, and, in fact, submitters spoke to both bills. As my colleague Simon Power noted earlier, most of their energy was spent on the Financial Advisers Bill, and this service providers bill was just sitting to one side, important and pertinent though it is.

There is a reserve scheme for disputes resolution, which I find quite interesting. Basically, that is the backdrop scheme if organisations have not found themselves the time or got themselves organised to do it, but there is a very good point on page 11 of the commentary on the bill. It is again a credit to the select committee that the commentary notes that the disputes resolution body does not necessarily have to be a financial disputes resolution body, because the issues are about resolving and mediating disputes rather than financial disputes. That is a small and subtle change, and we took out just a couple of words along the way, but none the less it is a good change, because many people help to mediate or solve disputes in many fields. That is what they do, and a dispute is a dispute is a dispute, I would argue.

There is a very good clause in this bill—and again there is a similar provision in the Financial Advisers Bill and in the Reserve Bank Amendment Bill (No 3)—which is the 5-yearly review clause. Again I highlight the consistency and tie-up between those bills, and I presume any other bills that the next Government brings in will also be aligned to that time frame. I think that is very, very healthy. Again, that is because this bill and the Financial Advisers Bill are joined at the hip, and then I guess holding hands with the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Amendment Bill (No 3). But also I say it is not a bad process to bring in for all bills that they have an ongoing review clause in them, because, particularly in the area of financial markets, things change rapidly. What is being talked about in the headlines today was probably not even contemplated 4 or 5 years ago, or even 3 years ago. So who knows what will be happening in 5 years’ time, particularly with the globalisation of the financial markets, etc.?

I highlighted another point as to who must register. I spoke about the cost to the not-for-profit organisations, so I will probably just end on that note. Again, I say that we just found the amendment quite curious, and I understood the Minister’s explanation earlier as to why it happened. But I would be intrigued to have it pointed out to me where the amendment or definition of a not-for-profit in Supplementary Order Paper 254 is the same as, or aligns this bill with, the amendment on the Supplementary Order Paper in respect of the Financial Advisers Bill that we saw earlier on this morning. Thank you very much.

HONE HARAWIRA (Māori Party—Te Tai Tokerau): Kia ora, Madam Assistant Speaker. Kia ora tātou i te Whare. On behalf of the Māori Party I am happy to take a short call today on this “Let Us Nail Those Filthy Bloody Loan Sharks and Try To Stop Them From Ripping Off All The Poor People by Making Them Go Through Registration and Dispute Resolution Protocols Bill”, because I see the level of poverty being exacerbated by some of these vultures preying on poor Māori communities right throughout the country and, in particular, in my own area. I see that these companies are charging upwards of 450 percent for finance. I see families that are so pushed to the wall that they are taking out these quick loans just to pay for kai, and already, by the very next week, they are behind the eight ball. I see the way that these companies come into my home town of Kaitāia at Christmas time because they know of the massive pressure put on people to try to buy things for their families, and already those families do not have money. I see people coming out of pokie parlours, busted for the week, and trying to get some money so that they can go home and make out like they still have their benefit. I see these sorts of things happening and I am glad that somebody is at least trying to propose some kinds of protocols to keep these guys in line. I am glad, because poor people do not have the money—if they did, they would spend it on something else—to pay for lawyers to try to deal with some of these rip-off merchants that are preying on our communities.

I would like to see other things like being able to ensure that any time a loan shark company tried to come swinging through a town, it would have to ensure that there was sign-off from a budgeting service before a family was able to get access to that kind of money. I would like to see those people being banned from decile 1 communities, because those are the places they prey on. I would like to see a whole range of things, including some of these buggers being strung up. I would like to see them not getting on the front page of the Times of Tonga in South Auckland. I would like to see them not taking up the centre spread in some of the community newspapers in some of the poorer South Auckland communities, where they are ripping people off. I hope that some of them have gone to the wall over this financial crisis, and that the people who have loans out to them can just move a few houses down the road and get out of having to repay those loans.

If I speak with passion about this issue it is because if there is anything we can do in this country to help poor people get by, particularly at this time when money is so short and prices are rising so much and at such a rate, then the Māori Party, as members know, is a fan of it. That includes taking GST off food—we are just so surprised that the rest of the House does not go along with that great idea—raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour, and ensuring that anyone on an income of less than $25,000 does not need to be stung with tax. But if I bring it back to the bill, mihi atu ki te Minita e whakatakoto nei i tēnei kaupapa. I thank the Minister for laying down this first step in a long, long process of reining in some of these loan sharks. We look forward to doing better in future to ensure that people in desperate need will not be preyed on by these vultures in the years to come. Kia ora, Madam Assistant Speaker. Kia ora katoa.

CHRIS TREMAIN (National—Napier): I just pick up where my colleague Hone Harawira left off, and I say to him that one does not have to be in Kaitāia to experience loan sharks. Electorate offices around this country, across the spectrum, have constituents coming in to see MPs, from both sides of the House, with regard to the issues they face with various loan-related difficulties they get themselves into.

It is interesting to note that it is probably not the loan sharks that Mr Harawira speaks about but more the actions of some of the high-profile companies that have brought about the legislative changes that are being proposed today. We were talking about a number of high-profile businesses that many people around this country have been on the tough end of. They are businesses like Provincial Finance, which has gone to the wall with some $300 million outstanding; Bridgecorp, at $459 million, which I spoke about earlier today; Nathans Finance, with $149 million; Capital + Merchant, at $187 million; Lombard Finance, at $127 million; Geneva, at $141 million; and MFS Boston, at $319 million.

These are huge dollars that we are talking about here—some $1.925 billion. I believe that it is not just the poor people of New Zealand who are suffering because of these finance companies but that a lot of people in middle New Zealand have also been in the gun in this respect. I am the first to stand up and say that not all these companies have gone to the wall for fraudulent activities—though some of them have and are still under investigation for matters before the courts in that regard. A number of them have gone to the wall due to the credit crunch and the difficulties they have found as their balance sheets have not been able to handle the run on funds, and they have had to close down the funds in the short term to protect other investors’ money.

The point I make is that there will always be risk in this market place. Business is about taking some risks and investing money is about taking risks. We will not get rid of risk entirely from the business scene, nor should we; that would be crazy. If we were to do that, then we would put a lid on our economy, and we would stop economic growth entirely, and without economic growth, none of us could stand on the rostrum and say that we will be able to put more money into certain areas. Economic growth is a driver, and finance companies are a key part of doing that.

Hon Darren Hughes: You’d borrow for tax cuts.

CHRIS TREMAIN: In fact, I have talked to a number of constituents, and I was out at Upper Hutt the other day—close to the member’s electorate of Ōtaki; across the road there. I was speaking to some property developers who have been big developers in Upper Hutt and have been big drivers of the economic growth in the community there. They have borrowed money largely from the banks, at about 65 percent, and second-tier finance companies, at about 30 percent to 35 percent, and they have put in maybe 10 percent of their own equity. The second-tier finance company has gone out of the mix now, so it is very difficult for these investors to get that second-tier finance. That is why we are seeing quite a slow down in investment in new property investments. That is a major issue for us.

In talking about the wider finance industry and the suite of bills we have seen before the House, I also mention the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Amendment Bill (No 3), which approves the prudential requirements around finance companies, making sure that their balance sheets are stronger and not leveraged as high, ensuring better control over second-tier, non-bank deposit takers, and giving the Reserve Bank the authority to get down to that second tier of finance companies as opposed to where it would normally regulate, with the banks at the top tier.

The second part of the suite of financial service bills is the Financial Advisers Bill, which we have debated at some length this morning. That has now passed through the House, bringing more regulation around those who seek to be financial advisers and lifting the benchmark there, and I think that that is definitely a good thing. Thirdly, today, we stand here now to debate the Financial Service Providers (Registration and Dispute Resolution) Bill. It requires all providers of finance services to be registered, and in order to be registered they have to be part of a dispute resolution service.

The Māori Party asked earlier why the two bills were not merged together. The key thing to note is that this bill has a much wider scope in that it requires a wider section of finance companies and banks to be registered under the public register, and to also be registered with a dispute resolution service in order for them to be registered.

I think that this suite of bills is a good step in the right direction. Once again, as my colleague Simon Power has said, we know that we will not take the risk out of the equation of investment in New Zealand, nor should we. That would be crazy. However, we must provide regulation at a level where consumers understand what they are letting themselves in for. We will put a high bar there, which is what we must do, and I think it is good to provide better consumer protection.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

TIM BARNETT (Senior Whip—Labour): I seek leave for the bill to be taken as one question.

SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei): Although we will not have any difficulty with giving leave in that regard, I just want to make it clear that that will not in any way limit the overall time that is available for members to make a contribution. It would be simply taken as one question, is that right?

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I am sure that that will be given every consideration, Mr Power. Leave has been sought. Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There appears to be none.

Clauses 1 to 75, and schedules 1 and 2

SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei): I find myself taking an urgent interest in the Financial Service Providers (Registration and Dispute Resolution) Bill. I will make a couple of more general comments to the Committee stage this afternoon, and leave my colleagues Gerry Brownlee and the Hon Murray McCully to make the more detailed contributions in respect of this legislation, which no doubt they will make with their usual high regard for detail on commercial legislation. I see that Mr McCully has come to the Chamber specifically for that purpose, and we welcome him back.

Could I start by saying that this bill is one of a suite of measures that implement the Review of Financial Products and Providers, which yielded nine discussion documents in that area, about 12 to 15 months ago. What became clear at that point was that the legislation relating to the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Amendment Bill (No 3), which imposed a regulatory framework on non-bank deposit takers, was swiftly dispatched to the Finance and Expenditure Committee and has been dealt with by the committee and by the House in fact, in a unanimous way, as a regulatory framework is sought to be put in place for those particular institutions. Earlier today we also considered the Financial Advisers Bill, which passed through all remaining stages—the second reading, the Committee stage, and the third reading—today.

One of the more technical bills to form part of that suite of legislation is the bill currently before the Committee of the whole House called the Financial Service Providers (Registration and Dispute Resolution) Bill. The name could be misleading, but it is not. This bill is decidedly useful in creating an approved industry-led dispute resolution system, and in establishing a registration scheme and system for financial advisers. What we know about this particular area, of course, is that billions of dollars, literally up to $5 billion, have been put at serious risk with the collapse of finance companies in this country over recent months and years. Tens of thousands of New Zealanders have had their savings and investments put at risk. This legislation, along with the other legislation I have described, is not designed to take risk away from investment. What it is designed to do is provide a regulatory registration framework for financial advisers to ensure that when individuals are contemplating such an investment they know the quality of the advice and the competency of the people who are giving that advice, that they are having disclosed to them the necessary fees, commissions, and royalties that are being paid by the various bodies concerned, and that they are able to make an informed decision. Legislation alone, of course, will not necessarily make those decisions more informed. What is required is continuing education, financial literacy, and financial awareness of some of the more complex documentation that often comes alongside these sorts of investment opportunities.

This particular bill, as I have said, adds to the suite of legislation in the financial advisers’ scheme that we have already seen today. I am reluctant to talk about any of the specific detail of this legislation with Lindsay Tisch in the Chamber. He, of course, has far more knowledge of these more technical aspects than I do, and on that basis I look forward to his contribution on new clause 61A, because it is one of those clauses that often strays under the radar in this House, and it needs a bit more of an explanation to this Committee. We are very keen, on this side of the House, to see this matter progressed, so keen in fact that at the commencement of what was a disastrous time for lower tier finance companies and their collapse, the Leader of the Opposition, John Key, wrote to the Prime Minister to offer to assist in a bipartisan way in negotiations and discussions surrounding the suite of legislation.

GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): Anyone who has been watching the proceedings of the Committee, or indeed listening to this debate on the Financial Service Providers (Registration and Dispute Resolution) Bill this afternoon will be absolutely amazed that the Minister in the chair, Lianne Dalziel, could have listened to such a learned contribution from Simon Power and sit there dumbfounded and unwilling to take the floor of the Chamber and give the explanations that we now know we will have to wait for Mr Tisch to give this afternoon.

These sorts of bills may in some circumstances be described as somewhat mundane. Indeed, a lot of people would say that often people take the floor of the Chamber, and speak for their 5 minutes, and offer absolutely nothing of substance in the debate whatsoever, and that sort of comment, of course, does not do Parliament itself a great deal of good. But, generally, there is a reasonably sound reason for people to ask the questions they do. It has nothing to do with the hope that more traffic may find its way down to this House. It does have to do with a desire on this side of the Chamber to be sure that the Minister who is imposing these regulations or conditions upon the financial industry service does in fact know what is going on.

So we look forward to the Minister recognising that she has some considerable responsibility to the nation, taking the floor as soon as possible, and explaining the bill to the Committee, particularly that clause that Mr Power seems so very worried about—clause 61A. Although we can assure the Committee that in Mr Tisch there is an expert on these matters, it is very, very important that his knowledge is not given to the Committee ahead of the Minister stating what it is all about. His speech may be a short one. Mr Tisch may in fact give a short speech, saying simply that the Minister knows what she is talking about. That could happen, and the Committee’s time would not need to be taken in this way, were it not for the Minister’s reluctance to speak. I am getting no sign from the Minister that she is willing to answer these important questions. What I can say, in all seriousness, is that this legislation is a companion to the financial services bill—

Hon Lianne Dalziel: The Financial Advisers Bill.

GERRY BROWNLEE: —the Financial Advisers Bill, which was passed earlier this afternoon, and it does provide the basis for people who are aggrieved at the service they have received being able to have some redress.

Hon Shane Jones: Talk about aquaculture, Gerry.

GERRY BROWNLEE: The honourable member Shane Jones suggests that I talk about aquaculture. I would like to talk about Labour’s record in aquaculture. However, as those members have done nothing for 9 years, there is really very little that can be said. [Interruption] I notice now that I am being mercilessly heckled by the Hon Darren Hughes. He is a man who has elevated himself to the front row of the Labour Party just for the afternoon. We are sure that he will have a front-row seat someday and then he will not have to go about faking sunburn in order to be seen by those who are seeking him out.

In the meantime I will return to the bill because I do not want to incur the wrath or ire of the Chairperson. I think I can simply say that in providing an opportunity for disputes to be resolved between clients who have expected that they were investing their money quite reasonably on the advice given to them, and the adviser, who in many cases will have believed that the advice they gave was quite legitimate, this is good legislation in the current environment. It is most definitely needed and, just subject to that little explanation about clause 61A, I think the National Party will be able to continue its support for this measure.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I wish to advise members that in accordance with a decision of the Business Committee for members to make valedictory statements, I will report progress and ask to sit again presently.

Progress reported.

Report adopted.

Valedictory Statements

Valedictory Statements

KATHERINE RICH (National): When I announced my retirement, one of the first emails received said: “Good riddance, you’ve said nothing, done nothing, and stood for nothing.” Harsh, I thought, but typical of many political letters to MPs. The funny thing was that a week later I received another email from the same man. It said: “Mrs Rich, my heartfelt apologies. Comments from your colleagues, the media, and even your opponents seem to have been uniformly positive. I can only conclude that I got you mixed up with someone else. Sorry about that. Mistaken, from Petone.” It was a strange exchange but somehow it sums up politics. Criticism is fulsome, and sometimes unwarranted, but every so often we get the right messages across and we can change minds.

It has been an honour and a privilege to have taken my seat in this Chamber as a National member for 9 years. It is an experience that few New Zealanders ever have, and I will remember it for the rest of my life. I would like to acknowledge Madam Speaker, our first woman Speaker, and say how proud I was as a woman in New Zealand to attend her swearing-in. The perfect rugby pass of a handbag to the surprised Darren Hughes, as she strode up the aisle to meet the Prime Minister and Governor-General, was also impressive.

Mr Deputy Speaker, you have been a good friend to me during my 9 years and I am honoured that you are in the Chair. I also acknowledge former Speaker Sir Robin Gray. His support over the years has been invaluable. When I was cleaning out my office I found a card from Sir Robin, received when I first became an MP. He said: “The delivery of one’s maiden speech and valedictory are the only two times when a member is free to say exactly what they want to say.” That is very true.

Leaving here is hard at such an exciting time and after the hard graft of Opposition, but it is the right decision for me. Being an MP is not a job; it is a life. Political service is all-consuming, and the New Zealand public deserves nothing less. In preparation for my valedictory, I read my maiden speech. Nine years later, my beliefs have not changed and I have done exactly what I said I would do. I will not pretend that I am unaffected by the experience—I have a thicker skin; I can deliver a better speech—but the things I believed in before I came to politics are the same. In some ways I am fortunate. I leave at a time of my own choosing, positive about Parliament, my party, and our democracy.

I do not agree with some who leave Parliament and say that little can be achieved through such public service. An MP can make a difference every day, if he or she chooses to. I have taken a Ralph Waldo Emerson approach to politics and always thought that if even one life is breathed easier as a result of the work we have done, then that is success. That is why I have found constituency work satisfying, particularly its harder edges—cases like the inmate mother handcuffed during childbirth; the woman who could not get her teacher’s registration because she had the same name as a Christchurch criminal; the boy who absconded for 3 months before officials looked for him; and many others. These are not big cases to the public, but I can say they were for those individuals involved.

I would like to thank the journalists with whom I have worked closely. I would not have had such success in solving the tougher cases from Opposition without their stories. There is nothing like a front-page lead to galvanise the authorities into action, after all other approaches have failed. Some of the Child, Youth and Family cases still haunt me. I recall the shock of realising that a 9 kilogram 2-year-old, left to eat toothpaste, was the same weight as my son Jonathan at 6 months.

There were the scandals—grants for hip-hop tours, and other questionable spending. One day my erstwhile opponent Steve Maharey might tell me whether I was effective, but it is a fact that many of the schemes I pilloried do not exist now. At this point I would like to acknowledge the impact that political life can have on family, because my mother and sister both worked for the Community Employment Group—one of the organisations that I had criticised. In my defence I can say that my aim was to get better financial management. I never imagined that the whole department would get shut down.

Many in my family are dedicated public servants. I say that the Public Service cannot be that politicised because at one point there were five of them working in Ministers’ offices or departments. Such is their professionalism, I can proudly say they have been no help to my political career whatsoever. I could not even ask how their day was going, during Budget time.

I have added to my family since becoming an MP. I could not have received more support from my National colleagues. Parliament is not a great place for families, but it is the worst place to be pregnant. Simple things, like taking a call in the House, prove difficult. Although it breached the Standing Orders, I was thankful that Jonathan Hunt allowed me to perch on the arm of my chair so I could stand quickly enough to take a call. It was probably vanity, as the cameras were certainly not there to see me, but I did not enjoy the walk to caucus each Tuesday. Years later I had to ring TV3 to ask them to stop using the footage of Simon Power, who was at that time slim, and myself, the size of the Goodyear blimp, waddling along the corridor. I was starting to get mail asking why I had been pregnant for 5 years.

I am proud that my son Jonathan is a Southlander, but it was not my ambition to have him 5 weeks early, at the 2001 National Party conference in Invercargill. When my daughter Georgia grows up I hope she will be proud that she was the first baby to sit in this Chamber. She sat with me quietly here one evening, and no one called “stranger in the House”. She was born after the 2002 election. Members may recall that for nearly 3 weeks it looked as if I was not going to make it back to Parliament. Even my office had been reallocated. I returned on the equivalent of three party votes per electorate. Whether members think that is a good thing or a bad thing is up to them, but it does demonstrate the importance of the party vote in MMP.

One of my most satisfying political memories is playing a part in the section 59 debate, although it was not an easy time. For months one would think the sky was falling in, for all the bleating of some opposed to losing the right to hit children. Some said parenting would become illegal, Child, Youth and Family would steal our children, and good parents would end up in jail. Well it has not happened. In the years to come I think most people will wonder what all the fuss was about. I believe the Bradford law will be another chapter in our gradual move to social enlightenment, alongside other seminal pieces of legislation that brought women’s suffrage, homosexual law reform, and the recognition of civil unions.

Initially I supported Sue’s bill because I wanted to close the legal loophole that allowed some parents to batter their children and escape conviction. By the end of the debate I supported the message that hitting children for any reason was not OK. A turning point was listening to another MP talking of the loving smack and the merits of using an instrument to beat children. With referenda pending, any politician who thinks that electoral glory comes from the promotion of hitting kids needs to take a reality check.

Much has been made of the solitude of my position within the National Party caucus on this issue. The day John Key brokered the deal I recall walking to Copperfields and passing the press gallery chairman, Vernon Small, who quipped that I was the last tōtara standing, although given that I am short and pale, a slightly smaller and less indigenous analogy might have been more appropriate. He looked at me with disbelief when I mumbled: “Might be a forest by the end of today.” In truth I was never the lone tōtara of the centre right. I had the support and friendship of Doug Woolerton and Brian Donnelly, brave and inspiring men, hardly the wet-sook liberals that Sue Bradford and I had been accused of being.

National’s concern was making the law work in practice and ensuring that good parents were not punished. So once John Key had found a way through that deadlock, National supported the legislation—the tōtara had become a forest after all. It is frequently said that Katherine Rich voted against the party. That is not correct. I leave Parliament having never crossed the floor, and publicly supporting every caucus decision. What I have done is voted according to my conscience and thankfully National has a strong tradition of protecting the rights of its MPs to do so.

Commentators who have questioned my place in the National Party, I think, fail to understand our party’s history. I know exactly where I stand in National’s history of a liberal tradition, following names that include Ralph Hanan, Tom Shand, Katherine O’Regan, Marilyn Waring, Roger Sowry, Clem Simich, and I have added Simon Power to that list! The last five have very much inspired me as an MP.

Liberal conservatives have always had a role not only in tempering the harder edges of conservative politics and encouraging change but also in acting as a cautionary voice in times of upheaval. One of my colleagues calls me the “um, hang on a minute” person because of my propensity to bring up the possibility of less-charitable interpretations by the news media of some of our ideas.

I am proud of my voting record. Some agonise over conscience votes, but I have never struggled because essentially most are about human rights and whether one believes that all New Zealanders should have the same rights. I have never been lobbied by caucus to change my vote, but there have been occasions when party members have taken issue. In each case I have reminded them of the National Party principles that I hold dear—equal citizenship and equal opportunity, individual freedom and choice, and personal responsibility.

Every MP has their annus horribilis, and mine would have to be 2005. Members might recall I had a slight difference of opinion over a welfare speech. Looking back, I think I got into trouble more for what I did not say rather than what I did, but it surprised me that few read that speech closely or understood it. Demotion, clearly, was not a career highlight, but it was preferable to trying to explain why I, a well-paid mother with all the supports in the world, intended telling a DPB mum to leave her baby in childcare in order to net probably less than half the minimum wage. That time was not much fun, but I was determined to leave here feeling positive, because over the years I have realised that politics can deliver to our doorsteps hundreds of reasons to be bitter but it is up to us to decide how we react to those situations. I found that most things could be survived as long as there was family, friends, and Flying Nun—a good dose of Flying Nun, I have to say.

Politics can also deliver small kindnesses. When I announced my plan to step down, I was really touched by the press releases issued by the Māori Party. I will miss regular Chamber chats with Pita about family and parliamentary life. The surprise farewell that our president, Judy Kirk, and the women in National held for me is a wonderful memory; I thank them for that. I will miss the regular parliamentary exchanges—hearing about Maurice’s latest cellphone or gadget, inappropriate jokes from John Carter, critiquing fashion with Paula Bennett, that wonderful poetic marae-speak from Shane Jones, Mr McCully’s hospitality and infinite wine supply, and teasing Mahara Okeroa that we Nats indeed have a secret agenda, and it is to make him our first ambassador to Namibia!

But now I would like to make some comments about future policy. I know that under John’s leadership the economy and other major portfolios will be taken care of, so I want to pick a couple of smaller issues for comment. I hope that support for Kiwi music is continued and boosted. Kiwi music brings us together. It is one of the glues of our society. The market will never support local music sufficiently, given the size of our country. Reading-recovery programmes are particularly dear to my heart, and I would appreciate improved support for them. Those programmes and others save many Kiwis from lives of illiteracy. I would like to see the Office of the Children’s Commissioner retain its independence as a strong voice and social conscience for our nearly 900,000 children, who do not vote.

And now for some specific people I would like to thank. To John Key: I have enjoyed my time on National’s front bench and working for you. I respect you because of your beliefs and your way with people, and I know that under your leadership National will not forget those less fortunate. To Bill English, the man with a brain the size of a small planet: thank you for giving me the welfare portfolio. You could have walked away from politics years ago, but I think New Zealand is fortunate that you decided to stay and fight. To Gerry: I fail to put this into words properly, but thank you for your humour. In some of our darkest moments in Opposition I have seen you lift our combined spirits with a clever one-liner and positive attitude, and that is quite a gift. To my best political friend, Simon Power: the people of Rangitikei are very fortunate, indeed. Stay staunch over the coming years. I know you will uphold National’s liberal tradition and play a strong “hang on a minute” role in Cabinet debates—PS, please introduce some decent rehabilitation to the women’s prisons because next time I visit my constituent I want to know she has more to do than just play ping-pong.

I would like to thank John Slater and Jenny Shipley. Had it not been for their faith I never would have taken my seat. To my colleagues from the “class of ‘99” that has met almost every Tuesday for 9 years: thank you for your support and your friendship. Likewise I am grateful to party officials Craig Myles, Roger Bridge, and Kate Hazlett, and all my electorate chairs. I would like to thank my loyal secretaries, Pat Humphries and Robyn Broughton, and my driver, Roy Bremner.

To my husband, children, and parents who are here: thanks just does not cover it, in particular, Andrew. Campaigning in Dunedin is never easy, but Andrew’s intimidating use of balloons and bodyguard approach to campaigning has kept most opponents at bay. I could not have lasted through 9 years in politics and two babies without his support.

Regrets, well, I have had a few. Speaking with Don Brash last week, we shared the regret that we did not make more progress with the Christchurch civic crèche case. As a circuit-breaker, Rob Muldoon got an Australian judge to look at the Arthur Allan Thomas case. That might be an option for this one. I regret not being able to implement my strategy for welfare, but I am confident National has good policy for the future. Compassionate and practical welfare provision will always get better results than condemnation. I regret that there are not more hours in the day to achieve the most illusive of conjuring tricks—the mythical work-life balance.

But I do not wish to dwell on my regrets. They are more than outnumbered by positive memories I will take from this place; also the satisfaction of having done my job to the best of my ability. I leave positive about New Zealand and our parliamentary process. We live in a robust democracy in one of the least corrupt societies in the world, and I think we should remember that when the daily small scandals threaten to distract us.

I issue one final plea to my fellow parliamentarians and the gallery. We all belong to political parties but we are not clones. National and Labour are broad-based parties, which means that each will have members who sit on different parts of the political spectrum. We back party policies, but it is not a scandal to privately hold a different view. In the last year I have seen too many stories that run the line that this is somehow a crime. Regarding conscience issues, we all have a conscience, and we must remain free to exercise it on those issues that go to the heart of our belief systems. I urge all party whips to ensure that this most vital of parliamentary freedoms is never forgotten.

Looking back on many valedictories delivered in this Chamber, I find a popular choice for retiring MPs is to quote Frank Sinatra’s “My Way”. Well, anybody who knows me knows that I cannot abide crooning; I have always preferred the Sid Vicious version. I have done things my way, but I have done them within a National team and Parliament as a whole. I wish you all the best for the coming election, and I say thank you and goodbye.

MARK BLUMSKY (National): Mr Deputy Speaker, honourable members, Corinne and Kendra—gosh, you know, no matter how many times you speak in public, you still get nervous, don’t you; isn’t it a shocker? As recently as a week ago I had not intended to make a speech in this House today. As people may be aware I have been quoted in the media as saying I have not particularly enjoyed my 3 years in Parliament, and I have been critical of some of the ways this complex operates. I had initially planned to leave it there.

However, I was recently approached by a very senior colleague, who managed to find me all the way back up here and sit beside me—quite an achievement. This colleague rarely speaks, but when he does he is well worth listening to. He told me that in my short time here he had never heard me speak in a negative manner in this debating chamber. That is something I have prided myself on—always trying to add a bit of value or to make an improvement. It was at that point that I realised I did not want to leave Parliament in a manner that could be perceived as being negative. I thank my wise colleague Clem for his words, and I assure him that his message to Wellington got through to me.

I wish to start my final speech by thanking Parliament for the opportunity it has given me to serve. I know I have been very lucky to have been a member of Parliament. It has been a wonderful learning opportunity. I do not regret my 3 years here. There are so many in our communities who strive to get here but never do. Even now as I speak there are people around the country working incredibly hard to become an MP. Some will, most will not, and my heart goes out to those who will fall short.

It has been an honour to be here, and for that I wish to thank the National Party for selecting me and all the people who have supported me, in particular my wife Corinne and my princess daughter Kendra. I will tell members now: being a Wellington MP has had some huge advantages. I have been able to go home at night to my family, and I have also been given the opportunity to take Kendra to school every day. Parliament can be particularly hard for those who cannot head home each night and do not get to see their kids in the morning. I applaud, and we should all applaud, the sacrifices that those MPs make. But I would tell those MPs to not ever lose their perspective on what is truly important in life.

Of course, history will show that I did not get into Parliament in quite the manner I had hoped. I freely acknowledge that I would have loved to win the Wellington Central electorate, but I was beaten by the better candidate on the day. As a result I entered Parliament as a list MP, which, I can tell members now, is very much second prize. So it is as an inner-city resident that I thank the Hon Marian Hobbs for having done a great job as my local MP. I have enjoyed working with you, Marian, on the Local Government and Environment Committee. You are sharp, you are smart, and you know your stuff. And, by the way, you are a damned good cook, as well. We have become even better friends during our time here, and it is handy having an accommodation option on my next visit to England, if I can suggest that.

Ironically, this has actually been one of my problems here in Parliament: I quite like a few of the people I work with who happen to be in other parties. In the last few years I have come to realise that I am probably a bit too trusting, and I just do not dislike enough to be a truly effective MP in the way that this place currently operates. Some people think I am absolutely mad for leaving now, when a change of Government looks quite likely. However, those who know me and understand why I have made my decision will know why I made it and why the election result will not affect my decision.

In my maiden speech 3 years ago I said I came to Parliament because I wanted to make a difference; I wanted to add value. In my time as the Mayor of Wellington I did manage to help change that city hugely, and I wanted to bring a taste of that to the national level. My intention was to be positive, to build, to improve, and to make a difference. Frankly, I have not been able to do that as much as I would have liked to, and because of my personality type, the way I work, and the way I want to work, I cannot see it happening in the future, and that is why I made the decision to walk away. In my experience and observation sitting back here, Parliament does suit a certain personality type, and it does require people to behave in a certain way in order to succeed. National politics is not for everyone, and that includes me. The trick was to recognise this fact and to act.

As my father said to me recently, the easiest thing I could have done would have been to stay. He said to me: “Don’t be too scared to make the true hard call.” His advice has always hit the mark. I say “Hi” to Blum. I know you are watching, and I love you to bits, Dad.

However, I believe my time in Parliament has been valuable because I have learnt a great deal. I have met some wonderful people, and things have been clarified in my mind about how I work best and where I can make a true difference.

I thank my excellent executive assistant—she typed this, obviously—Susan Palmer for all her work over the last 3 years. She has been a great friend. I think we have been unique during our term in the sense that we are the only MP and executive assistant whose offices are not connected. They are literally right next door to each other, with no connecting door. That means from time to time I have had to use the Parliament House intercom, which involves me yelling at the wall: “Susan, have you got that file in here?”. It generally works well, and when it does not, it is a case of knowing that Susan is not in her office and it is not the intercom that is broken—that is the trick.

I say a special hello to Tom Chambers, who is my at large, out and about electorate agent. Tom, you have been a very good friend and you have kept me honest.

I thank the MPs and the staff in the leader’s office who have popped into my office to say hi—and to steal the lollies, I say to Chris Finlayson. I fear that some of them will miss my lolly jar more than they will miss me. As for this back row of MPs, I tell members there is a huge starvation issue ahead for these guys, and there will be a dramatic loss of sugar levels—you will have to find a new sugar daddy, guys!

At this point I record my thanks to the guards and the messengers who have always smiled and said “Gidday”—neat people. Thank you also to the librarians, who have dug up the work for me, the cafe staff, and others who make Parliament run ever so smoothly. I know I will never have another job with seven mail deliveries a day.

I sincerely thank my inmates—the National MPs’ class of 2005, the MPs I came into Parliament with. Those guys really do rock! I have enjoyed working with them all, and I am lucky to have made some friendships that I know will never ever fail. Those members will all go far, and I for one will be cheering for them big time. For the sake of the country they had better do it on 8 November.

Finally on the thankyous, I pay a particular tribute to a very special MP, and I know that he will be hugely embarrassed by this. I have been lucky enough to have worked, and to have travelled around the country, with John Carter. After more than 20 years in Parliament, John still exudes passion, commitment, energy, and excitement about his job and the National Party. John, you are a true inspiration. Your mana and reputation in the local government sector is huge, and you deserve recognition in the future.

Like John Carter, I have always wanted to add value to my work, and there have been some successes from my time here that I will always be proud of. I believe that I made a positive contribution to National’s economic development policy, but I particularly enjoyed helping to shape Parliament’s local government policy. Both of those areas were real passions of mine. They were not sexy for the House, but they were passions of mine. By way of warning, I tell members that I may well be on the other side when the local government policy is actually being delivered.

Locally, after a big struggle, we did get Government funding for the Karori Wildlife Sanctuary, which it totally deserved. When the Government turned down the initial funding request, possibly the only person angrier with the Labour Government than me was Marian Hobbs, the local MP. But between us we righted a major wrong for what is an iconic Wellington attraction.

Another achievement I would mention is the successful trial of my voluntary retailers’ code of practice around the sale of volatile substances, such as meths, glue, and paint. It was designed to curb abuse. We did the research, found the funding, developed the shop resources, and ran a very successful trial here in Wellington. However, when we approached the relevant Minister for support for what we thought was a non-partisan, country-wide issue, he basically dismissed us. More than a year later—surprise, surprise—Jim Anderton launched a very similar scheme, but basically cut out all of those people who had worked on the successful trial. I am assured by my colleagues that having a policy stolen is the highest compliment, but I still feel there has been a lot of wasted effort, a lot of wasted intellectual property, that could have been better directed against a very real problem.

I was proud to be the Mayor of Wellington. I have to say that I have struggled to have that same pride as an MP in the New Zealand Parliament. Partly, that is because the public can have a very negative view of politicians and what we do. It is sad to hear how many people feel obliged to make a derogatory comment when they find out that one is an MP. Sometimes I fear we are our own worst enemy. It is hard to explain to members of the public the value of having long debates in the Chamber when the results of the vote are actually known long before we make the first speech. In local government there was always the chance that if a councillor made a passionate speech that was well researched and well reasoned, that councillor could actually sway a few votes around the table, but not here. As a House, we spend an extraordinary amount of time speaking to no effect.

I remember, back as a brand new MP, how excited I was going into question time. What a disappointment! It descends into a farce when Ministers have only to address rather than answer the question. It becomes a competition as to who can give the best smart-arsed answer. It is a tragedy for democracy in New Zealand that accountability can be dismissed so lightly. The public does deserve better. I sincerely hope that the next Government—of whatever composition—looks again at this precedent, and makes the selfless call to require Ministers to answer; it is the right thing to do.

This Parliament also passes law that I sense we all know could be better, but sensible amendments are turned down for political and philosophical reasons. The them-and-us factor is stronger than I had expected. It is damaging the quality of legislation, and I believe it damages the country. If they have their answer and we have our answer, then the chances are that neither of us is exactly right. The emphasis should be to just work it out, but that does not happen too much in here. It is often all or nothing, but few solutions come entirely from philosophy or ideology, and as a result I think we do miss out on some of the real solutions.

Another reason there is a lack of respect is that we are a long way from the coalface. We are in a rarefied bubble. We have more security guards to get through here than at any airport in the country. And it does change people, but rarely for the better.

My challenge to those who will be in this Chamber next session is to rebuild the respect that people should have in this institution and in the basically good people—which they are—who serve here. I will not be here, of course, and my advice to anyone here is: “If you do not fit, do not stay.” And that applies to me. But I am afraid I think that some MPs stay in Parliament because they just do not have too many other options. I do not think that is a good enough reason to stay around and not add value.

My hope is that one day New Zealand has a Parliament that is more united, more cooperative, and more respectful, and one that includes members across the spectrum, all of them dedicated to improving their communities. It can happen.

To finish I will share one of the most moving experiences I have had, which was on one of those much maligned trips to Europe. It was an opportunity to look at the interaction between local and central governments in other countries. I learnt a lot, and I thank Parliament for giving me that opportunity to go.

Northern Ireland was an eye-opener. We were addressed by four MPs from four different parties—Sinn Fein, the Ulster Unionist Party, and two others. Their opening comments to us were remarkable. One of the MPs remarked that one of his parliamentary colleagues at the same table used to have him in his gunsights. That colleague responded that the reason he had him in his gunsights was that he knew he had a contract on his family. They were not joking. Ten years earlier they had been literally on the battlefield against each other; at the time of my visit they were sitting at the same table, working as a team for the good of Northern Ireland.

The question was asked: “How is it that you now get on so well when you were literally trying to kill each other not that long ago?”. Their answer was simple. They just said “We now respect each other’s right to be here, and we respect that each one of us is working for the good of the country, as we see it.” If they can do that after years of bloodshed, then why cannot we show some of that same respect in this Parliament? I hope we can.

I leave having learnt a tremendous amount in 3 years. I have met some great people and some great leaders, I tell John Key. I have made a difference in a couple of areas, and I have gained an understanding of how this place works. Those insights will be tremendously useful when I go back into local government—if my wife lets me.

My maiden speech was criticised by some pundits as being too Wellington-centric. I would respond by saying that it is not my fault I cannot get Wellington out of my bones. Then again, I really do not want to. Parliament is staying in Wellington and I am staying in Wellington, so I am sure I will continue to see members of this House around the greatest city in the country. Thank you all for the opportunity.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House): I seek leave for the dinner adjournment to be taken at the conclusion of this speech, should it proceed past 6 p.m., and for the House to then resume 1 hour after the start of the dinner adjournment.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is none.

Hon CLEM SIMICH (National): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker, and thank you. I want to, first of all, thank Katherine Rich and Mark Blumsky for their kind references to me. I do not know whether I deserve them, but they are much appreciated.

Mark Blumsky made some reference to something that many commentators have referred to in a jocular way over the 17 years that I have been here. I have accepted it as that, but now and then it got annoying. It was about my taking a message to Wellington. Those commentators had it wrong, of course, because it was not my taking a message to Wellington; the question was that if they wanted a message taken to Wellington—that is, the voters in my Tamaki electorate—then I asked them to give it to the Government, not to the Opposition. But it developed from there, and many have had a little fun over it.

If members doubt that a message came to Wellington, I invite them to read my maiden statement in Hansard, Volume 522, at page 6912, on 17 March 1992. From the middle of the page, the next four paragraphs set out very clearly what the message was. After reading it, members will accept that the message was taken on board, and it still is today, because we are a quite different party from what we were in 1991. The message is there, I know that it has been taken on board, and I am very pleased.

Mr Assistant Speaker, I have been delighted to work with you over the last 6 years. Ross Robertson, you are a top MP. Along with the other Assistant Speakers whom I have had the pleasure of working with—a Deputy Speaker in Ann Hartley, and an Assistant Speaker in Marian Hobbs—you have formed a team of Speakers, and we have operated, I believe, very, very well. A lot of that is due to your knowledge of the rules, your calm personality, and the fact that you do not take too much rubbish. I thank you, Ross, for being a colleague of mine for 6 years in the role that I have had to play. I also thank Marian Hobbs. It has been great fun working with you more latterly, and I respect what you have done.

I pay particular tribute to the Speaker. The Hon Margaret Wilson is, in my book, a very, very fine person indeed. I first met Margaret when I was a student at Auckland University in 1985. She was a lecturer then, and for the last 3½ years she has taken up that role again. She was a delight then, although it was a student-tutor and student-lecturer relationship, but down here, away from this Chamber, most of those who have been with Margaret will know that she has a sense of humour, she has absolute integrity, and she is just good to be with. She has taught me a lot, and we have been able to work together over the last 3½ years, and that is something I have really, really appreciated.

Before Margaret there was Jonathan Hunt. I was with him for 2½ years—another superb Speaker. I first met Jonathan in 1966, slightly before he came to the House. Time slips away; that is only, what, 42 years ago? When I met him, he was at a dinner with Roger Douglas. We were out together, and the acquaintanceship went from there. I was delighted to work with such an experienced person, a top-class Speaker, for 2½ years here.

Colleagues, I want to say thanks also to two special people. The first is Roland Todd, the Speaker’s Assistant. Members would probably notice that we would go a fair way astray but for Roland Todd. He does a superb job, and I thank you for that, Roland. I thank the Serjeant-at-Arms, Brent Smith, who, likewise, plays a role up front, but also in the background. To those two people, my special thanks.

To the Clerk, Mary Harris, to you and your people, I am deeply grateful for the help that you have given me and the other Speakers in the work that we do. You and Debbie Angus are invaluable, as are the other Clerk-Assistants.

I make mention here of David McGee, who was very special to all of us here in Parliament. He was with the establishment for 20-odd years, and was an absolute authority on parliamentary procedure. He is recognised right around the Commonwealth, and, in fact, the English-speaking world, including the USA, for his expertise on how a Chamber and the parliamentary system should work. I was lucky to be with David McGee for much of the time that I have been in Parliament, and, certainly, when I have had a Speaker role.

I now pay special thanks to—hey, this could be a speech all of thanks! But that does not matter. In my view, everything belongs to the future, but I am actually going to talk about a lot of things in the past. You might gather that that is the stage of life I am at. It has been a long past, and I will go on to that.

I first came to this Chamber 51 years ago. In 1957 I sat in the Speaker’s gallery, right where my wife is sitting, with a small group of people. I was hosted here by the Prime Minister, Sidney Holland. The reason he was hosting us was he was the patron of my wing at the police training school. I met him, we formed a relationship, and 18 months later I had the pleasure of hosting him at the training school, where I was his guide and his host when our wing graduated. We have had something like 12 Prime Ministers since then. It is not big-noting, it is just showing how long I have been around the establishment, but I have known personally every one of them. I have not just met them but have been with them and spoken with them, every one right up to the present Prime Minister.

I have been delighted to know Helen Clark. That goes back a few years, too. The thing that really stands out in my mind is that Helen Clark was one of the few who came to see me on my by-election night. She was the first there, and it was a very warm greeting. I thank you, Prime Minister, for the courtesy you have shown me and my family through all of those years. It has been much, much appreciated.

So 51 years ago I was in the gallery. I was 17. Some years down the track—almost another 17 years—I started coming to this Parliament for 1 day a month, and I did that for 15 years in a row. I did it because I was on the governing body of the National Party and we met for 2 days every month. I would spend the late afternoon and evening of one of those days here.

By that time I had established a relationship with David Lange. He did not particularly like me when we started. We had a battle in another by-election, which I knew I would never win, but at a late stage even my family thought I might have a chance. I dreaded the thought, because it was not my intention to start a parliamentary career at that point. But during that by-election Lange was making fun of me, saying I had been born with a silver spoon in my mouth and he had not, and so on. But I knew his history. He had a very upmarket upbringing, if you like. One night after a television interview I reminded him about something. I said: “David, you should really stop saying that. My mother was your father’s housekeeper.” He just laughed and said “Nah!”. I said: “Well, you go and check with Phoebe.”—his mother, who lived in Kohimārama. He did, and she told him that mum was his housekeeper. Indeed, she was his uncle’s housekeeper, as well. Both of them were doctors. From that time on we were as close as we could be.

So I used to come down to the House. I looked after Rob Muldoon for 18 years. There were ups and downs—mostly ups—but I looked after him, both in his electorate as a councillor, and here in Wellington against the hordes who were trying to get at him. I would come down here, and Rob would sit there, and he would just wave. David Lange would see me in the gallery, and without fail he would come and get me, and I would sit at the back of the Chamber. That went on year after year. It went on while he was Prime Minister, too. So we had a very good relationship, and I enjoyed it thoroughly.

I will move a bit closer to where I come from. I came down to the police training school from Aranga. Aranga is a small swamp up north, near the Maunganui Bluff. It was from there that I went down to the police training school as a 17-year-old. We had only recently come back from my old country, which was then Yugoslavia and is now Croatia, where I had spent 5 years.

At the time that I came to Parliament, in 1992, Aranga was topical. Aranga was part of the Te Rōroa claim. The Maunganui Block was part of it. Te Kōpuru was part of it—that is where I was born. Tokatoka was part of it. Waipoua was part of it. It was at that point that the claim was surfacing. Lots of things happen very quickly here in Parliament; within 5 minutes, the whole scene can change. However, the issue that was just starting to bubble then has taken a wee while longer. But it was something that I noticed when I was first here. On 3 April of that year, just 1 month after I had been sworn in, the Waitangi Tribunal reported to the Minister and to the claimants on the work that had been done, with a recommendation—actually, a recommendation that had been made by the Māori Land Court in the year I was born, 1939—for lands to be returned to that tribe. Down the track, I come into Parliament and it is right up there, up front. Tomorrow the Te Roroa Claims Settlement Bill will receive its third reading. That is my second to last day in the House and it is just a coincidence that that has happened.

The people who were involved in those claims—Lovey Te Rore, Alex Nathan, lots of them—were footballers with me up north. They were my coaches. My brother and I were playing senior rugby in Northern Wairoa when I was 14, but that was only because there were very few people in the neighbourhood, in the area. But we were big guys. So I was playing with these people. They have gone now, but they pushed those claims a lot of the way. So did Syd Mōrunga.

At the same time that I came into the House, Croatia was in turmoil. If I have a home country, Croatia is it. As I said before, I spent 5 years there. It was in turmoil. It was at war, and the Balkan area, which had been Yugoslavia, was breaking up. Croatia wanted to be recognised as a nation State. At my first meeting as a candidate with the then Prime Minister, Jim Bolger, in January of 1992, he told me he had had a request from Croatia, and he asked me what I thought of it—whether our Government should recognise Croatia. I said: “Do it straight away.” He spoke to the honorary consul here and gave him the message: “New Zealand will recognise you immediately.” I know he had done some work on it before, but that was thrilling for me because of my relationship with the Croatian people. Today, as I leave, Croatia is on the verge of joining the European Union. It has a little way to go, but it is right there. There is such a stark difference between Croatia today and what it was when I came into this House.

It is a very similar position to that of the Te Rōroa claim, which was just gaining speed then and is going through the House tomorrow. For a lot of that, thanks go to all of the Governments over that time, but especially to the Hon Dr Michael Cullen for speeding it up and for working on it.

It looks like my life has been in lots of 17. I was 17 years old when I first came here to this Chamber, and another 17 years later I joined the National Party. In between were the most exciting 17 years, because I got married to my wife Ann. I met her 47 years ago and we have been married for 43. I have three wonderful children. They were born in that second tranche of 17 years. My third lot of 17 years was spent doing my charity work for the party. They were absolutely wonderful times, but one needs an understanding family for them to put up with it. I was, at most times, looking after four electorates in Auckland, I was a councillor and on the governing body for almost all of that time, and I was away from home 3 or 4 nights a week. Lots of members have done that; it is quite common for people in the party organisation to do it.

Then my opportunity came up—the fourth period of 17 years—and I came in here. This has been the most delightful time of my life—to have been a member of Parliament, to have been a representative. I have no regrets, at all. I think it is an enormous privilege just to be here, but also to be able to achieve things and to do the work. I have had so many opportunities come my way, and I am deeply grateful to all of the people and the parties who have given me those opportunities. I was a backbencher for a while, I was chairman of a select committee, and I was fortunate enough to serve time in Cabinet. For that I am deeply grateful to Prime Minister Jenny Shipley, just as I was grateful to Prime Minister Jim Bolger for what he did at the time of my by-election to come in here.

I have special friends in this House. I could say that all of the other 120 members in this House are my friends, and I am very proud of that. I have special friends like Katherine Rich and Simon Power, which I found rather odd, because I was the oldest one on this side of the House—almost the oldest one in the House—and they were the youngest. Yet we hit it off very well.

I am a liberal conservative, and I have thoroughly enjoyed the liberal issues that I have been able to take part in in this Parliament. In fact, they are my proudest moments. I have been on the right side of, I think, every one, and I have been very pleased to do it. It is all about making people feel better about themselves. It does not matter how small the group is; if you can make just one person feel better about what is, you have done a good job and it is worthwhile doing it. With a whole host of these issues, that is what we were able to do.

I pay special acknowledgment to my good friend Georgina te Heuheu. She was my benchmate in Cabinet, as was Tau Henare. We were at the same end of the table. We were in Cabinet together. I am very grateful to Tau for other reasons, of course. He is partly responsible for my being in Cabinet, because he stuck with us, and stayed in Government in 1998. Those were thrilling times. For the last 4 or 5 years Georgina has been my benchmate here.

I shall finish up because you all want to get away. I want to say thank you very, very much to a whole range of people. My sincere thanks go to the Hansard people; the security people in this establishment; the messengers; the Crown transport drivers; the travel office; Bellamy’s; my House committee, with Warren Biddington and Nicola Fenton on it; and the Standing Orders Committee, with its chair, Margaret Wilson, its deputy chair, the Hon Michael Cullen, and David Bagnall the secretary. To my personal assistant in Parliament, Noeline Thresh, who has been with me since I arrived, we have had the same journey with many office changes. I thank you, Noeline and Derek, for your great work and for your support for me and my family. I thank the library staff, Bev Cathcart from the protocol office, and Alison Allen from Inter-Parliamentary Relations. I thank all those people for their courtesy, their goodwill, and the help they have been to me and to others in my 17 years here.

Colleagues, I have people in Tamaki whom I am deeply grateful to. John Tremewan was the chairman when I began there. Some great people have led that electorate ever since, and I thank all of them. In particular, I thank John and Vicki Tremewan for being my agents, and for being great workers and supporters. I am greatly indebted to David and Sue Morris, and to people like Jim Mungall, Tom Barton, and Graham Malaghan. Graham Malaghan I met in 1974. I knocked on his door and met him and his wife Dale. They have been great friends ever since. Graham ran most of my campaigns up until last time, in 2005, and I thank you for that, Graham. I also thank Jonathan Kinsella, who was my chief runabout in my by-election in Tamaki. He was later my press officer when I was Minister of Police as well as having other portfolios. He is now the public relations and press head honcho at the British High Commission, but he is leaving there soon to go back to the UK. So I say thanks to him also. The most recent chairman of Tamaki is Andrew Hunt, and he does a superb job. At the regional level, I am deeply grateful to Stuart Masters, who was my mentor when I first came in, and to Ross Armstrong, who was my chairman when I went out. I was deputy chairman of that region with Ross for 7 years. I thank all of those people sincerely.

I want to say to you all that I go with no regrets, at all. When I came in here in 1992, there were 67 members in the National team, albeit two of them had become Independent. Of the 67 members, there are eight left. There were 99 members in the House, and there are 19 left. That tells me that change has to happen, that I am part of that change, and that I need to move on. I am happy to do so.

I do it in the knowledge that this country is in great health. I have no doubt about that, at all. It is better every day that we go on—some downs, mostly ups. It is a bit like John Carter’s bloody phone message where he says: “Every day gets better.” That is my view of New Zealand. Every day does get better. We have some hiccups.

I pay special tribute to my leader, John Key; to my deputy leader, Bill English; and to Gerry Brownlee, Simon Power, and all of my colleagues. Thank you for the encouragement, for the support, and for giving me all the opportunities that you have.

My first opportunity in the National Party was given to me by George Chapman, who is still around. I still see him. He had faith in me and I hope I have not let him down. Sir George Chapman was my first president, and I thank him and Sue Wood. I have had about 10 presidents leading up to the most recent one, who is Judy Kirk. I thank them all for the many opportunities they have given me

Finally, because we all need to get away, I want to speak briefly about my family. Ann, I love you. You have been a tower of strength to me and to our family. You are as fantastic now as you were when I met you 47 years ago, and I am just about to embark on another life with you, on leaving this House. Thank you, Ann. Thank you to my children Karl and Jacki, who are in Europe. To Simone and Paul, and to my grandchildren Natalia, Sofia, Liam, and Niko, I thank you.

And I thank my youngest son, Ricardo, who is in Los Angeles at the moment. He sent me a note because he could not be here: “To my darling father Clem. From the day I was born 36 years ago, I have had a father that is the kindest man in the world. Growing up in a family with such love and morals is a blessing few children have. I grew up to the smell of politics happening around me, jolly conversations, with thumping tables and debates, vintage cars in a by-election where you stood against David Lange, the son of the man whose house your mother used to clean. Mum asked you to rest your Wellington ambitions until we were finished at school. My, how cool it would have been if you had been an MP when I was at school.” I would have thought the opposite, but that is the way he sees it. “Over these years you have juggled entrepreneurial business with National Party duties. Dominion councillor, policy—you have done the lot. You stepped through the politics of the party with a gentle approach, always making sure everyone was happy and being a loyal friend to all.

After 17 years you entered Parliament. You went to Wellington for the right reasons. It was never about you, it was about making things right and helping others—a feat I fear many MPs hope to do but the world in Wellington often changes the paths of even the noblest cause. Dad, I know how much you love the House and I know how very sad it will be to say goodbye. The New Zealand House of Representatives gained more than a politician 17 years ago; it gained a true statesman of the House. You are this quite simply because you are above the fray and have no ego or personal agenda. Congratulations on being a legend to our entire family and I will be listening to your speech online from the States.” He says: “God bless you, the Hon Clem Simich, and many thanks to Mum, who has stood by your side throughout.”

Those are just some thoughts from my son, and they are endorsed by his brother and sister. I appreciate them and reluctantly share them with you. Thank you for bearing with me. I do thank my family. I also thank my brothers Alex and Frank. Indeed, my family have been my main helpers in my entire 34-year career in politics. God bless you all.

I want to finish by saying that it is hard to leave this place but we all must. But I can take with me my love for this institution, my absolute confidence in the future, and my deepest gratitude for having had the opportunity to serve my country and our people. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa. Haere rā. Dovijenja i zbogovan. Good bye and best wishes to you all and thank you.

Waiata

Sitting suspended from 6.18 p.m. to 7.20 p.m.

Bills

Financial Service Providers (Registration and Dispute Resolution) Bill

In Committee

Debate resumed.

Clauses 1 to 75, and schedules 1 and 2 (continued)

CHRIS TREMAIN (National—Napier): Before I speak to the Financial Service Providers (Registration and Dispute Resolution) Bill I acknowledge the valedictory speeches of Mark Blumsky, Katherine Rich, and Clem Simich, who all set a very good tone in terms of their speeches, and who were not afraid to acknowledge their political opponents. They were excellent contributions to the House.

For the first part of my speech I will focus on clause 3, and then I will turn to clauses 5 and 6. Clause 3, “Overview”, provides the reasons why we are enacting this legislation. Members of the community who are listening to this speech will remember that three bills form part of a portfolio of legislation that has been put in place to provide greater protection for consumers. The Financial Service Providers (Registration and Dispute Resolution) Bill is the third of those bills. Clause 3 provides us with an overview and states: “This Act requires financial service providers to be registered.” So the bill forces all financial service providers to be registered, and it makes sure that they are all members of a disputes resolution service.

The key area where the Māori Party got a little bit confused between this bill and the Financial Advisers Bill was in the fact that this bill has a wider scope, and nowhere is that more confirmed than in clause 5, which defines the meaning of a financial service. It widens the scope of who will need to be part of the register and who will need to register with a dispute resolutions service. Clause 5 states that a financial service includes any service that has a financial adviser service, that acts as a deposit taker, that is a registered bank, that keeps, invests, administers, or manages money, that operates a money or value transfer service, and that issues and manages a means of payment—for example, credit and debit cards. Thus, one starts to get a feel for the fact that the scope of this Act is a lot wider than the scope of the Financial Advisers Bill.

Although the scope of this legislation will include a number of financial organisations, a number of them already have dispute resolution services that are set up and operating effectively. The officials thought that a couple of dispute resolution services were not operating effectively, but this legislation forces organisations to be registered and to be involved with a dispute resolutions service. If these organisations do not have one set up within their industry grouping, they will be forced under the legislation to join a reserve scheme. That is an important part of the bill.

I also want to focus on clause 6, “Application of Act”. What we tried to do here was to replicate the clauses that were in the Financial Advisers Bill so that those organisations that were exempted from that bill would also be exempted from this bill. Clause 6(2)(a) provides that lawyers and chartered accountants who were always exempted from the Financial Advisers Bill, pretty much from the word go, will remain exempted in this legislation, and will remain covered by their own legislation and their own disputes resolution services within their own professional bodies. In respect of clause 6(2)(ba), one group that lobbied quite hard to be excluded from the legislation was tax agents. They felt that they provided a similar service to that of chartered accountants, who had their own body and code of conduct, and who had their own disputes resolution service. Tax agents really felt they were being treated unfairly and separately from chartered accountants. I think that all of us on the Finance and Expenditure Committee—and certainly the Minister—thought it was wise to keep tax agents separate from the bill.

Interestingly, I have to declare a conflict of interest in respect of clause 6(2)(bb), as I have businesses in the real estate industry. Real estate agents have been exempted from this legislation largely because the advice they tend to give is secondary to the actual act of buying and selling a property, and also because they are covered by their own legislation. Now that there is a separate Real Estate Agents Authority there is a disputes resolution service for members of the public in those instances.

CRAIG FOSS (National—Tukituki): I continue in the Committee stage here, but I would like to acknowledge the very good valedictories we enjoyed before from Mark Blumsky, Katherine Rich and Clem Simich. We will miss those members, not only in our caucus and in our party but also in the House.

I will concentrate on a couple of clauses. Clause 42 was of interest to me at the Finance and Expenditure Committee, and even as we have it now as new clause 42B. It is about the territorial scope of this bill. Again, it is one of those particular clauses that at the select committee we made sure was totally aligned with, and very much the same as, those in the Financial Advisers Bill. But at the select committee we had some interesting discussions about this one, and even towards the last minute I think it was being constantly improved. I just note that, because there are many theoretical examples in which people could fall outside this bill. Under the title “Territorial scope” the clause states: “This Act applies to the provision in New Zealand of a financial service by a person who is in New Zealand, regardless of where the financial service provider is resident, is incorporated, or carries on business.” We had a lot of discussions, actually, because we had the theoretical example of someone—as the bill was originally drafted—who could whip through Auckland airport and make a few phone calls, and we were not sure whether that person would be covered. So the provision has been tightened, but, again in this new clause, and in the same clause in the previous Financial Advisers Bill, it is a very difficult part, and almost a glaring hole in both bills. Although I am not offering a solution to it, I am identifying the problem.

This relates to the common theme of what I was speaking about earlier—the globalisation of everything. For example, we could make up an example right now: someone living overseas could offer an interest-free loan to people in New Zealand. If New Zealanders went offshore to solicit that money, or to get advice to get such funds, etc., took ownership of those funds outside of New Zealand, and then came back and in some way utilised those funds for themselves or others without getting advice, and if various regulatory bodies had problems with those particular transactions, then they would fall outside the gambit of this bill. The same applies for the Financial Advisers Bill.

I am not offering a solution to that. I do not think there is one, unless we tighten up our agreements with other jurisdictions. Some authorities are quite tight—Australia in places, and other places in Europe—and of course any dodgy activities happen in places that are commonly known as tax havens, or that have somewhat lower thresholds of regulatory integrity than we expect here in New Zealand. Sadly, there have been examples in the past. A while ago people from Thailand were calling down to New Zealand, offering to New Zealanders wonderful deals on equity trading and all sorts of commodity gains, and unfortunately some New Zealanders were taken in by the scams and sent funds to Thailand. Those people had no recourse whatsoever; there was no civil or legal recourse. Even under this bill there is no recourse whatsoever if a New Zealander transacts funds and sends them overseas to some unusual pyramid scheme or to what is basically a simple rip-off.

Again, I am not offering a solution to that but just identifying this practice as a potential problem, because those who are of a mind to exploit others and rip them off are also of a mind to look through regulations such as these, look for the holes, and find them. They could be New Zealanders deciding to transact from outside New Zealand, or they could be people pushing something down into New Zealand from an offshore entity with which New Zealand does not have strong arrangements. Unfortunately, we will probably see ongoing examples of that activity. Between now and earlier, when I spoke on the second reading of the bill, I note that I saw a headline going across the news wires that the FBI—a major regulatory body in the United States but not even a financial regulatory body—was reviewing the activities of Lehman Bros, Freddie Mac, and Fannie Mae, for potential or alleged mortgage fraud. That was very interesting.

I have a question to ask of the Minister concerning clause 62, which is under the heading “Annual reports and information requests by Minister”. The clause states: “The person responsible for an approved dispute resolution scheme must supply to the Minister, within 3 months after the end of the financial year applying to the scheme, an annual report containing prescribed information about the scheme …”. I ask about the time period, which is kind of touched on there. We see, by the words that were struck out by the committee, that we originally said the report had to be supplied “by 1 July each year, … in relation to the 12 months ending on 31 March in that year.” I ask the Minister whether the provision relates to the financial year of the particular scheme, because, of course, there can be many end dates for financial years—31 December, 31 March, 30 June, or even others. Because I see that the Minister has to report back to the House, I ask whether there would be any interest by the Minister to have reports presented all in one go. From the time of the first annual report back to a Minister—let us say 3 months after 31 December—to the potential last one, which is 3 months after 30 June and is therefore 30 September, one can see there is quite a long time between drinks—a long time between annual reports to the Minister. I would be interested in that explanation, because I see that that provision is sitting alongside the 5-year review of the scheme in relation to the robustness of the regulations we are putting in place tonight.

Finally, I tell the Committee that clause 59 relates to the obligation to publish rules about any approved dispute resolution scheme. I understand that the wording of this clause comes from other legislation, but something does not read quite correctly to me in subclause (b), which states that the rules must be published “on an Internet site in an electronic form that is publicly available (at all reasonable times).” Well, first of all, “on an Internet site” means that it is electronic; it cannot be anything but electronic. And I would just like to question what is meant by “at all reasonable times”. Reasonable time for one entity, for the Minister, or for the public can mean many different things. I fully realise that the common-sense test there is about being available all the time. The net is wide open somewhere 24/7, and back-up sites are available, so most sites, particularly for these financial services, are cached somewhere and are available 24/7. It is not the availability on the Internet site that would be the problem; it would be a power cut or something like that. But the rules would still be available on a site somewhere in the world. That is just a little bit of a quirk, and I wonder whether the Minister had thought about that or whether there had been any advice on that. Otherwise, I will just leave it on the Table as something to consider. Thank you.

CHRIS TREMAIN (National—Napier): I rise to continue where I left off previously, which is on clause 6, “Application of Act”. I made the point, when debating the Financial Advisers Bill, about non-profit organisations and their exclusion now from the Act. New Zealanders will be interested to know that initially non-profit organisations’ budget services were part of a dragnet inclusion in the Financial Advisers Bill, and there was a debate about whether they would be included in this Financial Service Providers (Registration and Dispute Resolution) Bill as well. Now we have reached the point where we have excluded them specifically, which is good.

That is a point that New Zealanders need to be careful of, and it comes very much to the fore in terms of where National is at with its wider economic policy. Our five principal policies cover ongoing reduction in personal taxation, a real focus on education, looking at the line-by-line item of Government expenditure, making sure there is value for money in everything that is delivered through the Government, and investment in infrastructure to try to promote growth in our economy so that we can actually deliver additional services to the people of New Zealand on an ongoing basis. But a real driver for us is that fifth point around that sort of creeping bureaucracy that we see, and that we so often are questioned about by people in New Zealand who say we talk about bureaucracy and its impact on New Zealanders, but ask what we are actually talking about. What we are talking about is reflected in new paragraph (cd) of clause 6(2), which excludes from the Act non-profit organisations that provide free financial services. Initially they were included in the Financial Advisers Bill, and were potentially part of this financial service providers bill. That meant that voluntary organisations providing free financial services around the country were going to be potentially included, and would certainly be included in the Financial Advisers Bill, with the raft of additional regulation that was going to be wrapped around them. That meant their members would have to become accredited, registered, and have ongoing professional development. There were all sorts of varying costs around doing that.

We are not talking about people who are advising mums and dads who have earned $300,000 and are looking to invest their life-savings for their retirement. We are talking about volunteers in our communities who are looking after those who have fallen on tough times and who maybe are on a benefit and have only a couple of hundred dollars a week to go on. Some of those people, whom Mr Harawira was talking about earlier, struggle with their budgets big time. They need some help. They need to know that $50 is going on clothing, that $120 is going towards their rent, or whatever, and they need budget advice. The problem with this creeping regulation in clause 6(2)(cd) is that it has the potential to exclude many of those people, and for them to walk away from providing those voluntary services. Quite frankly, that is just crazy. We need those people in our community.

Those members of the community, who put their hand up day after day, and who put in their own time, do not expect one cent from the help they give. Sure, they might not be qualified accountants, they might not be qualified budget advisers, but by heck do they deliver a service to our community! Every day they go out there; they have people come to them, and those people value the service they receive. We cannot afford to let the legislation that we draft down here in Wellington bog down and capture these people in a dragnet, wrap bureaucracy around them, and wrap compliance costs around them to keep them out. It is very good that we have reached this point now. So non-profit organisations will be exempt from this legislation; they will not be wrapped up in it, and that is good.

I move on to Part 2 in terms of registration and the purpose of Part 2. It is to “establish a compulsory public register of financial service providers …”. A compulsory register will be developed. It will be an online register, which is documented in Subpart 4 where it talks specifically about the register of service providers. Clauses 23 and 24 in particular deal with that. It will be an online service, similar to the service run by the Companies Office, and it will be run by the Ministry of Economic Development, I understand. I am hoping that this service will be as straightforward as the online service provided for the registration of companies around the country. That service is world leading; I stand here and acknowledge that. The Companies Office online service for the provision of registration for companies is world leading, and acknowledged as such. One can log on to that service very easily, one can register one’s company, directors, and start-up capital, and one can very quickly walk away with a company. It looks as though the Inland Revenue Department will now provide the department’s tax numbers together with that information, as well.

I just hope that the service for the online registration of financial service providers in this bill will be as efficient as the service provided by the Inland Revenue Department, and that it can facilitate the easy provision of registration to make sure that we capture the necessary information.

That is all I would say at this point in time, Mr Chairman; thank you very much for this opportunity.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 254 in the name of the Hon Lianne Dalziel and the following amendment in her name to clause 66, be agreed to:

to omit from subclause (4) “subsection (3)(c)” and substitute “subsection (3A)(c)”.

Amendments agreed to.

Clauses 1 to 75, and schedules 1 and 2, as amended agreed to.

Bill reported with amendment.

Report adopted.

Third Reading

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Commerce): I move, That the Financial Service Providers (Registration and Dispute Resolution) Bill be now read a third time. I am confident that this bill, coupled with the two other bills we have passed over the last couple of weeks, will increase confidence in the financial sector. They are all very timely instruments to provide that degree of support. I welcome in particular the availability of a register for financial service providers and also for all consumers having access to redress. These are mechanisms that will both result from this bill.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: It’ll help John Key—those transactions.

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: I understand that my colleague is chipping in on me from behind in order to make particular points, and I am simply responding to him so that it is recorded in Hansard.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Well, what is Tranz Rail?

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: Well, if I had that number of shares and could not remember whether I—anyway, it does not matter; we will not go there.

The provision of registration requirements enables a negative vet to occur in respect of people who are acting as financial service providers. I acknowledge the very passionate contribution from the Māori Party member Hone Harawira, because I thought that his contribution picked up a very important aspect of this legislation that a lot of people have not quite recognised. It is that by requiring every financial service provider in this country to register, we will be putting the spotlight on some people who do not want to have a spotlight shone upon them. I think that it is very important that we have this legislation in place in order to achieve that. That means that the loan sharks themselves will all have to line up to be registered, but guess what? They will find out that if they turn up to be registered but are undischarged bankrupts; or are persons prohibited from being a director or a promoter of, or concerned in the management of, an incorporated or unincorporated body under the Companies Act, the Securities Act, the Securities Markets Act, or the Takeovers Act; or are persons subject to a management banning order under one of those Acts or to an order under section 108 of the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act; or have been convicted of an offence against sections of this particular legislation within the past 5 years; or have been convicted of, basically, a fraud or dishonesty offence under the Crimes Act within the past 5 years; or have been convicted of money-laundering offences or of an offence relating to the financing of terrorism; or are persons who are subject to a confiscation order under the Proceeds of Crime Act, then those people will not be able to register as financial service providers. Although this legislation does not go as far as the fit and proper person test that will be required of people involved in non-bank deposit taking, this is very good legislation in terms of providing some basic protection for those who may need that protection, and we have heard about those people.

I will also comment briefly about how important it will be to have access to redress mechanisms, but in so doing I will acknowledge again the banking sector and the insurance and savings sector, which have already established their own excellent mechanisms to support those sectors to adhere to codes of practice that enable consumers to have their complaints addressed. They have been extremely helpful to work with in developing this legislation and very supportive of it, and now we will see consumer dispute resolution services available across the board. That provision will, of course, be handed over to my colleague the Hon Judith Tizard, who unfortunately is not able to participate in this debate, but, as the Minister of Consumer Affairs, it is right and proper that the provision relating to the implementation of the consumer dispute resolution services transfer to her.

I would again like to acknowledge the officials. Again we have had tremendous support from the Ministry of Economic Development, and, in this particular instance, the Ministry of Consumer Affairs as well. I will mention parliamentary counsel again, too. Although the challenges were not quite as great with this bill as they were with the Financial Advisers Bill, which was virtually a rewrite, in this particular case the Parliamentary Counsel Office was again able to deliver to a very tight time frame. I want to again acknowledge the members of the Finance and Expenditure Committee for the work they have done, and also the submitters for their very helpful contributions. There was no controversy surrounding this bill, because everyone sees the sense in it. I am very grateful to have the opportunity to express my support to the Opposition for its assistance in this regard, as well, and I commend the bill to the House.

CRAIG FOSS (National—Tukituki): This is the third reading and final chapter of a suite of bills: the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Amendment Bill (No 3), the Financial Advisers Bill, which we dealt with this morning, and this bill, the Financial Service Providers (Registration and Dispute Resolution) Bill, which has leapfrogged up the Order Paper for reasons we discussed earlier.

I will pick up on what the Minister said in acknowledging all those who have pulled this bill together. I know we all worked on both financial bills as members of the select committee. It does disturb me just a tad that I do not think we had any speakers from the Labour side of the House who were on the select committee as we considered this bill. It is surprising, and I wonder why, but there is still time to hear from them. Obviously, the Minister was going to speak on it, but no members who saw the passage of this bill or listened to the hundreds of submissions on this bill and on the Financial Advisers Bill have spoken. If it is supposed to be a hallmark bill they are proud of, I am amazed that they do not talk on it.

I also note the acknowledgment of goodwill from all parties, and particularly from my colleague Simon Power who has had an awful lot to do with the pulling together of this bill and the Financial Advisers Bill. Yes, it has suffered a rewrite but at least we got quite good resolution towards the end. As I said earlier, this bill always sat on the sidelines a wee bit—it was a bit like the bridesmaid—but it is not too bad, in the form in which it has finally arrived in the House. National members have been voting for it all the way through, since its first reading, and again I acknowledge the cross-party support on this and other issues. I do not think it serves this Parliament very well when members chip in with little niggles and try to make political capital out of this bill, given the goodwill that has gone in from all parties to make this bill happen and bring it to the state it is.

The Minister raised a very good point. This bill brings some confidence back, and once it is in place, it will, along with the other two bills, bring some confidence into a sector that is sadly lacking confidence at the moment, given the conditions overseas that have washed on to our shores and given some of the issues that have been created within New Zealand itself. I acknowledge that about $5 billion of New Zealand’s funds are frozen or in receivership at the moment in various companies, but I reiterate that we have to distinguish between those that have suffered a market loss because market conditions have gone against the investment and those that have allegedly performed potentially illegal or misleading behaviour. Interestingly, the kinds of issues that would come up in the disputes sector here would be when someone has given money to a particular institution, under whatever prospectus it had at the time, but then the company itself has deteriorated on the way through. The person concerned may have inquired about the well-being of that company from an adviser, or taken advice that was the same as the original advice, but in fact the particular company itself had deteriorated somewhat. That is a very good example there of the need for some kind of disputes resolution process.

I also acknowledged earlier the foresightedness of not necessarily having to specify financial disputes resolution experts in the bill. I acknowledge that specifying just disputes resolution experts in the bill was very good. Also, many existing organisations already follow best practice and best behaviour, and have good and solid codes of practice, and, rightly, the Minister acknowledged them. We do too. They are setting the example. Sadly, as in so many things in life, a few bad apples spoil the whole bunch for a whole sector. There are billions and billions of dollars in New Zealand that are invested and held in trust by various entities that are quite safe, robust, and fair.

There is one interesting point that was referred to in one of the earlier speeches. The establishment of this register of all those involved in any financial advisory service in New Zealand forms part of the anti - money-laundering obligations under the Financial Action Task Force, which the Minister alluded to in, I think, her first speech, and possibly her second speech. But it is very, very wide ranging, almost a drift-net, to catch each and every person or entity involved in giving some form of financial advice. I go back to my point about how the select committee, on this bill and the Financial Advisers Bill, spent many, many hours with many officials trying to define what that meant. At first cut it sounds easy, but when we actually get down to the nitty-gritty it is very difficult. We had examples of the travel agent, which Mr Power alluded to earlier, and about insurance, and I alluded to the buying of foreign exchange when someone goes to a travel agent. Effectively, in earlier examples, they were deemed to be giving financial advice. But that has been cleared up by the previous bill, and if there is a dispute this bill would pick that up under the various tiers.

Again, National has voted for this bill. We are quite confident that it will give some confidence to a very uncertain market. At the moment, across the globe, other institutions are doing similar work, but at the end of the day what we do here is only as strong as regulation and our arrangements with other regulatory bodies overseas, and in this very mobile world where capital can flow around all over the place, the weakest link is our relationship with other organisations, countries, and institutions. On that note I do acknowledge work going on with the Minister of Revenue and the Minister of Finance in reviewing our various arrangements, treaties, pensions, and tax arrangements with various entities around the world.

On that note, yes, National will be voting for this bill. I have enjoyed speaking to it. I have learnt a lot, and again I acknowledge officials, the Minister, and Mr Power for the way they have worked together to make this good legislation.

CHRIS TREMAIN (National—Napier): I rise to take a brief call to summarise where we have got to and to let the public know that National fully supports the Financial Service Providers (Registration and Dispute Resolution) Bill. Firstly, I acknowledge the Ministry of Economic Development and also the Ministry of Consumer Affairs and the efforts they have gone to throughout the consideration of the raft of legislation that has been put before the House. I think sometimes the work that officials do goes unrecognised. If we look in particular at the Financial Advisers Bill, which was totally changed from clause 1 onwards, we see that a heck of a lot of work had to be done in a very short space of time, and the officials should be complimented on that. It was well done, I say to them.

I want to talk about the importance of the financial investment sector. So often we hear in this House the financial sector being slandered. People say those involved in the sector are all loan sharks, and they are all trying to make an easy dollar. But without the financial sector, we would have very little investment. If investment occurred only through equity, then we would have way less business in this country—way less. What the financial sector allows us to do is to invest other people’s capital at a cost. The aim then is to go out and invest that capital in order to get a better return on it. That leverages up the economy and allows us to grow the economy in a way that we would otherwise not be able to do if we did not have the financial investment sector. Members of the New Zealand public need to understand that the sector is critical to growth in our economy. It is very important that we get behind the financial investment sector and not just send a message all the time to those involved in the sector that it is comprised of loan sharks and that they are all a pack of cadgers whom we should pack up and send to Australia. We need to have this sector in New Zealand, and we need to have a strong sector.

This bill, together with the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Amendment Bill (No 3) and the Financial Advisers Bill, puts in some tighter regulation around the sector to make sure that consumers are given a higher level of protection. But, once again, as I have said before, we are never going to legislate against risk. The fact is that all investments, whether they be with a savings bank or in property development, carry different levels of risk. People generally understand that the higher the level of risk there is, the higher the return will be, and the greater the chance will be of losing one’s money. But the important thing is that people are made aware of that—that that information is disclosed to them up front, so that they can make a decision based on material information and accurate information.

We believe that the financial sector is critical to this economy. Getting in behind it, and helping it to grow our economy, our businesses, and our property investment, are what will drive economic growth, and it is economic growth that allows our Treasurer, whichever side of the House he or she sits on, to take in a larger tax take, to deliver additional services, and to deliver the services that we want, require, and demand as a modern First World economy. It is a building block of our economy and something that we certainly support, and we send a strong message to the industry that it is a very important part of this economy.

In summary, this legislation provides much tighter regulation around the financial investment sector and ensures that the disclosure of information is much better than it has been. I think, all in all, the three bills, the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Amendment Bill (No 3), the Financial Advisers Bill, and the bill that is before us tonight, as a package help to do that. I think this bill will help to take us forward, and to get us back on the horse and investing confidently in the economy in a way that can drive us out of the recession we are currently in. Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker.

Bill read a third time.

Business of the House

Business of the House

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House): I seek leave for Government orders of the day Nos 7 and 8, which are the third reading of the Te Roroa Claims Settlement Bill and the first reading of the Port Nicholson Block (Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika) Claims Settlement Bill, to be taken after the third reading of the Central North Island Forests Land Collective Settlement Bill on Thursday morning. I indicated at the Business Committee on Tuesday afternoon that this would likely be the case if we had reached this point on the Order Paper by this stage.

CHRIS TREMAIN (Junior Whip—National): I want to clarify that. So what we are looking to do is to take the next two items on the Order Paper and move them forward to Thursday? Is that correct?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House): Yes. We will have the first reading of the Education Amendment Bill (No 3) now, and then we will proceed to the first reading of the Government Superannuation Fund Amendment Bill. If time allows, we will then go to the first reading of the Electricity (Continuance of Supply) Amendment Bill, the continuation of the Committee stage of the Walking Access Bill, and then sometime early tomorrow morning we will proceed to the third reading of the Affiliate Te Arawa Iwi and Hapu Claims Settlement Bill, the third reading of the Central North Island Forests Land Collective Settlement Bill, and the third reading of the Te Roroa Claims Settlement Bill. Then we will proceed to the first reading of the Port Nicholson Block (Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika) Claims Settlement Bill, and if time allows before valedictories, the introduction and first reading of the Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Bill. We will deal with the settlement bills in sequence at the one time.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): So we will move to Government order of the day No. 6 now.

CHRIS TREMAIN (Junior Whip—National): I have one other point for clarification. This was agreed at the Business Committee?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House): I think it is fair to say that it was agreed. I gave this indication and at the time nobody dissented from that course being followed.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is none.

Bills

Education Amendment Bill (No 3)

First Reading

Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Education): I move, That the Education Amendment Bill (No 3) be now read a first time. At the appropriate time I intend to move that the Education Amendment Bill (No 3) be considered by the Education and Science Committee. This bill does two important things. It implements a number of policy changes to improve accountability for student attendance and engagement at school and to make early childhood education services and schools safer for children and students.

The Government wants to support young people to stay in school, complete their qualifications, and identify the opportunities available to them once they leave school. This bill underpins this focus by making school responsibilities for managing student attendance more explicit. It sets out the minimum steps that a school board of trustees must ensure are taken to ensure school attendance, including taking action when students are absent without reason or justification. More and more, schools are searching for opportunities to provide individual learning programmes for their students and to link them with potential destinations beyond school. The $40 million Schools Plus package, announced by the Prime Minister at Massey High School last week, enables schools to offer new options for secondary students in 2009, with further decisions to be announced next year as we further develop Schools Plus. The bill also ensures that students get good guidance on career choices and pathways. Students will stay at school until at least the age of 16, and boards of trustees will get greater clarity about their roles and responsibilities.

The bill also strengthens students’ safety in early childhood education services and schools. New measures will improve and streamline the current provisions for police vetting of all non-teaching staff, contractors, and volunteers who may have unsupervised access to children as part of their role. We are also taking the opportunity to reduce the compliance burden on early childhood services and schools, so instead of applying through the New Zealand Teachers Council for a police vet, early childhood education services and schools will directly apply to the New Zealand Police. The bill also provides for information matching between the Ministry of Education and the New Zealand Teachers Council to identify those who are teaching in schools without registration, and for the Teachers Council Disciplinary Tribunal to suspend teachers for more than the current limit of 3 months, if needed, where potential serious misconduct is being investigated, while the matter is being resolved.

Other amendments in the Education Amendment Bill (No 3) will enhance the effective governance of schools. The timing of boards of trustees elections will be moved from term one, which is the busiest time of the year for schools, to later in the year. Establishment boards will be allowed to establish more than one new school, and the education Minister will have greater discretion to approve alternative constitutions for school boards. Several other measures in the bill are of a remedial nature and correct a number of unintended consequences of the current law, including the retrospective validation following an imperfect change of proprietor in an integrated school and removing the need for an Order in Council to authorise the continuing payment of teachers’ salaries through the central resourcing system. Finally, the bill introduces a small number of technical and minor remedial amendments. These include clarifying certain definitions, validating Crown payments to integrated schools, and correcting drafting errors.

Taken together, the measures contained in the bill serve to strengthen the education system so it can better respond to the different learning aspirations of students and better support improved educational outcomes for all of our students. I commend the first reading of the Education Amendment Bill (No 3) to the House.

ANNE TOLLEY (National—East Coast): I rise to speak on behalf of National to the Education Amendment Bill (No 3). I read in the general policy statement of the explanatory note of the bill, which the Minister of Education, Chris Carter, has just spoken to, that the purpose of the bill is “to enhance student safety in both the early childhood and compulsory sectors; and improve accountability for student attendance and engagement …”. The last sentence of that general policy statement states: “These changes will help to modernise and improve education legislation.” If that is the case, it is a very dark day for education in this country as we know it. It is a very dark day, because, typically, the current Minister has over-inflated exactly what this bill will do.

This bill has no vision whatsoever for education in the 21st century. There is no substance to this bill but a whole lot of rules and regulations. It reflects a socialist agenda reaching out to claw back control from schools and communities and to put in place central control over how our schools are run. In the last week of Parliament we get a bill on education, and, like the Minister, the bill is going nowhere. National is not supporting this Education Amendment Bill (No 3) as introduced to the House.

The Minister stood in this House and said he and Labour want to support young people in school to gain skills and to learn. But the bill and this reheated policy called Schools Plus—which is actually all about the 2002 Mayors Task Force for Jobs policy, which has been pumped up and given a catchy new name—show that this Government has no idea about how to keep and support young people in school so that they can develop some skills and get some qualifications. The bill shows that the Government really does not know what to do. Instead of the Government putting some real support behind the many principals out there who are doing amazing, innovative things with kids, who are enthusiastic, dedicated, and, what is more, very successful, despite the meagre resources that this Government is making available to them, and instead of the Government getting in behind those principals and asking what it can do to help them keep those kids in schools, what do we have? We have a bill that is full of rules and regulations telling those principals exactly what they can do, but, more important, what they cannot do. That is Labour’s answer to everything.

So let us look at what the bill is all about. We have police vetting. That has been dressed up as trying to keep our kids safe in the school environment, and we all want to do that. But because this bill has been rushed into the House without any consultation, to show that this Minister, who has done nothing for 12 months, has finally got off his chuff and done something—

Hon Shane Jones: Widely supported.

ANNE TOLLEY: By whom? Here is a press release from the New Zealand Playcentre Federation that states that 11,000 volunteers at playcentres alone would need to be checked. We know that the Labour Party does not care about the parents of playcentre kids, because it would not even include them in its 20 hours early childhood education policy. It would not even include them in that. It does not think that parents who take their kids to playcentre are worth supporting—[Interruption]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Politics, as we all know, is the art of the possible, and the possible we will explore today is good order. I refer the colleagues on my right to Speakers’ ruling 57/3.

ANNE TOLLEY: The Playcentre Federation has stated that its whole existence is placed at jeopardy by this bill because of the very rushed nature and non-consultative manner in which it was brought to the House. This is a draconian set of regulations. The New Zealand Educational Institute—a great favourite with this Labour Government—is also concerned that the measures being introduced to Parliament regarding police vetting could seriously impact on community and family involvement in schools and centres. So we have a draconian set of rules and regulations that will change the very nature of parental involvement with children’s education at a time when the Government is saying it wants to do all it can to support students to stay in school to gain more skills and to learn more.

The information-matching programme is the piece of the legislation that we have all been waiting for, for 12 months. I was on the Education and Science Committee, and I know that the Teachers Council has been asking for this legislation for more than a year. The Minister promised that it was coming. We simply do not know how many unregistered and unauthorised teachers are out there in our classrooms around the country. Why is that important? Well, it is important because there is such a shortage of teachers. In fact, last year more teachers left their profession than had done over the last few years. Teachers are leaving their profession in droves. Schools are really strapped to get replacement teachers, and they are being forced to take teachers who may not be registered or authorised. So data matching is the important piece of this legislation, and it should have come to the House well over 12 months ago.

Let us talk about early-leaving exemptions. Two years ago anyone could leave. It was easy to get an early-leaving exemption. A bit of heat is put on the Government, it goes right the other way, and it is now getting rid of all leaving exemptions. What a load of rubbish! There has been absolutely no consultation with schools. Principals up and down the country are saying: “What! Where did this come from?”. The Secondary Principals Association president, Peter Gall, said that some pupils who have been exempted from school have mental health problems, but most were “chronic truants whose fit with school just wasn’t right.” We in the National Party understand. We understand, like most Kiwis out there, that for some students—just a small number of them—alternative non-school options meet their needs better. Those alternatives meet not just the needs of those individuals but also the needs of the rest of their classmates and the teachers whom they share their classrooms with. So not putting in place early-leaving exemptions is a complete flip-flop by this Government, and it will have quite perverse outcomes from those that it wants to achieve.

I have here a letter that my colleague the Hon Bill English received from the parent of a child. That parent was trying to get an early-leaving exemption for his daughter to leave high school to begin a hairdressing apprenticeship in January 2009, when she will be 15¾ years old. She is a good student, does not have any problems at school, and therefore does not fit the current criteria for an exemption. If the bill comes into place she will not be able to leave at all until she is 16. How ridiculous it is to stop a child from leaving school to take up an apprenticeship for hairdressing, which will give her a good career. Under the current criteria she cannot get an early-leaving exemption, but we can appeal to the Minister for an exemption; under this legislation she will not be able to leave at all. That just does not make sense.

That brings me finally to the legislation around what boards of trustees can and cannot do. Why on earth do we have to put that into legislation? The Tomorrow’s Schools programme has now been working for 18 years. It has been working without any legislative detail on what the responsibilities of a board are. The Education Review Office considers that 60 percent of boards are governing well, and that only 7 percent are struggling to achieve good governance. Where is the rationale for suddenly putting into legislation the requirements of a board of trustees? I am talking about the requirements around what boards can do, what they must do, what they are allowed to do, and what they can ask the Minister or Cabinet for permission to do.

