Wednesday, 22 July 2009

Wednesday, 22 July 2009

Wednesday, 22 July 2009

Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Questions for Oral Answer

Questions to Ministers

Prisoners—Proportion Convicted of Non-violent Offences

1. DAVID GARRETT (ACT) to the Minister of Justice: What proportion of persons currently incarcerated are in prison for non-violent offences?

Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice): I am advised today that of the 6,521 sentenced prisoners in custody today, the most serious offence for 2,633, or 40.4 percent, of them was non-violent. In terms of that classification or categorisation, all sexual offences have been classified as violent offences for the purpose of that answer.

David Garrett: Does the Minister agree that for criminals guilty of serious violence, the only appropriate and safe penalty is a term of imprisonment?

Hon SIMON POWER: Prison is the only place for serious violent offenders, and that is why we are making it harder for the worst repeat violent offenders to get parole. However, violent offences can describe a very wide range of conduct, from murder to common assault, which may be as minor as a shove or the use of threatening language. I expect that judges will make the appropriate distinctions here.

Rahui Katene: What progress has been achieved in implementing Ombudsman Mel Smith’s 2007 recommendation that a royal commission of inquiry was urgently required to undertake a comprehensive review of the criminal justice system?

Hon SIMON POWER: This Government has already set itself an ambitious and comprehensive programme to reform the criminal justice system. We started by addressing public safety concerns and enhancing victims’ rights. We have then moved to a discussion, and hopefully legislation by the end of this year, in the area of simplification of the criminal justice system. We are reviewing legal aid. There is more to come.

David Garrett: Does he agree that repeat violent offenders endlessly recycled by the Department of Corrections constitute an undue risk to the safety of society; if so, will he be supporting ACT’s “three strikes” law, which solely targets that type of offender?

Hon SIMON POWER: All violent offenders pose a risk to society. As I have said to the member both in this House and privately, we will continue to have those discussions in good faith, as we have over recent weeks and months.

Rahui Katene: What work is being advanced to address the fact that criminal justice data shows that Māori are overrepresented at every stage of the criminal justice process and that they are more likely to be apprehended, prosecuted, convicted, and sentenced to imprisonment?

Hon SIMON POWER: I would also add that Māori are overrepresented as victims of crime. The overrepresentation of Māori in the criminal justice system was a specific focus of the joint ministerial meeting on the drivers of crime, and I intend to announce the first steps in addressing those drivers in the coming month or two.

Recession—Prime Minister’s Statement

2. Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement last week that “we’re starting to come out of the recession”; if so, why?

Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes; Treasury predicts that the economy is in the last quarter of negative growth. In a purely technical sense, that means we are at the end of the recession. However, we are by no means out of the woods. It will be some time before GDP recovers to previous levels, and for most people the measure of a recession is whether they have a job. As I have said many times, unemployment will continue to rise over the next year before peaking and beginning to fall again. That is the consequence of a very long recession, which began under the previous Labour Government.

Hon Phil Goff: Does the Prime Minister’s plan to come out of the recession include the appointment as chair to the productivity task force of Don Brash, who says of his agenda that everything is on the table, including privatisation, notwithstanding the assurances to the contrary that the Prime Minister gave during the election campaign?

Hon JOHN KEY: The National Cabinet sets the agenda, the National Cabinet decides the policies, and for the term of this Government there will be no privatisation. Yes, I think that in leading the 2025 commission Dr Brash can play a part in helping narrow the wage gap. Goodness knows, this country needs help, because after 9 years of Labour it went in one direction, and that was backwards, compared with Australia.

Hon Phil Goff: Why did the Prime Minister, as recently as on Q+A on Sunday, repeatedly refuse to rule out privatisation as part of his agenda despite his assurances that he would not be privatising before the election?

Hon JOHN KEY: I urge the member to read the transcript of Q+A. What I correctly said was that I have never said I am philosophically opposed to asset sales.

Hon Members: Oh!

Hon JOHN KEY: Well, I am not. I simply said it does not form part of the Government’s agenda for this term. If we change our policy for future terms, we will campaign on it and be up front about it.

Hon Phil Goff: Does the Prime Minister accept that for tens of thousands of New Zealanders, far from coming out of the recession, they will be thrown out of work over the next 12 months, and does he intend to do anything to alleviate the genuine hardship, including the loss of homes, that many of those people are facing?

Hon JOHN KEY: I cannot tell the member how many people will lose their jobs over the next year or so.

Hon Member: Treasury did!

Hon JOHN KEY: Treasury have lots of predictions. Some of them are right and some of them are wrong, I am sorry to tell the member. The second thing I will say is that the Government is doing as much as it possibly can, I believe, to try to help people through a recession that is a global recession, which started in the United States of America. This Government has done everything from bringing forward infrastructure spending to things like a home insulation package, the reform of the Resource Management Act, the reform of the emissions trading scheme legislation, removing regulation, working on reform of local governance in Auckland, legislating for tax cuts of $1 billion in April—and it goes on and on and on. Yes, there will be some people who lose their jobs, and this Government will do everything it can to try to help them into a new job.

Chris Tremain: What assistance does Work and Income offer, in addition to the main benefits, for people who find themselves in hardship during the recession?

Hon JOHN KEY: The answer to that question is that it provides assistance of well over $1 billion. I am advised that Work and Income provides a wide range of assistance to people in need, including to people who are not receiving any sort of main benefit. The assistance includes job search services, the accommodation supplement, child and out-of-school care and recreation subsidies, Transition to Work grants, temporary additional support, special-needs grants, and recoverable assistance payments. I am advised that the Government spends $1 billion alone on the accommodation supplement, and $300 million on hardship assistance. These services are available to people who do not qualify for a main benefit.

Hon Phil Goff: What does the Prime Minister say to his constituent Bruce Burgess, whose story is told in the New Zealand Herald this morning, who has saved and worked all of his life and has never asked the State for welfare assistance in his life, but now, at 63, has lost his job, risks losing his home, and is not eligible for transitional assistance, because his wife earns a very modest income?

Hon JOHN KEY: I say a number of things. Firstly, I urge Mr Burgess to go into Work and Income for an assessment. If he does that, Work and Income may be able to help him into one of the—

Hon Annette King: Why doesn’t the Prime Minister answer the question?

Hon JOHN KEY: —I tell that member to just listen for a second, because she might learn something—he might be eligible for one of the 144 engineering jobs available. Secondly, according to the facts as stated in the New Zealand Herald, Mr Burgess would be eligible for a partial benefit—

Hon Phil Goff: How much?

Hon JOHN KEY: It would be $91.20 a week. The third thing—

Hon Phil Goff: How much?

Hon JOHN KEY: It would be $91.20 a week. Thirdly, I say to Mr Goff that before he starts playing politics with a constituent of mine, I strongly, strongly suggest that he makes sure he is in receipt of all the information.

Mr SPEAKER: I have called Chris Tremain; please show the member some courtesy.

Chris Tremain: What correspondence has the Prime Minister, or other Ministers, had with Mr Burgess?

Hon JOHN KEY: A family member of Mr Burgess made contact with my office and I asked the Minister for Social Development and Employment to respond. Officials in the Minister’s office asked the family member for Mr Burgess’ details so they could see what assistance he might be entitled to. The family member did not supply any of the details needed, including Mr Burgess’ name, so it was impossible to look into the situation. Following this morning’s media coverage, Work and Income has been able to identify and make contact with Mr Burgess to receive all of the facts. I encourage him to sit down with Work and Income and have a full assessment of his individual circumstances, and I urge Mr Goff to make sure he understands all the facts when he starts dealing with a situation of an individual constituent.

Mr SPEAKER: I now ask members to show a little courtesy to the Leader of the Opposition, whom I have called.

Hon Phil Goff: Why did the Prime Minister answer in the House yesterday that a person who has been made redundant and who has a spouse earning $26,000 a year is eligible for financial support for job search or retraining when he or she is not?

Hon JOHN KEY: Because it is correct.

Hon Phil Goff: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I did not hear the Prime Minister’s answer; could he please repeat it?

Hon JOHN KEY: Because it is correct.

Mr SPEAKER: I thank the honourable Prime Minister.

Hon Phil Goff: Why was it possible, at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars, to legislate for tax cuts last December that would have given people on high incomes, including the Prime Minister, hundreds of dollars a week in tax cuts, but it is not possible to provide short-term transitional support for job search or retraining for people who are suffering genuine hardship through no fault of their own who have been taxpayers all their lives?

Hon JOHN KEY: Firstly, because it was a much better idea than giving welfare to millionaires, as Phil Goff was suggesting on Monday—[Interruption]—I am in no rush. Secondly, we need to understand what happened here. The National Party, when in Opposition, put up a proposal to provide transitional support to those most in need in this country. It is called the ReStart package, and we did it on top of the $300 million that is available for hardship assistance, the $150 million that is available for childcare assistance, and the $1 billon that is available for accommodation supplements. We are doing what we can to help those most vulnerable in the community.

Public Service—Cap

3. AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) to the Minister of Finance: Is it still the Government’s policy to cap staff numbers in the Public Service; if so, why?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): Yes, it is the Government’s policy to cap core Government administration staff and to give priority to front-line services. In the past 5 years, the Public Service has been accustomed to spending growing at twice the rate of revenue and twice the growth of the economy. No household, business, or Government can operate like that. The reality is that Labour let the bureaucracy get out of control. The Government now faces 10 years of deficits—in the next few years, deficits of $10 billion to $12 billion. The Public Service cannot expect to be immune from the pressures that go with that.

Amy Adams: What measures has the Government taken to ensure that front-line public services and entitlements are maintained during the recession?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Government has taken a measured and considered approach to bringing about change in the public sector. Budget 2009 committed almost $3 billion of extra spending, including record amounts on front-line services in health, education, and law and order. The New Zealand taxpayer will borrow an extra $40 billion over the next 4 years in order to maintain entitlements and public services. However, at the same time, we expect the Public Service to understand that it needs to change in order to deliver faster, smarter, and better public services to thousands of New Zealanders who are dependent on those services.

Amy Adams: Why is it important that the Public Service delivers better, smarter services with less money?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The main reason it is important is that so many New Zealanders depend on these services. In the context of deficits of $10 billion to $12 billion, the Government expects the Public Service to work with the politicians to get used to the idea that restraint is now permanent, and it is our obligation to the New Zealanders who depend on public services that we think about better ways of doing them. In the last 10 years there was no attempt to do that; in the next 10 years it is the core business of the Public Service.

Chris Hipkins: How can the Minister continue to claim that the Government’s policy is to cap, not cut, the Public Service, when over 1,500 jobs have already been cut from the Public Service, and only yesterday he himself was talking about significant and lasting change to the Public Service? How does he reconcile that with the Prime Minister’s commitment to the Public Service Association conference only last year that the Government would not embark on wholesale restructuring of the Public Service?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Government has not embarked on wholesale restructuring of the Public Service. It is interesting to listen to the Labour Party and the Public Service Association, because neither of them refers to two pretty important facts. The first is that public services are for the people who use them, not for the people who provide them, and the second is that we have deficits of $10 billion to $12 billion, and 10 years until we get back to surpluses. Everyone has to get used to the idea that there will be less money, and the need for more service.

Amy Adams: What feedback has he received from the Public Service leadership about the Government’s demands for better performance?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Government has received overwhelmingly positive feedback from the leadership of the Public Service. Many of those leaders find it a relief that they are actually asked for their opinions. Many of them welcome the opportunity to get rid of the ineffective services and waste of public money that they had to put up with under the previous Government. I am confident that the leaders of the Public Service are up to the challenge we have set them, and I am confident that they believe that this is the right Government to lead them through that challenge.

Climate Change—Threat to Pacific Region

4. Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) to the Prime Minister: Did Pacific Island leaders with whom he met during his recent trip convey any concerns over the threat climate change poses to vulnerable Pacific Island countries, and what expectations, if any, did they raise with him regarding New Zealand’s policy in response to that regional threat?

Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): The issue of climate change is regularly discussed at bilateral and regional meetings with Pacific Island countries. Specifically, at my meeting with Prime Minister Dr Fred Sevele and his Ministers on 7 July I referred to climate change in a discussion of energy options for Tonga. The question of New Zealand’s climate change policies was not raised. In meeting the Ulu of Tokelau in Apia on 7 July the Tokelau leadership talked about the situation of the three atolls of Tokelau and said they wished to develop climate change policy responses with New Zealand, including in respect of renewable energy. It is worth noting that in each of the Pacific countries I visited earlier this month the key concerns conveyed to me related to economic development, the ability of countries to withstand the negative effects of the global recession, and the role New Zealand could play in helping address those issues.

Dr Kennedy Graham: In light of that comment and the peripheral discussion pertaining to climate change in the Pacific during the Prime Minister’s visit, was he comfortable offering Pacific leaders the toss of a coin for their physical survival when he conveyed his Cabinet’s target of 450 parts per million carbon concentration, given that that concentration is expected to result in a fifty-fifty chance of physical survival for several Pacific Island countries?

Hon JOHN KEY: The points I raised were that New Zealand takes the issue of climate change seriously, that we are committed to making sure we address that issue in this country, and that the Emissions Trading Scheme Review Committee is going through a process of reviewing our emissions trading scheme legislation. Also I took on the trip with me Tim Lusk, the chief executive officer of Meridian Energy, so that we could look at a situation where, potentially, the Pacific countries could substitute their current electricity generation, which takes place by burning diesel, with solar energy.

Dr Kennedy Graham: What views in support of Pacific regional survival will the Prime Minister’s Government convey to the Secretary-General in the forthcoming UN report on the security implications of climate change, as called for in a UN resolution adopted last month by the United Nations General Assembly, which is the first ever resolution to be tabled by Pacific Island states?

Hon JOHN KEY: New Zealand will convey in its correspondence that it takes the issue of climate change seriously, that we are trying to tackle a number of issues—particularly the fact that the structure of our emissions profile resembles much more that of a developing country, with 50 percent of our emissions coming from agriculture—that we are working hard and want to achieve changes in relation to further Kyoto policy around forestry so that it can play a more important part in helping offset some of our emissions, and that we will have some form of price system that will enable New Zealand to better cope with its rising emissions profile.

Dr Kennedy Graham: Given that the Government will convey to the United Nations the fact that New Zealand takes seriously climate change in the Pacific, will the Prime Minister give an indication of his Government’s plans to receive environmental refugees from low-lying Pacific Island states in response to the statement by the president of Kiribati 2 years ago: “If we are talking about our island states submerging in 10 years’ time, we simply have to find somewhere to go.”?

Hon JOHN KEY: If one was to look at the Pacific one would see that the three countries that have the largest potential exposure to climate change are Kiribati, Tuvalu, and Tokelau. From New Zealand’s perspective it has a strong relationship with those countries. Although we will not be setting out exactly what support we would provide those countries if a situation of climate change threatened their long-term survival, I think those countries could rely on the fact that New Zealand has a long history with them, would support them, and already has quite a number of residents from those countries calling New Zealand home. If that situation occurred—which, it is important to understand, is likely to be a long way in the future—it would be my expectation that future New Zealand Governments would look very sympathetically on that position.

Charles Chauvel: Is the Prime Minister aware that tiny, at-risk nations like Tuvalu and Niue have now set targets of 100 percent renewable energy generation by 2020, and might this not prompt his Government into once and for all saying whether it is committed to a 90 percent renewable energy generation target by 2025, as set out in the New Zealand Energy Strategy?

Hon JOHN KEY: The member would know that we have not changed our target of 90 percent renewable—

Hon Annette King: Our target!

Hon JOHN KEY: The target. I think it is important to understand that New Zealand already has a lot of its energy coming from renewable sources. If we are to develop more renewable sources in terms of the development of energy, then we will need to change the Resource Management Act to allow those renewable sources to be harvested. I am looking forward to the member leading the charge in his caucus when it has the opportunity to change its vote and support us on our Resource Management Act reform bill, which will be coming back to the House very soon. I thank the member for that support.

Keith Locke: What specific proposals for regional action on climate change will the Prime Minister be taking into next month’s Pacific Islands Forum leaders meeting beyond the proposal he has talked about so far of helping individual island States replace some fossil fuel generation with renewables?

Hon JOHN KEY: I think that in relation to those specific countries probably the single most important thing we can do is help them change their reliance on electricity generation from diesel to a form of renewable energy, whether that be wind or solar—most likely it will be solar. There are other things we can work on, but, as the member will be aware, they do not have large industrial bases that emit a lot of emissions.

Beneficiaries—Upskilling for Employment

5. Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What measures is she taking to provide beneficiaries with an opportunity to gain better work skills and increase their prospects of obtaining full or part-time employment, gaining independence from the benefit?

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment): This Government is offering a range of support, such as on-the-job training, industry partnerships, job preparation, funding for the self-employed, enterprise allowances—more than I would probably be permitted time to mention in my answer. That assistance amounts to an investment of over $250 million.

Hon Annette King: Why did the Minister make cuts to the training incentive allowance when an evaluation of the scheme showed that clients who receive training incentive allowance - assisted training were significantly more likely to move into either full or part-time employment than those who do not, and were proven to achieve positive outcomes such as increased self-esteem and well-being?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: We simply have had to make tough decisions. We decided to look especially at areas funded in several different ways. So it has not been cut; some funding has been restricted to level 3 or under. Let me give members an example. Someone studying and on the domestic purposes benefit could get over $1,000 a week in Work and Income assistance. By the time we add up the domestic purposes benefit of around $272, an accommodation supplement of $225, tax credits of $200, childcare assistance of up to $181 for one child, and out-of-school care and recreation assistance of $72 a week, that person could potentially be getting well over $1,000 a week.

Hon Annette King: Does the Minister stand by her letter to Mr Greg Soar who wrote to her about cuts she has made to his training incentive allowance, and is she aware that she advised Mr Soar to seek a student loan or a scholarship, but because he is on an invalids benefit he is not entitled to the full benefits of a student loan and would get only a third of what he was previously getting through the training incentive allowance payment, and the scholarship she told him he may be entitled to, like the Step Up scholarships, she actually cut in her last budget?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: There are tough decisions being made. We did suggest to that gentleman, as we are suggesting to other people, that there are other ranges where he can get that level of assistance. Quite simply, there are other ways that people can get the sort of assistance they need so that they can go on to that tertiary study. It is about having an even playing field, and this decision is one of those we have made.

Todd McClay: Has the Minister seen any reports or articles on how people may gain independence from welfare dependency?

Mr SPEAKER: Did the Minister hear the question?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I did not actually hear the question.

Mr SPEAKER: There was an unacceptable level of interjection while Todd McClay was asking his question. It was most discourteous to the House. I ask Todd McClay to repeat his question, please.

Todd McClay: Has the Minister seen any reports or articles on how people may gain independence from welfare dependency?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I find it pretty rich for the Opposition spokesperson to talk about getting independence from welfare when her party’s policy, which I heard recently, would do exactly the opposite and create hundreds of thousands of new beneficiaries. The same policy was described this morning by a media commentator as the “biggest blunder” Mr Goff has made since becoming the Labour leader.

Hon Annette King: What does the Minister say to training incentive allowance recipient Greg Soar, who said: “I feel damned let down by the unthinking Minister, who used the TIA herself to improve her life.”; and why is the Minister denying those people who are struggling on the domestic purposes benefit and invalids benefit the real opportunity to gain education and a real job, contrary to the advice her own department has given her?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: The Opposition leader has been sitting there yelling out: “You got this.”, and “You got this payment.” I think it should be quite clear that, quite frankly, it would be a pretty pathetic decision-making process we were going through if politicians started making decisions based on what happened with them—in my case 15 years ago, and in his case, I imagine, what, about 40 years ago? The new face of Labour!

Mr SPEAKER: I ask members to be a little more reasonable. I heard interjections that were totally unacceptable then. I ask members please to desist from that.

Darien Fenton: What does the Minister say to sole parent Natasha Fuller, who says her dreams of becoming an early childhood teacher have been squashed by the Government’s decision, and who feels that all the efforts she has put into training so far have been for nothing, because she cannot afford to further her studies without the assistance of the training incentive allowance?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: It is pretty hard for me to comment on individual circumstances. But let me give an example, perhaps, of a domestic purposes benefit recipient who has three children—two school-aged and one preschool. They could get up to $1,030 worth of assistance during term time each week—over $1,000 in assistance each week—to help them with those childcare costs, with some accommodation costs, and with everything else. There is the availability to get—

Hon Member: How much did you get?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am quite happy to answer questions, but I do not think that you should be brought into the debate with comments flying across like “What did you get?”. I am not sure what you got, actually, when you were studying, but I do not need to know.

Mr SPEAKER: I think that it is a timely reminder for members that every time they yell out “What did you do?”, they are bringing the Speaker into the debate, and that is totally outside the Standing Orders. So I ask members to take a bit of a breath and just be a little careful on those matters.

Carmel Sepuloni: Does the Minister stand by her statement: “I was definitely living day to day and struggling financially and emotionally, and I worked out that the only way I was going to get out of that trap was to get into meaningful paid employment.”; if so, why in Budget 2009 has she stripped solo parents of their ability to apply for the training incentive allowance, which provided financial support towards transport, childcare, and/or fees associated with training, and directly helped many get into paid employment?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Yes, I do. I will back those women into work and meaningful employment every time.

Hon Maryan Street: What does the Minister say to mother of three Jennifer Johnston, whose marriage broke up 2 years ago and who says that, despite whatever else she may receive, without the training incentive allowance she may be unable to continue her studies to become a nurse despite a significant nursing shortage and her A average grade?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I note that the member said “continue her studies to become a nurse”. Actually, the training incentive allowance will continue until 2011 for those who are currently receiving it. It will be grandparented through, so if she is receiving it now, she can continue to receive it.

Cardiac Services—Reports

6. NICKY WAGNER (National) to the Minister of Health: What reports has he received concerning the delivery of cardiac services in New Zealand?

Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health): I have seen several reports, particularly one on cardiac surgery in New Zealand from 2002 to 2008 that was prepared for the previous Government. Over that 5-year period total cardiac operations in New Zealand fell by 9 percent despite population growth of around 6 percent. At the same time Auckland cardiac discharges fell by 14 percent despite population growth in Auckland of around 10 percent. These reports reveal how seriously inadequate the delivery of cardiac surgery had become, delivering 25 to 45 percent fewer cardiac operations than other comparable countries.

Nicky Wagner: What steps has the new Government taken to help turn round this decline in the number of patients who got heart surgery under Labour?

Hon TONY RYALL: The new Government has recently announced two decisions, both of which will have positive impacts on cardiac surgery. Firstly, it has been announced that around $5 million extra will be paid to the Auckland District Health Board to provide cardiac operations for over 100 heart patients who were waiting beyond the clinically safe time. Many of these patients have now received their surgery. Secondly, we have announced the creation of our first clinical network, the National Cardiac Clinical Network. We need better planning to improve the rates and availability of heart surgery in New Zealand, and the best people to do that are the experts in this area: the cardiac surgeons and nurses, and their teams.

Nicky Wagner: What other reports has he seen in relation to addressing the fall in rates of cardiac surgery?

Hon TONY RYALL: Four weeks before last year’s election the then Minister of Health, Mr Cunliffe, announced a plan to put in an extra $50 million to lift cardiac performance in New Zealand over 4 years. The $50 million came from a range of cuts to other programmes in the health budget. Would members opposite when in Government cut money from cardiovascular disease programmes? Surely not! But over $3 million was cut. Would they cut the mobile surgical bus budget? Surely not! But $2 million was cut. And would they cut the funding pool for people with disabling chronic medical conditions? Surely not! But $10 million was cut.

Banking Practices—Interest Rates

7. Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) to the Minister of Finance: Does he agree with the statement of the Prime Minister—whom he is lovingly looking at—

Mr SPEAKER: I invite the honourable member to reflect on how that actually assisted the good order of the House. It is bound to lead to disorder, and is not helpful. I ask the member to start again.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: Does he agree with the statement of the Prime Minister that, with respect to bank interest rates, “We have an impasse now. If there is something that should be done, let’s act.”; if not, why not?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): Yes, I do agree with the Prime Minister. He quite correctly was saying that we have a range of mechanisms that monitor the financial system. When one of those mechanisms alerts the Government to the need for policy action, we will act. In this case, in respect of bank interest rates, the Reserve Bank has made a careful study of the issue. It has published its findings, but has not recommended any particular action to the Government, probably because it is not obvious what action the Government could take to deal with bank margins on interest rates.

Hon David Cunliffe: If the Prime Minister believes that further action is required, does he agree with the New Zealand Manufacturers and Exporters Association that “a proper debate on bank margins will be helpful, because, as Alan Bollard has already noted, short-term margins are too high and generally margins have increased since the financial crisis.”; if he does, why has his Government not taken seriously the concerns of New Zealand’s hard-working exporters?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Government does take seriously the concerns of hard-working exporters, and they are all very glad that we are acting on their concerns, which were built up under 9 years of mismanagement by the previous Government. That member should also advise the House that when he was a Minister in a Government, banks made record profits, they had record interest rate margins, and interest rates were at much higher levels than they are now—a set of facts pointed out by the Hon Jim Anderton in the media yesterday and today. So how will he explain his expertise in getting bank profits down, when, under him, they were at record levels?

Aaron Gilmore: What independent assessments of the need for further investigation has the Minister seen?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: There are any number of people who have contributed to the debate about interest rate margins—in particular, the independent assessment of the Reserve Bank. It has published its finding. I think it is important that those who are invited to some meeting of the Opposition caucus know that what they are being invited to is not an inquiry. The progress of it is utterly predictable: people will turn up; they will complain about the banks, as we all do; the Opposition will issue some report using extravagant rhetoric; and we will be exactly where we started.

Hon David Cunliffe: If the Minister does not believe that the public deserves the right to look into this issue and see the facts, has he heard reports that Kiwibank will “willingly participate with the banking inquiry”; and does he not agree with Rod Oram that banks have not so far made an entirely transparent case as to what the funding pressures on them actually are?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The facts that can be ascertained on this issue are already public. The Reserve Bank did a thorough job of looking at the margins. Some of the major banks, like Westpac, have already published their analysis. Members of the general public can look at the interest rate picture by going to www.interest.co.nz and looking at the updated rates—they are updated every 6 minutes—and can make up their own minds about it. An MPs’ inquiry will make no difference. The member should be talking about the real issue, which is what combination of regulatory supervision will ensure that the banks do not make excessive profits. I welcome any contribution that the Opposition caucus would like to make to that debate, rather than stunts and grandstanding.

Hon David Cunliffe: If the Minister would, as he says, welcome a reasoned contribution, why does he say there is no need to act on calls from the New Zealand Manufacturers and Exporters Association, Federated Farmers, the Productive Economy Council, unions like the financial services union and the Council of Trade Unions, banks like Kiwibank, and a range of economic commentators, who all believe there is real merit in questioning the pass-through of the official cash rate into short-term interest rates?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: If those organisations thought that member’s meeting with Jim Anderton was the answer to our economic problems, they would have voted for him, but they did not, rather decisively. We know what can be known about the pass-through. We think bank margins might be too high. The simple question is what can be done about them, and I am open to the member’s propositions. The Reserve Bank has not been able to come up with a solution; perhaps that member will.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions—Transport, Electricity, and Manufacturing Sectors

8. HEKIA PARATA (National) to the Minister for Climate Change Issues: What does yesterday’s New Zealand Energy Greenhouse Gas Emissions report tell us about trends in emissions from the transport, electricity, and manufacturing industries?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Climate Change Issues): New Zealand’s 2008 overall energy emissions are up 44 percent on 1990 baselines, and up 3.6 percent on 2007. Electricity emissions have increased the most, by 123 percent since 1990. Transport emissions in 2008 were down 4 percent in response to the spike in fuel prices, but they are up 63 percent on 1990 levels. Emissions in the manufacturing sector were up 26 percent on 1990 levels, and up 7 percent on 2007. These figures well illustrate that New Zealand has made little progress in constraining emissions, and highlight the huge challenge we face in reversing these trends.