I suspect that this is not actually about boards of trustees. It is the dark hand of socialism reaching into schools and saying that Tomorrow’s Schools gave too much power to communities; it gave too much power to parents to decide what was right for their children in terms of their children’s education in their children’s schools. This legislation is reaching out to pull that back, because this Government believes that only it and the Ministry of Education here in Wellington know what is right for those children. I am reminded of Yes, Minister and that magnificent saying that the Government knows best. That sums up what this Labour Government is about. It cannot trust parents. It cannot trust communities. The Government knows best.

DAIL JONES (NZ First): I have read the Education Amendment Bill (No 3), and I can say that the speech that Anne Tolley has just given bears no relationship to what is actually in the bill. The member created a speech, and she has been determined to give it, come what may, at some stage during the latter part of this year. Tonight seemed to be the time to do it. But what she has just said has no relationship to what is in the bill. I am absolutely astonished that the National Party is prepared to allow people who are not vetted to have unsupervised access to young and little children. That is what this member would allow to happen by opposing this bill.

This bill is about the safety of children under 5—student safety in the early childhood and compulsory sectors—and the vetting of the people in charge of those children. The National Party says that anyone can be in charge of those children, regardless of what his or her criminal record may be. Essentially, Anne Tolley is saying that she is not interested in the criminal record of someone who is in charge of a child under 5. She is voting against legislation that says that Parliament wants to make sure people supervising young children are vetted by the police. Surely that is a fundamental point. We do it in every other area of the community; why should we not do it for the early childhood sector?

Of course, the issue in respect of playcentres has to be considered carefully. They have been around for a long time. We know the care and concern that parents have for children in playcentres. But the situation today in New Zealand is unsatisfactory. People with criminal records get involved in these areas for one unsavoury reason, and the National Party is opposing legislation that will ensure that there can be vetting of these people. I really do not believe it, but I guess I have to. That is the level to which the National Party has reduced itself today.

On the question of accountability for student attendance and engagement in the compulsory sector, Anne Tolley goes on and on about truancy levels in schools, and this bill makes a slight adjustment and improvement in this area, yet that National Party member, who is asking for something like this to happen, opposes it now that it is happening, even though in a minor way. How can we win with some people?

Hone Harawira: You can’t.

DAIL JONES: I agree with Mr Harawira. Gosh, we have agreed for once! It is good to see that I can agree with Mr Harawira from the Māori Party. I say to Mr Harawira that we have to watch this, as people might start talking.

Hone Harawira: No chance!

DAIL JONES: Ha, ha!

This bill makes largely technical amendments. We have just heard a dramatic speech from Anne Tolley about socialism in the administration of school boards. Clearly, she has never read the Education Act 1989 or the provisions with regard to boards of trustees. She has never read the schedule of the Act that sets out the controls and the constitutions for boards of trustees, how elections are to be held, and suchlike. They are extensive. On occasions, I as a lawyer have helped school boards of trustees with administering elections and suchlike. All those provisions are there already. This bill gives an option as to how that type of control can be exercised. It increases the opportunities that a school has as to the way in which the existing measures can be carried out. It does not reduce the options; it increases them. It gives more possibilities to a board of trustees in terms of how it can carry out some of its requirements. The bill does not limit the boards; it increases the opportunities they have.

I have one question to ask the National Party. We have this bill. What is the National Party’s policy on education?

Anne Tolley: You’ll see.

DAIL JONES: The National spokesperson on education says we will see. Well, we are just over a month out from the election, yet the National Party still does not have a policy on education. How can the National Party be critical of anyone else’s policy when it does not have a policy of its own, other than to oppose simple legislation of a technical nature? Just because the legislation was introduced by Labour, the National spokesperson believes that it has to be wrong, and she has given a speech that has no relationship to this bill, whatsoever.

I would have loved to see a bill introduced that introduces a non-repayable student allowance—a universal student allowance, which is New Zealand First policy—but, of course, that might have forced the National Party to say whether it had a policy on that. As we know, it does not support a universal student allowance. That is just an aside, and I must move on.

As I see it, this bill is straightforward legislation. It deals with various administrative matters. There is nothing awesome about it, other than the need to protect our children. For example, clause 26 inserts new section 78C, “Police vetting of persons with unsupervised access to students at school”. I want police vetting of people with unsupervised access to students at school. National does not want that; National is quite happy for there to be no vetting of persons with unsupervised access to students at school. New sections 78CA to 78CC set out when a police vet must be obtained, they set out procedures relating to police vets, and they also provide for an exemption. Some vetting-exempted agencies are identified by a Gazette notice. So it is a very broad-ranging bill in that respect.

I am absolutely staggered that National is moving away from a strong law and order policy. We saw that in the Law and Order Committee in respect of legislation relating to Wanganui and tattoos, the Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill. We saw that National members did not support the Wanganui District Council. We know that National is weak on law and order, and that has been confirmed yet again tonight.

The bill also provides technical amendments with regard to the matching of register information and information about payment of teachers’ salaries at payrolled schools. How can one possibly oppose legislation as technical as that? If there is a drafting error, it will be picked up by the Education and Science Committee, and we will consider what it says. The National Party wants to oppose a bill that includes the matching of register information and information about payment of teachers’ salaries at payrolled schools. I would have thought that those provisions would improve the situation of the teaching profession. New Zealand First wants the standards and conditions of the teaching profession to improve. The National Party obviously does not want the standards and conditions of the teaching profession to improve. That is why it is opposing this legislation.

The bill also includes, in clauses 50 to 53, provisions regarding the duration of interim suspension, investigations by a complaints assessment committee of reports of convictions, complaints about competence, and the requirement that the Teachers Council must coordinate police vetting. What is controversial or difficult about this legislation? National even opposes a provision relating to the transfer of land.

This is straightforward legislation, largely of a technical nature. It ensures the protection of young people who are in a situation where there is unsupervised access to them, which is clearly defined in clause 77, “Interpretation”. The definition of “vetting-exempted agency” is set out there, and I am sure the Education and Science Committee, when it considers this legislation, will have no difficulty working with Playcentre to make sure that its concerns are well noted, that steps are taken to make sure that the children concerned are always supervised, and that any problems with regard to unsupervised access are taken care of.

I understand that one of the worst paedophile cases reported was a case involving not a parent, but a gardener who was working around a playcentre area. He was the paedophile. We must make sure that that sort of thing does not happen again, and we must make sure that unsafe people who are involved in an unsupervised access situation are caught at an early stage.

New Zealand First has no difficulty supporting the welfare, the benefits, and the protection of children under 5, and we will be supporting this bill. I am absolutely staggered that a contrary view could be taken by any party in this House.

ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tamaki): Well, here it is—the Education Amendment Bill (No 3). That is all the Government has to show for 9 years in office, three Ministers, and goodness knows how many Associate Ministers. In the last days of this Parliament and in the dying days of that Government, it has dropped this bill, under urgency, into the House. That alone is good enough reason to oppose the bill, and I say the National Party does oppose it.

I assume that what we heard from New Zealand First’s Mr Jones was his final address in the House. I wish he had told us that earlier; we could have got a bit of a muster for him. But I hope that he will go back, read his Hansard, and just reflect a little on some of the things he actually said. You see, one of the problems with this bill is that it is typical of the Labour Government. It looks back—it looks back. It in no way looks forward to what will be the critical issues in New Zealand education.

Hon Shane Jones: But you don’t know them.

ALLAN PEACHEY: Well, the list member Mr Jones has been shouting a lot tonight—

Hone Harawira: Shane!

ALLAN PEACHEY: —oh yes; I would not want him to be confused with my friend from New Zealand First—but he needs to reflect on one thing. I am a bit of a fan of Gilbert and Sullivan operettas, and I can see, in Trial by Jury, a role for Mr Jones. He could be just slipped in there somewhere as the clown or the fool, wandering around, looking under chairs, looking at benches, and seeking high office. That is Mr Shane Jones.

I want to talk a little about teacher registration and the registration provisions of this bill, because as I have said, it is very backward looking. This bill tidies up the results of the misadministration of the Government, but it is very important that this House is under no illusions as to what teacher registration means. I ask members not to confuse it, please, with teacher competence. It is easy to say we have a great registration system and all the rest of it, but that does not equate to having teacher competence.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Why isn’t this member the education spokesperson?

ALLAN PEACHEY: The members opposite who are challenging me need to just reflect on that. They can go to any number of Education Review Office reports on schools, and they will find statements like “Some teachers in this school”—or “Several teachers in this school”—“do not teach the New Zealand curriculum properly.”, or “They are do not know how to maintain correct relationships in classrooms.” That is in report after report from the Education Review Office. But when somebody like myself asks the next question: “Are the teachers to whom the Education Review Office is drawing attention registered?”, the answer is always yes.

Hon Darren Hughes: How’s Selwyn College?

ALLAN PEACHEY: Oh, Selwyn College will do very, very well, because the people of Tamaki have a member of Parliament who is prepared to stand up for children. Frankly, if some of the members opposite had the same sort of integrity that I have and put the interests of children first, a lot of New Zealand children would be getting a better education. I will defend the actions I have taken towards Selwyn College before anybody at any time, and I would welcome a debate with the Labour Party about what constitutes a good school.

I was talking about teacher registration. Many people in the education sector will tell us that the current teacher registration system actually gets in the way of the sort of professional standards that teachers need to be developing in order to have fulfilling, successful careers in the 21st century.

I move now to the truancy provisions in this bill. You know, those provisions are a classic example of the Labour Government’s policy towards education over 9 years. What has it done with regard to truancy? It has spent a heap of money—

Anne Tolley: But not very well.

ALLAN PEACHEY: —but not well—and employed a whole new pile of administrative structures, again not very well, and now that this Government is in its dying days as a Government, it has finally occurred to it that even with that expense, that waste of billions of dollars, none of that has worked. So what has it done? Have Government members gone back and looked at themselves, and looked at how they have caused this situation? Have they acknowledged at long last the failure of their approach: building huge bureaucracies and giving people cars to drive around in, clipboards, and a sense of importance? It is now clear that that approach has not worked. We need just to go to South Auckland and talk to some of the people in the ministry there, and they will tell us that approach is not working and why it is not working.

So what has the Government done? It has landed on boards of trustees, on principals, and on teachers. That is what it has done. There has been much more work for schools to do, and much more money to be expended, all because the Government has failed in terms of the bureaucracies it has set up to deal with truancy. Schools were actually doing pretty well in the 1990s with regard to issues like truancy. They were doing pretty well. Truancy is much, much worse now than it has ever been, because of the way that the Labour Government has handled it. And what is its answer now? You see, again, this is classic socialist educational policy: find another reason to blame teachers, principals, and boards. It is classic socialist educational policy. In the last—

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Let it all out!

ALLAN PEACHEY: Mr Cosgrove has a lot to say tonight. Am I to assume that he will not be giving a valedictory statement tomorrow, and this is it? We do not think that he will be back.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I’ll see you out, Grandad.

ALLAN PEACHEY: Well, I tell Mr Cosgrove that we will see—we shall see.

I will finish with reference to the special education provision here. Although I welcome the acknowledgment of the role of special schools, I have to ask the questions: “Why has it taken 9 years?” and “What about the real issue for special schools in this country?”, which is the need for them to expand their capability, their ability to work on a broader front with the least fortunate of our children. Again, that is just another example of this Government—

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Come on, Grandad, wind it up.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Repeated reference to a member’s age is out of order; I refer to Speaker’s ruling 38/7.

ALLAN PEACHEY: I am not offended by references to my age, because I know that unlike the younger members opposite, I have actually achieved something in life. I came to Parliament after I had succeeded in life, not instead of succeeding in life.

I will finish on the point that the capability of our special schools is what people who are looking forward are looking at. But here we have one more example of looking backwards. The National Party will not support this bill; we have very, very good reason for not supporting it. I do not believe that it will proceed beyond its first reading. Thank you.

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. Kia ora tātou e te Whare. The news that broke this morning could not have been more timely, when thinking about the first reading of this Education Amendment Bill (No 3). The nation woke to the news that a police officer ended up hospitalised after a mass brawl between pupils of two Hastings schools. It was not just a playground fight. Hell no, we are talking about an all-in brawl involving, it is said, up to 200 pupils aged between 13 and 15 years old. It has been suggested that the fight had been organised via a text message, and it quickly steamrolled from there.

This incident left two officers injured, according to the newspapers, six students aged between 13 and 15 years old being arrested and charged with disorderly behaviour likely to cause violence, and a 14-year-old appearing before the Youth Court today, charged with assault. The issues of student safety therefore are clearly uppermost in our minds. The issue of student to student violence, however, is not identified in the scope of the bill. The matters of safety in this legislation are focused on non-teaching staff, contractors, and volunteers who may have unsupervised access to children. Students are clearly missing from the list, and, if this morning’s incident is of any value, it may be to ensure that when we talk about safe environments, we make the effort to ensure all are encompassed within this brief.

The bill has a broad focus of enhancing student safety in both the early childhood and compulsory sectors. Measures will be introduced to require police vetting of all people who have unsupervised access to children during the opening hours of early childhood centres and schools. The bill identifies a number of helpful scenarios that show how the regulations will work. A parent who coaches swimming or supervises reading in the school library with no other staff present will be affected by the legislation, but whānau members who go on a camp, who drive the kids to a school trip, or who supervise students with teachers present will not be affected. There seems to be a comprehensive consultation list included in the bill, which we were pleased to see, including the education sector union and Te Kōhanga Reo National Trust. Although these groups were consulted on the statement, we believe the select committee hearings on this bill will be crucial, in terms of testing that this bill has the balance right.

I ask whether students themselves should be included in the legislation, and whether volunteers will withdraw their services, wanting to avoid what Playcentre New Zealand president Marion Pilkington called “the indignity and stigma of a police check.” I ask whether the additional checks will discourage the community from becoming involved in the life of the school, and whether it will create a culture of mistrust, or, alternatively, whether the changes will make parents feel more confident that their child is under safe supervision. We will look forward to hearing the responses of whānau members, volunteers, educationalists, education professionals, managers, and all of those experts in the education sector who care for the well-being of our tamariki, of our children.

The quality of care is an issue that we in the Māori Party are particularly interested in, where the amendments in the bill look to improve accountability for student attendance and engagement in the compulsory sector. We are interested in the intention to ensure students receive good counselling and guidance to assist them in determining career choices and pathways. This is a matter we wholeheartedly endorse in the Māori Party.

We want to make sure that our young people make good decisions about tertiary study or industry training, and that they know the financial impact of the choices they make, but we are unsure that simply amending the principals’ existing duties regarding guidance counselling is all that it will take. Legislative changes are all well and good, but what schools are screaming out for is actual resources and pragmatic investment that will make the difference. It is our policy intention that to improve the choices our young people make, Career Services should be moved to the Ministry of Social Development to work alongside the Ministry of Youth Development, Work and Income, and StudyLink to collectively support the choices young people make. Similarly, with the overarching concerns that relate to attendance and engagement, the Māori Party, from day one of this Parliament, has brought to the fore the crucial need to reward school success and innovation in reducing underachievement and disengagement. In fact, one of my first contributions to the Education and Science Committee was setting up the inquiry into making the schooling system work for every child.

The report on that inquiry, which was tabled in the House in February of this year, revealed data from the Education Review Office that only 44 percent of schools had evidence of improved learning outcomes amongst their Māori students over time. We explored alternative models for Māori education that were benefiting Māori students, including kura kaupapa Māori, Māori boarding schools, designated character schools, and programmes such as Tū Toa, which uses sport and tikanga Māori as a catalyst to improve learning. In fact, a key recommendation in the report was that the schooling system should support worthwhile programmes outside the general stream for Māori.

It is disappointing that in this bill the focus on improving engagement in the compulsory sector appears to ignore the recommendations of the select committee report, instead focusing on technical amendments to monitor absences, or repealing the enrolment exemptions. Although contacting parents and following up on absences is useful, it still does not do anything to address the large-scale system failure to excite and engage students in ways that will engage them and encourage them to stay at school.

Another group of amendments in the bill to identify whether teachers are teaching without a current practicing certificate, or whether schools are illegally employing teachers, is also a bit of a concern. The amendments are introduced to ensure the ministry can keep accurate registration information, and that the Teachers Council is able to keep up with current authorisations. Now, that is all well and good, but, again, I ask whether the technical amendment is the most important variable in determining the quality of the teachers we put in front of our children. If we want to invest in the future of our nation, we must ensure our teachers are culturally competent and professionally capable to inspire our tamariki to a love of learning.

This same emphasis on technical accuracy carries through to the amendments proposed for school boards of trustees. The bill proposes minor amendments to do such things as repeal the requirement for a board to hold an election of trustees on the second Tuesday of May, for goodness’ sake. This is hardly the major issue for my constituents. When they talk about boards of trustees, their concern is not to do with the second Tuesday in May or the third Friday in June. Their focus is on wanting to ensure that schools are accountable as, essentially, community-based organisations. The Māori Party believes the public needs to be provided with much better information on school performance, particularly for Māori and Pacific Island student achievement. We want to ensure that boards of trustees are held accountable for Māori achievement, that Education Review Office reports are made available to whānau, hapū, and iwi, and that schools must disclose achievement statistics to all of their whānau and community. That would surely have all schools lift their standards in their education of Māori and Pacific Island students, but, as we in the Māori Party constantly say, what is good for Māori will be good for the nation.

We will support this bill, as it is a doorway to other important issues that must be discussed if we truly care for the learning outcomes of the next generation.

JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future): I rise on behalf of United Future to speak to the first reading of the Education Amendment Bill (No 3), a bill that my New Zealand First colleague described as largely technical. I take exception to that. It actually has a large amount of quite substantial policy change in it. United Future is happy to support this first reading, because we think the content of the bill traverses a number of issues that should be considered. However, I have to signal that we are unconvinced by some of the solutions this bill seeks to provide. We would like to see some work done on those by the Education and Science Committee, and we hope the bill will return to the House with some of those issues resolved. We feel strongly enough about them to say that if they are not changed, we may have to reconsider our position on the bill.

Let us look at some of our concerns. The first part of the bill talks about introducing improved police vetting to keep both early childhood and compulsory sector educational facilities safer. Now, that sounds very good. However, I have already received, as I think many members will have, letters from Playcentre New Zealand and other groups that have read the wording of this provision and remain unconvinced that it will not be an onerous provision on them. Playcentres that pride themselves on their open-door policy and their open invitation to parents and extended family members to be part of their child’s education may well be disadvantaged if we are not clear that this bill does not capture them in some way. The information-matching provisions will help the Teachers Council make sure that only registered teachers holding current practice certificates are able to teach in our schools. We think this is a good thing, and United Future is largely happy with those provisions.

Around the issues of accountability for student attendance and engagement in compulsory education, we are open-minded about the provisions to clarify the steps a school board of trustees must take when a student is absent without explanation, and also to clarify the principal’s responsibility to ensure students get the guidance and counselling they may need if they are going through a difficult time before jumping to exclude children or stand them down for a period. We have some question marks around repealing the ability of the Secretary for Education to provide enrolment exemptions for 15-year-old students. We would like to know more about that provision, and we will be very interested to see what submitters say to the select committee about this and how it fits into the Government’s announced policy of Schools Plus. Anne Tolley read out a letter about a young girl about to turn 16 who had the opportunity to take up an apprenticeship. If that fits in with what the bill talks about, when it refers to valuing offsite experience as a key criterion to be considered by a board, and if obtaining things such as work experience counts, then it may be OK, but we are really unclear at this stage as to whether this provision will not limit the opportunities for some students in a way that could be unhelpful.

The other thing we find interesting is that any focus on middle schooling seems to be absent from this section of the bill. One of the problems United Future has focused on is that if we look evidentially at when a student is going to disconnect from schooling, lose interest, and possibly become truant, it is often in those emerging adolescent years—years 7 to 10—when students, particularly when they reach secondary school, are not coping well with 50-minute periods, swapping around, and a reduced level of pastoral care from what they were receiving in the primary sector. It can be just too much for some students. We certainly support some of the educationalists’ thinking about middle school students: the need to provide a lot more pastoral care within the high school system and to invest in those students so that fewer of them are disconnecting in the first place. We would love to see whether any submissions are received on this.

On the matter of school boards of trustees, we are unclear as to why there is any advantage to moving away from a set date towards a more flexible arrangement whereby the Minister can determine the date of the election. Maybe there are some benefits that we are unaware of, but it seems a little unusual. However, we are open to being persuaded on that. The amendment in relation to the New Zealand Qualifications Authority is a technical amendment to include private schools in the definition of schools that are eligible to be accredited by the New Zealand Qualifications Authority.

However, this week United Future has raised an additional concern that we think could fall within the brief of this bill, and we would love the select committee to consider it. Currently the New Zealand Qualifications Authority is not required to accept National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) marks from high schools if the students’ parents have not paid the New Zealand Qualifications Authority fee. It is also unclear whether schools are obliged to hold on to a school leaver’s marks in the hope that somebody will then pay the fee so that the marks can be sent on; and, if they are required to hold on to those marks, for how long. The real risk right now in New Zealand is that there could be literally hundreds and hundreds of New Zealand students who have completed 2 or 3 years of NCEA, and because their parents were unable or unwilling to make that payment, those marks could literally be lost within a short time after they have left school.

We would like to call on the select committee and the Government to consider making it an absolute requirement that all marks are passed on to the New Zealand Qualifications Authority and stored there, and if it then chooses not to release those marks officially to students who have not paid their fees, that could be another consideration. But at least let us make sure that all achievement marks—all unit standards that have been achieved by students—are recorded and held in trust for that student, so that he or she can have access to them when that student needs to apply for jobs or for tertiary education. Beyond that, if the New Zealand Qualifications Authority is not going to be required to do this, then the Government needs to give some very clear guidelines to secondary schools as to how long they are to hold on to the information, and even to resource those schools with the storage capacity to hold on to those marks for so many years before they, in the end, disappear into the ether.

The third consideration that United Future would like the select committee to consider on this matter is whether there need to be some flexible payment options for students who want to move on to tertiary education. Could the $75 owed by a student to the New Zealand Qualifications Authority be lumped on to his or her tertiary student bill so that it could be paid with that? Could, for instance, Work and Income be allowed to manage the debt on behalf of such students and subtract it from their parents’ benefit, as it does with other debts, or are those students allowed to have access to their marks and pay off the bill themselves once they get employment? We think that this is a serious problem, and when we talk about the tail of underachievement coming out of New Zealand schools, part of that tail could well be hundreds of students who did get some NCEA units, have got some qualifications, but actually have no way of proving that because the New Zealand Qualifications Authority does not have those marks on record and is unwilling to receive them. United Future would love to see that problem be addressed. We consider it to be a lot more important and a much more urgent need than merely changing the definition of those who are eligible to be accredited by the New Zealand Qualifications Authority.

We are very happy to support the first reading of this bill, but there are some serious things we want to see fixed if we are to support it beyond the first reading.

METIRIA TUREI (Green): I want to take a very short call on this bill, the Education Amendment Bill (No 3). The Greens will be supporting its referral to a select committee, and I note that the select committee will not be considering it until after the election, so there is some time for its clauses to be looked at by the community and by politicians in the meantime.

The big issue that has arisen for me has been in relation to playcentres and the issues of supervision and police vetting. I understand that this is a very serious concern for playcentres, and I think they are right to be concerned. In our view we do need to look very carefully at balancing the concerns about the impact on playcentres and other centres of police vetting—the costs and the difficulty for, especially, volunteer activity in these centres—against the needs of children to be safe. It is something we need to look at very seriously at the select committee. I do think the select committee needs to address the issues, which is why we are supporting the bill.

There are a lot of other issues in the bill that we are concerned about, but we are concerned about this issue in particular. I support the New Zealand Playcentre Federation in its lobbying of politicians on the issue. We know that it is a serious concern for that organisation. I think there is an interesting discussion about the definition of “unsupervised access to children” in the bill, and in time the select committee will need to look at what that means.

I want to acknowledge the Green Party’s support for the legislation, as well as Playcentre and its very real concerns about the bill, and I want to send the message that the Greens will be taking this issue very seriously.

PAULA BENNETT (National): To my mind the best way to describe the Education Amendment Bill (No 3) is that it is the good, the bad, and the ugly, and one starts with the good. The good in the bill has to be around the information-matching programme and the fact that we are finally getting to a stage where the Ministry of Education is talking to the Teachers Council. I have been on the Education and Science Committee for about 20 months now, and I was absolutely astounded to hear that the Teachers Council teachers register was not in sync with the Ministry of Education’s register. That meant that teachers who were not registered were able to teach in schools and actually say that they were registered; when their registration was suspended, obviously the Ministry of Education and the Teachers Council registers were not matching up.

The good part of this bill has to be that finally, after a long period of time, changes are being made. Certainly, in the time I was on the select committee I was astounded to hear from the officials that this sort of stuff was happening. The matter arose over a really serious issue: a teacher had been teaching in a school and there had been some inappropriate behaviour, and it turned out that the teacher was not registered. But no one actually knew; none of the matching that was needed was going on. So if we were looking for the good in this bill, then that would certainly be a small element of what we think is necessary and what we actually need to do.

We then move to the bad—some of this stuff is just incredible. Really, by reading this bill, we are getting the sense that this is not currently happening in schools, and that the only way the current Government has to make it happen is, yet again, to just legislate—legislate, legislate, and overlegislate.

I want to give those who might be reading this debate later or listening to it a little example of what this bill proposes to do. The explanatory note states that the bill is “designed to improve accountability by—specifying the minimum steps that a school board of trustees must ensure are taken in situations of unexplained or unjustified student absence.” Are we saying that right now school boards of trustees and their principals are not stepping up when children are absent from school for an unexplained reason, and are not doing something about it? Instead we should actually talk to those schools and identify where these pretty major problems are. If parents, principals, teachers, and boards of trustees are not addressing truancy and problems with children being away, we actually have more of an issue than a provision in this bill. The only way this Government has to address it is to put it in legislation and cross its fingers, quite frankly.

Anne Tolley: Put another rule in.

PAULA BENNETT: It puts another piece of legislation in; it puts another law in place, instead of actually addressing what is a very big problem and something that is critical. If it is not a critical part of the jobs of principals, teachers, and boards of trustees to make sure the children are at school, then quite frankly this provision is just a waste of time.

Another method listed in the explanatory note is: “amending the principal’s existing duty to ensure students get good guidance and counselling …”. Do we really need legislation to ensure that that sort of stuff is happening in our schools? We do not.

Anne Tolley: What they need is the finance to do it.

PAULA BENNETT: We need principals to have the resources and the finance to get on and do that job themselves.

Let us talk a bit more about some of the bad things in this bill. The explanatory note talks about giving “the Minister the power to prescribe a date or range of possible dates for triennial elections:”. The Minister will get a little more Draconian, deciding what is best for schools, instead of schools and boards of trustees getting on and deciding what works for their communities and what works for them. I pick up on what the Māori Party was saying earlier about what is important to boards of trustees and what is important to schools—it is not about the dates and things; it is about how they are running and about the important stuff that is going on within them.

It will not be a surprise to those who know of my interest in early childhood education that I certainly presume the ugly to be the stuff around police vetting. Let us not make light of it. Occasionally, in certain circumstances, some pretty ugly stuff is going on. If we thought for one moment that this legislation would curb some of the abuse of children that goes on, then we would not waste an instant in stepping up to make sure it was happening. But this bill is not about that. This bill is about ill-thought-out and Draconian steps that will not take measures to ensure a child’s safety.

The example that has been used in the cries I heard from the other side of the House earlier—and Mr Jones from New Zealand First raised it—is the safety of children, and this issue was certainly raised around Playcentre. Let us think about this logically. I would like to think that maybe the Minister, Chris Carter, has not visited a Playcentre school, and that is why he does not understand them. Actually, the Minister likes to go on quite a lot about where he has visited, who he has seen, and how many schools he has been to.

Anne Tolley: He doesn’t learn much!

PAULA BENNETT: No, and when one goes along afterwards and speaks to those schools, one hears them say that he may have been there but he did not listen. This might be one of those cases where he did not listen. The bill talks about volunteers needing to be police-vetted, but who are the volunteers in a playcentre?

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: Parents.

PAULA BENNETT: Parents are the ones who volunteer in a playcentre.

Allan Peachey: Mum and dad.

PAULA BENNETT: Mum and dad, and often grandma and granddad, are actually the ones who volunteer in playcentres. Under this legislation, volunteers in all parent-led centres—such as kōhanga reo, some of our Pacific language centres, and certainly Playcentre—will all have to be police-vetted. So parents, who actually have their children with them pretty much 24/7, will now be considered a risk under this legislation, and will be police-vetted. Not only is that not possible for playcentres, because they do not have the resources and the funds, but it is also off-putting for many volunteers to go through the process when a parent turns up to play with their child.

Have we seen what actually goes on in a playcentre? More often than not, when one goes in and speaks with a parent, one sees that parent sitting in the sandpit and talking and playing with his or her own child. That parent will have to be police-vetted under this bill. I think the Labour Government is actually taking it far too lightly. We heard from New Zealand First the cries of outrage that all of a sudden we do not support police vetting, but let us remember that police vetting is happening now. Police vetting is happening in our centres and in our services now. In fact, from 2004 to 2006, 35,000 non-teacher police vettings were done—35,000 police vettings were requested.

Anne Tolley: And how many naughty people were found?

PAULA BENNETT: Well, only seven people out of the 35,000 were actually identified as sensitive or with red stamps. That is seven out of 35,000. Those seven were picked up by the current regulations around police vetting, and by services and centres having the common sense to know what is best for their children, because the parents know what is best for their children.

Have members heard about National’s policy? Let us trumpet that. When we took on the 20 free hours’ early childhood education policy we said we trusted parents to make the best decisions for their children, and, as such, we would bring Playcentre, kōhanga reo, and parent-led services into the 20 free hours policy. Let us actually identify them as a quality option. Let us identify them, and stand up and say that parents know what is best for their children and their families. There was not a peep from Labour. There were peeps on other stuff, and there were squawks on other stuff around the policy, but there was not a word from Labour members, because they knew that this was what parents wanted. They knew that there would not be a big call to put us down for that one.

Ideologically, Labour stands against parents knowing what is best for their children, and as a consequence it could not ideologically support Playcentre and parent-led services being counted in the 20 free hours policy. It was not about the money, and it is not about the money. The Minister knows that—it is not about the money for Playcentre and kōhanga reo. It is about being identified as a quality service. National will stand up proudly and say that we trust parents to make the best decisions for their children.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Education Amendment Bill (No 3) be now read a first time.

Ayes 69

New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 5; Māori Party 4; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field.

Noes 48

New Zealand National 47; Independent: Copeland.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Education and Science Committee.

Bills

Government Superannuation Fund Amendment Bill

First Reading

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs): Just before I call the Minister, I ask that the person who had that phone ringing earlier and all other members please now check that the phones are off.

PETER BROWN (Whip—NZ First): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs): No telling tales!

PETER BROWN: It is not telling tales. I just say that it was an alarm clock to wake up the National Party.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs): Down the member goes; he is out of order.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance): That was most uncalled for! I move, That the Government Superannuation Fund Amendment Bill be now read a first time. At the conclusion of the first reading debate I will move that the bill be referred to the Finance and Expenditure Committee.

This is a simple but important bill. It amends the Government Superannuation Fund Act 1956 to give effect to the Budget 2008 decision to provide all Government Superannuation Fund and National Provident Fund annuitants with an annual cost of living adjustment linked to 100 percent of CPI changes. The Government Superannuation Fund, also known as the GSF, is a Government-owned fund set up to provide for public servants’ superannuation. It was set up in 1948, and it was closed to new entrants in 1992. It has a liability to pay benefits to members currently valued at over $11 billion, which exceeds its investments by over $8 billion.

As part of Budget 2008 Cabinet agreed to increase the Government Superannuation Fund and National Provident Fund annuitants’ annual cost of living indexation to 100 percent of the CPI. This adjustment is estimated to impact around 17,000 Government Superannuation Fund and 2,100 National Provident Fund annuitants and their annual cost of living adjustments, indexed at rates between 90 and 100 percent of the CPI. I have taken this decision to ensure that all annuitants are treated consistently with regard to annual cost of living adjustments. The cost of this decision—at a one-off figure for balance sheet purposes—is $33.2 million.

The adjustment had originally been intended to apply from 23 July next year. I have received several petitions, including a letter from the president of the Government Superannuitants Association, David Swallow, to bring forward the date from which 100 percent CPI indexation would apply. This bill brings forward the date to 2 April 2009 to align with the annual cost of living adjustments, and we are dealing with this bill now so that the bill can get off to the select committee, submissions can be called for, and the bill can be passed before 1 April next year.

One other small clause in the bill—clause 5—corrects an error that was made in the Government Superannuation Fund Amendment Act 1990. In 1990 Parliament increased the amount by which the annuity is reduced by surrender by some nine times. In other words, when someone surrenders a part of the superannuation scheme, the annual amount is multiplied by nine times. That figure should have been an increase to 10.8 times the annual amount, and in fact it was not done so in the law, but the practice since then has been to pay the 10.8 figure rather than the nine. This error apparently has not been picked up for some 18 years. Some hawk-eyed person has finally discovered it, and this bill rectifies that error in the 1990 legislation.

I should declare an interest, of course, given recent events. As a person under the old parliamentary superannuation scheme, I would be affected by the latter provision if, in fact, the current law was to be applied.

Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney): I also should declare the same interests as Dr Cullen, as a member of the old parliamentary superannuation scheme. In doing so, let me make it clear that National will support the Government Superannuation Fund Amendment Bill being referred to the select committee, if for no other reason than that we have a pretty unfair situation right now. Some members of the more recent Government Superannuation Fund schemes already receive cost of living adjustments of 100 percent of the annual CPI, whereas some members started their contributory service way back before 15 June 1969, when the Government Superannuation Fund Amendment Act 1969 came into force. So some people in Government Superannuation Fund schemes already receive 100 percent annual cost of living adjustments and others in Government Superannuation Fund schemes and National Provident Fund schemes do not. That is clearly not a very satisfactory situation; it is quite an unfair situation. Even if there were no other considerations, there is no justifiable ground for having such an arbitrary arrangement for annual adjustments to these schemes.

Having said that, another reason why this issue has become very important is that under this Labour Government the rate of inflation—or the annual CPI—is high again. It is years since it was 5 percent. [Interruption] Dr Cullen laughs, but this year the rate of inflation is projected to hit 5 percent. I ask Dr Cullen how long it is since we have had a 5 percent rate of inflation in New Zealand. Under Labour inflation has gone up, as it always has done. I have been here long enough to remember what it was like pre-1990. Pre-1990, when we had a Labour Government last time around, inflation was sky-high. We always get high inflation under a Labour Government, and that is why this issue has become important again. When the inflation rate is up around 5 percent, the annual CPI adjustment becomes more important.

Why are we heading towards a 5 percent inflation rate this year? It is actually pretty easy to work out why we are heading towards a 5 percent—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs): Be careful, Dr Smith. This is about superannuation. Do not take off on a lecture on inflation.

Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH: But, Madam Assistant Speaker, adjustment for inflation is the very purpose of this bill.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs): But the purpose does not need a whole lecture on inflation.

Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH: Well, if it were not for inflation, we would not need this legislation. That is the crucial aspect of it. The facts are that last year Treasury warned Dr Cullen that if he increased Government spending by the amount Cabinet was talking about, he would see big inflation as a consequence. What happened? Dr Cullen knows exactly what happened. Dr Cullen ignored it—

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: Oh, really!

Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH: I do not know whether Dr Cullen ignored it, but his Cabinet colleagues walked all over him and he agreed to a massive increase in Government spending, did he not? Against Treasury advice, he agreed to a massive increase in Government spending. What has happened?

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: That’s so silly.

Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH: He says it is so silly! I put another challenge to him. Another reason why we have high inflation is that our productivity growth has collapsed under this Labour Government. The facts are very clear. Compared with the 1990s, productivity growth since Labour has been in office has collapsed. By almost any estimate, it is certainly under one-half and maybe even down to one-third of what it was during the 1990s. Those are Treasury’s figures, not ours.

When we have low productivity growth we get high inflation. There is no other possible outcome. Why do we have low productivity growth? Because—as we have been debating just now—Labour insists on regulating everything. That is one of the things that contribute to poor productivity growth: the more one regulates and constrains the productive sector, the less productivity growth one gets. We have just been debating the latest example: more regulations around education in the Education Amendment Bill (No 3). So it goes on.

Today all sorts of regulatory legislation has passed through this House, and we should not be surprised that inflation under this Labour Government is getting higher and higher. That is why this legislation becomes important. People who cannot protect themselves against inflation, and whose income is eroded seriously by escalating inflation, are most affected by what this Labour Government has allowed to happen.

It really is quite staggering to have projected inflation this year of 5 percent. It is years since we have seen that kind of level. Dr Cullen and his Labour colleagues should be ashamed that their policies have led to this. I ask Dr Cullen what the consequence has been for ordinary people, with interest rates among the highest in the developed world, and an exchange rate that has been very high and very damaging to our export sector. Sure, it has started to come back down. The Reserve Bank has been forced, in many ways, to reduce the official cash rate, and the exchange rate is starting to respond. But a lot of people on fixed incomes derived from the Government Superannuation Fund and the National Provident Fund are very affected by these factors. They are very affected by the high - interest rate regime of this Labour Government, and very affected by the high-inflation policies of this Labour Government, which all stem from its massive, expansionary expenditure programme.

We have all seen the papers that Dr Cullen presented to his Cabinet colleagues warning that increased Government spending to the level contemplated would mean that the Reserve Bank would have to respond. They were told that there would be higher interest rates. What did the Government do? It increased spending. We have seen exactly what was predicted—higher inflation and higher interest rates—and people have suffered.

That is, sadly, why this legislation is needed. If the rate of inflation were way down in its proper zone of 1 percent to 3 percent—sitting at around 2 percent—this situation would not be so critical. The difference between a 90 percent and a 100 percent CPI adjustment when the inflation rate is only 2 percent is not great, but when inflation is up at the level that this Labour Government has it at, CPI adjustment becomes an important issue. The bill has some quite complex mathematical calculations in clause 3 around those whose next adjustment to their payment rate occurs before or after 1 April 2009, but, apart from some of those complexities, it is a reasonably simple bill. It brings the adjustments up to 100 percent for all people who are dependent on those schemes.

National will support this bill. In some ways it is sad that we have come to the point where inflation has got so high that the difference between a 90 percent CPI adjustment and a 100 percent CPI adjustment is significant. A lot of people are affected by it, obviously, because the estimated cost of the change in 2009-10, as the Minister has said, is over $33 million.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: That is the lifetime cost, not the annual cost.

Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH: Well, it is an interesting issue that if one looks at the Treasury documents that were provided for the Minister himself—the exact advice from the Treasury—one sees that it has to come into the Budget in 2009-10. It has to pick up that full $33.2 million, but the unfunded liability is unknown. The extent of the full unfunded liability is not known.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: It is $8 billion.

Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH: That is only a guesstimate, obviously, for the unfunded liability. But it shows that, given the rate of inflation and the projections, this is a significant difference. That amount of money shows that it will be significant to the people affected. I repeat that National will be supporting the move, and it looks forward to those who will benefit from it deriving the benefits.

CRAIG FOSS (National—Tukituki): I have been speaking quite a bit tonight, and today, on various finance bills, so I hope there is a free run tomorrow. I hope that “Mr Whip” and Dr Cullen can finish up, on these finance bills, as it would be most appreciated, and that we will get this one through quite quickly early tonight. As my colleague just said, yes, National is supporting this bill with a very brief change to the indexation and a change to the algorithm, which was written in incorrectly but assumed to be correct over many years. I missed the first reading speech, but I have just picked up that there was a $33 million cost to the change of—

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: The liability.

CRAIG FOSS: —the liability due to the change in funding from 90 percent to 100 percent. That is fine. I also note that it was announced in Budget 2008, so that was all on the Table at the time.

I have spoken twice now to the Government Superannuitants Association at its annual conference, and I enjoyed the conference recently, about 2 or 3 weeks ago, when I was there. When I spoke the first time, I think the consumer price index adjustments at that time had been talked about and promised by the Minister to go from 80 percent to 90 percent.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: We did that.

CRAIG FOSS: The Government did that; that is correct. But I have a question for the Minister, because at the same conference I was shown a demographic profile of the association’s members, who have been asking for this increase for quite some time. Many of the receivers of the annuities, or their spouses, have been quite elderly and so, unfortunately, demographics have meant that many have fallen from the scheme and are no longer receiving annuities. So I ask the Minister whether the quantum has actually changed—has the total amount changed, even though the consumer price index adjustments went from 80 percent to 90 percent, and now are going from 90 percent to 100 percent? The Minister has said that the liability has changed, so I presume there is an increase in benefits. I acknowledge that, then, and thank the Minister for the information.

I notice, though, that in my last speech—I suppose it was late 2005 when I spoke there—I acknowledged that the Minister had announced that increase prior to the 2005 election, and I predicted at that time that prior to the next election he might also announce an increase to 100 percent of the consumer price index, which he consequently has done. So that is all very good. In 2011, I wonder which Minister will announce that the adjustment will go to 110 percent, but, anyway—

My colleague talked about inflation as the underlying problem here, and that is true. This particular organisation has two issues, one of which I will touch on in a minute. But another cost there, as my colleague has said, is the underpinning of inflation from the fiscal spend-up, etc. The cost, although small—even when we go from 90 percent to 100 percent, the higher inflation is, the higher interest rates are—has more impact on members of the superannuation fund once they receive their annuities. As we learnt at the conference the other day, the adjustment of the consumer price index for the following year is announced in late January, but members do not receive their first payment until the first week in April, so they have a small cash flow issue there. The change is of course dependent on inflation at the time. The time period is only 2 months—I acknowledge that—but many of these people are struggling, none the less, and they do feel hard done by in relation to other issues they are quite strong advocates on. The Consumers Price Index used to be announced in early to mid-March and they would be paid on the first payday in April. As our collection of information and statistics has become more efficient, the announcement is now coming out in mid-January. Therefore, they feel that they should have their payments as soon as possible after the announcement of the consumer price index rather than just on the old date they are stuck with at the moment.

I understand that Treasury is doing some work on some of the other issues around this Government superannuation scheme—from when it moved from “exempt/exempt/taxed” to “taxed/taxed/exempt” in 1990—and I will touch on that now. I reiterate what my colleague Lockwood Smith just said—that National will be supporting this bill, and that it will go through its first reading quite rapidly, I am sure.

But I acknowledge the other issue that the members of the Government Superannuitants Association are particularly strong advocates for. Their argument is that when their annuities were repriced in 1990—

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: Oh, don’t buy into that one!

CRAIG FOSS: —ha, ha!—a 33 percent tax rate was used, and they are concerned that any changes in personal income taxes may undervalue what they signed up to back then. My point—and I made this point to them at their conference—is that that has not really been an issue for 9 long years, because personal income tax cuts have not been on the cards for 9 long years. So it is obviously a more pertinent issue to them at the current time, with the tax changes announced in the recent Budget, and of course with the National Party’s programme for personal income taxes that will be announced in a few weeks’ time.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: Oh, is a 9-point promise about to come out here?

CRAIG FOSS: No, it is certainly not. I am just acknowledging the issues, which are quite publicly known. The Minister acknowledged that he is a member of the Government Superannuation Fund, as are some of my colleagues, and that is all fine. Members have been strong advocates for that change, and it has been mentioned in their newsletters for many, many years. It has been relayed to me, and I understand—and I would like confirmation—that Treasury is doing some work on this issue: costings, etc., and an investigation. It will be interesting to see how far down the track that work has progressed.

On that note, I will finish. National will be voting for this bill. It gives a further incentive for the Government of the day to keep inflation down, and therefore to keep interest rates down, so that people who have done the hard yards and contributed to a superannuation scheme, such as this one, will get as good and as high-value an entitlement as they believe they should get. Thank you.

PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First): I am keen to hear what the National Party people have to say on this bill.

Hon Members: He’s woken up.

PETER BROWN: They are awake; that is good. I did not sense one iota of enthusiasm for this bill from National members. It was almost as if they had their arm twisted up their back and thought they had to support this bill, but did not really want to. The Hon Dr Lockwood Smith said that if we did not have high inflation, we would not need this bill. That is a preposterous statement. [Interruption] That is what the member said. He went on to talk about higher productivity. I spoke to a National Party member, not an MP, not that long ago and he told me that productivity is a measure of output over cost. If we take that measurement it means the lower the cost, the lower the wages and the higher the productivity.

New Zealand First is much more influenced by people like the young New Zealander who said to me that the reason he was going to Australia was that for the same amount of effort, the same amount of determination, and the same amount of conscientiousness he would be paid more and would have a better lifestyle and better working conditions. That is why our people are going there. It is nothing to do with productivity. They work just as hard in New Zealand as they do in Australia. New Zealand First supports this bill wholeheartedly because it is fair, it is just, and that makes it necessary. Thank you.

Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Māori Party): Tēnā koe, Madam Assistant Speaker. The concept of superannuation is entirely consistent with our commitment as the Māori Party to kaupapa tuku iho. These kaupapa, statements of principles and aspirations, are absolutely central to every decision we make in and outside this House. These kaupapa drive our decisions, and they inform our kōrero. We will not be bought; we will not lower ourselves to the level of personal attack; we maintain a commitment to integrity as utterly fundamental to who we are.

So we turn to our kaupapa to consider the position of our elderly in the context of whanaungatanga and in a determination to uphold manaakitanga. Caring for the well-being of our elderly is a value of enormous importance in our communities. Our elderly, the fountains of wisdom, those who possess the vital archives of family records and who span the generations, are regarded as genuine treasures.

So it was extremely disappointing early this year to read the release from Grey Power, which indicated that superannuitants were being let down by the current administration. The release put out by the organisation, comprising some 90,000 members, stated that it is very disappointed that the Prime Minister has rubbished a proposal to exempt food from GST. Superannuitants, Grey Power said, are very adept at making every cent of their national superannuation count—

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: Perhaps you should write a real speech.

Dr PITA SHARPLES: —it is all right—but ever-escalating costs for essential items such as bread, milk, meat, and electricity are making further belt-tightening impossible.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: This speech isn’t about this bill, Pita.

Dr PITA SHARPLES: Why does the member not listen? It is about superannuation and superannuitants.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs): Dr Sharples, it is a problem. It is not really focused totally on this bill. It is focused on superannuation but not on the Government Superannuation Fund. Please keep going.

Dr PITA SHARPLES: We in the Māori Party heard this call, and we believe that our proposal to cut GST on food is a tangible way of making a difference in the lives of the elderly.

OK, I will move on to that superannuation stuff. We are pleased that this bill is trying to respond to the needs of our superannuitants through the commitment to address the cost of living adjustments to the Government Superannuation Fund. The bill seeks to ensure that all Government superannuation benefits are adjusted based on 100 percent of the changes in the consumer price index. It has to be said that it is pleasing that superannuation is being described as enhancing the lives and well-being of people, because it is only a few months ago that the superannuation fund was linked with companies that invest in cluster munitions, nuclear weapons production, and that is not all. [Interruption] They do not even like that bit.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: Wrong fund.

Dr PITA SHARPLES: OK.

The bill will ensure that as at 1 April 2009 the cost of living adjustment provisions will come into effect and make a tangible difference in people’s lives—are the members all right with that bit? We absolutely support this initiative and believe it only right to do so. But we want to raise the issue identified by economist—those members will not like this—Dr Susan St John. She has made the comparison between the granting of superannuation and the lack of secure, reliable income for all children. Her assessment is that although citizens over 65 can rely on superannuation—and with this bill, of course, it encompasses cost of living adjustments, as well—the same security does not extend to all children. We in the Māori Party agree with this principle—those members do not like that, so I will move on.

Finally, I raise the issue that we have consistently raised when considering superannuation, and that is the obvious concern that the shorter life expectancy of some population groups has immediate implications for the length of time they can enjoy the benefits of their tax contribution, especially superannuation. We know that Māori die 8 to 10 years earlier than other New Zealanders. The issue of justice that always hits us is that those people, like their Pākehā peers, have been paying taxes all their lives, yet when they finally get to the end of their lives they are missing out on seeing the fruits of their contributions.

Our position as a party has always been that superannuation policy should be reviewed to consider the appropriate entitlement age for groups whose life expectancy is lower than average. It is an idea we hope to revisit in the next Parliament, but until then we are happy to support this bill in the interests of supporting our elders. I have finished. Kia ora.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs): I am sorry, Dr Sharples; can I just explain. It is actually very confusing for people who are listening. The bill is called the Government Superannuation Fund Amendment Bill, but it is not necessarily about what people generally think of as superannuation. It is about a very specific group of people. So I am sorry; you were taking off, and I was trying to bring you back to the point.

TIM GROSER (National): I did not expect to be asked to take a call on the Government Superannuation Fund Amendment Bill when I came down to the House tonight, because I have deliberately recused myself from any involvement in this issue as I have at least two conflicts of interest. The first is that I think my now very elderly mother is a beneficiary of this legislation, and, second, I, of course, am a beneficiary of the Government Superannuation Fund generally, although we are not discussing the fund.

In response to the comment made by the member opposite, I say I am very pleased to see this bill proceeding. I think this issue has been a very, very obvious anomaly that has affected a group of very much at-risk people in our community. Primarily they are very elderly people and primarily they are women, as a consequence of simple demographic facts and their social consequences. Many of them, as the Minister will be aware, are people who are living in quite straitened circumstances. For them, the increase and the additional sum of money, although it may not sound a great deal to other New Zealanders, will be deeply appreciated. In the informal discussions—precisely because of my conflict of interest on this matter—with David Swallow and David Thorp, I have been made aware of an emotional issue that is involved here. The issue was not just about the money involved; it was also about the perception of those people being wronged. So tonight I am very pleased to support this bill.

In terms of my own position on the Government Superannuation Fund scheme, I say I am a beneficiary of the scheme. To be perfectly frank, I am very pleased that at the age of 23, when I threw in a doctorate to join the Public Service for reasons of financial need, I was not given the choice of whether I would save for my retirement. Through the vicissitudes of life—and yes, I have had one or two little sideways steps on the way to getting here—it has proved to be probably the best decision I was never asked to make at a very young age. It is an age when people are not all that competent, no matter what their academic training or professional expertise is, to make decisions about their own financial futures 30 to 40 years hence. That has always informed my own personal views on all issues to do with superannuation and savings schemes. I will not go further than that, or else we would get into some very dangerous territory.

I think that there is very little understanding in our community generally about the Government Superannuation Fund. It is probably seen by many people—and, I think, absolutely inaccurately—as some kind of benefit that is being given to people who have served the public as members of the Public Service in a wide variety of fields. Those fields are as diverse as that of my father, who was a radio and TV actor until he became the head of radio drama, when he joined and subsequently became a beneficiary of this scheme, ranging through to that of my own background. A huge number of different New Zealanders have made their contributions to the Public Service over the decades and have been contributors to this scheme.

The key point is that the scheme is a contributory scheme, but it was set up on appalling principles originally. They were the classic “fly now, pay later” principles, in which the contributors, like my father and like myself in an earlier phase of my career, made contributions to the scheme with no matching contribution from the Government whatsoever. I am very pleased that that mess was cleaned out subsequently. It required quite radical change, and I think it is perfectly understandable that some technical errors were made. It is with a sense of regret that I see it has taken us as long as this to address this final step. I am a little surprised by the Minister’s estimate of the cost. I had thought that the earlier adjustment from 80 percent to 90 percent was in the order of $7.6 million, but I take the Minister’s statement that the cost is rather higher than that.

But essentially I just stand to support this bill. I think it is absolutely the right thing to do. A number of elderly New Zealanders will be pleased to see that a very longstanding anomaly is finally being corrected and corrected for good. Thank you.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Finance and Expenditure Committee.

Bills

Electricity (Continuance of Supply) Amendment Bill

First Reading

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Energy): I move, That the Electricity (Continuance of Supply) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I will be recommending that the bill be referred to the Commerce Committee for consideration. The bill amends the Electricity Act to provide an ongoing obligation upon electricity distributors to continue to supply electricity to places that were supplied via lines as at 1 April 1993. The obligation can be met by the lines company either via those existing lines or through electricity supplied through alternative means. Section 62 of the current Electricity Act allows electricity lines companies to cut off supply to places they do not want to supply in 2013.

Nathan Guy: We don’t want that.

Hon DAVID PARKER: Well, that provision was one of the more ridiculous, ideologically driven ideas passed by the previous National Government.

Nathan Guy: Well, what have you been doing for 9 years?

Hon DAVID PARKER: We have been fixing that and many other mistakes made by National.

Consumers that may be affected by the expiry of section 62 include farmers, small communities, tourism businesses, and owners of holiday homes located in remote areas. The Labour-led Government shares consumer concerns about the potential loss of supply. We in the Labour Government believe that rural customers deserve and need security of electricity supply. Around 1 percent of consumers could be affected. In response to these concerns and to our own, the Government has reviewed section 62. We considered what arrangements should be in place to ensure that affected consumers and communities continue to have access to electricity after 2013.

Providing an ongoing obligation to continue supply obviously improves certainty of access to electricity supply for those people living in remote areas. The bill provides that the obligation can be met by lines or by electricity supplied by alternative means such as remote area power systems. Allowing these alternatives will facilitate investment in these technologies where it is more cost-effective than lines. Existing arrangements for the quality and reliability of supply will continue to apply to electricity supplied from alternative means.

Supply can be ceased permanently only with the agreement of every affected consumer or with the agreement of the Minister of Energy. The bill includes requirements for consultation and notification where a distributor proposes a change to alternative supply. The distributor must consult with each affected consumer and provide an assessment of how each consumer’s reasonable needs for electricity will be met. The consumer must then have a reasonable period to comment on a proposal. The distributor must also provide for at least 6 months’ public notification of the proposal.

To ensure that electricity prices remain affordable for consumers supplied by alternatives to lines, the bill introduces a new regulation-making power to regulate for the use of pricing methodologies for electricity supplied by alternatives. The amendments made to the Electricity Act by this bill will improve certainty of electricity supply for affected consumers mainly in more remote rural areas, as I have said previously. It will enable distributors and consumers to assess whether there are better ways to meet the need for electricity by using, by way of example, onsite renewable resources or perhaps by also improving energy efficiency to assist.

Overall, what the bill does is to give consumers in remote rural areas certainty that their electricity will not be cut off in 2013, which could happen under the law at present. I commend this bill to the House.

GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): The motion that the Electricity (Continuance of Supply) Amendment Bill be now read a first time will indeed be agreed to by the National Party. The history behind this goes back to the—

Hon Trevor Mallard: Flip-flop.

GERRY BROWNLEE: The Minister over there, the poor old fellow Trevor Mallard, calls out “Flip-flop.” Well, if anybody has done a flip-flop on this, it is Labour. What I am about to tell Mr Mallard will be, I suspect, of some interest.

Back when the Electricity Amendment Act 1993 was going through the House, the then Opposition spokesperson on energy, the Hon David Caygill, was involved in discussions—as is often the case with bills like this, which have no political point but have a significant effect on certain communities—with the Hon John Luxton, who was at the time the Minister of Energy. A structure was being put together for the way in which lines companies would continue to operate and the way some of the trusts that were around at the time would operate. From my understanding of the situation, there were some 68 lines companies—or distribution agencies—in the country at that time. Many of them were metropolitan electricity departments, and there were consumer trusts as well as straight companies. When they went through that exercise their number shrank, initially to somewhere in the 40s. Today we have 28 companies serving not only tight metropolitan areas but also, in many cases, quite remote and disparate supply requirements across all parts of New Zealand.

When consideration was being given as to how big the line should be and how far it should run for any particular company, the decision was that it is better to go with the geographical interests that were naturally there and had developed over the preceding 60 or 70 years. That, of course, meant that some companies picked up people on the end of supply lines who would never ever be able to meet the costs of the energy delivered to them, because of the maintenance that would be required on those lines. Any electricity line is an asset that will last for many years. In fact, the general thought is that they are 65-year assets. So in order to progress the movement—I suppose one would say the very favourable rationalisation—that was happening, it was decided that the particular issue of those at the end of those lines would be put off until some time in the future. By agreement, the date was arbitrarily set at 2013—20 years out. The commitment, though, was that during the intervening years discussions would take place about how those people on the ends of those lines would continue to receive their supply, and what the obligations would be on the various companies that were delivering that supply.

The interesting thing is that 3 years after that, when I came into Parliament in 1996—as you yourself did, Madam Assistant Speaker—the discussion was still going on. I remember very clearly during the 1998 discussions about electricity reform—5 years after the Electricity Amendment Act 1993—the intense discussion about the end of spur lines, as they were known, and what was going to happen to them. Spur lines generally refer to Transpower but can be heavy distribution lines as well.

There was a change of Government in 1999, and much trumpeting from the new Minister of Energy, the Hon Pete Hodgson. He said at various points that he had concerns about people on the end of these supply lines. But here we are, 9 years later, right at the death of the 48th Parliament, putting through a bill to sort this out in the way that it should have been sorted out many years ago. Over a number of years, plenty of public comments have come from me in my role as Opposition spokesman on energy advocating exactly what is in this bill. There is no point in saying that it is all National’s idea, and I am not saying that. It is the logical thing to do.

This bill will mean that where distribution companies have uneconomic lines they will be able to go to those consumers and offer them an alternative source for their electricity supply. One of the things I am unclear about in this bill, though, is just what the cost of that supply will be. I would have thought that the bill itself might want to link the end price for delivery—and, in fact, the cost of energy—to whatever anybody else was paying in the market on any particular day, or was paying by way of some longer-term hedge arrangement, perhaps. I am saying that if a lines company is facing many thousands of dollars of annual maintenance and can offset that by providing an alternative supply, one would think that some of the savings they might make would be passed on by way of direct subsidy on energy cost to those end-of-line consumers. Not many would have expected us to take that position, but I think it may in fact be the only reasonable way in which some of these consumers can be fairly dealt with. During the Committee stage this evening it will be very interesting for the Minister to give us a view on whether an amendment to put that provision would be supported by the Government.

As I said, the National Party supports this bill. We see it as the culmination of some 15 years—nearly 16 years—of discussion, and it will give certainty to people on the end of those lines, who have for some years now been asking what happens to them after 2013. It is clear that continuance of supply will be a requirement on those distribution companies. It is unclear, and it is up for negotiation—and quite reasonably so, I think—what the generation source will be for the supplied electricity. So we look forward to the Committee stage of this bill, and, subject to that very important question being answered, our support is likely to continue through to the third reading.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for the Environment): For a short period of time, I think on two separate occasions, I had the honour of being the Minister of Energy. This is an issue that was around in those times, and I think the time has come for it to be sorted out.

I do not agree with the policy that was enacted in 1993 and that is now unfair on people who are in remote areas and have had a tradition of supply, but I think we should also focus on some of the positive things that can come out of this legislation. I think of the use of alternative energy and the pulling together of the various methodologies of supplying people on—I do not think they are actually spur lines—some of these very long and uneconomic lines. There are some alternatives, and I am sure that over a period of time there will be a combination of, probably, in some areas, wind-fed batteries, solar power, and possibly some of the more modern generation of battery power being used as well within those places in order to minimise the use of those lines. It might be that in some cases, for a small percentage of time, some forms of power generation that might not be quite the best will end up being used. But what will happen is that individual packages will be put together for each of these places and they will be appropriate. I am sure there will be negotiations, and I am sure that in 2013 or 2023 we will have a much richer and much more diverse form of electricity supply to these places.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): It is a pleasure to speak to the Electricity (Continuance of Supply) Amendment Bill this evening. It is telling that we have had a major U-turn in policy from the Government in an important area of the energy equation, and that is what I want to address in the context of this bill. I have been interested in, and would draw on, the Minister’s comments about some of the changes in the new energy technologies New Zealand needs to adopt if it is to be able to reverse the trend towards more and more dependence on thermal energy, but the comments I will make are in respect of solar water heating.

Today we saw an absolute U-turn from the Government. National announced in March a policy in which we said that the Government’s policy of having a price control on the solar water grant scheme was a disaster. The bizarre and unusual feature is that for the last 2 years we have seen a decline in the number of solar water installations. The Government has vigorously defended, and Jeanette Fitzsimons in the House this evening has vigorously defended, the Government’s policy, and in a little sneaky press release yesterday did a complete backward flip and adopted National policy. The price control on the Government’s solar grants scheme is a goner. The grant has been doubled to $1,000. They have even picked up National’s policy—that is, to provide for the inclusion of hot water heat-pump technology.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs): Excuse me, Dr Smith. I am having difficulty. I have the bill in front of me—

Gerry Brownlee: Point of order—

Hon MARIAN HOBBS: No—can the member answer me. Is he talking to this bill?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Indeed I am.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will see that clause 4 talks about new sections 62 to 62B being substituted in the principal Act—this is an amendment bill. New section 62 deals with the continuance of supply, new section 62A is headed “How certain enactments apply to persons subject to obligation in section 62(3)”, and new section 62B is headed “Proposals to supply electricity by alternative means”. It is no surprise to any of us that if we are looking at alternative forms of electricity, solar heating for water is a major component. Indeed, I can recall numerous speeches made by the Minister of Energy and indeed, I think, by the Prime Minister on at least two occasions—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs): Are you taking a point of order, or making a speech? What is your point?

Gerry Brownlee: My point is that Dr Smith is totally in order to talk about, as it is said here, certain enactments that relate to alternative means of supply.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs): I will make a ruling, and it may not be very pleasant. Sometimes a game is played in this House. It goes: “I take a noun or a set of terms in the bill and, although the subject of this bill is about the continuance of supply lines, I take something it says from that and I take off on a totally different topic.” I am afraid that I had to stop another member from another party before who was speaking about general superannuation, instead of a special fund, and that was quite embarrassing. I am trying to be consistent.

Gerry Brownlee: This bill has nothing to do with the continuance of supply lines. It has everything to do with the continuance of supply. The very purpose of the bill is to enable distribution companies—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs): Point taken.

Gerry Brownlee: —to remove the lines and put in alternative energy sources.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs): Your point is taken. Dr Nick Smith may talk about those issues, but please do not take off on to press releases and other issues that are slightly extraneous to this.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Let me make the point very plain. We have in this bill an attempt in an area of energy policy where we have seen one Government failure after another. I know it is embarrassing for Labour, but I will highlight the failure of this Government’s policies, where we have seen, over the last 2 years, the biggest drop ever in the number of solar water installations. We have seen a major policy failure.

If we look back on the record we will see that in 2000, 2001, 2002, and all the way through to 2006 there was quite substantial growth in the area of solar water heating. The Government has come out with an announcement that is not dissimilar to what have in this bill and suddenly we see a policy called Switch on the Sunshine. Since the Government announced its Switch on the Sunshine policy, we have seen the sunshine switched off. We have seen an embarrassing decline in the number of solar water installations and we have a solar water industry that is on its knees and is in crisis.

Peter Brown: Why is that?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I will tell the member why. It is because the Government’s policy, worked out with the Greens, in terms of alternative energy has been a flop and a disaster; it has not worked. Why has it not worked? It is not dissimilar to the provisions in this bill. The Government and the Green Party have attempted to regulate the solar water industry by using price controls.

Jill Pettis: What did you ever do?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The member Jill Pettis asks what National would do.

Jill Pettis: What did National do?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: What would we do? There are three things. The first thing is that National announced a policy in March of a $1,000 grant for all households, either for a retrofit or, alternatively, for a new home, for solar water systems. The second thing we announced in that policy was that there should be the same opportunity for hot water heat-pump technology to get those $1,000 grants. That is the second thing that we announced. [Interruption] The third thing we announced, I say to Mr O’Connor, is that we would get rid of the stupid price regulation, which is killing off alternative energy technologies.

The busybodies in the Labour Party and the Green Party cannot help themselves but regulate. The interesting thing was this. When we announced our policy, what did the energy Minister say? He said that it was a mad, naive idea. And do members know what he did yesterday? He adopted the policy.

Jill Pettis: I find that hard to believe.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I would be happy to table it. Jeanette Fitzsimons, who made the announcement on behalf of the Government and who, as the Government’s spokesperson on energy efficiency for the last 2 years, has been vigorously defending the price controls on platforms up and down the country, says no, the National Party is wrong. What did Jeanette say yesterday? She said: “Oh, we will just take their policy.”

The question I have for Jill Pettis, for Damien O’Connor, and for others who have been chipping in is why it is that for 2 years they have wreaked havoc on the solar water industry. They have seen businesses up and down New Zealand close down, they have seen a record drop in the number of solar water installations, and they have refused to take on board the clear message from the solar water heating industry and from the National Opposition, and then, a few weeks away from the election, they have suddenly done a U-turn.

Do members know what the excuse was? The press release stated that the Government was dropping the price regulation because it will now be including the heat-pump hot water technologies as one of the alternative energies that will be eligible for the subsidy. That is weak, I am sorry. There is absolutely no justification, on the basis of including heat pumps, to get rid of the price regulation.

The real answer is that the price regulation policy was always a failure. It was never going to work. The only reason the policy has suddenly been changed, a few weeks out from an election, is that the Government and the Greens could not spend the next 6 weeks defending the indefensible, defending what was a flawed policy.

I do not mind all of that. I welcome the change of heart. I just would have expected a little bit more straightforwardness from the Greens and the Government as to why they have changed tack, and some acknowledgment of the fact that their policy was exactly what we announced in March. With this bill and with the future we have a—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs): How wonderful! For the last 2 minutes we will have the bill debated. Please go on. [Interruption] Yes, I can. Sit down. I have tolerated for 6 minutes the member not talking on this bill. When I tried to point it out, he argued, through Mr Brownlee, that this was talking about solar energy. It was solar energy as a means to a continuation of supply. The member actually diverted. I gave a warning. In order to save the House’s time, I have let the member talk off the bill, but I feel that the member has trifled with the Chair and the House.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs): Are you going to trifle with me?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I am simply asking for consistency of rules. I listened very carefully to the contribution made by the Minister, Trevor Mallard. In all of his speech he talked in a very generic way around the issues facing the energy sector when he was the previous Minister. He did not mention any of the detailed provisions in this bill. I have, in the same way, talked about the generic issues. I simply ask that the same rules apply—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs): Sit down, please. I listened and I heard the Minister very clearly describe how alternative energy supplies could be used at the end of the line when we could not take electricity down the line to them. I am sorry, but that is what I heard, and that is what I was waiting for from you. We will now continue, please. [Interruption] Would you both sit down.

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

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs): Is this a new point of order on a new topic? I have ruled.

Gerry Brownlee: Yes.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs): Are you sure you are not going to trifle with the Chair?

Gerry Brownlee: I do not believe I am trifling with the Chair. I do believe that the Chair is trifling with the right of members to take points of order.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs): Point of order, Gerry Brownlee.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Could you explain to us what you understand by section 62A, “How certain enactments apply to persons subject to obligation in section 62(3)”, if we cannot mention other Government policy where it refers to enactments that apply? The solar water heating provisions apply.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs): Sit down, please. I did that once, and I will do it again, and I do not expect another trifling with my ruling. My ruling is that it was perfectly all right to talk about alternative energy in the context of the continuance of supply. Instead, we have heard a discussion on alternative energy outside the notion of continuing supply to the end of the line. That is where the difference is. Please would you continue, Dr Smith.

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

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs): I am sorry, Mr Brownlee. I really think that unless you are going to take a new point of order on a new topic—

Gerry Brownlee: Well, Madam Speaker, I still have not had the Chair explain to us how we talk about certain enactments without referring to those certain enactments. The Government’s solar heating policy—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs): Sorry, the member will take his seat, please. I have said that the bill is in relation to the continuance of supply. When the discussion is not in relation to the continuance of supply, I see it as being outside the bill. Would the member continue, please.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: In talking about the future of supply for those people living at the end of the line, alternative energies will be important.

I will hold this Government to account, because for every year this Government has been in office we have seen a decline in the proportion of renewable energy. When this Government came to office, 73 percent of our electricity came from renewable sources, and that figure has dropped in each and every single year since. For all the rhetoric we have had about carbon neutrality, and about climate change and those issues, the reality is that this Government’s energy policies have failed. They have failed in the area of getting renewables, they have failed in the area of solar, and the Government has not achieved its objectives in terms of energy policy.

PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First): I am going to take a short call. I assure the Chair that I do not want to trifle with her, but I would like to respond briefly to some comments that Dr Nick Smith made in terms of solar energy. It will take 1 minute at the maximum. What he told us tonight is pleasing news. If the Government has changed its mind, we are very happy about that. We have long been an advocate of developing solar energy in this country, and we have always suggested that it should be developed along the lines of that in Australia in terms of finance. I think from memory, and from what Dr Smith has said, that the Electricity (Continuance of Supply) Amendment Bill is still short of what Australia offers. Am I correct?

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Yes.

PETER BROWN: The member is nodding that I am correct. The Minister of Energy, David Parker, summarised this bill very well. I am not going into any detail. He said it will give consumers in remote rural areas certainty that they will have access to electrical power on an ongoing basis, from one means or the other. That is my summation of what he said. We wholeheartedly agree with that and we support it 100 percent.

But I am compelled to say that some years ago I was sitting on a select committee discussing an electricity amendment bill of some form—I think it was the bill that dealt with lower charges for low-paid people. I can remember some farming people coming before us. I think they were Federated Farmers members but I have to be careful because I cannot remember exactly. I think they were representatives of Federated Farmers. They told us in no uncertain terms that electricity should be provided only on a user-pays basis. I took them to task on the cost of the lines and pointed out to them that they were being subsidised by urban users, because the urban users of this country were paying more for their lines so that the rural community could have access to lines. The rural farming people would not have a bar of it. They threw that point back at me in no uncertain terms.

I am very encouraged that the explanatory note outlines quite clearly under the heading “Status quo—benefits” that “For urban consumers it is reasonable to assume that their service cost should reduce. They currently pay more for their line services than they otherwise would as they subsidise the costs of supply to remote areas where revenue from those areas is insufficient to cover costs.”

We support this bill, which will deliver electricity on an ongoing basis to rural communities, despite some of them wanting the contrary—wanting the opposite. We are 100 percent behind the bill.

JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green): The Electricity Act 1992 was passed when the doctrine of user-pays was at its height. Even if those people were in remote areas producing high-quality farming products for New Zealand’s exports they were expected to pay whatever it took to take electricity to them regardless of the usefulness of the economic work they were providing for the rest of the country. That was the way the National Government worked at that time. It was right into user-pays. And the threat that the power supply of rural communities might be withdrawn in 2013 has been hanging over them ever since, particularly in areas with high wind speeds, where weather conditions often crash the lines, and where the maintenance costs are therefore very high. So we welcome the fact that security is being restored to people who live in those remote locations, often performing very useful work for the economy as a whole.

That year, 1992, was also an era of rapidly advancing technology when distributed generation showed promise for being able to relieve the grid, in many cases, of the burden of having to service very far-flung areas. So even at the time this legislation was passed, there was a thought, I think, that by 2013 the distributed renewables would be in a position in many communities to take over. They are still priced a bit on the high side but there will be some areas where that is true. It means that, for the first time, people will start to think in terms of energy services rather than just wires and kilowatt hours. They will think about the end use of energy that they actually want to achieve and what is the best way to get there. It may not simply be more kilowatt hours, it may be greater use of firewood, it may be greater use of solar or wind, it may be small-scale hot spot geothermal—a range of renewables that back each other up. It is much easier to do it at community level than it is at single house level. The technologies of wave and tidal generation are advancing. We have some equipment now being tested in the water and the best places for that tend to occur in quite remote locations dotted around the periphery of New Zealand.

We may well find that there are areas where a mix of these distributed renewables will make it possible to let the line go down altogether. And we will find in those communities that it is often much cheaper to manage demand down than it is to build supply up—that more efficient equipment is usually a much cheaper way of reducing electricity consumption than simply building more supply or putting in more solar panels. I have a little experience in this, having lived off-grid for 13 years. I know that batteries are the weak link in the system, and, therefore, a larger community of people and a range of sources of generation that needs less storage is a good thing to aim for. This may, in fact, turn out to be the jumping-off point for distributed renewables around New Zealand, to give us the experience of development, so that they then move more into the mainstream.

I also want to say a few words about solar water heating. I could only laugh when Nick Smith talked about the need to include hot water heat-pumps in the solar scheme and said that that was National’s policy. When the solar scheme was first announced a couple of years ago we made it very clear that there was work under way to look at including hot water heat-pumps in the scheme. It was not possible at that stage because we had no equivalent way of measuring the energy performance to compare them with solar. That work has been done, and yesterday’s announcement signalled the fact that we now can measure the energy performance of hot water heat-pumps and we therefore are in a position to give them a grant in the same way that we give solar. This is hardly adopting National’s policy. This is carrying out precisely what we said we were going to do 2½ years ago, and the work plan to do that has now been completed.

I was also very interested when Dr Smith announced a policy of doubling the grant to $1,000 some months back—early this year—because it happened the week after we had made that decision with officials and it was not yet public. I did wonder how he got had hold of that information, but that work was—

Peter Brown: I didn’t say that.

JEANETTE FITZSIMONS: Well, if the member is telling me that I lied to the House, I take objection to that.

Peter Brown: I’m not telling you that you lied to the House.

JEANETTE FITZSIMONS: Well, it is one thing or the other. It is either true or it is not, and it is actually true. That has been the position for some time; it was announced many months ago that the grant had been increased.

In terms of the financial assistance, I want to mention Dr Smith’s position on solar water heating. [Interruption] Madam Assistant Speaker, I think I spent quite a lot of time speaking in detail about the bill. I am now talking about one technology that has the ability to significantly reduce energy demand at the ends of lines so that alternatives can be developed, and answering some matters that have been raised in the House that were simply untrue. Dr Smith’s policy was simply to throw money at any solar water heater that wanted it, never mind how much energy it would save, never mind the quality standards, never mind the training programmes for the installers—just throw money at mates in the solar water heating industry.

The Greens did not do that. We set up training schemes, because we found that a lot of solar water heaters in the past had been put in very badly, and we now have quality standards for installation. We have quality standards for the hardware, because some of that did not measure up. We have performance modelling for the systems so we know how much energy the solar water heaters will save. The National Party’s policy is to just throw money at it, regardless of what it does—to not require it to be cost-effective for the consumer and to not require it to save energy. I guess that is why National has to borrow so much for its policy—in order to pay for this kind of largesse.

TIM GROSER (National): As the House knows, National is supporting the Electricity (Continuance of Supply) Amendment Bill. We support it because its underlying objectives are obviously commonly shared around the country. I think there is a fundamental point of equity that all the parties agree on. One cannot allow a rampant marginal costing regime to apply even within metropolitan areas, so why should it apply throughout more remote rural areas?

The idea of ensuring security of supply is something that affects all New Zealanders. Of course, there are some rather bigger issues than are dealt with in this bill, which certain aspects of Government policy have raised, concerning the actual long-term availability of supply, but that would lead us into another debate with you, Madam Assistant Speaker, over the purpose of the bill, so I will steer clear of that, in deference to your very robust position on this matter.

What concerns me about the bill is that it has an air of kicking for touch about it. It has obviously come up to a deadline in terms of the original deal done in the early 1990s of this 20-year grace period, in the expectation that a fix would be found. No fix has been found, and, as various speakers from our side have pointed out, a “kick for touch into the future bill” has been put into place in the last days of the Parliament to deal with a problem that might have actually benefited from more serious and systematic attention in the last 9 years.

The bill does the easy stuff in terms of the definitions in it, and I will not go systematically through that. What it does not do—and this is the nub of the point that Mr Brownlee, our energy spokesperson, was making—is deal with the real devil in the detail here about what the actual process going forward is. There is plenty of clarity around what I would call trivial aspects of the process; for example, new section 62B, in clause 4, states that the supplier must fulfil the obligations by giving notice outlining the proposal, and must describe how, under the proposal, the consumer’s reasonable electricity needs will be met. This new section also refers to the public’s access to information, and so on and so forth.

The crucial point, though, concerns how this will be resolved in a fair and balanced way. All we know is that clause 5, which deals with electricity governance regulations, states that the relevant section, section 172D(1), is amended by inserting paragraph (9A), which states: “requiring any person who fulfils the obligation in section 62(3) by providing electricity by alternative means to use a specified pricing methodology in setting the price for electricity supplied by alternative means:”.

That is a wide open loophole in this bill. That basically describes a situation, at least on my reading of the plain language of the bill, of an enormous lack of certainty into the way forward. It is relevant to the discussion of this bill to try to foreshadow, in the light of recent energy price shocks, what will happen to micro-energy development. I think most people accept that with the price of oil being very, very low for a very long period of time, we have seen these spikes in price primarily as a consequence of no investment in refining capacity around the world and, frankly, of a lack of economic incentive to develop much of the alternative energy resources right around the world.

We in New Zealand are unusually richly placed in this area, but the point is that we will now see literally trillions of dollars being invested around the world, because there are trillions more dollars to be made out of such investments in alternative energy resources. Given the development of new technologies—and the miniaturisation of technologies will continue just as powerfully in the next 10 years as it has done in the previous 10 years—it is not implausible to take the view that there will be more cost-effective micro-generation facilities available through technologies such as those that various members in the House have mentioned—solar technologies, wind technologies, and perhaps all manner of combinations of technologies that we just cannot envisage.

The price still remains the crucial issue for the consumer. We have not yet defined what we mean by the end of the line. Is it one consumer? Is it a group of consumers? We have not defined what type of caveats will be around the actual process of defining the price. I see a real danger here. In spite of all the formalistic protections in terms of giving due notice and so on and so forth, where, actually, is the negotiation in this process? Where is the guarantee that consumers at the end of the line will not be forced into a position where they say to the supplier: “Well, thank you very much for meeting your obligation to give a specified pricing methodology for setting the price, but the specified pricing methodology that you put forward means that you’re putting us out of business.”? I really think that a little more work is required on this.

But, yes, the bill introduced for this longstanding and long foreseen problem, right at the end of this Parliament, kicks for touch on the underlying principles. I am certain that we have not heard the end of this issue, and that future Governments will have to attend to this matter with a little more rigour than has been the case with this Government over the past 9 years.

Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Māori Party): Twenty-year-old Ietitaia Muliaga puts the Electricity (Continuance of Supply) Amendment Bill into perspective with a comment he shared as he remembered the last hours of his mother’s life. Mrs Muliaga, who was hooked up to an oxygen machine, with tubes running to her nose, asked to speak to the contractor who had come knocking on their door that morning to turn off the switch because a bill of $168.40 had not been paid. His son remembered: “She asked him to just give us a chance.” Last week Gordon Mātenga released his coroner’s report into the death of Folole Muliaga. His formal verdict was: “The cessation of oxygen therapy and the stress arising from the fact of the disconnection have contributed to her death”—“just give us a chance”. Mrs Muliaga did not get that chance, but perhaps we as a nation have learnt through this tragedy to ensure that the crisis we have endured in the last 18 months will never occur again.

So we come to this bill considering the vital purpose of continuing the supply provisions to ensure an obligation on electricity distributors to supply electricity. The amendment brings relief to affected communities, which will continue to have access to electricity supply after 2013. It is about giving them a chance to enjoy the services and facilities that we expect any citizen in this land to have access to. We know that a fear in many rural Māori communities was that the deadline of 2013 would slash services and push companies out of town. In this context, we were interested to see that the extensive consultation exercise included a submission from Ani Pāhuru-Huriwai of Te Aroha Kanarahi Trust.

We are pleased that the consultation with key stakeholders held toward the end of 2006 and early 2007 included the affected communities. We would note, however, that with the exception of the eight submissions from individuals, Te Aroha Kanarahi Trust, French Pass Residents Inc., and Rural Women New Zealand, the bulk of the groups consulted were local government, businesses and business lobbies, distributors, retailers, energy trusts, central government, district health boards, and a Government agency. We in the Māori Party believe that any policy is only as good as the people’s voice, and we would hope that, in the select committee process of the bill, there is able to be full and diverse representation from the affected communities, to ensure that the options receive a solid analysis.

I think it is fair to say that this bill, although it might not have affected a wide group of New Zealanders, would certainly have had a dramatic impact on the affected communities, if the amendment had not been put forward. The number of connections that, as at 1 April 1993, were theoretically at risk of not being maintained was estimated at about 16,000. Some analysis of the impact of this legislation has suggested that the impact was minimal—just 1 percent of about 1.8 million connections. But I would put it to those analysts that it is all a matter of perspective. The impacts of even the potential threat of electricity being cut for some of our people is extremely distressing, particularly for those living in remote rural locations.

Section 62 of the Electricity Act had set the alarm clock for 31 March 2013, and for some of our communities that time was getting perilously close. The purpose behind the original 1992 time frame was never understood. It was never clear why there had been an expiry date. All that we could make out was that it was a decision probably made purely on economic lines. It appears that in areas where the provision of lines function services were uneconomic, due to the large distance between customers and the expense of servicing the lines, the decision was made that, come the magic date of 2013, lines companies would no longer be statutorily required to provide a connection to those remote rural locations. The most likely scenario was that 5 years on from here, if a flash flood occurred, an earthquake erupted, or some other unforeseen freak of nature took place, supply would either be terminated, or the cost to consumers would rise significantly.

Let us look at this a bit more closely. Let us take some of the adverse weather events that have tormented Te Tai Tokerau, Waiariki, and Te Tai Hauauru, in recent months. A month ago Mount Manganui was hit by a mini tornado. Significant flood-producing rainfall occurred in Northland, Coromandel, the Bay of Plenty, Whanganui, Manawatū, Marlborough, and parts of the central plateau. There have been flooding, high winds, and earthquakes—all of them weather risks for the more remote locations. The possibility that lines supply might suddenly cease in, say, Tolaga Bay, Takapau, or Te Teko is a hardship that no member of Parliament could possibly sit by and allow to happen. Cessation of supply could mean, as it did in the tragic case of Mrs Muliaga, a chance of life snuffed out. Cessation of supply would inevitably impact on the health, well-being, and capability of any community to survive. Cessation of supply would impact on the viability of economic development, on domestic services, on farming, and on rural life in general.

The Mayor of Ruapehu District perhaps summed this up in a release she issued on 28 May: “The concern for Ruapehu District Council and the rural communities we represent has been that lines companies will withdraw rural power lines once the continuance of supply guarantee expires, claiming a lack of economic viability. Historically the provision of electricity to rural areas was seen as an essential component of encouraging agricultural production and efficiency with electricity seen as a right for all New Zealanders.”

This is one bill that we are happy to support under urgency. The matter of security and assurance of supply to many of our constituents throughout the seven Māori electorate seats is absolutely critical. We are glad to be able to vote in support of the bill going to the select committee as a vote of confidence in investment in the rural economy. I hope this speech has been close to being about what the bill is about. Kia ora.

NATHAN GUY (National): I think it is very appropriate that I take a call on this bill, because it is very important to rural New Zealand. Most of rural New Zealand will be tucked up in bed now, at 10.35 in the evening on Wednesday night, because that is where most normal people doing a hard day’s work actually should be. But the Government wanted to put the House into urgency, up until midnight this evening and midnight tomorrow night, and this is one of the bills it wanted to pass through. That just shows how disorganised, after 9 years, the Government is.

This bill is vitally important for rural New Zealand, which is often forgotten in this Parliament. It is important that I make a contribution, as we come to the end of the 20-year sunset clause for this legislation, which for those who are interested and who are still up listening—they may be having their cup of hot chocolate before they nod off to sleep—is the Electricity (Continuance of Supply) Amendment Bill. Section 62 of the Electricity Act will expire in 2013, which allows the lines companies to be able to review that section.

One of the most important things for rural New Zealand—which is often forgotten in this House, so I will make a contribution on it—is the continuation of electricity supply right through not only to the farm gate but to rural communities. When we think about all the isolated parts of rural New Zealand—it might be Mount Peel, it might be an area over on the West Coast, or it might be up and around the East Cape of the North Island or in the far north—we know that we have big tracts of rural New Zealand where electricity is supplied on power lines that might run down long kilometres of rural gully roads, and it is important that lines companies do supply that electricity to those properties. For those properties, electricity is actually their rural lifeblood, is it not? We can think about how they are able to milk their cows, shear their sheep, or just keep their refrigeration going—their freezers in their own family homes. Electricity is vitally important.

This legislation will mean that lines companies will still have to provide electricity, but it might be in a different form from what is currently there. It might be more cost-effective for properties to think about an irrigation-supply generation dam option. Of course, that will not happen under this present Government, because it will need the reform of the Resource Management Act, which is one of National’s key platforms going into the 2008 election. We are looking forward to getting into Government. That is one very important policy announcement for rural New Zealand, and there are several others. Of course, rural New Zealand is waiting on our tax policy, which will also be vitally important for it, as well.

I have touched on how lines companies will still have to supply electricity to these remote parts of rural New Zealand, but it may not be just an irrigation-supply generation dam option. It might be something to do with solar power, or a localised scheme to do with wind turbines. There are several options. But the fundamental thing with this legislation is that rural New Zealand should not be forgotten.

The important contribution I want to make in the debate this evening is to say that not so long ago in my area of Horowhenua-Kapiti we had what I guess we could call a very localised mini-cyclone. It came through, wiped out trees, and knocked over power lines. On our particular property we did not have power for about 6 days. Of course it makes us realise how reliant we are on electricity in New Zealand. When we cannot flick the light switch on, when our cows cannot be milked, and when all of our frozen items in our freezers are starting to thaw out, we pick up the phone and think “I will just get a generator from the local hire company down the road in our local town.” But if someone from the hire company says “Sorry, we sold out 2 days ago.”, we look through the Yellow Pages, because we cannot use the white pages on the Internet as we have no power, and the battery has gone down on our laptop.

So we look through the Yellow Pages and start ringing around. Suddenly, we find that there are no generators in Horowhenua-Kapiti. We ring Palmerston North, because we think we might get a generator there, but we find they have all been hired out. Then we think that we can get something from Wellington, but we find that they have all been hired out. In the end, I found a generator that came all the way down from New Plymouth.

Jill Pettis: Do you remember the blackout in Auckland, when the generator crashed—when National was in Government?

NATHAN GUY: The generator came through that former member’s area of Whanganui. We are looking forward to hearing her contribution for the final time tomorrow. It just shows that she has had several years in Parliament and has not been able to sort out this issue for rural, remote areas around Wanganui. Chester Borrows is doing a fantastic job there representing that township and that area of rural New Zealand.

In summary, I say that this debate shows just how important it is that we get the Electricity (Continuance of Supply) Amendment Bill right. This is a first reading. It will go off to the select committee. Rural New Zealand will be able to have its say. It seems in recent times that the Government has just put the bulldozer blade down in urgency and just rammed legislation through. It is important that people have the ability to have some dialogue with the Government, even though we all know that the Government is in its dying days now. There are just a couple of days to go under this urgency motion, before we say ta-la-la not only to Jill Pettis but to all the other members on the other side of the House. We are looking forward to reigniting rural New Zealand. [Interruption]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs): Order!

NATHAN GUY: I am coming to a summary. I know those members do not like hearing the truth, and I know it hurts them.

We need to acknowledge rural New Zealand. We need to acknowledge the powerhouse of this country. Of course, we remember the contribution former Prime Minister David Lange made when he said that rural New Zealand, the primary sector, was going to be the sunset industry. How wrong that has proved the Labour Government! This bill is important for rural New Zealand. It is very important for the continued supply of electricity through to those areas. This will enable the line companies to investigate a whole lot of options. The most important thing, I say to rural New Zealand, is that electricity will continue to be supplied under this legislation, but, of course, there will be some costs associated with it.

ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tamaki): I am very, very conscious, Madam Assistant Speaker, that you came to this House from a previous life with a most formidable reputation as a headmistress, and I would not want to trifle with you at all, but I would seek a little bit of room to move in rebutting some of the arguments that have been put up in this debate to date. We have here again, with the Electricity (Continuance of Supply) Amendment Bill, another bill having its first reading in urgency, in the last couple of days of the Parliament, under a struggling, strangling, dying Government—and we wonder why. I think about the comments made by the two Ministers who spoke, and we should observe that no other Government members have taken the call. It seems to have become their style now not to stand up and debate openly and according to the rules of debate, but to sit there and bellow, snipe, sneer, and that sort of thing. That is regrettable, Madam Assistant Speaker, as I am sure you will agree, and it does nothing to enhance the reputation of the Parliament.

Let this House be very, very clear as to the context in which this bill has been introduced, and in which we are having to debate it. For all the socialist rhetoric from the other side of the House, the reality is that the Government’s energy policies have been a failure. That is a comment most relevant to this bill, when we appreciate that the intention of the bill is to make a change to the Electricity Act 1992. It had always been the intention of that Act to guarantee continuance of supply, but now, as the sunset clause approaches, it is also appropriate to consider whether that clause should remain. This bill, of course, gets rid of it. Let us not forget that the 2013 clause was put in the 1992 Act for very, very good reason. The reason had to do with flexibility, with looking ahead, and with the anticipation that new forms of energy would be developed. We cannot blame the legislators of 1992 for not anticipating that there would be 9 years of failed socialist government, and that energy policy, like so much other policy, would just be allowed to drift. New Zealanders will take great heart from the knowledge that they can—and will—very, very soon put an end to that drift.

There is mention in the bill of alternative means. That is my point. The Government has not done its work. I think that if we could turn the clock back to 1992 and talk to the people who were in the House at that time, we would see they would not have envisaged a Government that would fail so badly. I want to take a moment to make reference to the comments—[Interruption]. Is that the final speech by Peter Brown? If you want to have a say, Mr Brown, through you, Madam Assistant Speaker, have it now, because I do not think we are going to see you back. Snipe away as much as you like. Enjoy it for the last few moments—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs): Do not bring the presiding officer into the debate. No second person references, please.

ALLAN PEACHEY: I apologise, Madam Assistant Speaker. You are quite right.

I refer to what the member for the Green Party had to say. There was not a great deal of substance to it. It was not a new, wider, or different perspective. It is disappointing that that party actually brings so little to the table in terms of the energy debate. Perhaps I could issue a caution, having listened when sitting on election platforms around the country at which some of the Green Party’s candidates have been present. It is easy to criticise. It is too easy to go all the way back to 1992 and have a crack at the National Government Ministers of that time, but sometimes one has to take responsibility for something. That is the experience the Green Party does not have—experience in Government. I think that in future debates on energy, and in the debate on the Electricity (Continuance of Supply) Amendment Bill, a party like the Greens would do well to try to bring a different perspective, rather than simply to indulge in criticism of legislation passed through this House in 1992 with the very best of intentions. I reiterate the point that the original intention of the bill, in 1992, was for ongoing universal supply. The repeal date was put in there to build in flexibility, and to try to anticipate what alternative technologies might be available, and what would be developed over a—what was it—25-year period. That was not an unreasonable thing to do. Now we find ourselves, at the end of 9 years of failed energy policies, in a position where things have not developed as we would have hoped. As I have said before, we cannot blame the legislators back in 1992. I am sure they did not contemplate 9 years of socialist rule—who would have? But given that that has happened, it is appropriate that the 1992 Act now be amended.

It is for that reason that the National Party will support the first reading and the referral of this bill to a select committee. As other speakers across the House have commented, New Zealanders need to be guaranteed an assured supply of electricity. That is a basic feature of New Zealand life, and every New Zealander, wherever he or she lives, and whatever his or her circumstances, is entitled to that. In conclusion, I say that we must be very, very clear about the context in which this debate is occurring and in which this legislation is receiving its first reading. That context is of a dying Government that has failed to move the energy debate forward in 9 long years.

PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I listened to the honourable member’s speech with interest and, noting that he is a former school principal, I wonder whether he could explain to the House how he can say that from 1992 to 2013 is 25 years.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs): I am sorry, Mr Brown, but that is a debatable point. It is not a point of order.

PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Mathematics is not debatable.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs): I am sorry, Mr Brown.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Commerce Committee.

Bills

Walking Access Bill

In Committee

Debate resumed from 11 September.

Part 1 Preliminary provisions (continued)

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): Part 1 of the Walking Access Bill establishes the New Zealand Walking Access Commission. I think the first thing to do is to give some context to the broader debate that has occurred in the development of this legislation.

At the core of New Zealanders’ unique sense of being Kiwis is having access to the outdoors, and, increasingly, having access to the unique lakes, rivers, and mountains that make up this beautiful country. Alongside that is a tourism industry that has become increasingly dependent on those overseas visitors, who contribute over $8 billion a year to our economy, also being able to have access to our wild places. In this Walking Access Bill, Parliament is seeking to set up a commission that will provide leadership on, and have the capacity to negotiate, the facilitation of walking access. I think it is also proper that in this health-conscious age we acknowledge that more and more New Zealanders want to get outside, go outdoors, and have the opportunity to walk this stunning country of ours.

I think it is also important to recite the history. New Zealand had a body very similar to the Walking Access Commission that was abolished in 1990 by the previous Labour Government. When the Department of Conservation was established, it was intended that this role would be a function of that department, and a decision was made then to get rid of what was seen as an ineffectual body.

National members at the Local Government and Environment Committee—and I am talking specifically on the purpose clause—are of the view that we need to do more to improve public access. However, that requires a careful balancing of private property rights—people purchasing freehold property and having a reasonable expectation of being able to have the enjoyment of that property—versus the tension that exists in spots around New Zealand where people who own property can, effectively, gain a monopoly right to access to a public good, such as a lake, river, or mountain, as a consequence of other people not being able to have access to it. We believe that this commission will have a useful function in terms of negotiating solutions.

I have dealt with a vast number of these examples, as a constituency MP. I have to say that this issue is quite regionally based. If we go right back to when Queen Victoria gave her instructions for a Queen’s Chain to be set aside alongside water bodies—lakes, rivers, the ocean—we see that there was quite a lot of variance in the degree to which the Queen’s Chain was provided. Quite a narrow view was taken in my own area of Nelson about the areas where the Queen’s Chain would apply, and, as a consequence, I have large amounts of riparian rights adjacent to many streams, much of the coastline, and a few of the lakes in the Nelson region.

The view of National members is that providing for a commission that does not override the right of private landowners but can negotiate is the right way forward. When the Government first proposed its more radical proposals under Jim Sutton, National opposed them. We said that they went too far, we said that they had lost balance, and we said that negotiation was the right answer. We are pleased that what we see in the purpose of this bill is a reflection of that approach of negotiation. We believe that, in relation to the vast bulk of access problems that develop in corners of New Zealand, with good faith and some sensible resourcing from the Government the negotiated approach proposed in the purpose of this Walking Access Bill will take us forward.

I would be interested in getting from the Minister in the chair, the Hon Damien O’Connor, some feel for the resources that will be made available to back up this commission. It seems a little bit strange that the administration of this bill will fall under the responsibility of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. Previously this issue has been a responsibility of the Department of Conservation. If we look back to the commission that was abolished by Labour in 1990, under the Lange-Palmer-Moore Government, we see that one of the key reasons that it failed was that it did not get the resources it required. So I am very interested to hear from the Minister what sorts of resources will back up this bill in order to make the commission worthwhile. The truth is there will be practical issues like providing fences, stiles, and signage, and if we are going to make some practical progress on these issues of access, then providing some budgetary allocation for this new commission will be critical to its success.

The National Party is saying that the bill takes a good approach—far better than that previously put forward. We have got rid of compulsory acquisition and got rid of the “walk at will” ideas that had been advanced and that caused such furore amongst the farming and rural communities. But if this voluntary approach is going to work, then we need to provide some cash to pay for the practical fencing, practical stiles, and signage that will make this bill workable. I would be very interested in a contribution from the Minister to outline what commitments the Government has made in that respect.

JOHN CARTER (National—Northland): The best way to describe the Walking Access Bill and its history is probably to look at Part 1, and at clause 3, the purpose. Members should look at the subclause that is actually struck out, which stated: “(b) to provide for walkways to be declared over public and private land;”. That sentence says it all. It was the Government’s intention, when it first introduced this bill a good while ago, to actually affect property rights—to a limited extent, it still does. But in its raw stage as it was first introduced it certainly would have had a major impact on property rights in this country. I say, as an aside, that what interests me with this is that there was a huge uproar about property rights around this bill, yet there was only a muted response when the Government introduced its seabed and foreshore legislation, which also was about property rights. It surprises me that there was not the same furore from the public right across New Zealand in regard to that legislation as there was over this bill. However, that is an aside.

It seems to me that the difference between where the Government started from and where it has finished up has been a real smack in the face for it. It started off saying, basically, that people in this country can walk pretty much where they like. If it is deemed that that is in the interests of the community, they can walk across people’s farms, they can walk across parks, they can walk across multiply owned Māori land, they can walk across someone’s backyard, and potentially they can even walk through someone’s lounge, although that is unlikely. Nevertheless, that was the thrust of the bill. It has been brought back to being sensible legislation that the National Party, having worked as hard as it did during the select committee process, can now support. It brings some common sense to an issue that needed to be addressed, and now will be when this bill passes. Basically, it says that we recognise that there is need for people’s recreation and for some places where the public can walk, but we must also recognise the rights of the property owner, and where there is suggestion that a walking access be established, it should be done by way of negotiation. There are a number of rules around the way in which that negotiation is to be done, which will be debated as we progress further through the legislation.

The other interesting aspect is that, as my colleague Nick Smith spoke about, this bill also establishes the Walking Access Commission. I think that is a good positive step forward, as well, because it means that we have a body of people who will take responsibility to ensure that the interests of the individual, as well as the community, are taken into account. The interesting issue that came before the select committee was when we started talking about the matter of walking access. We then got into the issue of the paper roads that there are so many of across this country, and the right that New Zealanders have to use those. Of course, that brought in the fact that there is not just pedestrian traffic but also vehicular traffic, and how that was to be dealt with as we went through the issue of deciding which of the roads may be used as walking tracks. As there was debate around that, a number of clubs came forward and said they were concerned about the paper roads they use by way of their four-wheel drive club or gun club for access—for those who are interested in the sport of shooting, or whatever it may be. Motorcyclists often use these sorts of facilities for their enjoyment. It meant that it would bring conflict between vehicles and people who walk for recreation. The purpose of the commission is to resolve those conflicts. Given that, often, common sense can and does apply, and people come to compromises, there is no reason why that will not be achieved; this legislation sets parameters for that to happen.

But, as I say, it was an interesting debate, because it brought to the attention of New Zealand, and certainly to the attention of Parliament, the fact that as our population grows, as demand for recreation spreads, and as various forms of it develop, we need to take great care to ensure that we do not establish something that detracts or interferes with the rights of others, or causes conflicts. So I think it was a learning curve for the select committee members, who had to get their heads around some issues that, prior to looking or delving into the issue, one would have thought was not such a difficult subject to consider—that we will just develop some walking areas for the public to have a nice Sunday stroll on a warm afternoon, or maybe somewhere where they might lead their dog, their pet duck, or whatever happens to interest them. But, of course, as one delves into these things, they are never quite so simple.

Part 1, as set out here, confirms the fact that we have moved away from interfering with private land in a compulsory manner, and that we have allowed for voluntary giving of land, but under certain conditions. It gives recognition of the rights of the property owner, and it also sets up the commission, as we have said. I think the bill, as structured in Part 1, has actually ended up being good legislation.

The Local Government and Environment Committee worked well and constructively on this legislation. This is another example of Parliament actually working together on an issue that was contentious; it has to a large extent solved that problem. It does show that, as so often, we can work together on a problem, but the public do not know it. The sad thing is that the media should be out here reporting that Parliament is working constructively on legislation, but, of course, that does not interest them very much.

Dr Jonathan Coleman: You’re sounding like Blumsky.

JOHN CARTER: Well, it is true, though. My colleague says I sound like Mark Blumsky—I hope I do, for the very reason that often we do not promote ourselves enough as a structure that can work together, and that we often do so more than we actually fight. The sad thing is how the media portray it.

In concluding, I draw the Committee’s attention to that point—that we have worked constructively together. This is a good bill. The National Party will support it—I understand that most of the other parties in the House are now doing so, as well—and we should allow this bill to move on to its third reading so it can be concluded.

CHRIS TREMAIN (National—Napier): I rise to take a call in the Committee stage of the Walking Access Bill. It is a bill that sets out what I believe is the inalienable right of Kiwis to access key parts of New Zealand: our lakes, our rivers, our seas, and our mountains. That right represents who we are and provides us with part of our identity as New Zealanders. Nowhere do we find that to be more so than when we look at Māori, who on entering a marae or any meeting place will conduct a mihi, and within that mihi they will whakapapa back to their maunga, their awa, and their beach.

In my own mihi I say “Ko Tūtaekurī tōku awa.”, and I relate back to the Tūtaekurī River at the bottom of Taradale. I say “Ko Ōtātara tōku maunga.” Ōtātara is the mountain, the maunga, just behind Taradale, to which I personally relate. And I say “Ko Waipātiki tōku one ki te tai Tokerau.” Waipātiki Beach, north of Napier, is the beach that my family particularly relates to. I think this bill is immensely important to all New Zealanders as we increasingly, through the generations, relate back to the land and what that land means to us as Kiwis. I can certainly say that when one is sitting in a pub on an overseas journey and thinking about New Zealand, one thinks back to the mountains, the lakes, the sea, and the rivers around the place where one grew up.

Part 1, “Preliminary provisions”, sets out the purpose of the bill, which is to give us the ability to continue to have access to those important areas. Clause 3(a) states that the purpose of the legislation is “to provide the New Zealand public with free, certain, enduring, and practical walking access to the outdoors (including around the coast and lakes, along rivers, and to public resources) so that the public can enjoy the outdoors;”.

I will take up a point made by my senior colleague Nick Smith, who talked about his electorate and some of the issues he has had within it with regard to accessing areas such as the ones he was speaking about tonight. In Hawke’s Bay we have not had such issues, but I think about some of the wonderful aspects of Hawke’s Bay where the public want to get access—particularly in the area where my new electorate, which I will be standing for at the upcoming election, has grown to. The Napier electorate boundary has now moved north to include Māhia and Māhanga Beach, but it also includes Lake Waikaremoana. If there is a more amazing walk in the North Island of New Zealand than the one at Lake Waikaremoana, then I am yet to find it. The public access to that lake is, at this point in time, quite accessible through certain entry points, and it will remain that way. I certainly have not had any complaints about the access to the lake.

As we move down through Hawke’s Bay to Māhia and some of the amazing beaches that are there, we find the access to those beaches is an inalienable right and people have that access. We have not had any complaints about access there. If we go down to the beautiful Mōhaka River, which wends its way through the province of Hawke’s Bay, we find there is amazing trout fishing and white-water rafting. There is access to that river along the waterway and I have not had any complaints in that regard from the public either. Moving down to Waipātiki Beach and various other beaches, we find there are no real issues there in terms of access for the public, which is good.

On moving out of the electorate and further south of Napier we are in Craig Foss’s electorate of Tukituki, an electorate I am confident he is going to do well in at the next election. If we think about Tukituki, we realise there are a number of potential issues around the subdivision of Ocean Beach and also around access to Cape Kidnappers. Access is currently available along the beach, the land above which is currently owned by the very well-to-do Julian Robertson, who has developed the cape and is turning it into an amazing wildlife sanctuary. That will do amazing things for Havelock North and for the wider native bird community. But I guess over time people may want access to that area, and there could be issues around the fact that it is private land now.

But those are examples of people who are prepared to negotiate access, and that is the experience that the National Party has had. That is why we have reached a good position with the removal of clause 3(b), which originally stated that a purpose of the legislation was “to provide for walkways to be declared over public and private land:” There were always going to be issues there in terms of property rights, with the Government coming along, putting its foot down, and saying it would allow people to get across private land, when it is our experience on many occasions that where people want to get access, most farmers or people who own private land are happy to work with the public to provide access in one way, shape, or form. They do not want to allow carte blanche access, without their knowledge, to various lakes and rivers, but they will certainly work in conjunction with the community to provide access.

I think this is a good bill. The National Party will be supporting it through the Committee stage and through the next reading. I think the purpose clause outlines an excellent way in which we can work towards improving the access to our lakes, to our rivers, to the seashore, and to our mountains. Thank you, Mr Chair.

SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel): National is supporting this bill, but it is interesting that there is no provision for any funding for any walkways that might actually be established. If we look at the definitions around “authority”, we see that councils will be required to make some decisions and maybe even to take on the responsibility of being an authority for the establishment of a walkway. And, quite patently, not everybody wants to have people traipsing over his or her property as part of a walkway, even if it is round the coast, for example. If a council is going to go down that path and set itself up as an authority, it then has to consider how it will meet those costs.

That raises the question of whether such a council will put its hand up to become an authority in the first instance, manage a walkway, and have responsibility for any of the costs associated with that walkway. There is also the associated cost of enforcement in terms of the number of police who will be required to act as enforcement officers if someone is stepping outside the codes—they will be developing codes, as well.

When people go for a walk along a walkway they will not necessarily be aware that there is a code of conduct they will have to adhere to, so the enforcement officer will have quite a job to make sure that people comply with a code they know nothing about but that does exist on a shelf somewhere. Those people may be happily walking over the walkway and may not necessarily be acting in accordance with that code. I can see that there will be one or two issues along the way.

There are costs to these walkways, as well. There is the cost, perhaps, of fencing. There is the cost of enforcement, and there is the cost of some associated requirements that adjacent landowners may require in negotiating a walkway across their property, or on public land through their property, because it may encompass paper roads. It was quite good to see that the wider issue around paper roads was taken out of this legislation, and I think that is in large part due to the excellent work done by Eric Roy and the National members of the Local Government and Environment Committee. Some very good work was done there.

What happens in essence is that if a person has some private property, is in the middle of two parts of a walkway, and does not want to negotiate, fortunately there is nothing within this legislation that compels that person. It would have to be done under negotiation, and a person cannot be compelled to even enter into negotiation if that person decides he or she does not want to. I think that is a good aspect of this bill.

Right now, any council, any regional council, any conservation department, or any conservation board can get around the table and negotiate. There is nothing to stop that. There is nothing to stop any party from participating in the negotiation process to establish a walkway. But that is OK—we will still develop and support this bill, which puts lots of words and bureaucracy around all that just to make it a little bit more problematic, rather than just leaving it up to the free negotiation processes that already exist.

One of the other things that I found interesting is the definition of “controlling authority”. In actual fact, a controlling authority can be anybody; it can be a council, and it can be an individual. I thought it was quite interesting that if a walkway is negotiated, a controlling authority could be an individual, but I could not see why an individual would want to be one, because he or she would then incur the responsibilities and the costs that accrue to that. Maybe the Minister would like to take a call and outline some of the matters I have raised. It would be very interesting to hear what the Minister has to say with regard to those sorts of things.

One of the other issues that came up was the naming of walkways where priority is given to one sector of the community without the rest of the community having any input into the naming. Priority was given to Māori naming of walkways, without any reference to any other member of the community, which I thought was unacceptable, frankly. I am not sure whether there have been any amendments to change that so that everybody has an opportunity to participate equally.

MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West): I rise to speak on the Walking Access Bill. [Interruption] I actually compliment members opposite on their contributions, so a little bit of graciousness from Dr Nick Smith would not go amiss at this time of night. As this is a fairly wide-ranging debate in terms of the Committee stage, I will talk a wee bit about the New Zealand Walking Access Commission in the context of this bill and its intention.

Sandra Goudie talked a wee bit about bureaucracy, but I do not think her fears will be realised. The Walking Access Commission potentially has a very important role for a bit of strategic thinking. Speakers have spoken previously on their parts of New Zealand—for example, Coromandel. One of the things that I hope that the commission could do in the Waikato with the Department of Conservation and other agencies is to start developing a bit of a strategic framework of where future walkways may go. There may be long-term planning objectives.

For example, there could be great potential for a walkway from, say, the Pacific Ocean at the Bay of Plenty and right across to the Tasman Sea. I know that Metiria Turei would certainly agree with that, as would Barbara Stewart. If we look at the links we already have with walkways in the Te Aroha mountain area, we see there are a series of rail trails, such as the Hauraki rail trail. There is a whole range of things. It may take 30 years, but I am saying that one of the great things that the Walking Access Commission could do is to start scoping some of those long-term visions—for example, Te Araroa, the North Cape to Bluff walkway. Hopefully the commission will be looking at these other ideas.

I say that because in 20 to 30 years our population may be 5 million to 6 million, and the bulk of the population will live north of Lake Taupō, for example. There will be increasing population pressures in that area, and there has to be some strategic thinking now about the ability of people to get out of urban areas, to enjoy the countryside—particularly with the development of peri-urban walkways—and to enjoy walking access. The key thing about this bill, which I think is a really good thing, is that it will be done by a process of negotiation. It is not just drawing a line across a map; it is actually negotiating that line across a map. It may be, if we are being really lateral in our thinking—and I know that the member Sandra Goudie from Coromandel was extremely lateral in her thinking—that we would be looking at a negotiation process.

I take the point from members opposite and from other members in this Chamber who talked about the protection of the rights and interests of property owners. It may be that one negotiates an access strip across the back part of a property. One may not pick it up immediately, but one may do so further down the track, subject to budgets and financial incentives. But having a caveat against the title initially means that it can be used in years to come.

One of the issues that I have noticed in my area is that on the route from Ngāruawāhia on the Tūrangawaewae side to Hamilton through to the eastern suburbs of Hamilton, previously one could drive right down River Road, from Ngāruawāhia to Hamilton City, and one could see the beautiful Waikato River. Over the years the views of the Waikato River from the road have being gradually obliterated by some very expensive housing. That has not been matched with adequate walking access from Ngāruawāhia township through to Hamilton. Hence again, strategically, we could have the Walking Access Commission working with the Waikato District Council, Hamilton City Council, and other agencies on this issue. Frankly, we are losing views bit by bit on some of the road along New Zealand’s premier river, and that is a noticeable aspect. Those are the kinds of strategic things that the Walking Access Commission could also be looking at, and this bill gives scope by a process of negotiation to ensure that.

The prediction I have concerning some of those property owners, as is the case in Hamilton, is that technically there can be provision for a walkway, but people build right up to the boundary of a river. Then when one tries to retrofit a walkway, there is opposition to it.

Part 1 agreed to.

Part 2 New Zealand Walking Access Commission

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): Part 2 of the Walking Access Bill sets out the establishment of the New Zealand Walking Access Commission as a Crown entity. The first question that National would have of the Minister in respect of this part of the bill is where walking access should sit in the bureaucracy of Government. There are those of the view that the Department of Conservation is the dominant agency, with responsibility for recreation activities. It manages about 10 million hectares of the public estate, and in many respects when we are talking about public access it is about getting to and from the conservation estate. A second possible candidate, which it seems the Government favours, is the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. The concern that many would have is that the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry is—rightly so—a very commercially focused ministry; it is about supporting New Zealand’s biggest export industry. We are all aware that about $20 billion a year is generated from those primary industries, and National is concerned about whether there is a comfortable fit between the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry and this new Walking Access Commission.

There are those who argue that this commission actually fits more comfortably with the work of Land Information New Zealand. The reality is that many of these issues are around land title. It is interesting, if we reflect on the history of this Parliament—and it is actually a real success story of our forebears—to realise that the Minister of Lands used to be one of the most important and one of the most contentious roles in Governments of the past. But the law has become so well settled there is little area of contention, albeit this issue of walking access, which is a debate around land law, around the areas where people can have walking access, and within what legal parameters it can happen.

We are a bit concerned. Yes, the commission is a good idea, but where should it sit? We are not convinced that the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry is necessarily the right place for it. I suspect the reason the commission has ended up there is that in the process of the debate on the forerunner to this bill, the previous agency, the Department of Conservation, and the Ministers who led that agency have so alienated the rural community that if the Walking Access Commission is in the framework of the Department of Conservation, it will automatically get a negative reaction from many farming communities, such that it will not be able to perform its task. But that does not necessarily take away the fact that the Department of Conservation may be a more comfortable fit, given the level of recreational interest that comes with the role of the Department of Conservation and because it manages such a large area. Over $100 million a year of the department’s budget is, indeed, for provision of recreational facilities—the huts and the tracks. We have over 10,000 kilometres of Department of Conservation tracks on public land, which this bill is designed to extend.

I would be interested in the Minister’s explaining where this commission will sit within the bureaucracy of Government, and why the Government is sitting in that particular spot. It is our view that that decision will have a significant impact on whether the commission, as it is established under Part 2 of this bill, will be able to successfully carry out the functions that are being set out for it. I also think that we need to note the amendments that were made by the select committee to Part 2. It is my view, and it is National’s view, that these issues of access are best resolved at the local level. These issues are inherently local by nature, and, to some degree, central government agencies will always be handicapped. I commend my colleague Eric Roy for his announcement, as National’s spokesman on outdoor recreation policy, that the conservation boards need to have a greater focus of people with an outdoor recreation involvement and that they should have a role in the interaction with the commission.

The amendments that National successfully advocated during the select committee process provide for walking access to be developed in close collaboration with local authorities. I give a good example in my own constituency: the proposal to develop a walkway along the Waimea estuary between the communities of Richmond and Māpua, which is a magnificent and beautiful area. But one of the difficulties is the interaction between the local authority—the Tasman District Council—the Department of Conservation, and the Land Information New Zealand. That is why in the select committee there was a push to include in clause 10(b) the words “in collaboration with local authorities:”. If we are going to have this nationwide body, we do not want it running roughshod over the local authority; we want it working in partnership with the local authority.

I also think we need to give some thought about the Walking Access Commission in respect of Sport and Recreation New Zealand. We have this other agency, and I think all members of the House would be aware of the level of concern amongst the public about the growth of bureaucracy. Bureaucratic numbers have expanded by about 10,000. It is unbelievable that we have had another 15 hectares of bureaucrats in Wellington during the term of this Government, and there is a legitimate concern that this bill is just going to add more bureaucrats. I would like to hear an explanation from the Minister as to how, when we have the Department of Conservation with a recreation focus, when we have Sport and Recreation New Zealand receiving taxpayers’ money and having a heap of bureaucrats working in this area, the Minister will make sure that we do not end up with just more bureaucrats. How will the Minister make sure that the role of the Walking Access Commission is clearly defined and is not going to clash with that of Sport and Recreation New Zealand?

The last point I make in speaking to Part 2 is on the issue of defining the degree of walking access and what we mean by it. Are people going to be able to carry firearms, are they going to be able to have dogs, and what are the issues in respect of motor vehicle access? I think most New Zealanders would view a huge difference. It is the business of the New Zealand Transport Agency—it used to be Transit, it used to be the Roads Board, we keep changing the names of these things—which is responsible for looking after access for motor vehicles for commercial, agricultural, and other purposes. This is about walking, but where does “walking” end—are there going to be generic rights around walking access provisions to be able to carry firearms, and to be able to have a dog? There are implications for landowners from those issues. Will there be clear provision in that regard?

The last point I make is in respect of clause 10(2), which ensures that walking access is culturally sensitive. Now I have to worry that we are getting awfully politically correct. I have difficulty in sorting out what is a culturally sensitive walkway and what is a culturally insensitive walkway.

Hone Harawira: One that doesn’t go through the lounge!

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: One that goes through the lounge might be deemed culturally insensitive! I just worry that—

Hon David Cunliffe: The member’s slipped from being the green conscience of the National Party.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The member David Cunliffe worries about the Bluegreens and our very clear philosophy about how we deal with these issues. I have to tell the member that the Bluegreens have, as one of their key founding principles, support of public access. But I tell members another very important principle: good quality law, not this mushy law, not this woolly law. We would just like some definition around what is culturally sensitive because we worry the lawyers are going to have a field day and we are going to be none the wiser about that access.

MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West): I want to talk about the functions of the Walking Access Commission in Part 2. I would have thought, just briefly on the issue of cultural sensitivity, that we do not need too much debate to know that we do not put a walkway through, say, a grave site or an area of archaeological significance. I think these things, frankly, are taken as read and I am sure that other members may take a call on that issue. Again, this is something of a chilling reminder to some parties, should they ever entertain even the thought of engaging with those people, if the numbers stack up in terms of post-election, to please take note. It is but another warning signal.

I am sure the Minister in the chair, the Hon Damien O’Connor, may or may not want to take a call around some of the points that Dr Nick Smith has made in terms of the role of the Department of Conservation and in relation to the functions of the commission. I do not want to turn this debate into one of antagonism, but I do personally think that all the hard-working people who are public servants, who have suddenly been likened to so many hectares of bureaucrats on the Wellington foreshore, or whatever, by Dr Smith could take some offence. Just the other day I visited the Department of Conservation and met with the Waikato Conservation Board. I do not know that our wonderful, hard-working, heroic department staff, who are wonderful New Zealanders, should be somehow classified and demeaned as one of those extra hectares of bureaucrats. Are they the people whom Dr Smith is talking about? When he talks about bureaucrats, I would say that it is an invitation to members opposite to please identify the people whom they are demeaning by using this term.

In regard to the functions of the commission, I commend the Local Government and Environment Committee for its work. I think that the functions of the commission are well laid out, in very plain, simple English, in Part 2. Again, I note that it provides national leadership on walking access by preparing and administering a national strategy, coordinating walking access among relevant stakeholders and central government organisations, including Sport and Recreation New Zealand, and providing local and regional leadership on, and coordination of, walking access in collaboration with local authorities.

I think reference was made to the role of conservation boards. Personally, I would see the Walking Access Commission working very, very closely with conservation boards throughout New Zealand. As I mentioned, it was my privilege to sit in on the Waikato Conservation Board meeting the other day and see the incredible, wonderful work it is doing in conjunction and collaboration with the excellent Department of Conservation staff in my area. I think they would certainly have a degree of expertise and vision that would work with the commission in this way.

I also note that local authorities, as the level of government closest to the people, will also have a key role. I compliment the local authorities in my area on some of their visionary work, particularly the Waikato District Council and the Waipā local authority. With no disrespect to Dr Nick Smith—because I obviously do not question his sincerity—I say that I think he is possibly looking for issues and problems that do not exist. Mr Chair, I know that you and the Minister in the chair, the Hon Damien O’Connor, are listening intently to my contribution, but the Minister may want to take a call in regard to some of the issues that Dr Smith has raised.

HONE HARAWIRA (Māori Party—Te Tai Tokerau): Tēnā koe, uncle. Kia ora tātou katoa e te Whare. In response to the comments made about cultural insensitivity, I would just like to say that we consider those comments about the Māori Party possibly jumping into bed with the party that wants to get rid of the Māori seats to be highly culturally insensitive. In the same way, we consider comments made on this side of the Chamber that we might want to jump into bed with the people who just stole our foreshore and seabed to be equally culturally insensitive. We are already there; it is just a case of who wants to jump in with us.

In respect of this particular Walking Access Bill and the regular comments from the Government side of the House about how pro-Māori those members are and how supportive they are of Māori endeavour, and given the number of Māori MPs in the Labour Party, including Parekura Horomia, Nanaia Mahuta, Mita Ririnui, Mahara Okeroa, Dover Samuels, Dave Hereora—

Chris Tremain: Shane Jones.

HONE HARAWIRA: —Shane Jones, and others, I wonder why, in clause 8, “Board of Commission”, instead of stating: “The Minister must, after consultation with the Minister of Māori Affairs, appoint at least 1 member who has a knowledge of tikanga Māori …”, the Government did not just put “the Minister must appoint a Māori”. I wonder why the Māori members of the Government have not said boo about this at any time during these proceedings. I wonder why they do not say it, and I wonder whether it is one of only two options—they have been told they cannot say it, or they believe that it should not be there.

As a member of the Māori Party, I would have thought absolutely that the role of Māori MPs, and particularly Māori MPs pretending to represent Māori seats, and, therefore, Māori voters, on something as important as the Walking Access Bill, which will have a huge impact on Māori land right throughout Aotearoa, would be to say that it would not hurt for the Māori members of the Government to call for one of the members of the board of commission to actually be Māori, and to accept that this is simply not a position that any Māori member of Parliament should be agreeing to. The fact that the Government Māori members of Parliament can accept this suggests that this Government is not nearly as pro-Māori as it makes out.

Furthermore, given how pro-Treaty this Government has been claiming it is and will be over the next few weeks, I wonder why it did not take up the submission from Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu and other Māori people to include a Treaty clause in this bill. I ask that because I understand that it is Labour policy not to include the Treaty clause in non - Treaty-related legislation. Well, one could hardly assume that legislation referring to lands owned by Māori right throughout the country is not Treaty-related. Again, I am wondering why, given how many Māoris there are within the Labour Government, including Parekura Horomia, Nanaia Mahuta, Mita Ririnui, Dover Samuels, Mahara Okeroa, and others, the Treaty clause has again been voted down. I ask that because I know that it was not just Ngāi Tahu who recommended that that Treaty clause go into this bill; other Māoris recommended also that the Treaty be included in this bill, and most of the Māori submitters were concerned that the Treaty was not in the bill.

Here again was an opportunity for this Government to back up all of its talk about the Treaty by including the Treaty itself, or a reference to the Treaty, in this legislation. That it has chosen not to do so is, in my view, the clearest statement of its Treaty intentions. Kia ora.

JOHN CARTER (National—Northland): I will talk about something that no other member at this stage of the debate has alluded to. There has been discussion about bureaucracy and about the possibility of increased bureaucracy. My colleague Sandra Goudie mentioned issues around local government. Nick Smith talked about the expanded bureaucracy and about there being 15 extra acres of bureaucrats in Wellington, which is an extraordinary way of putting numbers together, but I guess it makes the point.

I draw the Committee’s attention to Subpart 2, “Code of responsible conduct”, in Part 2. If members read it, they will see that it makes very interesting reading indeed. Clause 15 states that the code’s purpose is “to provide for the development and issue of a code of responsible conduct in relation to walking access for the general guidance of—(a) users of walking access; and (b) landowners of land on which walking access is located;”. Clause 16, “Contents of code”, states: “(1) The code may include all or any of the following:”, and it goes on to give a number of different things that can be included. Then Clause 17 talks about the preparation of a draft code. It establishes that “The Commission must prepare a draft code …”. The commission then has to let the public know, so it has to give notice of the draft code. It then has to invite members of the public to make comments on it. The commission must ensure that the notice is widely published, and that the draft code is readily available to members of the public. Under clause 19, “Matters to be considered”, the commission must consider the content of a draft code—this is before it issues a code under clause 20. It must be satisfied that the recommendations on standards of behaviour, if any, are appropriate. And so it goes on and on. Finally, when all that is done, the code is issued.

What interests me is what happens then. We have a code—

Sandra Goudie: It would be contrary to the negotiations.

JOHN CARTER: Well, it may be contrary to a whole lot of things, but the point is who will administer the code. Who will police the code?

Sandra Goudie: Oh, the enforcement officers.

JOHN CARTER: Well, I cannot read it in here. There may be a reference to enforcement officers; I have not found it, although it may well be there.

Sandra Goudie: Honorary.

JOHN CARTER: Yes, but the point is this: are we going to end up like taxi drivers? Taxi drivers, as members know, have to get a certificate of fitness. They do not get just a warrant of fitness; they actually have to go a step up. I have recently discovered that Land Transport New Zealand now has a fleet of Holden utes, with jacks and all sorts of equipment, that drive up beside taxis in the middle of the street, pull them over, and inspect them. They do spot inspections of those vehicles. Taxi drivers have gone through a higher level of certification that than just the normal warrant of fitness, but these taxi police are out there checking up on them in the same way that truck drivers are checked up on.

What worries me is that if we follow down that line, we will have walking police who pull people up to look them over—

Sandra Goudie: Checking the hem of your walk shorts.

JOHN CARTER: Yes, absolutely. They will be making sure the hems of people’s shorts are right, or making sure the soles of their shoes do not have too much rubber on them, or do not have pointy spikes. I can just imagine the bureaucracy that could develop. People with little pointed hats and funny big sleeves, with pens and paper stuffed up their sleeves and goodness knows where else, could be hiding behind trees, waiting to spot-check people.

Hon Damien O’Connor: The bill!

JOHN CARTER: I am talking about it. This is what it could lead to. It is actually frightening when we start thinking about it. The problem is the flow-on effect. The Minister in the chair is saying I should come back to the bill, but I am in the bill—right in it. My mind is right in where it is likely to lead us. Within the next 10 or 20 years, there will be a socialist Government saying it now has an opportunity to employ more people and create more bureaucracy. It will have people hiding behind trees, spying on people, looking through binoculars down the track to see whether people are coming along the track with their trousers on the right way round. All sorts of things could happen.

If we really think about this sort of thing, we realise that we have to be concerned. Here we are, talking about a code of conduct, but if we cannot police it, why have it, and if we are going to have it, how are we going to police it? Parliament should be seriously concerned about that issue, because sooner or later we will be in a situation where people walking their dogs down a walkway somewhere in New Zealand are pulled over because the dog’s tail is too long or too short, or because the dog did something that doggies do that it should not have done right there, because the code of conduct says “You can’t do doo-doo right where you did do the doo-doo.” All those sorts of things could happen. I just make the point that we need to actually understand, when we are passing legislation like this—particularly when we are doing it in the dead of the night, and as we move towards the end of this session—what possibly could happen if it goes forward as it is.

I ask the Committee to have a look at Subpart 2 of Part 2, read it, and digest it. It has serious implications. As I have said, we now have taxi police out there, jacking up taxis all over the place. We have other police—and I cannot think of the right name for them; they are not actually police—who go around looking at trucks, taking logs off lorries, and doing all sorts of things, because some truck driver’s load is two or three kilos overweight. We will have the same thing here—you can bet your bottom dollar on it. Somebody will be walking down a track somewhere, and some little guy will squirt round the corner and say: “Sorry, you’re too big to be on this track. Off you get. You’re overweight.” Well, that is the reason why the guy is out walking in the first place—he is trying to get underweight. But he will not be allowed to get underweight, because he is overweight.

I say to members that we seriously need to be concerned about the sorts of implications that this measure could have. Members can imagine the members of the Parliamentary Rugby Team deciding to use a walkway for a training run, and they are halfway through their training run, jogging along, getting fit to take on the French in the next world cup, and what happens? Someone says the track is not a jogging track but a walking track. “You can’t do this, Parliamentary Rugby Team. It’s not in the code of conduct. You’re outside of it. Take your trousers off, and your socks.” The team members would have to walk home with just their shoes on. Members can imagine the implications of it. The mind starts boggling. The more I think about it at this time of night, at five to 12 on whatever the day is—yesterday—the more my mind starts wandering all over the place.

I am thinking about Damien O’Connor. Can members imagine him jogging down the walking track, then being stripped of his gear because he was running too fast? It would be the only time he ever did run fast; he cannot run fast on the paddock, but he could be running fast down one of these tracks, and one of these code of conduct police could say to him: “Sorry, Minister. You’ve got it wrong here. You should have tied your shoes together so you could not run so fast.” That is the sort of idiocy that we could be passing at this time of night.

None of us understands enough about it, because when we look at this bill, we see that it does not actually give us enough details. I start getting concerned at 5 to 12 on a Tuesday, which is actually Wednesday, that we actually are debating things we do not understand. I really start getting anxious. I think Parliament needs to be concerned, when we debate these bills, that we look at these things. The Local Government and Environment Committee has gone through them, but all of a sudden we find that, goodness gracious, there are some implications beyond them. I can just imagine that the code of conduct walking-track policeman will have to share a ride with the taxi policeman guy, because the taxi driver could not take someone to the walking track because he could not drive his car there, and the guy could not get there because he could not walk there because the taxi driver could not get him there. Try to figure that out! I cannot, and I just said it. I do not understand what I just said. So how in the world will some member of the public be able to understand what was said, when we are passing this bill at 5 to 12 at night, and we do not even understand what we are saying.

So I say we should beware. Mark my words, as a result of this bill there will be walking police all over the place in times to come, and we need to be worried about that.

MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West): The previous speaker, I have discovered, was the deputy chair of the Local Government and Environment Committee when this bill was considered. I ask members to tell me where in the commentary on the bill there is any talk about the code. I have to talk to my colleagues on this side of the Committee. I ask them to tell me what issues and what concerns the member raised during the hearings on this bill.

I would be very afraid if that member was anywhere near any form of outdoor recreation policy, as he does not understand about the code. The code is very simple and very clear—it is to protect the rights of adjacent landowners and the rights of walkers who need access. There is no rocket science here. That is really all I have to say.

I am amazed that that member, as the deputy chair of the Local Government and Environment Committee, did not raise these issues at the select committee. Where is the minority report? I cannot see it.

SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel): How can we have a code of conduct when we are meant to be negotiating agreements to create these walkways and the agreement could be quite contrary to what is in the code of conduct? How on earth can we have a code of conduct that will apply generally to all these walkways when the negotiated agreements between adjacent landowners or private property owners could have matters quite contrary to whatever we have in the code of conduct? The whole thing is a load of nonsense.

There will be negotiated agreements of parameters of the conditions that will be set on a walkway, and when we are talking about cost, there certainly is a cost to the commission, which will be a Crown entity. There certainly is a cost to the establishment of walkways, because the very nature of a walkway is that people are able to walk on it, and most of the terrain will have to be level so that they can walk on it. Will that be accessible to people with disabilities? Will they be able to use wheelchairs on it? People with a disability need to be able to use a wheelchair—that is their idea of being able to have access—on those walkways. The cost of establishing a walkway and establishing the right sort of terrain to walk on will be an additional cost.

This code of conduct will go on ad infinitum, just as John Carter said. We only have to look at Part 2.

Martin Gallagher: Here’s Part 2.

SANDRA GOUDIE: Has the member read it?

Martin Gallagher: Absolutely.

SANDRA GOUDIE: Then he will be able to see for himself quite clearly. When I look at clause 10(1)(e) I see that it talks about the commission facilitating resolution of disputes processes.

Debate interrupted.

Sitting suspended from 12 midnight to 9 a.m. (Thursday)

Tuesday, 23 September 2008

(continued on Thursday, 25 September 2008)

Bills

Walking Access Bill

In Committee

Debate resumed.

Part 2 New Zealand Walking Access Commission (continued)

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House): I move, That the Committee report progress and sit again presently.

Progress reported.

Report adopted.

Bills

Affiliate Te Arawa Iwi and Hapu Claims Settlement Bill

Third Reading

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): I move, That the Affiliate Te Arawa Iwi and Hapu Claims Settlement Bill be now read a third time.

Te Arawa tapu, Te Arawa mana, Te Arawa waka, Te Arawa iwi, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

[Greetings to you all, hallowed Te Arawa, powerful Te Arawa, Te Arawa canoe, and Te Arawa people, greetings.]

I greet Te Arawa, its mana, its chiefs, and its people. Te Pūmautanga o Te Arawa represents the largest group of people to reach a comprehensive Treaty settlement with the Crown. I acknowledge the tīpuna, and the iwi and hapū, of Te Arawa, on whose behalf people are here today, who have carried the grievances for so long. I acknowledge the presence of the negotiators and trustees of Te Pūmautanga o Te Arawa, who represent each of the 11 iwi and hapū of the affiliate Te Arawa, and I thank them once again for their perseverance and patience on the long road from the first deed of settlement in 2006 to this last hurdle for this settlement legislation.

The third reading of this bill is a significant occasion for the Crown and for the people of our country. It was the Hon Margaret Wilson who began, in December 2002, the dialogue between the Crown and the central North Island claimants on how Treaty claims in the region could move forward. With the assistance of the Hon David Caygill in the earlier discussions, that dialogue reached the stage where mandating and pre-negotiations could begin in mid-2003. After many months of intensive and thorough mandating hui, the Kaihautū Executive Council submitted its deed of mandate to the Crown in December 2003, which was duly recognised in April 2004. The Crown and the Executive Council then signed the terms of negotiation.

Since then much has happened, which has led to some delays on the road to the settlement legislation. Much of 2007 was spent considering the findings of the Waitangi Tribunal into the settlement and discussing how best to proceed. However, with the entrance into the frame late last year of the Central North Island Iwi Collective, which was much welcomed by the Crown, there has been significant and positive progress with the affiliate Te Arawa and all central North Island iwi. Te Pūmautanga o Te Arawa has made a significant compromise by passing the final decisions about most of its forestry redress over to what would be the largest forestry collective in the country, for their benefit and the benefit of other central North Island iwi. In return, the Crown has maintained and enhanced the value of the affiliate’s original settlement.

At this point I am reminded again of a phrase used by Te Pūmautanga o Te Arawa’s chief negotiator, when confronted with the idea of making major changes to the affiliate Te Arawa deal to accommodate the interests of other central North Island iwi. Rāwiri Te Whare, in his open-minded response to this proposition from the Crown, said: “we are willing to be flexible if the Crown is willing to be generous.” I think both parties performed well in that regard, given the wide range of interests and the extremely tight time frames that have been satisfied to reach this point. I also believe that this settlement can be celebrated as a well-tested, robust, and sustainable deal, negotiated with humility and consideration for the affiliate’s neighbouring iwi.

The Crown has learnt important lessons from this experience, and will be infusing those lessons into settlement negotiations into the future. The first lesson is that we can be more flexible within the policy framework around negotiations. The second lesson is that we need flexibility to deal appropriately with a whole region when we negotiate settlements within that region. Because of the success of the affiliate Te Arawa and central North Island settlements, we have been able to reach agreements in principle with Ngāti Manawa, and to begin negotiations with Ngāti Mākino and Waitaha—indeed, we expect to announce agreements in principle with those two groups in the very near future—Tāpuika, Ngāti Rangiwewehi, Raukawa, and Ngāi Tūhoe. With relatively minor adjustments made to the settlement process, we have enabled these groups to come to the table at the right time in order to ensure that their interests are protected when we negotiate with their neighbours. This is achieving major results.

The package in this settlement is substantive. In addition to the quantum of $38.6 million and the entitlement to a similar level of accumulated rentals, determined according to the mana whenua process of the central North Island collective, the affiliate Te Arawa iwi and hapū will receive a formal apology from the Crown for historical breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi, an amended financial redress package to reflect Te Pūmautanga o Te Arawa’s participation in the central North Island collective settlement, the transfer of 19 areas of Crown-owned land of special significance to the affiliate Te Arawa iwi and hapū, and redress that will enable increased input into management over Crown-owned land and protocols with various Government agencies.

I am very pleased and humbled to acknowledge all those of Te Arawa and the Crown who have worked to make this day possible. In particular I would like to acknowledge Rāwiri Te Whare, who cannot be here today because he is overseas—taking a well-deserved holiday, I hope. But I recognise the other leaders in the gallery today. Rāwiri’s tenacity and wisdom, and his leadership over the past several years, have steered the claim through some very challenging times. I also acknowledge the chairman of Te Pūmautanga o Te Arawa, Eru George.

I express my thanks to my predecessor, the Hon Mark Burton, for his commitment to seeking the resolution of Te Arawa’s claims. I am also grateful for the assistance of my colleagues, including the Minister of Conservation, who has proved flexible yet firm in defence of conservation; the Associate Minister of Finance, who has proved firm and then flexible; the Minister of Māori Affairs; and the Associate Ministers in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations. I also pay particular tribute to the Crown officials in this case—a joint move between particularly Treasury and the Office of Treaty Settlements, led by a very senior Treasury official, Mark Jacobs.

I look forward to seeing this bill becoming law, and the formal transfer of redress around the middle of next year, in tandem with the central North Island collective settlement. Settlement date for the central North Island collective is 1 July, and it is therefore planned that this bill will come into operation on 2 July. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National): Te Arawa waka, Te Arawa iwi, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

[To the Te Arawa canoe, to the Te Arawa people, greetings to you, greetings to you, greetings to us all.]

I greet my relatives in the gallery. This is a proud day for them, for us, and I offer my congratulations again, as I did in the first reading debate. Having been involved with this process for some years now, I know how difficult it is finally for an iwi to reach this stage, and those who are sitting in the gallery today can rightly feel proud of themselves for what they have achieved.

I want to read the text of the apology in the bill, because, obviously, without the apology it would be very hard for any settling group to move forward. Clause 8, “Text of apology” states: “(1) The Crown recognises the efforts and struggles of the ancestors of the Affiliate in pursuit of their claims for redress, justice, and compensation and makes this apology to the members of the Affiliate, to their ancestors, and to their descendants. (2) The Crown profoundly regrets and unreservedly apologises to the Affiliate for the breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles, acknowledged in section 7. (3) The Crown profoundly regrets and unreservedly apologises for the cumulative effect of its actions over the generations, which have undermined tribal structures and had a damaging impact on the landholdings and development of the Affiliate. (4) Accordingly, the Crown seeks to atone for these wrongs and assist the process of healing with this settlement, and looks forward to building a relationship of mutual trust and co-operation with the Affiliate.”

Thereupon lies the platform that enables Te Arawa to move forward from today and to do so in a new spirit of cooperation and engagement with the Crown. With that apology, the Crown, on behalf of the people of New Zealand, atones for the wrongs it has committed against Te Arawa—and that is hugely important—and to itself then restores some of the honour lost when these breaches occurred, basically starting from 1867. The Affiliate Te Arawa Iwi and Hapu Claims Settlement Bill is the final settlement of all historical claims of the iwi and hapū represented by Te Pūmautanga o Te Arawa. It results from acts or omissions by the Crown prior to 21 September 1992, and it is made up of a package that the Hon Dr Cullen has basically put forward this morning.

It is important for all to know, particularly those within the Te Arawa area, that no private land is involved in the redress, only Crown assets. It is also important for the wider community to know that with the passing of this bill into law, the ability for Te Arawa henceforward to bring further any matter that results from the claims that are settled here, is gone. So I hope that the people of Rotorua and the wider surrounds see this as the positive step that it is, because it is positive.

Indeed, the settlements that have been in place now since the early 1990s under the stewardship of the Rt Hon Douglas Graham have proven that these settlements are not just for Māori—they are not just for the tribe that settles—they are for the wider community, and they are for New Zealanders. As I say, they are something that we all can be proud of as a small country. Other jurisdictions look to us—they are quite admiring of our efforts in this regard—and all New Zealanders can be proud.

I want to make reference to the select committee hearings. There will be those who made submissions on matters that we traversed yesterday in the Committee stage who will still be feeling aggrieved. I would like the affiliate to consider that the representatives—the trustees of this settlement—endeavour to bring into the settlement those who still lie outside of it, because, in the end, the children, the mokopuna, and the tamariki are all ours, and they all deserve to benefit. So to have some sitting to one side is of no benefit to anybody. I know that my whanaunga, some of whom are here today, will endeavour to do that—to bring into the fold of this settlement, which is a hugely important settlement, those who still sit outside it. I commend to the leadership that, for the well-being of the tribe going forward, they put those matters to the forefront of their minds once this bill has passed into law.

I am very proud to be a member of this House when these settlements go through. Indeed, the Treaty settlement process was a major reason for my entering Parliament in the first place. Now I see in the House settlements that emanate from my own area, and I am very pleased that the present Government has negotiated these. It puts me in a position where I can offer some praise and take some pride in them, without looking like I am taking any praise for myself. I know the Māori members on the Labour side understand that. This settlement will be a great boost for the central North Island, together with the “Treelords” deal, which we will be considering shortly. With the issues surrounding the Waikato River, which flows into our area—which we will also be considering later in the day—these are very huge steps forward.

I commend the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations for the vigour, the enthusiasm, the passion, and the understanding he has brought to this process in the last 12 months. I suppose I can only say that it is a pity he was not in that position earlier, and I say that without any disrespect to his colleagues who held the position before him. But this process does require passion. It requires an understanding of the complex issues involved—and they are hugely complex—and it requires enthusiasm, compassion, and a love for the people of New Zealand for these matters to move forward. Without that—without love, respect, and humility towards New Zealanders—these things are harder to achieve.

I guess the other thing that is shown here is that when the right conditions are in place the iwi will step up to the plate. I also commend Te Arawa for stepping back, albeit that in the end there was no choice given the Waitangi Tribunal findings and also actions in the High Court. But I do commend Te Arawa for stepping back to allow the Crown to go into the central North Island and negotiate the other claim—the central North Island claim—which could have been done only with Te Arawa stepping to one side and letting those interests be explored and also concluded.

So as a member of the Te Arawa waka, this is a proud day for me. I am very pleased to be here and to see this day come for the affiliate and for all of us. I wish those in the gallery well as they move forward. The hardest part is probably now as the affiliate goes forward, because now it actually has the assets, and it has the responsibility of making sure that those assets are well managed and that, more than anything, those assets accrue benefits for all the members of Te Arawa, each and every one, and especially our children and mokopuna.

I wish Te Arawa well in their journey. We are there, of course; we are all involved. I congratulate Te Arawa on their patience, their forbearance, and on staying with the kaupapa that has been pursued by tīpuna before them. No doubt if they are looking down now, they will have a big smile on their faces, and rightly so, and Te Arawa can have that as well. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

Hon MITA RIRINUI (Associate Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): Ā, tēnā koe kai te Kaihautū o te Whare nei. He paku noa iho tāku tū, me tautoko ake i ngā kōrero kua kōrerohia i roto i te Whare i tēnei rā e pā nei ki tēnei pire a Te Arawa. Otirā, me mihi ake ki tērā o ngā kaumātua, mai rā i te iwi o Te Rōroa, mai i te Tai Tokerau nāna i tū i roto i te Whare inapō, kia kōrerohia tana kōrero whakamutunga. Nō reira, kai te rangatira Clem, te Kaikōrero Āwhina o te Whare nei, nāu nei i kōrerohia tō hītōria ki a tātau kia mārama ai tātau katoa ko wai koe, nō hea koe, he aha ngā tūāhuatanga e pā ana ki a koe? Otirā, ki tō whānau me te iwi rā o tērā wāhi a Te Rōroa. Nō reira, tū whakaiti noa iho tēnei ki mua i a koe, tēnā koe, tēnā koe, tēnā koe.

Huri atu rā ki a Te Arawa whānui tonu, mihi tonu rā ki te Ariki Nui, ki a koe e Tumu nāu nei tātau i tautoko i ngā rā kua taha ake nei. Nāu tonu i ārahi mai tō iwi mai i Ngāti Tūwharetoa kia tautokohia ngā pire e rua ka tū ki roto i te Whare i tēnei rā.

Otirā, e te Kaihautū aroha mai, kīhai hoki au kia huri atu ki te reo o Tauiwi i tēnei wā. Otirā, ko te hunga kua tatū mai i roto i te Whare nei, ā, me rātau kua haere ā-tawhiti mai, kai te tino mārama.

Nō reira, Te Arawa waka, Te Arawa tangata, tēnei rā tā koutou mōkai e tū whakaiti nei ki mua ki a koutou i runga i te kaupapa, i ārahi mai rā koutou mai rā i tērā o wā tātou rohe, mai i Maketū ki te tonga, mai i Ngā Kurī a Whārei ki Tihirau. Ko tātau anō tērā. Nō reira, mihi ake ana ki a koutou mō te mārō, me te humārie o te kaupapa nei i ārahi mai rā e koutou. Kua kōrerohia e te Minita mō ngā Take Raupatu, a Tākuta Michael Cullen, ngā kōrero katoa e pā ana ki tēnei o wā tātau kerēme. I kōrerohia e ia te hītōria, ngā piki me ngā heke i tau mai ki runga i ō koutou pokohiwi ngā taumaha kua taha ake nei. Nō reira, me pēhea rā te kōrero māku? Me pēhea rā te kōrero māku, kua oti katoa rā?

Nō reira kei ōku kaumātua, e Ānaru, e Rangi, taku tuakana, e Eru me tērā o tō koutou kaiwhakawhiriwhiri, kaiwhakahaere, kaiārahi, kaitohutohu, kaipakanga, a Rāwiri, kua whiti atu ki tāwāhi. Tēnei rā te tautoko ake i ngā mihi ki a ia mō tōna humāriatanga. Nāna tātau i ārahi i runga i te huarahi tika, kia tutuki pai ai tēnei kerēme e pā nei ki a ngāi tātau a Te Arawa. Mihi kau ana hoki au ki ngā Minita nā rātou i tautoko. Mihi kau ake ana ki te Minita Māori, nāna i kī mai ki a mātau, kia kaha rā. Ahakoa ngā piki me ngā heke, kia kaha rā ki te kaupapa o tēnei kerēme. Ā, me tēnei rā, mai rā i Te Tai Tokerau, Ngaī Takoto Te Aupōuri me tōna kaha ki te tohutohu, ki te kōhekeheke rānei, koi nā te kaupapa o tēnei tangata e āwhina nei i te kaupapa. Me te mihi anō ki tā koutou mema mai i Rotorua, ko ia rā te Minita mō Te Atawhai o ngā Ngāhere kai raro i te Karauna, a Steve Chadwick. Ko ia tētahi i tautoko. Nō reira, piri katoa mai ngā Minita i runga i te karanga o Te Arawa kia tautoko ake i te kerēme, kia tutuki pai ai.

Ahakoa ngā piki me ngā heke o ngā rā kei te heke mai, tae atu ki te waru o Nōema, ko te mea nui kua tū mai tātau i roto i te Whare i runga i te kaupapa, kua horahia nei. Me te mihi anō ki tēnā o tātau tuahine, ahakoa tana kōrero, he kōrero whai pōti, kai te pai, kai te pai, kai te pai. Tū ana ahau ki te tautoko i ngā kōrero katoa kai roto i te Whare nei. Koia rā anō, kīhai tonu tēnei ki te huri atu ki te reo o tauiwi e kī nei, ko te reo tāhae whenua, kai te pai. Kei waenganui i a tātou te wairua o koro mā, o kuia mā, ngā taonga, ngā kōrero, ngā whakataukī katoa i whakarere iho nei e rātou i te wā hei huarahi mō tātau. Nā runga i tēnei, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

E te Kaihautū, kīhai hoki au e huri atu ki te whakamārama i ngā kōrero, kai te pai. Waiho mā tēnei o ngā rangatira e kaha ana ki te kōrero i te reo o Tauiwi, e whakamārama. Nō reira, nā runga i tēnā, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, kia ora tātou katoa.

[Greetings to you, Madam Assistant Speaker. I will be brief. I endorse the previous speakers in this House in relation to this bill of Te Arawa. I would like to acknowledge that elder from Te Rōroa, from the north, who stood in the House last night to deliver his final speech. So to you, the patrician, Clem, Deputy Speaker of this House, last night you gave your farewell speech in which you gave us glimpses of your history and personal insights, your family links, and your tribe, Te Rōroa. So I humbly acknowledge you: greetings, greetings, and greetings to you.

I turn to acknowledge the representatives of the broader Te Arawa confederation; and to the noble house of te Heuheu: your support, Tumu, was crucial in making progress. You led Ngāti Tūwharetoa in support of the two bills passing through the House today.

I plead your indulgence, Madam Assistant Speaker: I will not speak English. I know that the people present, including those who have come a distance, understand clearly my words.

To the ancestral canoe of Te Arawa, to the people of Te Arawa, I stand here, your servant. You have left your lands that stretch from Maketū to Tongariro to attend to this matter. And to my other people of the territories that stretch from Ngā Kurī a Whārei ki Tihirau, I greet you and praise the strength and the dignity you have displayed. The Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, Dr Michael Cullen, has spoken comprehensively on this claim. He gave a comprehensive history of this claim and the burdens you have carried down through the years. What can I possibly add? It has all been said.

To my elders Ānaru and Rangi, to my kin Eru, and to your negotiator, manager, leader, guide, fighter, Rāwiri, who is currently overseas, I support previous statements attesting to his gentle demeanor. He led us on the right path to achieve completion of this claim for us, the people of Te Arawa. I would like to thank the Ministers involved—the Minister of Māori Affairs, who urged us to be steadfast in this claim, no matter the trials and tribulations; and to this member from the north, from Ngāi Takoto and Te Aupōuri, who advised and chastised us to achieve more; and lest we forget, your local Rotorua member of Parliament, Steve Chadwick, the Minister of Conservation, who gave her support. It can be said, the Ministers of the Crown came together in response to the call of Te Arawa to support the claim to its completion.

Regardless of the ups and downs in the days to come, including 8 November, the main thing is we stood in this House to support the bill presented here. I acknowledge our sister; although her speech was merely chasing votes, it is good. I support all the speeches here in the House. I will not speak English, the language, it is said, of one who steals land. The spirits of the elders have come amongst us—their treasures, their stories, their sayings show the path to follow. So on that note, greetings to you, greetings to you, and greetings to you all.]

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Minister of Māori Affairs): Tautokotia ngā kōrero i kōrerotia atu a tō tātau Tākuta a Dr Cullen mō te āhua o te kerēme nei. E mihi kau ana i a koe e Michael, Georgina, Mita, me ngā kanohi Māori i konei e whai atu ā muri a te take nei. Tēnā koutou. I a koutou e Hōri o Raukawa, e mihi kau ana, tēnā koe. E Bill i a koe me tōku whanauanga kai te noho tata ake anō i a koe, i a koutou o Ngāti Manawa, e mihi kau ana. E Rangi, e Ānaru, e tautokotia ana ngā whakaaro o Eru mō tērā tangata e kī atu a te tākuta nei, kua rere haere ake anō ki Itāria. E mōhio ake anō tātau. Nō reira, e mihi kau ana ki a koutou katoa o Te Arawa. Me koutou e Matt mai i Tūhoe, tēnā koutou. Tēnā koutou mō tō koutou kaha ki te whakatū ā muri a wēnei. I a koutou hoki o Ngāti Whakauē, me a koe e Te Ariki Nui e Tumu. Tēnā koe. Tēna koe mō tō kaha mai i te hui tuatahi mō ngā iwi katoa, mō tō kaha, tō āhua tū pakari pērā i a rātou o Te Pūmautanga. Nō reira tēnā tātau.

He nui atu ngā whakaaro mō te āhua o tēnei pire. I tū kaha te āhua o te pakihi, o te umanga me te pai o te oti pēnei tonu. Nō reira tēnā tātau.

[I support Dr Cullen’s comments regarding this bill. Congratulations Michael, Georgina, Mita, and others who will follow me. Thank you. Greetings, Hōri of Ngāti Raukawa, and to you, Bill, and my kin sitting near you, and all of Ngāti Manawa. To you, Rangi and Ānaru, I support the praise by Dr Cullen for the other leader who has gone to Italy for a holiday—congratulations, Te Arawa. And congratulations to you, Matt and Ngāi Tūhoe, on your work; and also to Ngāti Whakaue. Mention must be made of Tumu te Heuheu. Thank you for your strength and persistence, right from the first pan-tribal meeting—similarly, Te Pūmautanga. Thank you all.

There is so much more that I could say about this bill. The business and commercial sides are sound; this matter has been completed satisfactorily. So greetings to us all.]

Yesterday one was feeling an urgent need for tomorrow, and we are here today in yesterday’s tomorrow. It is certainly a great time and a great day for Māori to celebrate. Along with Dr Cullen I recognise the greatness of the Māori leaders who have had the wherewithal to make sure that this has happened. They have decided and defined how to take this forward, along with the Crown. I commend the leadership of Dr Cullen, and I commend Mita Ririnui and Mr Jones for the effort they have put into it, and all members of Parliament.

Just to reiterate what Dr Cullen has said, I say this is a great day for all New Zealanders. The fact that Māori have played a key role in it is something that we need to recognise, and the fact that at times the off-line kōrero gets out into space is another issue. We are here today, which will be all of the tomorrows as we go forward—the future for Māori.

I recognise Te Ariki Dr Tumu te Heuheu’s leadership, not just his paramountcy but the leadership that is recognised by a whole lot of Pākehā in this country. He is as elaborate and successful as any corporate leader, but being the rangatira that he is, he is, of course, better in our Māori hearts and minds, and I commend him for that.

I recognise Wira Gardiner, Matt te Pou, and all of the officials from the Office of Treaty Settlements, from Treasury, and from Te Puni Kōkiri for the effort they have put in. And, of course, I recognise myself and everybody else from the Crown who has been involved. Nobody says that, so I thought I would suggest it. I also recognise the rest of the Māori faces, my friend Tau Henare, and these ones over here—te Rōpū Māori. I want to mihi to koutou e Rangi, Ānaru, e Eru.

You know, it takes a lot of stomach—guts, in the ground language—to step back, to step aside, so that people can step within to step forward, and that is what has happened. This process has helped a whole lot of people to step forward, and for that it will be etched in history. The great deeds done through the foresight of the leadership will be remembered by the mokopuna of all these great iwi. This leadership stands alone and stands alongside the better leadership in this country. For that I commend these people, and I commend the bill to the House. Kia ora tātou.

CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National): As my colleague Georgina te Heuheu said, National supports the third reading of the Affiliate Te Arawa Iwi and Hapu Claims Settlement Bill and congratulates all those who have put so much work into it. I believe that above all this bill is evidence of statesmanship by the affiliate, which has shown a huge willingness to compromise. As the Minister rightly said, huge generosity of spirit was shown by the affiliate’s leaders throughout this entire process. That has resulted in this settlement and the central North Island settlement, which we will consider shortly. I have always enjoyed my meetings with the leaders of Te Arawa. They are principled and they are patient, especially in the face of delay and disappointment. To paraphrase what a former English judge said of himself—probably incorrectly—they have every Christian virtue except resignation; they have soldiered on very well. A third reading is not the place for reviewing the mistakes of the past. Now we must all move forward in a spirit of generosity.

I do not think I need detain the House for very long in reporting to it what the Committee stage of the bill yielded. There were a number of amendments, which, I believe, improve the bill. The first, which should cause large numbers of the public to be more relaxed, concerns public access. A number of clauses have been inserted to emphasise the fact that public access is to continue and public right-of-way easements will be granted. There are a couple of other minor changes in the first Supplementary Order Paper, and another was tabled yesterday by the Minister to make a minor change to clause 12, dealing with the definition of affiliate historical claims. I agree with what he said in the Committee stage. Probably, in legal terms, the addition of new subclause (5), to deal with the issue of airspace over Rotorua airport and the neighbouring marae is unnecessary, but for avoidance of doubt it is good to include it.

I, too, like my colleague, want to refer to the apology, because I do not believe that the acknowledgments and the apology should be regarded as pro forma statements in the bill; I believe they are very important indeed. I particularly refer to clause 8(4) of the apology, which emphasises the fact that the Crown seeks to atone for the wrongs that are referred to in the acknowledgments, and looks forward to building a relationship of mutual trust and cooperation with the affiliate. It is one thing to acknowledge the failings of the past, and it is another to atone for them, but it is very important to work together to build a relationship of mutual trust and cooperation with the affiliate in the years to come. I say that because, in my opinion, there have been a number of Treaty settlements where the Crown has signed the deed, the legislation has been passed, and then sometimes the mistakes of previous times begin to be committed again because people have forgotten there is a new relationship, and there is an obligation on the Crown to act according to the terms of the deed and the legislation. In this legislation there are many positive obligations on the Crown, which it is obliged to carry out.

So the emphasis is on atonement, and I certainly hope that in the years to come, as the deed is given effect to, there will be proper notice made of what has been done in the past, and the mistakes of the past will not be repeated. As my colleague said, Treaty settlements require good faith on both sides. They require compromise, patience, and enthusiasm—what I would say is a kind of “We’re all in this together” kind of approach—and that has certainly been evidenced here. The last thing we need in Treaty settlements is arid legalism and obsession with process. I believe that that is why, at times, things have gone off the rails, but I think we are probably on the right path again.

I congratulate all those present on their achievements. I know that those in the gallery will forgive me if I single out one person, my former partner at Bell Gully, Roger Drummond, with whom I have worked on Treaty matters in years gone by. I know how much he enjoyed working on this matter. It was not just another brief but a real opportunity to play a part in the future of this country. I congratulate him and his team on all they have done.

National supports the third reading of this legislation. It is a great day for Te Arawa iwi, and we certainly hope we shall have the opportunity to work with them in the future.

PITA PARAONE (NZ First): Ā, tēnā koe Madam Assistant Speaker, ā, tēnā tātou o te Whare nei. Engari, i mua i te haere tonu, e hiahia ana au kia tautoko ngā mihi i mihia atu ki a koe e te rangatira, e Clem, i muri mai i tō kōrero mutunga inanahi. E hiahia ana au kia mihi atu ki a koe mō tō kaha ki te ārahi i te Whare i te wā e noho ana koe ki runga i te Tūru o te Whare nei. Nā reira, ngā mihi. Ko te tūmanako ngā manaakitanga o Te Runga Rawa ki runga i a koe me tō whānau hoki. Nā reira, tēnā koe.

Nā, ka huri aku mihi e Madam Assistant Speaker ki ēnei o ngā rangatira i tau mai i te hau kāinga, mai i ngā waka e hia rānei engari ko te mea nui, ngā whanaunga. Nā reira i runga i te āhuatanga o ēnā kōrero, hiahia ana kia mōhio mai tēnei Whare ahakoa, e hore kau i taka mai ngā hua o tēnei pire ki runga i a au mai i Ngāti Hine engari e tika ana, kia hakahuangia te whanaungatanga ki waenganui i a mātou o Ngāti Hine, ki a rātou kua tae mai nei. Nā reira koutou ngā rangatira kua tai mai nei, ka nui taku mihi nā te mea, nā koutou i kawe atu tēnei kaupapa kia tae pai ki mua i te aroaro o te Whare nei, i te rā nei. Nā reira, ka nui taku mihi ki a koutou, pau te kaha.

[Greetings to you, Madam Assistant Speaker, and to us of this House. Before I continue, I would like to endorse the acknowledgments made by other members to you, Clem Simich, the chief, at your valedictory speech yesterday. I commend your work and leadership as Deputy Speaker of the House. May the blessings of the Almighty above be upon you and your family.

Madam Assistant Speaker, I turn now to greet the leaders present in the House; they represent many tribes, but have come together in kinship. I would like the House to know, although this Ngāti Hine person will not receive benefits from this settlement, it is right to proclaim the kinship ties between Ngāti Hine and the tribes here. I applaud you, the leaders; it was you who progressed this matter to this stage where the House is considering the bill today. I therefore admire you and your efforts greatly.]

On behalf of New Zealand First, I join with previous speakers to express our sentiments of welcome to our esteemed guests who have been responsible for bringing this bill to the stage we are debating today and who will be responsible for subsequent bills that we will be debating further on.

I took the opportunity to acknowledge the Hon Clem Simich, given that this is probably his second to last day here in the House, and to acknowledge the work he has done in bringing order to the House whenever he has sat in the Chair you now occupy, Madam Assistant Speaker. I acknowledge that not only because of his long service but also because of the fact that he is from Te Tai Tokerau, and is affectionately known as a “gumdigger”—nā reira e te whanaunga, tēnā koe. But I digress.

I stand in support of the Affiliate Te Arawa Iwi and Hapu Claims Settlement Bill, and I say that this is a very, very important day, not only for the affiliate hapū and iwi of Te Arawa but also for us as a nation. I feel privileged to be part of this debate, and part of what will form the overall history of our country. This has been a long journey for the affiliate Te Arawa iwi and hapū. It has come not without sacrifice, and I think it is only right that we acknowledge Rāwiri Te Whare and his team. I personally acknowledge all of those who have led the discussions and the negotiations that have allowed this bill to come before the House at this time. They have, I believe, exercised great patience.

When we talk about settlements, there is always the question of whether the settlement has been fair. I again quote the comments that Rāwiri has often made during this whole process: “Is this a just settlement or is it just a settlement?”. We know that however hard we might try to ensure that there is a fair and just settlement, circumstances are such that the claimants invariably make some sacrifice. But that sacrifice is made willingly, in the final analysis. Initially, and rightly so, there was some objection, but at the end of the day the claimants left the table knowing that they had represented their people to the best of their ability, and that they had the task of taking back to their people what had been offered to them. They have done that. Quite clearly, as a result of the support they have been given, we are now discussing the Affiliate Te Arawa Iwi and Hapu Claims Settlement Bill in its third reading.

Of course, there will always be members of the iwi and the hapū who will have a different view. I think the good thing is that that is their right. Having expressed that contrary view, it then becomes incumbent on the leadership of the hapū and the iwi to assure those who have expressed some disquiet about the settlement that what they have been able to receive is the best they could have received, and, more important, to explain how the benefits of that settlement will filter down to the beneficiaries. If the leaders feel it has been a major task for them to get to this stage, I would suggest to them that they have a greater task not only to ensure that the proceeds from the settlement are managed in a way that is beneficial to the hapū and the iwi but also to manage those proceeds so that beneficiaries are able to receive the benefits of this settlement.

I understand that the chairman of Te Pūmautanga o Te Arawa is overseas. I suggest that the process of settlements is a little bit like politics. We know that when leaders of political parties disappear overseas, and once the task has been achieved—or has not been achieved—when they come back they find themselves replaced. I hope that is not the case for Rāwiri. But that is one of the tasks the current leaders will need to address, and I know they will. That task is to ensure that the proceeds from the settlement are managed well and to the benefit of their beneficiaries, that they are able to grow the settlement proceeds, and that they are able to distribute them in due course to their beneficiaries.

I conclude by saying that, as for all good leaders, it is advisable for leaders to look behind them, from time to time, to ensure that the people they purport to lead are still there. If they are not, their leadership comes into question. I have no fear about the leaders’ awareness of the task that lies before them. It is one thing to get the quantum from the settlement; it is another to be able to manage it to best advantage for their people.

Nā reira e tātou mā, koutou ngā iwi, ngā hapū o Te Arawa, ka nui ngā mihi ki a koutou. Ahau nei nā, nō Ngāti Hine, kei te totohe tonu mātou i tēnei rā, tino kaha ana tōku pūhaehae ki a koutou. Engari, e pai atu tēnā. Waihotia wēnā kōrero ki a au. Engari i tēnei wā, nā koutou te rā, nā reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, huri noa ki tēnei o ō tātou Whare, kia ora mai anō tātou.

[So to all of us, to you the people and subtribes of Te Arawa, huge greetings to you. I in particular of Ngāti Hine, who are still disagreeing with each other today, really envy you. But that is fine. What is happening among us remains with me. But at this point in time, the day is yours, so greetings to you, greetings to you, and greetings to us all throughout this of our buildings. Thank you.]

SUE KEDGLEY (Green): Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa. On behalf of the Green Party, I too welcome the representatives of Te Arawa who are here today in Parliament on this historic day. The Green Party, like others before us, acknowledges that the bill is a historic settlement bill, and we are very pleased to support it. It is by far the biggest Treaty of Waitangi settlement with the Crown, involving 170,000 hectares of central North Island forest, and is significantly bigger than previous large settlements, including the Tainui settlement, the Ngāi Tahu settlement, and the Sealord deal. Indeed, some have referred to this as the “Treelords” deal, and there are similarities. Its income is derived from harvesting rights in the first instance, and although it does lay out a process for establishing mana whenua at some time in the future, in the meantime ultimate ownership of whenua is left undetermined.

The bill vests ownership of 86 percent of the central North Island Crown forest land, and the accumulated rentals of $222 million held in trust by the Crown Forestry Rental Trust, plus ongoing rentals, in the Central North Island Iwi Collective. These funds will be divided up among iwi collective members according to a percentage formula, and, in addition, Māori foresters will benefit from the emissions trading scheme.

So it is a significant outcome with significant economic benefits for many Māori, and, according to the bill, eventual ownership of the land will be determined on the basis of mana whenua in accordance with tikanga Māori. There is no dispute that negotiating this settlement is very, very significant. We give our respect to the negotiating team, such as Tumu Te Heuheu and others, for their very long and tireless work in negotiating this settlement.

The Green Party does, however, have a concern, which has been alluded to by previous speakers, that some small iwi and hapū can feel they are grist to the mill in a settlement process when there is a desire by the Government to negotiate a large settlement in a specific time frame. There are hapū and iwi for whom this bill constitutes a loss of land and mana, and we are concerned that the Government’s Treaty process enables breaches to continue, and that as a result no Treaty settlement is truly full and final or, indeed, can be felt by all to be truly just.

Nevertheless, the Green Party supports this bill. We acknowledge the enormous amount of work, effort, and determination it has taken on the part of iwi to bring it to this point. We congratulate those who have secured the settlement, and we also acknowledge the significant concerns that continue to exist and cannot be denied. We will continue to advocate for a Treaty breach settlement process that is determined by Māori rather than the Crown and that is therefore inherently more just. We wish Te Arawa and all of those iwi and hapū involved in this settlement the very best of luck for the future, and we acknowledge them on this historic day.

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki): Tēnā koe, Madam Assistant Speaker, kia ora tātau e te Whare, tātou kua hui mai nei i tēnei rangi hei tāpiritanga kōrero. Tāku i te tuatahi i mua o te tīmatanga mai o tēnei kōrero, kei te tautoko i ngā mihi ki te mema o te nota, e Clem. Ko koe tērā i kōrero nei, i kauhau nei i tō kōrero inapō. He rawe tonu te whakarongo ake ki ō kōrero e pā ana ki tō noho i te Whare Pāremata. Me mihi ki a koe, me tuku i a koe ki te haere i runga i te huarahi i whakarite mai ai e koe mōu. E ngā iwi o te kāinga kua tau mai ki te Whare Pāremata i tēnei rangi, nau mai, haere mai. Ehara i te mea e tika ana kia riro mā Te Arawa anō a Te Arawa e whakatau, nō reira, me waiho ngā whakatau ki nga kaikōrero i tū i mua i a au. Me kī kua ea ngā mihi, ko tāku he tautoko.

Kei te mōhio tonu au he rangi whakahirahira anō hoki tēnei mō koutou katoa te hunga kua tau mai i te rangi nei. Me pērā ka tika. Ka hoki ngā mahara ki ngā tau kua hipa ki te hunga kua ngaro. Nā rātou tēnei take i ārahi i te wā i a rātou, arā, ko Manuhuia tērā, ko Whakahuihui tērā, ko Pinda tērā, arā noa atu, arā noa atu.

E koro mā, e kui mā, hoki wairua mai. Whakarongo ki te ia o te kōrero, ki te matū o te kōrero me te tūmanako ia kua wātea koutou ki te kī, kua ea. Kei te mōhio tonu mātou, he ara tāpokopoko, he ara tīkoki te ara i haerea ai e koutou. Pēnei i te āhuatanga i pā mai ki tō tātou tupuna a Tamatekapua, me āna mahi pūremu i te haerenga mai ki Aotearoa nei, kua heke tā koutou waka ki roto i te Korokoro o Te Parata engari, pēnā anō i a ia kua puta te waka ki te whai ao, ki te ao mārama. Me kī kua ū te waka ki uta. Nō reira me mihi ka tika.

Ā, tēnā, ka pātai au i te pātai, he aha te take kua tau mai koutou, tātou ki konei i tēnei wā. I haere mai tātou i hea? Ko tōna tikanga, he whakatika i te hē te mahi. I hara te Karauna, i kōkirihia ngā nawe ki mua i te aroaro o te Taraipiunara o Waitangi, kia riro māna ngā take e wānanga, kua kī mai pea te Karauna, kua rahi, me whakatau i te nawe. I whai koutou i tēnei huarahi, ka mutu ngā kōrero i te rangi nei, kua ea te take mō tēnei wā. Engari, kāore pea wētahi i te mōhio mō ngā uauatanga.

Kua puta te nawe nā ngā mahi ā te Karauna. He mahi whānako te mahi, he mahi tinihanga te mahi. Ko te kooti ā-ture nei tētahi o ngā mea i te pūtake o ngā raru. Ko ētahi o koutou kua rongo i te āhuatanga o te Public Works Act. E pērā anō hoki mātou o Ngāti Rangiwewehi. I ngaro te whenua, i noho kore whenua te iwi. I te pērā i Ōkere, i Ōrākei Kōrako ka mutu, ko te whenua tonu o Ngāti Uenukukōpako, arā, kei korā te taunga waka rererangi o Rotorua ināianei. Kei a mātou o te Pāti Māori tētahi pire hei whakatikatika i tēnei mahi, ā, ka kōrerohia tērā i te hokinga mai ki te Pāremata hou. Hei whakamārama ake, kei te kī ake mātou, ko te whenua kua tangohia e te Karauna mō ngā kura rānei, mō ngā rori rānei engari, i te roanga o te wā, kua huri te pūtake o te tuku ki take kē, me whakahoki ki te iwi nō rātou tērā whenua, me tētahi utunga me kī. Koi nei tētahi take nui nei ki a mātou o te Pāti Māori.

Ko tēnei mahi o te whakatau i te raru rānei, i te nawe rānei ki tāku titiro, he mea hōhonu nei ki a tāua te Māori. Ko ētahi ka whakapau i te kaha, ka whakapau moni, ka noho i te mokemoke, ka noho i te rangirua, ka noho i te riri. He aha ai? Ko taua kāhui, he mōkai nō te iwi, he ringaringa mō te iwi. Ko ētahi pea, kāore e kore ka ruku ki te hōhonutanga o te take, ka tata toremi nā runga i te whakapono he nawe kei konei, me pakanga i te pakanga mō tōku iwi te painga, mō aku tamariki. Ki tāku mōhio, kei te pērā ētahi o koutou, kei te pērā hoki ētahi o tātou. He mahi uaua, he mea whakapau kaha. Mō te hunga i pērā rawa kia kitea mai i te rangi nei, ka nui ngā mihi. Ka kore e whakahua ingoa kei mahue ake i tētahi, kei kī mai pea wētahi, kei te mihi au ki a au anō. Waihotia ngā mihi ki a tātou anō mō te kāinga.

Arā anō ētahi take kāore anō kia tutuki noa, hoi anō koi nei te kōrero o wētahi i te hui o te komiti whaiti i Rotorua. Tuatahi mō Ngāti Whāoa. Kia mōhio mai koutou, kua tae mai tētahi tono a Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whāoa kia tangohia ō rātou ingoa i te pīre. Nā ngā tikanga o te Whare nei, kāore tērā i whakaaetia. Engari, ahakoa tērā he take ka puta ā tae noa ki te wā, ka tau te rongomau. E aroha atu ana.

Ka rua, i tae mai te tono a Te Maru o Ngāti Wāhiao ki te kī, he iwi tonu a Ngāti Wāhiao, he whenua anō ō rātou, i te pīrangi rātou kia tū motuhake engari kia tū, ki te taha o Tūhourangi. I puta anō hoki tēnei take i te hui a te komiti whāiti. Ko tā rātou, āe, he uri rātou katoa nō Tūhourangi pēnei i a au o Ngāti Rangiwewehi, a Ngāraranui, a wai ake o te kāinga engari, ko Tūhourangi anō a Tūhourangi, ko Ngāti Wāhiao anō a Ngāti Wāhiao. Āe, kua moe tētahi ki tētahi, āe, kotahi tonu te kapa haka, kotahi tonu te tū engari, i te noho āwangawanga rātou kei ngaro te mana motuhake o Ngāti Wāhiao ā-iwi nei. Ehara nāku ēnei kōrero engari, koia nei te tono.

I rongo a Rangipuawhe Maika i te kōrero nei, ā, i tere tonu tana whakautu ki te pātai a Tau Henare rāua ko Pita Paraone. Ko tāna, āe, kāre he paku raru ki te kī, Tūhourangi me Ngāti Wāhiao i roto i te pire nei. Mō mātou o te komiti i te harikoa. Kāore mātou i te pīrangi ki te whakatau i ngā take o ngā iwi engari, mō tēnei take i te harikoa mātou. I puta te tono, i whakaaetia te tono e tētahi waha kōrero matua o Te Pākira, o te tupuna nei o Wāhiao, kātahi te mahi pai. Nō te wiki i muri tata mai i hoki mai te kōrero ki te komiti whāiti, kāore ētahi i whakaae. Ehara i te mea, me waiho ake mā mātou e whakatau, kāo, engari he take tonu. Ko te tūmanako ka ata tirohia tēnei take ā te wā. He take nui i te mea, e hāngai tonu ana taua take ki te pire ka tae mai ā kō ake nei mō te Whakarewarewa, me kī mō te puia.

Nā Ngāti Uenukukōpako te karanga anō ki a mātou ki te tuku i t ētahi tāpiritanga ki te pire, kia kore te pīra e whakararu i tā rātou kerēme mō te taiao i runga ake o te taunga waka rererangi. Nā te Pāti Māori tētahi i tuhi i whakarite engari, i rongo te Minita mō te take nei, ā, ka takatūria e ia he Pepa Whakatau Tāpiri hei tiaki i tērā huarahi ki a koutou Ngāti Uenukukōpako.

Mō Ngāti Tūkiterangi. I rongo mātou nā te wareware nā te hapa rānei, kāore taua hapū i roto i te pire. Nā te Minita anō tērā i whakatika, nō reira, ka pai wōna taringa, i rongo i te kōrero. Nō reira, me whakanui ka tika. Ka hoki atu ētahi pānga whenua ki roto o ngā ringa o te iwi. E ai ki tāku rongo, e rua tekau mā whā ngā pānga whenua ka hoki ki te iwi.

Ko Te Whakarewarewa tērā, ko ngā whenua o Rotongata tērā, o Rotoatua anō hoki. Me pērā ka tika. Arā anō te pātai, he aha te roto mēnā kārekau he wai o roto? Kei a koutou te tono tuatahi mō ngā hua a te Karauna mēnā e hiahia ana a ia ki te hoko. Ka pai anō hoki tērā. Nō reira, mahia te mahi. Mahia te mahi mō te painga o ngā kāhui iwi kia taka ngā painga ki te wāhi e tika ana.

E Te Pūmautanga o Te Arawa, nō koutou tēnei rā i te taha o wētahi atu o ngā iwi kua tau mai i te rangi nei. Kei te aroha ake, kāore tōku rahinga i tō koutou taha engari, kei te pai. Kei te kōrero te Minita ki a Ngāti Rangiwewehi rātou ko Tāpuika, ko Waitaha, ko Ngāti Mākino. He rā tōna pea, ka tutuki pai ngā take katoa mō tātou katoa o Te Arawa.

Me pēhea hoki a muri ake nei? Kei a koutou te tikanga. Kua ea te wāhanga ki te Pāremata, kei a koutou ināianei. Hoea te waka kei aku rangatira. Ka hoki au ki raro i a Tiheia, ki te mimi o Pekehaua ki reira whakatika ai i tōku waka, kia noho anō te niao o tōku waka ki te taha o tō koutou waka. Kei te pērā anō hoki ētahi atu iwi o tātou. Kia eke ki tērā wā koia te whakatinanatanga o te kōrero, whaititiri ki te rangi, Te Arawa kei raro.

He kupu whakamutunga, kei te mihi ki ngā Minita, nā koutou te take nei i akiaki, i kōkiri. Ki a koe te Minita Tākuta Maikara Karana, ki a koe Parekura Minita o ngā Take Māori, kia koutou tō kāhui ki a Mita rāua ko Shane, kāre he mutunga mai o ngā mihi ki a koutou, i kaha nei ki te whaiwhai haere i tēnei kaupapa ki tōna mutunga. Kai aku rangatira, ka nui te mihi ki a koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, huri noa i te Whare i tēnei rangi, tēnā koutou katoa.