Hekia Parata: How does the level of emissions in 2008 from coal-generated electricity compare with those in 2000 and 1990?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The report shows emissions of nearly 4 million tonnes from Huntly in 2008. This compares with 1 million tonnes in 2000, and half a million tonnes in 1990. This highlights an eightfold increase in our emissions from coal-generated electricity from the 1990 Kyoto Protocol baseline, and is New Zealand’s worst area of emissions growth. Although this can be partly excused by 2008 being a dry year, the 2008 figure of about 4 million tonnes has been the level in 4 of the last 5 years. It highlights New Zealand’s need for developing its renewable energy resources.

Hekia Parata: How does this increase in emissions compare with other developed countries, and how will this latest information input into New Zealand’s post-Kyoto 2020 emissions target?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: New Zealand’s emissions increases overall since 1990 are 24 percent. That compares with other countries, for instance the United States, where emissions are up about 16 percent; Japan, where emissions are up 8 percent; and the European Union, where emissions are down 10 percent. This increase in emissions means that we need to be realistic about setting a 2020 target relative to 1990 baselines. When representatives of European countries talk of a 20 percent reduction, they are already halfway there, whereas New Zealand would need to reverse the 24 percent increase first, and then meet any target on top of that, within the comparatively short period of just 10 years.

Charles Chauvel: Given the upward trend in emissions to which the Minister has referred, how can he not now accept that it was extremely unwise to have repealed measures to reduce emissions, such as the moratorium on new baseload thermal generation, the biofuels obligation, and the phase-out of inefficient incandescent light bulbs?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The new Government takes a different approach, because, quite frankly, the approach of the previous Government did not work, as is highlighted by these figures. In respect of the biofuels approach, we have implemented a financial incentive for biofuels, rather than the compulsory nanny State approach of the previous Government. In respect of the thermal ban, it is this Government’s view that a price on the big increase in coal emissions is a more effective way than a thermal ban. Of course, a thermal ban will have absolutely no effect on the huge increase in emissions we have seen from Huntly, where a price instrument is a more effective way to do that.

Folic Acid in Bread—Consultation with Ministers

9. Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) to the Minister for Food Safety: What consultation did she undertake with her ministerial colleagues before she announced a proposal to defer the mandatory addition of folic acid to bread?

Hon KATE WILKINSON (Minister for Food Safety): The proposal to put out a discussion paper including the option of deferral was discussed with ministerial colleagues last week and was considered by Cabinet on Monday.

Hon Ruth Dyson: Did the Minister consult the Minister of Finance; if so, what did he say about the $400,000 per year per person currently spent on health care supporting a person with spina bifida—money that could be saved or spent elsewhere if bread were fortified?

Hon KATE WILKINSON: The member outlines the benefits of folic acid for women before they become pregnant and in relation to neural tube defects; I think those benefits are known. But I remind the member, as I did yesterday, that Ireland has a voluntary fortification scheme, which has resulted in a 30 percent increase in folate in that population. It was voluntary; it did not have to be mandatory.

Hon Darren Hughes: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Hon Ruth Dyson asked a question that started by asking what consultation the Minister had undertaken with the Minister of Finance. The Minister, in her reply, went nowhere near answering the question about the consultation she had undertaken.

Mr SPEAKER: I think there was more than just that pure question in the honourable member’s question to the Minister. If it had just asked what consultation the Minister had with the Minister of Finance on this matter, then it would have been a different matter. I believe I heard the member go on to raise further issues. If I am mistaken, I will invite the honourable member to correct me.

Hon Ruth Dyson: The end of the question asked about the cost of health care, and the beginning of the question asked what consultation she had with the Minister of Finance on that issue. It was even more specific than the senior whip indicated.

Mr SPEAKER: The Minister can choose to answer either part of the question, and I believe she answered the second part of the question by talking about the kinds of costs involved in this issue. The member has further supplementary questions.

Michael Woodhouse: Why is the Government putting out a discussion document on the addition of folic acid to bread?

Hon KATE WILKINSON: We are giving New Zealanders a chance to put forward their views on this important matter. Labour did not listen to New Zealanders 2 years ago, and today it seems it is still refusing to do so. We understand that New Zealanders want choice, and we are providing this opportunity for them to have their say.

Dr Ashraf Choudhary: Why did the Minister tell the House yesterday that no decision had been made, when the Prime Minister said that it was 99.9 percent certain that the fortification was not going ahead and that the Government was just working through the legal niceties; does not this statement show the consultation is a sham, and who is telling the truth, the Prime Minister or the Minister?

Hon KATE WILKINSON: We have always maintained that deferral of the commencement date of the standard is our preferred option. We have also made it clear that we have made no predetermination. Following consultation an appropriate decision will be made.

Hon Ruth Dyson: Did the Minister consult the Minister of Justice on the number of abortions that would be prevented if bread was fortified, estimated to be between 20 and 30 babies every year—babies who would be saved if her decision was different?

Hon KATE WILKINSON: There will be proper consultation at the end of the submission period, and no doubt the figures that have been put forward by that member will be included in those submissions. Following the closing day of the discussion paper we will give full and proper consideration to the submissions.

Recession—Government Assistance for Affected Workers

10. KATRINA SHANKS (National) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What is the Government doing to help people who lose their jobs because of the global recession?

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment): I am pleased to announce a pilot employability enhancement service that is being run by the Auckland Regional Chamber of Commerce and Industry. Michael Barnett and I got together a couple of weeks ago and discussed how we were going to help people who do not come into Work and Income but who need some assistance to get themselves back into a job because they have been made redundant. This service is about responding quickly to get skilled people back into the workforce as soon as possible.

Katrina Shanks: Who does the Minister expect this pilot programme to help?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: This pilot programme with the chamber of commerce will especially help those highly skilled people who may not be eligible for a benefit, although some of them may be. It is about helping those people in gaining skills transfer and in understanding how to use their networks. Currently, of the over 50,000 people on the unemployment benefit, about 35 percent have never received an unemployment benefit before. These are the people that this pilot programme can help, as well as others that may need that assistance.

Dr Rajen Prasad: Is the Minister aware that the Government’s policy initiative to cap, not cut, the Public Service numbers has so far resulted in around 1,500 job losses; that cuts to the Enterprising Communities scheme has seen 3,000 job losses; that 4,500 Kiwis had their educational opportunities scrapped as a result of the cuts she has made to the training incentive allowance; and that a further 6,000 students will be shut out of polytechnics and led to join the dole queue because her Government will not remove the student cap on polytechnics? Will what she is proposing assist these 15,000 people during the global recession?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I am sure that we can make up numbers as we like, and it certainly sounds to me like that is what has been happening over on the Opposition’s side of the Chamber. What I can say is there are more people working on the front line of Work and Income and Child, Youth and Family than there were at this time last year. That is my commitment to the people who need that help. We expect those numbers of front-line staff to continue to grow.

Katrina Shanks: Can the Minister give us some more details of the employability enhancement service?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: This service is about helping people prepare CVs, and it is about seminars to help with interview skills. It is about using the network of contacts that people might know. It is intended for some of those people who may not have found themselves unemployed for many, many years, and do not know how to use those networks. The Prime Minister’s own constituent Mr Burgess could benefit from something like this, which can help him get into that market and understand how to do it. We are keen to help people in different ways, and this is a great initiative. I am pleased to say that I think it will work really well.

State-owned Enterprises—Privatisation

11. Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) to the Minister for State Owned Enterprises: Does he agree with NZX Chief Executive Mark Weldon that State-owned enterprises should act as if they face part-privatisation in 2 to 5 years?

Hon SIMON POWER (Minister for State Owned Enterprises): No. This Government campaigned on a policy of not privatising State assets this term. If the member wants to accuse the Government of preparing State-owned enterprises for sale, he should cast his mind back to 1 April 1987, when Labour corporatised nine State agencies in a single day. That was when the “fresh face of Labour”, the Hon Phil Goff, was in Cabinet, and Miami Vice was on TV.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Does the Minister really expect New Zealanders to believe that such comments from Mark Weldon, the Minister’s own demands on State-owned enterprises to increase profits, Treasury’s call for privatisation, the Prime Minister’s admission that privatisation may well be on the agenda after the election, and the appointment of Don Brash to head a productivity task force are all a coincidence, or does the Minister agree that New Zealanders are smart enough to know that if it looks like privatisation, sounds like privatisation, and smells like privatisation, then it probably is privatisation?

Hon SIMON POWER: In answer to the first question, yes, because public ownership is not a reason to accept poor financial performance from our State-owned enterprises.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Will the Minister now categorically deny that State-owned enterprises like Meridian Energy are being prepared for privatisation should the National Party was to win a second term?

Hon SIMON POWER: Firstly, no State-owned enterprise is being prepared for privatisation. Secondly, I am surprised the member is so quick to concede the next election.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Has he or any other shareholding Minister written to Crown research institutes or State-owned enterprises to ask them to explain why their functions could not be better performed by the private sector, and to detail areas that could be contracted to the private sector?

Hon SIMON POWER: I have no responsibility for Crown research institutes, but I certainly do not recall penning a letter to State-owned enterprises along the lines that the member has outlined.

Children with Special Needs—Funding for Therapists

12. CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green) to the Minister of Education: Why has she cut funding for therapists working with children with impairments in schools?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education): Funding for additional therapy was never built into the baseline by the previous Government; it has only ever been funded on a year-by-year basis. That particular support was provided to only 23 schools around the country, and other schools with students with the same or greater need have never received that funding for additional therapy. Students who have high or very high needs will continue to receive support through the Ongoing and Reviewable Resourcing Scheme.

Catherine Delahunty: What is the logic behind increasing some special education funding but cutting programmes that work for the most vulnerable, people like Christian Kumitau, a 13-year-old student from Māngere, who is confined to a wheelchair and faces losing funding for his physiotherapy?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I am advised that a student in that case with high needs in the Ongoing and Reviewable Resourcing Scheme would, at a minimum, continue to receive $9,910 per year to provide therapy and teacher aide support and an additional 0.1 of an additional teacher at the average cost of $6,500. There could also be support for assistive technology as well as funding for transport assistance of about $3,000 per year, plus whatever else the school might contribute from its operational grant or staffing entitlement.

Jo Goodhew: What reports has the Minister received on funding for special education?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I received a report that quotes the previous Minister of Education, Chris Carter, as saying: “Not enough of the money earmarked for special education is actually getting to the school level and more importantly to the individual pupil with special needs.” That is an appalling admission from the previous Minister of Education after Labour had had 9 years in power. We are committed to special education, and in our very first Budget we increased the funding for high and very high needs students by $51 million over 4 years. That is the biggest increase that the Ongoing and Reviewable Resourcing Scheme has received for a number of years.

Hon Phil Goff: What does it say about the Minister’s priorities that she has cut $2.5 million from the most vulnerable and disadvantaged kids in disabled units while finding $35 million to support the most advantaged kids in the country in private schools?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I say to that member that again he needs to get his facts correct, because his assertion is not true.

Catherine Delahunty: Can the Minister explain what is fair about spending $35 million subsidising private schools while vulnerable children in public schools, such as Wiki Tamihana of the Wairarapa, lose funding and while her school’s special needs helper loses her job?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: Again, I say to that member that children who have high health needs will continue to be funded under the Ongoing and Reviewable Resourcing Scheme. In fact, this Government is increasing the scheme’s funding by $51 million over the next 4 years.

Hon Phil Goff: Does the Minister read her correspondence; for example, the letter from the principal of the Carlson School for Cerebral Palsy indicating that half of that school’s therapists will be cut and that there is no compensatory funding, and the letter from the principal of Mt Roskill Intermediate School saying that the rights of severely disabled kids will be compromised and some may well become sufficiently ill that they will not be able to attend school at all if the therapy is cut?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I say to that member that in 9 years of a Labour Government, it did not put this particular funding into its baseline; it was only ever provided on a year-to-year basis. It only ever went to a small number of schools. Other schools throughout the country with children with similar levels of disability and need were never funded by that Government. This Government has put an extra $51 million into the Ongoing and Reviewable Resourcing Scheme, which funds high health needs and very high health needs children.

Hon Phil Goff: I seek leave to table two letters. They are from two highly disabled students at Mt Roskill Intermediate School seeking to explain to the Minister how they will be hurt by the cut in their therapy services.

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

Catherine Delahunty: I seek leave to table a list of independent schools that will receive $35 million in public money, including King’s College, Wanganui Collegiate School, and Christ’s College.

Mr SPEAKER: What is the source of that document?

Catherine Delahunty: It is from the website of Independent Schools New Zealand.

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

Urgent Debates Declined

Taskforce 2025—Establishment and Appointment of Dr Don Brash

I have received a letter from the Hon David Parker seeking to debate, under Standing Order 380, the Government’s announcement of the establishment of the 2025 Taskforce and the appointment of Dr Don Brash to chair the task force. The establishment of the task force and the appointment of its chairperson is a case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility. But I am not persuaded that it requires the immediate attention of the House. The test is a high one. Not every ministerial announcement will give grounds for an urgent debate to be held. In fact, the setting up of an inquiry rarely justifies an urgent debate. Where an inquiry is reported there may be exceptional circumstances that will justify a debate, but even then that is not always the case; I refer members to Speaker’s ruling 177/1. In these circumstances, I do not believe that the business of the House ought to be set aside today. The application is therefore declined.

Mr SPEAKER:

General Debate

General Debate

Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition): I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. Yesterday Prime Minister John Key pulled the corned beef and peas out of the freezer, together with the failed ideological policies of the 1990s, and brought back Don Brash into the centre of policy making in this country. Through Don Brash’s chairing of the 2025 Taskforce, we are about to see a regurgitation of the failed policies of the 1990s. John Key assured the country that this task force would have a narrow role. That was utterly contradicted yesterday by Don Brash, who said that everything is on the table. When Don Brash says that everything is on the table, we know that means the policies privatising the public assets of this country and privatising the services that he has trotted out for two decades. Why would we not believe that?

It is not simply the return, in isolation, of Don Brash. Let us look at who else has come back. We have seen the appointment of Graham Scott, a former Secretary to the Treasury under Ruth Richardson and ACT candidate, as one of the so-called purchase advisers, who was brought back to do a knife job on the Public Service—and alongside him, Murray Horn. We have seen the Prime Minister’s close confidant, Mark Weldon, the head of the New Zealand Exchange, talking about privatising State-owned enterprises. It is hard to conceive that he made those comments without talking to the Prime Minister about them first. Then we saw the Secretary to the Treasury, John Whitehead, who is a good person and was never politicised by the previous Labour Government, being brought back by the National Government to do its dirty work and saying the things in public that it does not have the courage to say.

We are seeing here a consistent agenda to bring back the failed ideologies of the 1990s. John Key has spent the last 3 years trying to convince New Zealanders, in order to get elected, that he is moderate, not ideological, and is centre of the road. But what we saw and heard on Q+A on Sunday was different from what we heard during the election campaign, when privatisation was off the agenda. Mr Key got into power and suddenly he is philosophically relaxed about privatisation.

With Don Brash, there are no surprises. What you see is—mostly—what you get. Don Brash is the man who said there should be no minimum wage, and that we should pay workers what they could get on the market. He is the one who said the cost of superannuation and benefits was too high, and needed to be cut. He is the one who said the radical policies of the 1990s had one thing wrong with them: they did not go far enough. He is the one who said he is happy to see schools and the health service privatised. He said he did not care who owned the schools. Less candidly, Dr Brash was prepared to accept secret funding from the extreme fringe group, the Exclusive Brethren, and lie to the public about that.

Where does Bill English stand on privatisation? Publicly, he was against it during the election campaign. But when somebody held out a tape recorder as he talked to his party hacks at a conference, he said he was in favour of privatisation. So we know where Mr English is on this issue as well.

I am proud that the previous Labour Government brought Air New Zealand back into the public sector. It is now run efficiently and profitably as a company with a majority public shareholding, after the private sector had run Air New Zealand into the ground and bankrupted it. At one point, I believed that the private sector would do a good job with Air New Zealand. The private sector proved me wrong. Then there was the gift from the National Government to the private sector of New Zealand Rail. National hocked it off to its personal mates and fundraisers at a price below the value of that company. They asset-stripped it and ran down its assets. We had to buy it back so that we had a decent and integrated public transport system.

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education): The member who has just resumed his seat, the Hon Phil Goff, talked of the failed policies of the 1990s. Today I want to talk more about the failed policies of the previous Labour Government when it came to early childhood education, because I heard that Government crowing plenty of times about how it was increasing participation in early childhood education. All the time, members of that Government talked about their 20 hours of so-called free early childhood education, and about how it would increase the participation of young New Zealanders in early childhood education. As the Government coming in we inherited a situation where an area like Counties-Manukau has an average of 60 to 65 percent participation in early childhood education.

The answer from the previous Government was for the previous Minister of Education to go out and have a look at the schools in that geographical area and at the size of their playing fields, and decide that nine schools would be the places where early childhood education services would be built. There was no consultation; the previous Government just picked out the schools where there was some clear space, and decided that it would happen. Well, actually, some of those schools did not want an early childhood centre on their land. In fact, one of them was a high school, and there was absolutely no relationship between it and an early childhood education centre.

What have we done in Government? I am very proud to tell this House today what we have done. We have gone out and talked to the communities, and we have asked them what they want when we start developing—as we need to—more early childhood centres. What do those communities think they need? Guess what! Lots of people have put their hands up and said they have some good ideas, and that their schools want to have early childhood centres on their sites. They think it will be of benefit to their communities, and they are prepared to get involved with the design and management of those centres. So now six schools in Counties-Manukau have self-identified as wanting to be suitable sites for a centre, and we announced yesterday that three of them will have an early childhood centre on them. Another three decile 1 and 2 schools are being assessed for early childhood education sites. Six certified playgroups are supported to open in Counties-Manukau.

One might ask: why a playgroup? Well, some of these communities do not actually understand the benefit of early childhood education, so it is a matter of building confidence in the whole—

Hon Trevor Mallard: You’re beginning to sound very patronising.

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: It is not patronising at all; this is what the communities themselves have told us. They do not want to go into a formal centre. That was the problem with the previous Government. When Labour was in Government it thought it knew best. It thought that—

Paul Quinn: They would know patronising.

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: They were patronising. These communities have said that if we just build a centre then the kids will not come. Those families that we really want to get to, and that the evidence tells us get the most benefit from early childhood education, will not come along to an early childhood centre. But they may come to a playgroup that has been organised in their local street, and parents may come and participate with their children and start to get involved in their children’s ongoing education. That is what the communities have told us they want, and that is what we are helping them to do.

The communities have also said to us that they should develop some playgroups in some quite highly visible areas in shopping centres. We said that was a fantastic idea and asked how we could help them to do that. You see, we on this side of the House understand as a Government that parents are an important part of early childhood education. The previous Government did not see parents as being worth anything and excluded them and any parent-led centres from funding. The previous Government cut out the parents. In fact, they only—

Hon Member: Caregivers.

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: Caregivers. We are not allowed to talk about parents. The previous Government talked about caregivers, but we care about parents and kids, and are listening to our communities.

Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green): Last week this country was treated to a rare moment of autochthonous wisdom. Responding to an invitation from the New Zealand Law Society, the Chief Justice allowed herself some personal reflection on the criminal justice system that has developed in New Zealand over recent decades. Notwithstanding the surprisingly intemperate response of the normally balanced Minister of Justice and the characteristically unbalanced response of the erstwhile Association of Consumers and Taxpayers, this country has reacted rather well to the speech made by the Chief Justice. Indeed, so it should, for the speech might conceivably mark a turning point in the national debate on crime and justice in this country.

The Chief Justice’s analysis rests on facts we have come to know painfully well. New Zealand’s incarceration rate is disproportionately high. The racial skew against Māori reveals a socio-economic bias that rests on the dominance of one culture in our society. The prison rate continues to increase. In short, we have a series of interrelated problems. Her thoughtful comments were clearly designed to generate some soul-searching that might enable us to turn things round. They did not deserve the spasm of repudiation that followed from the Government.

Let us consider what the Chief Justice has invited us to reflect upon. First, she notes the significant impact of introducing the victim’s voice into the sentencing process, which can risk turning cool justice into hot vengeance. Victims, she says, must be relevant to the process, but how far should we go before basic values of justice are undermined? Direct assistance to victims may be of greater help than a sense of ownership of the criminal justice process.

Secondly, the requirements of sentencing demand a balance between the safety of the community and the rehabilitation prospects of the offender. There is a positive, not a negative, correlation between these two considerations. The problem with incarceration is that the offender usually re-enters society, so if prison damages the offender, then he or she may well be more dangerous coming out than going in. Our recidivism rate is an alarming 52 percent, yet research shows that those with community-based sentences experience better rehabilitation than those imprisoned.

Even a few decades ago, the Chief Justice recalls, sentencing policy was largely left to the judiciary. Today there is a stronger prescriptive direction from the legislature, with minimum sentences and non-parole periods. That is not to suggest that there is no place for prison in the criminal justice system, rather that various reforms and initiatives in the system must be tried. We need, she says, to keep trying to see what works.

To that end the Chief Justice advanced five areas for consideration. The first was greater community education. It must be recognised that prisons do not reduce crime, and that the causes of crime have to be directly addressed in order to achieve that shared goal. Secondly, there should perhaps be more positive support intervention strategies at crucial stages for those most at risk. Thirdly, a return to more activist probation care is perhaps in order. Fourthly, there should be more sensitive treatment of drug and substance abuse within our prisons. Finally, there should perhaps be a managed reduction of the bloated prison population of this country consistent with the safety of the community. It was this last thought that set the hounds baying. Certainly, the idea runs counter to the political blood-lust that has surged through the nation’s public veins in recent years. That is all the more reason, then, for an antidote, a dose of reason to temper the adrenaline.

David Garrett: Anyone in your family been attacked, Kennedy?

Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM: Yes.

It would dishonour this seminal speech made by the Chief Justice and risk nullifying its purpose if I were to turn it into a political item. Suffice it to say that the Green Party welcomes Dame Sian Elias’ reflections and endorses her right to advance such views in an annual lecture organised by the Law Society. We find much in common with our own criminal justice policy. But there is scope for a reasoned debate on all these issues. We call upon the Government to respond to the address made by the Chief Justice in the same constructive and thoughtful spirit in which it was advanced.

I seek leave to table the speech given by the Chief Justice at the 2009 annual Shirley Smith Address in Wellington on Thursday, 9 July.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection.

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

Hon NATHAN GUY (Minister of Internal Affairs): What a shocking week Labour has had! The Hon Phil Goff, the Leader of the Opposition, has struggled to get any oxygen with this good Government, which is doing a great job, and which is now in its seventh or eighth month since being voted in by the New Zealand public with an overwhelming majority. Phil Goff is out there thinking up hare-brained schemes that are not even costed, and that he has not run past anyone to see about their feasibility and practicality—for example, allowing people who unfortunately find themselves unemployed to be able to receive the unemployment benefit even if they are in a couples situation with a partner who might be a millionaire. Phil Goff, the leader of the Labour Party, is out there promoting that these people should be getting welfare on the New Zealand system; I think that is shocking. When Phil Goff was challenged in the media and in the New Zealand public eye about this proposal, he did not know whether or not there should be a cap on it. Phil Goff has been out there proposing one thing, but when challenged he has been unwinding it, as well.

In my electorate of Ōtaki we can see how Labour is panicking, because all around Kapiti this week people have been getting jammed in their letterboxes a glossy brochure from Phil Goff saying “Give us your thoughts. We haven’t got any policy; you should tell us what we need to do.” In essence, that is exactly right. Labour Party members are out in my electorate, talking to my constituents, and trying to get some decent ideas because Labour does not have any. I think that is absolutely shocking. Labour does not have any policy, as opposed to National’s successes that are coming in on the back of the worst recession since the 1930s. Labour is not proposing anything apart from a gold-plated welfare system.

We can think about what National has been able to do in the last 7 or 8 months since it has been in Government. It has delivered $3 billion into the health system, and that is forecast over the next 4 years. We will allow 800 more health professionals in order to increase elective surgery. Just last week in my electorate we rolled out a programme to help paramedics look after people for 24 hours a day. The scheme is an extremely successful pilot that allows paramedics to treat people in their homes, which is fantastic. There is $103 million to increase maternity services. The list goes on. There is $245 million for upgrading the health sector infrastructure, which is a very important component of our health budget.

We heard just before from the Minister of Education, the Hon Anne Tolley, that an extra $1.68 billion—the biggest investment ever—is going into education to raise achievement. We are out there talking to parents up and down the country about numeracy and literacy standards, to ensure we have clear reporting through to the family kitchen table so that parents know how well their kids are doing in the classroom. Putting an extra $1.68 billion into education is absolutely fantastic.

We will have 600 more police looking after communities to try to help make communities safer. There will be 246 more probation workers to help improve public safety. The list goes on. There is $81 million for the Fresh Start initiatives. This is a busy Government that in its seventh or eighth month has already delivered a Budget against a backdrop of pretty bad economic times given the recession we are in, but the Government was able to get on and do the business for its New Zealand constituents.

Let us think about what we will focus on in the future. Business confidence remains positive. This Government is working with businesses and with the unions, as well. We have a good work stream ahead of us so that we can crack on and do some things. Let us think about what the Government will do next. We have to focus on regulatory reform. We have a huge investment in infrastructure. We have seven corridors—roads of national significance—where we will streamline the Resource Management Act and put more money into roading. We will unclog the arteries to ensure we can lift productivity capability in this country. I think that is fantastic. We have better public services. The list goes on.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn): That was yet another National member who is so bereft of ideas to make our country better that he has had to survey his constituents to tell him what the answer is because he has no idea. Nathan Guy is from a party that is so worried about superannuation that John Key has had to write to every superannuitant in the country to tell them that he will find pixies at the bottom of his garden to pay for their superannuation.

But wait! It gets better. The lightning flashes in the National Party boardroom, the thunder crashes and darkness falls, the tomb shudders, and out comes “Dracula Don”. “Dracula Don” rises from the crypt, the garlic of the lost emails wears off, the crucifix of The Hollow Men loses its power, the stake of the 2005 election is thrust from his heart, he crawls out of the crypt, and he says the immortal word “privatisation”. It is like putting Dracula in charge of the blood transfusion service. That is what bringing Don Brash back from the political crypt is like.

Let us consider this joke a bit more seriously. What is the politics of National’s being so desperate that it had to reach to “Dracula Don” to give it some forward motion on something, even if it is back to the future? Putting Don in charge of the 2025 Taskforce is very appropriate because that is his centenary. Why not give him a century gong and call it the productivity agenda? I think it is beautiful. But, of course, it is part of a wider pattern. John Whitehead is the skirts for his boss, the Minister of Finance, saying everything that is brave and that he thinks might need doing but that Bill English is too afraid to say; an old ACT Party acolyte like Graham Scott is being paid 2,000 bucks a day to sit at home and pore through the Government’s accounts because the Minister does not have the nous; and now Don Brash is rising from the grave to resurrect the 1990s, which—in his words, of course—were wrong, because they “did not go far enough.” Now “everything is on the table”. National needs momentum and we can guess where it will find it.

This Government was elected on a centrist ticket that many called “Labour-lite”. We found that pretty insulting, but John Key at least is lite. Those members were going to be kinder, gentler Tories who would not harm our benefit system—

Brendon Burns: Yeah, right!

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: —yeah, right—but they are bringing Don Brash back, the man who thought that education should be privatised, and that there was no reason for the State to own the welfare system, the hospitals, or the schools. He would let the private sector do it, and then tell people to sell their own houses and live in rentals because that is tax-efficient. That is the kind of out-of-touch bloke he is.

Why has National done this? Let us look at last week. On Tuesday morning, the “Mood of the Boardroom” feature had Bill English confronted by the feedback of a hundred chief executive officers. My favourite quote from one of them was in reference to the Job Summit: “Eighty per cent of the country’s GDP was represented and the best you can come up with is a cycleway.” Joke! John Key told them not to worry about that; he had a major speech on productivity coming up. On Wednesday he gave it, and on Thursday Fitch Ratings downgraded us. Is that not fantastic? It was so inspiring that Matthew Hooton said on Radio New Zealand National—he is no friend of ours, by the way—that there was absolutely nothing new in that speech and that it was bereft of ideas. He made Laila Harré look tame, which is not an easy job.

On the weekend the word went out from the National Party boardroom that it was time to open the crypt and bring back “Dracula”. “Dracula” has risen from the crypt and said: “Privatise it all! Enough! Doom! Doom! The Government has failed. Just turn it all over to them!”. John Key is saying that that is an idea; he can probably weave that in. But the big debate that the country is having with itself, and the essence of the politics of this, is that New Zealanders have not made up their minds whether John Key is shallow or deceitful. They do not know whether he really is “Labour-lite” and really is as clueless as he looks.

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment): What a week in politics, eh—what a week in politics! It is only Wednesday afternoon, and if a week is a long time in politics, it has been a heck of a couple of days for Mr Goff. We started the debate today with Mr Goff talking about the failed policies of the past. Mr Goff talked about the failed policies of the past. Well, he announced a policy on Monday; it is now Wednesday and his policy has already failed. What does that tell us? The failed policies of Mr Goff are shown by the 3 days that his policy has lasted so far.

Mr Goff started the week with his grandiose plan for making welfare payments. We have just heard about a great dramatic scene that might have happened in the past, but I am envisaging Sunday afternoon or early evening, when Labour members are sitting there, hand-wringing and going “Ooh, another week of the gloom of Opposition. Another week of not being able to do things. What shall we do?”. So they plucked that plan out of the air—absolutely plucked it out of the air—and threw it to the New Zealand Herald. There was no thinking done, and no consideration given to the cost. They just thought: “Let’s give this a go. Let’s see whether we can put hundreds of thousands more New Zealanders on to welfare. Let us see whether we can find people who make $80,000 a year, $90,000 a year, $100,000 a year, or even $200,000 a year, and put their husbands or wives on a benefit.” That is the grandiose plan of “Whack-it-on-the-welfare-bill” Phil Goff. That is the plan of the Labour Party.

But let us be fair about this. The Labour members were not talking about everyone going on to welfare—or that was Tuesday’s plan, anyway. By Tuesday they were saying “Maybe not the millionaires. The plan hasn’t quite gone down as well as we thought it might, so let’s try to put a cap on it now.”, or “Let’s change it.”, or “Let’s just backtrack with regard to what we actually meant when we started it.” It is sort of like “On yer bike, Phil Goff, and let’s start back-pedalling as quickly as we possibly can.”, because Phil Goff saw his blunder completely. Then Wednesday came along, and today it is as though he would put a cap on who could actually get that welfare assistance. He talks about job search as if that is not happening. Actually, New Zealanders who need job search can get access to it; that is what Work and Income is there to do.

Then the second blunder for Mr Goff happened just today, when he decided to stand up, all righteous, all ready. Mrs King was involved in doing this as well, earlier in the week, when she stood up for that constituent—the one who has, you know, been treated absolutely disgracefully and cannot get help—without checking the facts. I mean, goodness’ knows, Mrs King has been in politics long enough—

Hon Annette King: Which one?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Well, we could name a number of constituents who might happen—

Hon Annette King: Which one did I name?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I believe there was correspondence earlier in the week about a particular constituent. Let us be clear that without getting their facts right, politicians who have been around this place for longer than I can remember have decided not to check their facts, and they have run around advocating for people in circumstances where any decent New Zealander would turn round and find that to be quite unfair. We have come to blunder No. 2, and which day are we on? We are on Wednesday. It is Wednesday and we are already seeing back-pedalling like we have not seen before from an Opposition party that is desperate to find a voice but instead is clutching needlessly at straws and trying to turn New Zealanders into long-term welfare dependants.

Let us be really clear that that is the message New Zealanders should be hearing from that Opposition party; it is not one that this Government is going to give them. In the worst recession ever, we have a welfare system that this Government is proud to support. More than a billion dollars a year is going into welfare. It is going into those who genuinely need it, and going into helping people when they need it the most. That is what National has always been about, that is what we are about now, and that is what we will be about in the future—genuine help for those who genuinely need it. We will step up and support those people to the hilt, with over a billion dollars a year. But what does Labour want to do? It wants to pick another billion dollars out of the air. It ain’t magic beans. Labour cannot take the cow in and swap it for magic beans. It is real money, and there is not another billion dollars sitting out there for us to spend. So is Labour just going to whack it on the bill and have another bit of deficit for New Zealanders? Whose taxes would Labour put up? Whose taxes does Labour want to put up in order to pay for the billion dollars more that it wants to put on the welfare bill?

Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): It gives me no pleasure to criticise a former member of this House. Indeed, on this side of the House I think we have been very careful not to criticise many of the former members of this House who have been appointed to important positions by the new Government. I am talking about people like Roger Sowry, a very able man, who was appointed to the Electricity Commission.

But I have to say that the appointment of Dr Brash to the productivity task force is in a different category. We really have to ferret under the veneer of that appointment to consider what lies underneath it. Dr Brash is an economic fundamentalist, he is a zealot, and he is a proven liar. It does not reflect well on the National Government if it thinks about the fact that just a small number of years ago Dr Brash had to resign, having secured what was a very good election result for National. He had brought National back from the abyss of terrible polling and just about won an election for it, yet he had to resign because he was caught lying. He was caught lying in the most important contest that we ever have in this country, and that is when we have an election. He told lies in order to try to win Government. When that was exposed in the book The Hollow Men, he was forced to resign because it was such an embarrassment to National and he was an albatross around its neck. He did what he did then because he has always thought that the ends justify the means.

His political career started when he became, to all ostensible purposes, the independent Governor of the Reserve Bank. He did a despicable thing when he was there: he politicised that office. Whilst he was Governor of the Reserve Bank he was in negotiations with the National Party to get himself an electable place on the National Party list, and he corrupted that office through that action. He then did despicable things when he was leader of the National Party. This Parliament, 5 years later, is trying to clean up some of the problems with the foreshore and seabed. Who was the person in this House who fuelled the fires of racism in this country in respect of the foreshore and seabed? It was under the leadership—

Hon Tau Henare: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. There is a well-known convention about the sort of language one uses when referring to a former member of this House.

Moana Mackey: No, there isn’t.

Mr SPEAKER: There will be no interjections while I am listening to this point of order.

Hon Tau Henare: I have been told that on many occasions when I have erred by getting stuck into former members of this House. I have been told that not only by the previous Speaker but by the Speaker before that, as well. I suggest to that member—and that you should tell him—that those who have served in this place have no recourse other than to write a letter to you and ask for their position to be put before the House. I think it behoves us to be careful what we say about former members.

Hon Darren Hughes: No such convention offering protection to former members is recognised in the Standing Orders or the Speakers’ rulings, other than what the member himself said. If former members or members of the public listening feel that something that has been said casts aspersions on them, they have direct recourse to you in terms of privilege. But the member himself during the debate has been interjecting about a former member and saying that that person is a liar. The member himself has been engaging in a breach of the convention he is bringing to your attention. I think this is a robust Wednesday debate, and the flow of the debate must continue.

Hon DAVID PARKER: Speaking to the point of order—

Mr SPEAKER: No, I will not hear anything further on this matter. I accept the point made by the Hon Darren Hughes in that I do not believe there is a Standing Order that prevents members from attacking former members of this House. But I say that the privileges in this House should be treated with respect. I do not wish to hear ugly attacks on people who cannot defend themselves. I ask members to think carefully before they make vicious attacks on people who are not in this Chamber and are not able to defend themselves. It is perfectly within the member’s rights to do so; I just ask him to reflect on how much dignity he brings to this place by doing so.

Hon DAVID PARKER: Thank you, Mr Speaker. We have freedom of speech in this House.

Hon Darren Hughes: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am sorry to interrupt my colleague; I thought he was taking a point of order. With all due respect, Mr Speaker, I think you have actually entered the debate of the House with your last ruling. I do not say that to challenge you in any way. You have expressed an opinion about the quality of the debate, not about the nature of the Standing Orders and the procedures that govern the debate; your job is to referee on that. In your initial ruling you said that there are no Speakers’ rulings or Standing Orders that govern that, and I think you did—well, I think I have made my point.

Mr SPEAKER: I accept the point the honourable member makes, but I am just trying to make the point that I do not believe it does this House good to make a vicious attack on a person who is not inside the House. It is perfectly within the rights of members to do so, and there is nothing wrong with robust debate, at all, but we should think of the way in which we do it. New Zealanders outside this House cannot defend themselves, and it reflects on all of us. I accept the point that the Hon Darren Hughes has made. It is a perfectly good point, and I do not wish to go any further than that, other than to ask members to reflect on the fact that it reflects on all of us when we launch an attack. There is nothing wrong with an attack, it is just the viciousness of it. I ask members to think about that.

Hon DAVID PARKER: No more serious lie can be told in this country than a lie told during an election to win Government. That is a very proper thing to say.

Chris Tremain: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. There is a convention in this House about using the word “lie”, and I ask you to reflect on that convention. To be calling people a name of that nature is uncalled for, and I ask the member to withdraw and apologise.

Hon DAVID PARKER: Speaking to the point of order, I note that I have freedom of speech in this House. You have ruled that what I am saying is in order. My speech, which is on an important issue, has been broken up, and I hope that I am protected by the Speaker in my right to free speech and that this time is not being deducted from the time of my speech.

Mr SPEAKER: I absolutely assure the member that the time is not being deducted. The issue around the accusation of lying applies to members in this House, and therefore I will not be asking the member to withdraw and apologise. But I repeat what I have said. The privileges we have in this House are very precious to us, and we should not abuse them.

Hon DAVID PARKER: Thank you, Mr Speaker. The privileges of free speech are dearly held. I do not abuse them. I am recounting facts that are on the public record. Dr Brash lied in order to try to win the election. He politicised the office of Governor of the Reserve Bank.

Hon Tau Henare: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The person the member is referring to was the leader of a political party, the National Party, during an election. It is my belief that David Parker has not only besmirched the name of Dr Brash, but also by implication—

Hon Annette King: What’s the point of order?

Hon Tau Henare: Well, if the member would just shut up and listen—

Mr SPEAKER: The member should come to his point of order quickly.

Hon Tau Henare: To explain the point of order takes a bit of time. My point of order is that by implication that member has called members of the National Party a pack of liars, as well. I take offence at being, by implication, referred to as a liar.

Hon Darren Hughes: I do not believe a valid point of order has been expressed to you, at all, Mr Speaker. One cannot take offence on behalf of somebody who is not even a member of the House. The member himself once famously referred to the United States Secretary of Labor, Mr Robert Reich, by using another pronunciation of that word that referred to Nazi Germany. There were several points of order about it because it was so offensive to a man of Jewish descent. Mr Henare was absolutely unrepentant about that outside the House. At question time the Prime Minister has refused to answer questions about a former member of Parliament on the basis that the former member is now a private citizen. The only point of order here concerns that fact that there is a deliberate strategy by the Government to break up a member’s speech despite you having laid claim to our freedom of speech.

Mr SPEAKER: I do not believe there is a deliberate strategy; I believe that members are concerned to hear a respected New Zealand citizen attacked in a vicious way. It is the absolute right of members to have freedom of speech in this House, and I will uphold that right. But the member must be careful not to impugn the integrity of other members of the House.

Hon Darren Hughes: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is a fresh point of order, but it is similar to the one I raised before. In your last comment you entered the debate. You called someone a respected New Zealander, and you referred to something that had been said about him as a vicious attack. You made a debating point in your ruling. I think you are entering the Wednesday debate when you speak in that way.

Mr SPEAKER: I have heard sufficient. I am quite aware of what I am doing. For some months, since I have been elected Speaker of this House, I have been concerned about the tone of this House. The tone has improved enormously this term, and I do not want to see that lost. But I will uphold the member’s right to freedom of speech in this House.

Hon DAVID PARKER: I lost respect for Dr Brash when he lied to the New Zealand electorate in his attempt to win the Treasury benches. That further reinforced my view that he had politicised the office of Governor of the Reserve Bank. Further, we know he is an economic fundamentalist. He does not favour the minimum wage. He wants flattened tax rates. He does not think we should have compulsory savings. He stands for many things openly, and it is his right to do so, but the Government should not present him as a person who will come up with new ideas to improve productivity in New Zealand as compared with Australia. He is revisiting his old agenda because he has no other. That is the point, and in the context of his background—he lied to New Zealand and politicised the office of Governor of the Reserve Bank—it is an inappropriate appointment to visit upon this country. That is why I am criticising it. It is quite within my rights to point out his actions when he was in this House, when he lied to the country, when he fuelled the flames around the foreshore and seabed issue, and when, prior to that, he politicised the office of Governor of the Reserve Bank. All those acts were disgraceful. This man does not have my respect, and he should not be in charge of the productivity task force.

Hon TAU HENARE (National): I seek leave under Standing Order 349 to make a personal explanation with regards to what the Hon Darren Hughes referred to in his point of order.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought for the member to make a personal explanation. Is there any objection to that? There is none.

Hon TAU HENARE: I want to put on record the other bit of the story that the Hon Darren Hughes gave about Mr Reich. At that time, there was great debate around the country about the pronunciation of Māori names—

Hon Darren Hughes: That’s not personal.

Hon TAU HENARE: Hang on! That member has given leave. What bugged me no end was the continued mispronunciation of my name. I think that one needs to put my comments into that context in order to read the whole issue that the Hon Darren Hughes raised.

Mr SPEAKER: When members seek leave to make personal explanations they have to be careful to make sure that they are personal. That was very much on the margins.

CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is in respect of the comments made by the previous speaker, the Hon David Parker.

Mr SPEAKER: It must be to do with order. Is it a matter of order?

CHESTER BORROWS: It is to do with a matter of order, I believe. I will stand corrected if that turns out not to be the case according to your ruling. It has been settled that the member is quite at liberty to call Don Brash a liar, according to the rules of speech within this House. I ask for your ruling on this matter. I ask whether it is a matter of fairness that if anyone was to refer to the previous speaker, the Hon David Parker, and, for instance, his company return that he filed that incorrectly stated—

Mr SPEAKER: I urge the member to be very careful. He is introducing matter that is not a matter of order. I think I hear the gist of where the member is going with his point and I do not think that we should take this matter any further. I believe that when members risk disrespecting the freedom of speech we have in this House, it can lead to disorder. That is something we should think very carefully about. But, as I said, I will uphold members’ rights within this House to say what they believe, where they are speaking about members outside of the House. That is something that I will do, but I ask members to think carefully.

Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (Minister for Courts): I am very pleased to take a call in this general debate. It is pretty pathetic that the Labour side criticises National for not having ideas, yet those members are content to use all of their time in criticising someone who was in Parliament some years ago and whom we have brought in now. But what that action says is that we do not pretend we know everything, unlike that party. In Labour’s 9 years in Government the members took all the knowledge from the House and paid no attention to the New Zealand public. They pretended they knew everything, and ran this country as though it was their personal party, and it was not. Get real; the party is over! They bequeathed to us a whole line of negativity, with a long tail of underachievement. Shame on the Labour Party! As I say, it is very disappointing that in all their speeches, no members came forward with any ideas themselves, but are very happy to criticise us.

I tell those members that we are getting on with the job. We do not pretend to know it all. We have invited a number of people from the private sector to come in, help us and support us, because that is what New Zealanders would expect. They know that Governments do not have all the answers but they know that some of them have the answers. The trick in my view—actually it is not a trick, but the approach is to value the knowledge and skills and experience of New Zealanders and bring those people into the equation if they have something to offer.

The future of our country is at stake. In Labour’s 9 years in Government it squandered the good times and left us only bad times. If Labour members are of the mind to care about their fellow New Zealand citizens, then they should come in with some constructive ideas. National is getting on with the job. We are looking for new ideas, we have new ideas, and we have announced those new ideas. New ideas have been flowing since the Job Summit.

I want to talk in respect of the new ideas for Māori for a wee while; for instance, this week there will be announcements running regarding 250 new places for training for young Māori men and women. At the end of the week, my colleague the Hon Chris Finlayson will be meeting in Rotorua regarding another Treaty settlement, and there will also be a housing initiative that will be announced as well. We are getting on with the job, and those ideas are just in relation to Māori, but they are happening across the board. Someone has to manage this country wisely during this downturn; that is what we are doing. New ideas will not come popping out all over the place. The Labour Government had 9 years and it did not have new ideas.

As much as Labour wants to criticise us, the reality is that the New Zealand public are behind us. Why are they behind us? They got sick of the 9 years of a nanny-State Government thinking that it knew everything and developing all the answers down here in the centre. It bequeathed the country one of the worst legacies ever—absolutely! The good times are the times to lay up and prepare for the bad times. The previous Labour Government did nothing about that—absolutely nothing—and now we have to fix the mess. We are getting on; we are managing the country.

To go back to what is happening in the Māori area, we have a Māori economic task force and there are work streams that fall out of that, which will look to boost the participation of Māori and Pacific people in the New Zealand economy. They are a growing part of the economy. When the economy starts to lift we want to make sure that they are prepared to help lift productivity. That is what it is all about. Frankly, the growth rate in the good years under the previous Labour Government was pathetic, and we have inherited that. New Zealanders have inherited that. Shame on the Labour Party!

MOANA MACKEY (Labour): I ask Georgina te Heuheu whether she read the report that came out recently that showed that because of the previous Government’s Working for Families package, 130,000 children have been lifted out of poverty. I ask that member, who stood there and said the previous Government did nothing—

Hon Georgina te Heuheu: Whatever.

MOANA MACKEY: She says “Whatever.”, and walks out. That is typical. The National members sit there and whinge and moan about the fact that we are pointing out that they have appointed the Lord Voldemort of New Zealand politics to head their productivity task force. Apparently that is our fault and we should not complain about it. The reality is that we are complaining about it.

Georgina te Heuheu said that at the last election the New Zealand public were behind National. That is a fair comment; National won the election. But let us look at the difference between what the National Government promised at the last election it would do and what it has actually done.

Louise Upston: Have you seen the polls lately?

MOANA MACKEY: Ms Upston might do very well to just listen for 5 minutes, rather than screeching across the House. Let us have a look at National’s promises. During the election campaign we had the smiling mask of John Key, and the National Party with its “Labour-lite” policies. It said that it would not change much and that everything that New Zealanders love would be kept, with more on top of that. That is what we had during the election campaign. Well, the mask is slipping. We are seeing the hard, cold, right-wing, free-market ideologue face behind that mask—and Maurice Williamson is smiling, because to him that is a compliment. We are seeing the mask slipping and the reality of this National Government. National has already broken election promises in its first year in Government. It has used the recession as an excuse. Apparently it was the only political party in the whole world that did not see the global recession coming! National deliberately promised things it knew it could not deliver, and now it blames the recession as the reason why it cannot deliver on those promises. National knew it had to make those promises to get elected.

But it has gone a step too far in appointing Don Brash to head the productivity task force. Any credibility that National had in saying that it would be a moderate Government has gone. First, Christine Rankin was appointed to the Families Commission, and now Don Brash has been appointed to head the productivity task force. If National was serious about productivity, it would have put together a task force right across the political spectrum. It would have engaged a whole lot of different, competing ideas and had a real debate about this matter. The fact is that National does not want that. It wants Don Brash to come out and say that the best way to increase productivity is to privatise everything and to get the Government out of every aspect of people’s lives.

The point is that if we look just in the area of research and development, we see that Treasury’s own papers to the Government said that if it is serious about productivity it has to do something about private sector investment in research and development. There is no point in talking about productivity when it is doing nothing to address our appallingly low rates of private sector investment in research and development. What did this National Government do? It cancelled the research and development tax credit. We are now one of the only OECD countries that do not have tax incentives for research and development. The Minister for Research, Science and Technology, Dr Wayne Mapp, said at the Education and Science Committee and in this House that we are not at a competitive disadvantage compared with Australia, yet the Australian Government has just bolstered its tax incentives, and we have got rid of ours. This Minister has his head so far in the sand that only his ankles are visible. He seriously expects New Zealanders to believe that this Government is serious about productivity. If the Government is serious about productivity, it needs to bring back the tax incentives for research and development—that would be a good first step—and admit that it was wrong in getting rid of them in the first place.

Let us look at the issue of wages. Don Brash has made a big deal about the fact that our wages are so far behind Australia’s. He thinks we need to do something about that, and the answer is privatisation and less government. Do members think that Don Brash will seriously consider whether the previous National Government’s reforms in the area of industrial relations had anything to do with our wages stalling? Will he consider whether the fact that workers could not bargain or negotiate for increased wages had anything to do with the fact that our wages fell behind our Australian counterparts? Will he consider the fact that Australian workers have consistently received a much fairer share of the economic growth and any other kind of advantage in that area because they have strong unionisation and strong industrial relations protections? Do members think that Don Brash will say that that has anything to do with wages in Australia versus wages in New Zealand?

Hon Darren Hughes: Let me guess.

MOANA MACKEY: Let me guess. I think Don Brash will probably say that what we need to do is get rid of protections for workers, get rid of the minimum wage, and absolutely crush unionism. I ask members to look at New Zealand. It is interesting that the workforce areas that have had the best pay increases have been the most strongly unionised ones. Does the Government think that is a coincidence?

CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui): I relish the opportunity to speak for a few moments about the selective memory of those members opposite. This afternoon the Leader of the Opposition went all the way back to 1990, and stopped right there. He criticised National for everything we did through the 1990s, and he forgot, for instance, that National came into Government in 1990 finding exactly what we found coming in in 2008—that the cupboard was bare. We had to go on to take steps against that in 1991, and we get caned for it week after week, and year after year, by those members opposite, because they do not want to remember that when they got the boot at the end of 1990, that bare and empty cupboard was their legacy to the New Zealand taxpayer. That was the way it was.

Who was there? We know that Phil Goff—back-to-the-future Phil Goff—was there in Cabinet. We know that Annette King was there. We know that campaigning on the marvellous track record of the Labour Government of 1984-90 was Lianne Dalziel. We also know that not long after that there was the former president of the Labour Party, the Hon Ruth Dyson, who campaigned on the marvellous track record of the Labour Government of 1984-90. Who else was there? Who was the senior member of the Labour Party, and soon to be the next president of the Labour Party? It was the Hon Maryan Street. She was there. She campaigned long and hard on the track record of the Labour Government of 1984-90. This week we heard the Prime Minister, John Key, remind the Hon Phil Goff of some of the excellent speeches and little turns of phrase that he used in the 1990 period. But, of course, that is all gone. Since then, the Rt Hon Helen Clark has apologised for all that stuff at party conference after party conference, so, as far as they are concerned, it is dead and buried. Well, I say to the House that it is not so. We know the faces that were there, and we know that they remain on that side of the House right through until today.

It was very disappointing for me to hear the Hon David Parker go on and on about a former member of the House, Don Brash. He referred to Don Brash as a liar and a racist on a number of occasions in the course of that pitiful speech, and a number of points of order were taken on it. The irony of the rules of the peculiar and foreign environment that is the debating chamber is this: the Hon David Parker—the aptly named Hon David Parker, because he is an honourable member—can talk about Don Brash in that way and call him a liar and a racist, yet anyone who could have a little bit of a sense of history could go back to a time when the Attorney-General was a guy called the Hon David Parker, and the Minister of Justice was a man called the Hon David Parker. A certain little incident—

Hon Darren Hughes: That’s wrong.

CHESTER BORROWS: I stand corrected. At least the honourable member was the Attorney-General at a time when it was discovered that he had filled in company returns on five separate occasions, a number of them while he was a member of this honourable House, that referred to dates when company meetings were held, which were not, in fact, held. The defence was, of course—it was released in the public domain—that he had a letter exculpating him from actually having to do that. He held it up and said that as he did not have to do it, he was not wrong. That was the finding of the inquiry that looked into it. But it does not take away from the fact that company returns were filed that had dates when company meetings were held, which were not held. I can outline that to the House, but I am not allowed to draw it in and accuse him of being any of those names that he decided to call the former member Don Brash.

Don Brash was also accused by the Hon David Parker as being racist, but Mr Parker forgot for one moment a little catchphrase of the previous Labour leader, the Rt Hon Helen Clark. She talked about “haters and wreckers”. These were members of her constituency. These were members who came, as is their democratic right, to this House to talk about something that had been shafted to them—that is, the previous Government’s decision to go past a Court of Appeal decision, within the Westminster judicial system, to go to the court to seek a decision. And the Labour Government got up and changed the law.

DAVID GARRETT (ACT): Just about a week has gone by since the Chief Justice made suggestions to the executive—the members on my left—on what it might wish to consider with regard to penal policy. Two issues have been raised following the Chief Justice’s statements. The first issue is the constitutional issue, which has been relatively well canvassed. The second issue is the call from a number of people to address the points that she raised.

I will not spend much time on the constitutional issue as it has been discussed at some length, except to say that there are ways and means for the Chief Justice—or, indeed, any judge—to communicate her views to the executive. She can have a quiet word in the ear of the Attorney-General or the Minister of Justice. She well knows the convention in that regard. I have personal views, as I am sure does every member of the House, on what should properly happen to the odious Mr Weatherston, found guilty of murder today. But I will not give my opinion here in the House, because that would be an improper interference in the role of the judiciary. I will say no more than that.

I wish to spend my time doing what commentators have suggested, so I will talk about the issues raised by the Chief Justice. She and members of the liberal commentariat have taken as a starting place the supposed axiom that imprisonment does not work. I wish to examine that a bit. Imprisonment has no effect on crime—that, I think, is what Dame Sian said. Data from US states since 1994 tell us a very different story. The United States, because of its federal system and there being 50 different legal systems in 50 different political regimes, gives us an opportunity to compare various strategies in anything, and in respect of penal policy a wide range of strategies have been followed across the United States in the past 15 years.

I digress for just a second to note with some sadness that members of the Law Society presenting a submission to the Law and Order Committee on the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill seemed unaware that New York state does not have a “three strikes” law. The submitter referred to New York state as having had some early apparently positive effects from a “three strikes” law. New York state is not one of the “three strikes” states. It has followed a more punitive course at the front end of offending. New York is the home of what has become known as zero tolerance, or the “fixing broken windows” policy. It has also what is known in the US as sentence enhancement measures, of which “three strikes” is the most well known, but it is not primarily a sentence enhancement state.