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

[Greetings to you, Madam Assistant Speaker, and to us all of the House, gathered here today to add to the debate. The first thing before I begin this address is to endorse the accolades to the member of the north, to you, Clem, and your valedictory address last evening. It was wonderful to listen to you as you went over your time in Parliament. I acknowledge you and wish you well in what you have planned to do. To the tribes from home who have arrived at Parliament today, welcome. It is not appropriate that Te Arawa greets itself, so I will leave the welcomes to those who have spoken before me. So I say the greetings have been dealt with and I am happy to support them.

I know that this is a great day for you all, the people who have arrived here today. And it is a great day. I reflect on the years that have gone by, and those who have passed on. It was they who led the way in their time, and I speak of Manuhuia Bennett, of Whakahuihui Vercoe, Pinda Pirika, and others.

Return, all of you, to this occasion. Listen to the debate and the depth of discussion, and I hope you can all say it is now finished. We all recognise that this has not been an easy journey that you here today have travelled. Our ancestor Tamatekapua, as we know, when on the trip from Hawaiki, committed adultery and descended into the whirlpool of Te Parata. Like him you were able to come out of the whirlpool to the world of light, and continue on the journey. So it is appropriate that I acknowledge you.

Now I want to ask what the matter is that brings us all here at this time. Where have we come from? In theory we are here to right a wrong. The Crown did wrong, a case was taken to the Waitangi Tribunal to consider, perhaps the Crown said: “Enough, let us settle the grievance.” You followed this path, discussion is now finished today, and the issue is put to rest at this point. But many may not be aware of the difficulties.

The grievance has come out of the deeds of the Crown. There have been theft and deceit. The courts of the land are one of the factors behind the grievances. Some of you may well have heard of the Public Works Act, just as we of Ngāti Rangiwewehi have. The land was lost; the people lived landless. It was like that at Ōkere, at Ōrākei Kōrako, even to the lands of Ngāti Uenukukōpako—that is, where the current airport stands. We of the Māori Party have a bill to deal with this matter, and it will be debated in the next Parliament. To explain, we say that land taken by the Crown for schools or roads, perhaps, but that over time has been used for some other purpose, should be returned to the people who lost the land, with compensation. This is a high priority for us of the Māori Party.

The matter of settling of claims has some significance to us as Māori. Some give their all, use their own money, experience loneliness and unsureness, perhaps anger. Why? Because they are the servants of the people. Some perhaps dive so deep into the issues that they almost drown, in the belief that if there is a grievance, one should fight the fight for the betterment of our people, of our children. As far as I know, this is the case for some of you. It is difficult work; it is draining. For those in that category, congratulations. I will not name individuals, in case I leave some out, and in case some accuse me of patting myself on the back. I will leave that for us when we get home.

I need to say that there are some unsolved issues, or at least this is what we were told at the select committee hearing in Rotorua. First, in regard to Ngāti Whāoa, you need to know that a submission has arrived to us from Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whāoa asking to have the name Ngāti Whāoa removed from the bill. Because of the rules of the House, these moves were ruled out of order. Despite that, it is an issue that will continue until things are sorted out.

Secondly, a submission was received from Te Maru o Ngāti Wāhiao to say that they are in fact an iwi in their own right, they have land and they wish to stand separate, yet beside Tūhourangi. This issue was also raised at the select committee process. To them, yes, they are all descendants of Tūhourangi, just like myself of Ngāti Rangiwewehi, like Ngāraranui and others from home, but Tūhourangi is Tūhourangi, and Ngāti Wāhiao is Ngāti Wāhiao. Yes, there has been intermarriage, and, yes, there is one culture group, they do stand as one, but some are concerned that the rights and sovereignty of Ngāti Wāhiao will be lost. This is not what I said, but it is in the submission.

I heard Rangipuawhe Maika in his quick response to the question from Tau Henare and Pita Paraone. He said, yes, there is no problem with referring to Tūhourangi and Ngāti Wāhiao in this bill. Now, we did not want to enter inter iwi issues, but on this matter we were very happy. The request was made to uncouple, it was agreed to by one of the senior speakers of Te Pākira marae, and Wāhiao, the ancestral house, and that was great. The week afterwards, we received advice that some had not agreed. It is not as if we can settle this now, but it is an issue. My hope is that this matter is dealt with shortly. This is an important matter because it affects a bill that will be presented shortly about Whakarewarewa.

Ngāti Uenukukōpako also asked us to add an amendment to the bill to ensure the bill would not compromise their claim over the airspace above the airport. The Māori Party wrote an amendment, but the Minister had heard about the matter and prepared a Supplementary Order Paper to protect your interests for you, Ngāti Uenukukōpako.

I move to Ngāti Tūkiterangi. We heard that through forgetfulness or just as a mistake, this hapū was not in the bill. The Minister also fixed that, so his ears are fine and he did hear the call. So it is appropriate that we celebrate. Land will be going back to the people.

From what I understand, 24 pieces of land will be returned from around Whakarewarewa, to the lake beds of Rotongata and Rotoatua as well. That is appropriate. There is still the unanswered question: what is a lake without water? You have the first option on Crown assets if they choose to sell. That is great. So go for it. Do what you have to do for the betterment of the people.

Te Pūmautanga o Te Arawa, this is your day along with other tribes. I am saddened that my tribe are not with you, but that is fine, because the Minister is talking with us along with Tāpuika, Waitaha, and Ngāti Mākino. A day will come when all of us of Te Arawa will have our issues settled.

So where to from here? That is up to you, now. The part for Parliament is complete—it is on you, from now. Paddle the canoe. I will return to Tiheia, to the water left by Pekehaua to prepare our canoe so it can lie at the side of your canoe. Others are doing the same. When that day comes it will be the embodiment of the saying: when lightning strikes, Te Arawa will be below.

In conclusion, I acknowledge the Ministers and the work you have done to move this matter and the negotiations along: the Hon Dr Michael Cullen, and the Hon Parekura Horomia, Minister of Māori Affairs, as well as the Hon Mita Ririnui and the Hon Shane Jones. Your efforts to bring this matter to its conclusion are greatly appreciated. So to you, my leaders, greetings to you, greetings to you, and greetings to us all throughout the House today, greetings.]

JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future): I stand to speak in support of the Affiliate Te Arawa Iwi and Hapu Claims Settlement Bill. United Future supports and congratulates Te Arawa iwi and hapū for achieving this settlement. We wish them well as they chart a positive way forward, better resourced to do so. We also support the relational aspects of the settlement, which see the Crown acknowledge and apologise for taking too long to respond to the grievances, acknowledge the failure to protect tribal structures, and acknowledge the failure to protect the interests of the iwi and hapū when purchasing land. We also note the new gratefulness that sees the Crown acknowledge the generosity of Te Arawa in gifting land of scenic significance to the nation, and their contribution and faithfulness as Treaty partners. Someone once explained to me that Māori back into the future, mindful of lessons learned in the past. I think this bodes well for the handling of this settlement. We thank Te Arawa for their graciousness and patience, and we acknowledge those who did not live long enough to see this day. We have great pleasure in supporting this bill’s third reading.

Hon TAU HENARE (National): Te mea tuatahi, mihi au ki a koe e te kaumātua o te Whare nei, Clem. Mihi kau atu au ki a koe me tō whānau, me ō koutou kōrero i roto i te Whare nei inapō.

[The first thing for me is to acknowledge you, Clem, elder statesman of this House. Greetings to you and your family, and for your words in the House last night.]

Acknowledging Clem Simich and his speech in the House last night, I am reminded of some Hansard I read 80 years, or rather from 80 years ago—I was going to say I read it 80 years ago, but I am not that old. My great-grandfather stood in this House and referred to the Dalmatians as Austrians.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: They were at that time.

Hon TAU HENARE: They were part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. I acknowledge Clem for both his Dalmatian side and his Māori side.

This settlement has been a long time coming. It has suffered a few speed wobbles on the way. If I look back at the first reading debate on this bill, which happened on Tuesday 24 June 2008, I see that it is actually a very, very short period between then and now. So I take this opportunity to congratulate members of the House and members of the Māori Affairs Committee, which I think is the best select committee in the whole House. I congratulate my colleagues from all sides of the House.

I want to mention very briefly the apology, the issuing of protocols, the vesting of certain properties, and the provision for whenua rāhui, amongst other things that are in the bill. One would expect those things in a Treaty settlement bill, would one not? Is it enough in terms of the quantum, and in terms of the return of land taken, mana taken, and so on, and so forth? Only time will tell. I am a believer that in this case, as in other cases, Te Arawa mana is intact and always has been. It has never been taken away from them, as we are so wont to talk about in Treaty settlements.

An issue arose out of the select committee, which I want to respectfully impress on the affiliate, and that is the coupling of Tūhourangi Ngāti Wāhiao. Many people in this House over the past 24 hours have told me and the House that it may not be appropriate for Parliament to be the adjudicator in that. If that is right—and I am in no way questioning that—then maybe the next step for the affiliate and those who are not too keen on the settlement is to work towards some sort of agreement and future with each other, rather than all the argy-bargy.

Just before a third reading speech, one is inundated with faxes and emails saying “Do this! Do that! Don’t do this! Don’t do that!”—all sorts of things. Although it is lovely to hear from so many people, the third reading speech should be about celebration. It should be about how proud the iwi and, I think, the House should be. But there should also be recognition of what a sad day it is—the process over the last 150-odd years has got us to where we maybe should have been 150 years ago. As a city slicker, as a born and bred second-generation Māori out of Ōtara—

Hone Harawira: Hī hā!

Hon TAU HENARE: Only another person from Ōtara would say that. So to my whanaunga, my tuakana, Hone Harawira, I say kia ora.

I ask that we city slickers are not forgotten. Let us not forget about those who may not be as knowledgable about where they come from. There are a whole lot of them living in Auckland, and there are a whole lot of them living in Wellington. There are even people of Te Arawa descent living in Christchurch, for goodness’ sake, and in even in Dunedin—and all over the country. So please do not forget—I hate the words “urban Māori” because there is only one sort of Māori and that is Māori—those Māori who live in urban areas. Please do not forget them.

Here is a little wiring diagram. I am sure the House is au fait with wiring diagrams as of the last couple of months—[Interruption]—and I say to Ron that he will not win the Māori vote. First of all, there is the Government. It takes a hell of a long time to screw out of the Government what is got out of the Government, whether it be an apology, whether it be money, or whether it be the return of land. Then that goes down to the iwi reps, and for a while the iwi reps are all happy because they have a cheque, they have a title to some land, and they have other things as well. So the reps are happy, and they go off to their little trust boards and say: “Righto boys and girls, what are we going to do about this? What are we doing to do with what we’ve got?”.

The next step down on this diagram is the people: the mums and dads, the aunties and uncles, the brothers and sisters. It does not really matter where they are from or what sort of walks of life they come from; they will always whakapapa back to the iwi. I am reminded of a term that the Rt Hon Winston Peters used successfully 10 or 15 years ago. He talked about the trickle-down theory and about the fact that it was not working. There was a trickle down, but it did not get down to the people it was supposed to get to.

I implore those who are in front of us today on this happy occasion to make the trickle down work. I ask them to make it work for all those people who make up the bulk of the iwi. It is not the trust boards and the rūnanga who are the iwi; it is the people who are the iwi. So I ask that we make an effort to see whether we cannot get this trickle down into a bit of a flood for those people who really need it. I am not saying for a minute that iwi take the responsibility of Government in fixing up all the social ills, the education ills, and so on, but I say that there are people out there in need of help in terms of the cultural paradigm, so please help those people, and particularly those people in the cities.

I want to give a special mention to Dr Cullen—and coming from me that is pretty big. He has had the sort of passion that can get things moving. I said in my first reading speech that I could not say that about the others, so I will not. But I say to Dr Cullen that it has been a pleasure to watch and be part of the process that he has involved himself in. Kia ora.

Bill read a third time.

Waiata; haka; karanga

Bills

Central North Island Forests Land CollectiveSettlement Bill

Third Reading

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): I move, That the Central North Island Forests Land Collective Settlement Bill be now read a third time. Greetings to the Central North Island Iwi Collective. It is remarkable that today we have arrived at the third reading of this bill, which embodies a historic journey and settlement. One of my favourite pieces of modern classical music is by American composer John Adams, and it is called Short Ride in a Fast Machine. By Treaty standards, this bill has been a short ride in a fast machine. On this journey I have acknowledged—as I do again today—the iwi of the collective, who have done so much to make today a reality. I particularly acknowledge the leadership and the initiative of Te Ariki Dr Tumu te Heuheu. His leadership in helping the Central North Island Iwi Collective to author an innovative response for settling the historical Treaty claims of the iwi in the collective of the central North Island forests land cannot be overestimated.

I thank each of the iwi of the collective for their leadership, their innovation, and, above all, their noble desire to work together and breathe new life into their relationships with one another—new life that is conceived in goodwill, and is a shared hope for the future. Therefore, I honour each of the iwi in turn: Ngāi Tūhoe Ngāti Manawa, Ngāti Tūwharetoa, Ngāti Whakaue, Ngāti Whare, Raukawa, and the affiliate Te Arawa iwi and hapū. I stand firm in my conviction that their children and the generations that follow them will honour their work in this settlement and the bill that we are passing today.

I also acknowledge the presence of representatives of Ngāti Rangitihi, who at the moment are not part of the collective, but who, I am told, had a very fruitful and good meeting at the weekend. I am hopeful that Ngāti Rangitihi will meet the Christmas deadline for being back within the collective and for being part of this settlement.

This settlement has been a journey from disunity to unity. The recent journey of the collective iwi to settle the historic claims over the central North Island forests land has not always been a united one. Central North Island forests land constitutes an asset of significant cultural and commercial value to a variety of iwi—iwi, however, whose collective cultural, historical, and spiritual interests are complex, fluid, and overlapping. So the forests land is potentially a source of division amongst the iwi, and, indeed, between the iwi and the Crown.

Division amongst both the central North Island iwi themselves, and the iwi and the Crown, reached a low ebb through 2006 and 2007 over the proposed transfer of some of these lands to the affiliate Te Arawa iwi and hapū. In 2006 the New Zealand Māori Council, the Federation of Māori Authorities, and others raised concerns about this redress through litigation in the High Court and the Court of Appeal. In 2007 the Waitangi Tribunal held an urgent inquiry into the impacts of the Crown’s forests land settlement policy on the Te Arawa waka and other central North Island iwi. But out of this disunity came unity. The Crown and the iwi of the collective heard the call of the Tribunal, which recommended that the iwi create a forum that would enable these iwi to determine amongst themselves the principles and other guidelines that would help determine how the central North Island forests land should be allocated.

The key initiative, as I said, was taken by Dr Tumu te Heuheu. Mark Burton was still the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations at the time. I remember having a discussion with Mark about what we should do in response to the initiative that Tumu was taking. I remember saying to Mark at the time that I thought we had about a 20 percent chance of success in achieving the goal but it was worth it, despite the fact that there had previously been, I think, three failures to achieve such a collective approach. By March I upped that estimate to some 50 percent chance of success, and here we are at the end of September with 100 percent chance of success, and, indeed, 100 percent support in the House.

All historical Treaty claims must be settled on the bedrocks of durability, good faith, finality, and fairness. Such claims must also be settled with a clear end in view. A time will and must come when the Crown and Māori live as partners under the Treaty: not restoring a broken past, but moving forward together into a healed future. It is for these reasons that the Government seeks to settle all historical Treaty claims by 2020. That target is realistic, but very hard to meet. The current pace will need to be maintained over the next decade.

The bill before us sets out a settlement that contains two elements that are vital to achieve this end. Each element is embodied in the unique way the collective and the Crown have found themselves playing their own roles. The collective, as the claimant group, has authored a proposed settlement, which it has put before the Crown. The Crown has worked with the collective to develop its proposal by adopting a flexible approach in applying the Crown’s existing policy frameworks. Put differently, the Crown has sought to achieve a settlement that, although not wholly consistent with existing settlement processes, remains fundamentally consistent with its key policy principles of durability, good faith, finality, and fairness. This approach must continue in order for us to settle all such claims by 2020.

The settlements have provided another lesson about the Treaty settlement process for the future. The Government has recently sought a regional approach to negotiations, rather than a large natural grouping approach. That is proceeding in the far north—with, again, surprisingly high prospects of success, which have increased only within the last couple of weeks or so—and, of course, at the top of the South Island. The Crown is seeking more and more, where possible, to negotiate with multiple groups in a common geographical area. This settlement shows that such a regional approach can work.

This settlement will provide significant opportunities for the iwi and the collective. These opportunities have birthed a further opportunity for the Crown and the iwi of the collective to work together to develop those opportunities as Treaty partners in a healed and restored relationship. The development of those opportunities will, in time, give new economic and social independence to the people of the collective iwi—an economic and social independence denied to past generations that will not be denied to future ones. At its deepest level this settlement is therefore not about restoring mana whenua, important as that is; it is about restoring the mana of the parties themselves to this settlement. To this end, this settlement—as do all settlements—embodies and echoes the deep principles of tikanga. He aha te mea nui o te ao? He tangata, he tangata, he tangata.

[What is the most important thing in the world? It is people, it is people, it is people.]

I emphasise that this is a comprehensive settlement of the Crown forests land issue. It is not a comprehensive settlement of all the claims of the iwi within the collective. There is much still to be done in that regard, but already out of this process have come other processes. As I indicated in the debate on the third reading of the Affiliate Te Arawa Iwi and Hapu Claims Settlement Bill, I expect to be able to announce soon the successful conclusion of agreements in principle with Ngāti Mākino and Waitaha. We are in the process of negotiations with Raukawa and Ngāi Tūhoe.

Today is a very important weigh station on our journey. This is a historic settlement, and, indeed, I think it is the first time that we have done two settlements in one day, in terms of the final stage of legislation. We shall move on to a third final settlement at the conclusion of this bill—the third reading of the Te Roroa Claims Settlement Bill—and then on to two first readings of Treaty settlements. So this is an extraordinarily important day indeed. The rest of the journey for the iwi in the collective whose comprehensive claims have not yet been settled begins tomorrow. Thank you very much.

Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National): Ā, e aku koroua, aku kuia, e ngā whaea, e ngā papa, e ngā tamariki, mokopuna, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

[So to my elders, men and women, aunties and uncles, children, grandchildren, greetings to you, greetings to you, and greetings to us all.]

I am very proud, once again, to be here in this House when such a unique settlement comes to pass. And, of course, I should raise the issue that my children, and my grandchildren—hopefully one day—are likely to benefit from this settlement. But it is not that, obviously, that makes me proud. It is that the iwi of the central North Island have finally stepped up to the plate, and that with great leadership shown on both sides—on the side of the Crown and of the iwi—we come to the third reading of the Central North Island Forests Land Collective Settlement Bill.

It is a unique settlement and deserves to be recognised as such. It provides a platform for a new approach, I think, to other Treaty settlements that are iwi-based but may in some certain circumstances span several iwi, and that is why the settlement is unique. It spans several iwi in the central North Island in this case. It brings them together over an interest that concerns them all, and, as Dr Cullen has rightly said, it is limited in that respect to the assets under the Crown Forest Assets Act 1989, and in that the historical settlements of each of the iwi involved in the collective are still to be addressed—that is the next part of this big job that faces an incoming Government.

I take on board the comments that Dr Cullen made about the momentum that has been generated on Treaty settlements in the last wee while. If both sides of the House are committed to an earlier settlement of all historical claims rather than a later one, and although we have different dates in mind, National certainly appreciates the fact that the momentum that has been generated must be picked up by an incoming Government after the next election. National members certainly give our undertaking that we will do that, and we recognise clearly that something that takes so long for both the iwi and the Government to get to deserves to be kept moving at pace. We will certainly do that, should we be privileged enough to take the reins of power after the election.

This settlement addresses only claims that relate, as I have said already, to the Crown forest licensed land in the central North Island and had its genesis in the Crown Forest Assets Act. It brings together, into one collective, several iwi or tribes. They are Ngāi Tūhoe, Ngāti Manawa, Ngāti Tūwharetoa, Ngāti Whakaue, Ngāti Whare, Raukawa, and the affiliate of Te Arawa—the House has just passed their claims settlement bill—and with the option for Ngāti Rangitihi to be brought into the collective, if that is desired by them and if it can be achieved. The option is certainly there; that is a unique aspect as well. The coming together into one collective is unique; an achievement not to be lightly passed over. Those of us who are involved in matters such as this, know how difficult it is for iwi to come together, even though there might be whakapapa relationships that span across all of them. This particular group of iwi have endeavoured to reach some kind of accord for some time—over a decade—so it is no mean feat that, finally, they have come to the table. They have managed to conclude a settlement, and, as I say, with energy on both sides, and commitment and a certain passion, and real leadership, that settlement has been achieved.

This bill makes provision for the vesting of the central North Island Crown forest land and the transfer of accumulated rentals in that land to an iwi holding company and that company has a huge responsibility facing it. It will enable those assets to be allocated to the iwi named in the settlement in terms of the land claims. The bill sets out the principles and processes by which the allocation of the lands is to be achieved. That is also a unique development, and that is set out in schedule 2. It is a tikanga-based resolution process for the central North Island forest lands, which, as I say, is something new in regard to land and is also unique in that not only was the settlement proposed by the iwi but also this resolution process, which basically calls upon the iwi themselves to take steps to share, or allocate, the land according to mana whenua, generally speaking. The Government has no role in that, and that is to be commended. Quite frankly, no one outside of the iwi concerned will have a better appreciation of how land should be allocated, other than the iwi itself.

This legislation presents great opportunity but also great responsibility. We were in the Committee stage on this bill yesterday and some comments were made about the responsibility that will pass to the iwi in making sure that fair processes are employed and that fair outcomes are achieved, and that there is a record of the proceedings that will progress the allocation of the lands. In the end we want to ensure that future generations will be satisfied that these things were done well, they were done properly, and that there will be no need for anybody to question, in the future, any of the outcomes. I commend this bill. It is a unique and absolutely wonderful development, but, as I say, it will take great leadership to ensure that allocation proceeds on the basis that everyone will accept, not just now but into the future.

The other thing that is unique, and I have mentioned it already, is that the iwi themselves brought this proposal to the Government. My hope is that in other regions, groups of iwi still to settle will see this bill as a basis that might be helpful for them. Indications from colleagues on the other side of the House, and particularly from the Hon Mita Ririnui yesterday, are that other regions, other iwi, are already looking to see whether they can come together in similar collectives to settle interests that are common to all of them. If that is the case, if this bill has been a springboard for that kind of development in the Treaty settlements process, then all the more reason why this claims settlement bill is so significant. For that alone, I congratulate the iwi. Even though this is my family sitting in the gallery, too often we do not give each other credit where credit is due, and I want to do that now, and do so now—

Pita Paraone: That’s what true whanaungatanga is.

Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU: Thank you. It is a wonderful development, and if we can keep the momentum going with those new initiatives, then I can see very clearly that we can look at a day, quite soon, when historical grievances can be put behind us.

This is a great day not just for the iwi of the central North Island but for New Zealanders. I am proud to be part of a country that has developed a process that genuinely addresses historical grievances of the indigenous peoples. Today the House will deal with five settlements bills, so this is a very neat day, particularly for Māori MPs in the House. It is a privilege to be here. It is a great day for the Parliament. It is a day when we can be assured that the honour not only of the iwi but also of the Crown is being restored. As I say, I am very privileged to be part of that process. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Minister of Māori Affairs): Ki a koutou i tae kaha, i tae tahi i te rā nei, e mihi kau ana. Ahakoa kua mihitia atu ngā mihi, e tika ake anō ki te mihi ake anō ki a koutou katoa. E Hōri mō ngā patopato o te wai o Raukawa, e mihi kau ana. Kai a koe e te whanaunga e Hēmi, kai a koe Bill, e mihi kau ana. Ki a koe tōku whanaunga, ahakoa e noho ake anō koe i roto i te maru o rātou Manawa, kaua koe e wareware anake mō tō whakapapa o Te Tai Rāwhiti, tēnā koe. E Ānaru, e Rangi, e Eru koutou katoa, ngā kaiwhakahaere, ahakoa kāre i tae atu ki te Pīhopa, e mihi kau ana ki a koutou, Hēnare, tēnā koutou. Ki a koutou o Tūhoe, e mihi kau ana ki a koutou katoa. Tēnā koutou. Nā te pai hoki e kite ake anō koutou e tū kaha ā muri ā te take nei. Nō reira, ki a koutou o Ngāti Whakauē, Ngāti Whare, e koutou, e mihi kau ana. Ki a koe Te Ariki e Tumu, tēnā koe. Tēnā koe mō tō kaha e mahi whakawhitiwhiti a te tino take nei. Ki a koutou te hoa o Rangitihi, kia kaha, kia māia. E rekareka ana ki te rongo ki te kōrero o te Tākuta nei a Michael, mō tō koutou nohotahi. Ahakoa ngā piki, ngā heke, e rite ake anō tērā ki te mahi a tauiwi i a rātau mā. Engari, kia kaha kei tae tahi ai tae noho pai ki te taha o wēnei e kōrero atu mō te āhua o te rākau. Nō reira ki a koutou katoa, tēnā koutou.

[To those who have travelled from afar to be here, congratulations. Although the formalities have been completed, it is right that I acknowledge you. Greetings, Hōri of Ngāti Raukawa. To my kin Hēmi, and you, Bill, congratulations. Hēmi, you have lived many years with Ngāti Manawa, but do not forget you come from the East Coast. Commendations to the leaders Ānaru, Rangi, Eru, and Pīhopa, although he could not attend today. Greetings to you and your group, Hēnare, and to the people of Ngāi Tūhoe. This bill will prove resilient and effective now and into the future. Congratulations to Ngāti Whakauē and Ngāti Whare. I extend acknowledgments to the leader, Tumu te Heuheu, for his strength in the development of this bill. To my friends of Ngāti Rangitihi, be strong, be steadfast. It was good to hear Dr Cullen talking about your stance. Despite the trials and tribulations, non-Māori are no different from us, they have similar disagreements amongst themselves. Be strong. We hope in time you will stand side by side with others of the collective. So congratulations to you all.]

I stand in support of the Central North Island Forests Land Collective Settlement Bill. The central North Island forestry settlement gives effect to huge steps forward for Māoridom, as Dr Cullen has pointed out. Through his able leadership and through the great leadership sitting in the public gallery we have come to a better place for this nation. If we are serious about talking about nationhood, then this surely is a great example for other people to watch, to ponder over, and to take cognisance of as to the way that we can get to a better place, even where there are difficult ups and downs.

I was very pleased to see that the bill passed its first reading with overwhelming support from the House, and I say to the other Māori faces in Parliament and to all members of Parliament: “Thank you for the support.” It was also pleasing to see that the majority of the submitters to the Māori Affairs Committee were supportive of the bill. The bill provides for the transfer of approximately $200 million worth of forest land and over $200 million worth of accumulated rentals to the iwi of the central North Island. This is significant for two reasons. First, the commercial assets will provide a solid base for the iwi involved to participate in real and sustained economic development, in the same way that this Labour-led Government has led and sustained the economy. The fact that we still stand strong as the rest of the world is struggling is certainly testament to Dr Cullen’s ability to keep the books well-balanced, and enables the nurturing of Māori to play a more positive and an active part in that economic development.

Secondly, the transfer of those assets has been key to settling the historical Treaty claims of the iwi involved. In giving iwi a platform to develop their economic assets, this settlement will benefit the whole country. It is really, really important to understand that a lot of these iwi do know how to manage their assets. They understand clearly the fundamentals of the macro and the micro, and of the future opportunities that will be available to them, in relation to the timber to be exported, milled at home, or whatever. Dr Cullen mentioned the weigh station. Well, when the truck pulls up at the weigh station to weigh those Māori logs, those Māori trees, it will be a great thing to celebrate. Certainly today that is the reason why we are here—to celebrate the participation of the Central North Island Iwi Collective, and its ownership.

It is pleasing to see that Pākehā New Zealanders are generally supportive of this bill. The collective is to be praised for agreeing to preserve current public access. I remind the members who are here in the House of all the doom and gloom that was preached about what would happen when this great asset was passed over to Māori. The fear that was brought about by scurrilous gossip from other members—

Hon Tau Henare: Ha, ha!

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: —such as the one laughing over there, was outrageous—outrageous! I say that it is certainly great, and it is a privilege and an honour to sit amongst like minds, who understand that Māori do know how to manage assets and that they want to create a succession plan that is real for the future generations, who are about to come and take part in this development.

Some of the submitters had concerns; the kaupapa was that they thought that the settlement would not happen. Dr Cullen, with the support of the House, has certainly brought us to a better place. In negotiating the central North Island settlement I was impressed with the spirit of generosity that iwi displayed towards each other. It is an example that other organisations, whether they be Pākehā or other people, could take a lesson from on how to get themselves sorted. There is a little bit that still needs to be sorted, but it is encouraging to hear that a lot of effort was put in at the weekend. The central North Island collective leadership is to be commended.

Hon Georgina te Heuheu: Who wrote that speech?

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: At times speechwriters leave out the true essence of what should be said. What has been created here is a sure partnership between a Crown-led initiative and the first people of this nation—the Māori people; the tangata whenua—and that is something to celebrate. This is a great day for Māoridom to celebrate. This is a great day for the nation to celebrate. This is about looking forward and about not looking over one’s shoulder, because then the only thing that happens is that one gets a sore neck.

A lot of these people have had sore hearts and sore minds, but they will certainly leave this great bastion of politics and governance with a song in their hearts and they will be clear in their minds that they have done a deal. They have done a deal for future generations. They have done a deal that can be counted in this country’s history as being as good as whatever else has been done. Certainly, as I drive through those trees down the Napier-Taupō road, along the short cut through Reporoa, I will look at those trees and think: “Kia ora, trees! Kia ora, Māori rākau, what a great stand!”. I will be roaming through Māori tree country, and that is a great privilege for any New Zealand citizen.

Hon Tau Henare: And you wish Ngāti Porou had some forests like that.

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: I wish I had shares in those forests, but I cannot whakapapa to these iwi! I say that these iwi need to be commended, and the members need to be respected for the support that they have given to this settlement.

I wish these iwi well, like members do. This sure is a great example on the journey to our being serious about nationhood, and not being glib about it and just doing other things. Kia ora tātou.

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National): E ngā iwi, Ngāi Tūhoe, Ngāti Manawa, Ngāti Tūwharetoa, Ngāti Whakauē, Ngāti Whare, Raukawa e Te Arawa iwi, hapū, he mihi nunui ki te iwi whānui me ngā rangatira e hui tahi nei, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tatou katoa.

[To the people of Ngāi Tūhoe, Ngāti Manawa, Ngāti Tūwharetoa, Ngāti Whakaue, Ngāti Whare, Raukawa, and the people and hapū of Te Arawa, a huge greeting to you and leaders at large gathered here, greetings to you, greetings to you, and greetings to you all.]

I rise on behalf of the leader of the National Party, John Key, to recognise the significance of the passage of this Central North Island Forests Land Collective Settlement Bill today. In my almost 18 years in politics I am continually surprised by the ability of New Zealanders to solve problems that other nations may find much more divisive and difficult. But here we have shown in this legislation a capacity to respond to our better lights, both the Crown and iwi, and to resolve what has been a very longstanding issue. I acknowledge the contributions, along with those of others, made by the central North Island collective and also by, particularly, Dr Cullen on behalf of the Government. A nation does these things when it is ready, and Dr Cullen, and no doubt the Prime Minister, saw that we were ready for this settlement and took the appropriate steps. For that they should be commended, because this opportunity could have slipped by the nation, the iwi, and the current Government.

I also think we should acknowledge the shadows that are cast over this event. I do not mean that in a negative sense, but we do stand in the shadow of people who, some 15 years ago, set off down the path of large Treaty settlements, at a time when Māoridom was unsure whether the process could succeed and certainly when Pākehā New Zealanders were unsure whether it was something they even wanted to do. I think that we should acknowledge today those leaders who showed the courage that has lent momentum, and also lent some courage, to those who have brought this settlement together: Sir Tīpene O’Regan and Ngāi Tahu, and Sir Robert Māhuta and Tainui, who made what, in retrospect, were very brave decisions to settle for a great deal less than the size of their grievances. I acknowledge also the Crown, led by the Rt Hon Jim Bolger and Sir Douglas Graham, for taking part in that process. We should remind ourselves that 15 years ago this path looked a great deal less certain, a great deal rockier, than it does today. Those leaders smoothed the path, and today we are fortunate to be able to follow in their footsteps to such a positive outcome in respect of this legislation.

The other point I want to make on behalf of the National Party is that we fully understand the momentum that has been built up. Dr Cullen referred to the other negotiations that are flowing out from these negotiations, and our leader, John Key, and the National Party, if we are elected to Government, would certainly continue with those negotiations in the same spirit and, I think, with the degree of political commitment from the leadership that has been shown by the Labour Government in working so successfully on settlements in the last 12 months or so.

The final point I want to make is this. I think of this as the end of the beginning. We have here people who have decided to lay the foundations for the future, rather than to stand by and reflect only on the past. In that sense, the destiny of 100,000 people from the central North Island collective and the Crown are intertwined, because our job now is to together ensure that the aspirational and material benefits of this settlement flow through to those 100,000 people. Many of them, of course, will not benefit initially. Whether they can realise their expectations and aspirations as Māori and as New Zealand citizens will depend on whether they can get a decent education, whether they can get a job that is fulfilling, and whether they can get the health services they deserve when they need them. It is such a positive refreshment of that sense of mission to have settled these historical grievances, and then for these iwi and the Crown to renew the commitment to ensure that the benefits that we all imagine can flow from this kind of settlement actually do flow through to every one of the 100,000 people who are covered by the settlement.

I finish by congratulating the iwi, in particular. Family differences are among the most difficult issues to manage, and the leadership of the central North Island iwi has shown to the rest of New Zealand admirable courage, restraint, and dignity in bringing this settlement together on the Māori side. I also acknowledge the contribution of all those who worked on behalf of the Crown—which is therefore the whole country—to seize a historic opportunity and see the settlement go through. Tēnā koutou, tēna koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

PITA PARAONE (NZ First): Tēnā anō koe Mr Assistant Speaker, tēnā anō hoki koutou e hui tahi nei i waenganui i a tātou ngā mema Pāremata, i haere mai ki te tautoko te kaupapa i mua i a tātou i tēnei wā.

[Greetings once again to you, Mr Assistant Speaker, and to you collectively gathered here among the members of Parliament in support of the matter before us at present.]

I am pleased to rise on behalf of New Zealand First to express our support for the Central North Island Forests Land Collective Settlement Bill, which a number of speakers before me have described as unique. People have talked about the unique terms of the way in which this settlement has been reached, and I concur.

But for me there is one other feature that is unique when comparing this settlement with other settlements. As other settlements have worked their way through the process of first reading, select committee hearings, second reading, the Committee stage, and then the third reading, New Zealand First has been very consistent about one particular issue. The fact is that in all settlements prior to this one, reference has been made to the fact that the settlement, the apology, has been given as a consequence of breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles. Herein lies the uniqueness of this settlement. There is no reference to the principles. There is no reference to breaches of the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi.

How often have we in New Zealand First been derided because of our consistency in questioning the undefined references to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi? How often have we been reminded of that by members of this House who said that settlements cannot be made unless reference is made to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi? Yet here we are today, all in support of this particular bill, this particular settlement, albeit without references to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. I will tell members why they are not referred to here. It is because the iwi themselves did not see any need for the inclusion of undefined references to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. I remind members of this House that we in New Zealand First do not want to be reminded by them of our stance in relation to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi again.

We know, and the respective iwi know, that this is only a small hurdle, a small bridge, to cross in the whole process surrounding this settlement. They know that in future they will have to deal with the issue of mana whenua. During the select committee process we heard one or two submissions that queried the right of other iwi, in terms of mana whenua. I think therein lies the challenge for the leadership of the respective iwi that this settlement refers to.

Once again, before I sit down, I commend the leadership, the representatives, and the negotiators of the respective iwi that this bill applies to. I wish them all the best, and I remind them, as I always have with previous settlements, that the leadership should always look behind itself from time to time to ensure that the people whom it purports to lead are still there.

Nā reira, e koutou mā ngā waka, ngā reo, ngā mana, tēnei te mihi atu ki a koutou, ko te tūmanako kia pai tā koutou haere, kia hakatinana te kaupapa o tēnei pire. Just by way of explanation, I have wished the people of the respective iwi all the best for the future, and I hope as they progress that it will be an easy path for them and for the benefit of their people. Nā reira, tēnā koutou, kia ora mai anō tātou.

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki): Tēnā koe, Madam Assistant Speaker, ki a tātou kua tae mai ki roto i te Whare Pāremata i tēnei ata. He kitenga kanohi ka hoki ngā mahara ki te hunga kua ngaro atu i te tirohanga kanohi. Kai konei rātou ā-wairua nei, ko tā tātau ko te tuku i te roimata kia rere ka mutu, waiho rātau kia moe.

Ko tēnei rā mō tāua te hunga ora, e ngā iwi kua tae mai ki roto i te Whare Pāremata, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa. E kī ana te kōrero, mai i Maketū ki Tongariro, mai i Ngā Kurī a Whārei ki Tihirau, kai aku rangatira tae atu ki a koutou Ngāti Raukawa, ko koutou, ko tātou tēnei kua ū mai ki te Whare Pāremata i tēnei ata, nau mai, hoki mai. Nau mai hoki mai ki te kaupapa nā tātau tonu i kōkiri ki tēnei rangi. Te rā ka whakamanahia te pire nei e tēnei Pāremata. Me mihi, me whakanui i te āhuatanga o ngā mahi nui kua oti nei i ngā tau engari, ka pataia te pātai, ko wai ka mōhio i te tīmatanga o tēnei tau, ka eke ngā wawata ki tēnei taumata. He mea pai, he mea whakanui tērā āhuatanga kia kite mai ai te puāwaitanga i tēnei rangi. Koinā pea te hua o te pukumahi, o te heke o te werawera, o te tautohetohe, o te mahitahi, o te aronga ngātahi, o te kōrero, o te wānanga, o te whakatau whakamutunga.

Koinei te mihi whānui ki a tātau katoa, koutou o te kāinga, o te takiwā o te Waiariki, ngā taha katoa o te Whare, tēnā tātau katoa. E ai ki te kōrero, koinei te whakataunga nui, whakaharahara nei i waenganui i te Karauna me tāua te Māori. Ki tā te pukapuka a Mana, he āhua ōrite tēnei kirimana ki te Tiriti o Waitangi. Hoi anō, tērā kōrero tērā. Kāore au i konei i te pānuitanga tuatahi me kī, nā tetahi mate au i tō ki wāhi kē engari, e ai ki tā ētahi i haruru te whenua. I tēnei rangi kai te harikoa te ngākau kai konei au mō tēnei wā. He tika tonu te kōrero a te Minita, a te Tākuta Maikara Karana, he tere tonu te waka nei engari, kua ū ki uta. E te Whare, me mihi rā ki a koe.

Kai taku Ariki, e Tumu, mō te āhuatanga ko tēnei i ārahi nei i tēnei kaupapa. I puta tāuna karanga kia eke ngā iwi katoa ki runga i ō marae o Ngāti Tūwharetoa. I kōrerohia, i wānangahia te take nei. Āe rānei me noho tōtara wāhi rua, āe rānei me noho i raro i te korowai kotahi. I puta te kōrero, te whakatau me te pukumahi anā, koinei tātau e hui nei i tēnei rangi. Ka mihi anō hoki ki te Minita nāna tonu tēnei huarahi hou i whakarite, ngā Minita rānei, kai te kōrero au ki te āhuatanga ki a koe te Tākuta, ki a koe e Mita, ki a koutou katoa, a Parekura, a Shane, e ārahi nei i tēnei kaupapa. He huarahi hou, he ara hou engari, arā noa ake ōna painga. Ki tāku titiro, kua aro mai ngā iwi Māori ki tēnei huarahi nā runga i te mea, e hia kē nei ngā kerēme kua whakatakotohia ki roto i tēnei Whare Pāremata. Kua āhua toremi tēnei Whare i te āhuatanga o ngā kerēme kua tau mai ki roto i a ia.

Ko tētahi take nui e hoa mā i puta i te wā i noho nei te komiti whāiti, ko tērā e pā ana ki te mana kōrero o tēnā iwi, o tēnā iwi. Ehara i te mea e tika ana mā mātou tēnā e wetewete anā, kua puta mai te kōrero a ētahi atu o ngā mema mō tēnei take. Hoi anō, e ōrite ana te whakaaro, kaua e mutu te āhuatanga o te kōrero. Kaua e aukati te āhuatanga o te kōrero i te mea, he wā tōna ka ara ake ngā nawe i roto i te ngākau o ngā tamariki, mokopuna pea. Ka hoki ngā mahara ki te hui i tū ki roto o Waitetoko, o roto Ngāti Tūwharetoa i te tau pea kua hipa. I tērā wā, i te āhua āwangawanga ngā iwi anā, mai i tērā wā, nā ngā mahi pai, nā te kaha o te kōrero anā, kua puta te kotahitanga e kōrerohia ake nei. Ko te mea pai o roto i tēnei whiriwhiringa e te Minita, ā, kua puta te kōrero, rangatira ki te rangatira. he tohu pai tērā i te mea, i ngā tau kua hipa, koinei tētahi o ngā nawe kua puta, kua tonoa me kī, ngā mea tuawhā, tuarima rānei ki mua i te aroaro o ngā rangatira kōrero ai. Ko tēnei huarahi i whakaritea mai ai, kātahi tōna pai. Hoi rā, he aha te kai o te rangatira, he kōrero, me mau tonu tātau ki tērā āhuatanga.

Me mihi anō hoki ki a koe Matiu kōrua ko Wira, nā kōrua anō hoki tēnei kaupapa i whakatinana. Koinei au e kī nei, ko te ara hou e kōrerohia ake nei, ko kōrua tēnei i rongo nei i te riri, i rongo nei i te humārie, i rongo nei i te ngākau māhaki, i rongo nei i te āhuatanga o te hiahia o ngā iwi kia anga whakamua ngā take nei. Me mihi rā ki a kōrua ka tika. Ko te mea pai mō tēnei momo āhuatanga, e ai ki tā te nuinga, kotahi tonu te kōrero, nā te iwi tonu i whakatau, nā te iwi tonu i tautohetohe ngā take, nā te iwi tonu i whakariterite te huarahi whāinga. Koinei te mihi atu ki a koutou o te kāinga, ngā iwi o roto i te pire, ā, me kī tēnei kotahitanga i raro i te marumaru o Tumu te Heuheu.

He kupu whakamutunga tāku, ki a koutou o Ngāti Rangitihi, i kōrerohia tā koutou take i roto i te Whare nei engari, e tika ana te kōrero a te Minita, kai a koutou i tēnei wā. Kai a koutou te tikanga i tēnei wā. Nō reira e te iwi, e ngā iwi kua tae mai i tēnei ahiahi, kia kaha kia māia ngā rā kai mua i te aroaro, kia eke tēnei o ngā waka nei ki uta, kia eke panuku, kia eke tangaroa. He wā tōna, kāore e kore ka eke mai anō rā ngā wehewehenga i waenganui i a tātau engari, i te rangi nei kua puta te kōrero a te Minita Māori, me whakanui, me ngahau ka tika. Ko tāku, ko tā mātou o te Pāti Māori, he tautoko, he tautoko, he tautoko. Tēnā koutou katoa.

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

[Greetings, Madam Assistant Speaker, and to all present in our House. When we see faces, the memories flood back of those who have passed on. Their spirits are present and we lament their loss. Rest in peace.

This is a day for the living. Greetings to the tribes here in the House. To the people of Te Arawa, Mātaatua, and Raukawa, welcome back to the House of Parliament. Welcome back for this matter we have progressed to this stage, on this day the bill passes into law. It is a time to celebrate the work done over the years. However, the question must be asked: who would have thought at the beginning of this year we would make such progress? It is good, and today we celebrate the fruits of the labour, the sweat, the debates, the unity, the single-minded focus, and the discussions leading to final settlement.

I acknowledge you all—those from home and the wider Bay of Plenty, those from all sides of the House. I have heard it said that this is the largest settlement between the Crown and Māori. Mana magazine likens this settlement to the Treaty of Waitangi. I leave it for others to comment on that. I was not here at the first reading, due to a bereavement. According to reports, the very ground shook. Today my heart is glad I am here to witness this. The Hon Dr Michael Cullen was correct when he said that this has been a swift process; however, the canoe has made land. I acknowledge the House.

I acknowledge the paramount chief, Tumu, for your leadership. You called other tribes to meet in your Ngāti Tūwharetoa domain, where this matter was discussed and a decision made over whether to work independently or as a collective. The decision was made to work together; that is why we are here today. I congratulate the Minister who led this new approach; indeed, congratulations to the Ministers the Hon Dr Michael Cullen, the Hon Mita Ririnui, the Hon Parekura Horomia, and the Hon Shane Jones. This is a new approach, with many benefits. Tribes have supported this new path; witness the many settlements that have come through the House recently. The House has been inundated with the number of legislative settlements.

A major point of debate in the select committee was the question of the mandate of each iwi. It is not appropriate for us MPs to make the decisions; another member has spoken on this issue. The common theme is that discussions do not stop. Do not obstruct the free flow of discussion; if that occurs, grievances will in time come forth in the coming generations. I recall the hui at Waitetoko in Ngāti Tūwharetoa last year, when some tribes voiced their concerns. Since then, because of discussions, unity has prevailed. The positive aspect of this new path set by the Minister is that the discussions are between people of high standing. This has been a sore point in the past; minor officials have been sent to discuss important matters with tribal leaders. So this is a positive change. Lest we forget, the food of chiefs is discourse.

I commend the efforts of Matiu Te Pou and Wira Gardiner, whose efforts made this possible; I refer here to the new path spoken of earlier. You felt the ire, as well as the goodwill and glad hearts, of the people, and the desire of the tribes to progress matters. I commend you. People say the advantage of this path is that the process is clear; there is but one statement, endorsed by the tribe; the proposed details of the settlement are debated, and the people decide what path to follow. For this I commend the home people and the tribes concerned under the shelter of Tumu te Heuheu.

A final word to Ngāti Rangitihi. Your issues were discussed by the House, but the Minister is correct, it is over to you now to make a decision. So to all the tribes here this afternoon, be strong, be steadfast, that this canoe makes landfall. The time will come when differences separate us, but today the Minister of Māori Affairs has said we should celebrate and be happy. I and the Māori Party are in support. Thank you.]

JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future): I stand on behalf of United Future to support and celebrate the passage of the Central North Island Forests Land Collective Settlement Bill. This bill now takes the record for being the largest settlement to date, so congratulations are due to both the Crown and iwi who have done a remarkable job in pulling this together. We applaud the wisdom of collective strength that has secured this outcome, and we are very pleased to see that legislatively the door has been kept ajar for those who were unable at this stage to determine whether this was the best outcome for them. Obviously, there is an encouragement for them to reconsider their position.

We are pleased to see that the intention of this bill includes the status quo to remain regarding public access to central North Island forests land. It is interesting that today we will probably be debating the third reading of the Walking Access Bill, which has a relationship to this as well.

The Central North Island Forests Land Collective Settlement Bill will see the forest land cease to be Crown forest land, and vests in CNI Iwi Holdings Ltd, the new company that was previously owned by the Crown.

We note there were 66 information or endorsement hui, and that the allocation model incorporated in the bill was the result of unanimous agreement. This has been extremely well negotiated, and it is a fantastic outcome. We are very happy to support this bill.

CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National): Can I too, in opening, offer my congratulations and best wishes to the iwi of the central North Island collective, to Tumu te Heuheu for the outstanding work that he has done, and to the work of Wira Gardiner as Crown facilitator. I offer my congratulations to the Minister and his team on the contribution they have made. As other National members have said, we support the third reading of this important legislation. My colleague Mrs te Heuheu summarised the bill in the course of her speech and I am not going to repeat that material here. Mr English reaffirmed the National Party’s commitment to this important work, which was started by the Bolger Government in the 1990s, and so ably assisted by Sir Tīpene O’Regan and Sir Robert Māhuta.

A number of features of this bill are particularly interesting, but none more so than Subpart 2 of Part 1, which deals with allocation principles. I am particularly interested in schedule 2, which I sincerely believe, and hope, will provide a very useful model for the future, because I have seen far too much litigation in the Treaty settlements area over the years. I go back to the fisheries litigation that started almost immediately after the 1992 settlement. It went on for about a decade. It consumed resources. It went to the Privy Council on a number of occasions, and was resolved only a couple of years ago. I had grave fears that this particular issue was on the verge of going down that path, and I am just so pleased that it has not and that today we are all supporting the third reading of this bill.

That is why schedule 2 is so very important, because it sets out a very tight timetable and has a number of particularly interesting features. As I said, I believe it could well be a model for future dispute resolution: keeping people away from courts and enabling them to resolve disputes on allocation on the basis set out in this bill. I strongly support measures where iwi acknowledge their commitment to a resolution process that, for example, promotes the mana and integrity of iwi and recognises the desirability of post-settlement collaboration.

There is no doubt that the timetable set out in schedule 2 is very tight indeed, because the parties have to identify their mana whenua interests by 1 October 2009. That particular process is to start on 1 July 2009, then there is to be negotiation through to June 2010, and, hopefully, the allocation agreement will be finalised by 30 June 2011. Very detailed processes set out that, in the event of negotiation failing to achieve a result, there will be a mediation. If that does not work, there will be an adjudication.

It may seem strange coming from one of the National Party’s justice team, but I really believe it is important that lawyers are not entitled to be present or be heard unless all parties agree. Frankly, I think that that is a welcome development in this area, because I often think that lawyers in litigation can be a cause of discord. I am delighted that lawyers will not be permitted to cross-examine witnesses, because I do not think that helps these sorts of issues, at all. I have seen attempts at cross-examination in the Waitangi Tribunal, and inevitably it is a process that, although well suited to High Court litigation, is not suited to this sort of exercise. I, for one, heartily endorse what is set out in schedule 2, and I will be keeping a very close eye on it, because I believe it will work extremely well. As I said, litigation is expensive, it is time consuming, it is draining, and there is so much truth in the old saying that it is in the public interest that there be an end to litigation.

I congratulate all iwi here today on this settlement. This was one that was inspired by iwi, driven by iwi, and achieved by iwi. May other iwi in other parts of the country look at this development and adapt it to their needs as they seek to resolve their grievances with the Crown over the next few years. As Mr English said, the National Party will actively support any and every endeavour to resolve these differences, because there is no task more important to the future of our country than this one. I congratulate all concerned. I think this is a great day for New Zealand, and I am proud to be a member of Parliament able to speak on the third reading of the Central North Island Forests Land Collective Settlement Bill.

Hon TAU HENARE (National): Kia ora, Mr Assistant Speaker. I say “well done” to the central North Island collective. This settlement process is absolutely unique to Māori. I want to echo Bill English, who said that we may have our differences, and there may be differences along the road, but—in my eloquent way of putting what Bill English said into the words of South Auckland—“At least we don’t go around blowing each other up.” That has to be a good thing—it is certainly a good thing for those who might be blown up. The uniqueness is that the settlement process belonged to Māori, and, as colleagues in this House have said, maybe we are looking at a model that will stand us in good stead for the future—who knows?

I have one concern, but that concern is not particularly for the central North Island collective; it is for future Governments, whoever they may be. The concern is that the settlement process has taken us back to a time prior to the individualisation of Māori land. That is not the concern of the central North Island collective; its concern was to settle the package, and it has done that. My concern is specifically for those who, out of the native land process, the Native Land Court and the Māori Land Court process, have parcels of land—or think they might have—and that maybe their rights have somehow been taken away. I think we need to start looking at that in the future; as I said, it is not a big concern of the central North Island collective.

I will be brief, at least, in my response to the speech of the Minister of Māori Affairs, Parekura Horomia. I recognised, in the speech of the Minister, and in his voice, that there might be an election on the horizon. He talked about scurrilous rumours and rumour-mongering, and said this was a great day and a beautiful day—well, it is outside. But I wonder whether I am letting him off the hook in terms of Labour members seeing this as an opportunity to pat themselves on the back, because in 7 weeks’ time we will be going to the polls. I suppose if I were in Labour’s position I would be doing the same thing. So I congratulate the Minister of Māori Affairs, but I tell him not to overwork it. He should pat himself on the back, but he should not overwork it.

I am concerned in this respect: we are in urgency, at the end of a parliamentary session. In fact, we are at the end of the 48th Parliament and we are trying to nut out these bills and rush through these third readings. It would have been all right if there were one or two bills—I could handle that—but if we look at the Order Paper we see that we are working our way through a number of issues. So although I congratulate the Minister, and the Deputy Prime Minister for his erstwhile work, we should not have let it come to being part of an urgency motion.

I finish by mentioning the Treaty of Waitangi and the Treaty principles, as my tuakana from New Zealand First has mentioned. He mentioned that there were no Treaty principles in the bill, but I say that they do not have to be in the bill, or even in settlements, to be there.

Pita Paraone: That’s what I’ve been saying.

Hon TAU HENARE: Well, actually, the member did not really say it in that way. I do not want to get into a big argument with New Zealand First; suffice it to say that the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi are worked out over time—they are worked out through the law courts, they are worked out through bills in Parliament, and they are worked out through how we live. Maybe one day we will all be getting around on our little mobility scooters thinking that the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi are what make this country tick. I think it is wrong to say that the reason they are not in there is that iwi did not want them in there. We all, in one way or another, take the Treaty principles to heart, and we operate with them on a daily basis.

Nō reira e te Whare, e te Kaihautū o te Whare, kei a koutou e aku rangatira, tēnā koutou, ā, tēnā koutou, kia ora mai tātou katoa.

[So to the House, the Assistant Speaker of the House, and to you, my chiefs, greetings to you, greetings to you and to all of us.]

Hon MITA RIRINUI (Associate Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): Tēnā anō koe kai te Kaihautū, tē āhua nei kei a au te kōrero whakamutunga mō tēnei kaupapa kai waenganui i a tātau. He paku kōrero noa iho tāku i tēnei wā. Ā, kua kōrerohia ngā kōrero mai i tēnā rōpū, i tēnā rōpū, i tēnā rōpū, ā, me tēnei Kāwanatanga i te āhuatanga o tēnei pire e pā nei ki te ngāhere o te tuawhenua. Nō reira, tū tonu ngā mihi ki ngā mātāwaka kua tatū mai, a te arikinui, e Tumu me ngā kārangaranga hapū kei waenganui i a tātou i tēnei rā, Te Arawa, Mātaatua, Tainui, tēnei rā te mihi atu ki a koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa. Ā te wā ka mihi anō au ki ēnei o ōku whanaunga hara mai rā i Te Tai Tokerau.

Nō reira e te Kaihautū, me pēhea rawa ngā kōrero māku. Otirā tāku, he tū ki te tautoko i ngā mihi me ngā kupu o taku hoa rangatira, te Minita Māori, a Parekura Horomia te tino Hōnore. Nāna i tū ake ki te mihi, ki te tautoko i a rātou katoa i ārahi mai rā i te kaupapa mō tēnei pire, mai rā i te hau kāinga, ā, tatū iho nei ki Te Whanga-nui-a-Tara, ki te Whare Pāremata, ā, ki te Ana o ngā Raiona. Nō reira, nā runga i tēnā me kī rā, kua oti katoa rā ngā kōrero, kua oti katoa. Kore e tū tēnei ki te whakahē ki tēnā, ki tēnā, ki tēnā, e tū ana ki te whakamihi atu ki ngā whakaaro katoa, kua whakaatuhia i tēnei rā. Nō reira, kua mihingia ngā mihi ki ngā Minita o mua, ki tēnā Pirimia nāna i ārahi ngā kerēme o Ngāi Tahu me Tainui i tōna wā, ā, ngā Minita katoa i raro i a ia. Nō reira, tautoko i ngā mihi ki a rātou.

Otirā, hoki noa atu taku mihi ki tēnā o wā tātau Minita Māori rangatira, mai rā i Ngāpuhi, i a Matiu Rata. I te tau 1975, nāna te kaupapa i whakatō i roto i te Whare nei, nā, ka puta taua pire hei whakawhiriwhirihia i ngā kerēme raupatu whenua. Nāna anō i whakatū i tēnā Taraipiunara o Waitangi. Me kī rā te kōrero, nāna te kaupapa i tīmata. Ki te kore taua ture, e kore tātou i huihui ai i tēnei rā.

Me te mihi anō ki te Minita mai rā i a Tainui, i a Maniapoto, ā, ko Koro Wētere te Hōnore. Nāna i whakawhānuihia i te mana o te Taraipiunara o Waitangi, i āhei rātou ki te hoki whakamuri ki te tau 1840, koi rā te tīmatanga o ngā mahi tūkino a te Karauna ki a ngāi tātau huri noa te motu. Nō reira tika ana kia mihingia atu ngā Minita o mua engari, kaua tātau e wareware, nā wai i tīmata, he aha hoki te kaupapa i tīmatahia ai?

Nō reira, nā runga i tēnā huri atu au ki ngā mātāwaka. Nā rātau tonu te kaupapa o tēnei rā e tika ana kia mihingia atu rātau. Nō reira, me pēnei rā te kī, waiho tēnā ngā kōrero i āna kōrero, me ērā, me ēra, me ērā. Tāku, kei te mihi atu, ki te whakaiti i mua ki a koutou, nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

E te Kaihautū, he īnoi tāku nei ki a koe, waiho taku kōrero kia āhua mana tonu. Kaua e huri atu ki tērā reo kia āhua rite tonu ki te rēmana. Ka āhua kawa hoki. Nō reira, nā runga i tēnā kia tau te rangimārie ki a koe e te Kaihautū. Tēnā koe, huri noa kia ora tātau katoa.

[Greetings once again to you, Madam Assistant Speaker. It appears that I have the last word in this matter. I will be brief. We have heard from each of the collectives involved and this Government, in respect of this bill and matters relating to the central North Island forests land. I restate the acknowledgments to the iwi collectives present here, to the paramount chief, Tumu, and the many hapū from Te Arawa, Mātaatua, and Tainui. At the appropriate time I will acknowledge my kin who have come from North Auckland.

So what can I add? I stand to support the acknowledgments of the Minister of Māori Affairs, the Hon Parekura Horomia. He endorsed all you who have led the work that brings this legislation to Parliament here in Wellington, to the lion’s den. We can say that all that needed to be spoken has been spoken. I agree with all that has been said today. Acknowledgments have been made to Ministers past and present, and to the Prime Minister, who settled the claims of Ngāi Tahu and Tainui, and I support those acknowledgments.

I also acknowledge the former Minister of Māori Affairs from Ngāpuhi, Matiu Rata. In 1975 he began this process through the House that established the Waitangi Tribunal. He was the instigator of all this. Had it not been for his efforts we would not be here today.

I acknowledge the former Minister from Tainui and Ngāti Maniapoto, the Hon Koro Wētere. He extended the jurisdiction of the Waitangi Tribunal, allowing it to look into claims from 1840, the year when the attacks of the Crown against us in these isles commenced. So it is right to acknowledge past Ministers, but we must never forget who started it and why it was started.

Because of that, I turn to the different iwi collectives before us. This matter belongs to them; it is appropriate that we acknowledge them. So the accolades must be accorded to each of them. Let each relate its own story. My part is merely to stand in humility to acknowledge and congratulate you. Greetings to you all.

Madam Assistant Speaker, I seek that my address not be interpreted, so that its tenor and flavour is not lost and does not become distasteful like a lemon. So let peace and good tidings prevail upon you, Madam Assistant Speaker. My thanks to you, and to all of us throughout.]

Bill read a third time.

Waiata; karanga

Bills

Te Roroa Claims Settlement Bill

Third Reading

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): I move, That the Te Roroa Claims Settlement Bill be now read a third time. I acknowledge the people of Te Rōroa who have now arrived in the galleries. I welcome those who have travelled from Northland to be here today, to listen to this third reading of their claims settlement bill. I acknowledge them, and all of those from Te Rōroa, who have worked so hard to make this day possible. I acknowledge the many Te Rōroa kuia and kaumātua who are no longer with us but who provided leadership and inspiration to Te Rōroa’s negotiators and to the Te Rōroa people.

I am told that Te Rōroa means “the tall ones”. Te Rōroa take their name from Manumanu, the tupuna who was killed in battle. He was so brave that his enemies exclaimed “Behold! That man is as tall as a white pine.” Te Rōroa are indeed the tall ones; they have stood tall throughout their dealings with the Crown. They have conducted themselves with honour and dignity in even the most difficult of times.

This bill settles the Treaty grievances of Te Rōroa. The Crown formally acknowledges its breaches of the Treaty, offers an apology to Te Rōroa, and provides cultural, financial, and commercial redress. The bill therefore marks a historic point in time in the Crown - Te Roroa relationship. The people of Te Rōroa have waited a long time for today. They have been seeking redress for the Crown’s breaches of the Treaty since at least 1861. In the 1980s they took their claim to the tribunal, and I acknowledge the efforts of all those of Te Rōroa who went before the tribunal—in particular, Ned Nathan and Emily Pāniora, two of the original Wai 38 claimants, who are no longer with us.

Te Rōroa were one of the first groups to come into Treaty settlement negotiations. It is 16 years since the Waitangi Tribunal released the Te Rōroa report in 1992, and 15 years since negotiations commenced. In 2004, after 12 years, the Crown and Te Rōroa signed an agreement in principle, and in December 2005 Te Rōroa and the Crown signed the deed of settlement. In late 2005 the Te Rōroa people also ratified the governance entity, Te Rōroa Manawhenua Trust, to receive and manage the majority of the assets. The trust was established in August 2006. A second trust has also been established, Te Rōroa Whatu Ora Trust, which has a commercial focus, and will receive and administer the commercial redress properties. The passage of the Te Roroa Claims Settlement Bill is the final step that will enable the Crown to provide settlement redress to Te Rōroa.

In this bill, the Crown acknowledges it breached the Treaty in respect of Te Rōroa. The breaches relate to the cession of land at Te Kōpuru in 1842, Crown land purchases from 1876, and the operation and impact of the native land laws. These breaches have left Te Rōroa virtually landless. In this settlement, the Crown also acknowledges that the separation of Te Rōroa people from their wāhi tapu and taonga has been a source of great spiritual and emotional pain for Te Rōroa. The Crown unreservedly apologises for these breaches of the Treaty.

The settlement also includes financial and commercial redress worth some $9.5 million. Te Rōroa has decided to use this redress to purchase 15 Crown-owned properties. These properties include over 3,000 hectares of commercial forest, and over 2,000 hectares of farmland and other properties. These provide a platform for Te Rōroa to pursue its economic aspirations.

A key component of Treaty settlements is cultural redress. The settlement bill provides for the gifting by the Crown of 24 sites of cultural significance comprising an area of over 2,000 hectares. Not only is this the largest cultural redress vesting in any settlement since the Ngāi Tahu settlement but it also includes the return of two of the reserves recommended by the Waitangi Tribunal’s 1992 report, Manuwhētai and Whāngaiariki.

The Te Roroa Claims Settlement Bill also includes redress designed to strengthen the relationship between the Crown and Te Rōroa. It enables Te Rōroa to have increased input into the protection of Waipoua Forest, home to the mighty Tāne Māhuta, New Zealand’s largest kauri tree. Also underpinning this new relationship are protocols between Te Rōroa and Government departments.

This settlement does not and cannot fully compensate Te Rōroa for the losses it has suffered, either in economic or in cultural terms. No Treaty settlement is able to do that. Many of Te Rōroa’s losses relate to wāhi tapu and taonga no longer held by its people. In fact, I have heard the Te Rōroa claim described as a wāhi tapu claim, reflecting the number of significant cultural and archaeological sites across the rohe. The full force of this grief in respect of particular wāhi tapu became clear during the select committee hearings. The people of Te Rōroa talked about Kaharau, which could not be returned through the settlement, as it is currently in private ownership, and the Kohekohe taonga, which are held by the Auckland Museum. The trustees of the Te Rōroa governance entity also spoke of the financial difficulty facing Te Rōroa in acquiring properties available for purchase under the right of deferred selection provided for in the settlement.

The Government has taken steps, working with Te Rōroa and other political parties, to find solutions to these issues that benefit everyone’s interests. These proposals were largely outside the Treaty settlement process, and have not required any amendment to this bill. I am confident that these measures will further strengthen the durability of the settlement. Its enactment is a historic milestone. It is also an important step in the country’s progress towards settling all historical claims, and is the third settlement to reach the final stage of legislation today.

Many people contributed to this settlement over the years. I acknowledge the contribution made by the first Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations to enter into these discussions during the early stages of negotiations, Sir Doug Graham; Margaret Wilson, who renewed negotiations when they had stalled; Mark Burton, who negotiated and signed the deed of settlement on behalf of the Crown; the Minister of Māori Affairs, who continues to bully me along into these settlements; the Minister of Conservation; the Minister for Land Information; and the Associate Minister of Finance. I also acknowledge the valuable support of my Associate Ministers, Mita Ririnui and Shane Jones—who has taken a particular and close interest in this particular settlement—and the work of many Government departments that have been involved.

The heart of the Te Rōroa rohe is the Waipoua Forest, home of the kauri tree. My hope for Te Rōroa is that this settlement is like a kauri seedling, starting small and growing perhaps slowly, but in the years to come growing into a tall and mighty tree and providing a canopy of shelter for those around it. I am certain that with the benefit of Te Rōroa’s leadership and the revitalisation of its mana and identity, future generations in Northland and throughout New Zealand will receive a strong and enduring legacy from this settlement. I commend the bill to the House.

CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National): Mr Deputy Speaker, may I begin my third reading speech on the Te Roroa Claims Settlement Bill by wishing you all the best. I was very interested in all of your speech last night, but particularly in the part about your youth spent growing up in this area, the rohe of Te Rōroa. I thank you for your friendship and guidance over the years, and I wish you all the best.

National will support the third reading of this bill, which has had a somewhat difficult legislative history. It was introduced on 14 February 2007, and had its first reading on 1 March 2007. The Māori Affairs Committee hearing was held in Dargaville shortly before Easter last year. The bill was reported back in May 2007, had its second reading on 20 June 2007, and thereafter it languished for quite some time, before the Committee stage was completed a few days ago. Now we are at the third reading.

The select committee hearings in Dargaville will stay with me for some time. Many of the members who sat on the select committee were a little uneasy after the hearing, and thought that something was not quite right. We expressed our concerns, but we are now satisfied that our concerns have been addressed as a result of movement over the last little period. That movement, which was referred to by the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, involves components that do not form part of the Treaty settlement and do not necessitate an amendment to the bill. We are now aware of those components and happy with them. The acceptance by Te Rōroa has meant the Committee stage and third reading of the bill can now proceed. We were not consulted on these matters. We have had to make our own inquiries, and that is all part of the game, I suppose. It would have been helpful to be consulted, especially as we take the view that Treaty settlements should not be a matter of partisan discord. But having made those inquiries and heard what the Associate Minister told us in the Committee stage, we believe it is right and proper to support the third reading of this bill.

We know that some residual differences may remain. To ignore them would be naive, but it is my earnest hope that those differences will now disappear, and that before long the good people of Te Rōroa will move forward as one. I strongly believe it is in the interests of Te Rōroa that this bill now proceeds to a third reading.

These settlement bills and tribunal reports always make very interesting reading, and the preamble to this bill tells a very, very sad story. The Minister referred to the fact that the claim to the Waitangi Tribunal was Wai 38. I recall, because it is etched in my brain, that Wai 27 was the Ngāi Tahu claim, and that was settled a decade ago. This one, as the Minister said, was reported on in May 1992, and it has been around for a long time. It was a very early claim. The tribunal’s report was quite devastating. As the Minister said, there has now been a great deal of negotiation on the claim, involving the previous National Government and, particularly, Sir Douglas Graham, and the three Ministers in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations in this Government. The National Party endorses what the Minister said, and says the time has come for this iwi to have the fruits of its settlement and move on. We believe this is a good settlement, and it is in the interests of the iwi that the third reading if this bill takes place.

I offer my congratulations to all those in Te Rōroa who have fought the good fight over so many years. The Minister has referred to some of them, and I join with him in congratulating them, and also their advisers, on the good work that has been done to bring this bill to the third reading stage. As I said, National supports the third reading of this bill, and the National Party looks forward to a good, ongoing relationship with Te Rōroa in the years to come.

Hon SHANE JONES (Associate Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): Ā, kia ora anō tātou. I te tuatahi me mihi ahau ki a koe, e kara. Me mihi ahau ki a koe i roto i te reo Māori. Me mihi hoki ki a koe i roto i tā tāua reo Tararā. I roto i te reo Māori ko te kupu, tātou tātou, i roto i te reo Tararā, kako si, vrlo dobro, tua atu i tēnā, mi treba da se udruzimo, me mahi tahi tātou, tēnā koe.

[Greetings to us once again. First, let me acknowledge you personally, dear friend, in Māori and in our Dalmatian tongue. We, as is the term in Māori and in Dalmatian, kako si, vrlo dobro, and further to that, mi treba da se udruzimo, we must work together, greetings to you.]

First, I acknowledge Mr Clem Simich, someone who shares a great deal in common with me, not the least of which is shared ancestry—from Croatian villages and islands to Māori princesses of the gumfields of Tai Tokerau. You delivered a great speech yesterday, Mr Deputy Speaker, and it is fitting that you should sit in the Chair as we attend to the final bit of business before we move this proposed legislation into law, because you referred to a small settlement known as Aranga, where our Tararā Dalmatian ancestors dug gum. That is very close to Manuwhētai and Whāngaiariki, two very historic reserves that lie in the area of Te Rōroa. So I join with everyone else who has saluted you for the quality of stewardship you have brought to the House—the friendliness and the occasional council that you have offered.

Ā, kāti e te whānau, tēnā koutou. Nau mai, haere mai i roto i tēnei rangi whakaharahara, nā, ka kite tātou i tō tātou pire e whakamanangia ana. Kua pau ngā mihi i roto i ngā tūtunga o āku hoa engāri ko tāku ki a koutou, nō koutou tēnei Whare, nā reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou, kia ora tātou katoa.

[So greetings to you, the family. Welcome, welcome on this great day when we are to see our bill pass into law. My colleagues have used up the congratulatory terms to you in their speeches, but my message to you is that this House is yours. Congratulations, well done, and thank you all.]

To the people of Te Rōroa, I say “Welcome back here.” This House is the people’s House. Today you join with us, the parliamentarians, to watch and shepherd this legislation through to a point of consummation.

Dr Cullen deserves all the acclamation he has enjoyed; this has been a long and tortuous process. I was at the Waikaraka Marae in Kaihu in 1992, with Doug Kidd, when the report was presented to the Crown. I was also at the meetings—where indeed we had Eva Rickard, lost for a day or three but attending some of the early meetings of Te Rōroa—when Lovey Te Rore, Ned Nathan, and a host of others worked with a younger generation to bed down a Waitangi Tribunal claim to recover the assets, the land, and the lost heritage of the tribe. So today Te Roroa comes and witnesses this process, and it is with a great deal of pride that Parekura Horomia and I are able to say that its farms around the Maunganui Bluff area are now available with virtually no debt. That is reflective of the stewardship that Dr Cullen and senior Ministers have been able to bring. Metiria Turei went out of her way to support that, as well.

In the Waipoua Forest there is an old taonga called the kawekaweau. I recall going to the Waipoua Forest with Rev. Māori Marsden in 1985 and meeting Raihā Pāniora, who told us the story of a lizard known to cling to the bark of the kauri tree. However, she said that once the people lost their connection with the land, as a consequence of Crown alienation, the lizard appeared to have gone forever. But I am sure that with the right karakia, the right personalities, and the good stewardship in Te Rōroa, the lizard can still be found at Kawerua, a place where our tupuna Tōhe stopped, had a great feed of pāua—before Parekura’s mātaitai permits were needed—and satisfied the people.

So with a great deal of pride, and with support from the other side of the House, let us put this chapter of Te Rōroa’s recent history behind us and teach the young people—get them to embrace not only the heritage but the obligations of growing this settlement. And with the land that comes back to us, let us make sure we do not repeat the mistakes of earlier generations in entering into deals, transactions, where they did not know quite what they were doing or where they were being taken advantage of. This land will have virtually no debt, and for that we should salute Dr Cullen. Tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou, kia ora tātou katoa.

Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National): I take this opportunity to salute you, Mr Deputy Speaker, in your Chair, your Tūru, and repeat the sentiments expressed by the previous speaker that it is very fitting, given your whanaunga in the gallery, that you sit in the Chair for the passing into law of the Te Roroa Claims Settlement Bill.

I am very proud to take a call on the third reading of this bill. I am conscious, as is everybody in this House, of the long years that Te Rōroa have put in, and I salute Te Rōroa, who are in the gallery today: ā, ngā mihi ki a koutou e ngā iwi, e ngā whānau o Te Roroa. I think your patience, your doggedness, your absolute humility in pursuing your settlement, yet not pushing yourselves in a way that in your view might bring discredit to yourselves has been a lesson to watch. I became acquainted more directly with your claim when I was an Associate Minister to the Hon Doug Graham and we had some meetings way back then. But, of course, as Dr Cullen has made reference to, the meetings for the settlement of your claim started much earlier, in 1992. So that is a long time, and you will have witnessed some real energy put into more recent claims that had their negotiations begin after yours, but, as I say, you have been quiet but forceful, and humble. I certainly admire the approach you have taken, and congratulate you on the passage of your legislation here today and on the fact that finally you have accepted that you can move on.

The Minister Dr Cullen traversed the additional aspects of the claim, which have been negotiated recently. National opposed the Te Roroa Claims Settlement Bill up until these new additions were brought in. We did that on the basis and on the strength of the concerns that were put to us, particularly when the select committee came to hear your submissions, but also on the basis that we knew the offer was not sufficient. In your hearts you know that what is being offered here today is but a tiny fraction of what you once had, which, hopefully, you will one day be able to build up from these small beginnings into something that is a fitting legacy for your grandchildren. In the end, I think the Government had no choice. But that is fine, because it has resulted in a settlement that Te Rōroa can accept, and which National now gladly supports. Basically, the majority of Te Rōroa says that this is finished, it is enough, and they want to move on. The claims had different aspects; we have seen a couple go through the House this morning.

Te Rōroa’s is unique. As a people, they hail from ancient beginnings. They were once proud and substantial people living on land that they owned, yet quite soon after their rangatira signed the Treaty they found themselves slowly but surely dispossessed of that which was theirs. Today we are here to celebrate, and to congratulate Te Rōroa. We can feel pleased and we can feel proud that we have a process in place that restores to them some of that which was taken from them.

This claim relates to breaches by the Crown of its obligations under the Treaty—obviously, it is a Treaty settlement claim. The breaches include the cession of land at Te Kōpuru in 1842, Crown land purchases from 1876, and the operation and impacts of the Māori Land Court, the institution that we as Māori love so much! Thankfully, in the 21st century it is easy to look back and see how and why things went wrong. The upside of it all is that in the 21st century our generation has been given the marvellous opportunity to right those things that for so long have been a blot on our historical landscape.

Te Rōroa have travelled a long road to have these claims addressed by the Government. They have sought redress on a number of issues. They have a package here today and hopefully—as I have already expressed—though it is small, with the leadership and the love for their own and for others that they have shown, particularly in these last 15 years, they will be able to grow it. In any event, they have decided—as the Crown did by making this additional offer—that it is time to recognise properly their situation and give them a basis on which to move forward. As hard and as difficult as these last 15 years and indeed all of the previous decades have been, I always think that the hardest part comes when the settlement bill passes into law. Then Te Rōroa will have to demonstrate further responsibility and leadership for their people, their mokopuna, and those still to come—the future generations. But what a good position to be in! Their tūpuna looking down will feel much pleased for this day, and no doubt are egging Te Rōroa on to succeed.

For us in this Parliament—I have said this many times but I feel it is important to repeat it every time because Te Rōroa’s settlement is important to them—it is a privilege to be a parliamentarian in this House at this time. Today we are dealing with five settlements and it is a proud moment—certainly for Māori MPs, and, I am sure, for all our colleagues across the House, as well. Mr Deputy Speaker, in your valedictory speech you made reference to your birth and upbringing in the places that Te Rōroa hail from. That was enlightening for those of us who did not know the detail of your upbringing. It is rather fitting that you preside at a time when this bill passes into law. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

PITA PARAONE (NZ First): Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker; engari i mua i te haere tonu ka huri aku mihi ki a koutou mai i te hau kāinga o Te Rōroa kua tae mai nei i runga i te kaupapa i hakahuihuingia i a tātou i roto i te Whare nei, arā, ko te wāhanga mutunga, kia hakaturengia tēnei pire. I kite anō au i a koutou i tēnei wā, ka hoki mahara ki tēnā o ngā mātua, ngā whaea ko rātou i ngaro atu ki te tirohanga kanohi. Nā ko te matua a Lovey tēnā me Ned tēnā, me ērā atu o ngā whaea karanga maha. Kāhore kau kē kei waenganui tonu i a tātou i te rā nei ā-tinana engari, mōhio ana au kei konei rātou ā-wairua. Tua atu i tēnā, kei te mihi hoki ki tēnā o ngā whanaunga e noho tonu ki te wā kāinga, e are taringa mai, tēnā pea e mātakitaki hoki, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, ā, tēnā koutou katoa.

[Greetings to you, Mr Deputy Speaker; but before I continue, I turn to acknowledge those from home, from Te Rōroa, who have arrived here in respect of the matter that has brought us here in the House today, the final reading of the bill that will pass into law. As I see you again today, my thoughts go back to those fathers and mothers who have passed away, such as Lovey, Ned, and a host of others. Although they are not here physically in our midst today, I know for sure that they are present spiritually. Further to that, I want to also acknowledge those relatives left at home who might be listening in or watching, so greetings to you, greetings to you, and greetings to us all.]

Before I proceed with my speech, I again declare a vested interest in the Te Roroa Claims Settlement Bill by virtue of my whakapapa, which links me to Te Rōroa. Although that may be insignificant to some members of this House, concerns have been expressed by people who represent organisations outside this House about my right to participate in the process that has seen this particular bill come to the stage where it is at today. I reaffirm to Te Rōroa and my fellow members that, in spite of that interest—that whanaungatanga—I do not qualify to be a beneficiary of this settlement.

This settlement has been through a long process before coming to this House today. That is an indication of just how long the people of Te Rōroa have travelled to be able to get a settlement that is something near to what they would like to see. Some people have described this settlement as the wāhi tapu settlement, because of the extreme interest that Te Rōroa place on the land areas included in this settlement that are sacred to them. I ought to say at this time that I know there are other claimants whose own claims encompass much of the area that this particular settlement is all about. I refer to Wai 549, in the name of Rudy Taylor, representing the Hokianga hapū and whānau collective. That is not an issue for Te Rōroa; that will be an issue between that collective and the Crown.

One of the comments made during an early Treaty settlement bill discussed by this House was about uniqueness. For me, what is unique about this bill is the fact that the original report from the tribunal, in hearing evidence about this particular claim, led to a change in the legislation affecting land in private ownership. If my memory serves me correctly, the original report by the tribunal recommended the return of certain land that was, at the time, held in private ownership. It is that aspect of the history of this settlement that I want to refer to.

The reference I make is that people who held ownership of some of the land that is encompassed within this settlement have, during the course of this bill making its way through the House, made derogatory comments to me and about me, in terms of whether I and the party I represent in this House—New Zealand First—thought that this would be a fair and an enduring settlement, because of the position taken by the Crown in acquiring certain land that was once in private ownership. The question they asked was whether this settlement would be an enduring one. My response to that concern is that that is a matter between those people and the Crown, not between the Crown and Te Rōroa. I assure the people of Te Rōroa that once this third reading is completed, they can depart this House knowing full well that they have received a full and final settlement from the Crown. I hope that it addresses many of the concerns that they had during the process of this bill making its way through the House.

I know that in all settlements there will always be differences of opinion. There will always be people who oppose or resist any suggestion as to how a settlement should take place. There will always be people who question the quantum. One of the things I have observed that has been different about this particular settlement is that even the negotiators mandated by their iwi had points of difference; I understand that one negotiator actually withdrew from the whole process. I suppose we should not be too surprised about differences of opinion as to the quantum and what should be provided in terms of redress, whether it be cultural or commercial redress. But I notice that the bill provides for protocols that will allow communication and dealings between Te Rōroa and different Government departments. For many Māori, whether they be claimants or not, all they want is the opportunity to be part of the process of decision making. In this particular bill, like a number of bills preceding it, the issue of protocols provides that opportunity for iwi. They want to be assured that they are part of the process of discussing land interests and cultural interests that affect them, and that they will have some impact on decisions made by ministries and perhaps also by local bodies.

I conclude by again congratulating the leadership of Te Rōroa. The task has not been an easy one for them, but I am not surprised that they have been able to endure the criticism and the hardship that dealing with their own people provides. I wish them all the best. Although those leaders may feel that it has been a hard task to get to this stage, I say to them that the real job lies ahead. I conclude by saying, as I have said in relation to all settlements, that exercising leadership requires leaders to look behind themselves from time to time, to ensure that the people they purport to lead are still there.

Nā reira, aku whanaunga, ngā mātua, ngā whaea ngā mihi hoki ki a koutou. Ngā manaakitanga o Te Runga rawa kei runga i a koutou mō ngā rā kei te heke mai. Nā reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, kia ora mai anō tātou.

[Therefore, congratulations to you, my relatives, and also my fathers and mothers. May the protective mantle of the Mighty above be upon you in the days ahead. So greetings to you, greetings to you, and to us all as well.]

JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green): The Green Party will vote for the third reading of the Te Roroa Claims Settlement Bill. I acknowledge the tīpuna who initiated this claim, all the leadership that has carried it through, and all those who are here today to celebrate its final conclusion.

I cannot claim any whakapapa to Te Rōroa, as some others in the House here today can, but I have stood under the great Tāne Māhuta and marvelled with awe at its age and at the long sequence of history that it has observed over some 2,000 years. A few years ago I planted on my farm in Coromandel a direct descendant of Tāne Māhuta. When a friend of mine was standing underneath Tāne Māhuta, a seed floated down into her hair. She took it home, potted it up, and gave me the resulting seedling, so in a very small way I feel I have a small connection with the whenua of Te Rōroa.

This is quite a small settlement, and the Green Party has had serious concerns about the miserly quantum. At the second reading we said that land that had been stolen was not being returned. We described how the primary purpose of the 1992 Waitangi Tribunal claim by Te Rōroa and the subsequent settlement was to remedy the Crown’s failure to set aside Kaharau, Te Taraire, Manuwhētai, and Whāngaiariki from the lands that were purchased in 1875 and 1876. The iwi were consistent in their understanding that those areas were to be set aside from any sales at that time. But the Crown rejected that and would accept only that if there were “any old graves on the block a few acres surrounding them could perhaps be reserved under the provisions of The Land Act without causing any inconvenience.”, and that title would remain in the hands of the Crown. Indeed, the Kaharau block, with its very long history of dispute, was not to be returned to iwi. The Greens refused to support the progression of the bill until the Government had made further progress on this issue, because the Government simply did not consider that the return of those properties was of sufficient importance to increase the quantum.

We have not achieved an absolute return of that land yet, but the Government has been forced to take further action to better enable its return. In addition, we have made the Government take action on the return of the kōiwi that remained in the hands of strangers rather than the whānau. Although this is not perfect, we accept the progress that the Government has made. Further work is being done on the question of returning Bob’s Block along with the return of the kōiwi. We understand that the Government is to provide an ex gratia payment of $6 million to facilitate the purchase of deferred selection properties. Progress, in the usual glacial way for Treaty settlements, has been made.

It is not the Green Party practice to oppose settlements. Although we are deeply opposed to the settlement process and believe that the Government and its agencies take advantage of the vulnerability, urgency, and poverty of iwi in the negotiations, we do not believe we have a mandate to tell iwi and hapū that their work in battling these barriers is not worthy of our respect. We will support the iwi—those who have worked day and night to make some gains for their hapū. We know that this settlement will exacerbate a number of Treaty breaches and that there are those in Te Rōroa who still have some legitimate serious concerns. But some progress has been made, and we do not believe for a minute that these claims will be full and final because of the poor Government process. We know there is urgent need to access these traditional and commercial resources for the benefit of the whole iwi.

We wish Te Rōroa the best of luck with their settlement, a strong and prosperous future for their mokopuna, and congratulations on getting to this point today.

Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Māori Party): Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker. Ki te iwi o Te Rōroa tēna koutou kua tae manuhiri mai ki tēnei Whare o tātau, ā, tēnā koutou, nau mai, whakapiri mai. Tautoko ana i ngā mihi ki ngā mate, ngā mea kua whakahuahuatia me ngā mate o te wā nei, otirā, o tātau katoa nei. Nā reira, tēnā koutou, nau mai whakapiri mai.

[Greetings to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and to the people of Te Rōroa who have arrived here as guests to this House of ours, greetings to you, welcome, draw close. I endorse the tributes to the dead, those mentioned of yesteryear and of the present, indeed all of ours. So greetings to you, welcome, draw close.]

The marae at Waimamaku is called Te Whakamaharatanga, and it was built as a fitting tribute to the soldiers from south Hokianga who fought in the First and Second World Wars. Today that name may well take on a new meaning.

The story of the relationship between the proud descendants of Ngāi Tūputupuwhenua and the Crown has been charged with conflict, almost before the ink was dry on our constitutional document. We think today of the rangatira of Te Rōroa—Te Pana Ruka, Wīremu Whangaroa, Tīmoti Tākare, Hāmiora Paekoraha, and Matiu Tauhara—all of whom signed Te Tiriti o Waitangi. These tīpuna were prepared to stake their honour on an aspiration for the future; a commitment to live together in this land. Two years after that signing an area of between 6,000 and 8,000 acres of land at Te Kōpuru was ceded to the Crown. Just 2 years after the Treaty had been enacted, conflict had erupted.

The record of that first incident is as complex as any to follow over that century. Tangata whenua were concerned at the desecration of kōiwi, of human remains; an incident broke out in a local store; the land was ceded while Ngāti Whiu and Ngāti Kawa, the hapu who had customary rights in the land, were away in Hokianga; and Ngāti Kawa later protested that those who made the cession had no right to do so. This one incident contains many of the elements that would be repeated over the centuries.

Grievous harm and cultural offence is associated with the desecration of sacred burial sites. What does it do to the soul of a people when they have to endure the looting of their grave sites and the theft of their kōiwi, the human remains of their people? This is the repeated history for Te Rōroa. Many of their tapu sites passed out of Te Rōroa care in the land alienation process that started in 1875. Particular examples of desecration took place at Aratapu and Kohekohe. Taonga were also likely to have been taken from the Pīwakawaka caves. This has been one of the most painful aspects of a very painful settlement. Those taonga are sacred to the people. The reburial of kōiwi and the handing back of taonga are events of our living memory that connect us to a shameful history, a tragic past.

And so we come today to Te Rōroa to acknowledge the recognition, at last, from the Crown of a breach of the Treaty of Waitangi. We come today to acknowledge the impact that land alienation and fragmentation has had on Te Rōroa, leaving the people virtually landless. We come today to grieve with them in putting to rest the severe, heart-wrenching spiritual and emotional sense of loss in understanding the heavy toll on a people, in being separated from their wāhi tapu and taonga. We come today to meld our tears with them, ngā aureretanga o Te Rōroa—the continuous crying of Te Rōroa.