California, of 26 US states, introduced “three strikes” laws in 1994, and the result has been dramatic. In that time homicide and robbery rates have reduced in that state by 50 percent, and the incidence of house burglary has reduced by 60 percent. At the same time, the population of the state has increased some 25 percent. My calculations show that a 50 percent reduction in offending numbers, coupled with a 25 percent increase in population, equates to a 62.5 percent decrease in homicide. That is absolutely massive; it is absolutely massive.

It has been very interesting, during the progress of the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill thus far, to see the same hysterical exaggerations thrown about in this country with regard to supposed doubling or tripling of prison numbers and huge increases in costs. I say it has been interesting because exactly the same thing happened in California. There were predictions of a tripling of the prison population and costs of $100 million extra. What has occurred in reality is a 20 percent-ish increase in the early days, and it is now about 5 percent greater.

Dr CAM CALDER (National): The last 3 days of mistakes, miscues, muddling, and mugwumpery by the honourable Leader of the Opposition suggest that he runs the risk of becoming known as “Phil Gaffe”, rather than Phil Goff. But I prefer to celebrate National’s success—

Hon Darren Hughes: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I know the member is fond of clichés, but he cannot refer to a member in this House by anything other than his or her name, and I think he should get off to a good start in that regard.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker): I thank the member. The member is correct. Members should address members respectfully by their proper and correct name.

Dr CAM CALDER: Thank you for the correction. I prefer to celebrate National’s success, rather than to dwell on the dismal spectre of continuing Labour failure.

The National-led Government is actively working on many fronts to improve the lot of all New Zealanders. This is, of course, in the face of the most challenging economic times since the Great Depression. As I have mentioned before, as well as a fiscal crisis we have a crisis of confidence, and globally no one knows how deep the hole is. John Key’s National-led Government is principled and pragmatic, and committed to cushioning New Zealand from the worst effects of the financial turmoil. Not only are we facing a current world economic downturn, as we all know, we are also having to cope with the ravages of 9 long years of supervised neglect by the last Labour Government.

The scars of this neglect were all too easy to see in South Auckland when I had the privilege to campaign there last year. The people of the colourful, vibrant, and diverse Manurewa and Manukau communities are hard-working, and ambitious for themselves and their children. Their communities’ concerns were clear. Many houses have screen doors with multiple locks. Behind this is the main door, often with two or three locks also. I remember when we were at a public meeting to discuss the issue of law and order, and there was an armed robbery a mere 500 yards down the road.

On a more pleasant note, I visited many early childhood education facilities. All of the ones I visited were doing an excellent job of nurturing and stimulating the young minds of the children they had charge of. Significantly, all the centres had a large waiting list.

Let us look at what has happened in the first 8 months of this principled, inclusive National-led Government. One of the Government’s top educational priorities is ensuring that every child can take part in high-quality early childhood education. New Zealand’s early childhood participation rates are high overall, by international standards, but some groups, particularly Māori and Pacific Island communities and those from low socio-economic backgrounds, have very low participation rates.

We have announced three new early childhood education centres in Manukau, and these will be in the Manurewa area in Weymouth Primary School and Hōmai Primary School, and in the Papakura area in Mansell Senior School. All three will be funded through the education ministry’s Counties Manukau Participation Project, targeting areas with a traditionally low uptake of early childhood education. This Counties Manukau Participation Project brings communities and local and central government together to find solutions.

Increasing participation is not just about the number of vacancies available. It is also about providing the services that particular communities want and that suit those communities. It is about encouraging families and whānau to use those services. These new services that the Minister of Education alluded to earlier will be placed in the schools that have asked for them. The Ministry of Education will be working with boards of trustees to develop the sites. We expect the work to start in the next 3 months, and more are on the books.

We believe that it is a fundamental duty of the Government to protect. A society is judged by how we treat our most vulnerable, as I mentioned before. In the Manukau and Manurewa communities, many are vulnerable—too many, in fact. Too many residents have suffered the consequences of violent crime. More police and more effective policing is just part of the solution, but it is a part of the solution. National is keeping yet another election promise. The National Government has committed to increasing the number of police in the Counties-Manukau area by 300 front-line officers by the end of 2010.

Chris Auchinvole: How many?

Dr CAM CALDER: It is 300, and a further 300 for the rest of the country by the end of 2011. Already, 64 of the 300 extra Counties-Manukau officers have been recruited and deployed.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.

Bills

Port Nicholson Block (Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika) Claims Settlement Bill

In Committee

Part 1 Purpose of Act, interpretation, settlement of historical claims, and miscellaneous matters

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): I take a preliminary call to address the report of the Māori Affairs Committee on the Port Nicholson Block (Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika) Claims Settlement Bill, and to thank its members again for their work. In particular, I will address the part of the report that is headed “Ngāti Tama opt-out clause”. I particularly want to refer to clause 8(1), where there has been an amendment. Clause 8(1) states: “This section is subject to clause 8.2.3 of the deed of settlement as at the date of the deed of settlement.”

Clause 8 of the bill defines Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika as a collective of iwi who descend from one or more ancestors from Te Ātiawa, Ngāti Tama, Taranaki, Ngāti Ruanui, and other iwi from the Taranaki area, for example Ngāti Mutunga; who also descend from one of the signatories of the 1839 deed of purchase; or who are beneficiaries of the Wellington Tenths Trust. Importantly, as can be seen from clause 8(1), the definition links the bill to clause 8.2.3 of the deed of settlement, which provides that all persons who descend from a Ngāti Tama tupuna fall within the definition of Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika unless they choose to have their historical claim settled by another group with a Crown-recognised mandate, and that should a settlement negotiated by that other group with a Crown-recognised mandate become unconditional, those persons will, to the extent that they rely on descent from a Ngāti Tama tupuna, be excluded from this legislation.

The committee expressed some concern about that clause. It described the clause, as was referred to in the second reading last night, as “an unhappy exception to the Crown’s practice of dealing with large natural groupings”, and it did not recommend the use of such opt-out clauses in the future. I agree with that view. The clause is a very unusual measure and it is an exception to the Crown’s policy of settling with large natural groups. The inclusion of the clause was not a decision that was taken lightly and was made after numerous attempts at reconciliation. I am sure Mr Ririnui will be able to provide some of the background, because he was Associate Minister in Charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations at the time and did a sterling job of trying to achieve that reconciliation. I have to say, if asked whether I would agree to such an approach in future negotiations, which I am responsible for, the answer would have to be in the negative.

I think the committee correctly addressed an important issue in the context of a reasonably innocent-looking clause 8. It is one that I am prepared to live with in this legislation, but I hope we do not see anything like it again.

Hon MITA RIRINUI (Labour): I thank the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, Christopher Finlayson, for his opening comments on the Port Nicholson Block (Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika) Claims Settlement Bill. I also highlight to the Committee that we are approaching Te Wiki o Te Reo Māori, and pronunciations are very important. I thank the Minister for his understanding of the issues that the select committee had to deal with in terms of the opt-out clause. Although I do not want to give a historical overview of how that situation came about, I say that the Māori Affairs Committee was very strong in pointing out that the opt-out clause should not be seen as setting a precedent for future claims. I know that the Government is now considering regional approaches to Treaty settlements. A continuation of that type of opt-out option would not only delay future negotiations but also may derail future negotiations, particularly where mandates are very difficult to obtain. So I congratulate the Minister.

We are talking about Part 1 of the bill, which is pretty straightforward. As members will probably agree, the previous Government did a considerable amount of work to bring this settlement legislation to the House. Part 1 gives legal effect to the deed of settlement. In saying that, it is important to acknowledge the work of the officials, Darren and Margot, and the difficulties they had in continuously going back to the Taranaki Whānui negotiators, putting a position to them, and returning to the select committee to explain what the claimant community was thinking. The select committee also had difficulty in coming to a conclusion on that particular matter.

It needs to be acknowledged that the Taranaki Whānui negotiators met with the Crown and the former Minister the Hon Margaret Wilson as early as 2000 in order to begin negotiations. Having said that, it is important to acknowledge that prior to that time Taranaki whānau had been dealing with a former National Government in an attempt to get the opportunity to put their claim before the Crown. I think that some of the steps may have been made back then. To be more direct, in 2000, when the Hon Margaret Wilson took up the portfolio, huge strides were made in terms of advancing this particular claim. Her successor, the Hon Mark Burton, also continued the struggle and took on many of the challenges. Real progress was made when the Hon Michael Cullen picked up the Treaty negotiations portfolio—as well as being the Minister of Finance and the Attorney-General. It became a much simpler task to make progress on.

As the debate goes on in the Committee stage of this bill, members will find that the Opposition will offer very little resistance to its passage but we will be seeking clarification from the Minister on a wide range of issues concerning this legislation. It is important that the Minister has a thorough understanding of the issues at hand.

Hon Tau Henare: Why didn’t you do it in the select committee?

Hon MITA RIRINUI: I hear that little interjection from the chairperson of the Māori Affairs Committee, the former Minister of Māori Affairs—thrice removed—the Hon Tau Henare, but I will shift from him to his colleague Hekia Parata, who made a tremendous contribution to the Committee stage of this bill. I note that she is no longer with us; I am wondering why, as we miss her contributions. I want the chairperson of the Māori Affairs Committee to understand the value that his colleagues bring to the table. It is not all about him, although that seems to be his understanding of the difficulties faced at the select committee.

Tau Henare brought into the debate the member for Tauranga, Simon Bridges. Mr Bridges is somebody who is nice and green, somebody whom he can manipulate, somebody who will shut up when he is told to, and someone who will get out of the room when he is told to. Mr Henare tried that on the previous Minister of Māori Affairs, the Hon Parekura Horomia. It was a bad move. I cannot describe how that debate ended, but it is important that I respond to his interjections because they are not appreciated after his colleague Hekia Parata made such a valuable contribution.

Hon TAU HENARE (National): The problem is that when people go off their nut like that, there will always be somebody following. First of all, I say that I will not stoop as low as some of the other members in this Chamber have stooped in terms of accusing former members of this Parliament and talking about whether they were good or bad. I ain’t going there. Where I am going—

Hon Mita Ririnui: Of course you’re not!

Hon TAU HENARE: Well, there are easy targets like Burton and Wilson, but I will not go there. Instead, I want to go to today and the process of this bill.

The process of this bill has been a stop-start affair through no fault of the Crown negotiators, the officials, or—I tell my learned colleague Mita Ririnui, the former “Minister of Whatever”—the select committee. Although the Māori Affairs Committee is very robust, I add a note—not a warning or caution, but a note—to Māori: when they come to the table to give effect to a deed of settlement, I think it behoves Māori to step up to the plate and stop arguing about this, that, and the other, and get on with it. This is about the future’s young people. It is not about who signs on the deed or who gets what; it is about the young people of tomorrow. There are only a number of hours in the day and a number of days in the week, and if we do not hurry and get this stuff done then we will be here past 2014, 2020, or 2040 still doing the same old, same old. I do not want my moko, who is 1 year old and is the most beautiful thing on the earth—

Grant Robertson: She must take after her grandmother.

Hon TAU HENARE: Yes, she takes after both her grandmothers. I do not want her to be 25 and have to come back and work on Treaty settlements that should have been sorted, done, and dusted as soon as possible. This bill gives effect to that whole process. It gives effect to the deed of settlement where Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko i Te Ika and the associated members worked out a deal.

I want to go on record as saying something not against Ngāti Tama as an entity, but against those who consider themselves to be the spokespeople for so many of the Ngāti Tama organisations; there were three or four people. Again, I do not want to cast aspersions on the good name of Ngāti Tama; it could happen in Ngāti Hine: a whole lot of people could stand up and say that they spoke on behalf of Ngāti Hine. I think that the Crown and the Government have to be cognisant of who holds a certain mandate to be able to speak.

Very briefly, before my time runs out, I say that the Māori Affairs Committee is, I believe, one of the best select committees. Yes, members of the committee do the party politics thing, but at the end of the day the committee shows the House where the path is in terms of who we are there for. It is not for us; it is for the people.

Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour): It gives me great pleasure to rise to speak to the Port Nicholson Block (Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika) Claims Settlement Bill; it has been a long time coming. It has gone through a fairly extraordinary process amongst the iwi concerned, over a long period of time, in its transition to this point. This legislation was introduced by Dr Michael Cullen, who was the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations at the time. I want to echo my colleague’s comment earlier about the kind of speed that was applied to this negotiation by Dr Cullen in order to bring it out of its lethargic phase and into what we now have in front of us: a fine conclusion.

This bill represents a number of iwi who are identified in clause 8, which states that Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika includes Te Ātiawa, Ngāti Tama, Taranaki, Ngāti Ruanui, and other iwi from the Taranaki area, such as Ngāti Mutunga. I take some personal delight in speaking on this legislation because these are all iwi with whom I am familiar. I grew up in the Taranaki area, so I know where the people of Ngāti Mutunga come from, and I have swum in the rivers and on the beaches in the areas where those iwi hail from. The fact that we are able to bring this legislation to its second reading has a great deal of personal resonance for me.

I will make a couple of comments about the history of this legislation and a couple more about the potential that the previous speaker, Tau Henare, alluded to with his lovely reference to his own mokopuna. First of all, I want to recognise that 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 going back to September 1839. If people are in any doubt about the importance of justly resolving historical grievances, they need only read the Waitangi Tribunal’s report on those series of grievances. If such grievances are not resolved or adequately addressed then we risk the separation and antagonism between Māori and the Crown going on further and further down the generations, and that is something that I take really seriously and that everyone across the Chamber is unified, I am sure, in wishing to avoid. So the resolution of these grievances becomes critically important.

In the first reading of this bill, the member who is now the Minister, Christopher Finlayson, having taken on the portfolio of Treaty negotiations, referred to the injustices and the disgraceful conduct by the Crown. In Mr Finlayson’s speech, in reply to Dr Cullen’s speech, he referred to those injustices in very strong terms. I will not enumerate them now, but I refer people to the Waitangi Tribunal’s report.

HEKIA PARATA (National): Ā, tēnā koe e te Heamana, huri noa i tō tātou Whare, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa. E tū ana au ki te tuku mihi ki ngā iwi o Taranaki whānui nō te mea, kāore au i tae i te Whare i taenihi nei, nā reira i tēnei wā, i taku tū tuatahi mō tēnei kaupapa, e mihi ana ki a rātou, otirā, ki a koutou ki a tātou e whakawhāiti nei i runga i tēnei kaupapa i te ahiahi nei.

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

[And greetings to you, Mr Chairman, and to us throughout our House. Greetings to us all. I rise to extend a greeting to the people of Taranaki at large, because I was not in the House yesterday, and at this point in time, it being my first address on this matter, I acknowledge them this afternoon, and, indeed, you and us drawn together on this matter.]

I am delighted to stand and speak on the Port Nicholson Block (Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika) Claims Settlement Bill in the Chamber today. When any Treaty settlement bill finally makes it to the House it is an opportunity for celebration, because it reflects the efforts of many people over many years, and suggests a culmination, finally, of the breaches and grievances of the past, allowing us sufficient space to pause before moving on into the future. We are here today to work through the Port Nicholson Block (Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika) Claims Settlement Bill.

I am pleased to have been a member of the Māori Affairs Committee, and I acknowledge all of my colleagues on the select committee. At times there were some very robust exchanges about particular elements of the bill, but all along, I think, there was a common understanding and intent that we would reach the best possible outcome we were capable of, in order that this bill could be returned to the House.

Like previous speakers, I acknowledge all of the officials who have worked to get the bill to this point. But I particularly acknowledge the Taranaki whānui iwi themselves, their hapū, individual members, and their negotiators. They had sufficient trust and confidence that they would come together with the Crown to look to resolve the grievances of the past so that they would be able to move into the future, with their confidence strengthened and restored in the knowledge that the breaches that they had defined as part of the Treaty settlement were recognised, acknowledged by the Crown, and apologised for. That is part of the healing process of Treaty settlements.

In the past, we have had some unsympathetic and ill-informed responses from different groups of the public about Treaty settlements. In my view, there has been an unfair, inaccurate, and overweening focus on the actual quantum that informs a particular settlement. In fact, it is much more than that. It is a recognition that our history and herstory must be recognised accurately, we must be able to own the past, and we must be able to see that the Crown had not behaved honourably. So a Treaty settlement is as much about restoring the honour of the Crown as it is about restoring and redressing the breaches of the Treaty that a particular iwi has experienced. It gives us all opportunity and cause for celebration about the bicultural partnership that is often spoken about more in the breach than in the practice. Treaty settlements contribute to cementing that relationship. Today we are here to talk about Taranaki whānui in particular.

I am also delighted to be standing because my particular herstory includes having been the Crown negotiator for the first lot of Taranaki claims back in the late 1990s and early 2000s. I am sad to say that I think I remain the only female Crown chief negotiator. With some little showing off, I say that we managed to get those claims done in about 4 months, so I suggest that if we employ a few more female Crown negotiators, we might get closer to our 2014 aspiration.

Paul Quinn: It’s because you’re a Māori woman.

HEKIA PARATA: My colleague is reminding me that it is because I am a Māori woman, but actually it is probably because I am a Ngāti Porou woman, given our modest approach to things.

Let us stay focused on Taranaki whānui. A number of hapū have been encompassed by this particular bill, and they will have the opportunity to go forward from this point with strength and confidence once we finally pass the bill into legislation. As I said earlier, this is an opportunity for celebrating what Treaty settlements are about. The purpose of this bill is to ensure not only that we acknowledge the past and apologise for it, but also that we move on to something practical, and talk about the cultural and commercial redress.

KELVIN DAVIS (Labour): Tēnā koe, Mr Chairman. I am happy to rise to talk about the Port Nicholson Block (Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika) Claims Settlement Bill, and particularly Part 1 and the purpose of the bill. I believe that there is only one purpose for this bill. The purpose behind the deed of settlement is to right the wrongs of the past. It is to acknowledge that the Crown had a big hand to play in disenfranchising Taranaki whānui from their lands, resources, and, basically, their livelihoods. That occurred over a number of years.

I also take the strange step of saying that I agree with my whanaunga opposite from Ngāti Hine, Tau Henare, because this bill is not about those who have signed on the dotted line; it is about the future. The reason for the deed of settlement is to heal the hurts of the past, but it is also about launching into the future. I also agree with Hekia Parata that it is not so much about the quantum, but about moving on and allowing Māori to, as I have said a number of times, assume our rightful place in this country by moving into positions of leadership and being examples to the young kids of today. So I agree with my whanaunga Tau Henare. I disagree with him on one point, as far as it is possible for anyone from within Ngāti Hine to disagree with another from Ngāti Hine; in fact, that would never happen.

This bill relates also to a number of hapū of the Taranaki whānui, in particular Te Ātiawa, Ngāti Tama, Taranaki, Ngāti Ruanui, and other Taranaki iwi. It affects a number of people in those tribes. Part 1 talks about the historical account of what went on. It is important that there are acknowledgments from the Crown as to the part it played all those years ago. As I said last night, it is really important that there is an apology. It is all part of healing and moving forward. Last night I read from the deed of settlement a passage about the fact that Taranaki whānui accepted the apology and forgave the Crown. That is a really important part of this settlement because without that forgiveness, all that hurt and mamae, as we say in Māori, would still be there, and it would be really difficult for people to move on and progress.

I again acknowledge the officials who informed us during the course of the debate, as well as the other members of the Māori Affairs Committee. Again, I agree with the Hon Tau Henare that it is—

Hon Tau Henare: That’s twice.

Grant Robertson: Third time and you’ll be out.

KELVIN DAVIS: Yes, three strikes and I will be out if I agree with that member again. It is great that as members of the Māori Affairs Committee we have our party political sides, but we are also looking for some sort of common agreement that it is all about us as Māori moving ahead and finding solutions to our issues. I will not say that I agree with Mr Henare again.

There has been a lot of work put in to get to this stage, as my colleague the Hon Mita Ririnui said. Ministers from the previous Government got things rolling, and their names have been mentioned. I also acknowledge this bill coming to this point, where we are almost at the final stages for Taranaki whānui. They have waited long enough. It is time now for them to settle this, and to put it behind them. They have forgiven; they will not forget. Let us move ahead as a country.

PAUL QUINN (National): It gives me pleasure to take a couple of calls on this part, as is my intention to do. In standing to speak this first time I will firstly say how much pleasure it gives me to be able to speak specifically on this bill that Parliament has before it, because it relates to Treaty of Waitangi settlements. The reason it gives me such pleasure, one of the reasons, as my friend Ross Robertson would say, that I now stand on my hind legs, and the principal reason I came to this House, is that I wanted to see the work of Treaty settlements progressed much more rapidly than was occurring. Although it is not a time to criticise, I think it cannot go unstated, particularly when a previous speaker used terms such as “extraordinary” and said how long it has taken for the bill to get to this stage, that, in fact, it was her own Government that took the time, and two Ministers of the Crown in charge of this work programme who achieved nothing. For 8 years not one original piece of Treaty work came before this House under the previous administration. That is an indictment on the previous Government. I tell Sue Moroney that that is true. It was 8 years before an original piece of work came before the House.

Sue Moroney: You don’t understand the process.

PAUL QUINN: I do; I have been involved in it for 30 years, let me tell the member. That is why I stand here, because I am passionate about this process and I know it backwards. I know the process a heck of a lot more than that member ever will. It is very important that this nation gets on with settling these Treaty claims. That is why I now stand proud to be able to push through this work, because, as previous speakers have said, it is critical. It reflects well on the Minister that he has brought focus to this work, and this bill is an example of that focus. He has set the target of 2014 to settle Treaty settlements. The select committee has shown the spirit of cooperation and camaraderie that others have mentioned. I say to my cousin over there, Mita Ririnui, that what happens on the bus stays on the bus. We should remember these things. But other than that slight slip-up, the Māori Affairs Committee is an excellent select committee and it has done excellent work on this bill.

In my view the reason that the select committee has done well in its work on this particular bill, and other Treaty settlement bills that it will no doubt address, is that we are there for one purpose and one purpose only, which is to work for the betterment of our people. We are at one in that process; we are at one in that view; we are at one in that belief. It is a very important driver of all members of the select committee that that is what they are focused on. It is a lesson that other select committees that I have had the experience of serving on could learn from. Under the chairmanship of the Hon Tau Henare that work is progressing well.

Some aspects of this bill have been addressed specifically, and we will come to that in other parts, but Part 1 deals specifically with the purpose of the bill. As I said last night during the second reading, the claimant group Port Nicholson Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika is to be congratulated on the commitment and leadership it has shown, particularly the kaumātua and others, in driving this bill through and looking forward to building their iwi’s economic base, which this bill will provide.

GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): It is a pleasure to follow Paul Quinn, that well-known diplomat. If he were put in charge of the Treaty negotiation process it would be over by 2014, but there would not be many happy people. I think the problem for Mr Quinn is that the Treaty negotiation process has two sides, and it also has to go at a pace that works. It has to go at a pace that brings people along with it and creates an enduring and a lasting settlement. I am proud of the work done by previous Treaty Ministers from my party. Margaret Wilson, Mark Burton, and Michael Cullen had a lot to do with bringing this agreement back to the House, and I know the Taranaki whānui appreciate the work they did. When I was at Pipitea Marae to see the deed of settlement signed, there was a great deal of acknowledgment on that occasion of the work of those former Ministers. We know that the diplomacy skills that Mr Quinn has not shown a great deal of in the time I have seen him in this House are what are required in a Treaty settlement process.

Once again, it gives me great pleasure to speak in this debate as the MP for Wellington Central. A lot of the lands and areas being discussed in this bill are in the electorate that I have the honour to represent, and it is a true privilege to be here. The purpose of Part 1 of this bill is to give effect to the deed of settlement, which as I said was signed at Pipitea Marae last year. I will quote from the deed of settlement because I think sometimes when we are doing these Treaty settlement bills in Parliament, we rush through things a little bit. A lot of us here in this House may know some of this history, but perhaps people listening do not know it and it is skipped past. I read from the conclusion of the historical account that is in the deed of settlement: “From the 1840s, as the result of the actions of the Crown and its agents, Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika have been deprived of almost all of their lands in the Port Nicholson Block. They have also suffered the loss of their connection to Wellington Harbour and their forests, waters and natural resources in the Port Nicholson block. The deprivation caused by these losses cannot be measured. These losses have inflicted profound pain and suffering.” As one reads through the full historical account, one can see the specific examples of those losses.

As a Wellingtonian I greatly appreciate Wellington Harbour and the role it plays in our city. To see the importance of the harbour and its islands to the Taranaki whānui was something that made me realise that as a place of rest, growing of food, defence, and protection it has a remarkable role in the history of this city and area, and for the peoples who have been here. When I see the historical accounts, I always feel that if we can get them out and understood by the residents of a particular area then there would be a much greater understanding of the importance of these kinds of settlements.

The other element of the deed of settlement, a key part of Part 1—and my colleague Kelvin Davis has already referred to this—is the apology and statement of forgiveness. Again, I will briefly read from both of those in order to give some notion of the importance of the apology and, in turn, of the unique feature of this particular settlement of a statement of forgiveness to those who are listening. The last couple of paragraphs of the apology state that “The Crown unreservedly apologises to your ancestors, to their descendants, and to the people of Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika today for its actions which have hurt and caused prejudice to you. Through this settlement the Crown is seeking to atone for its past wrongs towards you, restore its honour which has been tarnished by its actions, and to begin the process of healing. It is the Crown’s hope that this apology will mark a pivotal point in the rebuilding and enhancement of our relationship with you. We look forward to building a relationship of mutual trust and co-operation that can flourish in the future.”

The important element of the apology and, in turn, of the statement of forgiveness is that it is about building for the future, and this picks up what Tau Henare said at the start of this debate. It is about the kind of city and area that Wellington, Te Whanga-nui-a-Tara, can be in the future because it is built on a solid basis of understanding past wrongs, redressing those wrongs, and acknowledging them. The statement of forgiveness has already been spoken about by a number of people, and it is a unique element of this particular agreement. The very last bit of the statement of forgiveness, which I may not have the time to complete, states that “Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika have exercised kaitiakitanga, manaakitanga and whanaungatanga over many decades in the Capital City of our nation, …”.

AARON GILMORE (National): I rise to talk on Part 1. I think we have had some interesting speakers, and I would like to touch firstly on the contribution from my colleague Hekia Parata. I have not met a Ngāti Porou woman who thought she was wrong.

Hon Member: There aren’t any!

AARON GILMORE: That is right. It might be a really good policy initiative to consider bringing in more Ngāti Porou women to be involved in claims negotiations.

Anyway, I want to touch on just a couple of aspects. I spoke on the second reading of this bill last night, and I want to touch on a couple of things that I experienced with the earlier claim, particularly with the Wellington Tenths Trust. It approached me about 12 years ago when I was a lowly policy analyst working in the bowels of—

Grant Robertson: You would have been sacked by now by this Government.

AARON GILMORE: I know. I was working in the bowels of what is known as Treasury these days. I vividly recall the things that came across my desk from a guy called Dr Love. When I first met Dr Love I thought he was something other than what he turned out to be. He turned out to be a man who represented a bunch of people who were wronged a long, long time ago. I think that today is another step in the direction of resolving those wrongs, and it is a good thing.

When we look at what we have here in Part 1, and at some of the issues here, we see that it moves on in terms of what I knew as the Wellington Tenths Trust. I did not know who or what the trust was at that time, but I am pleased to be here now talking on this bill. I think it is interesting, and we all agree that it is a wonderful step in the right direction. It is a step towards self-sufficiency economically and culturally, which is a great thing, as well.

One interesting aspect of Part 1 that no one else has mentioned is the excluded areas. I did not realise or appreciate what were the excluded areas. Clause 9(3) sets out which are the excluded areas, and it includes the South Island. I did not realise that the South Island was considered in any way part of the original claims. It also excludes the Chatham Islands, the Taranaki area, and the Kapiti Coast. Obviously, I am very pleased that it excludes the South Island, being a South Island - based MP from Christchurch, because I think it would cause more problems than people imagine. It is a good example of some of the great work that has been done during the claim negotiation by many people in this process, culminating in the signing of the deed of settlement in August last year.

One of the great aspects of this bill, which has already been touched on, has been the setting up of various iwi groups for the future, to enable their economic position to be not equalised to where they may have been but to be a start for their people to go forward in the future. There has been a recognition by all parties that that is what this bill represents: a full settlement and final claim. The claimants will now be in a position whereby everybody can move on and look forward to the future. That is much more important than looking backwards.

Another interesting aspect that arises from this bill is that a number of parts of it talk about particular areas of Wellington. I lived in Wellington for about 8 or 9 years, and when the Wellington Tenths Trust first wrote to the Minister and some of the documents came across my desk, I did not know where these places were. I did not know where Point Dorset was, or where Pipitea Marae was, or where some of the other sites were. So I made an effort to go and see them. I was a mad mountain biker, and I would go and check and look. I was quite lucky, because I ended up ringing one of the members of the Wellington Tenths Trust and asking him to show me what these places were and what they meant to him. I must admit that I enjoyed that, and I heard some good stories. It built on some of the good history that exists in this bill, and I look forward to the settlement of these claims. There are many other people who are eminently better qualified than I am and who went through the select committee process on this bill. They can talk at length more meaningfully on some of the good and bad aspects and how we got here.

The best thing is that this is a bill that I think everyone in this House supports. I have not seen many bills of that type in my short time in the House. I think it is really good and healthy to see a few bills like this; bills everyone agrees with because of the good work of the select committee and the good work of the current Government and the previous Government. Maybe my colleague Hekia Parata would say that it is because a Ngāti Porou woman has been involved with it again! But it is a good aspect, and I would like to see more of that sort of action across the House. I would like to see more bills like this one, where the work is done in the select committee and the bill comes from the select committee to the House, and we are all in agreement.

Hon MITA RIRINUI (Labour): It is a pleasure to follow the speech made by Aaron Gilmore, who gave us his understanding of the history of this matter from his perspective, particularly in relation to his earlier contact with the reputable, the honourable, and the most feared Dr Ngātata Love. He is one of the nicest gentlemen one could ever meet—until one gets to the difficult issues amidst the negotiations! As we are still on Part 1, I think it is important to mention Dr Love and all those who accompanied him throughout the negotiations. They were represented in the House last evening during the second reading of the settlement legislation, and I am sure they will continue to be mentioned during the remaining passage of this bill.

Earlier I referred to the steps undertaken by the former National Government throughout the 1990s. As I read through the bill I was reminded again of the contribution it made, in particular the release of the Taranaki report in 1996, and how important that was to the iwi of Taranaki, who went into negotiations with the Crown, having rewritten their history—having told their story from their perspective and no one else’s. As I listened to Hekia Parata I recalled that in a former life both of us were bureaucrats down the road and were involved in this process. I think that is why we find that there is no dissension between myself and former colleagues, because we saw the difficulties faced by a range of bureaucrats, in particular those of Te Puni Kōkiri who were charged with the responsibility of accompanying Sir Douglas Graham in the promotion of his Treaty settlements policy. In other words, we were the sacrificial troops. We took the bullets. But that is OK. One does not mind stepping up front when one knows that at the end of it the benefit is for one’s people. So I need to acknowledge that part of this bill.

Something else I need to acknowledge is that the Taranaki report included a whole list of acknowledgments. As I recall, one of the people who was acknowledged was an uncle of mine from Tauranga, a former Eastern Maori Labour MP, the late Brown Reweti, who had an incredible wisdom about him. As Tau Henare said, this is about settling the grievances of the past, accepting the apology, and, in this case, forgiveness and moving on. My uncle, whilst heavily criticised, as politicians are, made a tremendous contribution in terms of his advice to the iwi of Taranaki, which he has a connection to, as do many of us. His advice was along the lines of this being the opportunity for the iwi of Taranaki to tell their story, to tell the people of New Zealand what happened to them, what the Crown did to them, and the impact of the Crown’s actions on them.

I take the opportunity, while I am acknowledging a whole lot of other people—the officials, the previous Government, the Ministers, the Associate Ministers, and members of this House—to also acknowledge the contribution that my uncle made. He adopted the same approach to his own people in Tauranga Moana. Unfortunately I am not sure we heard, because we are still working our way to the starting-line to get our historical grievances settled, but I am sure we will get there. We did give Te Arawa the priority, and rightly so. They were ahead of us in the line. Many of us in Tauranga Moana are of Te Arawa descent. All of our negotiators in Te Arawa are male. As to why that is, one needs to understand who we are as a people, and the role of males and females. It is a complementary role. As I say, the roles are complementary, but I think that in Ngāti Porou Hekia Parata broke the mould. She actually stepped up front and said “I can do this.”, and now she has proven herself to be very good at it. Finally, I want to thank all those who made a contribution.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I have given the member a further call because he was still on his feet.

Hon MITA RIRINUI: Thank you very much. I thank you for your generosity and for the manner in which you are conducting the Committee stage of this Port Nicholson Block (Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika) Claims Settlement Bill. I know that it disappoints my colleague the Hon Tau Henare, who was seeking the call, but I am sure he will rise to his feet soon enough.

As we said earlier on in our contributions to the Committee stage of this bill, it is about moving on. It is about acknowledging the tremendous sacrifice of the people of Taranaki Whānui, and it is also about future collaboration and future partnerships between the Crown and the iwi of Taranaki Whānui, so that they, in their endeavours to improve the lives of their people as a result of this legislation—and this is not a silver bullet towards that, I will concede—will have an ongoing relationship. I am sure, and it is only my view at this point in time, that Taranaki Whānui have said “We accept your apology and we go further: we forgive you.”, because it means a sense of brotherhood, a sense of comradeship, and a sense of moving forward together. I know that Taranaki Whānui will live up to their end of the arrangement; I am sure that the Māori members, and all the members, in this House will do their best to ensure that the Crown does likewise. In saying that, I extend my congratulations once again to all those involved in bringing this settlement legislation through the deed of settlement, and all the difficulties they have faced over the past, to the Committee stage, and, hopefully, on to the third reading very soon, so that Taranaki Whānui can move on with all that baggage, all that weight, off their shoulders. Thank you.

Hon TAU HENARE (National): I do not want to upset the apple cart in any sort of way, but let us stop slapping each other on the back. I know that the settlement was a job well done, but for goodness’ sake! Speakers are all being far too nice for my liking, quite frankly. I will add to the debate in this way—by saying that the purpose of the Port Nicholson Block (Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika) Claims Settlement Bill is to give effect to certain provisions of the deed of settlement, which is the deed that settles the historical claims of Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika. Essentially, that is what this legislation does. Hopefully, those people who are named in clause 7 of the bill, in paragraph (a)(ii) under the heading “deed of settlement and deed”—the likes of Professor Ralph Heberley Ngātata Love, Kevin Amohia, Neville Baker, Spencer Carr, June Jackson, Dr Catherine Maarie Amohia Love, Hinekehu Ngāki Dawn McConnell, Rebecca Elizabeth Mellish, Dr Īhakara Pōrutu Puketapu, Sir Paul Alfred Reeves, and Mark Te One—and their descendants will be able to use the proceeds and the investments they get out of this agreement to maybe enhance their uri, their mokopuna, and protect them from some of the claptrap that is spoken by Lindsay Mitchell in Māori and Welfare.

You see, the thing is that these settlements are clearly for the future, and I absolutely, totally, agree with my whanaunga from Ngāti Hine and Kāretu that people—

Kelvin Davis: I thought you were going to get hard in this speech.

Hon TAU HENARE: Well, I am going to get hard. I am going to say we should stop slapping each other on the back for a start, because, for goodness’ sake, the issue is about the destiny of the people. And that destiny does not lie in this place; the destiny of those people lies in the hands of themselves. With a little bit of help, when we do these things—and it is a little bit of help—we can make sure that at least some of the tools will be left to the next generation and the next generation after that, so that they do not end up becoming part of the many publications about our poor health, our poor education, and our poor welfare statistics. You can bet your bottom dollar that all that most Māori outside this place want to do is to make sure they have shelter, food on the table, clothes for their children, a good education, and a good opportunity. Quite frankly, I believe that what we are doing now is building the road towards Māori being the masters of their own destiny, so I am absolutely over the moon about it.

But there are some things that we need to remember. Yes, the terrible things the Crown perpetrated years ago will be apologised for, through the passage of the bill. But let us not forget that the settlement is only a pittance—a pittance—in relation to what really might have made up the payment—

Hon Mita Ririnui: Give us a figure.

Hon TAU HENARE: Oh, I could not give a figure, and that is the thing. No one in this Committee can give a figure on the recompense that should be given. But we can say that this settlement is a start, and we can hope that those who have been mentioned in our speeches today will remember full well that it is not for them but for the next generation.

HEKIA PARATA (National): Tēnā nō koe e te Heamana. I wanted to take a second call on this part, because my first contribution was generally about the purpose of the bill. But before I get started, I will clarify a point made by my colleague the Hon Mita Ririnui. In fact, I was never a bureaucrat—although he might have been—except for operational expediency. The rest of the time I was a public servant.

Anyway, I particularly draw the Committee’s attention to clauses 8 and 9 in Part 1, which define who is in and who is out, in terms of this settlement. I will talk about an issue of particular importance to me, and I think to all of us. This Treaty settlement bill specifically reflects—and Treaty settlement bills in general reflect—an attempt to restore a productive and positive relationship based on the Treaty of Waitangi. As a result of that, it brings into play the concepts both of kāwanatanga, exercised by the Crown, and tino rangatiratanga, exercised by iwi. In terms of kāwanatanga, I think that the Crown’s responsibility in the context of Treaty settlements is to ensure that there is a policy framework, that there are resources available, and that there is political and professional commitment to the resolution of Treaty settlements. Specifically within the Treaty settlement framework, it is about accepting breaches, acknowledging error, and genuinely offering an apology. It is about providing redress, committing to an ongoing relationship, and continually evolving policy to ensure that the Crown’s contribution to Treaty settlements does not stop at the signing of the Act. It moves on, and that is really the start of the Treaty relationship. In my view, those are the kinds of elements that constitute kāwanatanga in practice.

The other side of the relationship is the contribution of tino rangatiratanga as executed by iwi. In my view, that includes being able to secure the mandate from the people—the collectivity of hapū that together constitute the iwi—and not only securing that mandate but being able to maintain it through the many ups and downs and the volatility of negotiating a Treaty settlement, and, more important, on managing the relationship at the conclusion of the particular Treaty settlement. There is a responsibility to be able to negotiate well, bearing in mind all the points that have been made by my colleague, the chair of the Māori Affairs Committee, the Hon Tau Henare, and our colleagues opposite. Treaty settlements are about the future. They are about those generations that are coming through now and will continue to come through. Negotiators of Treaty settlements bear a very significant responsibility when they are engaged in the process, because they have to make judgment calls all the time while also ensuring that they maintain relationships within and between their own collectives of hapū as well as between themselves and the Crown. They need to be able to ensure that their people continue to feel included in this process. They need to be mutually respectful, and they need to be able to recognise that one has to be resilient, because some things will be accepted and other things will not.

I will talk in terms of the points that the select committee made that inform the amendments that it made to the bill, and in particular in respect of clauses 8 and 9. We find, if we turn our attention to the well-written select committee report, that the issues of the Pipitea Marae, the Ngāti Tama opt-out clause, the Ngāti Toa Rangatira request for statement of non-challenge, and Waiwhetū have a common underlying theme, in my view. It is about the difficulty of practising everyday rangatiratanga, of being able to exercise discipline within and between iwi without their resorting to the external adjudicatory powers of the Crown, without their throwing those difficulties outside and saying they cannot resolve the problem among themselves without someone feeling like a loser, so they would rather the Crown made the decision. That may sound really harsh, but what I am saying is that part of the practical exercise of rangatiratanga means dealing with the difficult things as well as the good things.

One of the difficult disciplines that iwi face is that, yes, they will not always get agreement within their own collectivity—just as the Crown does not. So the Crown is no more always right than are iwi. My view is that we cannot constantly talk about tino rangatiratanga and think about it in terms of flags, slogans, or T-shirts, without understanding that it is about living a good-quality life every day and accepting that there are disciplines associated with that as well as, of course, rewards and benefits. My concern, arising out of this, in going forward—and I am sad about this—is that, for instance, there has been a need for a Ngāti Tama opt-out clause. I am sad that the iwi were not able to find ways of resolving those differences among themselves. This is not exclusive to Ngāti Tama or to Taranaki whānui. Every iwi faces these issues, and my view is that every iwi has to go to extraordinary lengths to maintain the cohesion of their collectivity without requiring the Crown to intervene and adjudicate. I consider that to be no less a failure of rangatiratanga than when the Crown is unable to honourably exercise its governance. That, too, would be a failure of kāwanatanga.

All of us are interested in a complementary relationship that is based on the Treaty of Waitangi, and is about the dynamism and the resilience of kāwanatanga and rangatiratanga, operating such that Treaty settlements merely become a milestone or a signpost in an ongoing, forward-looking relationship that serves not only iwi but all people of New Zealand who are part of the bicultural platform of this great nation. Kia ora.

CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Chairman. He mihi nui ki a Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika.

[Greetings to you, Mr Chairman, and a huge one to Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika.]

As I did yesterday in the second reading, I take the opportunity to acknowledge the people who brought this process to its completion, and the huge nature of the task. I would also like to speak about the need for Pākehā in particular to embrace our obligations to the healing of the damage of colonisation. One point that the Green Party makes today is that that process is not about just the settlements, important and vital as they are. As the previous speaker said, they are ongoing relationships supported by and built on the foundation that is Te Tiriti o Waitangi, and I use the te reo version because that is the one our nation is based upon. I sometimes fear that Pākehā think that if we settle all the claims we have settled te Tiriti, and we can go on pretending that the history has never happened and that we are a Pākehā nation. I think we are moving away from that understanding, but there is still a great need for us to recognise the absolute foundation te Tiriti offers us, and that the claims, important as they are, are a part of the process but will never be the process in itself. The relationship is for ever. From the moment that my ancestors came to this country, the relationship they had legitimacy through was Te Tiriti o Waitangi, and that is why te Tiriti lives for ever and should live for ever.

I would also like to acknowledge the importance of the transformative process of the claims, not only for the economic value to people rebuilding their communities but to the power of the story itself. I participated in and listened to some of the Tūranga claim, and I heard mostly from whānau in the areas where I have lived about the painful process of transformation that comes when we pass on to our young people the stories of what we have experienced in our ancestry. There is no point in trying to look at the future unless we understand the past. One of the things I have learnt from working with tangata whenua people is that the past is in front of us for a reason. It is not just about moving forward, which is one of the greatest and most boring cliches we hear all the time; it is about acknowledging the past in order to understand how to create a future. That is why the stories of what has happened to people, and what our relationships to each other have been in this country, are so important.

The first time I did a tour of this House I looked around the walls and saw acknowledgments of many battles. But the battle that is not on this wall is the battle of the Land Wars, whereby Māori sought to maintain the right to live on their own land as well as to embrace the manuhiri. That battle is not on the walls but it should be, because it is actually being resolved through the upholding and settlement of Treaty issues. So it is very, very important that we do not focus just on the foreign battles. We must also acknowledge the battle that has formed our nation, and if we work correctly through the process we can come to a good place. That is what the claim is part of; it is by no means the whole.

I also think it is important to acknowledge the processes of looking at the damage. I talked a little bit yesterday about the pollution of the harbour here. The front page of the Dominion Post today talks yet again about the pollution of the harbour—how yet again the tangata whenua’s resource and relationship is being sullied by the bad management of sewage pouring into the harbour through stormwater. In the 21st century, although we pride ourselves on being a modern nation, we still cannot keep our waste out of water, and we still cannot hear the voices of those kaitiaki who have upheld that as an abuse, year after year.

On Sunday I went to see a kuia up north in Ngāti Whanaunga, Betty Williams, and she said to me that the value of kaitiakitanga, and the value of these issues, is that we all have an obligation in this country—Māori, tauiwi, katoa—to manage the mana and mauri of our whakapapa in relation to the Earth. If we break those things, and if we cannot sustain the vital fundamental relationship of ourselves to the natural resources of the world, it does not matter how clever we are or how many economic projects we have. These concepts are not something I was brought up with; these concepts are embedded in the understanding of people like Betty Williams, and they offer this country a vision that is so much more than just talking about the economic gain of the settlement. They are about the deep thing—about what it is to actually be alive and be an animal trying to live with other life forms on planet Earth. So if we cannot talk about the understanding that we are all connected throughout all of our whakapapa to those things, we are never going to get it, and we will end up as a sick population.

I would like to briefly acknowledge the Treaty claim, which has done something powerful in allowing us to have this conversation, but also to acknowledge that te Tiriti is about more than this conversation or a claim. I wish all power to Taranaki Whānau ki Te Upoko o Te Ika, and may Te Upoko o Te Ika truly be the brilliant head of the fish. The Green Party is happy to support the Committee stage of this bill. Kia ora.

PAUL QUINN (National): It gives me pleasure to take a second and final call on the Port Nicholson Block (Taranakai Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika) Claims Settlement Bill. I will canvass a couple of issues in a bit more detail, but before doing so I admit to my friend and colleague Grant Robertson from the Opposition benches that perhaps I do not have the extraordinary diplomatic skills that he may have—I do have some—but I do have patience. I have patience, and let me tell you, Grant—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Full name.

H V Ross Robertson: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. The honourable member has been here long enough to know that he must refer to a member by his or her full name or title rather than by his or her Christian name.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I thank the member. I am sure that the member will observe that rule in the continuation of his speech.

PAUL QUINN: I am pleased to be able to get on to my hind legs and accept the member’s correction. I say to my friend and colleague Mr Robertson that I have patience. I have been involved in a Treaty settlement much longer than you have, and it took over 20 years—

H V Ross Robertson: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I know what the member is going to say—

H V Ross Robertson: I have not said it yet, Mr Chairperson.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I can anticipate what the member will say. I will let the member have his say first, and I think we will probably agree.

H V Ross Robertson: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I hesitate to interrupt the honourable member again, but he needs to learn the rules of debate in this Chamber. All of us here know that one cannot refer to someone as “you”, because that refers to the Chairperson or the Speaker at the time and not to a member on the other side. I urge the member to read the Standing Orders and to get to know what the Speakers’ rulings are.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I am sure that the member, for the second time, will recognise the importance of maintaining decorum in the Chamber and of observing which words are to be used and which are not to be used.

PAUL QUINN: It is with great humility that I again rise on to my hind legs. All I can say is that after more than 20 years and four court cases—all of which were won, I might say—the settlement was finally settled on 30 June this year in order for the final transaction to occur. But I want to—

Grant Robertson: A lot of work done by Michael Cullen.

PAUL QUINN: No it was not, actually; it was not. It was done by the wonderful new Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations and the wonderful new Minister of Finance.

I will turn specifically in Part 1 to clause 9(1)(b), which refers to clause 8.2.3 of the deed of settlement. The Minister in his opening remarks referred to it, and this is commonly what has become known as the opt-out clause. Let me read it to members. It is, notwithstanding the best efforts of the previous administration, an example of Labour members’ desire in the rush to try to win, in my view, some of the Māori sympathy vote towards the end of their tenure, having turned Māori off when they rushed through with a number of settlements. The previous Labour Government ended up with some sloppy drafting in various places, and my colleague has spoken about this sloppy drafting in relation to Ngāti Tama and the opt-out clause. As a consequence, one of the difficulties we had in dealing with this bill when it landed on the desk of the Māori Affairs Committee has been in working our way through the sloppy drafting around the purposes. If Labour had put more effort into it, then we would not have reached the position of having an opt-out clause for Ngāti Tama. Under this clause they can opt out and choose to run their own historical process if they do not like the fundamental outcome.

I assure members of this Committee that, under the direction of the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations and the Prime Minister, this Government will ensure that such sloppy drafting will not occur. It will be up to the people and the iwi to resolve their differences before we finalise a mandate. It is with pleasure that I support this part.

RAHUI KATENE (Māori Party—Te Tai Tonga): I rise to speak as a former public servant—

Hon Darren Hughes: Another one—yay!

RAHUI KATENE:—another one, yes—who was working for the Treaty of Waitangi policy unit right back at the time before the Taranaki Whānui claim went to the Waitangi Tribunal. There was a great deal of difficulty getting the claim on to the Waitangi Tribunal’s programme, so the claimants went to speak with then Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations Douglas Graham and tried to get into direct negotiations with him. At that time the Crown did not have a policy for direct negotiations but was working on one.

At that first meeting between the claimants and the then Minister I remember how the claimants were so incensed at the time it was taking to get their claim to the tribunal and the time it was taking the Government to get the claim into negotiations. The claimants said to the then Minister that if they did not see any action being taken then they would take part in a series of civil disobedience actions. They claimed that they were going to sit on the Wellington motorway and stop all traffic coming into and going out of Wellington. They said that if they did not get any reaction from that approach then they would look at further action. It was a real threat and something that they were quite prepared to do because they were so tired of how long it was taking for them to be able to get their claim heard. Thankfully, they managed to finally get their claim to the tribunal.

I remember also attending some of those tribunal hearings, as a public servant, particularly at Te Tatau o te Po Marae in Pētone, and sitting there listening to evidence given by Dr Ngātata Love’s father, Sir Ralph Love. He was a man whom one did not trifle with. He had been working as a civil servant for a very, very long time. He had a very, very long memory. He knew what the Crown had done, and he knew what the iwi had been doing to try to make sure that the Crown did not take away all of their land and to try to prevent the Crown from what it was doing, which was resulting in Treaty breaches. This was before we had a Waitangi Tribunal that the claimants could take their claims along to.

The hearings that the Taranaki Whānui went through were very fraught. A lot of mamae, a lot of pain, was expressed during those hearings. It really did appear that sometimes the Crown was not prepared to listen. Finally, after what felt like decades—and was actually more than a decade—the Taranaki Whānui received their report and were able to go into negotiations with the Crown.

As I said yesterday, my husband was one of the Ngāti Tama claimants who had so much difficulty with the rest of the claimants and with being able to get their negotiators on to the board to be taken seriously by the others. It was a problem. The opt-out clause was the only way they could go, because they could not get the rest of the claimants to listen to them, to take them seriously, and to put forward the claims that Ngāti Tama wanted to put forward. I agree that it is not a good way around the situation, but neither is it a good way for the rest of the group to absolutely ignore Ngāti Tama and not deal with their concerns.

There was a very long process of Ngāti Tama going to the former Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations Margaret Wilson and having her say to them that she would listen to them separately from the others. Then 6 weeks later Ngāti Tama got a letter stating that the officials had said it could not be done that way, so they would have to do it another way. All of that inaction and contradiction was really itself a Treaty breach, because what the officials were doing was going back on their word. This happened continually over 3 or 4 years of the negotiations. It is not a good idea to have an opt-out clause, but sometimes that is the only way that one can go. So in this case I have to agree that an opt-clause is necessary. I congratulate Ngāti Tama on being able to get their mandates through last weekend. Kia ora.

Part 1 agreed to.

Part 2 Cultural redress

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): The debate on this part includes schedules 2 and 3.

Hon TAU HENARE (National): I will speak for just a couple of minutes about clauses 21, 22, 23, 24, and so on, about the Department of Conservation and the fisheries protocols. I think it is absolutely necessary to focus on clauses 21 and 22, at least, about some of the protocols that have to be put in place. I suppose it goes to the heart of how a Treaty settlement is more complex than Joe Public and Mrs Joe Public think it is. Throughout Part 2 members will see protocols for this, protocols for that, protocols for the Department of Conservation, and protocols between the fisheries and the signatories, who are the other half in the settlement. It raises one issue—for me, anyway. With all the resources parked up on the Crown side, it is quite easy for the Crown to figure out what protocols may or may not be in the bill and agreed with. But the other side does not have all those resources. It is not a complaint, but it is an issue that I think is necessary to be raised when we are talking about Part 2.

There are issues about the statutory acknowledgments, and issues about jurisdictions having regard to statutory acknowledgments, so it is quite an involved part of the bill. I quietly say, not in a rant and not in a rave, that in future more recognition should go to the fact that the other side, iwi, does not have at its disposal all of the skills and tools—I hate to say “resources”—that the Crown has at its disposal. Just off the bat, we have a couple of officials here in the Chamber today who are very, very expert in what they do. But the other side has to call on whomever is around, whomever is part of the negotiating team, and whomever the other side may think has skills. Maybe in future, there might be a better use of the Crown’s resources for the other side as well.

This is not a litigation. This is not one side versus the other; this is really about the two sides trying to come to some agreement. I suggest that, in future, the working out of any protocols and any statutory acknowledgments be done in a more bipartisan way, trying to get to a deal rather than one side trying to get the up on the other; I say that regardless of who is trying to get above the other. I just make that point for future reference.

Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (Minister for Courts): With the leave of the Committee I would like to make a few comments. Part 2 of the Port Nicholson Block (Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika) Claims Settlement Bill deals with cultural redress, as my colleague the Hon Tau Henare has already indicated. As members will know, cultural redress is a very important part of any settlement, the protocols around which, and the format of which, were developed quite some time ago, a decade ago, when Treaty settlements got under way, particularly in respect of the Ngāi Tahu settlement and the Tainui settlement. We have followed protocols for cultural redress in each settlement since.

I will not pre-empt colleagues in this Committee in terms of what they wish to say about this part, other than to refer to the issue of the Pipitea Marae. I will come to the reason why this is an important provision for me personally, as well. I also want to make a comment about the great privilege it is to be in this House when these settlements come through, and members have all referred to that privilege. I had the privilege of sitting on this claim back in the early 1990s. I left the claim to come into Parliament in 1996, so the report that was issued in the end was without my input. But I have to say that, also at an earlier time, I sat on the Commission of Inquiry into Māori Reserved Land under Matiu Rata, which was quite some time ago. That also looked at the issue of reserved land, and the leases, which the Wellington Tenths had some involvement in, as well. It is a great privilege for me to have a wee opportunity to be in the chair, standing in for my colleague the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, the Hon Chris Finlayson, and to have a little bit of an input at this point.

The other thing I will say, and I know that my colleagues have all referred to it, is that Treaty settlements are not an end; they are a beginning. I have to say, watching those who have had their Treaty settlements over the past 15-odd years, they are a very challenging beginning. If any of the iwi who have settled thought that they could have a big sigh and sit down and think “We got there. We are here now.”, then clearly, immediately, they find they have reached a certain phase in this process, but the real challenges are still to come. I think Hekia Parata touched upon the issue of working out tino rangatiratanga on the ground, every day, with our families around us, and with the whānau, hapū, and iwi, and that is the real challenge. In making these assets work, making the cultural redress, the protocols around those, making all of those things work, the challenge comes now. I know that Taranaki Whānui will be very aware of that and, clearly, they already have some clear plans in place as to how they will manage the settlement.