In my time, short as it has been, as the deputy chair of the Māori Affairs Committee there have been many moments of sadness as we have considered the settlement of historical claims. I acknowledge the chairmanship of Dave Hereora and I acknowledge the team, as they also felt very strongly for the people of Te Rōroa in considering this claim.

There have been other issues in this settlement that have really affected us all. The length of time that has transpired over the course of settling the grievance extends back to 1861, when Rāpana first spoke out over the cession of lands at Te Kōpuru. Te Rōroa began petitioning the Crown from the late 1870s. In 1887 Te Rōroa wrote letters and petitioned Parliament. In 1907 there was another petition, and further petitions in 1925, 1930, and 1933. Māori members of Parliament—Hone Heke, Te Rangi Hīroa, and Tau Hēnare—were approached between 1903 and 1912. And finally, 21 years ago, Te Rōroa lodged a claim with the Waitangi Tribunal. This is the history of Te Rōroa seeking redress to their land.

This Te Roroa Claims Settlement Bill today finally brings closure to a long and difficult process, but there is still the enduring pain, particularly in regard to the exclusion of Kaharau and Te Taraire. We remember back to the Tribunal report on this matter of 1992, in which Te Rōroa urged the Crown to take all steps to acquire these lands and return them to tangata whenua as hapū estates. That is the Tribunal report.

In the submission received from Will Ngākuru, we were told that although the Crown claims to be interested in having a “full and final settlement”, for members of Te Rōroa and descendants of Ngākuru Pana, peace will never prevail until their burial places of Kaharau and Te Taraire are returned, as was the wish of their tīpuna. These sites of such sacred significance were never sold. It was always our contention that they needed to be included in the cultural redress provisions of the bill—either the Crown should purchase the lands or it should fund their purchase by Te Rōroa.

Although we acknowledge the sizable increase in the quantum, we are disappointed that it is still inadequate to purchase either Kaharau or Te Taraire, or to ensure future financial security for Te Rōroa. But I must acknowledge Dr Cullen and the team for extending the $9.5 million, with an ex-gratia payment of $6.5 million added to that.

If we as a Parliament are to invest in the durability of any settlement, then we must invest in the wishes and aspirations of the people. I understand there are ongoing discussions with Te Rōroa about the possibilities of Kaharau and Te Taraire being included, and I understand that Parekura Horomia, the Minister of Māori Affairs, has had something to do with this.

There are many longstanding issues of injustice in this settlement. The treatment of waka tūpāpaku and kōiwi has been found wanting. Dr Cullen explained many of those injustices earlier on. As with other settlements, the internal conflicts and division that have occurred through the passage of this settlement have been damaging to the spirit of the people who are so proud to be Te Rōroa. Throughout it all, these people—the tall ones, Te Rōroa—have stood proud in their whakapapa, passionate to defend the legacy of their tīpuna.

We in the Māori Party acknowledge the sacrifice and the dedication of all the people who have fought and who have kept on fighting to protect the honour of Te Rōroa. I say to Te Rōroa that we acknowledge them. Ka mihi atu ki a koutou mō ō koutou kaha, mō ō koutou māia kia taea tonu tēnei kerēme. Tēnā koutou.

[I acknowledge you and your efforts, and capability to get this claim through. Well done.]

Te Rōroa can be proud of their longstanding determination and of the efforts and struggles of their tīpuna and their young ones alike to restore peace and enduring justice for their people. This is a day to remember, he rā whakamaharatanga. Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Kia ora.

JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future): I stand on behalf of United Future to speak in support of the Te Roroa Claims Settlement Bill, which resolves a wide range of issues that Te Rōroa have sought redress on since 1861. This bill acknowledges clear breaches of the Treaty, including very poor process and clear alienation from lands and resources. The bill acknowledges the effect of those breaches over time on the people of Te Rōroa and, to ensure that those acknowledgments are not glossed over, the redress includes an agreed-upon historical account. There is financial and commercial redress, and rights of deferred selection and rights of first refusal are included in terms of future provisions. United Future congratulates the Crown and the iwi negotiators. We recognise that time and circumstances have seen much land in private ownership unable to be included. We wish Te Rōroa well with the new beginning that today signals. We are very, very happy to support this third reading.

Hon TAU HENARE (National): I want to echo Shane Jones’ kōrero about how significant it is that you, Mr Deputy Speaker, are in the Chair when we are passing the third reading of the Te Rōroa Claims Settlement Bill.

I start my comments on the bill by saying “Not enough, not enough, not enough”. It is pathetic, and I do not mean that as a shot at the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, the Deputy Prime Minister. I say that because this bill addresses one of the most shameful acts that any Government has put across a people—that is, the continued desecration of a small but proud people. Again, I do not refer to the current Government. In fact, this House has gone some way to putting right the wrongs of former Governments.

I feel rather proud that I can stand in the House and speak on this bill, because my great-grandfather was part of the triumvirate of members of Parliament back in the days that took on board what had happened to Te Rōroa. The funny thing is that in 1993, when I took up my spot in the House of Representatives, for the next 3 years I was inundated with faxes and letters from Ngāpuhi saying: “Those fellows aren’t Te Rōroa. They’re just a little offshoot of Ngāpuhi.” I will not name those people, but they know who they are. I congratulate those who are left from Te Rōroa on sticking it out and going the extra mile.

This bill is not about only Te Rōroa. In the history of New Zealand, in a hundred years’ time, people will look back on Te Rōroa and the settlement, and they will think: “Allan Titford”. I want to bring up the issue of Allan Titford, because it is important to the whole story of Te Rōroa that we do not forget that there is still bitterness out there over this settlement, and it is not felt only by some of the whānau. It is also felt by Pākehā people who have been involved in the area. I just say to Te Rōroa: “Go well!” Hopefully, they can smooth the rough edges that, unfortunately, the Government has left them. We will try our best to smooth some of them, as well.

There has been mention of Waimamaku. I cannot stand here and not mention the first time I went to Waimamaku. I was working with the Department of Internal Affairs as a community development adviser, and the people from Waimamaku had put in an application to the Lottery Grants Board to get some funds for the marae. I went up there and met with Whetū Naera and the folk up there, and I wrote a report saying that they should get a grant of millions and millions of dollars for their marae. Whether they were successful, who knows?

There is an issue, dear to my heart, that arises out of the process with the bill, and that is the repatriation of taonga, whether repatriated from overseas or from within our shores. I must say it should not be a case of finders keepers, losers weepers. It should not be that simple, especially when we are talking about kōiwi tūpuna taonga. Which one of us in this House would like to see our grandmother and grandfather sitting on somebody else’s mantelpiece? That is how I equate it. Surely we have to do a hell of a lot more than we have been doing to repatriate those taonga into the proper ownership, the hands of those from whom those taonga have been taken.

The other significant issue was the Aranga farms issue—the Allan Titford issue—and out of that issue came the decree that no private land would or could be used in the settlement of Treaty claims. So, good or bad, that is what came out of that issue. I am disappointed that we could not get the return of the taonga in question, and I know that everybody who comes back to the House after November will try, in their role as parliamentarians, to make sure they get those taonga returned.

I want to, I suppose, apologise to Te Rōroa and my apology is this: “We have given you so little, I do not expect miracles. We have given you so little to work with, it is a wonder that any good will come of it.” I sincerely mean that, and it is not because of Te Rōroa; it is because of us. I am still shocked and shamed by what we have been able to do for Te Rōroa. They have been waiting 15 to 16 years for a settlement bill, only to get $9 million in today’s money. That would most probably be the yearly salary of somebody from AIG or Lehman Brothers Bank.

I notice that there is a 13-page preamble to the bill, and it tells the story, however briefly, of Te Rōroa. Maybe in the future we can gather up all our Treaty settlement bills and look at all the history that has been written in those preambles, and maybe we can bind them and use them for the history lessons that we should be teaching our kids in mainstream education and kura kaupapa.

I want to end by again saying that the Māori Affairs Committee did its job wonderfully well, under the good stewardship of Dave Hereora. We travelled to Dargaville, and I have to say that when we go through the select committee process and hear submissions, there is always one that stands out. There is always one submission that really knocks us off our seats. A guy came up to the select committee table with a little tree, and I thought that it was a gift for us, as a select committee. I will not mention any names.

Pita Paraone: It wasn’t any tree; it was a tupuna—it was a kauri.

Hon TAU HENARE: It was “the” tree. It was a kauri. You know, Māoris love theatre, eh? We love theatre—that is why we come here.

The guy told his story. He told us what he wanted to tell us, and then he started hacking at the tree—well, he was not hacking at it; he had proper secateurs, or whatever they were. I was gobsmacked. I wanted that tree, but maybe we will go to Te Rōroa and get a couple of trees for our backyard at Christmas time.

I offer my congratulations to the Nathan whānau and to everybody in Te Rōroa on having the guts to stick it out, and stick it out. For over 100 years, they have been waiting for this. Finally, I say that Uncle Maite would have been very, very pleased and very, very humbled by the experience. Kia ora.

Bill read a third time.

Waiata; karanga

Bills

Port Nicholson Block (Taranaki Whanui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika) Claims Settlement Bill

First Reading

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): I move, That the Port Nicholson Block (Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika) Claims Settlement Bill be now read a first time. At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be considered by the Māori Affairs Committee.

Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika comprises people from Taranaki iwi, including Te Ātiawa, Taranaki, Ngāti Tama, and Ngāti Ruanui who descend from signatories of the 27 September 1839 Port Nicholson Block purchase, ancestors listed in the schedule to the declaration of the Native Land Court in Wellington dated 11 April 1888, and/or ancestors who exercised customary rights in the Port Nicholson Block on or after 6 February 1840 by virtue of being descended from one or more of the named iwi in this settlement. This settlement covers the area of the Port Nicholson Block, which is an area of approximately 271,000 hectares spanning the Wellington, Lower Hutt, and Upper Hutt areas. The claims of Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika were lodged with the Waitangi Tribunal from 1987 onwards, and the district report was presented in 2003. The Crown recognised the mandate of the negotiating team that settled the claims in January 2004. The terms of the negotiation were signed in mid-2004, the agreement in principle was signed in December 2007, and an initial deed of settlement was signed in June 2008. During June and July the post-settlement ratification process occurred, which demonstrated sufficient support to proceed to the final deed of settlement in August 2008.

The grievances to which this settlement relate stem largely, but not solely, from the Crown’s role in the sale of land within the Port Nicholson Block. In September 1839 the New Zealand Company, a private land settlement company, sought to purchase land in Wellington Harbour and its environs from Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika. Before the arrival of its representatives in New Zealand, the company had already sold nearly 100,000 hectares in the Port Nicholson area to prospective settlers and had held a lottery in London to allocate land to them. The company’s representatives negotiated the Port Nicholson deed, which was signed on 27 September 1839 with Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika in an attempt to purchase a large district of Port Nicholson and its environs that was subsequently known as the Port Nicholson Block. That deed was later found to be seriously flawed by a Crown-appointed land claims commissioner. In 1841 the Crown assumed ownership of the harbour islands, despite the deed’s flaws, and it also proclaimed the Wellington town belt to be a public reserve without offering compensation.

The 1839 deed provided that a tenth portion of the land conveyed by it would be reserved for Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika. The company intended that some of these tenths reserves would be occupation reserves, while the remaining tenths reserves would provide an endowment fund. Despite the initial findings of the land claims commissioner, the Crown established a process by which the company could validate its 1839 purchase. In return for £1,500, which was negotiated between the company and a Crown representative, Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika signed several deeds of release in early 1844, so that the company could complete its purchase. But it was always uncertain how much land had been purchased by these deeds of release. The Crown subsequently treated all of the land in the district covered by the 1839 deed as if Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika’s title to it had been fully extinguished.

In 1846, in order to finally secure the lands to the company, the Crown instructed the appropriately named Lieutenant Colonel McCleverty to find Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika alternative lands in exchange for their reserve lands around Wellington Harbour. As a result of these exchanges the iwi were pressured to move from their traditional lands to lands that proved inadequate to sustain their way of life. The Taranaki whānui grouping had no role in the administration of the remaining tenths reserves until 1985. There were long delays in establishing proper administration, including delays in the passing of legislation. The Crown-appointed trustee also appropriated tenths reserves land for public purposes, and much of this was alienated under the Crown-appointed trustee’s administration. In order to generate income from the reserves, the Crown-appointed trustee established a regime of perpetual leases, and over time the effects of inflation, of course, reduced rental returns. As a historian, I should note at this point that such leases at the time did not seem to have the same disadvantage as they do these days, because, if anything, prices were either stable or, in the later 19th century, actually declining, so a guaranteed return seemed quite a good bet from the perspective of those who owned the land. As another consequence of settlement, Wellington Harbour, an important food and trade resource for Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika, was adversely affected by the pollution and sewage generated by urban and industrial development, as well as by reclamations around the harbour.

There is much, given even that brief recitation of the history, for the Crown to apologise for. The Crown’s apology recognises that the Crown breached its obligations under the Treaty and its principles. This breach includes the Crown’s failure to consistently protect Taranaki whānui’s interests during the process by which the Crown and its agents acquired Taranaki whānui’s interest in the Port Nicholson Block, the compulsory acquisition and endowment of their lands for public purposes, and various acts and omissions in relation to delays in the implementing of legislation and administration of the reserves. This significantly undermined the tino rangatiratanga of Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika, and this impacted upon their economic and social development. As part of the settlement and in response to the Crown apology, Taranaki whānui have very generously provided a statement of forgiveness to the Crown. The Crown, of course, is forgiven for those matters for which the Crown is apologising, and this is a unique feature in a Treaty settlement. The Crown will recognise the traditional, historical, cultural, and spiritual association of Taranaki whānui with a vesting of 18 sites, including three Wellington Harbour islands, the beds of the Pencarrow lakes and two associated esplanade reserves, three other sites in Upper Hutt, the Pētone foreshore, and Seatoun. The bill provides that the existing reserve status will be maintained except for Pencarrow lake beds and esplanade reserves, which will instead have a conservation covenant on their title. The sites’ natural values will be protected and public access will be provided for.

In addition, the bill provides for the establishment of a Harbour Islands Kaitiaki Board to administer the harbour islands, with an equal number of representatives from the Department of Conservation and from Taranaki whānui. Other sites to be invested in Taranaki whānui include the land under Pipitea Marae, subject to the final conclusion of an arrangement with the existing lessees, the Ngati Poneke Māori Association; two Crown-owned properties in central Wellington and one in Waiwhetū; the former Wainuiomata College site; the former Wainuiomata Intermediate School site; and the former Waiwhetu School site; an urupā site at Mākara; and two dendroglyph areas near the Pencarrow lakes. There are to be statutory acknowledgments over 13 sites in the Port Nicholson area that register the special cultural association that Taranaki whānui have with those areas, and those will require therefore consent authorities to provide Taranaki whānui with all resource consent applications under the Resource Management Act that may affect the areas named in the acknowledgments. A deed of recognition will cover the Rimutaka Forest Park, Wainuiomata Scenic Reserve, and the Turakirae Head Scientific Reserve. The deed of recognition will oblige the Crown to consult with Taranaki whānui and have regard to their views regarding the special association they have with such a site. These are a form of non-exclusive redress, meaning that more than one iwi can have a deed of recognition over the same site. Eight place names in the Wellington area will be changed by the bill, subject to approval by the New Zealand Geographic Board.

In the spirit of partnership and in recognition of the social and economic advances that Taranaki Wwānui have mapped out for themselves, the deed of settlement provides for a number of relationship instruments, including a whole-of-Government relationship with the Crown, which will assist Taranaki whānui to reach social, economic, and cultural goals. There is, of course, financial and commercial redress. There is a financial settlement of just over $25 million, minus money previously paid on account; the right to purchase specific properties, including the former naval station at Shelly Bay; the opportunity to purchase land under certain properties in Wellington City and Lower Hutt; and a 100-year period of right of first refusal over specific properties.

Finally, may I pay tribute to the Port Nicholson Block Claims Team, led by Professor Ngātata Love, who have brought to the table a collective representing more than 16,000 members whose affiliations span at least four iwi. This is a massive achievement on the part of that negotiating team. The bill, of course, will proceed to a select committee. I am sure there will be very widespread support. I know that this bill is particularly supported by the mayor and the council of the city of Wellington, who see this as a great platform on which to move forward together in the Wellington region.

CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National): The National Party will support the Port Nicholson Block (Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika) Claims Settlement Bill through all its stages. As a lifelong Wellingtonian, born and bred here—

Hon Members: Oh!

CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: —unlike many people here—it gives me great pleasure to say that I enthusiastically support this settlement. It is long overdue. We deal with legislation as it goes through the House, and we look at the provisions that make up settlement legislation, but I submit that there is no substitute for looking at the reports of the Waitangi Tribunal, because it is only when we do that that we see the injustices and the disgraceful conduct by the Crown, which has gone on for far too long.

This claim began as Wai 145. It was brought in 1987 by the Wellington Tenths Trust and the Palmerston North Māori Reserve Trust. As a result of hearings before the Waitangi Tribunal and evidence that had been adduced, the tribunal reported that “it became apparent that the claimants’ grievances extended beyond matters which were solely the concern of the Wai 145 claimants.”, and that is why other parties became involved—for example, Ngāti Toa, Ngāti Tama, Ngāti Rangitahi from Taumarunui, Rangitāne, and others. The report is salutary, and I think it would be really useful for members to read it and, indeed, for reports to be made more generally available, because they play such an important role in outlining the history of our country.

Let us look at the key tribunal findings on events as at 1840. The first key finding was that “At 1840, Maori groups with ahi ka rights within the Port Nicholson block … were Te Atiawa at Te Whanganui a Tara and parts of the south-west coast; Taranaki and Ngati Ruanui at Te Aro; Ngati Tama at Kaiwharawhara and environs and at parts of the south-west coast; and Ngati Toa at Heretaunga and parts of the south-west coast.” A key finding of the tribunal—and the Minister referred to it in the course of his speech—is that “The 1839 Port Nicholson deed of purchase was invalid and conferred no rights under either English or Maori law on the New Zealand Company or those to whom the company subsequently purported to on-sell part of such land …”.

On the grievances from 1840 and the breaches of the Treaty, “The Crown took most of the town belt land from Maori without obtaining their consent or carrying out any consultation and without making any payment …”. As one goes through the grievances one sees the constant repetition of lack of consultation: “The Crown also took various reserves in Wellington for public purposes and assumed the ownership of Matiu (Somes Island) in 1841,”—again, without obtaining any consent. The Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations has referred to the inquiry that was set up. It was switched from an inquiry to arbitration—again, without any consent and without any steps being taken on the part of the Crown to ensure that there was a fair process that was acceptable to Māori and could be followed.

The 1844 deeds of release breached the Treaty. Ngāti Tama were not treated properly at Kaiwharawhara and at Heretaunga. I pass over Ngāti Rangitahi because they are not included in this bill. They will be the subject of other negotiations at some later stage. The Minister has referred to the McCleverty transactions, which were unacceptable. So it goes on, right up until very recent times—for example, the alienation of urban reserves: from 1840 to 1882, 23 valuable Wellington Tenths reserves were taken “for hospital, educational, and religious purposes without any consultation with or the consent of the Maori beneficial owners …”, and when compensation was paid it was “manifestly inadequate”. The Minister said that there were complaints about administration of the Wellington Tenths Trust and they continued right through to 1985. Waiwhetū Pā land was taken for river protection purposes when it need not have been.

These kinds of mistakes have been made since 1839, and it is high time this Parliament addressed them and introduced this legislation. National will certainly be cooperating because it is important that this bill be passed into law very quickly.

Sitting suspended from 1 p.m. to 2 p.m.

CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: Before the luncheon break I was reviewing some of the findings of the Waitangi Tribunal, which did not make particularly pleasant reading. They were, with apologies to the late Justice Mahon, a litany of failings. The last one I mention, before turning to the bill, relates to the Wellington Harbour and foreshore. The tribunal found that “Maori have been prejudicially affected by the actions of the Crown and legislative provisions which authorised the reclamation of substantial parts of the foreshore of Wellington Harbour. Those Maori so affected were Te Atiawa, Ngati Tama, Taranaki, and Ngati Ruanui …”. I certainly endorse the statements made by the tribunal about reclamation around Wellington Harbour. The reclamation at Kaiwharawhara is a particularly bad one.

Now we come to the bill. The bill sets out a number of standard provisions. Some matters did not need to be contained in the bill—they are simply contained in the deed of settlement—but they are also worth referring to. I do not want to encourage Mr Paraone, but there is reference at least in the explanatory note to the Treaty of Waitangi or its principles. I do not want that to be an invitation to Mr Paraone to make another speech about vague references to principles.

What are the key elements of the bill? First, it provides for vesting in the trustees of certain cultural redress properties. I refer to 1 Thorndon Quay, which we all know; the Pipitea Marae site mentioned by the Minister; an urupā site at Mākara; the Point Dorset Recreation Reserve, which is another one that is well known to Wellingtonians; and the Matiu Historic Reserve.

Next the bill sets out the Crown’s acknowledgment of the statements made by Taranaki whānui of their spiritual, historical, and traditional association with certain historical areas. The ones that immediately leapt off the page at me, because of my knowledge of Wellington, were the Kaiwharawhara Stream, the Hutt River, the Waiwhetū Stream, Wellington Harbour, the Government Buildings Historic Reserve, the Turnbull House Historic Reserve, and the Rimutaka Forest Park. There is provision for official amendment of eight place names, ranging from Ngauranga Stream through to Steeple Rock—which, as we all know, is just off Seatoun. Certain elements of the settlement package are referred to in the deed of settlement only; the Minister has covered those.

I am particularly interested in the option for the trustees to purchase certain properties, particularly four Shelly Bay properties. I have had a bit of insight into the potential for a development there, and I regard it as really exciting. I think all Wellingtonians will be beside themselves with joy when they see what is planned, and that is why I am so keen for this legislation to get through. This is all pretty exciting and it will make Aucklanders absolutely jealous.

Finally, a very good acknowledgment in the deed of settlement, which I do not think I have seen before, provides a very good precedent for the future. It provides for an appropriate Minister of the Crown to chair an annual hui between relevant Ministers of the Crown and trustees for various purposes. I think that is an excellent idea and it is to be encouraged, because the after-settlement discussions will prevent problems occurring in the future.

All in all, it is good legislation and National supports it. We will cooperate in the passage of the bill through all its stages, including select committee. I will save my congratulations to the various negotiators and those who have played a part in the development of the bill until the third reading.

Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National): Ā Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa. I am very pleased to take a call on the first reading of the Port Nicholson Block (Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika) Claims Settlement Bill. Like other bills that come before us this bill has also had a long gestation, and it is very fortunate that it now presents itself in the environment of the renewed energy and vigour of the Government, under Dr Cullen. Dr Cullen seems to have been able to motivate several iwi to get some steam into settlements or claims that might have been lax or lying by the wayside, or at a stage where iwi might have been thinking: “Well, if nothing happens here, we’re going to move to the next step.” So it is a very, very fine thing that this bill now comes into the House.

I feel I have a little bit of a connection with the settlement, in as much as I suppose if one was a member of the Waitangi Tribunal, which I was for 10 years, then it is not surprising there may have been a connection to a settlement of an iwi I am not a part of. But I started sitting on the tribunal when it was hearing this claim. Obviously, when I became a parliamentary candidate I had to step down from the tribunal, but that, for me, gives an idea of the time of the claim. This is my twelfth year in Parliament and we started hearing the claim in the early 1990s. I remember going on a site visit with lawyers and other tribunal members—including Gordon Orr, and Bill Wilson, who has now been appointed to a higher bench—and having a look at the sites that once belonged to Taranaki whānui, but of course up until a settlement started to be negotiated with the Crown, that had not been theirs for some generations. So I congratulate the Taranaki families that have worked for so long and so assiduously to bring their claim to this point, and to conclude a settlement.

These settlements are difficult, they are complex, and they take time. Of course, these families will know as well as anybody that at the time when their claim got off the ground and the hearings started, the environment within which we were all operating was not necessarily conducive to Treaty settlements. As an example of how time has moved on, and of how our nation has matured in relation to the responsibilities of a Government and its citizens to address longstanding injustice—which is what these claims are about—I tell the House that I recall seeing, when the deed of settlement was signed some months ago, an editorial in the Dominion Post that basically praised the iwi and the Government for reaching a settlement. I do not think we saw that sort of editorial 15 years ago, which of course makes the activities of that time all the more significant. But these days, and particularly in relation to this claim and this area, the leading newspaper of this city has shown an obvious maturing and a clear appreciation of the importance of these settlements—that they are not just about Māori wanting things for themselves; they are about Māori wanting to feel a sense of justice, and a sense that the laws of this country can protect their rights, as well, and can bring redress for the things done to them in the past that constituted a breach of the Treaty of Waitangi. So, yes, when I opened the newspaper a few months ago and saw the editorial exhorting Wellingtonians and the people of this area to see this settlement as nothing but positive for this area and this economy, I smiled and I thought “Wonderful—things have definitely moved on.”

We come to the bill. My colleague Chris Finlayson gave a very good review, I thought, of the findings of the Waitangi Tribunal. They show, in essence, that the Port Nicholson deed was a sham, because within a very short time of its being signed, the Crown—the Government of the day—started to breach those very things that it had promised to the iwi of this region. That was a bit of a shameful time but nothing that we need to feel guilty for, because those breaches were made by our forbears, in the wisdom of their ways. But here today we have the privilege and the pleasure of moving to put right some of the hurt and the tragedy that befell Taranaki whānui when quite quickly they found themselves being dispossessed of their lands, contrary to what they had expected when they signed the Treaty of Waitangi. Congratulations to Taranaki whānui! In the scope of this settlement, Taranaki whānui define their rohe as conforming to the boundaries of the Port Nicholson Block. There are 17,183 registered members, comprising people from Taranaki iwi: Te Ātiawa, Taranaki, Ngāti Tama, and Ngāti Ruanui; and other people from Taranaki, including Ngāti Mutunga. And for those people who do not have the advantage of being here in this Chamber this afternoon, but who may be listening or watching, I say that representatives from all those tribes are here today. We greet them; I greet them.

According to the explanatory note of the bill, “The settlement settles all of the historical claims of Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika. Those claims include all claims that are, or are founded on, a right arising—from the Treaty of Waitangi … or under legislation; or at common law … or from fiduciary duty; or otherwise.” But it must always be made clear, and there is no harm in reminding ourselves, that Taranaki whānui, like other tribes, claim only what they see as their rights in the law—their rights in the law—and that is the beauty of these settlements. They are founded on rights that flow either from legislation or from the common law of England. They are not some fanciful notions of what people think they should have; they are seriously founded in the law of this land. Therefore, it is only right and proper that this Parliament, some 160 years on, is moving to address the longstanding injustice done to these people.

Just briefly in closing, I tell members that with my colleague Chris Finlayson, I was privy to some plans that have been put forward for the Shelley Bay property. The plans look very, very exciting, and they underpin the importance of these Treaty settlements to the regions in which they are founded. These settlements are not just for Māori; they are for the areas and the regions from which they come, and for all the people of those communities. They will be a benefit to all, and ultimately they will be a benefit to all of us as New Zealanders, in this great little country of ours.

We will have more to say as this bill proceeds through its various stages, but for today I want to say again “Congratulations! Ngā mihi ki ngā whānau, ngā iwi o Taranaki”, and we will see members of the iwi as we proceed with this bill. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

PITA PARAONE (NZ First): Tēnā koe, Madam Assistant Speaker, ā, tēnā hoki koe ngā uri o Te Ati Awa, Ngāti Tama, Taranaki, Ngāti Ruanui, koutou ngā iwi mai i te rohe o Taranaki, arā, ko Ngāti Mutunga, koutou katoa i hakatau mai ki tēnei Whare i runga i te kaupapa a hakahuihui mai i a tātou, arā, ko te pire e kī nei, Port Nicholson Block (Taranaki Whanui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika) Claims Settlement Bill. Engari, i mua i te haerenga o tōku kōrero, e hiahia ana au kia mihi atu ki ngā rangatira i kawe mai i tēnei kaupapa mō ngā iwi i hakahuangia e au i tēnei wā. Nō reira, e Tā Paora, Ahorangi Ngātata Love, Kara Puketapu, Neville Baker, Mark Te One, June Jackson, Liz Mellish, Dawn McConnell, Spencer Carr, me Kevin Amohia, tēnā koutou katoa.

[Greetings to you, Madam Assistant Speaker, and to you the descendants of Te Ati Awa, Ngāti Tama, Taranaki, Ngāti Ruanui, and those of you also of Ngāti Mutunga of the Taranaki region, all of you who have gathered together in this House as well as us, in regard to the Port Nicholson Block (Taranaki Whanui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika) Claims Settlement Bill. But before I continue with my address, I want to acknowledge the leaders, Sir Paul, Professor Ngātata Love, Kara Puketapu, Neville Baker, Mark Te One, June Jackson, Liz Mellish, Dawn McConnell, Spencer Carr, and Kevin Amohia, who brought this matter before us on behalf of the iwi groups whom I mentioned earlier. Congratulations to you all.]

As is my practice, particularly with regard to Treaty settlements such as the one the Port Nicholson Block (Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika) Claims Settlement Bill relates to, I declare a vested interest by way of both whakapapa and an association with some of the principals involved in the negotiations with the Crown. I know that it

probably causes some alarm when I make mention of whakapapa. Well, I say I have a niece who descends from Hineamaru, the eponymous ancestress of Ngāti Hine. She will certainly be a beneficiary of the settlement, by virtue of her birthright within Taranaki whānui. So I declare that relationship by way of whakapapa.

In terms of association, I will list a number of names of people in the group that is responsible for bringing this bill to the stage that it is at today. I particularly make reference to Kara Puketapu, Ngātata Love, and Neville Baker, because prior to coming here to this House I was an employee of the Department of Māori Affairs, and both Kara Puketapu and Ngātata Love were chief executive officers of that department during that time. Also, a senior manager, Neville Baker, was one of my senior officers. In fact, all three, I would suggest, have contributed to my development in terms of an involvement in Māori development. So I just acknowledge that association.

This bill follows a number of milestones that have led to this settlement, which have included the recognition by the Crown of the mandate of the Port Nicholson Block claims team to negotiate the historical claims of the Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika in January 2004. In July 2004 terms of negotiation were signed, and an agreement in principle was subsequently signed in December 2007, leading to the signing of the deed of settlement that took place last month at Pipitea Marae. I had the pleasure of being in attendance to witness that important occasion. As was pointed out on that occasion, the signing of the deed of settlement was a critical point in the journey toward cultural, social, and economic rejuvenation for Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika, and this bill is further progress in that journey. It should be noted that it has taken 21 years to settle what has essentially been 168 years of grievance for this iwi group.

When making reference to the time that has been taken to complete settlements, reference is often made to the number of iwi members who have passed on since claims were first lodged. E kī nei te kōrero, ahakoa kei te ngaro rātou ki te tirohanga kanohi, kei konei wā rātou wairua i waenganui i tātou i te rā nei. It is said that although they are lost to our sight, they are present in spirit. Of course, this settlement is no different from others in that regard. However, it has been pointed out as an alternative observation that the progress of this settlement has seen seven elections, seven Governments, six different Prime Ministers, a number of Ministers responsible for Treaty negotiations, and “a parade of officials too numerous to count.” For me what has tremendous relevance, when compared with other settlements, is that the parties to this bill—that is, the Crown and the mandated representatives—are actually based in the same town over which the settlement traverses, yet it has taken as long as this to reach this point.

This bill is not only significant for Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika but also for the wider Wellington community. The previous speaker from National, Georgina te Heuheu, articulated that importance for the local economy. The bill also has a uniqueness about it that I believe sets it apart from other Treaty settlements, in that a sense of divine influence is intrinsic to the bill. I refer, of course, to the statement of forgiveness from Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika to the Crown for breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi incurred by the Crown. The adage “To err is human, to forgive divine” is certainly exemplified in that statement.

The settlement includes a cultural redress package that features the transfer of a number of sites of cultural significance to the iwi, some of which will retain the access rights presently enjoyed by the general public. I know that the previous speaker made reference to being privy to some proposed plans for Shelly Bay. I cannot comment on that; unfortunately New Zealand First has not been privy to those plans. But suffice it to say it indicates the commitment that Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika has made in terms of its contribution to the development and the well-being of the local community.

I understand that a number of hui involving iwi members were held to consider this settlement package, and that there was support to accept the settlement. There were 7,120 registered adult members eligible to vote, of whom 2,634 cast valid votes. Of that number, approximately 2,597 voted in favour of accepting the terms of the deed of settlement. That shows just how effective the negotiating team has been in terms of articulating the details of the settlement, but it also affirms the acceptance of the people of Taranaki of the quantum of this settlement. For whatever reason, it can be seen that a number of eligible iwi members did not vote. The select committee process will afford them a further opportunity to have a say, and I hope they will avail themselves of it and express their views. Again, I acknowledge the leadership that has been exercised by iwi representatives in this process.

New Zealand First supports the first reading of this bill. Kia ora.

SUE KEDGLEY (Green): As a Wellington-based MP and a Wellingtonian born and bred, I am delighted to support the first reading of the Port Nicholson Block (Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika) Claims Settlement Bill on behalf of the Green Party.

The grievances of the Taranaki whānui are so stark and so long-lasting—168 years—and the breaches of the Treaty are so extreme that it is extraordinary that this bill has taken so long. I am a little bit sad that the bill has been introduced only in the very last days of this Parliament, but we look forward to its very speedy progression through the next Parliament.

I recall being briefed on the settlement many, many years ago when I was a Wellington city councillor, and I understood then its significance not just for the Taranaki whānui but also for all the people of the Wellington region. Perhaps it is partly because the bill has taken so long and there has been such wide consultation that there is a sense of real anticipation and very positive enthusiasm for the settlement on the part of the people of Wellington. I agree with previous speakers that the settlement will have tremendous significance for the Wellington economy. I think we understand that, which is why it is so eagerly anticipated.

Like the previous speaker, Pita Paraone, I have not had the opportunity to see the plans for Shelly Bay. They have been discussed for many, many years, and I am delighted to hear that they are as exciting as the previous speakers have said. I congratulate all of those who have taken part in negotiating this settlement. It really has been a marathon. I think this bill is justly deserved, long overdue, and much supported by the people of Wellington. There is tremendous enthusiasm and support across all parties, across all of our region, and, indeed, across all of our nation for the bill.

For the sake of iwi and hapū, we wish very speedy progress in the second and third readings of this bill.

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki): Tēnā koe, Madam Assistant Speaker. Kia ora tātou katoa. Koutou, nō koutou tēnei whenua, kāre e tika ana mā te manuhiri te tangata whenua e mihi. Hoi anō ko tāku, he whaiwhai haere i te āhuatanga o ngā kōrero a ērā i tū i mua i a au. Whakatau mai ki roto i te Whare nei, tēnā koutou katoa. Otirā, ka huri atu ki a koutou o te Kāhui Ariki, ka rere tonu ngā whakaaro ki Waikato, he piko he taniwha, he piko he taniwha te kōrero, nau mai, tēnā koutou, kia ora tātou katoa.

[Greetings to you, Madam Assistant Speaker, and to us all. This land belongs to you, the people of the land, and it is not for the visitor to welcome to what is yours. Mine is merely to follow up on what others before me have advocated. But do make yourselves at home in this House. I turn now to acknowledge you, the King movement; to Waikato, and that adage: at every bend of the river is a chief. Welcome, greetings to you, and to us all.]

It is a rare day when every member of this House can acknowledge a special association to a Treaty settlement. Today is that day, when all of us honour the descendants of Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika for their generosity in allowing us to work in their rohe. We honour the presence of the uri of Taranaki iwi who migrated here to Te Whanga-nui-a-Tara in the 1820s, establishing settlements around the harbour, Kaiwharawhara, Waiwhetū, and Te Aro Pā. We acknowledge them all: Te Ātiawa, Taranaki, Ngāti Tama, Ngāti Ruanui, and Ngāti Mutunga, who descend from the ancestors of Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika.

For the uninformed, some might ask how the heck the name “Taranaki” ends up in a bill about Wellington land. Similarly, many would not know that Taranaki tūturu is actually one of the many tribes of Taranaki. This is the history, a Māori history of migration. So to my in-laws and kōeke of my Pūniho and Parihaka children, I say tēnā koutou, kia ora tātou.

The Māori Party, as we say, is unique in this Parliament for having kaupapa Māori drive us as our philosophical base. So it is with much pleasure that we note that the Port Nicholson Block claims also live by kaupapa that has paved the way for this significant day. I want to share with this House the kaupapa that they adhere to in their commitment to ensure that the settlement benefits are shared by all who are entitled to them. That kaupapa is:

Together we arrived

Together we lived

Together we survived

Together we go forward

And together we will succeed.

We believe that this kaupapa provides an impressive foundation for a future, a foundation that validates the history passed down through the generations, a foundation for success.

Today is a critical point in the lives of generations to come. Taranaki whānui have mobilised all of their people to rebuild. These are people who have suffered the loss of connections to their harbour, forests, waterways, and natural resources within the Port Nicholson Block.

The ultimate offence had its beginnings in the 1839 deed of purchase, the document that the Waitangi Tribunal later found to be invalid. It is somewhat overwhelming to think that we are doing what we are doing today in an attempt to make right the wrong committed almost 169 years ago to the day. The 1839 deed, written in draft form and signed on 27 September 1839, but written only in English, assumed ownership of the Wellington Harbour and its environs, without even including a map of the boundaries. Before the New Zealand Company had even set foot in Aotearoa, it had sold nearly 100,000 acres of the Port Nicholson area to prospective settlers, through a grand lottery in London, for goodness’ sake! The 1839 deed of purchase re-appropriated the whole of Wellington city and its suburbs, including Lower Hutt, Upper Hutt, and Wainuiōmata.

Wellington city is of course the seat of Government, an area of major population, the site of one of our most important ports, and a business hub. The rugged hills and the lack of flat land mark out this space as one in which the whenua has acquired great financial value.

I understand that it was 21 years ago that two men submitted a claim to the Waitangi Tribunal: Mākere Rangiātea Ralph Love and Ralph Herberley Ngātata Love. Ka mihi ki a rāua. That claim was on behalf of the beneficiaries of the Taranaki Māori Trust Board, the Wellington Tenths Trust, and the Palmerston North Māori Reserve Trust, together with ngā iwi o Taranaki. The claim was made on the following grounds: the Crown’s failure to ensure that one-tenth of the Port Nicholson Block was reserved as provided for in the 1839 deed of purchase for Port Nicholson; the exchange of reserve land in Port Nicholson for land of a lesser value in Palmerston North; the taking of Wellington Tenths reserve land for endowments; and the leasing in perpetuity of Wellington Tenths and Palmerston North reserve land.

And so today we honour all those of Taranaki whānui for their perseverance in putting on the table claims relating to the action of the New Zealand Company, the theft by the Crown of Māori reserved lands, and the failure of the Crown to provide an adequate land base for Māori. They have also put on the table the impact of the regime of perpetual leases, the damage and devastation caused by pollution and sewage arising from urban development, and the reclamations around the harbour to provide land for public purposes.

This is a day, too, to acknowledge and congratulate Taranaki whānui and a very impressive claims team. Some of them have been mentioned, but I acknowledge them again: Professor Ngātata Love, Sir Paul Reeves, Neville Baker, Kara Puketapu, June Jackson, Liz Mellish, Mark Te One, Dawn McConnell, Dr Catherine Love, Spencer Carr, and Kevin Amohia. That there is a team! They have told their story, which has been 21 years in the drafting but decades and generations in the creation. It is a story in which many of the main characters have now passed on and are no longer with us. We remember them. E hoa mā, you have done well.

The settlement has a quantum of $25 million, as well as the opportunity to purchase a number of Crown properties in Wellington city and in the region—a portfolio of Crown-owned land estimated to be worth a mere $120 million. There is a significant cultural redress package recognising their key sites of tribal meaning, including the three islands in Wellington Harbour. The lake beds of Kōhangaterā and Kōhangapiripiri at Parangarahu are included, and reserve lands such as Wī Tako Scenic Reserve.

But there are some unique aspects of this settlement I want to bring to the attention of the House. This settlement is unique in that it introduces the concept of forgiveness. Forgiveness is a concept that we as tangata whenua understand. It is an essential component of reciprocity. In the act of forgiveness, there are two players: those who extend the spirit of forgiveness, and those who are forgiven. The difficulty in this case is that although the persons who are doing the forgiving are here in the flesh and form, the Crown is a lifeless object—an entity bereft of emotion. Will it weep? Will it wail? Will it cry? This is a tremendous gesture on the part of Taranaki whānui, who have offered a statement of forgiveness to the Crown. The Māori Party commends Taranaki whānui for an act of honour and great integrity, an act that demonstrates the ultimate expression of manaakitanga.

There are other elements of innovation that I want to note. The initiative of using an e-voting system, including Internet voting, was very impressive. Some 15 percent of the voters chose to vote online, which is something this House may well consider worthy of looking at in depth for other voting processes. There was the commitment to ensuring that the ratification process encompassed not just those living in this rohe but also whānau living across the Tasman in Sydney and Brisbane. There was also the speed of the ratification process. The process of going from a signed agreement in principle to an initialled deed of settlement within 6 months is also, as I understand it, pretty unprecedented. In fact, the rumour is that there are members here today who were hoping that the current urgency sitting might have been extended to allow Taranaki whānui to complete all of the stages of the bill on this great day.

We in the Māori Party recognise the achievements of Taranaki whānui today. Together they have survived; together they will go forward; together they will succeed. Ka nui te mihi ki a koutou, kai aku rangatira, kua tae mai ki tōu whenua, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

[I am full of admiration for you, my chiefs; the time draws near when it becomes your land. Congratulations, and good wishes to you all.]

Hon MAHARA OKEROA (Minister of State): Ā, tēnā koe te Wahine o Poupou o te Whare. There are just a few things I need to say to my colleagues. The first is to Pita Paraone: we are very inclusive people. Ahakoa te tika mai o te whakapapa rā ā tō tamāhine i tana hokitanga mai ki te rohe o Taranaki.

[Although the genealogy of your daughter when she came back to the region of Taranaki is accurate.]

I thank my colleague Te Ururoa Flavell for such a very historically erudite presentation. I say that without any facetiousness whatsoever. Kua pai te kupu “erudite”!

Ā, tēnā tātau. Ehara tēnei tū e tū mihi atu anō ki a koutou e te iwi, e ngā whanaunga engari, kua noho i te taha o koutou rā a te Whare Āriki, arā, Tainui nui tonu, a Taupiri Maunga, Pirongia, Kakepuku, Tītīraupenga. Tēnā koutou e noho ngāitahi ai i runga me kī, ngā kōrero tawhito o ngā kīwai o te kete. Tēnā koutou, e tukuna atu ngā mihi ki a koutou.

[So greetings to us. I am not actually getting up to formally welcome you, the people and relatives, but merely to acknowledge the times spent with those of you of the household of the King movement and Tainui at large beneath the mantle of Mount Taupiri, Pirongia, Kakepuku, and Tītīraupenga. Greetings to you, living as one, in your ways so steeped in history. My regards to you, and congratulations.]

I am absolutely totally privileged to be standing here today. It is a kind of life cycle. If we live long enough, like Parekura Horomia and me, then in our life cycle we have a variety of experiences. I use that as a kind of exemplar, because my life cycle began by being born, as someone has alluded to, into a legacy of tribal disillusionment, marginalisation, and poverty—socially, culturally, economically, and spiritually. The privilege here is that I am old enough—ehara i te kaumātua tinana [not old physically]—to now participate in an extraordinarily historic day.

I am not the only one who has gone through that kind of experience, debilitating as it was. We are all descendants of that experience. But the test is being able to manage the experience and do more than merely survive. The test is a gruesome test, but it has also, I suppose, set pathways going forward for all of us.

This afternoon I listened to a waiata that was being sung. It went like this: “E toru ngā mea, ngā mea nunui …”. Well, I want to change the words. It reminded me that this is not the only muru raupatu experience that Taranaki whānui is going through. It reminds me of what happened in Taranaki. It is the same as what happened in Tainui, and the same as what happened in Tauranga—absolute and total muru me te raupatu. We have the experience again here in Te Upoko o Te Ika: ko ngā mahi taurekareka, nanakia hoki ō rātau ki te tāhae whenua. [their wretched and scandalous methods of taking land by stealth.]

We can go across the straits of Cook Strait, Te Moana o Raukawakawa, and it is there as well. A tribe—very peaceful, it was—e tipu ake mai raro i te tihi maunga tītōhea Taranaki [that sprang up from beneath the summit of barren Mount Taranaki] has gone through that debilitating process three times; the same people.

In respect of Te Tau Ihu o Te Waka, we have a Tainui-Taranaki collective claim there, as well. I ask members what that says about the resilience of our people. At the very least, we can say that it is absolutely extraordinary. There is a whakataukītanga kōrero that I want to refer to here. It is a kind of philosophical message that goes like this: “Whāngai mai tō hoariri.” The literal meaning of this phrase has something to do with “feed thy enemy”. What Taranaki has done here in that regard, as has been referred to, is the extension of a statement of forgiveness. I can understand whence that came. Mehemea kua mau ai koutou i te raukura titiā, te raukura a maunga rongo, [If you have worn the comb-like feather, the feather of amnesty] then it is understood what it means. What an incredibly powerful gesture, the first of its kind in any claim so far.

I pose the question about what this country could have been, were it to have grown from the promises of the Treaty of Waitangi rather than the breaches: “In the Treaty’s words lived the potential to disavow colonisation as previously known, with its dire consequences for native peoples around the world. The parties to the Treaty had an opportunity to show that with goodwill, it was possible for new settlers and indigenous people to gain and learn from each other. But almost immediately, that opportunity slipped away.” In the end, our colonial experience was classic, not unique. The mistakes of other nations, which we had the chance to avoid, we instead repeated.

I think that kind of analysis is huge, because the consequences of this failure are great and multiple. Aotearoa New Zealand is perhaps a lesser nation as a result of the Crown’s failure to uphold its obligations to so many generations of our people, and particularly those who have not survived to see kua whakatutuki mai ngā moemoeā a kui mā, ā, tauheke katoa. [the dreams of all the old folk, men and women, coming to fruition] But all has not been lost. I take great heart and positiveness from what we as a Government have done under the leadership of Tākuta Cullen me ana nei Minita tautoko.

In closing, I also give a little praise to Taranaki whānui up there in the Speaker’s gallery, for their leadership, wisdom, vision, and creative approach to being able to be here and resolve those issues that confronted them as a people. To a great extent that is related to the ability they had and have as leaders in our society today.

Nō reira e te iwi me te Whare, ka nui āku nei mihi, ehara ki a koutou anake engari, ki te katoa e wakakopekope mai nei i raro i te tāhuhu o te pou Whare, tīhei mauri ora ki a tātau.

[So to the people and the House, I am full of admiration not just for you but for everyone assembled here under the ridgepole of this House. The breath of life to us all.]

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Māori Affairs Committee.

Waiata

Bills

Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River)Settlement Bill

First Reading

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): I move, That the Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Bill be now read a first time. At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be considered by the Māori Affairs Committee.

This bill achieves three important things. It recognises the special and enduring relationship that Waikato-Tainui has with the Waikato River, historically, culturally and spiritually, manifested in the dual principles of te mana o te awa and mana whakahaere. In so doing it provides a legal structure within which that relationship can be protected and exercised in the future, and which also recognises the connections that other iwi have with the river. Thirdly, it creates a framework within which all communities with an interest in the river can play a part in its stewardship. Each of the changes created by this bill focuses on the goals on which all river stakeholders can agree, the restoration of the health and well-being of the Waikato River and its sustainable management into the future. This is a historic achievement for Waikato-Tainui, for all other residents in the Waikato region, and, because it is the largest and most significant river system in the country, for the people of New Zealand.

When the Treaty of Waitangi was signed in 1840 it contained the promise of a lasting and mutually beneficial relationship between the Crown and Pākehā—sorry, the Crown and Māori; the other one we call an election promise when it is broken. Too often the promise and potential of that agreement have remained unfulfilled. This legislation aims to realise that potential and promise and to establish an innovative co-management regime for the Waikato River.

The bill establishes the Guardians of the Waikato River, on which all river iwi and regional and national stakeholders are represented. It sets out a vision for the Waikato River. The guardians are responsible for the vision for the river and the strategy to achieve that vision. The guardians establishment committee, set up following the agreement in principle for this settlement in December 2007, has already been hard at work and has completed a public consultation process to determine the vision and strategy, the key elements of which are incorporated and recognised in this bill. This provided a confidence-building process in which Waikato-Tainui and all other stakeholders—other iwi, regional interests, and the Crown—could begin to focus on what was required to restore the health and well-being of the Waikato River. The way in which all members of the Guardians Establishment Committee carried out their tasks, and the relationship they have developed, provides cause for optimism that this settlement will have a profound and positive impact.

The bill also establishes the Waikato River Statutory Board. This board, on which Waikato-Tainui, Environment Waikato, and other local authorities are represented, provides for Waikato-Tainui to participate at the highest level in the co-management of the river. The board will be responsible for the implementation of the vision and strategy, and for monitoring progress towards the goals that have been established.

To ensure the changes introduced in this legislation do not duplicate existing processes and create unnecessary additional costs for all parties, the bill integrates this settlement within existing regulatory frameworks by providing legislative recognition for the vision and strategy. The vision and strategy will be a national policy statement for the purposes of the Resource Management Act and a statement of general policy for the purposes of conservation legislation. Through a Kiingitanga Accord between Waikato-Tainui and the Crown, the bill will also provide the structure for future relationships between Waikato-Tainui and Ministers of the Crown and their agencies as they work together to restore the health and well-being of the river.

To ensure the relationships facilitated by this legislation can be sustained, the settlement provides funding for several purposes: to provide a $50 million fund for the Waikato Raupatu River Trust to undertake initiatives to restore and protect their relationships with the river and its flora and fauna, to provide for ongoing participation by Waikato-Tainui in the co-management framework established by this legislation, and to provide a $20 million endowment to support the vision of the late Sir Robert Māhuta, who led Waikato-Tainui through the historical settlement process and initiated the claims on which those settlements have been based. Finally, the settlement establishes a clean-up fund, with an initial Crown contribution of $7 million per year for 30 years.

The settlement is a clear and straightforward solution to a complex and difficult problem. The Waikato is our largest river system. It supports a complex, interlinked series of relationships in which human habitation is a major component. Long-term failures in existing management relationships associated with the river have seen the quality of this vital system compromised. Future generations, Māori and non-Māori, faced the prospect of inheriting a river system in a steadily degrading state. This settlement provides the framework within which that degradation can be properly and adequately addressed and funded, the river returned to health and well-being, and a sustainable management regime implemented, so that our children and grandchildren will inherit a healthy river.

In 1975 Sir Robert Māhuta said: “The River belongs to us just as we belong to the River. The Waikato tribe and the River are inseparable. It is a gift left to us by our ancestors and we believe we have a duty to protect that gift for future generations.” Sir Robert’s work has been carried on and fulfilled in this settlement under the leadership of his widow, Lady Raihā Māhuta, and Tukoroirangi Morgan. In introducing this legislation to implement the Waikato River deed of settlement we are beginning to carry out that duty adequately—in partnership with Waikato-Tainui—for the first time.

In closing these comments I would like, of course, to pay tribute to Waikato-Tainui under the leadership of King Tuheitia and to recognise the presence in the public gallery of his sister as his personal representative and his chief speaker. It is the determination of Waikato-Tainui that has placed the restoration of the health and well-being of the river at the forefront of this settlement and ensured that every aspect of this bill is focused on that goal.

This agreement builds on the relationship between Waikato-Tainui and the Crown that was re-established with the settlement of historical land claims. That settlement has been of great benefit to both Waikato-Tainui and the wider community. I expect no less from this settlement. Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker.

Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National): E te waka o Tainui, te awa rere ana e Waikato, ngā uri o Te Wherowhero, e Te Arikinui, mai i tēnei o Taupō Nui a Tia, he mihi, he mihi, tēnā tātou katoa.

[To you the canoe of Tainui, the river of Waikato that flows, the descendants of Te Wherowhero, and to you Tuheitia, this one of the great lake of Tia humbly acknowledges and recognises you; greetings to us all.]

I feel very privileged to rise to speak on the first reading of the Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Bill. This is a significant bill that has come into the House this afternoon, and having acknowledged the elders and the uri o Te Wherowhero in the gallery, and others in support, I want to turn—hopefully not too lengthily, because 10 minutes does go quite quickly—to the preamble, which sets out some of the essence of the emotions, the sentiments, and the passion that I believe the iwi bring to the House this afternoon.

Te mana o te awa is one of the principles underlying this bill. To Waikato-Tainui, the Waikato River is a tupuna—an ancestor—that has mana, prestige, and in turn represents the mana and mauri, or life force, of the tribe. Respect for te mana o te awa, the spiritual authority, protective power, and prestige of the Waikato River is at the heart of the relationship between the tribe and its ancestral river. Mana whakahaere is the other underlying principle that this settlement will proceed on. Mana whakahaere embodies the authority that Waikato-Tainui and other river tribes have established in respect of the Waikato River over many generations to exercise control, access to, and management of the river and its resources in accordance with tikanga—that is, the values, ethics, and norms of conduct that are special to this iwi. For Waikato-Tainui, mana whakahaere has long been exercised under the mana of the Kīngitanga.

Waikato-Tainui, as at 1840, possessed their river and their lands in accordance with their tikanga, along with other Waikato iwi. They made public statements of their authority over the river from very early, when they first became concerned that the Crown might itself claim authority over it, and that was as early as 1862. In July 1863, the Crown’s military forces crossed the Mangatawhiri River. In the ensuing war of 1863-64 the Crown forces attacked, by both land and water, the people of the Waikato.

In December 1863, Crown forces occupied Ngāruawāhia, the home of the king and the political centre of the Kīngitanga. During the war many communities that supported the Kīngitanga were driven out of the Waikato. In 1864-65, military settlements including Hamilton and Cambridge were established on the Waikato River and also on the Waipā River. Confiscation of Waikato lands followed in 1865. The confiscation of those lands gave rise to a settlement that was concluded in this House in 1995 under the leadership of the late Te Arikinui Dr Dame Te Atairangikaahu and Sir Robert Māhuta. That was but the first part of what I understand is really three parts that restore to the people of Waikato-Tainui that which was theirs in the beginning and was taken away from them by successive Governments.

I am proud to stand here today, following in the footsteps of the Rt Hon Douglas Graham, who, under the leadership of the Rt Hon Jim Bolger, negotiated the first Raupatu claim for Waikato-Tainui. This bill is the second in relation to the river, which was alienated from them through the same raupatu forces that occurred back in the 1860s. I acknowledge the leadership of Dr Michael Cullen in bringing this settlement to the House today. I understand that in the fullness of time the tribe’s interest in its harbours will also come to this House.

This is a great day. The fact that this settlement has now reached this House demonstrates the great leadership of the Waikato-Tainui people, and I feel very privileged to stand and talk to their aspirations, to their moemoeā. None of this has anything to do with me or us in this House; it has everything to do with what they aspire to and what they felt ought to have been since the 1860s. The bill itself, and the provisions that make up the settlement, are encapsulated in the vision that the tribe itself has put forward for its river. I read from clause 1(2) of schedule 2, which sets out the vision as being “for a future where a healthy Waikato River sustains abundant life and prosperous communities who, in turn, are all responsible for restoring and protecting the health and wellbeing of the Waikato River, and all it embraces, for generations to come.”

In other words, the whole thrust of this settlement is about restoring the river and restoring the relationship of the tribe with its river and the communities around it. In that regard, it has huge importance not just for Waikato-Tainui but indeed for all of the communities that surround the river, for the wider public, and for the New Zealand community in general.

This is the fourth bill that we have had the privilege of debating today.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: Fifth.

Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU: This is the fifth bill—I am sorry, I am losing count, which shows how long we have been doing this.

This is the fifth bill that we have been involved in today. It is about a people and their river. No doubt some questions will be asked outside this place about who has the ownership, and, happily, no one need be concerned about that. Although there are some provisions in this settlement that foresee possible ownership interests being raised in the future, that is not the thrust of this bill today. The thrust is about the well-being of the river and the well-being of a people who, since the 1860s, have been deprived of access to it and their rights to protect it, not just for themselves but for the wider community.

I refer briefly in closing to what I understand has been an extensive consultation process on the part of Tainui, led by Lady Raihā Māhuta, a fact that in itself stirs emotions because, of course, Sir Robert Māhuta led the previous negotiations. These were also led by Tuku Morgan, a former member of this House, who really should be sitting down here. He is sitting up in the gallery, but he belongs in here, as well. My heartfelt congratulations and my heartfelt aroha go to the people of Tainui for the enormous amount of work they have done. They have done it in a patient and humble way, in the way that they are, and slowly but surely they have achieved a very momentous settlement. I am very pleased to be in this House to support the introduction of the bill. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

Debate interrupted.

Business of the House

Business of the House

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House): There has been a discussion between the whips, and in order to avoid interrupting this debate, I seek leave for the commencement of the valedictory speeches by retiring Labour members to be postponed until the conclusion of the first reading of the Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Bill, and for the dinner hour to be postponed until the conclusion of those valedictory speeches.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs): Leave is sought to carry out that action. Is there any objection to that course of action? There being none, that is agreed to.

Bills

Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River)Settlement Bill

First Reading

Debate resumed.

PITA PARAONE (NZ First): One can always rely on New Zealand First to come to the party. Kāti rā, Tainui waka, Tainui tangata, whare Kāhui o Tainui waka, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou. Tēnā hoki koutou i tau mai nei i runga i te karanga o te Whare e pā ana ki te kaupapa, wā tātou awa, arā, ko te awa o Tainui. He mihi hoki ki a koutou e noho tonu ki te wā kāinga i raro i te taumarumaru o te maunga tapu o Taupiri, koutou hoki e are taringa mai, e mātakitaki mai ki ēnei kōrero i puta mai i roto o te Whare e pā ana ki wā tātou awa. Nā reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā kōutou.

[So to the canoe, people, and King movement of Tainui, greetings, greetings, and greetings to you. Acknowledgments to you who have arrived here to the call of the House in respect of the matter relating to our rivers, and that in particular, the river that belongs to Tainui. I acknowledge those as well who remained at home under the protective mantle of the sacred mountain of Taupiri, those of you listening in, watching these debates from the House about our rivers. So greetings to you, greetings to you, and greetings to you.]

Again, as I always do in these settlements—but only where it applies—I have to declare a vested interest. That vested interest is as a result of whakapapa. I descend from Hineāmaru, and included in the Waikato whakapapa is the younger sister of Hineāmaru, Rongopatutaonga. In that regard, I declare a vested interest. I also ought to say that one of the principals representing Tainui in the negotiations is in fact married to a Paraone, who happens to be a relative of mine. I take this opportunity to congratulate him on making such a fine choice. Ā, hoi nā noa e Tuku, he kōrero noa iho tēnei engari, horekau i whakakoretake, i whakaitingia te kaupapa o te pire nei. Nā reira, ngā mihi ki a koe, ki a koutou hoki.

[Anyway, Tuku, this is just mere speculation, but not meant to belittle nor render the matter relating to this bill as something of no consequence. Congratulations to you, Tuku, and to all of you as well.]

Negotiations for this particular settlement began in 1995 and were addressed again in 2005, reaching a climax in December 2007. It is a major step towards ensuring the environmentally sustainable management of the Waikato River, which has been polluted and degraded over many years. The settlement involves the co-management of the upper Waikato River, from Huka Falls to Karapiro. In my discussions with those who were responsible for driving this settlement on behalf of their iwi, emphasis was placed on the word “co-management”. It was never their intention to take control of what they rightly believe has always been theirs. One can say it is the highest level of co-management achieved anywhere in New Zealand. Can I suggest that iwi and the rest of New Zealand society will be observing with great interest how this arrangement will pan out. For me, I have no difficulty in expecting that it will be a very fruitful and beneficial arrangement between the iwi and other interested parties, which will see the health of the Waikato River improved on what it is today.

The agreement will ensure the river’s clean-up is timely, engages all stakeholders, and considers iwi interests. A group known as the Guardians Establishment Committee was set up earlier this year to determine a vision and strategy for the river and to implement that strategy. It consists of representatives of Waikato-Tainui, other river iwi, and regional and national interests in the river. Five iwi will become an integral part of the governance and management framework for the river. The deed of settlement signed in 2008 will create the Waikato River Clean-Up Trust with a maximum of $210 million to spend on river enhancement activities over the next 30 years, along with a contestable clean-up fund to which the Crown will contribute $7 million a year for 30 years, and the protection of the Waikato River will have significance for all New Zealanders.

The key elements of this settlement comprise the acknowledgment of the Crown, a commitment to co-management—something that is very important to the iwi—recognition of the statement of significance of the Waikato River to Waikato-Tainui, legislative recognition of the vision and strategy for the Waikato River, the establishment of and the granting of functions and powers to the Guardians of the Waikato River through the settlement legislation, the establishment of and the granting of functions and powers to the Waikato River Statutory Board through the settlement legislation, co-management arrangements including the establishment of an integrated management plan, and the Kiingitanga Accord.

About 3 weeks ago I attended a local body regional conference in Gisborne. It was a meeting of local bodies that encompass much of the middle of the North Island and some local bodies that have the Waikato River running through their boundaries. In discussion with some of the representatives from those local body authorities, although they appreciate having the opportunity for a co-management arrangement for the care and the well-being of the river, there was some expression of concern as to how it might impact on existing legislation, particularly in terms of the Resource Management Act. I hope that during the select committee process those local bodies that have those sorts of concerns will take the opportunity to make submissions to air their concerns so that the select committee may be able to consider whether in fact their concerns are real or otherwise.

I do not have too much more to say. Suffice to say that New Zealand First will be supporting this bill to a select committee. Why? Because it is something that the iwi has been responsible in formulating, it is something that the iwi has indicated they want, but, more important, it will provide a vehicle for the well-being and the care of New Zealand’s longest river, the Waikato River. Nā reira e tātou mā, ka nui ēnei kōrero mō tēnei wā, huri noa, huri noa, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, kia ora mai anō tātou.

[That is enough to us for now, so greetings to you and to us throughout, once again, thank you.]

Hon TAU HENARE (National): Kia ora, Mr Assistant Speaker—again. I will begin by saying good afternoon to the brother-in-law. It is a real pleasure for me to have the brother-in-law sitting up there on this momentous occasion—for more than one reason—so I suppose I had better state that there might be a conflict of interest. There might also be a conflict of interest with my—I had better be careful here—auntie, first cousin once removed, Denese Hēnare.

I will concentrate on three issues. One of them is co-management, the second is the significance and recognition of the Waikato River, and the third is the legislative recognition of that vision and strategy. In relation to the first, I say that we must not let New Zealand and the world be scared of co-management. It means nothing more and nothing less than two people being able to get on with each other for a common purpose. Co-management to me means moving forward and not being tied to the old philosophy that Governments and local authorities are the only ones that can do things for local people. Co-management means a unique step for New Zealand; it is a unique step in this country’s history that we have been able to realise that two people can sit alongside each other and do things together rather than in just the old, outdated colonial way. It is unique in the world, because we can show the world how two peoples who have had their differences can actually move forward together without throwing bombs at each other, and without the carnage we see around the world. I say that co-management can work, that we have an opportunity to see it work with the introduction of this bill, and that I, for one, congratulate both sides—iwi and the Government—on getting this bill to where it is now.

In terms of the Waikato River, the significance is twofold. It is significant in terms of iwi; the river is their lifeblood. Without the river they are nothing, and without them the river is nothing. The river also has significance for people outside the rohe of Waikato—that is, for people like me who live in the city, because when we turn on our taps we may or may not get some of that water. So it is incumbent on this House and also on iwi that they are in a position to make sure that that water is clean. I am glad that the essence of this bill is about the management and clean-up of the river—and that is not a day too late. The recognition of the significance of the Waikato River is about to be written into legislation, and I want to give an example of how the spirituality, the recognition, and the significance of what is in the river is being recognised around the world.

Not so long ago along State Highway 1 there was an issue with a taniwha. A lot of people thought “Well, let’s not be silly and let’s not recognise the issue for what it is.” But I am of the opinion and of the thought that it would have been better to build a platform and say to people: “This is who lives in this river—this is the significance of this river.” If members think that that is silly, then why do Scots people at Loch Ness have such reverence for the Loch Ness monster? Why do they dine out on the fact that that is theirs? It is a part of tourism, it is a part of the area’s significance, and it is a part of recognising the people’s spirituality. So if they can do it, then why the hell cannot we? I think it is all about growing up and recognising that for what it is.

I turn to the issue of legislative recognition and of the recognition of a vision and a strategy. Some may think that it has never been done before, but I am proud of the fact that it has been done before, when my brother-in-law and I were part of a Government that recognised Te Aho Matua and put that into legislation, so it is not a new step. But I congratulate this Government on taking a bold step in recognising a vision and a strategy that is really a philosophy. Sometimes lawyers and people from the Office of Treaty Settlements may not think we can do those sorts of things, but we can.

This morning we have come from the Te Arawa region, in the legislation. We have traversed the boundaries inside Tūhoe and Tūwharetoa, we have moved up north to Te Rōroa, we have come back to Wellington, and now we are in the area of Tainui. Later on we will go back to where we started, with the Whakarewarewa bill in Arawa. It has been a very, very busy day. It will be a long day, and I think it is wrong to have so many Treaty bills one after the other. I know that time has conspired against us, and conspired against the Government, but I think we should take the lesson that that should never be done again; it should never be done again where there are five bills, one after the other. I do not think it gives the House time, and I do not think it gives the people who come to listen time to take it all in and be part of the proud occasion.

I can see that the Minister of Māori Affairs will certainly use the fact that five Treaty bills in one day is good for the Government. That is his prerogative, and I congratulate the Government on the three that we have passed and the two that have completed their first readings. The National Party will support, and has no problem supporting, the passage of the Waikato-Tainui Raupatau Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Bill.

Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green): This settlement is a very exciting one for the Green Party, as it provides a new mechanism for the real co-management of natural resources—in this case, the Waikato River. Co-management, if it is truly a partnership between iwi and others, can demonstrate a major shift in trust between the Treaty partners. What we know is seriously lacking in the management of our natural resources is trust that Māori can and do manage natural resources exceptionally well. We know of hundreds of local examples of that in terms of both marine and terrestrial resources. But today we have a bill that lifts it to another level.

Just recently, as I have been travelling around this country to look at a lot of freshwater issues, it has struck me time and again that the kaitiaki who have been looking after our freshwater resources have been local hapū. The Muaūpoko people who have been fighting to protect Lake Horowhenua, along with Ngāti Raukawa, have been struggling for decades to protect that beautiful lake. They have been the ones who time and again have stood up and fought to protect that lake against a whole series of other people who have not been there. We should have trust that hapū will protect those natural resources.

Likewise, just recently in the Hokianga, when I was at Kokohuia Marae on the Hokianga harbour with Ngāti Korokoro, Te Pouka, and Ngāti Whārara, we sat around and talked about the impacts that sewage was having on the beautiful Hokianga harbour. Those local hapū were doing their damnedest to protect that beautiful water resource, and we should trust them to do their damnedest to protect our resources. That is why a co-management model is the way the Green Party thinks that we should go. It should be a co-management model whereby we stand alongside those people as they try to protect resources.

This bill sets out a detailed structure with the primary aim of restoring the Waikato River to a healthy state. The structures are designed to be inclusive and to incorporate a range of other iwi, councils at all levels, the community, and the Crown. That kind of iwi collaboration is a model that the Government should take particular note of. Exhibiting trust in iwi does not come naturally all the time to the Government, as we know.

But I also say there is a tremendous challenge for anyone whose goal is to clean up the Waikato River. The Waikato River is in a disgraceful state, and that is the truth. The clarity of the water at the Huka Falls is such that one can see an object about 14 metres away. One can see an object 14 metres away through the water in Lake Taupō, but by the time one gets to the last 50 kilometres of the Waikato River one can barely see an object one metre away. There the water is so full of sediment and algae, and so heavily polluted that the visual clarity is very, very low.

I say to the people of Auckland that they have a particular interest in this bill. They may think that Waikato does not have much to do with Auckland, but 10 percent of Auckland’s water comes out of the Waikato River. All the future expansion of the water supply for Auckland—drinking water for the people in Auckland—will come from the Waikato River. I have spent a number of hours with Watercare Services and discussed that very issue. Most of the water will come from the Waikato River. The people of Auckland will be dependent on this co-management model to protect their drinking water, and they will be dependent on the iwi on those bodies to actually protect it. So I think that the people of Auckland should pay particular attention to this bill, and thank the iwi that are standing up to protect this beautiful river.

I also say that the challenges for the Waikato River are enormous. We have massive dairy conversions under way in its catchment right now. Hamilton is, hopefully, preparing to improve its sewerage services so that less nitrogen will end up in the Waikato River, but all of that gain will be lost by conversions to dairying. Some of the giant dairy conversions will throw something like 750 tonnes of nitrogen a year into the Waikato River. So although we can say it is good that there are some improvements, particularly around the discharge of sewage, and, hopefully, there will be more to come, we also know that the benefit of those improvements will be entirely wiped out by the dairy conversions that are under way in that catchment. If we do not put some controls around that process, we will not achieve the objectives of this bill. The iwi objectives, along with our objectives, will not be achieved if we do not put a hold on the massive dairy conversions that are under way.

We thank Lady Raihā Māhuta, Tuku Morgan, and everyone who took the time to talk with our spokesperson on Māori issues, Metiria Turei, who sends her apologies because she cannot be here today. We have a much better understanding of both the process that Tainui have gone through and the value of their success, because of the time that was taken to talk to us. We know that this bill will not progress until after the general election, but we very much look forward to hearing in more detail in future about the issues regarding the process.

No doubt concerns about the settlement will be raised, as well. The settlement process is one that does not truly honour the Treaty. It is one that takes from some people to give to others. It is one that picks winners and losers, and expects everyone to be grateful.

We acknowledge that the Crown and its representatives have breached, and continue to breach, Te Tiriti o Waitangi. We support the resolution of, and payment of restitution for, all outstanding historical and contemporary breaches. We continue to work for a process that truly achieves that. In the meantime we know that many, many kuia and kaumātua have worked extremely hard to bring this settlement about, and we respect their work. We give our best wishes to all of them.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Just before I call the next speaker, I say to members “Tātou, tātou—together, together.” Courtesy is contagious, and we will all prosper if we keep within the spirit of the Standing Orders. There is far too much noise inside the Chamber. Would those who are having conversations that are not necessary in here please show some courtesy to the member who is trying to address the House, and go out to the lobbies.

HONE HARAWIRA (Māori Party—Te Tai Tokerau): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker, huri rauna tēnā tātou katoa e te Whare. Hei tīmatanga, me mihi atu ki a koutou e Waikato-Tainui i haere tawhiti mai ki roto o Pōneke ki te whakarongo ki te whakatakotoranga o tēnei kaupapa ki mua i te aroaro o ngā mema Pāremata i tēnei rā, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa. Ā, i tēnei wā me mihi anō hoki ki a koe e te tuahine, e Nanaia i te mea, kua kite au i te hari i runga i tō kanohi i tēnei rā. Kua kite au i te wakatūtukitanga o āu nei mahi i roto i tēnei Pāremata. Nō reira, mihi atu ki a koe i tēnei rā whakahirahira e pā ana ki a koe i roto i a mātou i tēnei rā. Huri rauna ki a tātou katoa hakoa, ko wai te iti me te rāhi, tēnā koutou huri rauna, kia ora tātou katoa.

[Greetings to you, Mr Assistant Speaker, and to us all throughout the House. As a means of beginning, I acknowledge you, Waikato-Tainui, who travelled from a distance to Wellington to listen to this matter being placed before the members of Parliament today. Greetings to you, greetings to you, and greetings to you all. I take this opportunity as well to extend a greeting to you, fellow member of Parliament, Nanaia, because I see the happiness on your face today. I see the completion of your work also in this Parliament. Sso I acknowledge you on this great day relating to you and your work in particular amongst us. To all of us throughout, whether of a minor or major party, greetings to us all.]

Greetings to you, Mr Assistant Speaker, for coming back to the House. This is the first reading of the Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Bill that reached our desk only a couple of hours ago, so please excuse me if I do not say too much about the detail. Suffice to say though that the Māori Party recognises that this bill was born out of the denial of guardianship of the Waikato River to its people; anger at the desecration, pollution, and depletion of the awa; sadness at the use of the river as but a resource to be exploited; and despair at the pollution and depletion of the fisheries. We know there are those within Tainui who may still have doubts about co-ownership and co-management. We know they will look to the deed to see how their rangatiratanga has been recognised and included. We know this settlement will give impetus to others to also take up the challenge of negotiating their role on the river, and we know too of the significant relationships that others have to the river, and the concerns they will undoubtedly have about this settlement.

But today is not just about recognising the tragedy of the past and the problems of the present. Today the Māori Party is proud to join with others in the House in acknowledging all of the peoples of Waikato-Tainui. We join in acknowledging te mana o te awa o Waikato—that special authority and prestige of the Waikato River, which defines its people and itself through the saying: “Ko ahau ko te awa, ko te awa ko ahau.” We join in acknowledging the timing of the signing of the deed of settlement on the second anniversary of the coronation of King Tuheitia; in acknowledging the many people who devoted all of their lives to enable us to reach this point today, and, in particular, the legacy of Sir Robert Te Kotahi Māhuta, who, with the unwavering support of Te Atairangikaahu, led the negotiations for the first major Treaty settlement with the Crown. We join in acknowledging all those who have passed on; so too do we acknowledge those who have taken up the challenge to protect the mana of the river and to guide future generations of its people under the careful direction of Tukoroirangi Morgan and Lady Raihā Māhuta. Today we also celebrate the multi-tribal 21st birthday party for Waikato-Tainui, who, along with Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika and Te Rōroa all took the initiative in 1987 to lodge claims with the Waitangi Tribunal, and which have all appeared on today’s Order Paper, thanks in great part to Dr Michael Cullen and all those other members of Parliament who have helped bring these bills to the House today.

In considering this bill we acknowledge the Crown’s commitment to a 30-year—I hope I have this bit right—$200 million river clean-up programme. Is that correct? We acknowledge the guardians of the river, who will be responsible for working with local authorities and iwi to oversee the vision and the strategy for cleaning up the river. We acknowledge the establishment of a board to ensure full participation by Waikato-Tainui in co-management of the river. We acknowledge the co-management arrangements dedicated to restoring and protecting the health and well-being of the awa; and managing the awa through good faith, consensus decision-making, and a bold partnership between Crown agencies and iwi. We congratulate Tuku and Lady Raihā on the diligent way in which Waikato-Tainui have approached the overall purpose of restoring and protecting the awa. In doing so, might I just quote from the Indigenous Declaration on Water, which was signed in Kyoto in 2003: “We recognize, honor and respect water as sacred and sustains all life. Our traditional knowledge, laws and ways of life teach us to be responsible in caring for this sacred gift that connects all life.”

We congratulate Waikato-Tainui on the vision they have set for themselves as a people, for themselves as their awa, and for themselves as a community within the wider society. Hoi anō hei whakakapi i taku kōrero, e Tuku, e Raihā. I sincerely hope that the vision they have for a river that sustains life and prosperity through the caring and guidance of its whānau, will set a benchmark for us all. I know I speak for all of my colleagues in the Māori Party when I say that we urge Waikato-Tainui to keep pushing forward so that other iwi might be guided by their actions and learn from whatever mistakes they have made, and, undoubtedly, will continue to make in the future. We challenge them to bring the best that they have to this task so the whole country might learn from their bold initiatives. We wish them well in all that lies ahead of them. In closing, we look forward to continuing this debate when the House returns in 2009. Hoi anō ka nui tērā māku e te Kaiwhakawā, huri rauna ki te Whare koutou e Waikato Tainui, tātou katoa e nohonoho nei, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, huri atu, huri noa kia ora tātou katoa.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Customs):

Ka mātakitaki iho au ki te riu o Waikato

Anō nei he kapok au ake māku

Ki te kapu o taku ringa

Ka whakamiri noa i tōna aratau

E tia nei he tupu kua hou

Ke hiwa ake ki te tihi o Pirongia

Inā he toronga whakaruruhau mōna

Ki tōku tauāwhiritanga

Anā! Te ngoto o tōna ngāwhā i ōna uma kīhai i ārikarika

A Maungatautari, a Maungakawa

Ōku puke maunga, ngā taonga tuku iho.

Hoki ake nei au ki tōku awa koiora me ōna pikonga

He kura tangihia o te mātāmuri

E whakawhiti atu ai i te kōpū mānia o Kirikiriroa

Me ōna māra kai, te ngāwhā whakatupu ake o te whenua mōmona

Hei kawe ki Ngāruawāhia, te huinga o te tangata

Atā, te pae haumako hei okiokinga mō taku upoko

Hei tirohanga atu mā raro i ngā hūhā o Taupiri

Kei reira rā, kei te ōrokohanganga o te tangata

Wāhia te tūngaroa o te whare, te whakaputanga mō te Kīngi.

I look down on the valley of Waikato

As though to hold it in the hollow of my hand

And caress its beauty

Like some tender verdant thing

I reach out from the top of Pirongia

As though to cover and protect its substance with my own

See, how it bursts through, the full bosoms of Maungatautari and Maungakawa

Hills of my inheritance

The river of life, each curve more beautiful than the last,

Across the smooth belly of Kirikiriroa

Its gardens bursting with the fullness of good things.

Towards the meeting place at Ngāruawahia

There on the fertile mound I would rest my head and look through the thighs of Taupiri

There at the place of all creation

Let the King come forth.

I preface my remarks with a maioha from Tāwhiao with his reflections on his absolute reverence for his territory: its lands, mountains, sacred places, and, indeed, the Waikato River, which was then full of abundance. On reflection, I am certainly mindful that his reign followed a period of severe trauma, with the confiscation of 1.2 million hectares of land. Yet the hope and vision to see the restoration of what was lost became a powerful symbol of unity and purpose for the Kīngitanga movement that has endured to this day.

It is a privilege to be speaking in this House on the first reading of the Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Bill. I pay homage to those who have gone before us who carried the struggle of the raupatu—the unjust and illegal confiscation of Waikato lands and resources—in search of redress. In particular, I acknowledge the leadership of Te Atairangikaahu and Te Kotahi Māhuta, who, like Te Pūea before them, weathered the brunt of the vision to move the people beyond grievance and towards reconciliation. So too do I acknowledge the former members of the Tainui Māori Trust Board and Ngā Marae Tōpū, who lodged the initial Wai 30 claim in 1987. That leadership was put to the test in the public and more private aspects of their lives. Their decisiveness and determination certainly made this path an easier one to follow. There have been ups and downs, but, just as the proverb says, a lot of water has gone under the bridge. Time has played its part.

We are now moving forward on one of the four recognised outstanding claims linked to the earlier 1995 Waikato Raupatu Claims Settlement Act, which, I might add, was assented to by Queen Elizabeth II in person. In that regard, an explicit statement on the river is included in the deed of settlement where the Crown acknowledges that its invasion of the Waikato in 1863 was by land and by the Waikato River, which was a double blow to Waikato-Tainui, as by the raupatu the Crown assumed authority over both the land and the river. The effect of recognition of this fact is twofold. It reinforces a travesty of our colonial history, and it legitimates the purpose and authority of the Kīngitanga, which has acted as a beacon for the aspirations of “te mana motuhake o te iwi Māori”. It is within this context that the approach taken by the previous and current negotiators can be understood. It gives insight to the significance of the Kiingitanga Accord contained in the bill.

First, there is recognition that the Waikato River is an indivisible entity. Its waters, its banks, its riverbed, its fisheries, vegetation, and life source are component parts of the whole. That recognition of “mana o te awa” extends from Te Hukahuka, near Taupō, to Te Pūaha o Waikato. That mana is reflected by a korowai that seeks to protect and restore the health and well-being of the river. The aphorism “Ko Waikato te awa, ko Te Wherowhero te tangata, he piko he taniwha, he piko he taniwha” [Waikato is the river, Te Wherowhero is the man, at every bend a chief] holds true to this day, and it is expressed in the recognition that all iwi along the reaches of the river have an interest and role to play, for the long term. I acknowledge Tūwharetoa, Te Arawa, the people at Pouakani, Raukawa, and Maniapoto, who, alongside the peoples of Waikato, have supported this intent and, in time, hope to see its full fruition. The Guardians of the Waikato River, and the vision and strategy deployed by them, are key. I hope the Māori Affairs Committee will give some thought to ensuring that the legislative mechanisms are able to achieve consistency across other legislation impinging on the current and future management of the river.

Second, the bill provides for a co-management approach to rekindle the aspirations of Waikato to retain and continue a hands-on relationship in order to clean up the river and its tributaries, and to contribute to decision making that impacts on the river. One would hope that the instruments used to strengthen co-management practices will in time see a greater willingness to use existing mechanisms, such as sections 33 and 34 of the Resource Management Act. I am mindful that best practice and new technology should aid Waikato to improve the health and well-being of the river. However, we should expect further regulatory mechanisms to accelerate that effort, and I look forward to the future work of the statutory board.

The settlement and its legislation will transform New Zealanders’ approach to achieving the goals of sustainability of our waterways alongside Māori. At a practical level, back home where it really matters, the benefits are intended to be, for example, greater protection and sustainable management of whitebait and fisheries interests in Te Pūaha o Waikato; regeneration and preservation of eel resources in the Waikato catchment; bank stabilisation and flood protection of tributaries and along the Waikato; improved monitoring of water quality, the setting of water allocation, and ecological flows; support for science and mātauranga Māori research to improve land-based practices, especially in the agricultural sector; encouragement for marae to become involved in local projects to enhance the health and well-being of the river that will, potentially, create employment opportunities; and that our young people utilise this action as a learning model to broaden their experience and career choices. These are but some of the practical benefits.

I expect that the select committee may be tasked with considering issues of mandate. It may also be asked to consider the recognition of interests in the upper catchment that are not captured in this bill or in those of other iwi. I am confident, as the local MP of Tainui, that the process undertaken to get to this point is robust. The detail of it can be explored at the select committee. As the local MP and the Minister of Local Government, I am particularly pleased that both central government and local government are locked into this agreement alongside Waikato-Tainui. Everyone has a part to play. In no way do I underestimate the magnitude of this task. I expect ebbs, flows, and torrential currents along the way. Our major focus, however, must be an outcome beyond our generation and for everyone’s benefit. I know that Waikato-Tainui are not going anywhere, and that is the extent of their commitment.

I want to thank Dr Michael Cullen, who has shown personal commitment to this and other Treaty settlements to ensure that Māori can walk confidently into the future. I thank both Ministers Horomia and Ririnui for their support, and I also thank Māori members across the House for their support. I hope that the bill in both its first and third readings will pass unanimously.

Finally, I recognise the tenacity and conviction of the principal negotiators, Raihā Māhuta and Tuku Morgan; and their negotiating team, led by Denese Hēnare, Shane Solomon, and Donna Flavell; and the kaumātua who have walked with them to achieve this outcome. Like the raupatu settlement, the real gains of this river settlement will be realised only in hindsight. A great deal has been achieved and there will be more to do! I am proud that a Labour-led Government is prepared to move into new territory through this settlement.

Can I end with the words of the late Te Kotahi Māhuta. To put them in context, in 1999, when Doug Graham gave a speech “Treaty Negotiations in New Zealand”, he made the point that the Government did not accept that Māori had an interest in rivers and lakes akin to ownership. To that the late Te Kotahi Māhuta said: “We are not concerned about ownership of the River but rather its present and future health … Everyone seems to have abdicated responsibility for ensuring the health of the River and thus this is the main thrust of the claim. The sole and principal beneficiary of the claim must be the River. … Our principal objective is to clean up the river from the Huka falls down to Port Waikato so that its health might be restored to enable all people to enjoy the fishing, recreational and other activities associated with the Waikato River.”

Nō reira kāti rā, koi nei ngā whakaaro mō tōku awa koiora. Pai Mārire.

[So enough; these, then, are thoughts relating to my river that lives. Goodness and peace.]

CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National): I am conscious of the time, but I want to emphasise on behalf of the National Party that we will be supporting the Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Bill. The process of reconciliation with Tainui was started by National in the 1990s, with Sir Douglas Graham and Sir Robert Māhuta, and this led to the very first settlement—the Waikato Raupatu settlement—in May 1995. In that settlement certain claims were excluded and were to be dealt with later, and this was one of them. The other two relate to the west coast harbours and to what may loosely be called the Auckland lands beyond the river to the north.

It is appropriate to acknowledge the huge contribution made to New Zealand by Sir Robert Māhuta. I know from discussions I have had with Sir Douglas Graham how much Sir Douglas enjoyed working with Sir Robert in the 1990s. I also acknowledge the work of Lady Māhuta and Tuku Morgan. I think that Tainui’s consultation with my party has been excellent. They have kept us fully abreast of all developments, and I thank them for that.

It is almost completely unnecessary to emphasise the importance of the Waikato River to Tainui and to the Waikato. This importance is referred to in the deed of settlement and in the legislation, and is comprehensively set out in the preamble. Over the years there has been increased pollution and degradation of the river, and that has been a cause of great distress to the people of Tainui. That is why, looking ahead, so much emphasis is placed on co-management to ensure that the river can be restored. Now there is an opportunity for the guardians, the local authorities, and the Crown to take up the responsibility for ensuring that the river is healthy for future generations. That is good for Tainui, good for the region, and good for the community.

The bill proposes the establishment of a statutory body called the Guardians of the Waikato River to restore and protect the health and well-being of the river for future generations, and to implement a vision and a strategy to achieve a coordinated approach to the management of the river. The Guardians Establishment Committee was formed in March 2008 to develop the vision and strategy for the river. The committee conducted public consultations on the draft vision and strategy before amending it and recommending it to the Crown and to Waikato-Tainui.

The bill, once enacted, will establish the statutory board. The principal functions of the board are to assist and support Waikato-Tainui in the exercise of their mana whakahaere over the river and to support and promote the special relationship of Tainui with the river, in order to achieve the implementation of the vision and the strategy and to ensure compliance with it. The board will facilitate the effective co-management of the river through interaction with the Crown, local authorities, and other interested stakeholders. The board will also evaluate, at least every 10 years, relevant policies and plans relating to the river and activities in the catchment that affect the river. In the early development of the package, all relevant local authorities in the region were consulted in the development of the board.

This is very interesting legislation, and my friend Mr Henare is correct when he calls it unique. This looks to be an innovative settlement, and overall a very good one. There are, however, a few issues that the Māori Affairs Committee will need to look at closely. The first of these relates to the Kiingitanga Accord, which is the collateral deed between the Crown and Waikato-Tainui, dated 22 August 2008. This accord forms part of the overall settlement, and its integration will likely see the introduction of a number of Supplementary Order Papers, which means that the House as yet does not know the full details of what will be passed into law. When considering this settlement bill, the select committee will also need to pay close attention to the interests of other iwi and hapū within the region, to ensure that the interests of all parties are safeguarded.

National congratulates all interested parties on their achievements to date. As I said, we will support this bill. We look forward to hearing submissions and working with other parties at the select committee.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Māori Affairs Committee.