If I can just come to the issue of Pipitea Marae, part of the reason it is of interest to me is that in my earlier days—and I will not say how long ago—when I came to Wellington to study at Victoria University, Pipitea Marae was a bit of a haven for young, or youngish, Māori like myself, who had basically come from the sticks, the bush, our isolated community areas, wherever we came from. That was already on the back of the urban drift of Māori people from their rural areas. Pipitea Marae provided a haven for those of us who oftentimes felt lost in the city in the 1960s and 1970s. We knew that there would be not only Māori from this region at the marae but also other Māori who had also come from the homes that we had all come from—our whanaunga with whom we would most likely be connected.

It is pleasing to me to see that the parties involved here were able to work out an accommodation that basically recognises the role that the Ngati Poneke Maori Association has played in the Wellington City area for a long, long time. It also recognises the interests of Taranaki Whānui, who are the traditional owners in this area, and clearly would be looking for a marae base within the city itself. Clause 45A accommodates those wishes and recognises the longstanding role that the Ngati Poneke Maori Association has played, and the support it has given to Māori people from all around the country over a long period of time, while also paying proper respect to, and recognising the role of, the tangata whenua.

The settlement bill provides for the land under the Pipitea Marae and the improvements to be transferred to the Pipitea Marae Charitable Trust, as requested by the Port Nicholson Block Settlement Trust, which is the trust that will now take over the settlement. This is an exciting accommodation between the two. I understand, particularly from looking at the commentary from the Māori Affairs Committee, that there was quite a bit of to-ing and fro-ing around this issue. Eventually, the accommodation has been found, and no less through the support and the work put in by the select committee. The Crown has agreed to gift the land only under Pipitea Marae to Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika in recognition of their historical ties, and the Ngati Poneke Maori Association, which had a perpetually renewable lease over the marae, basically gets to maintain an interest here, as well.

From the Minister’s point of view, the Hon Chris Finlayson, he was at pains to make clear that the association should not be disadvantaged by the vesting of the marae land in the settlement trust, and that the current lease arrangements should be protected. The Crown has provided an ex gratia payment to the Ngati Poneke Maori Association for any loss of right the association suffered as a result of the inclusion of Pipitea Marae in the settlement, and that association subsequently requested that the ex gratia payment be provided to the Pipitea Marae Charitable Trust, which it has established with the Port Nicholson Block Settlement Trust to jointly own and manage the marae.

Like a lot of other aspects of this settlement, hard work and good work has been put in by all involved, but particularly by the iwi. We have come to an arrangement that obviously suits both sides, and I congratulate them, particularly on the accommodation of Taranaki Whānui, and also the select committee on the work it has put into this, as well. Thank you.

Hon MITA RIRINUI (Labour): I begin by thanking the Associate Minister of Māori Affairs, Georgina Te Heuheu, for her contribution to Part 2 of the Port Nicholson Block (Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika) Claims Settlement Bill, and in particular her recollections in terms of the history of Pipitea Marae and how that particular taonga accommodated the many Māori who decided to come to Wellington—an unknown city—from far away places, usually rural areas, to have the opportunity to work here. The role that Pipitea Marae and its whānau played in making those people feel at home is really important.

We have come to an area of the bill that speaks about the substance of the settlement. Part 1 was about giving effect to the deed of settlement, the interpretation, and miscellaneous matters, and it is important that we have a robust discussion around that. But when we talk about what cultural redress means to Taranaki Whānui, it becomes very difficult to speak about their emotional attachments to those particular areas. I heard it mentioned last evening in the House by the Minister, during the second reading, that there are particular areas in the cultural redress that are of cultural or important significance to Taranaki Whānui. But I am of the view that the whole 271,000 hectares of the lands that were confiscated from them is of importance as well—more so. Earlier on the Hon Tau Henare rightly mentioned the difficulty in trying to put a figure around the level of loss. No one in this House would be foolish enough to even attempt to do that. But Taranaki Whānui, through the negotiations, have identified a number of areas that they wish to have returned as part of cultural redress. Certain protocols over those reserved areas also needed to be included in the bill.

It is important at this point in time to acknowledge the expertise of the officials. When they put the bill together they were very, very thorough in ensuring that the protocols could be enforced and that Taranaki Whānui, having faced considerable difficulty in getting those areas included in the settlement, should not be in the position where their interests in those reserved areas are nothing but words on paper. In fact, the bill ensures that the Crown complies with the protocols, and if that does not happen then there is action for the trustees of the settlement to take to ensure that the Crown does comply.

I noted the contributions from the Minister when talking about the rohe of Taranaki Whānui. It is interesting when walking down Lambton Quay to look down on the footpath. From time to time we can see bronze plaques that describe where the water level was when Taranaki Whānui occupied that entire area. That was the beginning of the foreshore and seabed line, and when they occupied that area they enjoyed many customary rights, particularly over their fisheries. I am glad to see in the protocols that there are also protections of their customary fishing interests. As we all know, Wellington is a popular place for the gathering of mātaitai, or kai moana, or seafood. I know that it is of concern to Taranaki Whānui here in Te Whanga-nui-a-Tara that often those resources are pillaged and plundered, even for commercial gain. From time to time we see a number of illegal poachers—I am sad to say that many of them are Māori—prosecuted for breaches of the law. Quite often we see a breach of the law as a crime against the State, but Taranaki Whānui have a different opinion.

HEKIA PARATA (National): Kia ora, Mr Chairperson. Tēnā koe. Firstly, I want to elaborate on a point that was raised by my colleague Rahui Katene when we talked about the opt-out clause of the Port Nicholson Block (Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika) Claims Settlement Bill. I reiterate that I think the behaviour of rangatiratanga requires mutual respect within the collective, behaving collectively, and keeping its people included. Those were the points I was making. It works both ways.

I am pleased to take a call on Part 2 concerning cultural redress because—as the previous speaker, Mita Ririnui, indicated—this is the substantive part of the bill. This is the part of the bill where we talk about properties, places, place names—all the icons and indicators of a people who have lived, walked, breathed, and buried their people in this whenua. The opportunity for cultural redress to be a significant component of a Treaty settlement performs more than the function of returning an asset; it returns the basis of the stories that people tell about themselves.

We have said a number of times in the Chamber tonight that Treaty settlements are about the future. They are about our children. I am delighted that my daughter Rākaitemānia is in the gallery tonight, because her generation and the generations after hers want to see evidence of their ancestors as part of the norm of their lives. If they can see names on street signs or on buildings, and if they can see wāhi tapu that tell the story of who they are and where they come from, and establish the link and the connection between themselves and that whenua and ongoing development, then they stand tall in their own time.

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

HEKIA PARATA: I want to round off my remarks about Part 2 by agreeing with my colleague the Hon Mita Ririnui that this part is, in fact, the substantive part of the bill, because it is about all the lands, icons, and evidence of being of the Taranaki Whānui people. Not only does this part vest the named properties and place names—which are themselves, as I said earlier, the evidence chain in the narrative of the story of who Taranaki Whānui are—but it also, just as importantly, articulates the protocols and statutory acknowledgments in deeds of recognition. Together, these form the tikanga of how those places and place names are to be managed.

Even more optimistically, this bill demonstrates the potential for an evolving relationship. There is nothing static about the practices being put in place by these protocols and statutory acknowledgments. They provide an opportunity for Taranaki Whānui to demonstrate how their direct, hands-on kaitiakitanga and management can contribute to the growing narrative of who they are as a people, and they start to model the kind of real interaction we need with our tūrangawaewae, Aotearoa New Zealand, not only in the Port Nicholson area but all around Aotearoa New Zealand.

I am delighted that cultural redress forms such a significant part of the Treaty settlement process. As I have said earlier, there tends to be a focus on the quantum. The quantum is not incidental, but it is merely a dollar figure—well, it is not merely a dollar figure and I do not want to diminish the importance of it, but in my view the acknowledgment by the Crown of the breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi that provide the platform for this arrangement, followed by an apology and its acceptance, is part of how we begin to heal the relationship. The cultural and commercial redress allows for that relationship to grow in some real and substantial way.

I am delighted that Taranaki Whānui will be able to restart their relationship with the Crown and—through these territories, places, place names, and wāhi tapu all around the Port Nicholson area—continue to tell their stories to themselves, their children, their grandchildren, and all other Wellingtonians and New Zealanders. This bill is a very important contribution to our development as a maturing nation. Nā reira, e te Whare tēnā koutou, kia ora tātou katoa.

KELVIN DAVIS (Labour): Tēnā koe, Mr Chair. I am happy to address Part 2 of the Port Nicholson Block (Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika) Claims Settlement Bill. This part is about the cultural redress, in particular, and our colleague across the Chamber Hekia Parata was most eloquent in describing what this cultural redress means. It is about helping to restore the mana and prestige of Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika after the injustices that have occurred.

In particular, I take up Hekia Parata’s point about the restoration of place names around Wellington. The Māori name for Wellington is Te Whanga-nui-a-Tara, which in itself has a whole story behind it. One place name that has been restored in the deed of settlement is that of Mount Wai-ariki. When I hear the word “waiariki”, it conjures up an image in my mind—it is almost magical, mystical, spiritual. Unfortunately, Mount Wai-ariki became Mount Misery; that is the English name. That is a crime; it is a disgrace. It is the antithesis of what “waiariki” means. Another name is Whiorau. In my mind—and I am not trying to rewrite the history of Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika—a whio is a type of bird, and rau means “multitude”. The name conjures up an image in my mind of birds fluttering around. Imagery is really important to us as Māori. Whiorau is known as Lowry Bay. I do not know Lowry Bay; I am not from Wellington. I do not know who the Mr or Mrs Lowry was of a few hundred years ago. But it is a crime that that name was deemed to be more important than Whiorau.

Another name is Te Aroaro-o-Kupe. I raise this because Kupe is a famous ancestor of all Māori. He navigated his way from Hawaiki and circumnavigated New Zealand. As he went around he named many places, and many places are named after him. He got to Wellington and named a rock Te Aroaro-o-Kupe, meaning “the face of Kupe”. I bring this up because the injustices that happened to Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika occurred to all of us. When the name “Te Aroaro-o-Kupe” was changed to Steeple Rock, we all, as Māori, lost a part of our heritage and history. So it is really important that the return of those place names is part of the cultural redress in the deed of settlement.

I will also touch on the protocols relating to Government entities such as the Department of Conservation, the Ministry of Fisheries, and the Ministry for Culture and Heritage. It is important that the needs and aspirations of Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika are addressed when they are dealing with Government entities. It is really important that Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika are dealt with in a way that maintains their mana, dignity, and integrity. I recall an instance at the Māori Affairs Committee just a couple of weeks ago, when we were dealing with another issue, not the one before us. The Government officials who were addressing us said Māori had said this and that. One of the members of the select committee asked which Māori had said those things and which iwi the officials were talking about. When push came to shove, the officials admitted that the Māori they had consulted with was a colleague in their office. We have to do away with this sort of Clayton’s consultation, whereby the first brown face one runs into becomes the spokesperson for all of Māoridom. It is really important that the bill sets out these protocols that mean that Māori will be respected.

Finally, I will talk about the whole-of-Government relationship set out in the deed of settlement. It addresses the revitalisation and protection of Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika. It is about the Government coming together with them and developing programmes and services that relate to their social, economic, and cultural development. This is really, really important. The second aspect of the whole-of-Government relationship is the establishment of annual hui between Ministers of the Crown and iwi representatives to review the progress towards fulfilling the social, economic, and cultural development goals. With that, e te iwi whānui hurinoa, tēnā koutou katoa.

GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): I will take a brief call on Part 2, and in particular—

Paul Quinn: Not to get back at me?

GRANT ROBERTSON: —no, no, I am over that; the member would be surprised—to talk about Pipitea Marae. I know that earlier on in the debate the Minister who was in the chair at the time, the Hon Georgina Te Heuheu, mentioned this, but I want to come back to it particularly because it is something that the Māori Affairs Committee obviously did some work on. The Minister made the point that Pipitea Marae has a special place in the hearts of many Wellingtonians. It is the place where many of us, when we first came to Wellington, had our first interaction with local iwi and the tangata whenua of the area. Obviously, it has a much greater meaning for the Taranaki Whānui; it is the site of waka landings and the place to which many people from Taranaki came down and felt a strong spiritual connection. So it is important that the management and ongoing administration of Pipitea Marae have been dealt with by the select committee.

I will recap on that: the marae is currently leased from the Māori Trustee by the Ngati Poneke Maori Association. Again, many people in Wellington would be very familiar with the activities of Ngati Poneke over a long period of time, in the cultural life of Wellington and of all Māori in this area. The Port Nicholson Block Settlement Trust and the Ngati Poneke Maori Association will now form a new joint legal entity, the Pipitea Marae Charitable Trust, and that trust will comprise equal representation of both parties. After the settlement date, once we have gone through that process, the land and its improvements will be vested in the new entity. I think that that is a fantastic outcome for both Taranaki Whānui and the people of Wellington. The marae will continue to play an important part in the cultural life of the wider city, but we will also be recognising the connection of Taranaki Whānui to that. For me, an important part of cultural redress is that in the marae we have a facility that is used by a wide range of Wellingtonians, but at the same time we are able to recognise the connection that Taranaki Whānui have to that place, and I think that that is a really important part of this settlement.

New section 45A has been inserted by the Māori Affairs Committee. It goes through quite a long process about how the trust will be established and how the marae will be vested in it. It also protects Ngati Poneke’s ability to continue to use the marae and have it as their base, as well as for it to be an ongoing place for the Taranaki Whānui and the people of Wellington. I think that that is an excellent outcome in Part 2 of this bill, which has been inserted by the select committee. It is another example of the fine collaborative and collegial activity of the committee. No doubt Paul Quinn put in his effort, in his diplomatic way, to ensure that that went through, continually looking to bring people together rather than drive them apart. He is a fine example to all of us.

Hon Member: Quietly spoken!

GRANT ROBERTSON: That is right; he has been very quietly easing his way through the process.

The other matter I mention in this call is the question of Wellington Harbour’s island reserves, and my colleague Kelvin Davis was just talking about the role that the Department of Conservation will play. This is another example of why I think this settlement will be enduring, because once again we have been able to ensure that parts of Wellington that Wellingtonians regard very dearly, such as Matiu-Somes Island and the other islands in Wellington Harbour, equally have a far longer connection for Taranaki Whānui. Once again, we have been able to establish in this bill a process for the ongoing management of those islands, and the reserves around those islands, that respects the role of Taranaki Whānui but includes a wider management role for the Department of Conservation. I think that that is an excellent outcome. It includes the creation of the Harbour Islands Kaitiaki Board. That board will have an important role in making sure that the views of Taranaki Whānui are taken into account in ongoing administration and management, and the Minister has obligations put down in legislation that will mean the Harbour Islands Kaitiaki Board will be consulted. That is an important part of this bill, and again it is an example of how cultural redress will ensure that we have a long-term and enduring solution for the settlement, and that the settlement will be well-regarded.

I fully endorse Part 2 of this bill; it does a lot to start addressing grievances. Cultural redress is as important as financial redress.

Hon MITA RIRINUI (Labour): I thank my esteemed colleague Grant Robertson for that very fine contribution in the Committee stage of the Port Nicholson Block (Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika) Claims Settlement Bill, and in particular his reference to the diplomacy skills of my Ngāti Awa whanaunga.

Paul Quinn: Tuakana, e hoa!

Hon MITA RIRINUI: Such skills are common in Te Arawa and Mātaatua men. The member refers to me as his tuakana, but I am his mātāmua—a little whanau interaction going on there! Before the dinner break I was speaking about the importance of the particular areas included in the cultural redress, particularly the protocols over the Department of Conservation and the Ministry of Fisheries. It is that ministry that I want to briefly focus on in the 5 minutes I have.

I refer to the original shoreline around Te Whanga-nui-a-Tara. If we walk down Lambton Quay and look down at the footpath, we see plaques in the footpath that point out the original foreshore line of Te Whanga-nui-a-Tara prior to the Taranaki Whānui being evicted from this particular area. If we walk up to the end of Lambton Quay, there is a building complex up the top end of the quay. In that building, down the stairs, there is a glass cage in which are the remains of a big old wooden ship, the keel. It is a very sturdy-looking vessel that was beached there for some time. In the excavation of the area for development, the developers wisely protected that particular find. It is significant because it tells us a story about not only pre-European occupation but also post-European occupation and the trading that must have gone on in this area, it being the gateway to the South Island, although many South Islanders might disagree with that. But certainly the history is there.

My colleague Kelvin Davis referred to some of the name changes in the cultural redress part of the bill, and a particular area called Waiariki. It conjures up such powerful meaning, and it is very difficult to not surmise what that meaning might have for Taranaki Whānui. We have a mountain in Tauranga that suffered a similar fate. It is not called Waiariki; it is called Maunga Kiore. I live at the foot of it, and when I wake up in the morning it is the first thing I see. It is called Mount Misery. I once thought “I know why they called it that, because it is a miserable-looking mountain. It is very dark and the clouds are always over it.”, and my dad said to me “No, that was the mood of the miserable bugger who named it. He was one of the local farmers.” Maybe he had a reason to do that, but Maunga Kiore was where my people went to collect kiore, the native rat. It is a delicacy to our people. When I look at the mountain now, I think “Why did someone go to the extent of giving it a name like Mount Misery, when a powerful name like Maunga Kiore, with such a powerful history, was already there?”. We can all speculate about the mood of the character who named the mountain once he settled there, took up farming, destroyed all the native rats, and brought in other types of vermin—as the Chairperson would understand, being a person so dedicated to the protection of the environment in the South Island and the destruction of the many feral animals that roam the high hills of the South Island.

It is important, when we think about the relationship that Taranaki Whānui will have with the Crown through those Government departments, and the protocols that will be established, to ensure that the Crown does not ignore, through its departments, the arrangement that we are currently talking about in the passing of this settlement legislation. There are a wide range of issues that we can discuss in terms of the content of the cultural package and the sites that are involved. As I said earlier on, Taranaki Whānui have done well.

HEKIA PARATA (National): I move, That the question be now put.

Motion agreed to.

Part 2 agreed to.

Part 3 Commercial redress

PAUL QUINN (National): I will take just a brief call, because one or two points need to be made in respect of this part. I know that members will note, having all read the bill, that this is the commercial redress part. It is important to note that it deals only with those aspects of the commercial redress that require legislative support, by way of either changing other Acts or having impact on them. For instance, to those members who are looking to see what quantum of money is involved in the Port Nicholson Block (Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika) Claims Settlement Bill, I say that they will not find it here. They will have to go back and get that doorstop document, the deed of settlement, to get that figure.

The two specific provisions that Part 3 deals with are contained in Subparts 1 and 2. Subpart 1 relates to the legal requirements in transferring properties that have been allocated and agreed—for instance, I assume, schools. In this situation, the claimant group might have chosen, as part of its redress package, to pick up schools and other properties, and Subpart 1 gives that legislative force.

Subpart 2 deals with the right of first refusal. I will dwell very briefly on this subpart and share with the Committee some personal experiences. I know that this Government, in going forward, will ensure that future claimants do not have to suffer the sorts of experiences that, I am aware, the parties involved in some previous settlements have had to endure. They have had to endure that suffering because of what one might term the nickel-and-diming of the issues at the margin.

The intransigence of the Crown has meant that some claimants have spent 10 years on very small aspects of settlements, and this, in the broad scheme of things, has really been a waste of energy, time, and progress. I refer to one example in particular. I am pleased that both the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations and the Minister of Defence are present tonight, because I refer particularly to the army hall in Whakatāne, which is a right of first refusal property that has taken 10 years to resolve. It has been resolved only through the absolutely wonderful guidance of the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations and the Minister of Defence, and the fact that they talk to each other. Their attitude is to quit the nickel-and-diming and to get on with doing the deals, so that people can get on with their lives. Because of these two excellent Ministers, Ngāti Awa have finally received a section 40 clearance, so that the army hall can now come back to Ngāti Awa.

Hon Steve Chadwick: Part 3.

PAUL QUINN: This is the right of first refusal process, and I am saying that because previously people have tried to nickel-and-dime, we have ended up dragging the process out unnecessarily. I can assure the Committee that this Government, in its desire to reach agreements by the target date of 2014, will ensure, in a spirit of cooperation, understanding, togetherness, and commitment, that it will not nickel-and-dime. It will make commitments and stick to them, and will not put road blocks in place. These are very important issues. Having dealt with some big issues, we must make sure that the processes after that are moved forward and that everyone works hard to achieve outcomes. I take the opportunity in closing my call on this part to acknowledge the two Ministers.

GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): I want to make just a very brief contribution on the Port Nicholson Block (Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika) Claims Settlement Bill, and perhaps to ask the Minister in the chair a question around the issue of the former town belt land that may be affected by this settlement package.

The Māori Affairs Committee’s report back to the House notes that some submitters raised concerns about the inclusion of former town belt land in the bill, and about how the right of first refusal mechanism, on which my colleague Mr Quinn has just given a focused contribution—

Hon Steve Chadwick: About Whakatāne.

GRANT ROBERTSON: About Whakatāne; that is correct. I want to clarify with the Minister whether the statement that the select committee has made in the commentary on the bill reflects his understanding of that matter. The committee has said its understanding is that “the bill provides for ‘Right of First Refusal for 100 years’ and that agencies owning land which is subject to the right of first refusal may offer the land to a local authority in accordance with section 50 of the Public Works Act 1981. Upon such a transfer, the local authority, for example,”—and, indeed, it is the example—“the Wellington City Council would take on the right of first refusal obligation to Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika.” I want to clarify with the Minister that that fits with his understanding.

There is an ongoing process, which I talked about in my second reading speech, in terms of the town belt land. A private bill is being worked on by the Wellington City Council, and I am assisting it with that. The bill will clarify issues around the town belt, how it is managed, exactly what it is, and how land is added to it or, perhaps, removed from it where necessary. Obviously, there is a key role for Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika in that particular process, and I am hopeful that they will be acknowledged in the bill itself in terms of that role and its importance. The Minister may choose to take a call just to confirm that the select committee’s understanding, as articulated in the commentary on the bill, is correct, because I think that would provide some assurance.

Whatever the case may be, there will be ongoing dialogue between the Wellington City Council and Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika. I am also participating in and helping to facilitate that dialogue, and I am sure that at the end of that process we will see an outcome that protects the town belt, the green space that the people of Wellington so love, but that also ensures that Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika will have a say in its ongoing protection.

Hon MITA RIRINUI (Labour): It is a pleasure, once again, to take a call on Part 3 of the Port Nicholson Block (Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika) Claims Settlement Bill. As we mentioned earlier, the cultural redress aspect of the settlement is a very, very difficult one. It is difficult in terms of the cooperation of the Government agencies, and also difficult in terms of the identification of certain sites that have historical significance to the claimant community—the list just goes on. The establishment of the protection protocols is also very difficult.

Then we get to a completely different part of the settlement, and that is the commercial redress, which is the part of the redress that will provide the claimant community, hopefully, with solutions to all the issues that have been discussed in the Chamber this afternoon and this evening. Those are issues around the development of the claimant communities, around the sustainability of any economic development activity entered into by the claimant group, and around the durability of the settlement. By that I mean whether it is a fair settlement and whether the claimant community, over time, will accept that it is full and final. That is a particular issue for many claimant groups. In this case, although the Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika have expressed forgiveness to the Crown, there is also the issue around whether, in the long term, the settlement is durable. That will depend largely on the cooperation of the Crown representatives—and I mean those agencies that have been identified—and very largely on the ability of the Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika representatives to make the right decisions going forward.

The issues there are in terms of how those representatives grow the commercial redress, and how they ensure that all of the issues they have identified that could benefit their tamariki and mokopuna in the long term do, in fact, happen as a result of the decisions they make. Those will not be easy decisions for them to make, because of the uncertainty around the future. As we spiral into a recession it must be more and more of a concern to them that the right decisions are made. As was mentioned earlier on, from my contact over a number of years with the negotiators involved in the settlement—Dr Ngātata Love, Neville Baker, Kara Puketapu, and many others; I do not want to go on mentioning names, in case I offend some people by leaving them out—I have no doubt that they will take a very prudent approach to growing the settlement, particularly the commercial aspect of it, and will ensure that Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika and all the beneficiaries benefit from the settlement.

That being the case, we can talk about whether justice has been done. We can ask the questions of whether justice has been done and whether we have a durable settlement. That can be determined only in hindsight. Some time in the future Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika will look at themselves, at their situation, and at the strength of their internal economy, and they will answer that question. They may say yes, the settlement is durable and able to sustain their communities or they may say no, it was not durable. They may identify a number of reasons for that. That is entirely a matter for them to ponder over in the future.

It was not my intention to take a very long call on this particular part of the bill, because all that needs to be expressed is the acknowledgement of the difficulties that lie ahead for Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika when it comes to managing the entire settlement package—not just the cultural redress but also the commercial redress. Naturally, we all wish them the best going forward and have confidence that they will make the right decisions. Kia ora.

Part 3 agreed to.

Schedule 1 agreed to.

Schedule 2 agreed to.

Schedule 3 agreed to.

Schedule 4 agreed to.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Bill to be reported without amendment presently.

Bills

Disputes Tribunals Amendment Bill

In Committee

Part 1 Amendments to principal Act

AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn): I am pleased to take a call on Part 1 of the Disputes Tribunals Amendment Bill. I have had the opportunity, luckily, to speak on this bill at previous stages through the House, and I have already expressed to the House my firm view of the benefits of this bill.

The National-led Government is very keen, as we have said on many occasions, to help businesses by taking the sharp edges off the recession. We are keen to get behind anything that will make their processes easier, faster, and lower in cost. We certainly see this bill as part of that approach by making it easier not only for businesses but for anyone with a dispute to use the services of a disputes tribunal. It will be considerably less onerous for them to access the tribunal.

In this speech I will reflect on the lengths some people will go to in order to avoid having to go to court for their disputes to be settled because they know how onerous the court system is. In thinking about the changes in Part 1, I will recount an example I am aware of. It concerns two quite experienced business people and two very large companies that had a commercial dispute involving the sort of money we are talking about. Faced with the prospect of going to court to resolve the dispute, both of them, having been down that road before and having seen where it led, decided they would settle their dispute by an arm-wrestle. This story is quite genuine. That is the sort of lengths they would go to. They said that rather than go to court they would just arm-wrestle.

It turned out to be a very successful endeavour. The marketing they got as a result was worth millions—and good on them. As it turned out, the chap who came up with this brilliant solution to avoid going to court found he lost the arm-wrestle and therefore the dispute, but in any event he got a great deal of coverage. The funny thing was that this situation really piqued the interest of people worldwide. If there is one thing that I think people in every culture share, it is a hatred of having to throw good money after bad when trying to settle a dispute where the sums involved are not big.

This bill, then, which reviews the limits on the disputes tribunal for the first time in 11 years, is really significant. While I was waiting to take this call I started to do a back-of-an-envelope calculation —to use an infamous phrase—of what has happened to the real level of access to the tribunal over the 11 years that the limits were not reviewed under the previous Government. One would have to say that access to justice has been severely limited over that time as inflation ate significantly into the value of the $7,500 limit since the National Government reviewed it in 1998. One would have to say that under Labour access to this tribunal in real terms was going steadily backwards over the last 9 years.

I am very pleased that Minister Power has taken it upon himself to very quickly get an amendment into the House to ensure that the limits are increased. We know that about 3,500 extra cases a year will now have access to this tribunal. One of the big benefits of the tribunal, which I will just touch on quickly in finishing, is its informality. We know that lawyers are not allowed, but the other thing I have not heard mentioned is that it is not just about time and cost; it is also about making justice available to people who would be intimidated by the court process and find it a bit daunting. Not everyone is articulate and confident enough to go to a court or to see a lawyer.

In the disputes tribunal people can rock up with very low levels of skill, business knowledge, or eloquence and put their case in the best way they can, and the referees have the flexibility to work with them to get justice. That is something we need to reflect on and support. I commend the Minister for bringing this bill before us. Part 1 is obviously where the real work in this bill is done, and I am very pleased to support it. Thank you, Mr Chair.

Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice): The discussion on Part 1 of the Disputes Tribunals Amendment Bill is likely to be the most extensive discussion in relation to the bill, and I imagine that this is where the Committee will spend the bulk of its considerable time on this short bill. Part 1 is, in effect, the part that increases the maximum levels that are able to be claimed in the disputes tribunal from $7,500 to $15,000, or from $12,000 to $20,000 with the consent of both parties. This bill has had a speedy passage through the House, and I am hopeful that the Committee of the whole House will see that speed continue.

Amy Adams gave an overview of what Part 1 does, and she did that pretty thoroughly. I will add only one or two points. The first is that this bill reflects a promise that the National Party made at election 2008 that we would increase the jurisdiction of the tribunal. Second, the bill is a response to those matters to try to lift some of the heat of the recession off businesses that are keen to pursue disputes through this tribunal in a way that will keep costs as low as possible. I commend Parts 1 and 2 and all three questions to the Committee of the whole House.

CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour): Obviously, Part 1 is the chief operative provision of the Disputes Tribunals Amendment Bill. It increases the jurisdiction of the tribunals in respect of “as of right” claims, as it were, from $7,500 to $15,000—a doubling of the jurisdiction—and “by agreement” claims, if we can call them that, from $12,000 to $20,000. I think all members agree that this is a timely reform, and they have therefore supported it.

It is interesting, though, to reflect on practice overseas. I have had a look at what the limits are in comparable jurisdictions, and I think we should be a little slow to rush to the conclusion that Amy Adams appears to have reached, that Parliament has been dilatory in extending the jurisdiction of the tribunals. The New Zealand legislation seems to have a unique feature, in that the parties can agree to an extended jurisdiction. I have not seen that featured in comparable jurisdictions overseas.

But extending the maximum jurisdiction to $20,000 is quite significant. In New South Wales the small claims division of the local court, as it is there, has a maximum jurisdictional limit of $10,000 in the local currency. If we look at some of the other jurisdictions, we see that it is $10,000 in the ACT, it is only $5,000 in Tasmania, as far as I can tell, in Queensland it is $7,500, and in Victoria—which is a fairly advanced jurisdiction in these sorts of areas—the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal has a maximum fair-trading claim limit of $10,000. In South Australia the limit is $6,000, in Western Australia it is $10,000 from 1 January 2009—the limit was formerly $7,500—and in the Northern Territory the local court’s jurisdictional limit is $10,000. So, as I say, I do not think we should be hasty in concluding that we have not kept the jurisdiction of the tribunals up to date. Obviously the present increase will take the jurisdiction beyond the monetary limit of those operating in the Australian jurisdictions quite significantly. Actually the current limits, even in respect of the Australian courts and tribunals I have mentioned, are pretty much at par with what currently operates in New Zealand.

The American experience is not much better. The limits are very small. It is $3,000 in Alabama. I will not read them all out, but they range from about $3,000 to about $20,000 in Hawaii. Canada is pretty much in the middle ground. In Alberta at the moment the limit is $25,000. It is the same in Nova Scotia and British Columbia, and in Saskatchewan it is $20,000. But limits as low as $5,000 operate in the province of Newfoundland.

So, as I have said in common with members on this side of the Chamber, this increase appears to be a timely exercise, and it is one we support. The limits that have operated to date do not seem to be massively out of line with overseas jurisdictions. Even when they are increased, although they will be more favourable than the Australian limits, they will be about the same as those operating in Canada—in that ballpark.

I think we should turn our attention to whether we need to keep using primary legislation to achieve these changes from time to time. It might well be better to look at a system where it can be done by Order in Council, and the House can scrutinise the Order in Council in the ordinary way through the regulations review process. That might well be a more efficient way to deal with the problem, real or imagined, that Amy Adams outlined in her speech during the Committee stage. But, having made those points, I say that Labour supports the amendment. We agree that it is timely to keep the limits under review, and having had a look at the international comparison jurisdictions, the proposed levels look to be about right.

PAUL QUINN (National): I intend to take a very short call on Part 1 of the Disputes Tribunals Amendment Bill because I think the Committee is pretty much in agreement. Given the mirth of Opposition members last night when I followed the Minister of Justice after he moved the second reading and I said that this bill was based on National Party policy, but when I was cried down because Opposition members said that it was not, I have in my hand the National Party policy statement from last year, dated 22 October 2008, which I will read: “To help relieve this pressure on district courts, National will, in turn, allow more civil cases to be heard by the Disputes Tribunal.” In fact, in a speech made by the Prime Minister earlier this year he confirmed that we would be progressing this legislation simply because it would remove another roadblock in that, first, it would free up the courts, and also it would reduce costs. Up to 3,600 cases a year will now be transferred out of the courts and into the much more friendly disputes tribunals. I think it is important that that be stated for the record.

The other comment I am forced to make is in response to the previous speaker, Charles Chauvel. If I heard him right, he criticised Ms Adams for setting out the increased levels of the value of claims that can be dealt with, on the basis that other jurisdictions, to use his terminology, have much lower levels in similar cases. It is ironic that in this case he is obviously promoting the concept of being a fast follower, whereas in many other fields he takes great pride in trying to promote the fact that this Government should be a global leader. Now that we are, in fact, a global leader, he does not like it. I find that ironic. Climate change comes to mind, but there are other examples where a more cautious approach might be appropriate, although the member does not seem to think so.

With those few words, I join others in commending the Committee to support this part.

CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour): I am happy to speak on Part 1 of the Disputes Tribunals Amendment Bill. Given the success of the disputes tribunals in gaining the confidence of New Zealanders through the demonstration of their ability to resolve civil disputes, it makes sense to enable them to resolve cases of a higher value. We on this side of the Chamber recognise that there is a gap between cases that can be heard in the disputes tribunals and those that are viable to be taken to the District Court. A number of cases were deemed as not worth taking to the District Court due to the increased costs associated with District Court proceedings, or because people felt that they should not pursue their claim. The alternative was for claimants to reduce their claim so as to have it heard at a disputes tribunal. Hopefully, the amendments to this bill will result in better access to justice, particularly for individuals but also for small businesses.

Clause 4 in Part 1 states that at present the tribunal generally has jurisdiction only if the maximum amount of the claim does not exceed $7,500. The amendment increases that amount to $15,000. The exception to the general rule in section 10 of the Disputes Tribunals Act 1988 is where the parties agree otherwise. Clause 5 amends section 13(2) of the principal Act, which relates to the extension of the tribunals’ jurisdiction by agreement. At present, where both parties consent, the jurisdiction of the tribunals may be extended to deal with claims up to a maximum amount of $12,000. The amendment increases that amount to $20,000.

By amending section 13 we are providing more effective access to justice, and this can only be good. Hopefully, it will close the gap between those cases that can be heard in the disputes tribunals and those that are viable to be taken to the District Court. The changes should result in fewer cases where claimants are faced with a choice of reducing their claim, facing the increased costs associated with District Court proceedings, or not pursuing the claim at all. The amendment will improve access to the disputes tribunals for individuals and small businesses and will reduce the costs that individuals and small businesses face when resolving civil disputes by enabling a larger number of cases to fall within the jurisdiction of the disputes tribunals.

The increase to the maximum claim levels will enable an increased number of New Zealanders to resolve their civil disputes in a simple, cheap, fast, and less formal forum. The tribunal will continue to operate on its current basis, balancing the required protections for parties against the need to provide simple, cheap, and fast access to justice.

The other additional benefit to this amendment is that it will hopefully take off some of the pressure that has been placed on our District Courts. Thank you, Mr Chair.

Part 1 agreed to.

Part 2 Consequential amendments

AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn): I will take a brief call on this part of the Disputes Tribunals Amendment Bill, although—as discussed in my last contribution, and as other members have talked about—it is clear that Part 1 is the powerhouse part where all the real work is done. Part 2, with the incorporation of the schedules, has a number of the consequential amendments that the change in the jurisdiction level of the disputes tribunal renders necessary. It points out the ramifications that the change has, beyond giving access to the disputes tribunal at a very simple level. There are amendments to the Consumer Guarantees Act, the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act, the Fair Trading Act, the Fencing Act, the Minors’ Contracts Act, and, indeed, the Retirement Villages Act. This part shows us that the disputes tribunal is a forum in which a number of the small-value disputes that often arise under the sort of legislation I have described can be dealt with. That is the sort of workload the disputes tribunal is dealing with, and it is exactly those sorts of claims that often involve consumers and inexperienced business people.

I started to talk about something in my last contribution, and I want to develop it a little more. I started to talk about the informality of the tribunal. It is both its benefit and its absolute nature, but also it is the reason we need to be careful. I see that a point the Justice and Electoral Committee considered when it looked at the appropriate level was that it is not simply the case that the higher the limit, the better it is. I think that the Minister of Justice had to be very careful to make sure that the limit was raised to a level that would allow access to justice for people with smaller claims, without taking it so far that that informality of process would start to result in real inequalities. That is the balance with a tribunal like this—well, with all tribunals, but particularly with the disputes tribunal, because this more than some of our other tribunals, like the Tenancy Tribunal, operates with a more relaxed approach to the strict application of law, which enables referees to help and almost compensate where the parties before them are inexperienced, are perhaps ineloquent, and are not used to dealing with officialdom in that sort of situation. For that very reason referees have the ability to step outside what lawyers would normally see as the appropriate ways of running a case or a piece of litigation, to make sure that parties are not disadvantaged. These limits are reflected in these other pieces of legislation: consumer-based legislation, neighbourhood dispute - type legislation, and fencing disputes, which often, obviously, are neighbourhood disputes. Those disputes are the real workload of this tribunal, and that really shows us that this bill is not just about getting business going, although it will be an important part of that; it is really about ensuring that the vulnerable in our society—the people, as I say, who are inexperienced, who cannot afford legal representation, and who do not feel comfortable in that environment—can, none the less, get their voices heard and get access to justice in a way that is meaningful to them.

Just to finish off on that matter, if I may, I remind members that I talked in my earlier contribution to Part 1 about the fact that an estimated 3,600 cases annually will now have access to the disputes tribunal. But the number could, in fact, be far greater because of the number of people who might otherwise simply have though it was not worth it as they were not going to get anywhere. They would have just sucked it up and moved out, and accepted the fact that they had been ripped off and were not going to get access to their rights. By aligning our jurisdiction limits to the levels that are now being proposed in this bill, we are ensuring, I think, that the balance is set appropriately, making sure that access to justice is available for those who need it, without transgressing into that area where the strict rule of law deserves to be applied. Having listened to Mr Chauvel’s contributions earlier and looking at other jurisdictions, I agree that of course we could put this limit at a number of other places. But it is my strong view, with my background in law, that the level proposed in this bill is right and reflects the right balance. Thank you.

CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour): In respect of Part 2, I have a couple of questions that I wonder whether the Minister would consider addressing. I suppose the first arises out of the discussion on Part 1 of the Disputes Tribunals Amendment Bill relating to jurisdictional limits and the way in which the decision was reached to come to the figures of $15,000 and $20,000. I have looked through the introductory material relating to the bill. I have had a look at the alternative options that are contained in the explanatory note of the bill. I wonder whether the Minister would be willing to get up and tell the Committee briefly how the numbers that have been reached were reached, given the overseas experience to which I have referred. I am sure he will be aware in detail of that experience, because of the official advice he will have received.

Paul Quinn: A global leader, Charles.

CHARLES CHAUVEL: The other question I have for the Minister relates to the Consumer Guarantees Act and the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act, which are two of the Acts that are being amended by Part 2. Given that I have been accused by Mr Quinn of being a fast follower in some areas but not in others, I raise the point that I have put forward, for each of the members’ bill ballots that have come up in the last couple of weeks, a member’s bill proposal that would deal with fringe or payday lenders within the context of those two Acts. The bill to which I have referred would bring New Zealand into line with many overseas countries that we lag behind at the moment—Mr Quinn will be delighted to know this—in dealing with these lenders. It would allow the imposition of interest rate caps at the behest of the Governor of the Reserve Bank, and would also put in place on these lenders some responsible lending requirements that do not exist at the moment. Those measures would be accomplished by the amendment of those two Acts. Given that Part 2 deals with amendments to those Acts, it would be interesting to know whether the Minister has a view on the merits of the amendments I am proposing.

PAUL QUINN (National): I will take a short call on Part 2, which, as the previous two speakers have alluded to, deals with consequential amendments and in particular puts in place the limits. But before I do that, I will take the opportunity, now that I see the Hon Lianne Dalziel walk into the Chamber, to produce for her eyes the National Party policy—

Charles Chauvel: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. The member has effectively just referred to the presence or absence of a member in the Chamber, which I do not think is in order.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): No, I will overrule that. Members can refer to the presence of a member, which is what the member did.

PAUL QUINN: Thank you for your ruling, Mr Chairperson. I will show the Hon Lianne Dalziel the policy statement of 22 October 2008, which she intimated last evening was not the case.

In respect of dealing with this part, I thought there was one aspect that might be worth touching on and bringing to the Committee’s attention. It was raised in the select committee process, and it provided some food for thought during that process. It is the matter of whether decisions of the tribunal should be published. In fact, in just reviewing my select committee submission notes, I see that the Whitireia Community Law Centre proposed that, but the Justice and Electoral Committee decided not to pursue it.

Basically, we have stayed within the confines of the intention of the bill, which is fundamentally just to raise the levels and really to bring them back, in inflation terms, to the real values they had when they were set, some 10-plus years ago, I think. As I say, there is not much more to add, really. These provisions just tidy up other Acts that refer to the details of these limits. So with those closing remarks, I thank the Committee for the opportunity to speak.

Part 2 agreed to.

Schedule agreed to.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Clause 3 agreed to.

Bill to be reported without amendment presently.

Bills

Insolvency Amendment Bill

In Committee

Part 1 Amendments to Insolvency Act 2006

JO GOODHEW (National—Rangitata): I rise to take a very brief call on the Insolvency Amendment Bill. This bill has been considered by the Commerce Committee, in which I took some time to participate. It is an important bill in that it gives some certainty to a number of issues.

In Part 1 of the Insolvency Amendment Bill we find that insolvent gifts made within 2 to 5 years may be cancelled if the bankrupt is unable to pay debts. A gift by a bankrupt to another person may be cancelled on the assignee’s initiative if the bankrupt made the gift within the period beginning 2 years immediately before adjudication and ending 5 years immediately before adjudication, and if the bankrupt is unable to pay his or her debts.

Part 1 also covers the limits on recovery by stating that a reasonable person would not have suspected and did not have reasonable grounds for suspecting that, in the case of the insolvent gift, the bankrupt was or would become unable to pay his or her debts without the aid of the property that the gift is composed of. In terms of Part 1, this bill did not attract a lot of submissions at the select committee.

I conclude my comments by saying that we look forward to this bill passing through its Committee stage.

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East): We did not get a lot of submissions on this part, in the sense that we received only 11 submissions in total—so there were not a lot. But it is great to have the opportunity to have the Minister in the chair, Mr Power, now ready, willing, and able to answer some questions about—

Charles Chauvel: He didn’t on the last one.

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: I know he did not answer questions on the last bill, and I am terribly sorry that I missed that failure to take a call on the question. But that does not matter.

On this particular issue there is a concern, which I have raised on more than one occasion, and I would like the Minster to respond to it. It is the fact that every single provision in this part was related to specific concerns that had been raised with the Minister in respect of concerns around insolvent gifts, limits on recovery, and issues around the no-asset procedure. However, absolutely no such concern was raised directly with the Minister in relation to the changes to the length of time a person is on the public register. In fact, that concern was noted, I think, for the Minister after it arose in an article in a newspaper. That is why we actually ended up with the feeling that because we had the bill at the Commerce Committee for a very short period of time, it may have resulted in so few people making submissions. Also, it was a relatively small, technical bill. There was no problem with the vast bulk of it, at all, except for this one issue that had been tacked on, yet that was the one that raised the most significant concerns about the difference between the no-asset procedure and bankruptcy.

In fact, the concern raised was that the way that the no-asset procedure was designed was to ensure that it was less punitive and less of a concern to people than a bankruptcy would be, and that was in order to give them that one-off chance in life to get back on their feet. The concern was that the length of time on the public register was actually part of the total package, and significantly increasing the total time to 4 years after the date of discharge was quite a substantial increase. The concern we had when we looked carefully at the regulatory impact statement was that the Privacy Commissioner was not very happy about the proposal, at all.

We were left, again, with the situation where this seemed to be a bit of an add-on to the legislation and it had not been through the same level of scrutiny as other bills that amended provisions relating to the privacy legislation—that it had not been through the same procedure, which one would expect. The Privacy Commissioner has continued to hold concerns about the changes to these provisions and the fact that they are being implemented alongside the rest of the bill, which we are more than happy to see go through under a relatively quick process. We are very happy about the whole process for everything else, but we ask ourselves again and again why this provision was added on and what benefit there is in undertaking such a significant change without adequate consultation.

The other matter is that I know that more than one of the submitters asked, if we are going to do that, why we do not use the no-asset procedure as an opportunity to do some work with people who have been caught out in the situation and ensure that as they come out of the no-asset procedure they are given access to good budget control mechanisms, so they do not get themselves into that situation again. Obviously, they cannot use a no-asset procedure again. But, again, this legislation recognises that multiple insolvencies go on, and the best thing we could be doing is assisting people so that they do not get back into this situation.

The no-asset procedure is a relatively new piece of legislation, and I would have thought it would be appropriate to review its operation in a considered way. It would be helpful if the Minister could respond to that question about why that change was added on.

KATRINA SHANKS (National): It is a pleasure to speak tonight to the Insolvency Amendment Bill, which we are obviously supporting. I would like to respond to what Lianne Dalziel was talking about in terms of the length of time a debtor’s information remains on the public insolvency registers. This issue was discussed a lot at the Commerce Committee; it is an issue we took very, very seriously. In the case of a no-asset procedure, it is a big change for the term to go from 1 year to 5 years on the public insolvency registers. It is significant, and it does have a significant impact on those people who are going through this process and on the credit they can obtain in the 5 years they are on that register. In particular, we have to take into consideration those people who have gone through the no-asset procedure and who have fallen upon bad times in circumstances where it is not totally their fault they have entered the procedure. That can happen through redundancy, through sickness, or through injury, so it is important that we get it right. We did not take it lightly at the select committee. We got a lot of feedback, and the Privacy Commissioner had some very valid issues, which we discussed thoroughly. We looked at international trends. We talked to the officials. They are here today, and I would like to thank them very much for the hard work that they have put into this bill. They have worked very hard behind the scenes, and we asked a lot of questions to which they always came back with good answers in a really timely manner, without fobbing us off.

Hon Dr Wayne Mapp: Ha, ha!

KATRINA SHANKS: He laughs, beside me. The thing about lengthening the time to 5 years is that there is really no international average or consistency out there, when people are using a no-asset procedure, for how long debtors should be on it. It is a judgment call, in effect, and that is how we got to that term of 5 years. We also had to look at the balance between those who are debtors and those who are creditors, to ensure that those people who lend money have the right to know when someone has a bad credit record. So it was a hard decision to come to, but I think 5 years is a good place to be. We will run with that and see how it sits out there. At the moment it seems to be OK; we will see how it goes in reality when people using the no-asset procedure have been on the register for 5 years.

Around that issue, we also talked about multiple insolvencies. If debtors have multiple insolvencies—more than two of them, which could mean a no-asset procedure plus a bankruptcy—then instead of their being on the register for 7 years, we have made the term indefinite. That is also quite a big call for the committee to make, but I think it is a fair call. We have to ensure that the people who lend money to those debtors know exactly what their credit rating is, and whether they are a good risk or not. At the end of the day, if people keep on lending money to the same debtors, who cannot pay it back or who use it irresponsibly, those people who are lending the money need to be allowed to know the types of risks they are taking. Obviously, the interest would be calculated according to that risk.

The other thing I would like to talk about apart from the public register is the fraud section within Part 1, which provides that if someone has committed an offence under bankruptcy, the official assignee will terminate his or her no-asset procedure. That was a bit of a loophole; I think it is good that we have identified that loophole and that we are closing it.

There is also the issue of the discharge of joint debtors. I think people did not realise that many people have joint debts, in terms of their credit cards and trust accounts, and that people were putting their whole joint debt in the no-asset procedure and getting everybody’s debt written off, regardless of whose debt it was. That was another loophole we have closed. I think it is a really good loophole to have closed, especially in situations when one spouse goes into the no-asset procedure and the other spouse does not, because otherwise all of their credit cards could be taken in and written off as well. That happens also with co-trusts and joint debtors and partners, so it is really good that we have closed that loophole.

The one thing we discussed in detail in the Commerce Committee that did not go into this bill was budgeting advice and whether that should be part of the no-asset procedure. We discussed it, because we know it is very important for those people who have problems with the way they spend money and budget, and who get themselves financial problems—

Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice): Part 1 of this bill amends the Insolvency Act in order to prevent the potential discharge of fraudulent debts under the no-asset procedure process. That is an important point to make from the outset and one that I noted that many people commented on during the second reading debate. Rewarding dishonest behaviour was never the intention of the Act and clearly contravenes the fundamental policy objectives of insolvency legislation. The changes proposed would prevent fraudulent debts, and any penalties and interest that accrued, from being written off, and would apply retrospectively to debtors who were in the no-asset procedure process when the bill was introduced in the House. It is an unusual mechanism to apply retrospectively from the date a bill was introduced, but in this case it is a necessary one.

The bill also proposes to empower the official assignee to extend the period of discharge from the no-asset procedure by a maximum of 25 working days. This will allow more time for the official assignee to investigate any late information and creditors’ objections that are received in relation to a person’s entry into that process.

The bill in Part 1 also proposes to restore the official assignee’s ability to recover gifts made by a bankrupt, prior to his or her bankruptcy, to avoid payments to creditors. Therein lies the issue of the rights of the creditor. I accept and freely acknowledge that the reason for a different arrangement is that the kind of broader second-chance provisions of this process would allow a debtor further opportunity to carry on business arrangements at some earlier point than bankruptcy would allow, and without carrying the stigma of bankruptcy.

In these economic times, dealing with the balance of the interests between the creditor and the debtors is a difficult issue. That is the issue that the Hon Lianne Dalziel and my colleague Katrina Shanks have raised. However, as the Commerce Committee itself suggested, reliable information about the debtor’s history has to be critical to the creditor’s capacity to make decisions in a business environment with regard to those particular individuals. The ultimate length of time between bankruptcy and the no-asset procedure process will still have a distinction. That is important because the two processes represent two different approaches. But the reason for the increase was to acknowledge, in these particular circumstances and economic times, the fact that creditors are also entitled to rely on a certain amount of protection and reliability in the information that is available to them when making business decisions. As I say, these points are not raised without debate, but I think this balance is the right balance and we have erred on the side of caution for the creditors, in this case.

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East): The problem is that the Minister of Justice, Simon Power, has not addressed the question I asked him.

Hon Ruth Dyson: That’s quite unusual!

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: It is unusual for that Minister; he is usually pretty good. But on this occasion I feel somewhat let down. The reason that I feel somewhat let down—

Hon Simon Power: Not angry, just disappointed.

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: —and disappointed—is that it is the second time this week—

Hon Simon Power: The second time?

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: Well, no, last week was the one I felt really disappointed about. The reason I am a little bit concerned about the Minister’s failure to address the question is that we asked the officials where the second set of amendments had come from—the ones relating to the period of time that information on bankrupts stays on the public register. The amendments came from an article that was in the paper. It was entitled “Vanishing bankrupts spark call for change” and was published in the New Zealand Herald on 1 December 2008.

It seems that a number of options were presented to the Minister for him to look at. The officials set out a series of options. Option one was to permanently retain information on bankrupts for 7 years for both no-asset procedures and summary instalment orders. Option two was to permanently retain information on bankrupts on all three registers. Option three was to retain information for 7 years on all three registers. Option four was to retain information for 7 years on bankruptcy and no-asset procedures and to retain the status quo for summary instalment orders, which is 3 or 5 years, depending on the length of the summary instalment order agreement. Option five was to provide for the public registers to be searchable for individuals who have entered any of the three personal insolvency processes on two or more occasions. Option six was to provide for the public registers to be searchable for individuals who have entered the no-asset procedure and then bankruptcy, or bankruptcy on two or more occasions.

Then the report states that after a brief analysis of the above options, officials’ preliminary recommendations, subject to further discussions with the Office of the Privacy Commissioner, were to adopt options four and six above, as they would address, to a greater extent, the problem that was identified in the New Zealand Herald article. That is not how laws ought to be changed.

Officials also recommended that the Minister seek policy decisions on all of the proposed amendments to the Insolvency Act in February 2009. That is 2 months, over Christmas, after an article appeared in the New Zealand Herald. I am sorry, but the process is bad. I cannot say that it is a good process.

When Labour was in Government we had an entire discussion document on insolvency law reform, which led to the Insolvency Act that we have in place today. I know that we made mistakes and that the bulk of this bill corrects major mistakes in the drafting and implementation of the Act that were not picked up. I appreciate the fact that the Minister has to use the time of the House in order to address those problems. But I still think we are entitled to an explanation as to why an entirely truncated consultation process did not involve any of the credit agencies, or the community-orientated services like citizens advice, budget advice, and all of those services that work with people on the ground.

The problem is that the consultation with the Privacy Commissioner identified serious concerns about making significant changes like this amendment bill proposes, when she herself is about to enter into a process of reviewing the code of practice that deals with how long the credit agencies can keep this information on their record. We could end up with the bizarre situation where the public record and the private record, as it were, of the credit agencies are contradictory to each other—not just a misfit but absolutely contradictory to each other.

That is what I was asking the question about. Why was this provision tacked on to this bill? It is not fair that this issue did not get the thorough consideration it would have had with the normal 6 months in the select committee, calling for submissions, and having some proper debate about it. In fact, it was a truncated process because of the other stuff in the bill, not because of this particular provision.

So tonight in the Committee I underline my disappointment, and the Minister was certainly on notice that I would raise this issue, as I did in the second reading of the bill. I would appreciate an answer to my question.

CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South): I rise to take a call on Part 1 of the Insolvency Amendment Bill before the Committee. I wish to deal with the same issue that my colleague the Hon Lianne Dalziel raises, and also with the wider issue of insolvency and preventing insolvency in New Zealand, rather than just preserving the integrity of the new no-asset procedure.

The Commerce Committee heard, as members have heard, submissions about the impact of the recession on people’s lives, whereby they find themselves in circumstances, often through no fault of their own, where they have accumulated large amounts of debt that they are unable to repay. The no-asset procedure was an appropriate mechanism for them to be able to continue with their lives and be contributing members of society. It was essentially about providing them with an opportunity for a fresh start. That was the intent of the no-asset procedure.