Waiata

Obituaries

Hon Brian Donnelly

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): I have to report some sad news to the House, and that is the passing of the Hon Brian Donnelly at 2.20 p.m. today. The Hon Brian Donnelly was born in Auckland in November 1949. He was educated at Sacred Heart College, Auckland, to which he won a scholarship. He attended Auckland University and Massey University, gaining a Bachelor of Arts, a Bachelor of Education, a Master of Educational Administration, a Diploma in Teaching, and a Diploma in Second Language Teaching.

He worked in the education field for 25 years before he came to Parliament. His teaching career included teaching in primary, secondary, area, and intermediate schools, and also being the deputy principal of Titikaveka College in Rarotonga from 1977 to 1980. He was principal of Whangarei Intermediate School from 1990 to 1996. He was a part-time lecturer at the Auckland College of Education, where he taught papers in Advanced Studies for Teachers and the Diploma in Educational Management. He also tutored university papers at both Auckland and Massey universities. In 1978 he was awarded the A H and A W Reed prize for Pacific History. He also worked for the Education Review Office for 10 months in 1990.

Those who remember Brian will know that he was a very active sportsman. In rugby league he represented Auckland, Northland, the New Zealand Universities, and the New Zealand Colts, and he was a Kiwi trialist on several occasions. He assisted in the introduction of rugby league to the Cook Islands, was responsible for the inaugural inter-school competition in Auckland, and has managed both Northland and New Zealand university teams. He also represented the Cook Islands in rugby union.

Brian Donnelly entered politics in 1993, standing for New Zealand First in the Whangarei electorate, and he came within a few hundred votes of victory. He was appointed Minister responsible for the Education Review Office and Associate Minister of Education following the formation of the New Zealand First - National coalition Government in December 1996. He was a superb Minister of Education.

During his time here Brian’s goal was to be an advocate for the people of Northland, for teachers, for children, and for worthy causes. He ended his career as the High Commissioner to the Cook Islands, where he was appointed earlier this year. I might just share something with members. He said to me: “Can I be appointed after the election?”, and I said: “Brian, I don’t think it quite works that way. Perhaps you should take up the appointment now.” And I am glad he did.

Brian was married to Linda for many, many years, and their three children are Theresa, who is a qualified lawyer, and, of course, Ioane and Erena.

Brian Donnelly was a man of enormous integrity and character. He was a superb member of caucus, a loyal member of this Parliament, and a very worthy parliamentarian. I am certain I can say that across the divide of politics he had friends everywhere who respected him, and he respected them. He was, despite his academic bent, a very good Kiwi man who respected women, ideas, and values. I know it is common on such occasions for people to use all manner of grand words regarding a personality, but on this particular occasion I think those words have a special significance. So I pass on our condolences, sincere and heartfelt, to Linda and her children for a life wonderfully spent.

Waiata

Valedictory Statements

Valedictory Statements

MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Can I just indicate to the House that my retiring colleagues, or my departing colleagues, have indicated a desire that congratulations should occur at the collective end of their valedictory speeches, rather than between each one.

Madam SPEAKER: Thank you.

Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Labour—Palmerston North): Before I begin my comments, can I follow on from the comments of Winston Peters and say a few words about Brian Donnelly. The words Mr Peters used are, I think, very appropriate today. I do not think there is anybody in this House who met Brian Donnelly and did not become a friend of his. I met him when he was in the position of Associate Minister of Education, and through the time I was here he talked with me often about education, and we shared a passion for that. I am sure that all members in the House found something that they would have talked about with Brian during that time, and today members will be thinking of him, his family, and his close friends in New Zealand First. Our thoughts are with them.

Madam Speaker, can I acknowledge you and thank you for your friendship over many years. I know that you too are leaving Parliament, and I hope we can continue our habit of occasionally discussing issues of the day over a meal in a well-chosen restaurant. I say thanks also for the opportunity to address the House, and I wish my colleagues who are doing the same all the best for their respective futures.

Like many parliamentarians, I am from a working family. My father, who is now 96 years old, came to New Zealand from Glasgow as a young boy to work for his father. I cannot disclose the age of my mother, but her family also migrated from Scotland and settled in Dunedin. My talented colleague Lianne Dalziel and I are cousins twice removed because our grandmothers were sisters in Dunedin. Like Mr Key, I am a State house boy, yet I am here saying farewell after 18 years in New Zealand’s Parliament. That I am able to tell that story says a great deal about what is good about this nation. Fairness and equal opportunity have long been part of the New Zealand political tradition, and it led to Governments putting in place institutions that made a practical difference to people like me.

Like most parents, mine—whose love and unflinching support I want to recognise here today—did not have the personal resources to present me with all the opportunities I have enjoyed during my life; only the community, working together, could do that. That is why I have been profoundly influenced by the 1949 Clarence Beeby, Peter Fraser quote, which, to paraphrase, says: “No matter our background or circumstances, we have the right, as citizens, to go as far as our potential will take us.”, and so that this is not just a pious hope, the community has to make that possible. I had the good fortune to be born into a society where people were prepared to work hard to ensure that that hope was fulfilled.

I do not want to idealise the New Zealand of my youth, because there was a lot wrong with it, and I have spent a lot of my life arguing for change. But the good fortune I have enjoyed has made me see politics as a noble calling, and government is able to have a positive influence on the lives of citizens. It was the move away from this kind of thinking in the 1980s that encouraged me towards elected politics, first as a city councillor and then into Parliament, following the colourful Trevor de Cleene, whom many people here will remember, as the MP for the wonderful city of Palmerston North.

I do not claim that everything done under the banner of Rogernomics was wrong. Like many of my generation, I wanted to see a more open, diverse, and modern society, but an overemphasis on the market as the solution to everything led to economic underperformance, social breakdown, and personal isolation for vulnerable people. Yes, there were success stories, and they were often held up as proof that policies were working. But celebrations of personal triumph are no substitute for the kind of collective progress that makes a difference to the lives of all New Zealanders.

In 1990 I had my chance to contribute to a change of direction in New Zealand politics when I joined Parliament. I note, as an aside, that I watched with awe the confident and assured way in which Dr Russel Norman introduced himself to the House recently. In contrast, my first time in the Chamber, standing about where Dr Norman is sitting, with my friend Paul Swain, was a little different. I remember nervously, and in an excited way, watching around the Chamber as the man who became known as the “Great Helmsman” moved around the floor, welcoming people to the Parliament. I said to myself, the way one does when one is tired: “That’s Jim Bolger.” This was at just about the same time as he said: “Hello. Who are you?”, and I said: “I’m Jim Bolger.” He said: “No you’re not. I am.” We have had quite a good relationship since then—sort of twins, really.

In my maiden speech to Parliament I took up the theme mentioned earlier, arguing that it was time to achieve a better balance between the roles of the State and the market. I went on to explain that, like all societies, we were on the edge of such an enormous amount of change; we were confronting new times. Only if we harnessed the strengths of the market and the State would we be able to respond in a way that would mean New Zealanders would benefit. I suggested borrowing from Neil Kinnock the quote: “There is a limit to what the modern State can and should do, but there is no limit to what it can enable people to do for themselves.” I talked about a new agenda for training, for education, for research technology; investing in infrastructure; a high-value, high-skills, high-wage economy; full employment; advancing the interests of women; people with disabilities; acknowledging tangata whenua; becoming a culturally diverse society; strengthening public services; and developing an environmentally sustainable future.

Beginning in 1991 with what was known as the Labour Listens campaign, I had 9 long years to think about how to advance that kind of thinking in practice. Labour policies were greatly influenced during that time by what became known as the third way. No one talks about this alternative much any more, not because it is of no use but because, I would argue, we are all, to an extent, third-wayers now. We agree that the old ideologies have declining relevance, and that issues like globalisation, changes in family life, and our relationship with the environment have dramatically changed the political agenda. The necessary relationship between the State and the market and civil society is accepted. We all accept the mixed economy. We all want to invest in the solutions to social problems. If the centre of politics in the 1980s and 1990s was the market, I am delighted to say it is only part of the centre today.

In 1999 Labour was able to form a Government. After 9 years of playing the understudy, the prospect of governing seemed like a simple transition. Let me warn new players that it is not. The jobs of an Opposition spokesperson and a Government Minister are very, very different. In the MMP era there is a period of calm, and then coalitions are formed and the world explodes. The expectations on Labour in 1999 added to that pressure, and I felt at the time like I had just stepped on to a train that was leaving a station. It picked up speed, and it did not often seem to slow down.

Driving that train was someone who, I thought, would be one of New Zealand’s great Prime Ministers—I believe that it is now beyond doubt. Helen Clark, it has been an absolute privilege to serve with you. Stoking the fires was the wonderfully talented and acerbic Dr Michael Cullen. At the end of my maiden speech in 1990, Michael came over and said that it was good to see another radical communitarian in the House. I think I am probably the only one in the House who would take that as a compliment. In the guard’s van was Jim Anderton. I have always had the greatest admiration for Jim, even when I was the target of his fierce denunciations of Labour in the House during the 1990s. Jim has a very loud voice, and one can feel very, very crushed by it when he gets rolling. But it has been an honour to share a bench with a man whose commitment to the values of social justice has never ever wavered.

In the carriages, if I can draw out the metaphor a little more, were the rest of the team. During my 18 years I have worked with wonderful colleagues, and I want to thank them for sharing the good times and hanging together during the tough times. The “Backbench Seven”, as they were called, came in in 1990. Wonderful characters like David Lange, David Caygill, and Heather Simpson, who until recently I thought was an MP, were here already. Then there were the people who came in from subsequent elections—people like Ruth Dyson, Mark Gosche, Mark Burton, Parekura Horomia—and Annette King and Trevor Mallard, who were known as retreads for a little while. Ashraf Choudhary is the first person of a new-settler community to come into this House, along with Pansy Wong, and is changing the face of politics literally. I think he has done a wonderful job, and so has Pansy. Darren Hughes, who is one of the funniest people in Parliament, has been a great friend to me. Shane Jones—I could go on with person after person, and forgive me that I will not go through all of you. You have been wonderful colleagues to be with.

It is said that one does not make friends in politics. Well, one does. Those people are friends to me. Some members on the other side of the House are friends, as well. I hope that it does not ruin his career, but I would like to acknowledge my friend Simon Power, who is likely to be, possibly, maybe, my local MP after the election. I have enjoyed the company of many other people around this House. Eric Roy and I spent a wonderful night in Queensland discovering that he was a Renaissance man, if ever I saw one. I would like to acknowledge Rod Donald, who I thought was a wonderful colleague and certainly a very kind person to me.

But it is a challenge to maintain friendships, because of the all-encompassing nature of our job. Politics is not a job, actually; it is a lifestyle. There is always more than one thing to do, and we are surrounded by staff and officials. On Monday mornings if one is a Minister one joins colleagues to talk informally about the issues facing the country, before going to that special place on the 10th floor. It is a bit like the TARDIS up there. One arrives there and makes decisions. On Tuesdays, Wednesdays, and Thursdays one comes to the House and answers questions in the full glare of the Opposition and the media. I loved it; it was heady stuff. But there is always something that brings one down to earth.

I remember going, as the Minister of Education, to a Mission-On launch with Tana Umaga. The kids had lined up—hundreds of them—to welcome him into the school. I tagged alongside Tana saying hi to the kids. One of the boys finished with Tana, and he turned to me and said; “Who are you?”. I was about to say: “Well, you know, I’m the Minister of Education.”, when he asked: “Are you Tana’s hairdresser?”. So I paused for a moment and I thought: “Which is the best option?”. I said: “I’m the hairdresser.” One of the great pleasures of this job is that we do meet wonderful people like Tana, and I would like to acknowledge all the other wonderful people I have met around this country. This is a great nation and we meet superb people everywhere we go.

I also want to record my thanks to my staff in Palmerston North, in Bowen House, and in the Beehive. We will have a chance to say more to each other later on, but if you do not mind I will single out one person to represent you all, and that is Kathleen Lambert who was my secretary while I was a Minister. She taught me to swear, and she saw me through my time as Minister. No, I already knew it, Kathleen; I just grew a little! I have worked with truly committed public servants, some of whom are here today, and I want to thank them for what they do for New Zealand. But I must point out, in case anyone is wondering, that I am not including Christine Rankin in that list.

I say to the people of Palmerston North, thank you for your support. I say to the media that I know you believe in the importance of the fourth estate, and I want you to know I do too, and it has been strengthened by meeting you—it has been strengthened by that process. To the staff of Parliament, I say thank you for taking care of me. I thank the talented, committed Labour staff—the research unit deserves special attention—and my friends, some of whom are here today.

I said during my maiden speech that politicians made very poor friends, and that is still true, but you have been wonderful friends. To my family, you have always been there for me; thank you. To Elizabeth Rose McKay, whom I meet in 1982 and married 6 years later, and who died of cancer on 19 March 2004, I say that if I have achieved anything in this Parliament, Elizabeth, you made that possible. If she was here today she would no doubt say in that very straightforward way of hers: “Well done, but there’s a little more to do.”, and there is.

The last three Labour-led Governments have made a very positive difference to the lives of New Zealanders. In my city of Palmerston North the contrast between the way things were and the way things are is stark. Like most regions, the Manawatū was in decline. I recall 1,600 manufacturing jobs leaving the region in 1 year. People wondered whether there was a future. Since 1999 there has been economic growth, jobs, fewer people on benefits, rising house prices, and, most important, a sense of confidence in the region. We can face the current economic problems with some confidence because, as Dr Brash noted recently, the economy is fundamentally sound. So, what next? As we are all third-wayers of one kind or another, a focus on building a dynamic market economy and quality public services remains. I would emphasise, as members might expect, the need for universities and research to be given a whole lot more money!

Let me list five other challenges. The first challenge is the democracy challenge. We do not need a referendum on MMP, but the political process should be constantly reformed to ensure the meaningful involvement of the New Zealand people in decision making. New communications technology offers the best opportunity yet to include as many people as possible, and it should be taken. Second, I mention the poverty challenge. We should aim to eliminate poverty through a combination of redistribution, lifting the level of benefits, and tough-minded policies that are designed to close the gap between the haves and the have-nots. I note in particular the need for universal early intervention programmes from 1 year prior to birth to 5 years after.

The third challenge is the nation-building challenge. New Zealand in the 21st century is the home of many different communities. We need to consciously lay the foundations for a diverse autonomous Pacific nation that is unified by a sense of what we have in common. We need a written constitution and a timetable for when we will become a republic. That is not a criticism of our past; it is a recognition of what we have become. Fourth is the Green challenge. Climate change and global warming have made the environment a concern to us all, but we do need to move beyond the debate about what we cannot do to one about what we can do. We need to show how a prosperous and growing nation can also be sustainable, and that requires innovation, not regulation, to be at the front of our minds.

The fifth challenge is the family challenge—appropriately. New Zealand should be proudly family friendly. Families in all their forms are the building blocks of our nation. We need to organise our society so the needs of families and children are central. It is time, for example, to look again at the organisation of work—flexible hours, job sharing, time banking, 4-day weeks, 9-day fortnights, and more parental leave. Space must be created for families. Members will have their own goals. Make them bold. The mistakes of the 1980s and 1990s have left a legacy of understandable caution in politics. The current economic crisis reinforces this stance. But in the midst of new times the spectre of the past should not be allowed to get in the way of a vision for the future.

If I may, I will talk to the media for a moment. Exploring these choices requires a different kind of public conversation; one where politicians—and others—feel able to participate in a dialogue that will lead to real change, instead of being forced to watch every word they say or being driven to release the next 3-point plan or new initiative to feed a 24-hour cycle of news and entertainment. Now, despite leaving, I remain very cautious when it comes to telling the media what to do, because as Mark Twain once said: “Speaking of the media, it is not wise to pick a fight with someone who orders their ink by the truckload.”, which means it is time to say goodbye.

I have been in Parliament for 18 years and in local politics for 3 years, and I have decided it is time to move on to make way for the next MP for Palmerston North; a young man who I think will make a real contribution to his city and to his country: Mr Iain Lees-Galloway. Politicians who have crossed over to the other side tell me there is life after politics, and I notice four of them here: Mr Jonathan Hunt, who I think was a wonderful Speaker of this House and a wonderful friend to me when I originally came into the House; Jill White, who was the member for Rangitikei and the Mayor of Palmerston North, who is a wonderful friend to me; Graham Kelly, who is not only one of the best jazz musicians in the House but a wonderful man; and Judy Keall, who lived just up the road. Judy and I did some wonderful things—they were all seemly—along our electorate boundaries in the past. They show that there is life after politics, and because I have been peeking, I know there is.

There is one person in particular who has made me believe there is new life after politics, and that is my partner, Bette Flagler. Bette gave me this gold watch yesterday. She said: “No one else is going to give you a gold watch, so here it is.” Have members got the hammer! No, I will not do that. Betty’s enthusiasm for life is infectious, and she has made me optimistic about the future. Together we are setting out to meet new challenges. We are building an environmentally sustainable house, and I am joining Massey University in the immediate future. Universities, by the way, are charged under legislation to be the critique and conscience of society, so you may be hearing from me!

My life is very complex, I have to say. Let us call it being a grandfather. In the last 3 years, Liam, Felicity, Olivia, and, just 3 weeks ago, Izak—spelt I-Z-A-K; hmm—have been born. Last Christmas Bette and I invited the babies to bring their parents to the beach for what we hope will be the first of many happy summers. Judge Mick Brown, whom I admire greatly, once said: “The best things we can give children are great memories.”, and that is what we want the babies to have. They do not know much about politicians. I say to members that they do not know you, but I want you to know that they are reliant on what you do to make it possible for them to reach their potential in the world they will grow up in. That is a lot of responsibility on your shoulders, but I will know you will wear it well.

Goodbye; it has been a great privilege to be here. Thank you to the people of New Zealand for having me, and, in the words of John Lennon, I hope I passed the audition.

Hon PAUL SWAIN (Labour—Rimutaka): Ā, tihei mauri ora. E te Whare e tū nei, tēnā koe. Te rōpū nei, tēnā koe. Ngā mate, Brian Donnelly e hoa, haere, haere, haere ki te wā kāinga. Āpiti hono, tātai hono, ko te hunga mate ki a rātou, tātou te hunga ora ki a tātou, nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, kia ora anō tātou katoa.

[Behold the sneeze of life. To the House standing before me, greetings to you. To this gathering, greetings to you. To the dead, in particular to you, Brian Donnelly, the friend, farewell, farewell, and depart to the homeland. Hail the bonds that bind the dead to the dead, and us, the living, to each other; so, greetings to you, greetings to you, and greetings once again to all of us].

Eighteen years ago—last century, in fact—I walked through the Noes lobby with my good friend Steve Maharey at the start of the new parliamentary term. We had just come from a caucus that had been decimated by Rogernomics. Mike Moore, the then leader, had advised us that the TV cameras were coming to film the caucus and that we were to lounge across empty seats to make ourselves look bigger. That night on TV we looked a small, slovenly, and bedraggled lot.

I recall that John Banks was particularly cock-a-hoop at National’s victory. “Banksie” delighted in deliberately getting people’s names wrong. I was “Paul Swain from Eastern Hutt”, and Steve was “Maharey from Palmerston North”. “Banksie” sneeringly referred to us collectively as “Swan from Manawatū”. Many years later as the Minister of Transport I received advice from John, who was then the Mayor of Auckland. After learning that the Government was negotiating with the Green Party on transport, “Banksie” reminded me of his Auckland saying: “Dreadlocks mean gridlocks.”

I have reread my maiden speech, a pastime for retiring MPs. It is a brilliant, visionary piece of work, and I cannot understand why it is not compulsory reading for all stage I political students.

My first electorate case involved a constituent’s son who had been thrown into a dark British dungeon for strangling a goose in Hyde Park. With the help of Don McKinnon, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, I managed to arrange for the distraught mother to talk to her incarcerated son. That episode taught me two things: first, do not strangle geese in Hyde Park and, second, although we have our rows and differences in this place—and I have loved every minute of them—Parliament does work together on occasions for the common good.

It has been a great privilege and honour to represent the people of Eastern Hutt from 1990 to 1996, and Rimutaka from 1996 until now. I have been involved in many great local issues and I have worked with many great people. I particularly pay a tribute to the unsung heroes in our community, the members of local organisations such as service groups, sports clubs, churches, school boards, and the like, whose work is the heart and soul of any local community. I salute them for that work. I hope that Chris Hipkins, the Labour candidate for Rimutaka, is given the opportunity to continue the work that I have enjoyed so much.

During our 9 long years in Opposition we developed our plans for what we would do in Government. The Labour-led Government won in 1999, and we hit the ground running. I was privileged to be elected to Cabinet. I had often seen old photos of serious-looking men, half-turned to the camera in the Cabinet room, and I am proud that I am now in a photo like that.

My achievements and successes as a member of Parliament and a Minister are far too many to detail here. Suffice it to say, they will be fulsomely described in my CV. However, I did have an auspicious start to many of my portfolios. I had been the Minister for Information Technology for only a week or so, responsible for the Y2K issue, when I became seriously ill and ended up in Hutt Hospital, attached to every computerised machine the staff could lay their hands on. At 2 minutes to midnight on New Year’s Eve, I hazily remembered an officials’ report saying that Y2K should not be a problem with computers in the public sector generally, but that there were major concerns about hospitals. As the clock struck 12, I braced myself to meet my maker. At 1 minute past 12, finding myself still alive, I congratulated myself on a job thoroughly well done.

I had been the Minister of Transport for only a couple of weeks when bits of Air New Zealand planes fell off and landed in South Auckland. I was disturbed to hear from an official that the bits were probably not important anyway.

I had been the Minister of Corrections for only a short time when I was advised that two skinny inmates had escaped from a Department of Corrections bus on the way to Rimutaka Prison. The fact that they had escaped in my electorate and not Trevor Mallard’s electorate of Hutt South was infuriating. I asked how much the retrofitted bus had cost to keep the prisoners locked inside. “Around $350,000.”, I was told. I mused that it would be cheaper for the department to lease ordinary Stagecoach buses, so that when prisoners wanted to exit they could pull the cord like everyone else. That was early on in my reign as Minister of Corrections, when I still had a sense of humour.

My most heroic comment came early on as the Minister of Commerce. When asked by a reporter whether I agreed that the New Zealand sharemarket was the Wild West, I replied: “Yes, but the sheriff’s coming to town.”

The most influential thing I did as a Minister was as the Minister of Immigration. As a result of a “misunderstanding” with a reporter, a New Zealand Herald headline screamed, “Government lifts migrant target to 50,000”, which saw Fletcher Building shares rise on that day. I was extremely grateful to receive a phone call from the Prime Minister on that morning, offering me advice, guidance, and detailed information on the Government’s immigration programme.

Notwithstanding that, I feel privileged to have been part of the Labour team, which has made a difference to the lives of ordinary people. I am pleased that the unfettered free-market ideology, and its scant regard for social dislocation, has been buried, hopefully forever. It is ironic that the high priests of that religion, who have preached deregulation and minimalist Government for years, are strangely silent now as their cronies in the United States are bailed out from their greed, incompetence, and dishonesty by hard-working, ordinary taxpayers.

I am pleased that we in New Zealand have adopted a modern approach to economic management that sees the Government working in partnership with various sectors, organisations, groups, and individuals to improve the potential of our nation. We New Zealanders have a much stronger sense of pride in who we are now, which has been helped by success in film, design, science, music, and sport, and under the leadership of Prime Minister Helen Clark New Zealand has become a strong, independent nation that shows leadership on issues such as war, poverty, and climate change. Most important, however, I am proud to have been part of the Labour team that has made sure that the rising tide would lift all boats—that improved national wealth would be shared by the many, not just the few.

We have done well here, but, of course, there is always more to do. A key issue I would like Parliament to become more engaged in is the work being led by Business New Zealand and the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions on improving workplace productivity. I was involved in this work as the Minister of Labour, and it seems that much of the focus on monetary policy, interest rates, exchange rates, and the like could be reduced if productivity improvement had a more important place on the economic agenda.

I have been party to many important changes over the years, with the most significant being the introduction of MMP in 1996. I supported a change to a more proportional system of Government, and when I look around the Chamber I am pleased that we are starting to better reflect the wider community that we are supposed to represent. Although the decision-making process is slower on some things—often frustratingly so for a Minister—it is important to remember that that is what the public wanted: more considered decision-making. The coalition and support party arrangements have matured significantly over the years, and the fact that this Government has honoured the 3-year contract with the people is a tribute to all the parties involved.

There have been many hilarious moments in and around this place, far too many to mention, and I will try to mention just a few. The best comment from a constituent came from a person in John Carter’s Northland electorate. We were playing for the Parliamentary Rugby Team in a paddock in Awanui, north of Kaitāia, raising money for school cricket. The ball was thrown in on our 22. Chris Laidlaw passed it to John Carter, the local MP, who shaped to kick. “Don’t kick it, Carter!”, shrieked Chris, sensing danger. John kicked, it came off the side of his boot, and it landed in the outstretched arms of the opposing man-mountain of a centre. With three of us hanging off him like leaves in the breeze, the centre crashed over for a try under the sticks. “I told you not to kick it, Carter!”, moaned Laidlaw. “Don’t worry.”, came a voice from an elderly constituent on the sideline, “He doesn’t listen to us, either.” Duncan Garner got his nickname “Scoop” on that trip, given that he missed the National Party leadership change that happened right under his nose on that weekend.

The best point of order came from Winston Peters. Members will know that it is unparliamentary to call someone a hypocrite. Winston, who had become agitated by a speech, took a point of order, sought leave to table the Oxford Dictionary, and asked members to look up the meaning of the word “hypocrite” and compare the definition with what the member was saying.

The best interjection on one of my speeches came from Michael Cullen. We had taken great delight, in Opposition, in reminding the National Government of its “Read my lips: no new taxes” promise. I had collected up anything that looked like a tax increase—accident compensation levies, excise duties, rates rises, bus fare increases; anything at all—and, gathering up every inch of constitutional outrage I could muster, I shrieked: “See, National promised no new taxes, but in fact they have introduced nine new taxes.” “They must have been speaking German.”, came the dry interjection from Michael Cullen.

And the best answer to a parliamentary question came from my great friend Parekura Horomia. The prime question that was asked was innocent enough: “What did the Minister think of such and such?”. Parekura indicated enthusiastic support. “How does he reconcile that answer with a letter signed by him a month ago stating the exact opposite?”, asked the questioner. We all drew breath, knowing that this was the question that we, as Ministers, all dreaded. “That is easy.”, said Parekura, “It was a pre-letter.” The House went quiet as everyone pondered the answer, and one of ours stood to ask the next question. By this stage pandemonium had broken out on the Opposition front benches, as its members realised that this was not an answer, at all. A point of order was taken, and an answer demanded, but the Speaker, the Rt Hon Jonathan Hunt, advised that it was too late as he had called the next question. To this day it is unclear what a “pre-letter” is.

There are far too many people to thank, but I have chosen a few. I say thank you to our Prime Minister, Helen Clark, for her leadership, courage, compassion, and humour over the years. Her support for me when I was unwell certainly helped my rehabilitation. I am pleased to learn that she is only midway through her career, and I sincerely hope that she will be able to continue the great work she has overseen over the last 9 years.

To the Mayor of Upper Hutt City, Wayne Guppy, and his wife, Sue, who have been good friends to my wife, Toni, and I, I say thank you. Wayne is one of the top mayors in the country, and a top bloke. He has vision, is a strong leader, and genuinely cares about the people of Upper Hutt. It has been great working with him on all the issues over the years. I will particularly miss our All Black selections, often ignored by the hierarchy, and the annual battle on the Upper Hutt bowling greens, and I am pleased to note that I am going out on a high.

To my dear friend Paul Tolich, I say “Thanks, mate!”. Tolly has stood by me through thick and thin over the years, particularly when it was being alleged that the party was mysteriously moving to my left. The union movement and the Labour Party are the stronger for Tolly’s dedication and commitment.

To all those who work in Parliament—receptionists, messengers, Hansard reporters, select committee staff, Crown car drivers, security guards, Bellamy’s staff—I say thank you. To all the board members, chief executives, and public servants who serve New Zealand so ably and professionally, I say thank you for their contribution. To my ministerial, parliamentary, and electorate staff, and in particular to Jan Paterson, Ida Simons, Janette Granville, Krisna Crowley-Nepia, and Rebecca Leahy, I say thank you for their advice, help, and friendship. And I say thank you to those in my local Labour electorate committee for their loyalty, hard work, and support over all these years.

To my family—my late father, who has organised a heavenly chapter of Grey Power to make sure the superannuation surcharge never comes back; my mother, who has defended my honour on late-night talkback shows; and my brother and sisters, who have had to put up with ribbing from friends following some of my pronouncements—I thank them all for their support.

I come now to my children. To my sons, Ben and Sam, who are both overseas, I say that I am incredibly proud of them both. I am proud of who they are and of what they have achieved. And to my darling daughters, Maddie and Emily, who are here today, I say that they keep me young and bring me never-ending joy and happiness.

The best thing that has happened to me in Parliament was meeting, falling in love with, and marrying my wife, Toni. She has been my rock, my calm confidante, my best friend, and my media adviser over the last 8 years. I look forward to spending more time with her from now on, and to sharing life’s adventures, whatever they may be.

As Ruth Dyson is wont to say, finally and in conclusion, I now prepare to leave this place. As a former Minister of Corrections, I understand how inmates feel at the end of their time—I am looking forward to personal freedom and hoping I can survive outside the institution.

At some time in the future a Speaker will stand at 2 p.m. in this House, announce with sadness the passing of the Hon Paul Swain, “Minister of This and Associate Minister of That”, and invite members to stand for a minute’s silence. Two new fresh-faced MPs, sitting where Steve Maharey and I started all those years ago, will rise, and one will ask: “I wonder who that old codger Swain was?”. I hope someone will have the decency to remind them that he was the captain of the parliamentary cricket team that beat the diplomats in 1997.

With that, I bid members goodbye and good luck. Nō reira tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, kia ora tātou katoa.

JILL PETTIS (Labour): Firstly, I would like to pay tribute to you, Madam Speaker, for your infinite patience, and for your humour. I extend my deepest sympathy to the family of Brian Donnelly, and to his New Zealand First colleagues. Kia kaha!

I have had the privilege of actively participating in a fantastically exciting, and at times challenging, journey during the 15 years I have been a member of Parliament. I come from a family that has a history of political activity, born out of a strong desire to improve the lives of those who are not among the most fortunate in society. I started asking my mother Jean whether I could go to political meetings with her while I was at primary school. Her instructions were: “If you are quiet and sit up straight, you can come.” As members will know, I have continued to put her rules into practice here in Parliament—

Hon Members: Ha, ha!

JILL PETTIS: Oh well—OK! Perhaps I have deviated from that path once or twice over the last 15 years, particularly the bit about being quiet. Although my interest and political activity increased over the years, I never contemplated becoming a member of Parliament. I have never hungered for personal recognition, but I have always been highly motivated by the need to make life better for those who are less able to advocate for themselves. I contested the 1990 general election, missing by a mere 409 votes—who counts? However, I was elected in 1993, and there began this absolutely incredible journey that I have been on ever since.

I am sure there are some who think they got elected to Parliament as a result of their charm and good looks. I know that I am here because Labour principles are at the core of my very being, because of the hard work and commitment of the Whanganui Labour team, because of my family, both past and present, and, perhaps most important, because the word “Labour” is beside my name on a voting form. I thank the voters who ticked my name and “Labour” during the six elections I contested. I worked hard to deliver on their expectations of me, and I hope that in most cases I succeeded. “Thank you” are totally inadequate words to describe the debt of gratitude I feel towards the Whanganui Labour team that has worked with me since 1989. We have had some great times together, and my heartfelt thanks go to them all. Politics is not really very glamorous—is it, Rona—when you are standing out in the freezing cold, selling raffle tickets and holding garage sales to raise funds, or delivering pamphlets along streets that seem to stretch for miles. It is the Labour team throughout New Zealand that does the graft in the back rooms and on the streets, passionate and committed in its desire for a fair New Zealand for all New Zealanders.

Members of Parliament could not function successfully without the support of their secretarial staff, both in our parliamentary offices and in the electorate. I have been extremely fortunate in the calibre of staff I have had working with me. My staff have all been incredibly loyal and hard-working, and I know I would not have achieved what I did without them. I say thank you to my staff for being partners in serving the Whanganui electorate, for your humour, and also for your strong belief in delivering social justice. As my long-serving secretary Lyn Crossley and I used to frequently say when faced with yet another challenge: “It’s a great life if you don’t weaken.” My husband, Warren, and our children, Trent and Megan, have continued to be the wind beneath my wings during the years I have been in Parliament. I would not have been able to do the work I have done without you by my side. Through thick and thin, you have been there, and I know that you have made many sacrifices for me and for the Labour Party. Your love has sustained me.

I have always had an interest in conservation and environmental issues, and I was really proud to have the opportunity to introduce the Wildlife (Penalties and Related Matters) Amendment Bill. This bill increased the penalties for offences against native flora and fauna, and the legislation now really does afford greater protection for our native species. The bill received unanimous support in Parliament, and that is not something that happens around here every day. I was not so successful with the Housing Responsibilities Bill, where I sought to have income-related rents restored for State house tenants, and unfortunately the National MPs of the day voted against the bill. However, when Labour came into Government in 1999, one of the first policies we passed was a return to income-related rents. This was a lesson in time, patience, and the privilege of being a member of a party that knows the benefits of social justice across many policy areas, and is prepared to put those policies and beliefs into action.

Although being an active participant in politics is not for the faint-hearted, a day in Government is definitely better than a thousand in Opposition. I have had 6 years of being an Opposition MP, and 9 in Government—guess which I prefer? As we battle away in the political trenches, much of our work is unseen and intangible, but it is all part of the political process we must endure. Saving the West Coast’s forests is a very real and tangible Labour policy, and I look forward to the day I can take our grandchildren to see them. The political battle to save these forests was a very new experience for me, but I learned from it and went on to face others. We could not have instituted that policy without our leader Helen Clark standing beside us.

The recently opened $30 million - plus Whanganui University College of Learning campus and the new $34 million Wanganui Hospital clinical services building are just some of the policies I have been absolutely delighted to see put into action in the Whanganui electorate under a Labour-led Government. South Taranaki and large parts of rural Whanganui were included in the reconfigured Whanganui electorate following the introduction of an MMP system in 1996. The Labour team got to work and started to bring new services and investment in these areas, and we have seen a new hospital, I say to Dan and Rose, and other investments in this area. A Heartland Services centre was opened, and there was massive investment in roads, including the Hāwera railway subway, the widening of the Tangahoe Bridge, and the $7 million investment that will improve the Whanganui River Road. I am descended, on the paternal side of my family, from Ngāti Pāmoana of Koroniti on the Whanganui River. Te Āti Haunui-a-Pāpārangi is my iwi. Facilitating economic development opportunities along the Whanganui River is important to me, and I look forward to the expansion of farming, horticulture, and tourism ventures that improved road safety and access will bring to this part of the electorate.

New Zealand’s relatively small population means that we know quite a lot about each other. Some people here know things about each of us that we do not even know ourselves. Here in Parliament, we are inclined to tell each other occasionally, too. The small size of our population and our Parliament also means that we have a unique relationship with the media. Before entering Parliament I used to think the media was some lofty, all-knowing, all-seeing group of people. Well, I soon got that naive idea knocked out of me. They are just the same as us politicians. They do not like criticism either; they also like to have the last word, and in most cases they do, too. In my early days here, the press gallery was famous for its parties. We MPs looked forward to these events, as we knew no one in attendance would suffer from dehydration or lack of sustenance. MPs from both sides of the House also knew they would spend some time during the next few days engaged in speculative conversation about what went on both during and after these parties. Well, that was then and this is now. Just like us, the media are also under much greater scrutiny, and have become uncharacteristically sedate. Perhaps it is time for renewal!

MPs are constantly being told by all manner of people that they should improve their behaviour in the House. Some MPs also venture into this territory. In my maiden speech, I acknowledged that the debating chamber was a naturally combative place, and that I would not remain silent and quietly accept legislation that would disadvantage the people who elected me to Parliament. I have been known to utter the occasional interjection, and a journalist once wrote something uncharitable about my voice and paint, or some such description—a cutting blow. I was so devastated that I had to have a wee lie down. However, I quickly recovered and continued to point out the error of the ways of the National Party and of any other MP whose party was in opposition to Labour. I hope they realise I was just trying to be helpful.

Although the general consensus among the public is that we politicians spend our whole time attacking each other, there have been moments of great spontaneous humour that every MP has enjoyed. We will never see the likes of David Lange again, and his one-liners were brilliant. John Carter could always be relied upon for a joke for the bowling club. National’s Gerry Brownlee has been known to make the occasional helpful interjection too. In June last year, some of us were looking forward to directing some informative and helpful interjections—sotto voce, of course—towards Gerry, following a most interesting meeting he had had in his office. Unfortunately, we were thwarted in our cause by the code of conduct for MPs documents that were being tabled in the House that day. Not to be outdone by this temporary stay of required good behaviour, I had been making meaningful eye contact with, and intimations to, Gerry, below the Speaker’s radar, of course. I have here the note that Gerry wrote to me when he knew he was home free: “Jill, sharpen up your conduct, and stop hassling and intimidating me in the House. Gerry.” I have yet to witness Gerry being intimidated by anyone. This was an exchange conducted without rancour and with good humour from both of us. Parliament should, and hopefully always will, be a place where people of strongly held opinions assemble and put their beliefs forward for public scrutiny. This is not a place for, as Ralph Chaplin wrote, the “cowed and the meek Who see the world’s anguish and its wrong And dare not speak!”.

I have had a variety of roles and responsibilities during the last 15 years, and appreciate the irony of being appointed as an Assistant Speaker, a bit like the fox minding the chicken coop. I have also been a junior and senior Government whip. You learn a great deal about human nature in these roles. The work a whip does is largely unseen. However, it is an exciting and challenging role, with constant liaison between the executive and the backbench, and with other parties. The Government whips are often at the centre of what is going on in Parliament and their organisational and management skills are tested every day.

More recently I have been chair of the New Zealand Parliamentarians’ Group on Population and Development. This all-party parliamentary group views population and development issues, including sexual and reproductive health and rights, and gender issues, as central to the elimination of poverty. The group also promotes sustainable economic growth and environmental sustainability. Much of the group’s work is focused on the Asia-Pacific region and we value the positive relationship we have with NZAID, sharing a belief in delivering international aid and development effectively.

I love the atmosphere of the debating chamber. It is an exciting place even when the bills being debated may seem tedious and at times irrelevant to the wider public. I am conscious of the fact that only about 120 of us have won the right to sit here at any one time, and also of how precious our democratic system is. Too often those who criticise MPs and their behaviour would not have the intestinal fortitude to stand for election and be prepared to suffer the often unjustified criticisms MPs receive almost every day. I believe that New Zealand MPs largely conduct themselves responsibly and care about their constituents, their electorates, their country, and the rest of the world. Voters can choose to elect timid candidates who will never be heard of again once they enter this place, but I suspect the electors would soon tire of that sort of character.

Fifteen minutes in which to cover 15 years of parliamentary service requires some discipline. I have had experiences I never dreamt would be possible. I have met and talked with people I would have only read about if I had not been an MP. I have seen firsthand how highly regarded and respected our country and the Helen Clark Labour-led Government are internationally. It has been an immense privilege to work with Prime Minister Helen Clark. Whoever would have thought I could ring one of the most effective Prime Ministers this country has known and say: “Helen, Jill here. Ring me when you’ve got a moment, thanks.”

I am proud to be a New Zealander and I am privileged to have played a role in implementing Labour Party policies that have improved the quality of life for thousands of New Zealanders. I have spent too little time with my family over the last 15 years. Warren and I have two precious grandchildren, Isabella and Freddie, whom we want to see more of. We are excited about our future. I leave this House comfortable in the knowledge that I tried to do my best. I will always value the truly wonderful range of experiences I have had and I sincerely thank all those who helped make it possible. Thank you.

Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Labour—Wellington Central): As I walked down the corridor to my first caucus meeting in 1996, Helen Clark asked me whether I had made the right decision, because 24 hours earlier I had turned down an appointment as the principal of Wellington Girls’ College to become a member of Parliament. There have been many times in the midst of some media-driven storm—unfortunate nicknames, unflattering photos, and television crews trying to film across backyards into my bedroom—when I have definitely thought that I had made a mistake. Yet on reflection I know I have been given the opportunity to broaden my understanding of this country and to make a difference, for my immediate community in Wellington, and for New Zealand in general. I am glad that I took the risk but I am also so very happy to be going.

As I go I have some memories, many thanks, and some reflections on democracy. The records show that I have held a number of portfolios. When the Prime Minister rang and asked whether I would add environment to broadcasting, I advised her that I was arachnophobic, to which she replied that that was covered by conservation. But then there was the minimal science education that I had had, and my first public issue was genetic modification—I had so much to learn. Thank goodness there was a royal commission! It gave me some time to understand the portfolio.

Environment was a portfolio and a ministry that I came to love. I enjoyed our weekly meetings with Barry, Lindsay, Sue, Dave, Bill, Tim, and many others. We all learnt together. They learnt about apostrophes; I learnt about the Resource Management Act and the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act. Our aim was to work with local councils to find solutions, such as that to the deteriorating water quality in Lake Taupō and the Rotorua lakes. Sometimes our work was to listen and to enact the solutions proposed at local levels, such as the Fiordland Marine Guardians solutions, and sometimes it was to provide clear leadership. As someone who grew up in Christchurch smog and lived there for 40 years while people argued over whose fault that dirty air was, it was great to be part of a Government that set the national environment standards for air quality. I am confident that lives will be saved because of this work.

With the National Library and Archives New Zealand, I had a clear idea—with Michael Cullen—of what needed to be done. Regardless, persuading others of the way forward was just as difficult. But there were wonderful people in those communities—people such as Lydia Wevers, Brad and Susan Patterson, and Rachel Underwood—and together we found legislative solutions.

In broadcasting, our theme was to celebrate who we were, to tell our story. The great success was a local music quota—I say thank you to Katherine Rich for her reference yesterday. Only 3 percent of music played on major stations was New Zealand music. We argued for 20 percent. “Impossible!”, they said; “Eat your words!”, or something like it, was what Michael Cullen said. The music quota and the promotions by Brendan Smyth at New Zealand On Air have given opportunities for New Zealand musicians. We now celebrate our voice and our sound.

When our second term of Government came around, I was very happy to exchange broadcasting for New Zealand aid and disarmament. Matt Robson had worked to establish the new agency, NZAID. Now we had the chance to ensure that this aid agency worked differently. We were to concentrate on the Pacific. We determined to work in partnership, and thus build the capacity of, say, the Solomon Islands Education Department, or community health in Papua New Guinea. Peter Adams and the wonderful NZAID team have built a way of working that is admired worldwide. It is the Rt Hon Winston Peters whom I must thank, and also Michael Cullen, for the substantial increase in the aid budget—God does work in mysterious ways! Good, effective government works with parties, ministries, non-governmental organisations, and community groups. I feel that I have been part of a very good Government, able to work with different partners.

Good government is also dependent on brilliant public servants. I experienced this when given the curriculum review to supervise for a short time. Professionally, I understood this work, and I knew enough to know that the review was being undertaken with rigour and energy. The supervision needed was very light, indeed. We are so well served by our public servants. Personally, I always feel so offended by the derisory term “bureaucrats”, which is flung about so easily in this House in order to itch an ill-informed scab.

I think you can see that I loved being in Cabinet, but journalists could not conceive of a person who would voluntarily stand aside from that work. In their eyes I must have been pushed—no politician would ever voluntarily halve his or her pay. It is sad that our press gallery is full of people whose perspective is so jaundiced. It does not build respect for democracy, but maybe that is the aim of the media, which is increasingly owned by fewer corporations. The fourth estate, I think, wants to be the sole or only estate.

In 2005 I did stand down. I dreamt of New Zealand following the Nordic example of being able to build a strong, fair society around years of social democratic Governments, rather than the turnover every 6 to 9 years with the consequent catch-up, repair, and buy-back that always has to take place. To achieve this requires excellent succession planning, and anyone with a brain and eyes today can see that we in Labour have achieved it. Twenty-five percent of our 2005 caucus has retired, or is retiring, in favour of some very talented successors with new perspectives and new experiences.

In 2005 it was back to the backbench and three select committees, and, latterly, the enjoyable role of Assistant Speaker. I was particularly proud of the manner in which the Local Government and Environment Committee—John Carter—worked together to bring back positive legislation on waste recovery. And this is a good time to thank Mark Blumsky. We have worked well together in Wellington over the years, and that same style was evident in select committee work. Thanks, Mark, for always treating me as a friend and a human being, especially when I was in the poo. I also loved working with Brian Donnelly, and I am so sad to hear of his passing today. He had the unenviable task of chairing a select committee that had four principals on it; that he survived is amazing.

I have positive memories of life as a politician to take away with me, and, Madam Speaker, I very much appreciate the support you have always given me, both in Cabinet and in the House. Few people know—but I will reveal it now—that we were taught by the same nuns. That accounts for our hair colouring. These positive memories, though, are tempered by my concerns about the role of the media in democracy. It is not a concern about whether different news media organisations support a particular party, nor is it a concern about how I personally may have been reported. Rather, it is a concern about the trivialisation of decision making in society. For that is what politics is: the making of decisions, be it the laws we pass or the Budgets we approve. But modern news media do not evaluate our decisions in the light of which policy is best. Instead, they build a web around personalities and behaviours. It is about hockey mums versus the first black presidential nomination. It is about a smiley new face versus the one we are familiar with. The news is about the decision makers and rarely about the decisions. By focusing on the shallow world of perception, we can afford not to analyse the different policies or choices. In fact, we can do away with policies altogether.

Such a light analysis of the issues, of course, plays into the hand of the slick and polished. I take up Steve Maharey’s point that any attempt at thinking out loud or inviting comment is dismissed as weakness, and if one trips over words or confuses a term or name, then one is portrayed as a poor performer. It is very interesting to note the concept of “performance”. To be successful in this world of light analysis, one need only sound assertive, even—and especially—when one does not know what one is talking about. The impression that one knows is enough. If one belongs to a paper whose journalist numbers are shrinking, then it is quicker to accept the assertion as truth without searching for any evidence. If we continue in this unholy partnership between assertion without knowledge and a celebrity-focused media, then democracy will be short-changed, and we will get the politicians we do not deserve. We will be presented with the slick and image-rich, and we will lose out on the politician who listens, who collaborates, who invites comment, and who actually thinks and reflects.

In the world of perception, debate becomes the repeated exchange of carefully tested phrases—when we are in the Chair we hear them all the time—and sound bites, rather than an in-depth analysis of the issues. The media are not interested in argument—only in posturing and emotion. If I had not experienced such in-depth debate in Cabinet committees and in some select committees, then I would not have survived 12 years of trivia. Column inches have been wasted on perks, but has equivalent space been devoted to the importance of strong Central European economies to stability in Europe? Every Christmas we learn what prisoners are eating for their lunch that day, but has there ever been a story about trades learnt or literacy gained by those in prison? As a society, we deserve better.

Our taxes do provide one shiny example of good analysis: Radio New Zealand. Thank you, Kim Hill, for bringing science and mathematics into the mainstream on a Saturday morning. Thank you, Veronika Meduna, for explaining complex issues so clearly. Work on genetic modification taught me that both science and statistics were poorly understood at a time we needed to understand them in order to make good decisions.

I end this valedictory with many thanks—first, to Helen, the Prime Minister. Helen, you entrusted me, this inexperienced politician and eccentric principal, with some very interesting portfolios. Thank you—it is sincerely meant. I admire your courage and strength—it is awesome. You keep going in the face of horrible personal attack and innuendo that others would run away from. But although I admire your courage, above all I love how you work so hard for New Zealanders—not for Helen Clark but for New Zealanders—so that we can all have a better life. I get so cross when people mistake the power to do good for power for power’s sake. Thank you so much.

To Michael Cullen, I say a special thanks. You were so patient in your financial explanations. I know that my Cabinet colleagues always sighed with relief when I asked my questions. You have been so staunch, so principled, and so clear about supporting those New Zealanders who cannot support themselves. Your service as Minister of Finance will be applauded in all the history books of the future, and is that not deliciously ironic? In my role as Assistant Speaker, I have come to appreciate your exceptional devotion to, and leadership of, this House. You treat Parliament with respect.

I have been blessed with wonderful public servants to work with, from a number of ministries, and I include the staff of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and the Cabinet Office, who are always tidying up after me. Thank you all for your patience, your humour, your honesty, and your amazing hard work. To my staff in my ministerial office—Neil, Trevor, Grant, Alistair, Viv, and Paula—thank you for being such a brilliant team. You and the ministry staff survived my regular post - question time depression, and always supplied the missing names, nouns, and terms, in any meeting. What will I do without you, in Birmingham?

Paula—we have worked together for 8 years, and you are brilliant and reliable. I tell members not to line up to take her! No travel plan has ever been messed up, and no appointment forgotten. I have enjoyed good company—in particular, I have enjoyed watching you with your family; the parenting skills of you and Tony always fill me with hope for our society. I thank my electorate office staff: Sheila, Anna, and the ones who went before them—I think I see Jordan up in the gallery; he was known as Diggory when I forgot his name. People think that I do it all, in the electorate, but it is your networking, your courtesy, and your attention to detail, that have made my service to Wellington Central possible.

To Jimmy, I give very special thanks. People think that VIP drivers are mere chauffeurs; you are all so much more. On the morning I learnt that my mother had died, while Jimmy was driving me back from the airport he organised staff to come around with soup and bread, and to support me while I gathered myself together before representing the Government at the Armistice Day service. Jimmy explained to the Visits and Ceremonial Office and to the army chaplain that I might cry a little more than normal, in the circumstance. Thank you, Jimmy, for being a true friend in both sad times and happy times, and for looking after me. And I extend my thanks to the security staff—and I have needed them on many occasions—the officers of this House, the messengers, and the staff at Bellamy’s for always being so cheerful and helpful in this House.

To Claire, my daughter, and to Josh, my son, who is not here: thank you both for growing up into wonderful people. You did this in spite of me and my always wanting to change the world, while ignoring the pile of ironing or your homework. You both work so hard for a just society. I feel so proud that in your different ways you work for social justice. I love you both, and feel very loved by you. I often feel that you are both so much wiser than your ever-so-crazy mother.

Finally, I thank the constituents of Wellington Central, and within that, the local Labour team. You trusted me, you worked with me—please shift that trust to Grant Robertson. Grant has worked with me for over 12 years. We have learnt much from each other. I go with ease and happiness because I am confident that if my constituents select Grant for Wellington Central, he will serve them with commitment, empathy, and intelligence. He is a person of integrity and personal warmth. In my wildest dreams, I could not imagine a better successor.

Madam Speaker and parliamentary colleagues, time limits prevent further stories and thanks, but thank you for the privilege of working with you all in the last 12 years. Kia kaha, e hoa mā; kia manawanui!

Hon VUI MARK GOSCHE (Labour—Maungakiekie): I acknowledge the passing of my good rugby league mate the Hon Brian Donnelly; may he go in peace.

Madam Speaker, I acknowledge you and the other presiding officers. The Hon Margaret Wilson has made history as our first woman Speaker, and I thank her for her friendship over many years. The Hon Clem Simich showed me the value of being fair to Opposition MPs as a select committee chair. I have tried to follow his example in that role. I thank the people who work to make this Parliament the place it is: the Office of the Clerk, select committee and parliamentary staff, the library, the messengers, security staff, drivers, and of course those who feed us and keep this place clean and well maintained.

There are a number of us departing today, and I acknowledge all of them and the Labour family who have gathered to support us. Kia ora, talofa lava, and greetings. There are 117 years of collective experience amongst us—something most workplaces would recognise as being a significant loss of knowledge, yet the public commentary will probably be minimal. I am going to miss this place, the many friends who will be returning later this year, and those like me who are leaving. They are special people who have given their best to this place and our country.

Nineteen ninety-six was our first MMP Parliament, and I was a list MP, encouraged here particularly by my good friend David Lange and many others. We waited a long time for a Government to be formed and even longer to make maiden speeches. I look back on that speech and feel enormous satisfaction at what has been achieved in the past 12 years, and in the role I have played in delivering on the expectations of the people who put us here.

The people of Maungakiekie elected me from 1999 onwards as their electorate MP, and I thank them for their loyalty and support. I achieved that with the help of a loyal and hard-working group of Labour Party members and supporters. There are many of them, but I would like to especially acknowledge Robert Gallagher, Murray Cotter, Christine O’Brien, Adrian Martin-Devitt, Leila Boyle, Richard Northey, Andrew Beyer, and Jo Fitzpatrick, and of course Carol Beaumont, who will fill my seat later this year. The union affiliates and the energetic Pacific sector have always been there for me—fa’afetai tele lava; thank you very much. Helping me have been two extraordinary friends. My electorate agents, John Fenton and Lydia Sosene, epitomise what true public service really means, and they do their work with love in their hearts. I thank them both.

In Wellington there are many people whom I would like to mention, but they are too numerous to name: those who worked in my office when I was a Minister to make the work we produced so much better with their efforts, and who stood by me through very trying times. I thank them. I worked with intelligent, committed, and talented people in the ministries and departments I was responsible for. I praise them for their efforts. We are lucky in this country that good people are prepared to sacrifice personal wealth and opportunity to work in our public services for the good of our communities. There are a couple of people I do want to thank personally. For 10 years Jen Toogood worked with me here in Parliament. She kept me sane and organised. She taught me how this place worked and offered enormous friendship to me and my family. Thank you, Jen. Since she escaped, Janet Emmerson has filled that role, and I thank her too.

For 9 of my 12 years I have been part of a very good Government led by two exceptional people. Helen Clark and Michael Cullen are great Labour leaders who ensured we delivered what we promised, and more. They will continue to deliver. It was an honour for a South Auckland working-class boy like me to serve in their Cabinet for almost 4 years. I wish it could have been longer, but that was not to be. I look back now with great pride at the things we achieved together: income-related rents for State house tenants, the scrapping of the Employment Contracts Act, the reorganisation of primary health care so people could go to the doctor again, the minimum wage increases and 4 weeks’ annual leave, KiwiSaver, Kiwibank, KiwiRail, and so on. I believe strongly in those things, and that is why I came to Parliament—to change our laws and spending priorities.

I never thought I would be a “roads and bridges” sort of politician. When I became Minister of Transport I was in severe danger of not being one. I sat down with transport officials early on, and I was told we would not even start on a new piece of motorway in Auckland in our first term, let alone finish one. Such was the shambles we inherited. Well, there are many roads, bridges, and motorways now built and a busway I feel particularly proud of. I never got my name on the opening plaque of many of them, but I can now drive on them with a sense of pride I thought I would never feel. To my Green comrades, I say we dramatically boosted public transport spending too—something enormously important to the community I represent and to the environment.

Last year I went to Samoa with my family to receive the matai title of Vui from my grandmother’s village of Lano, on Savaii. I treasure that trip and the title I was given. It sits alongside the honour I have of being the first person of Pasifika descent to be the Minister of Pacific Island Affairs. Samoan culture requires a title to be earned, but I still felt enormous trepidation about accepting these roles because I am New Zealand-born and without the language of my father. But the Pacific community is generous and has given me great love and support. This empowered me to confidently work on policies I believe have made a difference. Pacific people are now able to send their children to early childhood centres that teach in their first languages, more of them are achieving educationally, we have built capacity in health delivery, education, and social services, and Pacific people are taking the world by storm—not just in sport but in music, art, film, television, and writing. I know that because I hear it on our very own radio stations and, occasionally, see it on our very monocultural TV screens.

I thought of one thing that best illustrated the satisfaction an MP can get from doing this job. There are many things I have been involved in, but this stood out. On the wall behind my desk I have had a photo for several years. It is a picture of the Prime Minister and me with a Tongan family in Te Pāpapa, Auckland. It was at the opening of the first Healthy Housing project that Housing New Zealand Corporation undertook, which happened because we had a terrible problem with illnesses like meningococcal disease, caused in part by overcrowding in houses due to the market rents regime of the 1990s. Together the university, district health boards, and Housing New Zealand mapped the worst outbreaks, located at-risk families, and built them larger, more appropriate homes to live in on existing State-owned land. The market had delivered disease and poverty; good, joined-up Government delivered people from that. I feel proud of that; it is a type of work that defines us as a true Labour Government.

I have had some fun and learned many lessons along the way. In an early unguarded moment as Minister of Housing I sat for over an hour with a reporter, discussing my aspirations and plans for the portfolio. I thought it went well. The next day I picked up the newspaper to read the headline “Minister to give BBQs to State tenants”—or something ridiculous like that. I took flak for at least a week. It was not my suggestion or plan, but that did not matter to the journalist; he had scored a good hit on the new Minister. I will not reveal where the suggestion came from, but I am glad I did not mention the other one from the same person, who had suggested turning State houses around to face the sun—not a bad idea, I think.

During my term as Minister of Transport I faced some tough times. From memory Ansett in Australia collapsed, Air New Zealand and Qantas were in severe trouble here, and our railways were broke and broken. In the House, in the midst of all this chaos, I was asked the inevitable question by a member from over there: “Can the Minister list his achievements since taking over the portfolio?” Ah, the joys of question time! We did, of course, rescue Air New Zealand and rail. I pay tribute to Michael Cullen. It was inspiring to work beside him on those significant issues.

My scariest moment was not here, but in a school gymnasium in Auckland. It was the year the APRA Silver Scroll Awards picked the best 30 New Zealand songs of all time. I was asked to play drums by an old mate, Al Hunter, with a band of very, very good professional musicians. The song was Dave Dobbyn’s “Loyal”, and I drove my family absolutely mad learning it properly. They hate the song now. I was nervous as! A huge audience with the cream of New Zealand musical talent, including Dobbyn, Herbs, Bic Runga, etc. were all sitting there. Finally, we were on the stage and all was going well until Al forgot the words and stopped singing. The drum part starts and stops, and I had learnt when to come back in from the lyrics. Ah! Just in time, Al remembered the words and I came back in on cue. What a relief! We got through. Of course, some kind journalist bagged me for even being there, but I give big thanks to Al for asking me—I loved it.

We speak a lot in this job, and I enjoy it, except when I have to read speeches. I have never had any serious slips of the tongue—not like John Carter, anyway. It was very cunning. But I recently avoided the debate on the Employment Relations (Breaks and Infant Feeding) Amendment Bill in the House. I kept getting the title wrong, and did so in front of an audience of more than 300 when boasting of the imminent passing of the “Rest Breaks and Infant Breeding Bill”. It might be a good idea, Paul.

As I prepared this, my last speech in the House, I thought back to my first. That day I spoke of my hopes and ideals, and my family were sitting in the gallery. Many of them are here again today. I greet my daughter Jessica, son Jacob, and grandson Izaiah, and I acknowledge Liz who is away shopping—overseas. My children have known a father involved only in unions and politics, but they love me anyway, as I do them. I greet my mothers, brothers, and sisters, and others who have travelled to offer support—loving support that only families can give.

There are two family members missing, though: my wife Carol, and our son Kristian. It is Carol’s birthday today. I say “Happy birthday, honey.” She is sitting at home watching this with my beautiful sister Sala, who is our rock. I hope they have figured how to watch it on the television. Carol and I have been together since September 1974. We met as teenagers. I am here in this place because of her loving support. When she was struck down with a severe brain haemorrhage in 2002, our lives changed forever. Carol requires 24/7 total care and always will. She survived the normally fatal bleed through a combination of will power and prayer, coupled with the marvellous skills of the people who work in Wellington public hospital. She has been at home for 3½ years, cared for by devoted and loving caregivers and our family. I pay tribute to Loto, Sabrina, Milika, Losa, Fotui, Ketuli, and others who have worked in our home. They are all patient and wonderfully caring women. I also acknowledge the dedicated people who have worked with Carol these past years to help her survive and make some improvement. Carol has continued to encourage me in this job. Even now she would be prepared to see me carry on, but it is time to move on.

Without Carol’s mother, Shirley Gladding, I could not have contemplated continuing in Parliament as long as this. Shirley has enabled me to be here. She has given me and Carol so much, and we love her dearly.

People react to disability in different ways. We have seen some friends, and even family members, drift away from us. That is not a criticism of anyone; it is just a reality for many disabled people and their families. I was told this would occur. We have been blessed, though, with truly good friends. I have already mentioned our Labour family, but I also acknowledge very special people like Cathie Sharpe, Paul Chalmers, Fiona Johnston, and Beverley Roser who give us so much support. Of course, I thank again all my caucus colleagues who carried extra burdens so I could care for Carol, especially Ruth Dyson and Steve Maharey, who guided me through the best and worst of times.

I leave this place with some parting requests. My family has experienced many challenges. We have lived with Carol’s disability for 6½ long years. Many families share this experience, and more will do so in the future as medical science keeps people alive who once would have died. Twenty-two New Zealanders a day have a stroke, and just over half of the survivors have ongoing problems with disability. They experience a different regime from that of those who are disabled by an accident. I would forego a thousand tax cuts if I was able to access the treatment and services that Carol needs, and would receive, if she were covered by accident compensation. I know there are other families who feel the same. As a nation we can afford to treat people equally, and I implore members to commit to this as a Parliament in the future.

In the last few years in my community I have worked strenuously on our youth and violence problems. We have made great progress, especially in my home town of Ōtāhuhu. I love doing this work, and I want to continue it when I finish here. What is clear to me is that behind the problems in communities throughout New Zealand is the damage done by the deregulated labour market. The insane idea that we must all be available to work 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, has ruined family life for too many. Our communities suffer, we struggle to find people to run our schools and clubs, and many parents just are not there when their kids really need them. This is what lies behind the youth gang problems of the poor streets and the drug problems of the rich, leafy suburbs—not the lack of longer and longer prison sentences, as advocated by some. Employers must pay more than lip service to the need for proper work-life balance, or our Government must legislate for it.

As I said earlier, the other person who is not in the gallery today is my beloved son Kristian. I ask on behalf of the hundreds of families each year like ours, who suffer the loss of a son or brother as we did, that efforts continue to reduce our suicide rate and to find answers so we can avoid the grief we still feel.

Madam Speaker, I have felt motivated for years by the idea of working to make things better for future generations. I have been privileged to have had 12 years here working on that goal. Six years ago I actually became a grandfather, so the idea became more real and more pressing. Three weeks ago I missed grandparents’ day at Izaiah’s school, because I was stuck here under urgency. I will not do that again, nor be away on Carol’s next birthday. I look forward to carrying on my work locally, being home at night, supporting the Warriors more often, and having a more normal family life.

Finally, some years ago I read a quote from a former politician. I am hopeless at remembering these things, so please forgive me if I paraphrase. It goes something like: “There are people who go into politics to be something, and there are people who go into politics to do something.” I hope that I will be remembered as one of the latter. Thank you, and farewell. Ia soifua ma Ia manuia.

TIM BARNETT (Labour—Christchurch Central): Kia ora tātou. A valedictory is essentially a once-in-a-lifetime affair—a privilege denied to those departing after an election defeat, or after an early and rushed poll of the 1984 variety—so like all rare objects, a valedictory should be treated with respect and care. Our maiden speeches may be flushed with naive and outrageous optimism, but our valedictories are where the rubber hits the road. One of those watershed moments is described powerfully by Eminem in “Lose Yourself”:

Look, if you had one shot, or one opportunity

To seize everything you ever wanted—One moment

Would you capture it or just let it slip?

We politicians are practitioners of the mysterious art of representative democracy. We, the departing Labour “nine guitars”, know how hard it can be to explain that art to potential employers, yet the skills of listening and acting, of guiding people and causes to solutions, of managing committees and portfolios, and of promoting values are all real and all valuable. How does one meaningfully summarise 12 intensely busy years doing this work of democracy? I have long tortured my Christchurch colleagues Lianne Dalziel and Ruth Dyson by dividing speeches on every conceivable topic into three points, so it would now be entirely unreasonable to disappoint them. Of course, this all comes with a warning. With certainty, the American humorist Ambrose Bierce defined history—the subject of most valedictories—as “An account mostly false, of events mostly unimportant, which are brought about by rulers mostly knaves, and soldiers mostly fools.”

First, one can attempt to tell the story of democracy with numbers—election results, casework achieved, changes experienced—the vital statistics of the job. The business of democracy can be brutal: elected MPs live and die by majorities. I first stood for Parliament in 1996. Then, mobile phones were as large as bricks, people communicated with MPs by visits and letters, and websites were places where spiders lived. My campaign volunteers were a little mystified by the potential but irritated Labour voter who phoned my campaign office to complain that when she searched for me on the web, all she could find was an, admittedly impressive, full frontal picture of the US porn star Tim Barnett. My win, then, was maybe understandably the narrowest of any electorate member of Parliament—with a majority of 653. Survival was my total focus for that first 3 years. By the last election my majority reached 7,836 and sleep was a lot easier.

At the heart of New Zealand democracy are local and personal concerns. I represent Christchurch Central. It is home to vibrant neighbourhoods, the urban heritage heartland of our nation, and a succession of superb Thai restaurants that have sustained me through the years. It includes the most valuable real estate in the South Island, and, for many generations, some of the poorest people. Those who fall through the net come to a local member of Parliament. We comfort, strategise, inform, advocate, and even link people together to create a campaign. This is eternal work. The task of responding to such presented need is as deep as the ocean, and as vital as fresh air in areas like Christchurch Central. In the 12 years representing that electorate, my staff and I have opened 10,400 case files. Health, immigration, and Work and Income matters make up about a third of them. The sheer range of other matters reaching us as electorate MPs is unrivalled in other Western democracies. The profile of cases has changed, and the success rate has increased, because for the past 9 years we have had a Government that cares more for communities like mine, and that has invested political energy and funds in making government work for the people rather than work against them.

The business of democracy is about improving lives. Numbers help to show just how dramatic those 9 years have been for real people living real lives. The minimum wage for young people has risen from $4.20 an hour to, in nearly all cases, $12 an hour. The average young family has seen annual doctors’ bills cut by 70 percent. Nearly 3,000 people fewer in my electorate rely on an unemployment benefit. Over 4,000 children have been lifted out of poverty. But the business of democracy does not come cheap. Just last week I gazed out at the glorious, snow-covered Seaward Kaikouras on the Wellington to Christchurch flight. I worked out that I had flown that route 1,800 or so times in the last 12 years, experienced over 1,000 question times, and expended more money than I care to imagine to employ staff and run offices. This is a style of political representation that New Zealanders seem to want, and that has produced the results to date.

Describing democracy by numbers is one way; another is to talk about achievements. Margaret Thatcher once claimed that her greatest achievement was to reform the Labour Party, dragging it in her political direction. A glance at recent policy positioning in New Zealand suggests that that has happened here—in political reverse. But sometimes, of course, appearances deceive.

Democracy is about creating laws. I sponsored one significant member’s bill, the Prostitution Reform Act 2003, and had a big part to play in the Civil Union Act 2004. They are laws with real-life outcomes. To date those outcomes include 600 fewer arrests of sex workers, the setting up and monitoring of health and safety standards for the sex industry, and 2,814 people—led by John and Des, up in the gallery today—who are living and loving, secure in civil unions.

Democracy is about scrutinising proposed laws and inquiring into important matters. For 6 years I chaired a significant select committee that tackled such seminal matters as setting up the New Zealand Supreme Court; ensuring that unfair discrimination was removed from public law, Government policy, and day-to-day activity—and from merely playing catch-up to the rest of society—and establishing a clean slate regime.

Democracy is about making an extraordinary codependency relationship with the media work well. In that respect, I have long ascribed to the advice that if one is going to invite a tiger to lunch, there is little point in pouring the sauce over oneself.

Democracy is about working together whenever possible. For the past 3 years I have been the senior Government whip: the person who sweeps up after the elephant, counsels the elephant, helps it to make friends with other elephants, and, occasionally, polishes its toenails and feeds it bananas. Our Labour caucus has been the most united and positive of teams—49 strong personalities with a love of humour, a passion to deliver change, and a strong and enduring culture of diversity. One could ask for no more from one’s colleagues. In Christchurch Central I have a special political and personal relationship with our city’s strong and vibrant, occasionally argumentative, refugee communities—Afghani, Eritrean, Ethiopian, Kurdish, Nepalese, Somali, and Zimbabwean. Their people’s personal journeys are humbling. When they break through the barriers, my pride as a Kiwi knows no bounds.

Democracy is about inspiring and empowering people. Over the years in the House I have run about 400 lobby training sessions, involving nearly 5,000 people. Recently, I have trained members of Parliament in Papua New Guinea, Bougainville, Timor-Leste, and the Cook Islands—with Zimbabwe to come in a couple of months—in how to do their jobs better, strengthening democracy in the process. I note that when I was in the Cook Islands just a few weeks ago, I was intending to do that training with the Hon Brian Donnelly, but he announced, the day before, his resignation as High Commissioner. He came to farewell the members of Parliament when I was with him in that Chamber; it was an extraordinarily moving moment—kia kaha! It is immensely gratifying to promote the genuine virtue of a contemporary Kiwi democracy: the significant influence of smaller political parties, powerful select committees, and a reasonably corruption-free environment.

We can explain democracy by numbers and by achievements, but people are my enduring memory. There are some whose names I have long forgotten, such as a sex worker who, speaking to a select committee, described her role with her client, behind the closed door of the brothel room, as being “a social worker who went all the way”. There are some whose names I will keep private, such as a delightful Māori man, born, as it happens, 2 days after I was, who was dreadfully abused at Lake Alice Mental Hospital, and who was supported, through my electorate office, to make his public housing tenancy succeed, and to avoid blowing his new compensation payment in the 4 weeks it had taken to spend the last one. And there are many whose names I say with pride. My 12 years here have been under the extraordinary, inspiring, utterly principled leadership of Helen Clark, who is now the world’s longest-serving progressive leader. None of us will see better than her in our lifetimes. Back in 1996 I was one of the MMP intake, fresh from a roadshow, arguing—successfully, in my view—for first past the post against my sadly missed soulmate and MMP advocate, Rod Donald. Long term, he was of course right. My last 3 years here have been enriched by my daily 1 o’clock meetings with Madam Speaker, Margaret Wilson—my confidante, my mentor, and even an extremely young mother substitute, who gave me away at my civil union.

I feel obliged at this point to mention my assistant, Darren Hughes; my life here and beyond would not be worth living if I did not.

Hon Darren Hughes: Well done, ambassador!

TIM BARNETT: Kia ora!

Through these 12 years I have been served so much better than I deserved by my wonderful parliamentary and electorate office staff: Amanda, Bridget, Bruno, Gareth, Geoff, Greg, Ingrid, Jay, Jeremy, Kimberly, Kate, Lynne, the two Pams, Rose, Steve, Sue, Tony, and Yani; and star interns: Ben, Heida, Oliver, Pete, Polly, Tor, and Stacy. They all gave more than they could reasonably be expected to give, they were all honest with me, and they all offered aroha and protection when that was needed. I hope that all of them have grown a little, through the experience. Fortunately, I leave the Christchurch Central Labour Party strong, buoyed by the various leaderships of Andrew Dallas, Ray Murray, Robert Watson, and Duncan Webb, and I leave a candidate, Brendon Burns, who will make a great and devoted new member of Parliament for Christchurch Central.

When I was elected in 1996 I was the only openly gay member of Parliament, and I was labelled by the Evening Post as “Parliament’s gay Pom”, as though every institution needed one. Now I am one of a good half-dozen rainbow MPs here. Thankfully, being gay or lesbian will never be irrelevant; the journeys of self-discovery and public advancement that we travel give us special insights and strengths. The venom poured on us by more than a few in New Zealand, and by the great majority in some countries, shows that we are different, and the fact that some equate difference with threat means that discrimination and oppression will follow. Our sexuality comes alive with those we fall in love with. I say to Ramon Pare, who is up in the public gallery today, my life changed forever after meeting you in the parliamentary swimming pool, with Nanaia Mahuta—I will tell the story after. Ramon, you have been with me for most of my time here in Parliament. I still remember, a few weeks after we became partners, pointing you out to my dearly remembered colleague Helen Duncan when you were sitting in the gallery. After peering up at the gallery, she cautiously and somewhat anxiously asked, in that gravelly voice of hers: “Tim, how old is he?”. Ramon, you have, from your very slightly younger perspective, been my rock and my sponge through this strangest of lifestyles—and it is only 7 weeks until our OE starts.

Democracy is too often about ambitions frustrated. I am happy to report that I leave satisfied, at the time and in the manner of my choosing, and in a very positive mood. I am well aware that few depart from here in that way. Do I have regrets? There are a few, maybe, but none that eat away at me. For all that I did not do here, there were other things that I did do, and I regret none of those.

So, what next? I have always tried to build on what has gone before in my career, from voluntary work to local voluntary sector management, from that to national-level non-governmental organisation leadership, and from elected local body membership to Parliament. The challenge left for me is to work for a while in an agency on some of the biggest issues of the world, maybe at the United Nations, with the resources and authority to make a difference. The fearful challenges for all our futures are great. The solutions are clear, even if the routes to them are far from easy. If I can play a helpful part in working through some of those and then come back to Aotearoa, then I will be very happy indeed.

Democracy is about moulding and marketing visions for the future, so what are my messages? I will offer just a couple. It was on my first visit to the United States in the mid-1980s that an inspiring Chamber of Commerce president in Hartford, Connecticut—a city riven by a searing social and economic gulf between white rich, and brown and Hispanic poor—surprised and delighted me when declaring that a society is best judged by the way it treats its most marginal people. New Zealand does well by this standard. Five years ago we became the first nation in the world to decriminalise prostitution, 3 years ago we became the first nation outside Europe to legislate for equal rights for same-sex couples, and a year ago we took the brave and necessary step of protecting children, the most powerless people in our society, from parental cruelty. Such a reform agenda is about creating clear law to deal with the wrongs that keep people on the margins. In my view, that reforming energy needs to move on to voluntary euthanasia—righting the wrong of deaths made ghastly by massive pain, which is in a sense a complete helplessness and powerlessness—and to a revolution in our drug laws, which generate the nonsense of $4 being spent on prevention for every $1 spent on treatment, with 90 percent of the cannabis crop remaining undetected, and keeping gangs rich and courts full. The fundamentalist lobbies in our society seek to veto debate on such matters. Acceding to that veto is to avoid problems that it is Parliament’s duty not to avoid.

Second, New Zealand forgets at its peril that the region in which it is nearest to being a dominant influence is the Pacific. On offer to us in the Pacific is tremendous goodwill, and what is best about our nation feeds opportunities to inspire and resource those fragile States in a distinct post-colonial partnership, rather than in a colonial style. As—thankfully—we increase our development aid to those States, we must greatly lift our game in strengthening their democracies, by working directly with politicians, and by asking them and not officials what their needs are. It is not happening now, and it needs to happen.

Ramon, my MP whānau around me here, my friends in the gallery watching and listening, and even those reading this afterwards, including my dear mother, Faye, in Britain, we all know that wisdom is all around us, if only we would take the trouble to learn. I have grasped the opportunity, learnt to my capacity in these 12 years, and now I am moving on, wiser, seeking, and spying new horizons. The experience has ended. In Eminem’s words:

You only get one shot, do not miss your chance to blow

This opportunity comes once in a lifetime yo …

You own it, you better never let it go.

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Labour—Dunedin South): Kia ora, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker and colleagues, it is hard to imagine what more might be said, but I would reinforce some of the comments that my colleagues have made and add some further observations.

The last 9 years have been full of remarkable policy achievement. Who would not be pleased that the kept promises of this Government are now improving the lives of New Zealanders? We can all celebrate, and should do so, that under this Government superannuation is secure, the Working for Families package is making a real difference to thousands of families, and Kiwibank and KiwiSaver are helping to assure our future. It now costs much less to visit the doctor, prescriptions average $3, and preschoolers have 20 hours’ free early childhood education. I am personally proud of the passage of legislation that I inherited, and that Tim and others have referred to, in respect of civil unions and the care of children, and I note also the success of the reintegration of Child, Youth and Family Services into the Ministry of Social Development family. Stunning reductions in unemployment beneficiary numbers—from 161,000 in 1999, to fewer than 20,000 now—have enabled the implementation of new initiatives such as Working New Zealand and programmes to improve access to health services and to support and strengthen vulnerable families. I want to acknowledge the leadership in this area of the Ministry of Social Development and I am delighted to see Peter Hughes, Sue Mackwell, Doug Craig, and Don Gray in the gallery today. I want to extend to them and to my former ministerial staff Debbie, Janet, and Linda my thanks for their dedication, their professionalism, and their friendship.

Another area where we are making progress—and we surely need to—is in respect of the violence in our households. I remain appalled that in a country with our awful level of domestic violence, anyone should seriously advocate the need to provide a defence for violence against children. Let us hope that gradually our communities are coming to agree that it is not OK. But we should all be frustrated that not enough objectivity is applied to the charades that happen in the community and in this place, and that Opposition parties and other parties in the community indulge themselves so uncritically in playing to the basest motivations in our community. Government is about facing up to hard decisions. How could it be that this country debated a “fart tax”—which was not about either farts or a tax, actually—and then the Government was criticised by those who had built the deceit for not moving fast enough on issues relating to global warming? I guess the latest exercise in similar cynicism is the extraordinary argument—it is not a discussion or a debate—around energy-saving light bulbs. Really? So now it is a bad thing to encourage everyone to save money, save energy, and make a practical contribution to the challenges we all face? Well, if that is PC, bring it on.

It is because of a lack of serious informed debate that I consider it a tragedy that too many journalists have become players, not reporters. Some of them want to be the news; they no longer want to merely report events. Those who were once watchdogs have appointed themselves attack dogs, and some are about as endearing and useful as the nastiest pit bull. Our community, in my view, needs to give more attention to the key role of the media in ensuring the dissemination of accurate information on issues and improving, above all, the quality of debate. Last week I was reading the words of a British media commentator who outlined her view of the media responsibility for the quality of the conversation as much as for the quality of the presentation of the news. That responsibility in our community is not enhanced, in my view, by journalists who consider it acceptable, for example, to text the Leader of the Opposition during question time, and it is certainly not achieved by the open articulation of personal political views.

When I became senior Government whip in 2002, my colleagues told me that in that job I would see the very best and very worst of human nature. The list of the achievements of this Government fills the first category, as do the relationships with some wonderful colleagues, both political and staff. The fascinating idiosyncrasies and dark revelations will have to wait, I am afraid, for the best seller, but I do want to spend a few moments on the lower levels of debate in this place in the last few years. One of the episodes I consider most disgraceful has been the constant attack on the National Certificate of Educational Achievement. The policy, as we all know, was introduced by National. I have watched and been involved in the introduction of that qualification, both as Associate Minister of Education and as a parent of high school students. I have seen the positive effect on my daughter and son, and the motivating effect on them and their friends. That is a common experience. Are they satisfied with Achieved? I do not think so; Merit and Excellence are the targets. Is it not great to have in our country a qualification designed for New Zealand and New Zealand’s needs? So how destructive it has been to hear the constant criticism of this initiative and the inevitable demeaning of the efforts and achievements of our young people and the work of so many great Kiwi teachers. It was not, I think, the Opposition’s proudest moment.

The real low point for me, though, given the hours that a senior whip in particular spends in this Chamber, has been the repeated veiled insults and other misogynistic behaviour toward female presiding officers in this debating chamber. It is ugly stuff; hard to put up with but difficult to do anything about. I hope this is something to which a future Parliament will give attention.

But let me turn to happier thoughts. My special thanks go to voters in Dunedin for their support during 23 years as their city councillor or MP. I hope I have always repaid their loyalty with my hard work. I say thank you to all parliamentary staff, who make this building function so well, including those we do not know who clean up after us while we sleep; to Gina Anastasiadis, who has wonderfully managed the challenges of parliamentary whips and ministerial officers; to Trudi Sunitsch, my Dunedin office manager, who has delivered a level of service to our community that would make any MP look good; and to my family for putting up with it all and even delivering leaflets occasionally.

We are coming up to an election. We again own Air New Zealand, the rail track, the rail corridor—the whole operation—and a world-leading accident compensation system that is not being privatised. This Government will not sell them—eventually. Best of all, young New Zealanders are not coming home from their OE in Iraq in body bags. They would have been had voters made a different choice in 2002 or 2005. For me, that makes the choice this year pretty clear.

Hon DOVER SAMUELS (Labour): Tihei mauri ora. Te mea tuatahi Madam Speaker, kei te mihi atu ki a koe te Kaiwhakahaere o ngā kawa o te Whare, kei te mihi atu ki a koe. E ngā iwi, e ngā reo, e ngā mātāwaka o ngā hau e whā, haere mai, piki mai, kake mai. Haere mai ki te whakarongo ki ngā kōrero poroporoaki o ngā mema kei te wehe atu i te ana o ngā raiona. Me mihi atu hoki ki ō tātou kārangaranga maha, ki ō tātou tini mate e hinga mai rā, e hinga atu nei, e hinga mai rā, e hinga atu nei. Ko tēnei tētahi o tātou, ko Brian Donnelly, kua haere atu ki te tūtaki i a rātou i muri i te ārai nō reira, e ngā tini mate haere koutou, haere koutou, haere koutou. E ngā rōpū me ngā mema katoa o te Whare Pāremata, kei te mihi atu ki a koutou katoa. Ka mai ki ahau i tēnei aha nā wai tēnei tono, māku e kī atu ki a koe ko ahau tēnei e kōrero atu nei. Ka kī mai koe he aha te mea nui o tēnei ao, māku e kī atu ki a koe, he tangata, he tangata, he tangata e.

[Behold the sneeze of life. The first thing for me, Madam Speaker, is to acknowledge you as adjudicator of House procedure: greetings to you. To the people, languages, ethnic groups of the four winds, welcome, draw near, draw close. Come and listen to the valedictory speeches by departing members from the lair of the lions. I acknowledge our many callings and the multitude of our deaths that have fallen there, here, far and near. I acknowledge the passing of Brian Donnelly, as one of our own, beyond the veil, where he will meet up with them. So to you, the many who have died: depart, farewell, go forth. To all the political parties and members, I acknowledge you all. You might well ask who is that talking, and I will respond: it is I. If you ask me what is the greatest thing in this world, I will reply: it is people, it is people, it is people indeed.]

Madam Speaker, this is an acknowledgment of your role as the big chief in this House and the keeper of the rules of this House, and also a call of welcome to those who have come from afar, from different canoes, and from the four winds, and an acknowledgment of all parties and all parliamentary colleagues in this House. We remember those ancestors, friends, and loved ones who have passed away, and, of course, lately our friend and colleague the late Brian Donnelly. If you were to ask me what the greatest thing on this earth is, I would reply: “It is our people, it is our people, it is our people.”

I have been listening to the ringing of the bells and watching the clock controlling my life since I entered Parliament in 1996, and I certainly was moved by the departure of Nandor Tanczos, the Green member who, in his valedictory speech, took out his watch and proceeded to demolish it with a vengeance. For the very same reason, I intend to follow his example. I look at my watch; it has been a buddy of mine for a long time, since I was knee-high to a grasshopper, diving for crayfish. I remember that Nandor Tanczos’ watch came from the Warehouse. This one is a Rolex Submariner, worth something like $5,000. My good friend and capitalist Māori colleague Shane Jones said to me: “Forget it. It is worth too much money.” Madam Speaker, I have changed my mind, and I make no apologies.

I know that Michael is wondering what I might do with his hammer, which I have with me. I listen to the bells and I look at the clock, and I remember the song by Engelbert Humperdinck, I think his name was, and it went something like this: “Please release me, let me go.”, and, of course, the Everly Brothers sang “If I Had a Hammer”.

My maiden speech—it is interesting that if I said that here in the House with different connotations, people would say I was not PC: “He is a Māori, a male, and he is getting up and making a maiden speech.”, and some of my kaumātua would wonder whether I had had an operation—was based on a poem by Banjo Paterson. He was an Australian bush poet, and I think he wrote the poem “The Man From Snowy River”. However, what I will talk about now is the thread of his poem, in terms of my maiden speech.

Banjo Paterson talked in another poem about the Māori wool. He talked about a Māori chief from Rooti-iti-au—I think he was a tipuna of Mita Ririnui. At that time many Māori tribes sold their wool to the bank manager. In those days they were getting ripped off by being paid tuppence for a pound—I think John Carter remembers this—and then the wool was shipped to London, where it sold for five shillings a pound. Behold, when the bales of wool were unloaded in London, they were full of bloody big boulders. If that is not innovation for Māori, then what is? We are still pulling the wool over their eyes, and the bank manager is still looking for the chief from Rooti-iti-au.

Perhaps that is symbolic of Māori process and procedures, and of our being innovative. But we have become so politically correct and culturally correct that we now have Black Power filing a Treaty claim, on the grounds that colonisation is inherently responsible for their criminal whakapapa. Next, we will see the Mongrel Mob filing a claim for the Reserve Bank of New Zealand. I think it was Sir Howard Morrison, God bless him, who sang the song “When will you ever learn; when will you ever learn.”

One will always reflect upon the time served in this House, and it has indeed been a privilege to serve my region and my constituents—Māori, Pākehā, Hainamana Chinese, Indian, Pacific Islander, or any other citizens. I have always made it my commitment not to turn anybody away.

Colleagues who have had the privilege to serve in this House will always take away some memories of special events. They can be humorous, they can be good, they can be bad, they can be very bad, and they can be bloody ugly.

The humorous memory for me was a very humorous one, and the Rt Hon Jonathan Hunt was responsible for it. When I came into this House, he said: “That member is contravening the Standing Orders. He is not allowed to wear his pōtae.” I looked at the honourable Speaker and said: “Taihoa. Point of order, Mr Speaker. There is another member on the other side of the House, from ACT, and her name is Donna Awatere Huata. She is wearing a Zulu turban.”—and very colourful it was. I said: “If it is good enough for her to wear her turban in the House, then it must be good enough for me to wear my pōtae.” I think I won the argument, because I told him that in my culture, Ngāpuhi, males who become chiefs and rangatira attend special events and they wear their pōtae, but they were very, very suspicious of the Speaker wearing a wig. Madam Speaker, and Jonathan, I know that you remember those events very, very vividly.

When members of parties in the House put forward policies and legislation that is good and beneficial for all our people, rational debate takes place, conducted with integrity and respect, and that is good. But it is not so good when members resort to personal abuse and degrading comments, and extend their comments to the wives, families, and partners of members of Parliament in order just to gain some cheap political points at the expense of people who cannot defend themselves. It is little wonder that people out there in the community have no respect for politicians or the democratic process. They hold us in contempt and regard us as being lower than real estate agents, car dealers, or journalists, especially the ones in the press gallery. Just look at the thousands who do not enrol to vote. Surely that must tell us that we should be looking at the underlying reasons why.

Of course, those who are unelected, those “members” who sit in the press gallery, accountable to no one expect their big bosses and those further up the pecking order, do not stand for election, and they can attack any member of this House, because they will not let the truth and the facts get in the way of a good story. They invent headlines, all under the guise of the pretence of freedom of speech. I have never before seen the media in such a feeding frenzy, and the two major newspapers and television networks so insatiable, as they have been in their attack on the Rt Hon Winston Peters.

Māoridom is asking why. Why does the media not run the ruler over every party and leader in this House and scrutinise them in the same way? They are the not the ones who are hiding maybe $100,000 or $25,000; they are the ones who are hiding millions. But they have experts to put their house in order so that nobody, not even the newspapers, can see the footprints or smell the fingerprints. This is the challenge for the media. If they want to run the ruler of morality over members of this House, then they should run it over everybody, beginning with the cockatoo in the House who is not here tonight. Māoridom is asking for this.

I tell them that if they keep putting Winston Peters on the front page of the paper, then they will guarantee he will get back into Parliament. That may be the strategy!

You see, we are not all dumb. The Māori nation is intelligent. Māori can read between the lines. They understand what the secret agenda is. They understand that there is an agenda here to politically execute one of our rangatiras from Ngāti Wai, and it is not going to work. They have tried it before; I know about that personally. New Zealand and New Zealanders deserve better than that. Madam Speaker, perhaps it is time for this Parliament to define what freedom of speech actually means, and also to define the responsibilities and the accountabilities that go with it. Parekura, I am not going to wreck your table, brother.

Finally, I thank my whānau and my friends. Some of them have come a long way to share a few words and, if the Speaker allows it, to sing a farewell song. To my family, to Jacqui, to Reece and Cadence, my children, we have weathered the storm of sewage politics together, and we have emerged stronger and more determined. Kia kaha waku tamariki kei te aroha atu ki a kōrua. I love you all.

To my long-time, geriatric friends Gugi Walker, Rim De Paul, Janine and Audrey, veteran members of the days of the Māori showbands, the Quin Tikis, the Maori Hi Fives, the Maori Volcanics—thanks for the memories, and for sharing some of the old-time favourites with us later. All of you here are all invited to my party, even the bloody media. We will see what they say about that tomorrow.

To our big chief, Helen: ngā mihi ki a koe te wahine toa o te motu. You will surely go down in the history of this nation as one of the greatest Prime Ministers that this country has ever had. People will look back in time to come, put all the pūhaehae—the discrimination—aside and will realise that we did, really, have one of the best Prime Ministers this nation has ever had.

To Michael Cullen, I say that he is as sharp as a bloody tack. And on Treaty settlements, as General MacArthur said, “Like hell I am retreating, I am just advancing in a different direction.”

To Jim Anderton, who is my good friend, and to Carole, I thank them for their friendship over many years. To all my mates over here, in the red and brown corner, I say that it has been an honour and a privilege to be working with them. To my flatmate Damien O’Connor, I say that I am sorry, buddy, but you are going to have to get somebody else to do your laundry.

To my friends and colleagues in the blue corner, to my whanaunga Clem Simich over there, for his kind words, and to Georgina, kei te mihi atu. To Shane, David, Sandra, John, Georgina, Tau, Eric, Phil Heatley, and all the blokes and sheilas whom I was on the select committee with, kei te mihi atu. I thank them for their humour and for their consideration and friendship when we participated in some of the harder questions on the select committees.

But right now I acknowledge the real workers of this Parliament. If it was not for them the engine room in Parliament would collapse. My thanks go to the messengers, security staff, the Hansard staff, to Paora and Nicole, and to all the staff at Bellamy’s and Copperfields—I thank them for their service and support, but I suggest they change the menu. To the drivers of VIP, for Jimmy, Twisl, kei te mihi atu ki a kōrua. I thank them for their service, friendship, their good humour, and sometimes their hard-case jokes.

Sometimes wisdom and friendship transcends the adversarial nature of politics in this House. But I will share a few words with the member from Helensville: never count your chickens before they hatch, keep it clean, and may the best woman win. And so long, it has been good to know you. Nō reira, huri ana i tō tātou Whare, kei te mihi whānui atu ki a koutou katoa.

[So I acknowledge you all widely throughout our House.]

This is part of my culture and I claim customary exemption, Madam Speaker. I am going to finish off with a waiata—sorry, Tīmoti!

Pōkarekare ana

Ngā wai o Matauri

Whiti atu koe e hine

Marino ana e.

E hine e

Hoki mai rā

Ka mate ahau

I te aroha e.

[The agitated

Waters of Matauri

Become calm

When you cross over them, lass.

Oh dear lass

Return to me

For I shall die

Of the love for you.]

One people on the water,

One people on the land,

And we’re working all together,

And we’re working hand in hand.

Sailing away,

sailing away,

New Zealand can do it,

sailing away.

E hine e

Hoki mai rā

Ka mate ahau

I te aroha e.

Kia ora tātou, farewell. God bless you all.

Hon MARGARET WILSON (Labour): May I first acknowledge you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and my other colleagues who are presiding officers, Marian Hobbs and Ross Robertson. It has been truly a privilege to work with you. I think we have, as a team, tried to ensure that the best traditions of this House have been upheld. I am sorry to ruin everybody’s fun—I guess you thought that last speech meant it was all over. But it is, in fact, the nature of Speakers to do that, so I would hate to disappoint you in my final address. If you will just bear with me a few more minutes, then you can all go and eat.

I thank you, though, for allowing me a few minutes to be able to make a few comments before I retire. The valedictory speech is one of the few opportunities a member has to speak freely in the House, though I am guess I am compelled to say “always within the Standing Orders, Dover.”! The final address is, however, an opportunity for us all to reflect on our parliamentary experience and a very important opportunity to acknowledge those who have supported us. I think we have heard many fine speeches today that relay that experience.

If there is one lesson to be learnt in this place, however, it is that you are as good as your colleagues and your staff. I have been particularly fortunate to work with the Prime Minister, the Rt Hon Helen Clark, whose leadership skills are unparalleled, as is her lifetime commitment to the service of the people of New Zealand.

I regard myself also as fortunate to have worked with the Deputy Prime Minister, the Hon Michael Cullen, as a colleague in Cabinet. He was never ever able to find enough money for any of my portfolios, but then I realised he treated all my colleagues in much the same way. As the economy goes through its normal, or perhaps not so normal, cycles of boom and bust, we have come to appreciate his prudent management. It is in his role as Leader of the House, however, that I greatly admire his skills. Michael Cullen is truly a great New Zealand parliamentarian, and perhaps one of the few we have had in recent times. The roles of Leader of the House and Opposition Leader of the House are not always understood by many people, yet it is the ability of the people in those roles that determines that Parliament runs in an orderly, if at times very contestable, fashion, so I thank both of you.

I also acknowledge my former colleagues in Cabinet, who provided tremendous support to me at all times. It is difficult for many people to understand the contestable environment that exists within Cabinet or the pressure to perform in a timely fashion. It is a strong sense of common purpose that ensures you stay together through good and not so good times. The backbone of support, however, comes from your caucus, which is ever ready to challenge you and to keep you in touch with the reality that sometimes you can forget, so I thank them in particular.

Parliament could not function without the commitment to undertake the select committee work, which is really the heart of Parliament now in many ways. That work is undertaken by members and not by Ministers, except on a few occasions. In this respect I do wish to acknowledge Tim Barnett, who chaired the Justice and Electoral Committee when I was Associate Minister of Justice. He always pushed the envelope beyond everyone’s comfort zone, but he was always ready to work to ensure, eventually, an acceptable solution would be found.

If the support of colleagues is essential, so is the support from staff. I have been blessed with a group of amazing people who have worked tirelessly to ensure I could do my job. Mike Fokker and Rose Rigarlsford deserve specific mention because they made sure my diary and I were always coordinated. This is not always an easy task. My communications staff worked miracles to ensure the intent of the policies was communicated, if not always well received or understood. It is not an easy job they have. Crowd control, which is not normally in a communications job description, has been part of the reality of the job of my current communications adviser, Rose Hart, and she has managed to keep the lanes reasonably clear for those of you who wished to come to the Chamber. The role of political adviser is an equally difficult one, but I was fortunate to have exceptionally dedicated people who filled that role. The role is often difficult, because it is political advisers who cop the criticism that others do not have the courage to say to your face. Mine, however, always remained focused on our goal and played a big part in whatever policy success I achieved.

As a Minister and a Speaker, you are also as good as the advice you get from public officials, and I am pleased that so many colleagues today have acknowledged their contribution. I have had the privilege of working with some exceptional people, whose professionalism and commitment to the Public Service is something we should all be grateful for. I also thank them for their patience. I know I was considered by some as the Minister from hell because of the pace I set, and I did seem to act in an enormous number of portfolios on a temporary basis that were somehow falling behind—thank you, Prime Minister! When I took up my first role as a Minister I was also given some extremely good advice by a very senior public official. That advice was simply to not waste any time, as it passed all too quickly—and he had seen many Ministers pass through his capable hands. He was a very wise man, to whom I shall always feel grateful. Certainly, the last 9 years have gone by very quickly. I shall also acknowledge elsewhere the invaluable service of the Clerk’s Office, the Parliamentary Service, and those who ensure that this institution runs as well as it does.

I thank and acknowledge the people of Tauranga, who have supported me over the past 9 years. We all know that Tauranga cannot be considered to be a Labour stronghold, or even a marginal seat, though the electorate does tend to vote for Labour in high numbers on the list vote. It is a city I have worked hard for, and I have been very lucky to be able to work with Smart Growth, the mayors of Tauranga City and the Western Bay of Plenty District Council, and the chair of Environment Bay of Plenty, given their commitment to the region. In that respect I thank all of my Cabinet colleagues who were so forbearing when. as a Minister, I ensured that the officials who came from Tauranga had a good hearing by their officers in Wellington. I greatly valued the opportunity to work with them for the good of the community as a whole.

I sometimes hear people comment about the role of list members. It is a new role in our institution and one that is evolving and developing, but it is certainly not a second-class role, as some constituency members would try to have it, on occasions. I think it is an issue we will have to address in future. I will continue, from Tauranga, to watch the progress of that city in the future with some interest.

Finally, I say a sincere, heartfelt thankyou to my family. They are not here today, because as so often happens in political life, family and political diaries just cannot be coordinated. I know, however, that they will be viewing this address and judging it in the comfort of their own home. The struggle to televise Parliament almost seems worth it on occasions such as this, and, as they have assured me, they will see the unedited version. Their unconditional love, support, and advice, especially that from my parents, have kept me sane and given me the strength to see the job through to the end. So I say a very heartfelt and sincere thankyou.

When preparing this valedictory statement I, like so many of my colleagues, went back with some trepidation to look at what I had said in my maiden speech—a ridiculous name for a speech, to someone like me. I wanted to see whether I had achieved the goals I had set out to achieve. I very quickly realised, however, that it is for others to make that assessment, not for me. I am satisfied, though, that given the necessary democratic constraints of coalition Government, little time was wasted. More important, I think my colleagues and I have achieved a better policy balance that has recognised the need for a strong Public Service infrastructure. The market will always have a proper role in the economy, but it must always be balanced by democratic government. The current financial crisis has demonstrated the truth of this reality. Part of the reconstruction of that Public Service infrastructure has been the strengthening of such institutions as unions, non-governmental organisations, and lobby groups that now demand the right to participate in decisions that affect them. How to find better ways for such participation will be a challenge for future Parliaments to address.

I noted in my maiden speech a concern for the rights of women. The struggle for equality has been the main thread throughout my life. It cannot be denied that much progress has been made. It also cannot be denied that that progress has come with women adapting to the system. There is still no fundamental recognition that equality means equality of difference, not equality for women to be like men. This will be the next major challenge. Can the experience of women be incorporated in such a way that we have real choices that extend beyond survival within a system still controlled by the male reality? A practical example of that is the way we organise the business of Parliament. We have made progress. We are trying to accommodate school holidays. We now have a room for breastfeeding, and we have a really good-quality childcare centre. This is all good progress, but we have not fundamentally looked at the issue of work-life balance, which could benefit not only women but also men. That is one of those big, scary ideas we have yet to have the courage to face.

I must also note that Parliament has come a long way towards being more representative, but it cannot be considered to be truly representative while it remains so hard for people with a disability to work here. I acknowledge the Hon Ruth Dyson for her tireless work in that respect. In this institution people are helpful, and that is always appreciated, but it is real change that is required. I have tried to ensure that those with a hearing impairment will get some relief with the new sound system—you do not even notice it any longer. The price for working in this wonderful old building is that those with disabilities still come in the back door or struggle with heavy doors that are likely to bite their fingers off. Again, we adapt to the institution, which is yet to fundamentally recognise the need for real change.

Finally, I want to make a few comments on Parliament and my role as Speaker. Over the 3 and a bit years that I have held the role, I have formed, not surprisingly, some views. As Speaker you have little opportunity to actually speak—I had not thought about that when I took the job. Otherwise, of course, you are rightly accused of participating in the debate. The self-control I have exercised has been extraordinarily uncharacteristic as I have confined my comments to “Order!”, and “Would the member please leave the Chamber.” I therefore cannot resist the opportunity to share just a very few reflections on the role.

First, I thank those who have supported me in it. Apart from the two wonderful Roses—Rose Rigarlsford and Rose Hart—Roland Todd always makes sure my numbers are right. Pam Reader and Nina Sudiono-Price have ensured that the business of Parliament is conducted through the Speaker’s office in a friendly and an orderly way. The Clerk and her office ensure that the business of Parliament is conducted in an impartial and efficient manner. Perhaps the highest compliment that can be paid to the office is to say its advice can be relied on. I also acknowledge the unsung heroes of the House, the Sergeant-at-Arms, whom I nearly had to use once—just to see what he really would do—and his army of messengers, who ensure that all members are well watered and that their notes to each other are delivered with speed; I often wonder what is in them.

The role of Speaker has given me a unique opportunity to understand better what it is that makes our democratic form of government work, so I give you special thanks for giving me that privilege. I have endeavoured in the role to achieve two things: to make Parliament more accessible, and to make the administration of Parliament more transparent and efficient. The televising of Parliament was an important part of this project, and it still has a long way to go to reach its full potential. We are, in this institution, visited by thousands of people every year, and all of the education, tour, and security staff do a wonderful job of making that a positive experience. We need to invest more, however, in the promotion of Parliament as an institution. There are so many creative ways we could introduce improvements into it, so the people of New Zealand are able to have a greater appreciation of their Parliament. That is not a Budget bid—it is all right! But I hope that future Speakers will be hearing what I am saying.

The task of bringing transparency and efficiency to the administration of Parliament was thrust on me soon after I took office, and I confess that I had no understanding of the nature of this role when I accepted it. The task resulted from accusations made by some members in this House that I was personally corrupt. I have written fully in another place about my journey of discovery into the administration of Parliament and the role of the Speaker, so I will not repeat myself here. After 3 years of work, however, I believe that progress has been made, though much work is still to be done. I thank the members on the Parliamentary Service Commission for the extra, tireless work they put into it—and I see Anne Tolley smiling and Tim Barnett nodding, amongst others—because it was truly appreciated, and the advisory role to the Speaker I think was fulfilled extraordinarily professionally by all members. I have confidence that in future the work of the administration will continue to improve with the support of members, who recognise that we, as members of Parliament, must also be accountable.

I will end on an observation about the notion of the independence of the Speaker. I am frequently asked this question: how can the Speaker be independent and a member of a party? The question is normally raised in the context of question time. I long ago realised that the Speaker is seen as fair and impartial if he or she agrees with the member who has raised the point of order—which is usually, of course, not a point of order. Like any referee, I agree that one cannot win but must do the best one can. I must say, however, that most referees have a greater range of penalties than any of the Speakers in this House can exercise, and the fantasy mind writs large in some question times as to what one could do to exercise some control. I thank all those members of the public who made suggestions regarding equipment that could be used to assist Speakers in their job—most of it illegal. However, all Speakers face similar problems, and when the Governor-General kindly had a dinner for all “surviving” Speakers—if I can put it like that—it was interesting, even across the parties, to find that we had all encountered the same issues. I will say, though, that MMP has made the task more complex.

I intend to resist the temptation to grade, rate, or even comment on, the behaviour of members towards each other or the Speaker. But the public do notice members’ behaviour, and they let me know daily what they think about it. That is why a greater understanding of Parliament would benefit everyone. As I have said on many occasions, question time is not truth seeking; that is done through written questions and official information requests. Question time is about political performance. It is the testing of political positions and the ability of individuals to stand up to the test. It is an important part of our democracy, and I have no doubt, of course, that it could be conducted in a less abusive manner. But that is in the hands of members. If I had enforced the Standing Orders strictly, as I have been exhorted to do on occasions, then all I can say is that the House would have been half empty and the game would have taken three times as long.

I should be grateful, however, as we all should be, that we are the beneficiaries of such an accountable, democratic Parliament. It is the obligation and responsibility of each of us who has the privilege of serving in this House to maintain and enhance our Parliament in whatever role we may find ourselves in, because each role we hold is extremely important. I am pleased to be leaving to undertake a new challenge, where I will be paid to lecture, you will be pleased to know—I was told I was not paid to do that here in this House—but I must say that I do not regret a minute of the opportunity I have been given to serve. Kia ora. Thank you.

Sitting suspended from 6.35 p.m. to 7.35 p.m.

Bills

Walking Access Bill

In Committee

Debate resumed.

Part 2 New Zealand Walking Access Commission (continued)

ERIC ROY (National—Invercargill): I was sorry to miss the debate last evening. I was involved, actually, in talking about walking access, in Hawke’s Bay.

I will take a short call on Part 2. We looked at Part 1, “Preliminary provisions”, at some previous time, but Part 2 is the nuts and bolts of how this Walking Access Bill is to work. It appoints a new Crown entity, which is to be called the New Zealand Walking Access Commission. Its responsibilities will be across a range of different areas. For a start, the Walking Access Commission will be responsible for negotiating access where there is some difficulty about access. This can arise in a range of ways. There can be misapprehensions on the part of landowners as to what they own or have—whether there is a marginal strip or egress there, or maybe some public land for which access across private property is required. There may be misapprehensions on the part of members of the public, who may think they have a right to have access in certain areas.

The Walking Access Commission will be tasked with negotiation. We need to stress, as we have done in other places, that this access is essentially determined by negotiation. The Walking Access Commission will also be responsible for setting out a code of conduct. One of the issues—it is probably the primary issue—that has seen a diminution of walking access rights has been the fact that many landowners have just got tired of dealing with the public. They have got tired of the ways in which the public have left gates open, and have not acknowledged common farming practice or landholding practice. Farmers have been concerned about the presence of dogs, the spread of Taenia ovis, and biosecurity issues.

It is interesting that the only access to some of the highland lakes in Otago, like the Upper Poolburn Dam, is by horse, a long walk, or four-wheel drive, but now right around the lake there are significant areas—

Hon David Carter: Chopper!

ERIC ROY: —or chopper; Mr Carter’s chopper—of broom and gorse starting to spring up. How did that get there? It might have fallen off the vehicles that were there. But, no, most people who fish up there, or a significant number of them, actually fish with worms. They get a little bit of soil, gather up some worms, go up there, and when they have finished they tip their worms out. Worms are good in the high country. But people are putting contaminated soil there.

So a raft of things out there are happening, but at the end of the day the farmer is saying that that is enough. My own brother-in-law, who used to farm on the banks of the Mataura River—an area renowned for its brown trout, and where there has been goodwill and good access—has just said that he has had enough of people who do not respect what he wants to do. I ask members how we resolve that. We do so by setting up a code of conduct so that there can be a clear understanding of the responsibilities of people who want access to the land. The Walking Access Commission will be responsible for that.

There will also be a body that, as I understand it, will have a responsibility for holding a database of public land, where walkways exist and where public egress exists. That will be a developing thing. In some ways, this will be a rather arduous and time-consuming task. The amount of marginal strips that are laid down is somewhat different in the public’s impression from what actually exists out there. I quote Brian Hayes, who was on the first walking access panel with me, in saying that marginal strips may exist on only about 70 percent of the places where they are expected to be. The Walking Access Commission will have to identify those, and where there is a need, it will have to enter into negotiation and establish resolutions where there is conflict.

The Walking Access Commission also has a responsibility, as stated in clause 9, delegated to it to negotiate on things that are not entirely related to access but are associated with access. Those issues are the use of vehicles, firearms, dogs, bicycles, or whatever. Quite often, when people are wanting access—for example, in the duck-shooting season, or to the high country for hunting—there is the carriage of firearms or dogs, and sometimes there is the use of four-wheel drives. The commission also has a responsibility to be appointed to do those negotiations. Its role is quite a distinct and important one.

It is quite a significant step forward that we have a commission that can actually go and do the negotiation. The commission’s credibility and involvement in this will be an important part in actually securing those opportunities for New Zealanders to participate. As we have said in other places in this debate, it has been New Zealanders’ birthright and expectation that they have this opportunity to enjoy the public resources of New Zealand. For that they need access. The Walking Access Commission will be a significant step forward from what we have had in the past.

Part 2 agreed to.

Part 3 agreed to.

Part 4 agreed to.

Schedule agreed to.

Clauses 1 and 2

JOHN CARTER (National—Northland): I will take a call on these clauses to record the fact of the changes that have been made by John Acland and the Land Access Ministerial Reference Group. I acknowledge his presence here tonight. I say that the Walking Access Bill is a better bill for the involvement of the committee that went around New Zealand, and I think the Minister in the chair, the Hon Damien O’Connor, acknowledges that, as does the Opposition.

I want to record again the fact that when this bill was introduced, the National Opposition opposed it because of the interference it had on property rights. Of course, one of the things the National Party takes a keen interest in is property rights, and I have to say that although there are still some parts of this legislation that we will need to be keeping a keen eye on and a careful watch over, the issue of property rights and the way it has been developed are a credit to those who have been involved. Obviously there was keen note taken of the issues that were raised.

It is commendable that the bill has come back in the form it has. The Local Government and Environment Committee obviously picked up on the issues raised in order to make the changes it has. In hindsight—and hindsight is always a wonderful thing; one generally gets it right 100 percent of the time—maybe the Government should not have introduced the bill in the form it was introduced, but to its credit it has accepted the recommendations that have been made. That has meant that Parliament can now accept the bill in the form it is in.

Having said that, I note that there are one or two things during this part of the debate that we will have to keep a careful watch over. The bill does have the potential of creating yet another bureaucracy, and another whole lot of rules and regulations.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Oh!

JOHN CARTER: We certainly do not want to end up with something like the Department of Building and Housing, which Clayton Cosgrove administered for such a long time, because that will have to be something that in the future we dismantle. We do not want to have to go through something that gets established and then dismantled again. I say to this Parliament that we need to urge caution as we put this bill through. The intention of it is right, but it certainly has the possibility of allowing extra costs to go on to the community, and, indeed, rather than creating the opportunity for people to have rest and recreation, which is what it is for, it could potentially create a whole lot of frustration. I make those points particularly when we look at the codes of compliance and the impost the legislation could put on local government. There are some real risks around that part of the legislation.

I want those comments to be recorded in Hansard so that, in time, people who are involved in administering this bill can look back and see the wise words of the Opposition, and realise that, actually, the Opposition was on top of it, and that these sorts of issues need to be monitored carefully. One of the things we often do in this Parliament is pass legislation without actually thinking forward 10 or 20 years to see what its likely impact will be. We need to treat this with caution as we move forward. Thank you for the opportunity to participate in this debate.

ERIC ROY (National—Invercargill): I am somewhat motivated by the words of John Carter in regard to one or two issues here.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: You must be joking.

ERIC ROY: Well, Mr Cosgrove may laugh, but there are some significant issues here. It very much depends on the expectation of the public and how quickly they want this resolved, and on the attitude of landowners and how willing they are to enter into negotiation. It very much depends on those people who have set up structures for private capture for pecuniary gain—and at this stage those people are in a minority—and whether that will be an increasing trend, on whether negotiation will resolve that, and on how that might tie up the Walking Access Commission. Those things need to be said. I think it also needs to be said quite clearly that if the Walking Access Bill does not resolve some of those issues, we will be back in this House, facing some debate on some amendments to this bill. We need to put that on record.

The first clause, the title clause, is what we are we are debating. The bill is entitled the Walking Access Bill, and that might conjure up all kinds of things in people’s minds, but essentially the bill is about negotiated access. That is the first point that we need to put out there. There has been a degree of goodwill. It has been about a 5-year journey since the first ministerial reference group set up by Jim Sutton met.

I have said before in this debate that I think Jim Sutton made an error of judgment when he said he wanted the group to look at the wander-at-will provisions, because that just got all the landowners’ backs up. We lost that goodwill for quite a period of time, but we have now got it back on track. This bill states clearly that it is about access by negotiation. That fact is not embraced in the title, but it is embraced in about seven places where that terminology is used. That needs to be quite clear. We are recognising property rights; it is a walking access bill.

We are also talking about clause 2, the commencement clause. This bill has been a 5-year journey, and I think there is a sense of expectation on the part of the recreational community that this will be advanced. I am not sure how long after the bill is enacted—and the Minister in the chair, the Hon Damien O’Connor, might like to respond—that the Walking Access Commission will be set up. The bill is also very light on how those people are appointed and what skill sets they have. It is even relatively vague about the numbers—somewhere between five and eight. I can understand that we do not want the Walking Access Commission to fall over if one member becomes indisposed, is not able to attend, or whatever, but the bill is quite vague on those matters.

Although clause 2, “Commencement”, states that the bill will be enacted, it does not mention what the time frames are for the Walking Access Commission to be set up and operational, or its terms of reference. The fleshing out of all of that is not in the bill. However, the National Party is supporting this bill. We think it is a step forward. We look forward to the third reading.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment.

Report adopted.

Third Reading

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Minister for Rural Affairs): I move, That the Walking Access Bill be now read a third time. I thank the Opposition members in the House for that comprehensive debate on what is a short but important bill. I appreciate and acknowledge the support of the vast majority of members in this House.

This is an important bill, as it goes to the heart of what most New Zealanders regard as their fundamental birthright—that is, the right to walk in, and enjoy, the great outdoors. The bill builds on the legacy of public access established over the last century and a half, and it creates the New Zealand Walking Access Commission to clarify, promote, and extend walking access in New Zealand. Hundreds of New Zealanders have shared their views on walking access issues over the last 5 years, and this bill is a significant milestone.

The process began with my predecessor, the Hon Jim Sutton, who as Minister for Rural Affairs took the issue of walking access to heart. Jim pushed the project forward when he set up the Land Access Ministerial Reference Group in 2003. The group canvassed public opinion far and wide on how best to promote walking access to our rivers, lakes, coastline, forests, mountains, and countryside. The reference group’s efforts laid the groundwork for the Walking Access Consultation Panel, which was set up in 2003 after a change in policy placing greater emphasis on the negotiation of access over private land.

One person, Brian Hayes, a former Registrar-General of Land, played a quiet but valuable role in supporting the work of the reference group and the consultation panel with his in-depth legal research. Mr Hayes’ knowledge of such things as water margin access, the ownership of riverbeds, and the status of unformed legal roads in New Zealand is without equal. His body of research is enshrined in a book that was launched in the Beehive last month, and I encourage anyone who is interested in this area to buy that book. It soon became clear that although existing water margin reservations were extensive, they were far from complete. Extending water margin reservations and remedying the effects of erosion were going to affect property rights and therefore was best done through negotiation with affected landowners. Creating new cross-country access to the coast, lakes, rivers, and other public land was also deemed necessary in order to uphold the expectations of New Zealanders who enjoy the outdoors.

Eventually it became apparent that extending access and remedying the effects of erosion, while respecting private property rights, would be achieved, where needed, through a robust process of negotiation. In coming to this conclusion the Government also recognised landholders’ concerns about vandalism, damage to plants, fences, gates, and stock, and the threat to security posed by strangers crossing their land. That was the clear perception of many, many rural dwellers.

A fundamental issue was the conflict between public aspirations and private and public property rights. This bill extends opportunities for the public to enjoy walking access to the countryside while protecting the rights of private property owners. Some people may think the bill puts too much weight and reliance on the negotiation of walking access over private land. I disagree, as did the Walking Access Consultation Panel. The select committee also disagreed by a clear majority, and its report back on the bill supported the process of negotiation. Forcing people to give up their rights flies in the face of natural justice and would only antagonise those who were happy to give permission in the past.

Access to the outdoors is a fundamental aspect of our culture as New Zealanders. It is a source of exercise, of recreation, and of inspiration. As well as providing for the negotiation of new walking access, this bill provides for enhanced provision of information about what already exists. It will be easier for people to find out where they can legally go to enjoy the great outdoors under existing agreements and easements. What has been missing is a single point of reference for the leadership, coordination, extension, and improvement of walking access. By establishing the Walking Access Commission, this bill provides the structure and mechanisms needed to advance walking access in New Zealand. Currently it has a budget of $2 million a year, which is modest but we think it will be an efficient and effective amount to undertake all the tasks, which was a question that was asked in the Committee stage.

R Doug Woolerton: How much?

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: It is $2 million.

The commission will need to develop strong collaborative relationships with allied agencies. It will also need to build and maintain a solid and trusting relationship with recreation, farming, and local government stakeholders. As a new Crown entity the commission will have its hands full in the early stages as it comes to grips with its roles and with public expectations. Once it is up and running I expect the commission to turn its attention quickly to developing a national strategy on walking access, identifying existing access, and deciding its priorities for the negotiation of walking access over private land where that is necessary.

Important tasks will be to develop a code of responsible conduct for walkways, to develop its research and education capacity, and to establish processes for resolving disputes over walking access. The extension and improvement of walking access will bring long-term benefits to our country in terms of increased social capital and an enhanced sense of national identity, along, of course, with a healthier and more active nation.

Before concluding, I express my gratitude to the members of the Land Access Ministerial Reference Group, those on the Walking Access Consultation Panel, and those on the Walking Access Advisory Board for the experience and hard work they put in to bring this policy to a conclusion. I acknowledge in particular the contribution made by John Acland, who has had to spend a couple of days longer in Wellington to see this bill through, in his commitment to the principles of walking access and his expertise as the chair of the Land Access Ministerial Reference Group, the chair of the Walking Access Consultation Panel, and on the interim advisory board for the commission. I say thank you to John. He has been the vital glue that held the various strands together. His competent leadership gave the process credibility during the two extensive rounds of consultation, sometimes in the face of extreme provocation, I have to say, particularly during an incident in Marlborough.

I also take this opportunity to pay tribute to Gottlieb Braun-Elwert for his contribution as a member of the former reference group and as an outstanding mountaineer and guide. His sudden death was a blow to all outdoor enthusiasts. Although not everyone agreed with his vision on public access, no one could doubt his sincerity and enthusiasm for the principles and outcomes that this legislation will deliver for all New Zealanders into the future.

I thank the members of the Local Government and Environment Committee for their work on the bill. They listened to recommendations through submissions made to the select committee, and they made the changes necessary. I would like in particular to thank Moana Mackey for her skill as chair of the committee, and Martin Gallagher for his enthusiastic and patriotic contribution to this debate and at the select committee.

I also acknowledge the contribution of my parliamentary colleague Eric Roy, who served as a member of the Land Access Ministerial Reference Group in the first place while not a member of Parliament. Eric helped the group understand the implications of the policy for landholders, and brought a pragmatic approach to the group’s work. I say kia ora to him. I am grateful to all the submitters who took the time to make their views known during both consultation processes. They helped influence and shape the policy and the bill in ways not always obvious to those on the edge of the policy process. Finally, I acknowledge the support that the officials have given to this process. They have faced some challenging times over a process of 5 years. I thank Jim Sutton for his vision in raising this issue early on. I am pleased to commend this bill to the House.

Hon DAVID CARTER (National): National supports the third reading of the Walking Access Bill. We do so because we finally see common sense prevail in what has been a very difficult and emotive debate. I acknowledge also the contribution of John Acland, who has been involved in this for a long time, and has certainly at times incurred the wrath of many of our farmers. My thanks also go to Eric Roy for his involvement in the process. He was an inspired choice by Jim Sutton, the predecessor of Damien O’Connor as the Minister for Rural Affairs, because when he was not a member of Parliament he was able to be on the Land Access Ministerial Reference Group and provide the very good common-sense perspective of a landowner.

The reason this debate has been so destructive is that it threatened the sanctity of private property rights. It threatened to create a real divide between rural New Zealand and urban New Zealand. I am pleased today that finally common-sense legislation has been presented by the Labour Government. In my mind, this became a personal crusade of the Prime Minister, Helen Clark. I have no idea why she developed this personal crusade, but there is a strong rumour around the high country of the South Island that on one of her regular expeditions around the high country she and her tramping group were denied access to a farming property. I suspect she was denied access not because the farmer did not want them on the land enjoying his farm, but because the group never bothered to ask the farmer for permission in the first place. That is a strong rumour. It is hard to prove, but it is certainly one that one picks up every time one goes through Tekapō. This argument should be all about respecting private property rights, something that Ms Moroney finds very, very difficult to do.

Today we finally see a good way of delivering better public access to our public estate. But what this bill does—and it does it well—is that it finally respects the private property rights of farmers. They like people enjoying access to their farms. I say to Sue Moroney that the only thing they want is the privilege of being asked first. That is all that was required in this debate. That is what John Acland and his reference group finally found when they went and spoke to the thousands of landowners throughout the country who found the original proposal by Jim Sutton and Helen Clark absolutely abhorrent to private property rights and to democracy. What we see today is a strategic back-down. It is a big back-down for the Labour Government.

Lesley Soper: Just nonsense!

Hon DAVID CARTER: Ms Soper has not been here long enough to actually understand the issue and know the derision and division it caused throughout rural New Zealand. Tonight we have a pragmatic solution. The important thing Ms Moroney needs to realise is that it is actually the policy that National advanced at the very outset of this debate. We said that this is what we wanted to do. One has to respect private property rights and at least have the ability, the common sense, and the decency to ask permission if one wants to go on private land.

Christopher Finlayson: You’ve upset them over the Prime Minister—do it again!

Hon DAVID CARTER: It is very easy to upset them over the Prime Minister. It is also quite a lot of fun.

The other thing this bill does is acknowledge that in some cases access to a public resource is denied because it is effectively encompassed by private land. Legislation has finally said that in those circumstances we need to do what National always said we need to do: enter into good-faith negotiations with the landowner and find a solution. Finally, after 5, 6, or 7 years of acrimony and division, we have the solution that National advocated in the first place, and that is why it is with pleasure that National finally supports this legislation.

But the question that Sue Moroney can answer when she next takes a call is why Helen Clark caused all this angst. Why did the farmers throughout New Zealand tie orange ribbons round their gates, their trees, and any other structure they could attach a ribbon to in order to signal to New Zealanders that private property rights were important? Where Helen Clark went wrong, and where Sue Moroney is now going wrong, is that it did not become a debate between rural New Zealand and urban New Zealand, because urban New Zealanders also had a respect for private property rights. They knew that what the Government, Jim Sutton, and Helen Clark originally proposed was wrong, and they joined in supporting the farmers of New Zealand. It is with the support of farmers and all common-sense New Zealanders that tonight we are getting the sort of legislation that is required to address this issue.

I am pleased the stupid fight is now over. I am pleased that Labour and Helen Clark have finally seen common sense. I am pleased to be part of a debate that sees the legislation passed in the dying days of a Labour Government—there are 6½ weeks to go before the general election—and it will be good to get this one off the agenda. But most important, I support the Walking Access Bill because it finally recognises the importance of private property rights.

HONE HARAWIRA (Māori Party—Te Tai Tokerau): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. Kia ora tātou katoa e te Whare. For us in the Māori Party this bill goes back to June 2005 when Labour, flush from having stolen the foreshore and seabed from Māori, thought it would take a shot at the rest of the country by opening up access to rivers, lakes, and conservation lands in its walking access report. Farmers, however, saw it as a blatant attack on their private property rights, and the rural heartland said: “Hell, no, we will not be having all and sundry traipsing through our farms, leaving gates open, scaring the animals, endangering lives, and leaving the blame at our back door.” Although the Māori Party was just new at that time, Tariana Turia nailed it in the House when she said that this bill would have been the death knell for Labour’s embattled Māori MPs if they allowed it to go through. She said it would be a case of another theft by a Government that clearly does not care about whom, in the end, it is upsetting—a Government that is obviously counting the votes and must think that more people are willing to walk over other people’s properties and to claim waters that do not belong to them.

What followed is history now, but Federated Farmers ran a successful campaign about the protection of property rights, enabling many hapū and iwi to again challenge the Government theft of Māori lands. The Government backed down—for a while at least—then, hello, a few months ago it sneaked it in again through this new bill, by establishing the New Zealand Walking Access Commission to oversee public access to the coast, lakes, and rivers. The bill has some good bits in it, like requiring the commission to have at least one member with knowledge of tikanga Māori, although we would rather it required at least one member who is Māori, to negotiate with private landowners, and with the appropriate Māori landowners.

There are some good ideas there, but a number of submissions raised major concerns for us, such as the one from Waikato that said: “Once again, I see blatant legislative theft creeping up on the last 6 percent of land we have in this country.” Another one from Taupō said: “The big issue for us is that this absolutely targets Māori land for access for New Zealanders.” And a submission from Ngāi Tahu said it would not support opening up land if it meant possible desecration of taonga and damage to significant sites. All of the Māori submissions on this bill refer to the fact that Te Tiriti o Waitangi had actually guaranteed “te tino rangatiratanga … o rātou whenua o rātou kainga me o rātou taonga katoa,”—the full and undisturbed possession of their lands, estates, fisheries, and other properties.

Māori submitters also called on sites of cultural importance to Māori to be respected, recognised, and protected, with Ngāi Tahu going further by recommending that permission be given before information on significant sites is published, or that those sites be exempted from the bill. The Local Government and Environment Committee, of course, ignored all of those requests. Ngāi Tahu also recommended that the code of responsible conduct include mandatory consultation with tangata whenua, and appropriate standards of behaviour. But all the bill does is require the code to include information on Māori relationships with land and waterways.

Māori also made other recommendations that were ignored, like putting a Treaty clause into the bill, and increasing Māori representation on the commission. Last week, Angeline Greensill, Māori Party candidate for Hauraki-Waikato, told me a simple home truth: we are given two ears and one mouth for a very simple reason—to listen twice as much as we talk. This bill turns that truth upside down because it is all talk and no ears. There were 136 submissions on this bill, but what we have ended up with seems to be just another template from the Government’s policy shop.

The philosophy behind this bill is sound; the kaupapa of enabling New Zealanders to have access to Aotearoa is sound. But the detail is sadly lacking. In the same way that this Labour Government refused to listen to the tens of thousands of Māori who marched to Wellington to try to stop the theft of the foreshore and seabed, so, too, has this Labour Government refused to heed the call from Māori about proper negotiation for access to their ancestral lands and waters.

In the same way that the Māori Party was born out of a determination to defend Māori rights and advance Māori interests, so, too, will we refuse to support this bill today. Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. Kia ora tātou e te Whare.

R DOUG WOOLERTON (NZ First): Firstly, I want to congratulate the Minister in charge of the bill, Damien O’Connor, and his officials, whom I know to be good practical people, not carried away with ideology and working in dreamtime. I congratulate him on bringing together a bill that even Opposition members say is sensible and workable. I acknowledge also Mr Eric Roy, who worked over many years to bring a bill like this to fruition, and the other people who have worked on it, including, I might add, Mr Bryce Johnson of the New Zealand Fish and Game Council.

We in New Zealand First believe that the enviable lifestyle New Zealanders see as their right should be preserved. I said in the opening speeches that I have a brother who has a farm under family ownership, just him and his son, that covers 10 farms, which was the norm when I was a—well, I am still a reasonably young man—younger man. Things are changing out there in the rural community. The days have gone when people could go to several farmers down one road and if access was refused to a river, stream, or lake for some reason or another, they could go to the next farmer to get access. Those days have gone, because in many cases a number of farms are covered by one owner, and it could be an owner who does not live anywhere near the property—which is not my brother’s case, I hasten to add.

When we look at private rights—and I know I am going to get picked up for this—it is a fact that we must also look at public rights. We must look to where many of us came from, and we do not want to go back there. We must not go back, and we cannot go back, to the days of grace and favour, where those in an enviable position, or who were wealthy or were huge landowners, gave their favour to people to go on to their land or whatever. I for one—and I am moving a little bit ahead of my caucus, and I acknowledge that, and I am also moving ahead of this bill—look forward to the day, and I think we will get there, when access is given to iconic places around New Zealand that are registered, surveyed, and marked, with its own rights and with relevant trespass provisions and rules on what people can do and carry on those access ways. I think that we will get there, but I am not whipping the cat over that. This is an amazing first start, which is why I congratulated the Minister in my first speech.

I acknowledge the former deputy mayor of Hamilton Martin Gallagher, who fought long and hard, in quite an acrimonious atmosphere, to have public access around one of the very few waterways we actually enjoy in Hamilton. If members wants to have a laugh that is OK, but we have a peat lake in Hamilton, which we are pretty proud of, are we not, Mr Gallagher? He fought to have a walkway. Even today there are a couple of places where agreement could not be reached, and the wooden walkway actually extends out on to the waterway and then comes back on to land. I do not know of any problems surrounding that. I do not think the burglary rate has increased. I do not think those local people suffer any problems because that walkway is there. But what I do know, and what is important as far as this bill is concerned, is that thousands upon thousands of Hamiltonians walk around that lake, and enjoy that lake, which they could not do so before.

That is the case here. It is not about arguing about private property rights. It is about—and this bill sets up the New Zealand Walking Access Commission—reaching agreement in a modern world so that the increasing urban society and the decreasing rural society in this country can both reach their mutual aims. It is not about one group being pitted against the other. I am sad if some people tend to see it that way. I think we should look on these things as a modern approach to something that in the past was taken for granted when our population was far more biased towards the rural environment, and our population was far smaller. A bill such as this was simply not needed in those days, but just because it was not needed then does not mean to say that it is not needed now. So that is where I would like to see it go to.

I think that there is little danger that this will turn into a bureaucracy. Mr Roy said it is a bit light on saying who will go on the Walking Access Commission, but I would like to say from my farming experience that I have confidence that they will be practical people versed in the ways of the community that they serve, and who have the common interest at heart. I am keen to see boards, be it Department of Conservation or any other board around the country, taking a closer interest in the people who will be on the commission, whether they be from fish and game, forest and bird, whether they are hunters and that sort of thing, and to encourage those sorts of people to be on the commission so that there is a wider perspective. It is not just about conservation, it is not just about hunters; it is about serving the needs of our community in the widest possible sense. We believe this bill goes a huge way towards that.

We had critics in my own caucus who raised the sorts of questions that are being raised here, but this bill—as we went through it—satisfied them that this actually was a modern way forward and something that was absolutely necessary. This is the last speech New Zealand First intends to make on this bill. We heartily applaud this bill, and look forward to supporting it into law.

ERIC ROY (National—Invercargill): It is good to have worked on the Walking Access Bill, and to see an outcome that is quite positive. This bill is unique in many ways. The legislation started from a very polarised position, yet it now has a high degree of agreement. It is unique in that on a night when we have had nine valedictories, a good number of members in the House are being abstemious, and are here to debate the merits of this bill when there are other attractions socially that might draw them away—which shows the degree of seriousness about this bill. The bill is unique in the context that, as I said, it started with quite a high degree of divergence of opinion, and has gone entirely through the Committee stage without amendment, nor with any amendments being tabled and lost. That is unique in the Committee stage. It is also unique in that through the various debates on the various stages of the bill I have imparted a bit of information about marginal strips, the Queen’s Chain, and the legislative process that has gone around the establishment of the rights of New Zealanders.

There has been no substantial attempts to develop or enhance to this level the access opportunities for New Zealanders since 1891. John McKenzie was the Minister of Lands under the Ballance Government, and was an interesting character in himself. He shares a lot of similarities to my grandfather, whom I will get to in just a minute to show members my perspective on this. He came to New Zealand from Scotland, he spoke only Gaelic, and he wanted to develop a New Zealand for which there was a degree of utilitarian approach, there was no favouritism, and there were no riparian rights. He was Minister of Lands under Ballance. He broke up some of the great squattocracies of the South Island and did it in a way that created the family farm in 1891. There is a book that members who are interested in this should read called Lands for the People?. John McKenzie became a member of a school committee to learn about representation before he stood for Waihemo. Anyone driving through Palmerston will see a monument to John McKenzie on top of the hill on the seaward side of Palmerston. It is not since 1891 that there has been any substantial attempt to move access opportunities for New Zealanders forward.

I said that John McKenzie had a lot of similarities to my grandfather and his expectations. When I was on the Walking Access Consultation Panel we had to introduce ourselves, and I told this story, which is true, that my great-grandfather John Roy in Ballybogey in County Antrim about 1857 or 1858, just after the end of the potato famine, was about to be apprehended by a gamekeeper for poaching rabbits and he shot the gamekeeper. He volunteered to leave at that stage, went to Canada, and when gold was discovered in Gabriels Gully he came to New Zealand. We all have stories like that. It is an intrinsic part of me, as a landowner who wants fairness and recognition of property rights, and also as a hunter-gatherer, and as a person who enjoys recreation, to say there is a balance. And that is the unique part of this bill: that after some reasonably extreme positions taken and lined up in the first instance, there has been a lot of agreement in this House in recognising both property rights and the right and the heritage of New Zealanders to enjoy the outdoors and the public resources that are so special.

New Zealand is unique in the world in that respect. There are very few countries that have the absence of riparian rights to the extent that New Zealand has. To my knowledge no other country has laid down so many opportunities for access. There is no other country with similar proportionality of national parks to New Zealand. We have that heritage, but we have had this gap that no one has seriously attempted to resolve since 1891. That is a unique situation.

Let us talk, for a moment, about those gaps. I have already mentioned my modest holdings in the district of Te Tipua. I am in the process of selling some of that land and I want to retain a wetland. When I bought that property I was told there was a marginal strip down that river. I said I wanted a survey of that wetland and want to retain ownership of a bit of my birthright—of where I started. It is a good place to shoot ducks, as well, but that is not the only interest. I said to the surveyor, just last week, I have an egress, a marginal strip, down the river. He looked up and said: “No, you haven’t.” I had believed there was a marginal strip down the river. I have just bought another property and they said: “Hang on; there’s no marginal strip there.” I went to the surveyor, searched the deed, got the Land Information New Zealand report—hey presto, there is a marginal strip on the river there! That is relatively typical of what exists out there.

The bill locks in the responsibilities of the Walking Access Commission, but we should not underestimate the job as easy or simple. There will need to be an ongoing process. At least we have set up the Walking Access Commission, and it will have a role in determining what exists and it will negotiate those opportunities. There are, indeed, a lot of unique things about this bill. I should mention Jim Sutton’s role in the legislation. I have said before that I think he probably got it a little bit wrong, at the start of the process, when he mentioned the wander-at-will provision. It made everybody a bit fearful and some people became quite concerned. I think that comment was out of context with the property rights of New Zealanders. I mentioned that we have a greater proportion of national parks and other opportunities to go walking than other countries. We are not the UK or Europe, and there is not a history of wander-at-will walking opportunities such as are enshrined in the history of those countries, but we have something unique and special in New Zealand and this bill is quite a significant step forward in improving the opportunities for New Zealanders to participate in that way.

It is proper to acknowledge again that the role of the Walking Access Commission will not be an easy one. The people who are appointed will need integrity, and that goes without saying. I pick up on the point made by my colleague Hone Harawira, who said there should be fair representation of tangata whenua. There are responsibilities that go with the property rights determined by the commission so tangata whenua will have to be involved. The people appointed will need wisdom and an ability to negotiate. They will need to get some runs on the board. The commission will not be a talkfest; it will have to get some resolution of the issues that exist. Maybe at some time in the future the House will have to address the issue of private capture, if some landowners continue that habit. We need to sound a warning to any future landowner who reads the legislation or the Hansard of the debate that the House is saying this legislation does not resolve that issue but if there is an ongoing problem, then the House will address it. That is a cautionary note to anybody who is thinking of squeezing a dollar out of exclusive capture. There are reasons why access may not be freely available, but if we are talking about exclusive capture to generate a dollar, then I believe that this House, at some stage in the future, will address that issue, and it will be quicker than the 117 years it has taken for this significant step forward.

It has been a pleasure to go back on to the Local Government and Environment Committee, which I have been on and off a few times in my life, but to be appointed to deal with this bill—

Metiria Turei: We missed you.

ERIC ROY: I missed those guys, too. It was good to get a resolution, and without the tabling of even one amendment. That is unique. I am happy to support the third reading of the bill.

MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West): It gives me huge pleasure, and it is something of a privilege, to be able to speak to the third reading of the Walking Access Bill. I think history will record this bill as one of the more significant achievements of this Parliament, and certainly of this Government. I acknowledge the previous speaker and his contribution over a number of years on this bill.

We had an interesting Committee stage last night, and I will see whether the Hansard Office can circulate Mr Roy’s speech and give it to my good, dear friend and colleague Sandra Goudie, a Waikato MP, whom I am very close to, and also to John Carter from the far North, whom, in reality, I am much closer to. We had an interesting interchange about some rules and regulations, but that has been a very good summary. I think that Eric Roy and others have acknowledged the history of the bill, and this is a very historical process.

I acknowledge Doug Woolerton and thank him. Doug and I love the Waikato, and we have seen the dangers whereby some of our recreational access ways along rivers and lakes are potentially being blocked off. We believe that a proactive Walking Access Commission, working with local government and our conservation boards, will start to play a part.

One of the challenges for the new commission will be the kind of budget it has and the kind of leadership role it can take, because we have to start looking very seriously in terms of negotiations with private-property owners, particularly in terms of covenants across private land. Hopefully, the Walking Access Commission will engage in some long-term strategic thinking about a network of walkways and access ways across our nation. That may take some time to achieve.

I have already alluded to my dream that one day we will have a Pacific to Tasman walkway that will go from the Bay of Plenty, over the Kaimais, through the pristine farmlands of the Waikato, and out to the wonderful Kāwhia/Raglan area on the Tasman Sea. Again, this is about a legacy for our grandchildren. I have just received a note, and I say to the Hon Michael Cullen: “Who knows? But life will tell.”

I take this opportunity to acknowledge the fact that many hands have been involved in the process of this bill. I particularly acknowledge Damien O’Connor. There has already been mention of Jim Sutton, and I acknowledge his great role, but I also acknowledge the many people within the Minister’s office.

In particular, I take the opportunity, if I may, to acknowledge Peter Coburn. I do not want to embarrass him, but he is a very good West Coaster, and I know the Minister would want me to acknowledge him. He works in the Minister’s office, and he has always been exceptionally enthusiastic and passionate. If he is listening tonight—and I believe he is in the gallery—I say to him that working for this place is something of a challenge, but this bill is one exercise on which I think he will look back in later life and say: “Job well done. This is a bit of a legacy I was part of.” I want to acknowledge particularly his role. The Minister asked me to do that, and I am delighted to join with him in doing that.

I also briefly mention my own patch and some wonderful people, such as councillor Ted Armstrong, whom my good colleague Sue Moroney knows well. Do members remember the days he got the old tin snippers out and used them along the Awatere Avenue walkway because private property owners at the time had fenced off our river access way? Doug Woolerton will remember that; he will remember old Ted getting the old snippers out and making the point. Those were not private fiefdoms, and they were not Miami-style beach reserves; they were public access ways for the people of our city.

I also mention Bill Featherston, who is the director of our parks and gardens in Hamilton. He has come to me time and time again and said we have to make sure the Queen’s Chain becomes a reality, because in some places it is actually quite a myth. Certainly, we have to work with local government to ensure that those access ways are available.

Finally, let us get on and pass this bill. I know that the junior Government whip will be very keen to do that. I know that Leslie Soper will be keen. She has made me well aware of the wonderful heritage opportunities in her area of Southland, and of what an incredible area it is. This bill will be a win-win for us throughout the country. In essence, the bill raises the profile of walking access and provides a very strong foundation for the improvement and extension of walking access for our families—Kiwi families, young and old. That is a wonderful legacy for this Parliament to gift and leave.

The bill will also achieve a proper balance between the rights and aspirations of the public in terms of access to our beautiful countryside, the property rights of landowners, and the practical needs of farmers and other land users to be able to carry out their businesses without undue hindrance. I acknowledge the contribution of Waikato Federated Farmers, Bill Garland, and the people in the Waikato, who have been very constructive in helping on this bill.

Finally, I acknowledge that the bill does not undermine private property rights. Public access to private land, including Māori land, remains subject to negotiation. That is the key, and that is the point Eric Roy was making before. It is about negotiation and agreement with landholders. It is a huge pleasure and privilege to speak in support of legislation that, I think, our grandkids and great-grandkids will thank this Parliament for. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green): I rise to support the Walking Access Bill as the best possible bill we could have in this area in the current political climate, but we have some misgivings about some aspects of the bill, particularly those regarding the balance of public and private rights inherent in it. The Greens’ position has been adequately conveyed in previous speeches, so in the final speech on this bill, we will focus on four specific matters that we have been investigating in recent weeks.

I point out that the bill as it stands still does not give the commission the ability to arbitrate—it can only negotiate—so it still cannot actually deal with the really hard questions. Where there are really difficult issues, this legislation will not help, so I think that we should not over-egg it as to what it will achieve. I would also just encourage Eric Roy to connect with the poacher within himself. I tell him that he should go back to the poacher within himself.

Eric Roy: I might kill someone!

Dr RUSSEL NORMAN: Ha, ha!

The first thing is the Overseas Investment Office. The Federated Mountain Clubs wrote to us, raising the very good point that access opportunities are sometimes missed when the Overseas Investment Office negotiates conditions for the sale of sensitive land to overseas parties. Due to commercial sensitivity, Ministers have refused to notify stakeholder groups like the Federated Mountain Clubs about such sales. Recreational stakeholders would obviously like the chance to identify and advocate for access opportunities, and we agree. Obviously it would be preferable if we were not selling land to overseas owners, but given that we know that it happens, we think that this opportunity should be given.

We raised this matter directly with the Minister. We are pleased to advise the House that the Minister has agreed that formalising the relationship between the Walking Access Commission and the Overseas Investment Office is possible without an amendment to either the Overseas Investment Act or the Walking Access Act, and will be established via an exchange of ministerial letters. We thank the Federated Mountain Clubs and the Minister for undertaking constructive engagement to resolve this issue.

Second, the Green Party remains concerned with a definition in this bill—that of “private land”. Part of the definition is “any land that is held by a person under a lease or licence granted to the person by the Crown;”. This definition is only for the purpose of this bill, but even so, the inclusion of types of Crown land, public land, and conservation land in the definition of “private land” should ring alarm bells on principle. This part applies to two specific areas, which are pastoral leases, and leases and licences more broadly. Crown pastoral lease land is very attractive in its own right for recreation. However, it has often been a barrier for access between public roads and the conservation estate. Some runholders have been able to effectively capture public areas and unreasonably deny access by assuming the authority of the Trespass Act.

The Local Government and Environment Committee heard that the Fish and Game Council was contemplating making an application to the High Court for a declaratory judgment on whether Crown pastoral leases grant an exclusive possession of the land to the lessee. This application has now been lodged and it will be heard soon. If the High Court finds in the Fish and Game Council’s favour, the present definition of “private land” may need to be reconsidered. It is important that Parliament is made aware of this possibility now, so that there are no surprises later.

Additionally, the definition of “private land” in this bill applies to land held under any lease or licence, so it includes things like a grazing lease or mining licence on conservation land. Generally, areas like these are closed to public access only where there is a specific reason to do so—for example, during mining operations or lambing. The Greens have been assured by the Minister that this definition will not lessen any current access rights to Crown land. The official advice is that it is significant only where there is a licence or lease that grants exclusive possession.

The Green Party wishes to make it quite clear that we are voting for the bill on the understanding that the bill does not lessen current access rights and that it does not establish a principle that Crown leases and licences are in any way private land. The whole idea that public land is defined as private land is rather illogical, members must admit. If any lessening of access rights transpires, or if this legislation is used to confiscate access rights to public land, the Green Party will fight to ensure that the current access rights on public land are restored.

Third, it is important that a Crown entity such as the Walking Access Commission, which has responsibility for an area of intense public interest, is transparent in its operations. Crown entities are required to establish their own operational procedures within the bounds of the Crown Entities Act. The Green Party votes for this bill in the hope that the commission will be transparent. The panels and consultation process that have led to this bill have been transparent, and the commission is expected to continue the trend. We hope that means it will, in general, allow the public to attend its meetings and that it will publish its minutes, notices, and reports, preferably on a website for ease of access. It is incumbent on an access commission to allow maximum public access to its decision making.

Finally, we have raised the issue of the rather long review period of 10 years in previous speeches and in the select committee. Despite the support of United Future on reducing this to a more sensible period, we have not convinced the Government or the National Party to agree to a reduction. The Minister is confident that there will be ample chance for Ministers to identify and resolve problems with the legislation through the annual reports of the Walking Access Commission and through public interest and scrutiny of the commission’s activities. If problems or inefficiencies arise, we sincerely hope that it is not necessary to wait for 10 long years to address them. With these points noted, I say that the Greens will be voting for the bill.

JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future): I rise on behalf of United Future to support the third reading of the Walking Access Bill. At the beginning of this legislative process United Future was concerned that the proposal would serve only to displace unformed legal roads as legal entities. Much has been done to address this concern, and all those who worked on this bill need to congratulated on tidying that up.

It is an especially and crucially important feature of New Zealand that wildlife, freshwater fisheries, and natural water do not attach to land title under New Zealand law, but rather they are part of the public estate owned by everyone in general. As a consequence of that, it is not unreasonable that the general public should be able to expect, and to have, fair and reasonable access to that which is theirs, and although respecting the property rights of landowners, they want to have access for recreation and for things as basic as food-gathering—as in the case of fishers and hunters. There are other forms of food-gathering, such as shellfish and Māori customary food-gathering issues.

A further consequence of this, therefore, is that there are now two sets of property rights in New Zealand: private property rights in land, and public property rights in public resources. This is what makes New Zealand special, and it has its origins in the wish of the early settlers to not see a replication of the landed gentry’s owning and exclusively controlling the fish and game animal resource. Therefore, it is good and important that clause 3 of the bill specifically refers to these public resources, and the Hansard record needs to show that Parliament intended for public resources to include wildlife, freshwater fisheries, and natural water.

United Future joins with the Green Party in voicing our ongoing concerns over a couple of aspects of this bill. The New Zealand Walking Access Commission established by the bill remains basically toothless. Although it can negotiate with landowners to acquire an easement or lease over the land for use as a walkway, it has no formal power to actually resolve any disputes of access. This is particularly important when negotiating over private land in order to gain access to a public resource such as a river or lake. We envisage that for 90 percent of cases this will not be a problem. The commission will effectively be able to negotiate access across private land with the least bit of hassle to landowners. However, in the few cases where access is difficult to negotiate, the commission has no formal powers to resolve the dispute and provide public access to a public resource by way of a walkway or enforcing access by way of unformed legal road.

It is difficult to understand this aspect of the bill. There is in the bill the intention to resolve the issue surrounding the public’s right to access. However, the commission that the bill sets up has no formal powers to actually do that. It is of concern that this whole bill is built around new access being implemented by negotiation and agreement rather than access actually being resolved.

Public access to the South Island high country and Crown pastoral lease lands is of high public interest for outdoor recreation. United Future is disappointed to see that this bill still includes Crown leases and licences in the definition of private land when clearly they are not. These lands are owned by all New Zealanders, and are a part of the broader public estate over which the lessees hold only a right to graze pasture. It is therefore important that this Parliament notes that the Fish and Game Council currently has before the High Court an application for a declaratory judgment on the question of whether Crown pastoral leases grant exclusive occupation of leased land. United Future understands that recent legal and public policy research on the special statutory nature of these leases suggests Crown pastoral leases do not carry exclusive occupancy, which means that if the court agrees with Fish and Game, then this definition in the bill will require amendment to remove all reference to Crown pastoral leases.

Finally, we want to recognise the efforts of Fish and Game in causing this bill to happen. It began back in 1999 when Fish and Game convinced the then Labour Opposition, which then made a manifesto commitment, that there was a growing issue around access and that New Zealand was seeing the beginnings of a privatisation of—

Chris Tremain: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I understand that the matter that is being spoken about at the moment is sub judice, and is still before the courts.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs): Could somebody clarify for me, because I do not know of everything that is before the courts. Is it before the courts?

Metiria Turei: There is a High Court application before the courts on behalf of Fish and Game, I understand, but I would also make the point that there is a breach of the sub judice rule only if it is likely that discussion of that proceeding is likely to cause prejudice to the outcome of the case. That is the test in the Standing Orders.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs): The advice I have just heard, and I take it as sound, is that the House sets a high standard. Anything that is before the courts is not discussed by the House, just as one does not expect the courts to comment on the work before us.

JUDY TURNER: Can I just clarify that. My only reference was that the outcome of that case—and I was not making any comment on what the outcome would or could or should be—may require future investigation of definitions within this bill.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs): If the member could continue without making any further reference to it, it would be helpful.

JUDY TURNER: All right. I was just saying that I recognised that Fish and Game has had a huge input into where we are today in that it convinced the Labour Opposition back in 1999, which then made a manifesto commitment. The concern was that there was a growing issue around access, and that New Zealand was seeing the beginnings of privatisation of public resources through the misuse of the Trespass Act to exclusively capture public resources that were on public land; for example, rivers running through private land, and game found on private land.

Like the Greens, we have some concern about the current review provisions of this bill. We think that 10 years is far too long, and the concern we have is that if problems develop, they could well have become entrenched and very counterproductive by the time this law is reviewed. However, United Future is happy to support the third reading of this bill.

METIRIA TUREI (Green): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I want to get some clarification around that rule, because it does concern me a little bit that the bar might be set too high. Standing Order 111 states, as you have pointed out: “Subject always to the discretion of the Speaker and to the right of the House to determine its own matters, matters awaiting or under adjudication in any court of record may not be referred to … (b) in any debate, … if it appears to the Speaker that there is a real and substantial danger of prejudice to the trial of the case.” I am asking for clarification: is it, then, your ruling that the Speaker has automatically made a decision that in every case any matter that is being adjudicated by the court poses a real and substantial danger of prejudice to the trial, without hearing the specifics of that case?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs): The most recent supplementary sub judice ruling was made by the Speaker on 27 August, and I will read it, or parts of it, to the member: “The sub judice rule is set out in the Standing Orders, and it is the Speaker who determines its application”—the member accepts that. “It is not for individual members to waive the application of the rule. The rule is not intended to inhibit discussion of the law in general. … However, nothing said in the House should prejudice, however slightly, the decision of any court.” I think that is where we are erring on the safety side. I make the point that particularly when I was a Minister, I knew that a first reading speech I made, or what I said about potential rules, affected what judges thought. So we have to be very careful about what we say in the House.

COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura): In speaking to the Walking Access Bill I take comfort in the comments of support from my colleagues.

John Acland is present in the gallery and I acknowledge his work, sincerity, and commitment to this process. As the member for Kaikoura, I feel that it would be appropriate to tell the House a little bit about the background of this bill and the angst that developed in Marlborough. It all originated from a candidate who was standing for selection for the Labour Party. His name was Brendon Burns. He took it upon himself to challenge the farmers and the local community, saying that this approach was the right way forward and that there should be a right to roam. Unfortunately, starting from that position did not build good, trusting relationships.

What happened in the end—and it was one of my first experiences as a candidate—was that at a forum in Blenheim David Carter and I spoke to a crowd of 200 very angry farmers. We got the message very early on that the community of Marlborough, especially the rural community, would not wear that approach. Sadly, as things unfolded and John Acland came around with the Walking Access Consultation Panel, he ran into the tail end of that suspicion. On that basis, I apologise to John for that lack of trust and confidence in his sincerity in wanting to find a way forward. It was born out of deep-seated suspicion and a lot of aggro that had happened over some period of time. So it is heartening to see that we have found a way through.

I acknowledge also the input of Eric Roy. Members appreciate the mana of the man when he speaks here. He has a very balanced and reasonable view of things, and one would say that he can see both sides of the story.

I point out to the House that New Zealand is one of the most urbanised countries in the OECD. In New Zealand, 88 percent of people live in urban areas and 12 percent of people live in rural areas. I mention that from the point of view that I am one of those rural people. People get up and talk about romantic notions of wandering around in the hinterland, enjoying their birthright, and suchlike. When I have been snow-raking outside in cold weather, I have wondered why on earth I decided to do it. When I have had to pull a beast out of river or a creek, I have thought who in his or her right mind would want to do this. When I start to hear some of these romantic notions, I say that we have to temper them with common sense—which, I believe, is what we have come to.

The National Party’s 2005 policy on walking access is to ensure that public access is achieved through negotiated agreement with landowners. I am very comfortable with that, although I pick up on John Carter’s comments during the Committee stage. I say to the members on the other side of the House that that policy will work under National, but I have grave fears about how it would work under Labour. We are talking about a budget of $2 million.

Something that has not been discussed during this process is the abdication of responsibility by the Department of Conservation. The Walking Access Commission will have to go into bat on behalf of those people who have been walking the many iconic tracks that have fallen into total disrepair. I refer to one particular iconic walk, called the Three Passes. When I was a young fellow of about 19 we used to be able to walk over the Three Passes, out through the Arahura River, across the Styx Saddle, and then down and out the Styx River, but now that track has slipped away and it is becoming incredibly dangerous. People walk this track carrying 20 kilogram packs. The Walking Access Commission will have to have a serious talk to the Department of Conservation about maintaining those tracks. Or will it?

I draw members’ attention to Part 3, which talks about administering authorities. Administering authorities either will give the Walking Access Commission permission to create a walkway on public land, or they will not. We have been talking so much about private property rights, which are very, very important. We have been talking about access across privately owned land to get to public land, but there is every opportunity that when this bill is passed today—obviously, the House is supporting it—the Department of Conservation will abdicate its responsibilities to maintain its tracks. If the department says that it is not interested and it will not give away its right to control conservation estate, this commission can effectively do nothing to bring it to heel. We have to be very mindful that this is an enormous issue, and with a budget of $2 million I cannot see how the commission will be able to address this situation fully and adequately.

It is all very fine that we have the commission, and the controlling authority that will be appointed by the commission. That will probably be the local authority, and I bet it will be tearing its hair out and not thanking us a great deal. There is a code of conduct. My wife said something very interesting the other day—she says a lot of interesting things—and I think it is worth repeating: “When people start talking about their rights, they have generally done something wrong.” My real concern around this code of conduct is that we must instil into it that access is, in fact, a responsibility. Respect is to be shown, and we must get that message through. Unfortunately, in this whole process of things, with the euphoria of access and suchlike, we lose the real importance of respecting that right of access.

Another thing that needs to be raised is that the Minister of Agriculture will have oversight of this, and therefore the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry will have oversight. It has to be very careful that it does not take its eye off its core responsibilities. We know that it is stretched beyond its limits at the moment. One has only to sit on the Primary Production Committee to see that its members are wrestling with such things as the Environmental Risk Management Authority and the hazardous substances legislation. The ministry also has challenges with biosecurity, and it does not have its import health standards up to the standard they ought to be. We have seen just today, around biosecurity, that it has had to remove funding to deal with the varroa bee mite, and it is wrestling with the clover root weevil issue. Such things as this are of huge concern.

I put on notice that we are supporting this bill. This bill will work when it is in law under National, but I have grave concerns about how it would work under Labour. Labour no longer has connections with the provinces. Labour does not have experience of farmers or the rural community, and it has proven that it does not have respect for property rights. Thank you very much.

Bill read a third time.

Motions

Regulation—Notice of Scopes of Practice and Related Qualifications Prescribed by the Nursing Council of New Zealand

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) on behalf of the Minister of Health: I move, That pursuant to section 9(1) of the Regulations (Disallowance Act) 1989 the House revoke clause 4 of the Notice of Scopes of Practice and Related Qualifications Prescribed by the Nursing Council of New Zealand dated 18 August 2004 and published on 15 September 2004 on pages 2958-2960 of a supplement to the New Zealand Gazette, which sets out the “Scope of Practice—Enrolled Nurse”, and substitute the following:

4. Scope of Practice—Enrolled Nurse

Enrolled nurses practise under the direction of a registered nurse or midwife to implement nursing care for people who have stable and predictable health outcomes in situations that do not call for complex nursing judgment. The responsibilities of enrolled nurses include assisting clients with the activities of daily living, recognising the changing needs of clients and performing delegated interventions from the nursing or midwifery care plan.

Qualification

Successful completion of a programme approved by the Nursing Council of New Zealand and a pass in the specified examination leading to registration as an enrolled nurse. The programme must be completed prior to 31 December 2004.

This scope of practice is not open for any further new applicants from New Zealand who completed a programme after 31 December 2004 or new applicants from overseas who have applied after 18 September 2004. Applicants from that date will be registered as nurse assistants.

Motion agreed to.

Bills

Public Lending Right for New Zealand Authors Bill

Second Reading

Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Associate Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage): I move, That the Public Lending Right for New Zealand Authors Bill be now read a second time. This bill will establish a public lending right scheme to replace the New Zealand Authors’ Fund, which is currently administered by Creative New Zealand under section 31 of the Arts Council of New Zealand Toi Aotearoa Act 1994.

The Authors’ Fund exists only because of the action of some members of Parliament to insert the Authors’ Fund into that Act, but I am delighted to say that this legislation repeals section 31 of that Act, disestablishing the New Zealand Authors’ Fund and establishing a public lending right scheme for New Zealand authors in stand-alone legislation with greater transparency for the scheme’s purpose and operation. Like the New Zealand Authors’ Fund, the public lending right scheme recognises that authors deserve payment in compensation for the ongoing use of their works in public libraries.

The provisions in the bill have been developed in response to calls from authors and stakeholder groups over time. In particular, in response to this, a review of the Authors’ Fund in 2000 by Creative New Zealand made eight recommendations for reform. I am confident that this legislation will substantially implement the recommendations of stakeholder groups, and of authors, of course, to deliver the arrangements they seek.

The Public Lending Right for New Zealand Authors Bill was referred to the Government Administration Committee. I understand that owing to time pressure the committee was unable to report back on its deliberations on the bill. I would like to acknowledge the comments of those who made submissions. I found them very useful and insightful, and, as a result, I intend to move some amendments to the bill in the Committee of the whole House. These amendments are mainly concerned with definitions of key terms to ensure that there is clarity about eligibility for payment. They also clarify the membership of the advisory group.

The Government believes that this bill, with the amendments specified in the Supplementary Order Paper, will provide a firm foundation for the administration of the public lending right scheme. I commend the bill to the House.

CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National): As the Minister in the House, Judith Tizard, knows, National will support the second reading of this bill. I look forward to the Committee stage, because some interesting definitional matters will need to be dealt with, and I will explain the rationale for those in a moment.

This legislation has been a long time coming. I was chair of the Arts Board of Creative New Zealand, and was responsible for organising the report that was written by Geoffrey McLay, then a senior lecturer in the law faculty at Victoria University. He came up with a number of recommendations for reform of the Authors’ Fund. It had been a cause for concern, and I must say a cause of dissension, on the part of the Society of Authors, whenever it met with the Arts Board or with the Arts Council of Creative New Zealand. Its members were always concerned about the way in which the Authors’ Fund was run and, frankly, I think they had some reason for that because I do not think that the administration of the fund by the Arts Council was always all that flash. That is why I was so pleased when this legislation was introduced and referred to the Government Administration Committee.

The Minister is quite right that because of pressures of time and the need to deal with the resale royalties legislation, we could not report this bill back to the House with a report as one would have hoped, and therefore it comes back to the House without any proposed amendments. As the Minister has said, she has a Supplementary Order Paper that will make a number of changes.

What is the rationale for those changes? Both Mr Dail Jones and I, in our first reading speeches, expressed concern about the breadth of the regulation-making powers set out in clause 10 because, as drafted, the fund was replaced, the public lending right was established in New Zealand, the scheme was established, the purpose was stated, and that was about it. Everything else was to be left to regulations, and essentially an advisory group was to be appointed that would do all the work and prepare some draft regulations. They would be passed by the chief executive of the department of State that the Prime Minister designated would have responsibility for the regulations and the administration of the fund—and that was it. Both Mr Jones and I, as students of Professor Geoffrey Palmer, as he once was, thought that that was entirely unsatisfactory, and that the statute ought at least to say something about an author or a book, even if it did not descend into a lot of minutiae. So we invited Sir Geoffrey to come along to the select committee, because we thought that his views on regulation would coincide with ours. Indeed they did; he thought there needed to be a little bit more in the statute than there was.

As a result of that, parliamentary counsel, the officials, and the members of the committee had a bit of a discussion, and we decided that we would insert the definition of an author and the definition of a book. However, it is very easy to say that it must be almost a primer 1 exercise to define a book, because everyone knows what a book is, but it can be imagined that in the digital age it is not quite as straightforward as that. Although we have a definition, none the less—and this will be dealt with in the Supplementary Order Paper so I will not detain the House now—regulations may need to add conditions to the definition of “book”, and also to the definition of “author”, as it was not an entirely straightforward exercise to define those two terms. As I say, when we come to the Committee stage I will have a good look at those terms, because a number of issues arise. I was very grateful to the Minister a few days ago: I referred a couple of queries to her and her officials came back with a number of answers, which I will respond to in detail during the Committee stage. So that is the reason why there will be a Supplementary Order Paper and why there is no report.

This is a reasonably straightforward piece of legislation; none the less it is very important to the authors of New Zealand. They should be very grateful to the late Rt Hon Norman Kirk, who established this fund in 1973. Following that, as the Minister has told us, when she was on the equivalent of the committee in 1993 at the time the Arts Council was being reformed, she and a number of others managed to insert reference to the Authors’ Fund into the Arts Council of New Zealand Toi Aotearoa Act. Perhaps on reflection I think it may have been better if it had been placed somewhere else, although I admire her desire to work for authors. Whether the administration of this kind of fund sits happily in an arts development agency is perhaps a difficult question. It probably does not, in my view. None the less, the intention was very good, and I have to say that it probably meant that the Authors’ Fund was kept alive for the time that it was. But consistently with other jurisdictions it is now time to put the Authors’ Fund on a more permanent basis, recognising a public lending right that has been recognised in many other jurisdictions. Once we tidy up this legislation we can get it passed as quickly as possible, and the authors will have what they have been yearning for for many years.

As I say, National supports the second reading of the bill. The great thing about a public lending right is that if one believes in property rights, one can support a public lending right. If one is a socialist and believes in welfare, one can support a public lending right. So there is really no one in this House who should be opposed to a public lending right, and it is one of those strange things that should result in unanimity. So there we have it—National supports the second reading, and I look forward to the Committee stage tomorrow.

HONE HARAWIRA (Māori Party—Te Tai Tokerau): Tēnā koe, Madam Assistant Speaker. Kia ora tātou.

“Ka tangohia tētahi aikiha hīraka, ka keri ai ki ngā ringaringa kau he oneone, kia kī tonu te kapunga o te ringa. Ka huna anō te aikiha me te oneone ki tana pūkoro. Ahakoa ki hea, ahakoa māhea, ka haria tēnei oneone kia maumahara. Tērā ka mate au ki wāhi kē, he mea atu i tōku kiko hei whakawhanaunga, hei rāhui i whenua kē.”

Ko wērā ngā kupu a Kēri Hulme, nāna te Booker Prize; ā, e 1.4 miriona āna pukapuka te bone people i hokona huri noa i te ao. He kupu kōrero e pā ana ki te iwi Māori me te whenua, e whakamārama ana i tētahi take hei whiriwhiri mā te Whare, he take e ahu mai ana i tēnei pire, the Public Lending Right for New Zealand Authors Bill.

Ko te kore o ngā ture whakamaru i te mātauranga tuku iho, he take nui e whakararu ana i ngā iwi taketake o te ao i ngā tekau tau maha nei. Ahakoa mātou e whakaae ana, ka whakamaru tēnei pire i ngā tikanga o te hunga kaituhi kōrero inā utua rātou mō te tukutuku i ā rātou pukapuka i roto i ngā whare pukapuka, ko tā mātou whakapae me uru mai anō hoki ki mua i te aroaro o te Whare nei tētahi pire tiaki i te mātauranga tuku iho. I a au e kōrero ana, ka mahara ake ki a Kāterina Mataira, a Meretā Mita, a Apirana Taylor, a Keri Kaa, a Hinemoana Baker, a Patricia Grace, a Rowley Habib, a Witi Ihimaera, a Hone Tūwhare, a Hīrini Moko Mead, a Ranginui Walker, a Apirina Ngata, a Pei Te Hurinui Jones; a Te Rangi Hīroa Buck; a Ngāhuia Te Awekōtuku, a Paul Diamond; a Roma Pōtiki; a Donna Awatere; a Charles Royal; a Saana Murray; a Alan Duff, a Mihipeka Edwards, a Maria Bargh, a Linda Smith, ko ērā ētahi kei te mōhio au, kāore he mutunga ki te hunga nei.

Mēnā ka haere koe ki te pae tukutuku a Huia Publishing, ka kite koe, e kotahi rau, e iwa tekau mā rua ngā kaituhi Māori kei reira anake. Ko rātou mā ngā kaituhi, kaipupuri i ngā taonga tuku iho ā ngā mātua tūpuna i ngā tau tekau e hia kē nei. E ai ki a Ahorangi Hīrini Moko Mead, “Ehara i te mea, he reo Māori, he reo Pākehā rānei ā mātou tuhinga kōrero engari, he pai rānei, he whakahihiko i te ngākau o te hunga kōrero, whakarongo rānei.” Mā te tuhituhi i tō rātou mātauranga tuku iho e whakahihiko ana i ō mātou kaituhi Māori i te ngākau o ngā whakatupuranga. E tika ana me whakapūmautia ō rātou tikanga tiaki i te mātauranga tuku iho, arā, aua tikanga e ai ki a Wai 262 i whakaritea, i whakaaetia ki a rātou i raro i te Tiriti o Waitangi.

He take tāku mō te whakamaru i ngā tikanga o te iwi Māori kua tuhia nei wā rātou kōrero engari, kua kite au, kāhore ngā ture mō te mana pupuri me te mana pūkenga e hāngai ana ki ngā tikanga Māori, ki te ao Māori rānei. He tikanga i ruia mai i Rangiātea, he tikanga ā-iwi, ehara i te tikanga ā-tangata. Ko tērā take anō mā mātou o te Pāti Māori, kia taea e ngā rōpū kaituhi Māori, rōpū Māori pupuri mātauranga, rōpū tā pukapuka Māori, te whakaputa whakaaro ki te komiti wherawhera, arā, ngā rōpōu pēnei: Te Rōpū Whakahau, te huinga tōpū o ngā kaitiaki Māori i ngā pukapuka, i ngā puna mātauranga, i whakatūria i te tau 1992 ki te manaaki, ki te tautoko i ngā tāngata Māori kei roto i ngā whare pukapuka o te motu e mahi ana; Te Wānanga o Raukawa, nāna ngā tohu mātauranga mō te tiaki puna mātauranga; Te Hā rāua ko Ngā Pou Kaituhi Māori, ngā komiti ā-Toi Māori Aotearoa mō te tuhi kōrero; rātou ko ngā kaitā pukapuka Māori, ngā etitā Māori me ngā kaituhi Māori.

Hei whakakapi i taku kōrero me mihi au ki te kaituhi Māori nō Ngāpuhi, a Hēmi Hōri kua eke ki te taumata mō te Tohu Kaituhi o ngā Whenua Here ki Ingarangi mō tana pukapuka Ocean Roads. Engari ko tāku pātai, mēnā ka taea e ia te whiwhi i ngā utu ā-tau i te mea, ka kōrero te pire nei mō ngā kaituhi whai pānga engari horekau he kōrero, he aha taua pānga, kei a wai taua pānga, ā, mā wai e kī, ka whai pānga, kāhore rānei.

E tautoko ana te Pāti Māori i tēnei pire me te tono anō rā, kia whakarau te komiti i ngā take pēnei i te tiaki i te mātauranga tuku iho me ngā tikanga e whai pānga ai te kaituhi Māori.

Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker, kia ora tātou e te Whare.

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

[Greetings, Madam Assistant Speaker. Greetings to us all.

“She takes a silk handkerchief from her pocket, and with her bare hands, scoops up soil, enough to fill the hollow of her palm. She secretes handkerchief and earth back in her pocket. Wherever I go, however I go, I carry this earth for memory. And should I die in a strange land, there is a little more than just my flesh to make a friend and sanctuary of alien ground”.

Those are the words of Booker Prize winner Kēri Hulme, whose book The Bone People sold over 1.4 million copies throughout the world. They touch on the importance of the relationship between Māori and the land, and highlight one of the key issues this House needs to consider in respect of this Public Lending Right for New Zealand Authors Bill.

The lack of legal protection for traditional knowledge has been identified as a significant problem by indigenous people all over the world for several decades. Although we support the fact that this bill may help protect the special interests of our people by making annual payments to New Zealand authors for the use of their books in libraries, we would also point out that legislation providing legal protection for traditional knowledge should also be brought before this House. In making these comments, I think of people like Kāterina Mataira, Meratā Mita, Apirana Taylor, Keri Kaa, Hinemoana Baker, Patricia Grace, Rowley Habib, Witi Ihimaera, Hone Tūwhare, Hīrini Moko Mead, Ranginui Walker, Apirina Ngata, Pei Te Hurinui Jones, Te Rangi Hīroa Buck, Ngāhuia Te Awekōtuku, Paul Diamond, Roma Pōtiki, Donna Awatere, Charles Royal, Saana Murray, Alan Duff, Mihipeka Edwards, Maria Bargh, and Linda Smith; and those are just some of the ones I know. The list is endless.

In fact, if we go to the Huia Publishing website, we will find 192 current Māori authors on their books alone—people who, along with many others, have been writing and preserving our cultural heritage for decades. As Professor Hīrini Moko Mead says, “It’s not whether we write in Māori or in English, but that we write well, and inspire our readers and listeners.” Māori writers have been inspiring readers and listeners for generations by putting their traditional knowledge into print, and their rights in respect of their mātauranga Māori deserve to be protected, rights that the Wai 262 claim says are guaranteed under the Treaty of Waitangi.

One of the issues I wish to raise is the ongoing and urgent need to protect the interests of Māori in print, and in doing so I note that copyright and other intellectual property laws do not lend themselves easily to the protection of the interests of peoples such as Māori, whose world view spans centuries, and does not necessarily insist upon individual ownership. The other issue for us, the Māori Party, is to ensure that Māori who have an interest in writing, in library and information management, and in publishing are able to bring their views to the select committee. I refer to organisations like Rōpū Whakahau, the collective of Māori librarians and information specialists formed in 1992 from a need to provide professional and cultural support to Māori who worked in libraries throughout Aotearoa; Te Wānanga o Raukawa, which delivers Māori information qualifications; Te Hā and Ngā Pou Kaituhi Māori, the literature committees of Toi Māori Aotearoa; and, of course, Māori publishers, Māori editors, and Māori writers themselves.

In closing, I would like to acknowledge Ngāpuhi writer James George, who has just been shortlisted for the Commonwealth Writers’ Prize for his book Ocean Roads. But I would also ask whether he would be entitled to annual payments under this bill, because it refers to eligible authors, but leaves open the question of eligibility, the criteria for eligibility, and who actually gets to determine that eligibility.

The Māori Party will support this bill, but we would ask that issues such as legal protection for traditional knowledge, and eligibility criteria, be fully considered at select committee level. Greetings, Madam Assistant Speaker, and to us, the House.]

SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel): I am delighted that we have the opportunity to support the Public Lending Right for New Zealand Authors Bill. As a huge fan of libraries and books, I think it is a wonderful opportunity to support our authors. I just note that this payment will not be made to all authors; it will be made just to those who meet the eligibility criteria that are going to be set by the advisory committee.

If we look at clause 13, “Establishment of advisory group”, we see that the advisory group will set the regulations that have been identified in clause 10—and they are quite substantive—and that includes being able to determine the definition of “author”. One of the problems raised with us was the fact that one might pay an author of a book that meets the eligibility criteria, but there is not just an author; there may also be an illustrator. How to define that, and how to work out who gets what, will be left up to the advisory group. So not all authors will receive some payment; only those who meet the eligibility criteria will receive it. I think that point needs to be made quite clear.

It is interesting to note that 28 public lending right schemes exist internationally, and that the underlying principle is to pay authors for the public benefit derived from the recurrent use of their works in a public library. I think that is a pretty sound principle, but it does have to meet the criteria that the advisory group set. International practice has excluded non-book material held in libraries, such as CD-Roms, videos, audio tapes, music scores, and other online services. The Public Lending Right for New Zealand Authors Bill reflects that principle by paying creators for the public benefit derived from the current use of their works, and that is an eminently sound proposition.

The bill is a very short bill. There was considerable debate about the fact that in clause 10 substantial reference is made to regulations needing to be set—quite substantial, in actual fact—but there did not seem to be a way of avoiding that, because it will be people who have the experience in this field who will be on the advisory group that will be able to determine the parameters of each of those regulations that are being referred to.

Suffice it to say, National is supporting this bill. We look forward to seeing the conclusion and the positive results in support of our authors, and their wonderful contribution to our many libraries throughout New Zealand.

DAIL JONES (NZ First): New Zealand First will be supporting this legislation. I thank the National member Chris Finlayson for reminding the House of the comments we both made at the first reading stage. The bill has been referred back from the Government Administration Committee—[Interruption]—I tell Mr Harawira, and no doubt he will be making submissions at the Committee stage on what should be done.

The bill is still not satisfactory, of course, because no amendments have been made to it, at all. However, some suggestions have been made, which will be considered in the Committee stage. It is still not satisfactory, because those amendments are relatively small. One would have hoped that more could be done, but I guess if we want to try to get this bill through as soon as possible, then we will be leaving it to the authors to decide the ultimate conclusion.

Mind you, I do not really believe that people who are authors, and who have very liberal views on issues, might necessarily be able to agree on what should be done, and we do not want a situation where there can be no agreement. Sometimes a body like a parliamentary drafting office needs to be involved in the drafting of the legislation, rather than leaving it to numerous third parties to try to reach a decision. Literary people and artistic people have a bad habit of not being able to express themselves as well as they might, because they are too liberal minded. Sometimes the real rigour and discipline of a lawyer is needed in order to come to a conclusion and have decisions made. We will see what happens, and I wish them all the greatest amount of luck.

I also make the point that New Zealand First supports this bill because it supports the views of all religions, all creeds, and all races. We do not enter into this House with just a one-race viewpoint of how things should be done. We work on behalf of all the people of New Zealand, and wish that when the regulations are finalised, all the people of New Zealand will benefit. We do not come to this House with a one-eyed view on the matter. This is a short bill, and the sooner we can get it through the House, the better.

NICKY WAGNER (National): I rise to support this second reading of the Public Lending Right for New Zealand Authors Bill. National welcomes this bill. We believe that this issue should have been looked at a very long time ago. We support authors, who have wanted this legislation to secure their genuine property rights for a very long time.

As has been mentioned, the bill is short and simple, although it will need some more work and some Supplementary Order Papers. It will establish a stand-alone, statutory framework for the Authors’ Fund, and it obliges the Government to pay authors for the use of their books in our libraries. That is the right thing to do. Authors should receive fair compensation for their intellectual property, and National welcomes this commitment.

It is difficult for creative people to make a living in New Zealand. National is always keen to see creative people get fair compensation for their creative endeavour, preferably through a simple, cost-effective structure, and as of right. Legislation that pays creative people fairly for their intellectual property must be supported. It is always preferable for creative people to be paid directly for the value of their work, rather than to have them always seeking grants and having to go regularly, cap in hand, to beg a living from the Government or other arts-funding organisations. Too often we see our artists, writers, and performers having to put time, energy, and effort into applying and lobbying for grants rather than actually delivering their creative work. In this case, the argument is simple: the public lending right provides for authors to receive annual payments in recognition of the fact that their books are available for use in New Zealand libraries. If their books are of value to libraries, and to the public who borrow them, authors should be paid for the recurrent use of their work.

New Zealanders are avid readers and we have one of the highest rates of book borrowing and use of reference works, so we should be paying authors for the use of their intellectual property. A public lending scheme is a common arrangement around the world, with 28 countries having similar schemes. Of course, this was the argument behind the setting up of the original New Zealand Authors’ Fund, which was established in 1973, and which was a good first start. But there have been ongoing problems concerning its effectiveness in recent years. The fund is now administered by Creative New Zealand, and there has been vigorous debate over the level of funding, the process for determining payments, and the way the fund is administered.

In reality, the Authors’ Fund has been neglected by this Government. There has been a lack of certainty around funding, because the fund does not have direct-line funding. That means that although authors’ books continue to be borrowed in libraries, the income stream to authors is not guaranteed. Funding comes out of Creative New Zealand’s budget, and so Creative New Zealand has discretion over the total amount of funding. And there have been no increases since 2002. In real terms, the returns to authors have decreased dramatically over the last 5 years, because the amount—$500,000—allocated by Creative New Zealand has remained static, and the numbers of books entering libraries has increased. The payment rate per book has dropped from $2.78 in 2002 to $2.09 in 2007, so authors have gone significantly backwards in real dollar terms, and even more dramatically so in value terms. We all know how much the cost of living has increased for New Zealanders over the last 5 years, but the return to authors has decreased. In good faith, the authors have supplied their intellectual property to our libraries for the enjoyment and edification of New Zealand readers, but the value of that intellectual property has been underestimated and underpaid by this Government.

Authors have waited a long time to see these changes. A promise to review the Author’s Fund was made in 1999 in Labour’s manifesto. Now, 9 years later—9 long years later—something is finally happening. As members have already heard, my colleague Christopher Finlayson, National’s spokesperson on arts and culture, commissioned a review of the Authors’ Fund in 2000 when he was the Arts Board chair. This bill is a result of that review, but it has taken 8 years to get here. The bill was promised in 1999, and had the work done on it in 2000, so what has stopped Labour from delivering on it? It is a little sad that the Public Lending Right for New Zealand Authors Bill is finally being read for the second time, under urgency, on the last day of the last term of the Clark-Peters Government. Do Government members really think authors will reward them for this belated vote-catching ploy?

National will support this bill going to the Committee stage. We support the right of creative people to be rewarded for the use of their intellectual property. We are embarrassed that this Government has allowed the gradual erosion of authors’ property rights over the years, and we look forward to the time that they are paid a fair return for their work. New Zealanders are avid readers, we are proud of our writers and illustrators, we delight in borrowing and using their books in our libraries, and we want to make sure that they get a fair go. We want to make sure they get fair payment for the public enjoyment and benefit that we all derive from their work. Thank you.

ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tamaki): I am really pleased to be able to speak in the second reading of the Public Lending Right for New Zealand Authors Bill, and I must declare to the House straightaway that I anticipate being a financial beneficiary under this legislation, just as I have been a beneficiary of the Authors’ Fund, which is run by Creative New Zealand. Who knows what books I may have inside me in the future! There could be a really interesting one, I guess, about the last 3 years.

I am very, very grateful to Creative New Zealand for administering the Authors’ Fund; I have always found it to be very fair, helpful, and efficient to deal with. From the point of view of an author, it is always nice, particularly if one’s work is out of print, to receive a cheque from Creative New Zealand—and in future years it will be nice to get it in a different form—because it is a little message that people are still interested in what one has written and are still reading it. Speaking as an author for whom this cheque is not my sole means of income, it is not—

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: Just as well.

ALLAN PEACHEY: Well, I can tell Dr Cullen that actually I have done quite well out of my writings. He will have some time on his hands next year, no doubt, and may like to have a try at writing something himself.

The cheque comes and it is nice. But the sad thing is that on 31 March the rapacious Minister of Finance has his hand out for his share of it. If we are really serious about improving the position of authors in this country, in addition to passing this bill, maybe it is time to have a look at the taxation rates. Like everybody else, authors will benefit from the very, very significant tax cuts that are planned by the future National Government.

Hon Judith Tizard: Is this a National promise?

ALLAN PEACHEY: It is interesting that the barrage that met me from the Government side of the House last night is going to continue. I welcome that because, as I said to some of the gentlemen over there last night, I had some success in life before I came into politics. I have not come into politics as an alternative to being successful. Part of that success has been being able to write stuff, in the form of books and articles for journals and magazines, that other people actually find worth reading and enjoyable to read. That is one of the points.

When an author writes something, that is his or her intellectual property, and a lot of people do not actually appreciate that. There are people who think I keep stores of books in my car boot and elsewhere in my car, and that they are there just to be given out at will. Those things have value to an author, and this bill acknowledges that value. I for one welcome the announcement in Dr Cullen’s—no doubt—last Budget as Minister of Finance of an increase of $2 million in funding for authors over a number of years. Although that is minimal, at least it is a start.

Hon Trevor Mallard: His most recent Budget. He is at the mid-point of his career.

Sue Moroney: We love his Budgets. He has more Budgets to come than you have books.

ALLAN PEACHEY: Goodness gracious me, those members really are, Madam Assistant Speaker—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs): They are. They have woken up.

ALLAN PEACHEY: I could begin to feel a little intimidated here, but I will not. It is only Mr Mallard. Everybody knows that Mr Mallard is the last person I would be intimidated by. Anyway, to come back to the bill, which really is important, frankly, I think the authors of New Zealand deserve to be treated with a bit more respect, when we are debating this bill, than the members opposite are displaying.

I was talking about—

Hon Judith Tizard: Most authors do not have a large public salary to subsidise their writing.

ALLAN PEACHEY: I shall ignore that, Madam Assistant Speaker.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs): Keep going.

ALLAN PEACHEY: Those are the dying gasps of a dying Government. I just stress the importance of acknowledging the property right that authors hold. If we look through the history of this House, and if we look at the members who have been successful authors, we cannot help but reflect that that crowd over there pales into insignificance when compared with the greatest author to sit in this House—and he sat with Labour—John A Lee. Of course, John A Lee was a pretty upfront, honest sort of a guy. One of the great privileges in my life was to meet him in the late 1960s at Canterbury University. Those members do not want to know about authors like John A Lee, because in his book Simple on a Soapbox, a magnificent book, he exposed the reality of the inner workings of a socialist government. I certainly want to take the opportunity to acknowledge the contribution of members of this House who themselves have been authors, and who were not fortunate enough to benefit from the funding that is available to today’s authors.

There is another point that needs to be made, too.

Hon Lianne Dalziel: Please, that’s enough. Give up.

ALLAN PEACHEY: If the members opposite would just listen for a moment, and stop being so negative and critical in their comments, I would tell them that New Zealand is beginning to develop a significant literary tradition. It is only just coming.

Hon Judith Tizard: Oh, have you just discovered that?

ALLAN PEACHEY: Madam Assistant Speaker, I comment to you that in your final days in this House, presiding over a bunch of fourth-formers is probably not what you need. I will do my best to ignore them and stick with the bill .

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs): I would appreciate that.

ALLAN PEACHEY: I make the point that as New Zealand develops its literary tradition, the establishment of the public lending right is a significant step in the recognition of authors. Whether they are writing fiction or non-fiction, they contribute to New Zealand and what it means to live in New Zealand, and to an emergent literary tradition. On behalf of all authors, I acknowledge the importance of this work. [Interruption] The fourth form does not give up, Madam Assistant Speaker.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs): Just keep going.

ALLAN PEACHEY: It is very tempting to have a real crack at Mr Mallard, Madam Assistant Speaker, but he will keep.

I will pull together what I have been saying. On this side of the House, we are supporting the bill. We are a little disappointed, when we look at the history of it, that it has taken so long to get to this point. It is one more bill that is being rushed through under urgency, when I think we could have shown the authors of New Zealand a little more respect than to do that, but at least it is happening. I for one am delighted to support the bill. I am looking forward, as I say, to becoming a beneficiary of the legislation. I say to members that, who knows, the next book just may tell the truth about people like Trevor Mallard.

Bill read a second time.

Bills

Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill (No 2)

First Reading

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for the Environment): I move, That the Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a first time. At the appropriate time I will move that the bill be referred to the Primary Production Committee, and I thank the chair of that committee for his work on this general area.

Since the aquaculture reforms were enacted in December 2004, a number of issues with the legislation have arisen. These issues, relating to the Environment Court’s decision in SMW Consortium Ltd v Tasman District Council, were addressed in the Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill that has already been passed. This new bill, the Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill (No 2), aims to facilitate the creation of new aquaculture marine areas, known as AMAs, and aquaculture space.

The bill amends the Aquaculture Reform (Repeals and Transitional Provisions) Act 2004 to provide an opportunity for a person who has made an application under the Fisheries Act 1983 to negotiate an aquaculture agreement with the relevant commercial fishers, where the permit would have previously been declined due to its undue adverse affect on commercial fishing. The amendment brings transitional processes more into line with the current law for new aquaculture marine areas. A preliminary assessment is that the impact of aquaculture in the Tasman area suggests that a large part of the area proposed for aquaculture may have needed to be declined without this bill.

Experimental aquaculture is limited in scale of occupation to a maximum of 2 hectares and for a maximum of 5 years. Applications for experimental aquaculture must be assessed for any undue adverse effects on fishing under the Fisheries Act 1996 and be authorised by a resource consent granted under the Resource Management Act 1991.

The bill makes a number of other minor technical amendments. These include addressing issues with the time frame for review of deemed consents, amending the process for lodging aquaculture agreements, providing clarification that an area deemed to be an aquaculture management area remain an aquaculture management area unless expressly removed by a later plan change, and correcting definition problems in the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Act 2004.

The bill aims to ensure that the planning framework for aquaculture is up to the task in providing environmentally and socially sustainable aquaculture, and that it enables the industry’s potential to be realised. I commend the bill to the House.

PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei): The National Party will be supporting the Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill (No 2) being referred to the Primary Production Committee. We believe that it is worth supporting it and getting some progress in aquaculture.

I remind members of the facts I told the House yesterday regarding the lack of progress in marine farming throughout New Zealand. The Government and many others are heralding this industry as a billion-dollar industry, and the National Party hopes that that will be the case by 2025, but the reality is that the number of new aquaculture management areas—that is, new areas where marine farming has not occurred before—created in the last 3½ years has been zero. There have been no new significant marine farm areas created under the new legislation in 3½ years anywhere in New Zealand, and that is a disgrace. Have there been new marine farm areas? Yes, but they were created under the old legislation. There has been none for 3½ years under the new legislation, which is absolutely appalling. So we have a situation here where, clearly, the new legislation needs serious amendment.

We had the Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill, which I will call the No. 1 bill, a couple of days ago. It came back to the House after having been through the select committee, and National supported that bill because it made some incremental improvements to the legislation of 3½ years ago. We now have this legislation, which I will call the No. 2 bill, which makes some more incremental improvements, and we will support those. However, I must emphasise that these are incremental improvements. They are nothing like the reforms of the reforms that we need in order to get aquaculture up and going and becoming the billion-dollar industry that surely everyone wants it to become by 2025.

In moving on to the details of the bill, I point out that essentially the legislation does four things. It facilitates the creation of new aquaculture management areas, it addresses issues relating to invited private plan changes, it enables experimental aquaculture, and it provides for aquaculture agreements and transitional processes under the old fisheries legislation. I would like to touch on those last two points.

I think that one of the important issues is that, under the old legislation, areas where marine farming was proposed to take place were subject to an assessment by the Ministry of Fisheries to see whether that would have any effects on commercial fishing. If a marine-farming space is set up, one cannot generally fish in it. One cannot take a trawler or a longline through that area. It is very difficult to seek out any scallops or any other such fish underneath the marine farm. So the marine farm could very well have an impact on commercial fishing, recreational fishing, or customary fishing. Under the old marine-farming law a fisheries test was undertaken, and if the effect on commercial, recreational, or customary fishing was significant, the marine farm could not proceed, and that was the end of it. Essentially, if a marine farm is applied for, the question is asked as to whether it would affect commercial or recreational fishing; if it would, the marine farm does not proceed.

Under the proposed changes before us, if it was assessed that there would be an effect on, in this case, commercial fishing, and marine farming could not proceed, marine farmers can go to commercial fishers and say they know that their marine farm would have an impact on the commercial fishing business. Marine farmers could suggest doing a deal, negotiate in some way, or change the shape or the arrangement of the space they would occupy. They could change the seasonal occupation they have, or pay some sort of financial compensation to the commercial fishing business. The question is what deal the marine farmers could do with commercial fishers. If agreement is reached following negotiations, the marine farm can proceed; an aquaculture management area can be created, and marine farming can continue inside it. The commercial fishers will be happy because, clearly, they will have received some sort of compensation, or a change will have been made to the proposal that suits them. The aquaculturists will be happy because they have some marine-farming space to work on. Essentially, the provision gives them an opportunity, a way out, rather than there being just a big red light and words saying “No marine farming here”. I think that is a good change and National will be happy to support it.

The second change is an interesting one. At the moment, if people want to set up marine farming, it has to be inside what is called an aquaculture management area that is accepted by the regional council or unitary authority. The problem is that if someone wanted to experiment in aquaculture—say, someone wanted to try farming a new species of fish or shellfish; or, secondly, to try a new way of marine farming using new technology; or, thirdly, to investigate a new space that is not currently marine farmed but may be a very successful area as it is nutrient rich, which would be helpful for marine farming—at the moment he or she would have to go through the arduous process of going through the regional council or unitary authority and setting up an aquaculture management area. As I said at the commencement of my speech, it has been 3½ years since any new aquaculture management area has been set up, so even to experiment is very, very difficult indeed. This legislation allows people to do experimental aquaculture with a new species, in a new space, or using new technology.

This is a very interesting amendment because it entirely reflects my member’s bill, which is currently in the ballot. I was disappointed that my member’s bill was not taken out of the ballot and debated before the close of this 3-year Parliament.

Simon Power: Seek leave!

PHIL HEATLEY: I do not need to seek leave, because it appears in this No. 2 legislation. My member’s bill allowing experimental aquaculture to occur outside aquaculture management areas has, essentially, been photocopied, slipped nicely between the staples of this legislation, clipped up, and sold back to the National Party as a good idea. Do members know what we say over here? We say it is a great idea. It is an excellent idea. The fingerprints of Phil Heatley and the National Party are all over this bill and we support it.

What I did in my member’s bill, and it is reflected in this legislation that we are supporting tonight, was put some restrictions around experimental aquaculture. We cannot have marine farmers saying they want to do some experimental aquaculture outside the general rules, but that they want to use heaps of space and make it really commercial. That is not experimental at all. So we said that the area that the experimental aquaculture would occupy could not exceed 2 hectares, and the experimentation, if one likes—the study—could not be undertaken for more than 5 years. So there was a 5-year limit in terms of time frames and a 2-hectare limit in terms of the space it could occupy.

We also said the study needed to be alongside a research organisation, which we thought was quite a good idea. In that way, we could truly claim that in some way it was, in fact, experimental aquaculture. What the Minister for the Environment has done in the No. 2 bill in terms of the experimental aquaculture amendments is slightly different, which is fine.

We will be very interested for the new Parliament to look at this legislation—if it is decided that it will be carried over—and at the slight differences in approach between my member’s bill, which has essentially been slipped in here, and this legislation. Nevertheless, we will support this legislation being referrred to the Primary Production Committee. The National Party will be voting for it this evening, and we commend the Minister on even an incremental change.

ERIC ROY (National—Invercargill): I was looking for someone else to take a call on this important matter—

Nathan Guy: You’d think the Government would be into it. They’re running out of puff.

ERIC ROY: Yes, well I actually thought it was the Government’s bill. There was a reasonably abbreviated response from the Minister when he introduced this, and I was looking for something a little more full, because, being a little underdone on what is quite a complex bill, I was hoping for some elaboration. But I am very happy to talk conceptually about what this bill will do, given that the detail is quite complex.

The issue, quite simply, comes down to this. New Zealand has a significant advantage compared with the rest of the world in putting in place fisheries legislation in terms of our wild fisheries, but in terms of where we sit with the rest of the world and our role with agriculture, it has been the sunrise industry for about a decade. We are all waiting. When I went to a seminar about 6 or 7 years ago we were told that it would be a $2 billion industry by the year 2015. I think it has grown about 3 percent in that period. The nuts and bolts are that we are significantly behind. The Minister for the Environment, Trevor Mallard, is shaking his head. I ask the Minister what the figure is.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I can’t give it off the top of my head, but it is certainly more than that.

ERIC ROY: No, it is not very much more than that.

Hon Trevor Mallard: There has been good growth.

ERIC ROY: There has been minimal growth, and the Minister knows that. Not only that, but there have been some endemic problems that have not been addressed by this Government. We have had a situation that was largely what might be termed a gold rush, if we can say that. It is a spatial rush. Limited areas have been designated, people got in and registered, and some of those areas have been developed and some of them have not. In a way, we have not had the best possible ways of apportioning space to the industry, and in a lot of ways we have not best matched that space to the best species.

We had a significant number of difficulties around experimentation, and this is addressed to some degree in the bill. We have also had some issues around things like spat catching and being able to transfer spat into areas where the mussel industry has been operating as aquaculture. We have before us a No. 2 amendment bill. It is a kind of omnibus bill: it picks up four different Acts. There will have to be consequential legislation to these four different Acts, and I understand that at the end of the day this bill will be divided into four separate Acts. The select committee is keen to move forward and to progress this. The Minister nods his head; he knows—

Hon Trevor Mallard: I am just having a laugh because I thought the member was supporting it.

ERIC ROY: We are supporting it. In actual fact, my message to the Minister is quite clear: he has sat on his hands for too long. We have known about the Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill (No 2) for some months, yet it has just appeared on the last day of Parliament.

Hon Member: They had 9 years.

ERIC ROY: They had 9 long years. We heard the term “9 long years” frequently spoken today in Labour’s valedictory speeches. We have been in Opposition for 9 long years, and on the last day in urgency the bill is suddenly put in. We do not know the shape of the next Primary Production Committee, but the current one would have loved to get its teeth into this and sort out these issues—

Hon Trevor Mallard: Eric, I’ll just give you a comment. I wanted to do this as part of the first bill, but David Carter turned me down.

ERIC ROY: No, that was a separate issue. We needed to have this bill in well before that other bill. That was a specific issue, and the Minister knows that. We are supporting this legislation.

I am sure the select committee is looking forward to resolving some of these issues. I am not sure who the members will be, but the new select committee, with most probably a new chair and new membership, will have this bill to cut its teeth on. I just put out this little warning. Fisheries legislation is in some ways more complex than tax legislation. It is hugely difficult, so we do not want any shortcuts.

I say to the Minister, in the dying days of this Government, that we should have had this bill before now. We support it. We look forward to hearing the submissions and to progressing this omnibus bill, which will step forward—

Hon Trevor Mallard: Omnibus?

ERIC ROY: It is an omnibus bill; it says so in the explanatory note. We look forward to progressing it. Thank you.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs): Before I call the next speaker, who will be Dr Pita Sharples, can I just ask the House to settle down. Eric Roy kept on calling things out, which meant that Trevor Mallard kept contributing. It is two-sided. Can we just have a little bit of quiet.

Eric Roy: But it’s a debate!

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs): It is a debate in turns and speeches.

Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Māori Party): We are pleased that after many months of waiting we have had not just one but a whole series of amendments in two separate bills relating to the marine-farming rights and interests held by iwi in aquaculture. The Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill (No 2) is an omnibus bill amending the Resource Management Act 1991, the Fisheries Act 1996, the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Act 2004, and the Aquaculture Reform (Repeals and Transitional Provisions) Act 2004. The bill is important in the way it seeks to make progress on resolving iwi aquaculture claims in a manner consistent with the 1992 fisheries settlement.

The Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill (No 2) amends legislation to facilitate the creation of the new aquaculture management areas that everyone has been talking about. If the House hears a sigh of relief it is from the aquaculture industry, for whom, finally, the end is in sight. The goal of being a billion-dollar business by 2025 might actually come to fruition.

The bill does a whole lot of things that we in the Māori Party are pleased to support. It responds to issues relating to invited private plan changes, it will enable experimental aquaculture, and it supports environmental monitoring and other technical amendments relating to the 2004 aquaculture reforms. We see these developments as very positive indications of a partnership with the aquaculture industry.

Yesterday the Māori Party brought to the House the tremendous possibilities inherent in the project envisaged for the seafood and aquaculture sector in Te Tau Ihu. The project contemplated by Wakatu Incorporation is one of many projects that we know will drive innovation in aquaculture and create a reputable profile internationally and at home that places aquaculture firmly as a growth industry.

We know that aquaculture has incredible potential for business growth and prosperity, and we believe that the amendments in this bill may help stimulate the industry to achieve these outcomes. But there is much more at stake than simply clarifying the policy intent of the aquaculture reforms. The bill will correct problems with the current law and improve operation for businesses, iwi, and local government. In doing so, we can be optimistic that the role of tangata whenua in aquaculture reforms may finally be treated with respect by the Crown.

The Waitangi Tribunal, of course, had concluded that the original proposed aquaculture reforms would breach Te Tiriti o Waitangi. Its finding was that Māori have an interest in marine farming that should be encompassed within the rights of the coastal marine area. It concluded also that marine farming represents a taonga protected by Te Tiriti o Waitangi. Given such an important Treaty context, it is, of course, disappointing that the bill lacks a Treaty clause, but we are ever hopeful that that will occur during the select committee consideration of this bill.

The Māori Party has been following the developments in aquaculture closely. Many different aspects to the framework for aquaculture activities should be considered. The one that is frequently mentioned is, of course, the oft-quoted statistic that New Zealand’s farmed fish and shellfish production is now worth $390 million a year. Tangata whenua have every right to benefit from that success just as much as any other New Zealander, but there are other additional responsibilities and obligations that we as Māori consider to be an essential part of the discussion around aquaculture. There are significant cultural aspects for Māori in aquaculture development in the context of kaitiakitanga—that is, our guardianship role in relation to the management over marine resources.

We welcome the straightforward way in which this bill describes how aquaculture areas can be created. The bill specifies that aquaculture management areas can be created by developing a regional coastal plan that provides for aquaculture management areas under the Resource Management Act 1991, by the interim aquaculture management area process set out in the Aquaculture Reform (Repeals and Transitional Provisions) Act 2004, and by deeming marine farms approved under old legislation as aquaculture management areas under section 45 of the Aquaculture Reform (Repeals and Transitional Provisions) Act 2004. Well, perhaps I will need to revise my original description of the process as being straightforward! But it is positive that these details around operative regional coastal plans, coastal permits, and other technical interpretations are at least set out in the legislation for all to see.

Finally, we make reference to the inclusion in the bill of environmental monitoring—using marine organisms to monitor the state of the marine environment. This section in the bill will be of particular relevance to the iwi of Tasman Bay, namely Te Ātiawa, Ngāti Rārua, Ngāti Kōata, Ngāti Tama, Ngāti Rārua - Ātiawa Iwi Trust, and Wakatu Incorporation. The House will recall that these iwi were affected by the invasive South African brown mussel, which was discovered following the de-fouling of the oil rig in Tasman Bay last December. We in the Māori Party raised that event in the House earlier this year and helped to raise the profile of the need to ensure a more rigorous scrutiny of biosecurity standards for the aquaculture industry. Although efforts to keep Aotearoa free of invasive horticultural and agricultural pests have been extremely tight, it appears that quite a different benchmark has been allowed for the aquaculture industry.

I want to commend the iwi of Te Tau Ihu, particularly Ngāti Kōata, which has applied pressure on the Government to initiate biosecurity standards that would apply to aquaculture. It is obviously good that the bill provides for environmental monitoring to take place not just in aquaculture management areas but also in the wider marine environment.

We believe that this bill will assist in the advancement of the rangatiratanga as demonstrated by organisations such as Wakatu Incorporation and its Horoirangi initiative. We believe the amendments will enable research and innovation to take place in the industry. They will allow experimental aquaculture to take place outside aquaculture management areas, and in doing so they will support the livelihood of many of our iwi and whānau involved in aquaculture. We support this bill. Thank you.

COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura): Yet again another aquaculture bill has come before the House, and one gets the impression that it is getting all too difficult for the present Government. However, I take comfort from the direction of the National spokesperson on aquaculture, Phil Heatley, that National supports the Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill (No 2).

It is concerning that it all looks so very easy to sort out, but, as articulated by Eric Roy, this type of legislation is more complex than the taxation legislation—and the taxation legislation certainly is complex. It is very hard to think that we will sort out existing-use rights and competing-use rights with legislation as basic as this, as the explanatory note denotes. I think we are dreaming.

However, it is important that we support this industry, and the wider industry, in the context that aquaculture is operating in a public space. It is operating in an area where people have businesses and they have ownership of quota. It is very complex. There is also that expectation that overlays everything: the right or the privilege of the recreational fisher. It is in that context and within that environment that we are endeavouring to reach the goal of having an aquaculture industry worth $1 billion by 2025. This bill, in a small way, will facilitate progress.

I was quite interested when the Mayor of Marlborough District came to me yesterday and asked: “Colin, have you passed any bills for aquaculture lately?”. I scratched my head. I knew there were a couple of bills coming up but I said: “No, nothing really specific.” But obviously people are very, very interested to see how the way forward unfolds. Aquaculture got started in Marlborough, back in 1971. If we look at the laws we will be making minor modifications to, the Resource Management Act 1991, the Fisheries Act 1996, the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Act 2004, and the Aquaculture Reform (Repeals and Transitional Provisions) Act 2004, we will get an idea of how complex the way forward has been.

Certainly, as the member from the Māori Party Pita Sharples has mentioned, the aquaculture industry itself is worth somewhere in the region of $300 million to $400 million, and the industry in the top of the South Island probably is worth the better part of $300 million - odd—it is a very, very important industry. But for the councils concerned the way forward has been incredibly complex. I think that highlights the difficulty with the general basis of the legislation; we are trying to just put sticking plasters over a massive problem. Really, what will sort this issue out—although this bill will go some way—is looking at the legislation completely. The bill effectively amends the legislation; it creates the opportunity for the establishment of new aquaculture management areas, it addresses issues relating to the invited private plan change process, it enables experimental aquaculture, and it provides for aquaculture agreements and transitional processes under the old fisheries legislation.

Again, I make the point to the House that the bill is quite complex, which is reflected in the very fundamental underlying feature of the general legislation. One cannot go past making the point that under Labour over the last 3½ years, absolutely nothing has been achieved. It is a serious concern that iwi in the top of the South Island have high expectations of their Treaty settlement. I recall the foreshore and seabed issue emanated out of absolute frustration. The Ngāti Apa people, having received a finding from the Treaty settlement people, were so far back in the queue that they had to do something to try to halt the way that aquaculture space was being allocated. I hope that as settlements with the various iwi go forward, we will see aquaculture space allocated, whether in the form of cash or as actual space.

The bill talks about Tasman Bay, and it talks about how the process might be improved to find space. There is the issue of undue effects on commercial fishers, and if that is the case, we have to find a way through. The bill effectively sets up the ability to negotiate a way through, and to see whether there is an opportunity for marine farming or spat catching permits, under the Fisheries Act 1983.

The councils will watch this development with great interest because what we are talking about here is overlapping or conflicting resource use, and we have to find a way through it. The explanatory note explains that issue quite well when it talks about overlapping and conflicting resource use: “The Bill enables councils to hold an expression of interest process to identify spatial overlaps. Where overlaps are identified, competing interests will be given a period to negotiate with each other to resolve the competition …”. However, if it does not get resolved, it becomes quite important that under this legislation there is a default situation.

When submissions come in to the Primary Production Committee it will be very interesting to see how robust that debate will be, because the explanatory note states: “Where negotiation fails, the default is that a financial tender will be used to choose between expressions of interest that relate to the same space.” I am sure that the comment will certainly raise the ire of one or two people who have a very strong view. I am sure a number of people will express a view on that in their submissions to the select committee.

From the councils’ point of view, the bill does provide an opportunity for coastal permits for experimental agriculture activities, but those will be issued for a maximum of 5 years with no right of renewal. That scenario could potentially lead to a lack of certainty for the person who had put up that investment. Given that level of uncertainty, I ask members whether we would be able to guarantee that people will put their hands in their pockets to invest.

National will be supporting this bill being referred to the select committee. However, the underlying basis of it all is that under Labour nothing has been achieved. We are here now at 10.22 p.m. under urgency and a bill of this nature has come forward. It is too little, too late. It will take a National Government to sort this issue out, and I look forward to that opportunity.

JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa): My colleague Colin King comes from the top end of the South Island where aquaculture was introduced. By my recollection that was more than 30 years ago, in about 1971, and the formation of mussel farms caused a huge row. Subsequently the industry has become very well-established both in Queen Charlotte Sound and in Pelorus Sound. Salmon have now also been introduced. They swim happily in a number of locations in the sounds, and New Zealanders traversing Tory Channel on the ferries can see them.

I rise to support the Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill (No 2). I move from the oily calm waters of the Marlborough Sounds to the rather wild waters of my electorate that stretch from Turakirae Head in the southern North Island right through Palliser Bay, past Ngawī, and almost to Cape Kidnappers. One might feel that this area does not have the potential for aquaculture. But I promise Mr Mallard that I have had constituents approach me over the last 3 years of this Government to express their concern. They say that the Minister of Aquaculture, Jim Anderton, has delivered nothing for 3 whole years.

Hon Trevor Mallard: He is not the Minister of aquaculture.

JOHN HAYES: He is the Minister of Fisheries. The people in my electorate have the technology to grow pāua. There is now the technology in my electorate to fatten kina. People have developed a feed formula that doubles the weight of kina roe in 30 days or less. That is hugely significant because kina roe command a very, very high price on the Japanese market.

It is for these reasons that I rise in support of this legislation. The bill provides for the facilitation and the creation of new aquaculture management areas. I hope that that will allow my constituents to unlock the potential of the Wairarapa electorate—particularly its coastline—and to establish new industries that will provide employment, processing, and foreign exchange.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I am sure Denise would have knocked on the Minister’s door by now.

JOHN HAYES: Well, she might have knocked on it last time, but she did not succeed, did she, I say to Mr Mallard. Nevertheless, the people in my electorate have faith in me to represent their views, and that is why I am supporting this legislation. I want to make sure that in the first 100 days of the next Government we will amend the Resource Management Act. One of the reasons that there have been no new aquaculture proposals is the complications of the Resource Management Act, which is totally stymying aquaculture experimentation and research activity, and the establishment of an aquaculture industry in my electorate.

I am also pleased that this bill will provide for transitional processes under the old fisheries legislation, because the whole arrangement has been deadlocked for the past 3 years. My constituents have endeavoured to establish aquaculture projects under one piece of legislation, and they will now be confronted with this new bill, which is very complex. In fact, the whole fishing legislation is totally complicated, I say to Mr Mallard. Progress in creating new marine-farming space has been incredibly slow, and Mr Mallard should stand up and take a bow for inactivity. I do not quite know why the Minister has collected his salary for the last 3½ years. His inactivity has held up the settlement to hand over to Māori 20 percent settlement of all new space. Māori communities—and there are plenty in my electorate—have been stymied by his inactivity as well.

Both these pieces of legislation simply secure the current status of the existing legislation, but we have to see them as interim measures only. As my colleague Phil Heatley has said, the legislation is only a sticking plaster, a temporary solution to consolidate some mechanism for moving forward.

Colin King: We cannot make something crooked straight.

JOHN HAYES: No, we cannot, and when the Government changes in about 7 weeks’ time, we will certainly be busy addressing those problems, and unlocking the economic potential of our coastal areas. I would like to finish by simply saying that this bill will have a big impact in my electorate once it has been modified by a new Government.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Primary Production Committee.

Bills

Whakarewarewa and Roto-a-Tamaheke Vesting Bill

First Reading

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Minister of Māori Affairs): I move, That the Whakarewarewa and Roto-a-Tamaheke Vesting Bill be now read a first time. At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be referred to the Māori Affairs Committee, and that the committee report back to the House by the end of March 2009.

This bill vests the fee simple estate in Whakarewarewa Valley and Roto-a-Tamaheke Reserve land in Ngāti Whakaue and Tūhourangi Ngāti Wāhiao. The iwi partners will collectively become the landowners of this area, subject to the usual protections. For clarity, the area comprises the Whakarewarewa Thermal Springs Reserve, the Southern Arikikapakapa Reserve, and the Roto-a-Tamaheke Reserve. These lands surround the Whakarewarewa Village. The village has always been in Māori ownership and is not affected by this bill. The lands include the Pōhutu Geyser and other iconic tourist attractions. The Whakarewarewa Thermal Springs Reserve and the Roto-a-Tamaheke Reserve will be transferred from the Crown to the trustees of the Te Pūmautanga o Te Arawa Trust under the affiliate Te Arawa iwi and hapū legislation. As agreed by the iwi parties, the Whakarewarewa Thermal Springs Reserve and the Roto-a-Tamaheke Reserve will transfer from the Te Pūmautanga o Te Arawa Trust trustees to the Whakarewarewa joint trust the day after the affiliate Te Arawa iwi and hapū legislation passes.

It is very satisfying indeed to be able to promote a bill that recognises the cultural, traditional, historical, and spiritual importance of an area to the iwi. The bill continues the positive progress made by this Government and by iwi across the Bay of Plenty region in strengthening the Crown-Māori relationship, both through Treaty settlements and through contemporary initiatives like this one. The bill also provides for the more generalised interests of all New Zealanders. The Whakarewarewa joint trust has been established for the purpose of administering these lands, which will retain their recreation reserve status under the Reserves Act 1977. The leases to the New Zealand Māori Arts and Crafts Institute will continue, and the protections of conservation values contained within the Reserves Act will remain.

Before I go on, I acknowledge the leadership of Ngāti Whakaue and Tūhourangi Ngāti Wāhiao representatives. E mihi kau ana i a koutou, e Ānaru, e Rangi, koutou katoa ngā whaea. On 1 April 2008 iwi representatives presented Ministers with their proposal to remove the lands from the affiliate Te Arawa iwi and hapū legislation and vest them in a joint trust of the iwi partners. A number of representative entities are involved, and I pause to acknowledge each of them: Te Pūmautanga o Te Arawa Trust, Pukeroa-Ōruawhata Trust, Ngāti Whakaue Lands Trust, Te Kotahitanga o Ngāti Whakauē, the Tūhourangi Tribal Authority, and the Rāhui Trust. Those entities came together to progress the successful resolution of a range of issues raised during the transfer negotiations, so that this bill could be finalised for introduction into the House. I congratulate them on their leadership and unity of purpose on this matter.

A large number of hapū and iwi entities were involved in this initiative, representing a diverse range of interests. This meant that the negotiations for the transfer of these lands were always going to require the determination, goodwill, and generosity of those iwi and hapū representatives. The common and shared interest of those groups in this area, and the whanaungatanga expressed by their leadership, meant that this initiative was achievable. I commend them for that.

For the purpose of this bill, Tūhourangi Ngāti Wāhiao are defined as a single entity. A small number of iwi members asked that Tūhourangi and Ngāti Wāhiao be separated for the purposes of this bill. The Māori Affairs Committee considered that issue during the hearings on the Affiliate Te Arawa Iwi and Hapu Claims Settlement Bill. The select committee report back to the House did not recommend that Tūhourangi Ngāti Wāhiao be separated in this instance. I am satisfied that Tūhourangi Ngāti Wāhiao have expressed a desire to be represented as a single entity, through both their endorsement of the vesting agreement and their agreement to this bill. The bill also provides for an independent mana whenua determination process, which I will talk about shortly. But, overall, this bill provides for Tūhourangi and Ngāti Wāhiao to determine their beneficial interests, and does not constrain them.

The bill, of course, represents more than a simple land transfer from the Crown to Māori, subject to the provisions of the Reserves Act 1977. The wider motivations for the Crown and the iwi negotiators included an agreement to vest the fee simple estate in those reserve lands outside the Treaty settlement process. By so doing, the mana of the land of the people of Ngāti Whakaue and Tūhourangi Ngāti Wāhiao will be recognised, and a stronger Crown-Māori relationship can continue to be built. Taken together with the pending successful conclusion of the affiliate Te Arawa iwi and hapū legislation and the Central North Island Iwi Collective Treaty settlements, this bill will position Ngāti Whakaue and Tūhourangi Ngāti Wāhiao to build a better future for their people, and will provide a foundation for the better realisation of their potential as Māori in their rohe hau kāinga.

This bill will give effect to an agreement signed by the Crown, Ngāti Whakaue, Tūhourangi Ngāti Wāhiao, and, at a later date, the trustees of Te Pūmautanga o Te Arawa Trust. With 34 clauses, the bill itself is not overly long. Its contents, however, reflect the complexity of transferring this kind of Crown land to Māori. It is situated at the intersection of neighbouring hapū and iwi. It has well-known iconic value to the country as a whole and to tourists who visit the area. The bill will transfer the land to a joint trust that is representative of Ngāti Whakaue and Tūhourangi Ngāti Wāhiao. The agreement also recognises the wider significance of the land to the public generally.

To ensure that hapū and iwi have a way of determining their interest in the land, the bill enables the trustees to determine the beneficial entitlement to the fee simple estate in the land. The trust deed therefore includes a procedure for determining the beneficial entitlement to the reserves and the possible transfer of some, or all, of that land to the appropriate entities. As reflected in the vesting agreement, the Crown has acknowledged that the hapū of Tūhourangi Ngāti Wāhiao and Ngāti Whakaue have the right to have their claims to the beneficial ownership of the Whakarewarewa Valley land and the Roto-a-Tamaheke Reserve independently determined. That may result in the subdivision of the reserves into smaller parcels in recognition of the particular interests of iwi and hapū, if that is what they wish.

The bill provides that the administering body of the reserves will be the trustees of the Whakarewarewa joint trust, who represent Ngāti Whakaue and Tūhourangi Ngāti Wāhiao. The trustees will become the lessees and will receive the rental proceeds from the leases to the New Zealand Māori Arts and Crafts Institute, to administer them on behalf of the people. The bill is significant because the vesting will recognise the mana of the iwi parties to the Whakarewarewa Valley and Roto-a-Tamaheke lands. Iwi will lead the process through which their more specific interests in the lands will be reflected in the future. For those reasons, the bill should proceed without delay to the Māori Affairs Committee and be reported back to the House by the end of March 2009. That will allow the select committee sufficient time to receive submissions on the bill after the Christmas break. I commend the bill to the House.

Hon TAU HENARE (National): I start by saying that the briefing paper I received on the Whakarewarewa and Roto-a-Tamaheke Vesting Bill is pretty straightforward and there do not appear to be any fish-hooks. But when I look closely at the background to the bill, there are some questions that my colleagues and I, and those on the Māori Affairs Committee, might like to ask when the new committee is established after the election. The briefing paper states that the Whakarewarewa Valley land and the Roto-a-Tamaheke Reserve were acquired by the Crown from Ngāti Whakaue, Tūhourangi, and Ngāti Wāhiao in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. That begs the question of what was paid for and how the land was acquired. Was it paid for, was it stolen, did the people at home say: “Please, ‘Mr Crown’, can you look after it for us because we’re not in a position to look after it.”? Those are the sorts of questions that I would like answered.

In reading through the briefing paper, it seems that although there is the transfer of the fee simple title in these reserves, they will remain as reserves for a long, long time into the future. They will always be reserves, even though the landlord may have changed hands. But, in effect, I think the bill is a bit of a Clayton’s deal. The fee simple title has been given back, but one cannot really do anything with it.

Hon Parekura Horomia: Yes, you can.

Hon TAU HENARE: That is good; the Minister says one can do something with it. That is fine, if that is the effect. But it looks as though, from the briefing paper that I have been given from the Minister of Māori Affairs’ office—

Pita Paraone: What?

Hon TAU HENARE: Yes, a briefing paper from the Minister of Māori Affairs’ office—I do not know how I got it, but I got it. It must be one of those things that slipped off the back of the trolley.

Simon Power: Got it from Trevor’s office.

Hon TAU HENARE: Yes, I got it from Trevor Mallard’s office. But all kidding aside, the briefing paper says that the land will continue to be reserves under the Reserves Act. If that is true, then I would be of the opinion that people cannot do anything with it other than what is allowed for under the Reserves Act. We may have to tidy that up and find out for real what people can do with the land that has been handed back.

I will not take up too much more time, other than to reply to the point in the Minister’s speech about Tūhourangi Ngāti Wāhiao—here we go again. But the funny thing is that on page 1 of the briefing paper, it states “Ngāti Whakaue, Tūhourangi-Ngāti Wāhiao”, which is different from what is on page 4, which states “Tūhourangi Ngāti Wāhiao”. I know that this is a real minor point, and that I must thank our kaumātua for pointing this out. They did not bail me up outside, but they saw me waiting for my other half, and they instructed me on the whakapapa of Wāhiao and Tūhourangi. So I thank them very much, and it is all clear—ko ātea. But I still have a problem with why there is a hyphen between the names of the two iwi on page 1 and then there is no hyphen on page 4, but just a straight “Tūhourangi Ngāti Wāhiao”.

The great thing about this is that we have gone through the debates in the other two bills and maybe it will be one of the chores of the next Māori Affairs Committee to delve deeper into—

Pita Paraone: It’ll be the same one.

Hon TAU HENARE: That is highly unlikely, brother—highly unlikely.

Pita Paraone: It might have a new chairman.

Hon TAU HENARE: Well, we might have a new chairman.

Pita Paraone: But Dave will be there.

Hon TAU HENARE: For that to happen, I digress—[Interruption] I will not go there. That is one of those issues that maybe the next Māori Affairs Committee can delve into.

I would question the paragraph on page 3 of the briefing paper asking whether the bill is part of a Treaty settlement. It states in the briefing paper that, no, it is not. I wonder why it is not part of an overall Treaty package. What is the reason for it? Is it just because the Crown is feeling rather benevolent and has said: “OK, you guys. You can have this.”, or what was the reason? It does not say in the briefing paper.

Hon Mita Ririnui: It’s the right thing to do.

Hon TAU HENARE: Oh, it is the right thing to do. So why was it not done in the first 9 years of this Labour Government? Oh, I get it. Now it is all—like I said before—ko ātea. I am clear now as to why the Government is doing it so late in the piece.

Hon Mita Ririnui: Because you didn’t.

Hon TAU HENARE: Oh, the question is why we did not do it. Well, I might even ask why we did not fight in the Crimean War, for goodness’ sake! Those members are in the Government. One would have thought that there was a better answer than: “Well, why didn’t you do it?”. In fact, I will give a reply to that question. Why did we not do it? Actually, I did not even think about it. At least the answer to that question from me is an honest answer, an upfront answer, but this bill is all about trying to curry favour. That is all it is. Because if it is not part of a Treaty settlement, then what is it for? Maybe I was a bit harsh. Maybe I am being a bit harsh. But maybe it is not part of a Treaty settlement because if it was, then the value of the reserves in question would have gone against the value of the whole Treaty package, and they would have gone over it, and it would have had an impact on the ratchet clauses both in the Ngāi Tahu legislation and the Tainui legislation. Maybe that is why it is not part of the Treaty legislation. Oh yeah, that is right. Anyway, in a nutshell, that is the Whakarewarewa and Roto-a-Tamaheke Vesting Bill.

Going back a bit, I congratulate Te Arawa in general. It is not their fault that this bill has been so late in coming. It is not their fault that there is an election in 6½ weeks’ time. Again, I offer my congratulations on their seizing the opportunity, but I will have to ask some questions. We will not be voting against this bill; we will be voting for it to go to the select committee, so that the select committee can ask, and maybe receive, some answers from the officials and the Minister in charge—whoever that may be—in the coming months.

Pita Paraone: It’s not going to be you.

Hon TAU HENARE: Oh, it is not going to be me. So now we have the matakite from Ngāpuhi. He even knows who will be the Minister. Well, well, I am astounded by my tuakana’s ability to get out that crystal ball and see who the Minister will be. If it is not me, well, who cares? This ain’t about me; this is about a bill that needs questioning. That is what we will do, and that is what this House will do, come the select committee debate. Kia ora.

METIRIA TUREI (Green): The Green Party will be supporting the Whakarewarewa and Roto-a-Tamaheke Vesting Bill at its first reading, knowing that the select committee will not be considering it for some time. On the face of it, this looks like very simple and basic legislation, but it is actually more complex than that, as most settlements are.

I have some concerns that the Minister has not set out. Some of those concerns were expressed by members of, particularly, Ngāti Wāhiao about the process by which this bill came about. I have been sent some information and have been reading documents about concerns around the process by which this legislation, this deal, was endorsed. I understand that there are some real concerns about the eligibility difference between the iwi who are involved in the transfer of this land, concerns about the endorsement hui, and also concerns about the postal vote discrepancies. There was concern that some of the owners of the blocks have been excluded from the endorsement process because they are not involved members of Te Pūmautanga o Te Arawa. I understand there is a request for the option of a separate registered role for Ngāti Whakaue, Tūhourangi, and Ngāti Wāhiao, so that there can be another go at developing a proper process.

I do not know the full background behind those concerns, but I do know that the Crown very easily accepts poor process when dealing with settlements. I believe, and the Green Party believes, that the Crown must not just be satisfied that there was a process, but that it should also be satisfied that the process itself was transparent, fair, and just for all of those who are affected by the decisions. I think that it is quite legitimate for the members of the iwi and hapū involved to raise concerns about that, and, generally speaking, the select committee considers those concerns and takes them seriously. It is extremely important that the mana whenua of the land in question in any settlement—this one included—have the fullest confidence that for them the process was a just, fair, and legitimate one. Of course, we know from many of the settlements that we have dealt with in this House, and from many that we have looked at as select committee members through the last few years, that often the processes involved are very poor.

It is interesting to note that because the select committee will not be considering this bill for possibly a month or two or three, depending on the outcome of the election, the Government has time to address the concerns that have been set out. It does have time to go back to those who have raised legitimate concerns, to work through the process with them, to come back to the select committee when it has its meetings on this bill, and to advise us on the outcome of those discussions and how it seeks to remedy the concerns about the process. There is nothing illegitimate about doing that. It makes perfect sense to do that. The Crown has the resources to go and talk with people, and in fact that is the whole point of the Treaty settlement process. It is intended to enable the development of much better relationships between the Crown and iwi. That is often forgotten in the furore about land and money, but actually, in part, the process is about strengthening relationships, and if the processes by which settlement bills come about are unfair, unjust, or exclude those who should not be excluded, then the relationship between the Crown and iwi is in peril, and the whole point of the settlement legislation is put in peril. It cannot be a full and final settlement if the process itself is unfair.

Having said that, I say other concerns will come before the select committee. Those who have negotiated and agreed to this legislation will have worked very hard to bring it to the House at this stage. It is very difficult to work one’s way through a settlement process. I know this is not a settlement bill, but it is related to settlements and it is the same process, essentially. So their work and their efforts have to be respected, and it can take months and months, years and years in some cases, for this kind of legislation to come before the House.

So the Green Party will look very carefully at the results of this legislation at the select committee. We will listen carefully to all those who make submissions. We strongly urge the Government to engage with the members of Ngāti Wāhiao in particular, and with all those involved in the settlement, to make sure it really is a fair and just process. That is not costly; that is what building honourable Treaty relationships is all about. Kia ora.

Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National): At nearly 5 to 11 at night, I am pleased to take a call on the Whakarewarewa and Roto-a-Tamaheke Vesting Bill. We have heard the Minister set out its provisions. The Whakarewarewa Valley Land and the Roto-a-Tamaheke Reserve are of significant cultural, traditional, historical, and spiritual importance to Ngāti Whakaue and Tūhourangi Ngāti Wāhiao. The Whakarewarewa Valley Land comprises the Whakarewarewa Thermal Springs Reserve and the Southern Arikikapakapa Reserve.

The bill provides for the fee simple estate in the Whakarewarewa Valley land and the Roto-a-Tamaheke Reserve to be vested as follows. The fee simple estate in the Southern Arikikapakapa Reserve is vested in the Crown. The fee simple estate in the Whakarewarewa Thermal Springs Reserve was vested in the Crown, but under the affiliate Te Arawa legislation it is being vested in the Te Pūmautanga trustees, and the fee simple estate in the Roto-a-Tamaheke Reserve was vested in the Crown, but under the affiliate Te Arawa legislation it is being vested in the Te Pūmautanga trustees.

I will make some observations on a couple of matters that my colleague Tau Henare raised. I have just recited what the bill provides for; looking further into the bill, we see that the statement is made—certainly in the briefing papers—that this bill does not form part of any Treaty settlement but, rather, it is intended to assist in building healthy relationships between the Crown and Ngāti Whakaue and Tūhourangi Ngāti Wāhiao. I am as curious as he is as to what that basis is all about. There is nothing wrong at all in the Crown’s wish to build strong and healthy relationships with any iwi, but does that mean that in future, as we go around the country settling claims, we might effect certain transfers just because we need to build these relationships?

I would have thought that a briefing paper might propose a better and more transparent reason for these transfers than that. I would have thought that maybe the most obvious reason for the transfer is that these are traditional lands. They were held by the iwi—presumably, by Ngāti Wāhiao, maybe—and it makes sense in this day and age, when the Crown is settling a comprehensive claim with Te Arawa interests, that these traditional lands, or reserves, are returned to the iwi. I am as curious as my colleague Tau Henare is to understand how that plank, that basis, can assist in building healthy relationships between the Crown and Ngāti Whakaue and Tūhourangi Ngāti Wāhiao.

I congratulate Ngāti Whakaue and Tūhourangi Ngāti Wāhiao—no doubt about it. They have been beavering away, working very hard for some years now, to try to settle all those issues that have long been on the table for them and to seek some conclusion to their grievances. There is no doubt that the Whakarewarewa Reserve has been a matter of contention for them.

Maybe the Minister needs to have someone prepare the briefing papers better. I certainly thank the Minister for sending them along to us, but it just does not hold true, and it is not necessarily a good basis on which the Crown might be being seen to transfer lands held by the Crown, when indeed there are more valid reasons for the Crown to do this sort of thing. In any event, that issue is raised.

This bill will be referred to a select committee, the Māori Affairs Committee, and that committee will have plenty of time to explore that issue along with other issues that are raised in the bill. Then there is the issue of the status of the Whakarewarewa Valley lands and Roto-a-Tamaheke as a recreation reserve. What will their status be? The bill provides that the Southern Arikikapakapa Reserve, Whakarewarewa Thermal Springs Reserve, and the Roto-a-Tamaheke Reserve will remain recreational reserves under the Reserves Act 1977. On the one hand these reserves are being transferred to the iwi, yet I ask whether this is another case like—

Christopher Finlayson: Mauao.

Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU: —yes—the Mauao reserve in Tauranga. Is this another case like that, where the Crown, on the one hand, gives, but, on the other hand, takes? [Interruption] Well, it does not matter for the moment. I am not really asking for an answer tonight. But I just raise the issue, because it does seem odd. We have these reserves, which have these deep cultural, spiritual, and historical associations, and on the face of it they ought to be in the hands of the iwi anyway—in the ownership of the iwi. We still do not know how the Crown got them. That is not set out in this bill. That is another issue, as well.

It is a bill that obviously sets out to return areas of land of deep significance to the iwi, yet at the same time it raises issues that I find rather interesting, particularly at 11 o’clock at night, after being in the House for 15 hours. It is the sixth bill with Māori interests in it that we have had, and I suppose that at least if it raises these questions, it does help to keep me on my feet and keep me going until midnight. It is an interesting question. We are giving with one hand, and we seem to be taking it back with the other.

These are reserves, anyway. What the iwi will be able to do with them will be limited, as well. I think that between now and when this bill surfaces again, in the new year, even though there might be a change of personnel—hopefully, there will be—those questions will be answered.

The only other matter I wish to raise before I resume my seat is that it will not be any surprise to the koroua sitting in the gallery that some of us have had pleas, requests, from certain interests in Ngāti Wāhiao who see this area as theirs traditionally, and they say that if anyone has a deep association with the area, then it is them. The issue that was raised earlier in the affiliate legislation raises itself here as well, where we have the coupling of Tūhourangi Ngāti Wāhiao, and of course that is of deep concern to some. I know the koroua understand that. The issue will be raised again here and it will be explored again in the select committee, as well.

But having said those things—and I have said it already but I will say it again—I do congratulate the Te Arawa elders who are in the gallery. I also congratulate them on coming here late at night, at 11 o’clock, to support the first reading of this bill. It is another part of the settlement that their affiliate has negotiated with the Crown. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa, pō mārie.

PITA PARAONE (NZ First): Tēnā koe Mr Deputy Speaker, engari i mua i te haere tonu o tēnei pire, e mihi tonu ki a koutou ngā rangatira mai i Te Arawa. Ahakoa kei waenganui pō i puta mai te pire nei engari, ko te mea nui kua puta mai.

[Greetings to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, but before I continue on this bill I acknowledge the leaders of Te Arawa. Although this bill has emerged in the middle of the night, the main thing is that it has appeared.]

I am acknowledging the presence of the elders from Te Arawa in the gallery at this time. I said that irrespective of what time of day this Whakarewarewa and Roto-a-Tamaheke Vesting Bill has come before the House, the main thing I am sure, not only for myself and the New Zealand First Party, but for the elders of Te Arawa, is that it has come before the House. This indicates that the bill is now part of the process, and subsequent to this debate it will be referred to the Māori Affairs Committee for consideration. This is not a settlement bill, as a number of speakers who preceded me have mentioned, but it is associated with settlement bills and in particular with the affiliate Te Arawa legislation that was passed earlier today. New Zealand First will certainly be supporting this bill going to the select committee because it will allow those people who are concerned about a number of issues to bring them to the select committee for consideration. I know that representatives of the Ngāti Wāhiao rūnanga attempted to make an appointment to see me today, but unfortunately, due to the number of legislative items today that concerned Māori, I was unable to meet with them. But essentially the concern is in terms of Tūhourangi Ngāti Wāhiao. I think that many of the concerns expressed during the hearings on the affiliate Te Arawa legislation were a prelude to this particular bill, and that is the issue of Tūhourangi Ngāti Wāhiao.

As I mentioned during the debate on those bills, this is not an issue, I believe, for this House to debate; rather, it is an issue to be resolved by the iwi themselves. The Whakarewarewa Valley land and the Roto-a-Tamaheke Reserve are of significant cultural, traditional, historical, and spiritual importance to Ngāti Whakaue and Tūhourangi Ngāti Wāhiao. They comprise the Whakarewarewa Thermal Springs Reserve and the Southern Arikikapakapa Reserve. The fee simple estate in the Whakarewarewa Valley land and the Roto-a-Tamaheke Reserve is vested as follows: the fee simple estate in the Southern Arikikapakapa Reserve is vested in the Crown. The fee simple estate in the Whakarewarewa Thermal Springs Reserve was vested in the Crown, but under the affiliate Te Arawa legislation it has been vested in the Te Pūmautanga o Te Arawa trustees. The fee simple estate in the Roto-a-Tamaheke Reserve was vested in the Crown, but under the affiliate Te Arawa legislation it has been vested in the Te Pūmautanga o Te Arawa trustees.

I do not think there is too much more that needs to be said during this first reading; suffice it to say that there is no doubt of the iconic position that this piece of land—I should not say “piece” of land, because it really is of cultural and traditional historical significance to Ngāti Whakaue and Tūhourangi Ngāti Wāhiao—plays in the wider economy of our country. In fact, because of these lands many of our overseas visitors come to New Zealand to enjoy the scenery that this area provides not only for visitors from overseas but also for many New Zealanders. I think it is an indication of the contribution that Ngāti Whakaue, Tūhourangi, and Ngāti Wāhiao make to the wider economy of our country. New Zealand First will support this bill being referred to the select committee. Kia ora.

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki): Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker. Kia ora tātou katoa. E Pita, he paku kōrero ki a koe ki a koutou e tangi nei mō tā koutou hoa, tō tātou hoa, ā, ka nui te tangi o te ngākau i tēnei pō. Waiho a ia kia moe.

[Greetings to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and to all of us. Pita, a little word to you in respect of you collectively mourning your colleague, our colleague; there is much grief within us tonight. Let him rest.]

Te Whakarewarewa o Te Ope Taua a Wāhiao is perhaps the closest to what we would call a national icon. It is the first location on the tourism map, a site of significance for overseas dignitaries, and a busy and active business enterprise. Over the centuries a regular stream of distinguished manuhiri have been called on to Pākira Marae at Whakarewarewa as a mark of the esteem in which this nation holds them. I found out that in the 1880s Te Kooti Rikirangi, founder of the Ringatū Church, was officially welcomed on there. When the late King George V and Queen Mary visited Whakarewarewa in 1901, apparently over 5,000 of our people and 3,000 Pākehā people arrived in Rotorua. I am told that huge crowds flocked to Whakarewarewa for the civic welcome home of the Māori Battalion when it returned from World War II. And we remember those unique, world-famous guides who brought such quality to the tourism trade of this nation: Guide Rangi, Guide Maggie—Makereti Papakura—Guide Bubbles, and Guide Sophia. Those from Rotorua know that Guide Rangi is said to have made world headlines when she greeted Eleanor Roosevelt, First Lady of the United States, with a hongi.

But Whakarewarewa is also much more than a priority on the touring itinerary. In tribal history, it is the unique home of atua Te Pupu and Te Hoata, who emerged from the core of Papatūānuku, breathing in and out, creating in their path the geysers, the bubbling hot pools, and the hot springs.

From what we heard at the Māori Affairs Committee, it seems that Ngāti Wāhiao are confirmed as the customary holders of the ancestral lands of the Whakarewarewa Valley. They have lived there since way back. They live there to this day. The large carved tupuna whare there is called Wāhiao. It is named for these people. The Whakarewarewa Valley land comprises the Whakarewarewa Thermal Springs Reserve and the Southern Arikikapakapa Reserve.

The Tūhourangi people, we were told, found refuge in the valley after the devastating 1886 eruption of Tarawera mountain. Through Native Land Court decisions in 1883, 1888, and 1893, the entire area became vested in the Crown. Ngāti Wāhiao maintained fee simple title to the adjoining lands through to the present time. Many of the Tūhourangi people settled with their relatives the Ngāti Wāhiao people at Whakarewarewa, and there was some intermarriage—as one would expect—as a result. We heard from whānau who described how their grandmothers and, obviously, their mothers were of Ngāti Wāhiao, or perhaps their fathers were. Intermarriage happened, they all lived in close proximity, and there became an association between the two peoples. Those who gave their views at the select committee were clear that the mana whenua has always rested with Ngāti Wāhiao.

And so we are here today to initiate a deed with the Crown to provide for the transfer of the Whakarewarewa Valley land and the Roto-a-Tamaheke Reserve to Ngāti Whakaue and Tūhourangi Ngāti Wāhiao. The Ngāti Whakaue link here, as I understand it, is to what might be called Arikikapakapa and Te Roto-a-Tamaheke.

This is where the challenge begins. The introduction of vesting legislation to effect the transfer is not without difficulties, as other members have said tonight. Although I made reference to Whakarewarewa as a site of national significance, it is important from the outset to note that there is dispute around the very notion of giving customary rights to both Tūhourangi and Ngāti Wāhiao. I had better say that the matters relating to Ngāti Whakaue are relatively clear. As others have said, Te Maru o Ngāti Wāhiao believes that this bill, in giving customary rights away, is a wrongful alienation of an established property right without consent. Ngāti Wāhiao have comprehensive documentary evidence of the petitions they have laid before the court dating back to 1883. They describe Tūhourangi as being admitted to Whakarewarewa by a tuku of land later, and state that for the purposes of this legislation Ngāti Wāhiao will be included with the descendants of Tūhourangi.

I have received a letter that was sent to the Minister of Māori Affairs and Dr Cullen from the hapū nominees for the Whakarewarewa Valley negotiations, which will be fundamental to future dialogue and debate. In that letter it is stated that on 5 February 2006 Te Pūmautanga o Te Arawa promised that the valley would be returned exclusively to Ngāti Wāhiao. As I expressed this morning on the Affiliate Te Arawa Iwi and Hapu Claims Settlement Bill, where these pieces of land have been returned under the affiliate, the matter of the uncoupling of Ngāti Wāhiao from Tūhourangi needs to be sorted, because here is the follow-up bill that takes it from Te Pūmautanga o Te Arawa to a new entity. Having both bills so close has not helped.

So what is the problem? Well, it seems that the key matter, as I say, is to recognise the mana of Ngāti Wāhiao in the arrangement by uncoupling the names. I have tried to get a good handle on this and why the split has come about. It seems to be something like this. The land in question is included in the Te Pūmautanga o Te Arawa legislation. Tūhourangi Ngāti Wāhiao are an affiliate to that organisation, as we learnt this morning. This Whakarewarewa legislation allows that land to be allocated to beneficiaries. So, as I understand it, Te Pūmautanga o Te Arawa calls an endorsement hui at Wāhiao to consider the bill, and the people at that hui indicate a desire to protect the interests of Ngāti Wāhiao, and they vote to have three Tūhourangi plus three Ngāti Wāhiao work together with Ngāti Whakaue representatives. In order to progress the agreement, it is decided to have an endorsement vote. In order to consider those who could participate, those who were registered with Tūhourangi Ngāti Wāhiao under the Te Pūmautanga o Te Arawa arrangement were able to vote in a postal ballot—no problem. Because Ngāti Wāhiao as an iwi were not recognised under the Te Pūmautanga o Te Arawa deal as a distinct entity, they were required to have a ballot taken at a hui called on 27 July 2008 at Wāhiao. Clearly, Tūhourangi has a database of beneficiaries, and circulates papers to those people not only in Rotorua but throughout the country and abroad. Ngāti Wāhiao, on the other hand, rely on those who attend the hui. A concern raised was that the actual landowners could not be present and could not participate in the postal ballot, because they were not registered, or perhaps were overseas.

Hon Darren Hughes: Speak from the heart. Put the notes away.

TE URUROA FLAVELL: I am. As I understand it, the postal ballot delivered around 400 responses. The hui ballot attracted around 40-50 votes. The postal ballot was clearly in favour. The hui vote was against. Was it clearly understood that the two votes would be combined? Of that I am not sure, but it was not understood by some. The view of Te Maru o Ngāti Wāhiao was that both methods of voting had to be won; if, for example, the hui vote was lost, as happened, that was the end of the deal. This, some thought, was to give strength to the matter of the significant mana whenua interests of Ngāti Wāhiao.

So where are things now? Well, I am not too sure about that, but the concerns remain. And so, with this context in mind, it is on the cards, and can be pretty much predicted, that the select committee process will be fraught with a little bit of conflict. This bill gives effect to the deed to transfer recreational reserve lands, Whakarewarewa Valley land, and the Roto-a-Tamaheke Reserve to Ngāti Whakaue and Tūhourangi Ngāti Wāhiao. The bill also defines a joint trust established by Ngāti Whakaue and Tūhourangi Ngāti Wāhiao to hold the three sites. In itself, all of this may well be challenging. The way in which Ngāti Whakaue, Tūhourangi, and Ngāti Wāhiao discuss together how to determine an appropriate division of responsibility and ownership in relation to this site will inevitably be crucial for future relationships.

The land in question is substantial. The Whakarewarewa Thermal Valley includes the 45 hectare Whakarewarewa Thermal Springs Reserve and the 15 hectare part of the Arikikapakapa Reserve on which the Māori Arts and Crafts Institute stands, and of which it has a lease in perpetuity. The valley also includes the Roto-a-Tamaheke Reserve of 4.3 hectares and part of the Whakarewarewa forest.

At the heart of this bill is the notion that the transfer is intended to assist the Crown in building a healthy relationship with Ngāti Whakaue and Tūhourangi Ngāti Wāhiao. That is well and good, but the crucial matter will be whether our own internal processes can come to a win-win situation for all. Against the background I have tried to paint, is there a willingness to do this? Like other members, I hope so. Is there anything to lose by those involved talking with each other? Not really; it will not cost anything. Could it be a facilitated process? It is not for me to say, but the model is there in the central North Island iwi deal, with people like Wira Gardiner. In the end, the worst possible outcome would be for us to arrive back here to hear the bill in the select committee process, and to find division. Ko tāku noa ake, ko te kī atu, ko te tūmanako ia ana ka whakakotahi nei tātau i a tātau, kia tutuki pai tēnei o ngā moemoeā. Huri noa i te Whare, tēnā koutou, kia ora tātau.

[Mine is simply to advocate the hope that we become united so that this one of the dreams is completed well. Greetings to us throughout the House, and thank you.]

Hon MITA RIRINUI (Associate Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): Otirā, e Te Arawa tangata, Te Arawa waka tū tautoko anō ngā mihi ki a koutou haere ā-tawhiti mai rā i te wā kāinga, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou. Kōrua tahi o tēnā o ō tātou rōpū tōrangapū, Aotearua Tuatahi e Pita, kōrua tahi, tautoko i ngā mihi mō tērā o ō tātou rangatira kua huri ki tua o te ārai. Otirā, kia ora tātou.

[To you indeed, the people and canoe of Te Arawa, I rise once again to support the accolades accorded to you who come from a distance from home; greetings to you, greetings to you, and greetings to you. To you two, Pita of that political party of ours, New Zealand First, condolences to that esteemed colleague of ours who has crossed beyond the divide. Greetings to us.]

I stand in support of the Whakarewarewa and Roto-a-Tamaheke Vesting Bill, and once again—and I do not want to be left out—I declare a conflict of interest. But is it not interesting that today will become a historic day because of the number of Treaty settlement bills that have been passed through this House in a single day? Although it may seem a very long day for the members in this House, it has been an even longer day for the representatives of Te Arawa here in the gallery this evening. About this time last evening they would have been just leaving the warmth of their homes in Rotorua to take this big trip down to Parliament to witness this historic day, so for them it has been an even longer day and an even longer journey.

I have heard a number of people in the House today raise a number of issues that I intend to respond to. An issue was raised around that iconic maunga at the entrance to the Tauranga Harbour, Mauao. The question asked why the maunga was transferred back in fee simple title, yet the Crown retained the ownership. But that was not the case, at all. The people of Tauranga agreed to the return of that maunga, but they also agreed that the maunga, or the estate, should remain as a reserve, mō ake tonu atu [forever].

That requires the application of the Reserves Act. The Crown remains associated with the maunga and the estate because of the Reserves Act, but at the same time all costs in maintaining the reserve remain with the Crown’s agent, the Tauranga City Council, and the public liability in terms of health and safety remains with the Crown. I think that is a pretty good outcome. There are people in this House who said that the Crown transferred back to the iwi of Tauranga the shadow but retained the substance.

Hon Georgina te Heuheu: We didn’t say that.

Hon MITA RIRINUI: It is true, even though Georgie says she never said that. I am saying it is true. The Crown transferred back to the iwi of Tauranga only the shadow, and why was that? It is because that is all the Crown had. You see, the substance we talk about—and it is the same for Whakarewarewa—is the history, the culture, the association, the ancestral connection, and the spirit of the estate. That is the substance, and that has always remained with us. No one, not even the Crown, could take that away from us. So when we talk about the transfer of these iconic assets, it is important that we get our thinking right.

I will come back to the bill. Once again, we are talking about a similar arrangement. The Hon Tau Henare was in the House earlier, and I am disappointed that he has left because he raised a very relevant matter. He asked why this was not included as part of a Treaty settlement. The other question he asked was “Why now?”. I will answer the latter question first. Why not now? What does time have to do with it? He asked why it was not part of a Treaty settlement. Well, the fact is that it was. It was part of the Te Puni Kōkiri settlement package, but through an agreement between the iwi, Ngāti Wāhaio - Tūhourangi and Ngāti Whakaue, it was agreed that this part of the estate be removed from the settlement package. As Dr Cullen mentioned earlier today, the Crown asked Te Pūmautanga o Te Arawa to demonstrate some flexibility, and that was done, but Te Pūmautanga o Te Arawa made it clear that their flexibility was as wide as the Crown’s generosity. So here we have it: the removal of this particular estate, the Whakarewarewa estate and Te Roto-a-Tamaheke, out of the Pūmautanga o Te Arawa settlement package, to be resolved separately from that particular settlement. That was not inconsistent with the Waitangi Tribunal’s finding that Ngāti Whakaue, who were not included in the Pūmautanga o Te Arawa settlement, should be recognised as owners in common with Tūhourangi Ngāti Wāhiao in the valley, and this bill achieves that.

The speakers who stood before me highlighted particular aspects of the bill—in fact, in quite significant detail. I felt it important to respond to those queries and criticisms, because we do not want people leaving this House tonight with the wrong impression about this whole matter. Mr Henare also asked “Well, why?”. My response to him is that it is the right thing to do. There can be a very complicated technical response to a question like that, but the answer is quite simple: it is the right thing to do. Because the estate was part of the Pūmautanga o Te Arawa settlement package, it follows that the Crown’s acquisition of the estate had to have been by raupatu—in other words, without the consent of the traditional owners. That is not a new thing. That is not uncommon. That happened around the country, and to anyone who says that Te Arawa lost nothing, I can say that the record says something completely different. There is not an iwi in Aotearoa that was not affected by the actions of the Crown in terms of the dispossession of their estates.

The matter of Ngāti Wāhiao - Tūhourangi and the coupling of the two iwi is something that has been bandied around this House. I do not intend to mention it any more, because that is a matter, as has been mentioned in this House, that Te Arawa as a people will resolve on the marae, at home, and in their own time. So time is moving; I was told to keep my speech very short by my colleagues here, and I believe I have achieved that. Ki a tātou katoa kua huihui nei, e te Rangatira, ā te wā, kia ora tātou katoa.

[To all of us gathered here, and to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, the time will come, so greetings to us all.]

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Māori Affairs Committee.

Bills

Settlement Systems, Futures, and Emissions Units Bill

First Reading

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Commerce): I move, That the Settlement Systems, Futures, and Emissions Units Bill be now read a first time. At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be considered by the Commerce Committee. The Settlement Systems, Futures, and Emissions Units Bill is designed, first, to allow for trades in securities and other products to be cleared and settled through designated systems that meet the expectations of international and domestic participants in New Zealand’s financial sector; second, to align the regulation of exchanges seeking to operate in both the securities and futures markets, and to provide that a person approved by the operator of an authorised futures exchange is an authorised futures dealer; and, finally, to clarify the regulatory treatment of emissions units to support the development for the market for emissions units.

Settlement systems are used to give effect to transactions in our financial markets, and as such they contribute to a well-functioning capital market. Designation of a settlement system gives statutory backing to the systems rules to support finality of settlement, which in turn gives a designated settlement system protection against potential claims from the liquidator of any failed participant. International standards can be met without designation, which is why this is not being made mandatory. However, without an explicit regulator, it can be very difficult to convince participants that a settlement system meets international standards. At present, New Zealand’s legislation provides for the designation of payment systems under Part 5C of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act 1989. Settlement systems could also be designated under such provision, but such designation would provide protection only to the payment component of the transaction, not to the settlement of the property component of the transaction. Under the Settlement Systems, Futures, and Emissions Units Bill, the designation regime in Part 5C of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act will be extended to systems that clear and settle products as well as payments. This will be jointly overseen by the Reserve Bank and the Securities Commission.

The Settlement Systems, Futures, and Emissions Units Bill also aligns the regulatory environment for exchanges seeking to operate in both securities and futures markets, by amending the Securities Markets Act 1988, so that an exchange registered under Part 2B of that Act may be registered either in respect of securities markets only or in respect of both securities markets and futures markets. The bill also seeks to clarify the regulatory treatment of emissions units to support the development of the market for emissions units. This applies to both units issued under binding regulations, such as the New Zealand emissions trading scheme, and units issued in the voluntary market. And can I please make the point to the House, and for those who are listening and are interested, that none—none—of these technical amendments are necessary for the operation of the New Zealand emissions trading scheme. I want to make it clear that this is a facilitative measure. I actually had a feeling that some of the members of the Opposition may have misunderstood that point, which is why I wanted to make it crystal clear.

Simon Power: What am I going to talk about now? Ruined another speech!

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: Now that I have the acceptance of the other side that that is now crystal clear, we will not have any unnecessary debate on that matter. The bill amends the Securities Act 1978 to ensure that the issuance of emissions units will not need to meet the requirements of the regulatory regime for offers of securities or the relevant provisions of the Securities Markets Act, unless they are part of an investment scheme. In this regard, emissions units will be treated like other property.

The bill also extends the priority provided by section 97 of the Personal Property Securities Act in respect of shares and other securities to emissions units. Under this Act, emissions units will be defined as investment securities. Without this amendment, the benefits of anonymous exchange trading could be lost, because a purchaser would actually otherwise need to check the Personal Property Securities Register to ascertain whether anyone else had a registered security interest over the specific emissions units they were seeking to purchase. Finally, in order to make clear that the definition of futures contract extends to a futures contract for emissions units, the bill amends the Securities Markets Act to include emissions units in the definition of commodity, providing certainty that futures contracts in emissions units are regulated by that Act.

In conclusion, I record my appreciation of the participation of the financial sector throughout the consultation process on this bill, and I encourage the financial sector to remain actively involved in the refinement of the bill, through the select committee process. I also acknowledge the work of the officials, and I appreciate that other parties in the House are keen to see progress on this bill, as part of an overarching commitment to building a sound and effective regulatory environment. I commend the bill to the House.

SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei): Well, it would be nice to have a piece of legislation to speak on during urgency that was straightforward, like, maybe, a bill on aquaculture or something of that nature—something that was not as complicated, as specific, and as regulatory in nature as the Settlement Systems, Futures, and Emissions Units Bill. I put it on record now that the Minister has given an undertaking to the House that this matter relates only to emissions units in the general sense, rather than creating specific links to the legislation that has recently passed through the House.

The Settlement Systems, Futures, and Emissions Units Bill is designed to create a voluntary designated settlement system regime, similar to that currently operating in the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act, for cash payment systems. Operators of settlement systems will be able to elect, but will not be required, to seek designated status. It is worth just spending a bit of time on that issue, because to the untrained eye it is somewhat complex—and I include my own eyes in that, actually. The rules of the system, to the extent that they relate to the calculation and discharge of obligations and to remedies on default, are enforceable regardless of any enactment or rule of law to the contrary. So it ensures that net settlements and default close-outs can be completed, notwithstanding legal uncertainties surrounding netting and set-offs.

I met with a representative—a regulatory guy—from NZX today to get a briefing on the issue of netting. I found out, actually, that the individual concerned had been a partner in a law firm I had previously been employed by. He asked me whether I could remember the work I had done on netting while I had been at that particular law firm and, no, I could not. But in any event, I will move on.

Settlements are irreversible, and that ensures that completed settlements cannot be unwound on the subsequent insolvency of a participant. I will come back to that, because to my mind, with the creation of the clearance process and the centralisation of risk at the hub of that process, it is probably the most important aspect of this bill. I will come back to that. The operator of the settlement system receives personal property free of security interests under the Personal Property Securities Act, and that enables the settlement system operator to complete settlements free of claims from secured creditors of participants. The security interest held by the system operator and the collateral provided by participants have priority over all other claims on that collateral.

Hon Lianne Dalziel: Did they give you a speech, as well?

SIMON POWER: No, no; they did not, I tell the Minister. These are my notes. It is also worth summarising the position in this way: if, when an equity is sold and purchased, a broker falls over, that transaction can be managed individually and isolated, and the clearance house takes the risk. In other words, there is no ripple effect for any potential systemic failure, in the same way that the Reserve Bank carries the risk in the banking sector. That is something we need to ensure, for the sake of the way these particular trades occur.

The idea behind that has been described to me as having the risk centralised to the clearing system, so that all obligations flow from that central part of the wheel of trade and obligations surrounding it—that is, they are owed to that clearing system. I am advised that that will allow more people into the trading space, because they can go to the wholesale clearing house instead of doing it themselves—which is exactly the same way that the Reserve Bank operates in the banking sector. I guess that in the bigger scheme of things, the idea behind the legislation is that it will create more confidence in investing in the capital markets, because potential investors will know that the clearing house systems are in place, and are at the middle of that proposal.

The establishment of a central counterpart clearing and settlement system, in which the system operator assumes the settlement risk of each participant and guarantees the performance of all obligations, occurs regardless of the performance by other parties to the transaction. As I said, in order to enable the central counterpart clearing and settlement system to do that, the operator manages its risk by applying minimum capital and other prudential standards to its participants, and by holding collateral from each participant to secure the performance of its obligations. The important thing about this particular proposal is that the system proposed complies fully with the recommendations of the Bank for International Settlements and the International Organization of Securities Commissions for settlement systems. It is intended to comply with the requirements of those standards in relation to being both insolvency remote, for want of a better phrase, and a true delivery.

The passage of the bill, which National will be supporting at this first reading, is a key element in addressing any systemic risk in the NZX’s capital markets. The passing of the bill will also enable the NZX, or, in fact, any other settlement system provider, to introduce an internationally compliant clearing and settlement system, which will align New Zealand with global best practice. I was fortunate enough to have a discussion with the chair of the Securities Commission 3 or 4 weeks ago, I think—maybe it was a bit longer ago—when Ms Diplock explained to me that this was useful legislation in that it provided for an international best-practice model, and that it was something we should look at carefully. I am grateful for that advice.

I do not intend to add any more at this stage, other than to note that in Business Day on Wednesday, 24 September, the head of Australia’s sharemarket warned that his country could go the way of New Zealand and become “internationally irrelevant” if its market is fragmented too much by new competitors. It is worth members who have an interest in this area reading that particular article in order to ensure that we cross off some of those more serious issues. I do not intend to quote from the release, but, because it is interesting in nature, I would recommend to members who have an interest in this area that they make sure they are aware of what the Australian Stock Exchange chairman, Maurice Newman, is saying about global market relevancy, and also about the importance of scale.

Hon Lianne Dalziel: Setting aside all vested interests, as I am sure he was.

SIMON POWER: I am sure that is right, I say to the Minister. On that basis, when we are dealing with scale and investment in capital markets, it would be National’s view that this particular bill can only aid that increase in scale and size. Of course, we hope the task force that is looking into the capital markets will also be able to give us as a Parliament some guidance on how to achieve that goal, outside the reasonably narrow confines of the legislation that is currently before the House.

CRAIG FOSS (National—Tukituki): As my colleague Mr Power just noted, we will be voting for the Settlement Systems, Futures, and Emissions Units Bill at its first reading and voting for it to be referred to the select committee—Commerce Committee or Finance and Expenditure Committee—

Nathan Guy: Commerce.

CRAIG FOSS: The Commerce Committee. That is very good.

This is good legislation, from what I can see at the moment, and it is a step-up. As Simon Power and the Minister of Commerce noted, it is a step-up to global best practice. I declare that I have operated and used futures exchanges in all sorts of jurisdictions, starting on the New Zealand exchange many, many years ago.

This bill helps the capital markets framework of New Zealand to remove some of the anomalies and weaknesses in the existing model. We have the Reserve Bank Austraclear model and the New Zealand Exchange’s model, and the emerging model through which it is hoped to develop a carbon trading scheme. As the Minister said, yes, that is not essential to this bill, but this legislation is very important to the creation of that.

I gave a speech on this bill this morning at a conference in Auckland. We talked about futures. It might be important for anyone who is listening to understand what the futures market is, because many people think it is the price of something in the future. Actually, it is not. It is the price today, plus or minus the opportunity cost of the delay in receiving or delivering that product—whatever it is—and the risk of settlement. That is actually all it is. When we hear about oil futures, gold futures, or anything like that, all that means is the price today and the cost of carrying, borrowing, or lending money until the day of the future settlement. That is all it is. It is not the price of something in the future.

I note that because when the Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading) Amendment Bill came through the Finance and Expenditure Committee, many people confused the futures price of carbon in Europe, or something like that, with the idea that that was the price it was going to be in the future. We can look at any analysis we like, but it is not that, at all. It is merely the price today, plus or minus the cost of carry, plus or minus any credit risk, and plus or minus any settlement risk, which, in fact, this bill before us aims to fix up.

We are talking here about settlements for the futures and emissions exchanges, etc., but it is a long way from the original futures markets, which were actually on the floor. We used to see these guys, and we still see them on the stock exchange, where they have all sorts of colours. All they seem to do on those floors is shout very, very loudly, and they are very tall. The tallest people and the ones who shouted the loudest on those particular exchanges in the old days were very successful. Now much of this stuff is on screen in the virtual world and across the Internet. Huge, huge volumes are traded.

As the Minister started to say, this is where many of the issues around the problems that are coming from the United States at the moment come from, because via futures we can have massive leverage. It is from massive leverage that we can create a very small operator that can have huge exposure. Sometimes, and there have been instances of this in the past, the exposure and losses those operators are incurring are more than what they can meet; thus, there is a settlement or payment risk. That is exactly what this bill is trying to make less harmful. The bill will never eliminate that.

There is an example that I remember from about 1988 or 1989, right here in New Zealand. The eyes of the world were upon New Zealand because there was a particular bank in New Zealand that had a massive short position on Government bonds at the time. Let us say there were a billion of those particular Government bonds in the market, issued by the Reserve Bank or the Debt Management Office. The particular futures contract was a deliverable contract, which meant that when it was settled it was not a payment risk. Someone actually had to front up with the particular bonds, if they had been sold short via the futures exchange, and had to deliver them. In this particular instance, the total number of short futures in the market was 1.1 or 1.2 billion. Someone had sold more bonds than there actually were. The New Zealand financial markets at that time were in crisis, and it was very interesting that what the Reserve Bank and Debt Management Office did, in the end, was to issue more bonds. Their first job was to try to save the market.

As my colleague noted, the Settlement Systems, Futures, and Emissions Units Bill picks up the payment and settlement system. There is still huge risk involved here, but it now takes away individual risk and puts risk only on the settlement, be it the Reserve Bank Austraclear model or the New Zealand Exchange emerging model, whatever that might be. We still do not know; it will be interesting to see. We will go through this at the select committee, and we will look at how this works for deliverables. For example, we will see whether the New Zealand Exchange’s carbon futures will be deliverable or cash settled and netted; Mr Power explained to us what netting was earlier on.

I will not talk for too much longer, to the relief of many. It is 10 to 12, we are in urgency, and one of the most urgent bills for the Government is this particular bill. I do wonder why this one has taken so long to come out, because it is actually an eminently sensible bill. Perhaps it was tied up because we have the Capital Markets Development Taskforce looking at things like this. If only the Government looked at the harder questions regarding how to help offer debt to our capital markets, it could start to reduce the risk premium on New Zealand’s capital markets, which it is fully to blame for, and for fiascos such as the Auckland airport sale—or non-sale. The political interference in that process had the effect of “shallowing” New Zealand’s capital markets, not deepening them. As many people agreed with us at a conference today—

Hon Lianne Dalziel: Oh, so you want to sell Auckland airport? Thanks for that.

CRAIG FOSS: As the Minister is now chipping in I could talk about something else that could be used to help. However, it is 10 minutes to 12 o’clock so I will let that go. I look forward to this bill going to the Commerce Committee, and I look forward to the more technical contributions of the next speaker. Thank you.

SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. During my speech, when the Minister and I were exchanging views on a particular matter, she asked me whether NZX had written my speech. I said no, but that I was reading from notes. In the interests of making sure I am not misleading the House, I should say that I was provided with a briefing note from NZX, which I scribbled notes all over. On reflection, I wanted to clarify that matter before the proceedings.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, Mr Power.

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki): Tēnā koutou katoa. At 10 minutes to 12 o’clock, almost near the end of business, when the debate on this particular bill is coming to a close, and in order to give my colleague Mr Groser a good shot, I want to make sure that the Māori Party maintains its record and speaks on every bill that has come into the House. I say that the Māori Party supports this bill at its first reading. Kia ora tātou.

TIM GROSER (National): The member preceding me, Te Ururoa Flavell, is very gracious. I thought I was going to be on the morning watch as a consequence of his rising to take a call.

National supports the first reading of the Settlement Systems, Futures, and Emissions Units Bill, and I will focus for a few minutes on the emissions trading side of the bill. In the deeply unlikely event that people are listening to the debate at this very late stage, let me make it clear that National supports this bill’s setting up of a regulatory framework for emissions trading, although we still have the most serious reservations about the underlying substantive bill to which the emissions trading scheme relates. The reason we support this bill is that irrespective of the design of any emissions trading scheme, National recognises that we need a proper regulatory system in place that has domestic credibility, that has international credibility, that protects property rights, and that deepens the markets. That is neutral to the actual substantive concept of the emissions trading scheme it underwrites. Rather than reiterate the technical description my colleague Simon Power so ably put out about the features of this bill that lead us to—

Hon Lianne Dalziel: You mean “NZX so ably”, Tim.

TIM GROSER: No—I think there was benefit from the briefing, and I heard the Minister read a speech that I am sure she, herself, spent a great deal of time crafting personally.

We will support this bill, irrespective of an emissions trading scheme that National will introduce, and recently in a speech by our deputy leader there were set down six key principles on which we will base the construction of a more balanced emissions trading scheme. But we will need a framework, which this bill sets out, for the actual trading of the emissions units.

I think that most important for this bill, in terms of trying to understand what it will achieve, is to see that it is very much a work in progress. We are essentially trialling here an administrative system of great complexity and potentially enormously important economic effects. If ever the old phrase “the law of unintended effects” applies, I would argue it applies here. I think that it is a very commonplace observation but utterly correct to say, in relation to this regulatory change, that the two parts taken together—the substantive emissions trading scheme and this bill implementing the emissions trading process—are the most important reregulation of the New Zealand economy since the reforms of the 1980s and early 1990s. Although one could make an argument that at least those reforms were on well-trailed grounds in terms of international experience, this legislation is literally entering uncharted waters here, both in respect of the technical provisions of an emissions trading scheme and the substantive provisions of the emissions trading scheme it is intended to facilitate.

For that reason, the essential difference between the parties, not on this bill but on the underlying policy issue, is that we think the transition path that New Zealand is now undertaking for the very first time has many, many risks associated with it. Therefore, we think a much more prudential approach is utterly warranted. We see, essentially, when we step back from the technical substance of this paper to look at what it is actually trying to achieve, that there are two separate questions here. The first is whether we need to have policy frameworks such as provided for in this bill, which establish a response to the question: are anthropogenic greenhouse gases a serious problem that the international community needs to address? That is one question. The other question is: what is the right balanced policy response? People try to put those two together, but they are actually quite separate.

I believe that it is very clear the consensus has grown, not just in this country but internationally, on the first question—that we need to take this seriously, and that we need frameworks such as this bill to deal with the problem. We can see that with the change in the Australian Government, the Australians have come on board with ratification. The two United States presidential candidates are making very promising statements that the United States will also come on board, so the consensus is growing. Of course the big question about developing countries is still before us. So that is that side of the question. On the policy response side of the question this bill is addressing, again we can see a consensus emerging that we have to put a price on carbon and that it is probably better to do that via a trading system. The consensus has grown within New Zealand, and I think it is clear that the consensus is growing internationally.

But this is very much a work in progress. I will guarantee that a future Parliament will have to come back to this to make changes, in the light of practical experience, and, most important, in terms of international negotiations yet to occur. Given the hour, I will stop at this point, but I think it is very important that people understand that this is an issue of immense complexity, and that the deeply difficult transition issues in moving towards a decarbonised economy will take decades to address. Although I think we have the framework for a reasonable trading regime that will eventually establish an international market in emissions units, we must be prepared to revisit this issue in due course.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Commerce Committee.

Sitting suspended from 11.59 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Friday)