I see the effects of this recession in my electorate, as, no doubt, every member in this House does, every day. In Dunedin, unemployment has doubled in the last 3 months, and has risen by 161 percent in the last year. Food banks in Dunedin are reporting a doubling, at least, of demand on last year’s level, and the citizens advice bureau and budget advisory service are also reporting increases in the issues that are emerging. Alongside that, there are worrying reports of a sharp rise in insolvencies across our community, especially among young people. This highlights the need for a wider focus on the causes of insolvency and the need for budgeting education for young people who are leaving school and also leaving home.

A recent report in late June in the Herald on Sunday, entitled “Young, gifted and broke”, stated: “Teens aged as young as 16 are being declared insolvent as the number of people succumbing to debt balloons.” This article reported that “A 16-year-old, three 17-year-olds and 16 18-year-olds were among the 810 people under 25 declared insolvent in the 2009 financial year—more than double the 2005 figure.” The article said that insolvencies, which include bankruptcy and the no-asset procedure, “shot up by 77 percent overall, from 2986 in the year ending 30 June, 2005, to 5292 so far this year. The most dramatic jumps were in the youngest and the oldest age groups. New insolvencies among people aged under 25 rose by 114 percent, to 810. The figure for those aged 75 and older soared by 153 percent to 48. Many of the younger insolvents took advantage of the No Asset Procedure (NAP) scheme, which cancels most debt if it totals no more than $40,000 and the debtor has not previously been bankrupted or used NAP.” The article also quoted Auckland-based Presbyterian Support budget service manager Maureen Little, who believes that the no-asset procedure scheme should include compulsory budgeting education, which is something that a wider consideration of the causes of insolvency could consider.

Labour supports this bill, but it has expressed concern, as members have heard several times tonight, about the proposed change to lengthen the time that the debtor remains on the public register, from 1 year to 5 years in the case of the no-asset procedure, and from 7 years to indefinitely in the case of people with multiple insolvencies. We have concerns that lengthening the time that a no-asset procedure debtor remains on the public register will dilute the important distinction between the bankruptcy provisions and the no-asset procedure. That procedure was introduced, as members have heard, to provide the one-off opportunity for financially distressed individuals to avoid the stigma of bankruptcy and help them to rebuild their lives. We note that the provisions to lengthen that time were not an essential component of this bill, and my colleague Lianne Dalziel has just talked about the fact that it came from one newspaper article. This bill was designed to deal with fraudulent debts.

JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth): When things go wrong in business, as they sometimes do, good law exists to help minimise the flow-on effect of one person’s disaster becoming another person’s disaster. As we have just heard, there has been an increase in insolvencies in our nation. Unfortunately, like a stack of falling dominoes, we sometimes see the knock-on effects of financial disaster come to people. The Insolvency Act is just such legislation, to protect as much as possible the people who may be affected by the business failure of others.

The Insolvency Amendment Bill was introduced by the Minister of Commerce, the Hon Simon Power, back in March 2009 to amend the Act. In this amendment bill a number of areas are being attended to. The bill proposes to make changes. More specifically, the changes proposed relate to the no-asset procedure; insolvent gifts, which I will speak on this evening; and the bankruptcy public registers under the Act.

The no-asset procedure is not a “get out of jail free” card. Certainly, this amendment bill is being presented to the Committee to ensure that it is not such a “get out of jail free” card. Although the no-asset procedure is a softer option for people who encounter insolvency for the first time, and provides a one-off opportunity for people who go through financial distress to avoid the stigma of bankruptcy and to rebuild their financial lives, as the bill is presented their names will be recorded on the insolvency register, not only for the duration of time they are under the no-asset procedure but also for a further 4 years after final discharge. So there is accountability for people who go through such financial duress.

Many people who go about their business arrangements and who are seeking to make a living, particularly in times such as these, can lack business experience. As the previous speaker, Clare Curran, mentioned, the bill concerns not only young people but also elderly people, who perhaps are concerned about their retirement income. Activities can be entered into without due prudence and business awareness. It is important that people who are going to engage with people in business have the surety of confidence in their credit standing and their business procedures. People may go to the insolvency register and search this information out.

This bill covers three areas: fraudulent debts, the discharge period under the no-asset procedure, and insolvency gifts, which I want to touch on very briefly. When a person or company is in financial difficulty, an unscrupulous person may attempt to remove assets that would otherwise be sold to pay a creditor. They might gift money, land, a vehicle, or some goods that have realisable value. They might sell an asset to a friend or family member for a nominal amount, far less than its commercial value, in order to prevent that asset from being sold and the proceeds being given to a creditor. When the cupboard is bare, they will say to the creditors that they have no assets to sell in order to pay the creditors, and then seek to enter into a no-asset procedure. This amendment bill gives further powers to investigate a person who is entering a no-asset procedure solution, simply because provisions such as the no-asset procedure could be abused by unscrupulous people who want to get out of jail free, but, obviously, at a creditor’s cost.

The bill seeks to revert to the provisions in the Insolvency Act 1967 around gifts made in the 5 years prior to becoming bankrupt. These provisions put the onus of proving the debtor was solvent at the time of the gift on to the recipient rather than the official assignee. Thank you, Mr Chairman.

KEVIN HAGUE (Green): This is an area of law that touches New Zealanders at a most vulnerable time in their lives. It would therefore have been a helpful development for us to be able to pass this bill with unanimity. It seems that there is just one clause—clause 10(5)—that is standing in the way of us doing that. I invite the Minister this evening to withdraw that clause so that this bill can pass with the unanimous support of all parties.

I have spoken previously in the House on a couple of occasions about this clause. It seems to me that the intent of the no-asset procedure is one of producing a clean slate. It is an attempt to remediate and move forward in a positive way, rather than have the punitive approach of bankruptcy. That approach is best supported by maintaining the 3-year provision

I have advanced three main arguments for the withdrawal of this clause. The first is the disproportionate effect that the extension of time on the register will have on young people—I am mindful of Clare Curran’s comments tonight—because that is an effect that is punitive in nature. The second objection that the Green Party has raised to this provision is that it provides a perverse incentive, in that the difference between the no-asset procedure and bankruptcy is blurred. This is a point that the Privacy Commissioner has drawn to Parliament’s attention. The consequence of that is that a person who is in financial trouble has less incentive to deal with his or her problems and to deal with his or her debt before those problems reach $40,000. It means that those people who extend credit may experience a worse problem as a result of this extension of time on the register than they would have experienced otherwise.

This is not simply a question of, as the Minister has said, balancing the interests of two parties: those extending credit and those who are in debt. In fact, the issue is that by extending the register we compromise the interests of those extending credit. The third and most important point is that one of the consequences of this extended time on the register is that those people who, because of that provision, will be unable to access mainstream credit will be forced into the arms—or perhaps we should say into the teeth—of loan sharks and disreputable lenders. That leads to a further vicious cycle of undesirable consequences.

I liked Jonathan Young’s analogy with dominoes. What we do by this apparently simple step of extending time on the register is create vicious cycles. We compound problems, and we set the dominoes falling. The Green Party opposes this provision, and will oppose this part of the bill.

RAYMOND HUO (Labour): I rise to take a call on Part 1. The bill aims to preserve the integrity of the new no-asset procedure, or NAP, by preventing the discharge of fraudulent debts and bankruptcy by restoring the official assignee’s ability to recover gifts made by a person prior to bankruptcy. It is, however, slightly disappointing, because I think it would be better to prevent more insolvency in New Zealand, not just to tidy up the small number of issues that have arisen since the Insolvency Act 2006. Asians are passionate about addressing cause and effect. This bill deals with effect. At this time of economic downturn, it would be necessary and much more helpful for the Government to have a plan to deal with the cause—namely, to have some solid economic plan to raise productivity and to prevent insolvency.

At the Commerce Committee we spent a considerable amount of time deliberating on issues relating to the no-asset procedure. The Privacy Commissioner, in her written submission, stated very firmly that her primary interest is to ensure that the bill strikes a reasonable and proportionate balance between privacy—the stated purpose of the no-asset procedure—and the changes to bankruptcy, and the legitimate need of the public to be informed of those who are subject to insolvency proceedings.

The no-asset procedure was first introduced in the Insolvency Act 2006 as an alternative to bankruptcy, and it involves debts being written off. It has two main purposes: firstly, to give individuals a fresh start, and, secondly, to allow individuals to avoid the stigma of bankruptcy. Under the current law, individuals are listed on the public register for 1 year. However, clause 10(5) requires individuals to be registered for 4 years after their discharge from the no-asset procedure. This extends the period of time that an individual is listed on the public register from 1 year to 5 years. Listings from the register are regularly collected by credit-reporting agencies and included in credit reports. Credit providers, prospective employers, landlords, and insurers underwriting loans can access credit reports. No doubt, the longer the listing remains on the public register, the longer-lasting the effects on the individual will be.

It is the view of the Privacy Commissioner that a total of 3 years on the public register for a no-asset procedure debtor would be more consistent with the purposes of the procedure and more proportionate to the period for which individuals are publicly listed following bankruptcy. Otherwise, the important distinction between the bankruptcy provisions and the no-asset procedure would be diluted. Labour members believe that there should be further consultation on this part before we proceed to make what are significant changes to the public register provisions. Thank you.

Part 1 agreed to.

Part 2 agreed to.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Clause 3 agreed to.

Bill to be reported without amendment presently.

Bills

Building Amendment Bill (No 2)

In Committee

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (Minister for Building and Construction): Given that this bill was originally initiated by Shane Jones, the Labour member, and that the National Government fully supports it and is taking it as a Government bill, I seek leave to take the bill as one question. I know that Ms Dyson is shaking her head, but there has been an agreement with the Labour whips that we can take the bill as one question and have a wide-ranging debate.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): Leave is sought for that. Is there any objection? There being none, the bill will be taken as a single question.

Parts 1 and 2 and clauses 1 and 2

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (Minister for Building and Construction): I intend to be terribly brief on my first call, and then I will take any questions afterwards. This is quite a small bill, but it does three very important things for the building sector. First of all, it introduces a new regime called national multiple-use approvals, which I think will be welcomed across the nation. It means that volume builders, such as Versatile Buildings—I do not want to name companies, but there are heaps of them—that build lots and lots of buildings of the same design will be able to apply for a national multiple-use approval certificate for each design. The consent will be attached to the design, which means that builders will no longer need to get a consent every time they want to build that design on a property. In other words, the design is consented for once only and the company can build it as many times as it likes. That is a fantastic step in the right direction towards reforming the building sector.

The second major area is around minor variations. This bill differentiates between major and minor variations to consented building work. Every member will know of situations in which people have wanted to move a handbasin to the right and bring the shower to the left, bring the toilet block a little further around, or move a window slightly away from the shower. What people have found in the past is that, because of the rules and regulations, they have had to get a consent to get such work done. This bill defines what minor variations are and allows such changes to be made without needing a consent.

The third and final thing that this bill does is to make it voluntary for an owner to obtain a project information memorandum from a building consent authority—that is, the territorial authority. Important information that was previously contained in or attached to a project information memorandum, such as the development contributions notice, is now accessed through other mechanisms, and the project information memorandum is not required.

In a nutshell, this bill does three things, and I am pleased to note that there is wide-ranging support for it. I give credit again to Shane Jones, who was the author of the bill. The bill allows for a national multiple-use approval, so that a design can be consented for once and only once, and then people can get on and build it; minor variations will be allowed without a consent; and the project information memorandum will be voluntary rather than mandatory.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri): I endorse the comments that the Minister for Building and Construction, Maurice Williamson, has just made and thank him for his generosity in respect of the previous Minister, Shane Jones. As a former Minister for Building and Construction myself—

Hon Maurice Williamson: Just about everybody is.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: That is true; there is a large alumni. We will need to form our own club or friendly society. There has been a wide-ranging level of experience on all sides of the Chamber in respect of the building and construction portfolio. In fairness, the portfolio has been a bit of a rat’s nest in terms of trying to unwind, reform, or make more efficient the processes around building.

Without labouring the point and without being political, I think the tragedy around leaky buildings led the previous Government to a call to arms to try to assist people. We came from a regime whereby there was less than adequate training. In the old days, people could shake the hand of a builder and know they would get an A1 job because the builder was trained—had gone through a thing called an apprenticeship or through trade training—or was professional and stood by any mistakes made. Those days, sadly, have gone for many in the sector. But I will say that the vast majority in the sector are still, I believe, good, professional, world-class builders and construction experts.

It is also worth mentioning that part of the delay related to growth in respect of local authorities. Many local authorities took on the Building Act as it was redrawn at the time. I remember one or two members citing a reference to kitchen benches in the Building Act. The Act did not prescribe whether one was required to have a marble or a Gib board bench—which one would not have. It basically said that one had to have—and I paraphrase—a kitchen bench that was healthy. It could not be made out of a substance that would allow botulism or hepatitis to flourish, or something like that.

The interesting thing about the Building Act, I am sure the Minister would concede, is that it allowed local authorities to be flexible and to adapt their requirements to local circumstances. The problem was that, post the leaky building situation—although we are still in it—a number of local authorities went right over the top. There was a little bit of paranoia—and that then created delay—based on the fact, in fairness, that many local authorities were engaged in drive-by inspections. I can see the Minister nodding. The local authorities are the last line of defence against signing off a home that is not A1, and many would concede that, through their inspectorate and the infrastructure around it, they did not execute that duty very well. Then they were hit with liability, and the reaction was to overreact.

I recall one developer saying, when I was the Minister, that he now required nail patterns. I asked him what a nail pattern was and he said he had to show the pattern in which he would nail in the beams. It was ridiculous. The old Kiwi thing used to be that when people could not afford to build their whole house, they would build the frame and maybe line it and put in the ablutions and drains. But they would leave the lounge and dining room unfinished and would live in a bedroom, and maybe an ancillary room. Then they would get the builder in each week to do a bit more work before getting full code compliance. One local authority, whose name I will not mention, was telling people they could not move into their homes until they had full code compliance, and people just believed it. I was quite rightly lambasted by a developer, so I investigated. The developer thought that the rule was in the Building Act, but the Act did not say that, at all. The local authority was lying, and was found out and had to change its practice. So a whole series of things created delays.

Equally, some local authorities had an explosion in requests for consents. If I owned a supermarket and the number of my customers doubled and I did not put on one extra checkout person, I suspect there would be delays at the checkout. Some local authorities had a 100 percent increase in the number of requests for consents and would not put on one extra typist to type up the paperwork while the building inspector went out and did the business of inspecting. They would not do any of that. We introduced an accrediting process. I recall that the Palmerston North local authority was the first to get accredited. The next-door Manawatū local authority said that it was too small to do that but that it would contract and cluster with the Palmerston North local authority so that it could build up capacity and move the consents through. There were a number of contributing factors.

I commend the Minister for this bill. I think the Minister and his predecessor, Minister Jones, have the twin objectives, as we do. They are to try to cut the costs and speed up requirements and, at the same time, balance that against the syndrome where if someone gets a cowboy builder in and he makes a mess of it, people’s rights are protected. I commend this bill, we support it, and I think it will go a long way to making a contribution to the homeowner.

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National—West Coast - Tasman): Indeed, it is a pleasure to follow the Minister for Building and Construction, the Hon Maurice Williamson, and a former Minister, the Hon Clayton Cosgrove, both of whom have considerable expertise in this particular portfolio and have spoken so eloquently and in such detail. It is a pleasure because their speeches were informative and instructive, and they provided ample background as to where the Building Amendment Bill (No 2) came from and why we have it. I remember that when it came to the Local Government and Environment committee, there was a move to call it the “Shane Jones Building Amendment Bill”.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: He would have liked that!

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: Yes, he would have, but Labour members said no. National members thought it would have been all right, but Labour members said they did not want him getting beyond his station.

Chris Tremain: Part of his leadership bid!

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: Perhaps it was the first part.

Chris Tremain: A small step.

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: A small step.

This bill has been described as a short bill, a small bill, but I suggest that it is a very important bill. It has three significant aspects. It allows the Department of Building and Housing to issue national, multiple-use approvals for dwellings and buildings that are to be replicated on a substantial scale. It came as a surprise to learn—and the Minister or the former Minister can correct me—that 40-plus percent of dwelling houses fit that category; that is not a small consideration.

This bill is designed to reduce the statutory time frame for processing a building consent application from 20 working days to 10 working days where the application includes a national, multiple-use approval—so that halves things. It differentiates between major and minor variations to consented building work, so that minor changes can be made without going through the full process. This will reduce costs and save time. It makes it voluntary for an owner to obtain a project information memorandum from a building consent authority that is a territorial authority. I was recently in Ōpōtiki and Whakatāne, and I had the opportunity to speak to a gathering of builders. They were very supportive of this type of change being brought into law.

As I mentioned before, we say that this is a little bill, but its significance goes well beyond the bill itself. It is an economic reality that businesses will relocate to where conditions are favourable to them. Investors will put their money where it can get a good return. This type of bill is designed to assist the development of good business practice. That is why this Government is focused squarely on improving New Zealand’s economic performance. I suggest that when this bill was brought in by the Hon Shane Jones, it was recognition that it was a time for change.

This Government has three key economic objectives: to increase New Zealand’s productivity, to maintain high levels of employment, and to reduce New Zealand’s vulnerability to adverse events. That means getting better at producing goods and services, and getting paid more for them. This bill will help in that direction. The most fundamental problem facing New Zealand’s economy at the moment is poor productivity growth. This bill will accelerate growth in the housing and building sector. Our productivity is already low in comparison with that of other developed countries, and in recent years it has grown much more slowly than productivity in most other countries. We need a business environment that enables firms to put resources to their best use. In short, we need to reverse the trends of recent years and get the business and building sectors growing again, and this bill will help do that in a big way.

As I said, let us remember that 40-plus percent of dwelling houses will be affected by this legislation. A few things have come about to encourage this bill, and, again, I am not trying to take away in any shape or form the credit and merit that are due to the originator of the bill. I wish he was here—he is in Auckland at the moment, and we understand that; it is not a criticism—because it would be nice for him to celebrate the passing of the bill through the Committee stage.

Hon CHRIS CARTER (Labour—Te Atatū): Between 2004 and 2005 I was privileged to be the Minister for Building Issues and the Minister responsible for the Department of Building and Housing. This bill, introduced by the previous Labour Government, is one that the Labour Party is supporting, for the reasons that my colleague Clayton Cosgrove outlined earlier and that the Minister himself mentioned. The bill is about facilitating a more expedient and logical process in obtaining building consents.

When I became Minister, I met, as one does, with all the different sector groups. One of the consistent themes that came through from builders, particularly those who were working across the wider Auckland region, was the inconsistency that occurred in the consent process among different territorial authorities. I did as I guess my successors have done: I asked the officials to investigate what the process was all about and why there were those inconsistencies. They visited the different territorial authorities in Auckland to look at how long consents took to take place, and the process around the way that building inspectors operated. There was an astonishing inconsistency, and many of the complaints that we received were quite justified. Territorial authorities were able to be like that, because there was not a regime around ensuring that efficient and effective processes took place. So this legislation is very important.

One of the great debates that we had before both the 2005 and the 2008 elections was about the affordability of homes for people. Nothing can be a more important investment for a family or an individual than the buying of their home. Often it is the largest investment they will make in their lives. We debated at length in this Chamber the causes of the steep rise in house prices. The then Opposition, the National Party, took it to be the shortage of available land, and those members were great proponents of extending out the urban limit in Auckland, in particular so that more land would be freed up. As Minister, I kept pointing out that there was a considerable amount of land already available but that speculators were sitting on it, and I asked how we would force them to free up some of that land.

I suspect that the Opposition and the then Government both knew that the reasons for the high prices of houses were complex and interrelated. They related not only to the price of land or the price of mortgages but also to building costs, and the consent process is one of those building costs. One of the ways of making the cost of houses more affordable for individuals and families is to try to lower those costs. We looked at other things and not only at the consent process, because in the total package of the cost of a home the consent is not large but it is nevertheless real.

Building materials were another area that I felt, as Minister for Building Issues, we needed to look at more closely, because there did seem to be quite an anomaly in the costs between building materials in Australia and those in New Zealand. In a higher-waged market, building materials seemed to be cheaper. That was an area that we definitely needed to make more progress in, and I am sorry that we had such a short time to do it in—certainly in the time that I was Minister. Of course my job changed after the election and I moved on to other things, although one of them was being Minister of Housing.

The bill is good; it sets up a speedy process. I know that it is not often in this Chamber we have a consensus from political parties about the usefulness of a bill. In a way, the decision by the now National Government to take this Labour legislation and continue it through the House is something that we should all support, because it is a multi-party approach to an issue that is very important for people. As I said a few minutes ago, no asset is more significant in its purchase for a family or an individual than a home.

Another area that I guess the Minister will be looking at is this whole area of affordability, and I urge him to look again at this whole question of the costs of materials. That is another area where I feel an act of intervention, or at least a message from Government to the building sector, would be a powerful incentive to lower the costs associated with at-home construction. I know that Shane Jones was working not only on this legislation but also on the concept of an affordable house, and that is something very commendable that I urge the Minister to look at, as well.

NICKY WAGNER (National): I rise to support the Building Amendment Bill (No 2). It has gone through the select committee process with very little debate, and has been well supported. Of course, it amends the principal Act, the Building Act 2004. It is interesting, and perhaps a little bit disappointing, that the Act of 2004 proved to be so heavily bureaucratic and tied up with red tape that we have to look at it again so soon—5 years is not a long time for a bill to last.

As I have said, the amendments have been very positively received by the industry, architects, builders, and anybody who realises the importance of construction. The aim of the bill is to amend the Building Act 2004. It is basically to reduce both direct and indirect costs to property owners and developers, but all the time ensuring that quality homes and buildings are still constructed, and that housing is affordable. The amendments are designed to cut time and costs out of the building process, and to provide a stimulus for increased construction and the jobs that go with it.

New Zealand has always had a great tradition of homeownership. For many years, it was the Kiwi dream of a quarter-acre pavlova paradise; every house with a picket fence, a big vege garden, and space to play backyard cricket. Although now in the 2000s the dream remains, it might look slightly different. The Kiwi dream in the 2000s could be a fifth-floor apartment or an inner-city heritage villa, but regardless of style, homeownership is an enormously important part of the Kiwi way of life. The National Government wants to make sure that homes are affordable for as many New Zealanders as possible.

One of the silver linings of the current recession is that house prices have dropped and affordability has improved, but it is an enormously high price to pay for affordable housing. Unfortunately, over the last few years under the previous Labour Government it had become increasingly difficult for people to own their own homes, and New Zealand had become one of the least affordable countries in which to own a home. The major amendments in this bill cover three main areas, and each is designed to improve the timing and cost of the consenting process, so that houses can be built more cost-effectively.

The first one is to allow the Department of Building and Housing to issue national multiple-use approvals for dwellings and buildings that are replicated on a substantial scale. It was interesting to hear from my colleague Chris Auchinvole that 40 percent of houses are replicated.

Chris Auchinvole: 40-plus percent.

NICKY WAGNER: Actually, 40-plus percent of houses are replicated. This is the tract housing that we see in suburbs around all our cities. It is also required to reduce the statutory time framework for processing building consent applications, from 20 working days to 10 working days, when the application includes a national multiple-use approval. But I note that those approvals still need consents for the specific site. They are only for the design or template. We all know that time is money, so the introduction of these national multiple-use approvals will streamline and simplify the consenting process, and cut costs.

Secondly, the bill differentiates between major and minor variations to consented building work. I do not think there would be a single building that does not have to have minor changes as it goes up. Whether it is moving a window or tweaking a door, these are small but important changes that happen through the process, and this new system allows for the consenting of minor changes to go through without the full consenting process, which saves time and money. The differentiation between major and minor variations will simplify and streamline again and cut those costs.

Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour): I take great delight in speaking to the Building Amendment Bill (No 2), which, of course, Labour is supporting. I note that all of National’s speakers whom I have heard so far on the bill this evening, perhaps with the exception of the Minister for Building and Construction, because I did not hear his complete speech, and with the exception of the previous speaker, have neglected to mention anything to do with housing affordability.

It has taken my colleagues on this side of the Chamber to acknowledge the issue of housing affordability. That is the origin of this bill. It does not originate in red tape cutting at all costs, which is a predilection of the Government. Its origins were in the previous Labour Government’s wrestling with the issue of housing affordability. We had to wrestle with that issue because in the 9 years that we were in Government, house prices went up 80 percent. This was not through Government action or any intrusion into the market, but because of the bubbles that we now all know about so wisely in hindsight, and about which we can have such good theories and be so condemnatory on. Those were the origins of this legislation.

I am delighted that Nicky Wagner mentioned housing affordability, because she is the only one of the National Government’s speakers who has done so. I remember—and I feel very passionately about this because I was the Minister of Housing at the time—when we proposed multiple-use consents, the chorus from the Opposition of the time was: “Oh, houses made of ticky-tacky! Little boxes on the hillside! You want everybody to look the same.” That was the cry from members over the other side of the House when National was in Opposition. They did not care about housing affordability. That was not in their frame, at all. In fact, I would go so far as to say it is not in their frame now.

Housing affordability has not been mentioned once by the new Minister of Housing since he has taken up the portfolio. I say to Mr Williamson, that I am referring to the Minister of Housing, Phil Heatley, who has not mentioned housing affordability once since he has taken up the portfolio. I am so delighted to support this bill and I am very pleased that the Minister who is in the chair at the moment has chosen to see it through to this place. One of the things that will make a difference is the national multiple-use consent, which is provided for in this legislation.

National may have had some sort of epiphany and realised that housing affordability is complex and quite hard, and the fact that National just shot slogans and clichés at the issue when it was in Opposition is now relegated to history. I am delighted that National has now come to the realisation that this bill will enhance housing affordability for New Zealanders. The idea of having multiple consents for standardised houses is not anathema to the national psyche or character, albeit we very much love our own customised windows and doors, which is part of the problem that makes houses so expensive in New Zealand. But it will not be the death of our individualistic culture, as National used to rail against when it was in Opposition.

However, I could not let this bill go past this stage without drawing its origins to the attention of the Government and this Committee of the whole House, because the bill will make a difference to housing affordability. I congratulate the Government on coming to its senses and recognising that this bill is one of the pieces of the armoury that is required if we are ever going to return to having achievable house prices in this country. Mr Williamson has my support entirely with this legislation. He should not forget where it came from. I appreciate the tributes that have been offered to Shane Jones. That is a generous and genuine thing Mr Williamson has done and that National speakers have done. But let us not forget that the purpose of this bill was to reduce house prices through reducing consent prices, and that is good for New Zealand.

Dr CAM CALDER (National): It is with great pleasure that I rise to support the Building Amendment Bill (No 2). I acknowledge the sterling work that has gone on in the Local Government and Environment Committee from members on all sides of the House. I thank the honourable member Maryan Street for pointing out that the bill does have a small effect on housing affordability.

The National-led Government made specific undertakings during the last election campaign. One of the most important was to encourage genuine growth in our economy by reducing compliance costs and red tape. In recent times the Prime Minister has observed that the New Zealand economy has flattered to deceive. Growth in our GDP, such as it has been over the last 9 years up to 2008, has been driven more by people working longer and by more people joining the working population than by us producing any more products of greater value. Further influences on GDP, of course, have been the increase in consumption, a debt-fuelled housing boom, and large increases in often ill-directed Government spending. With measures such as this bill, the Building Amendment Bill (No 2), the Government is aiming to build our GDP on the more solid foundations of real growth and investment in the internationally competitive sectors of the economy.

We must increase our productivity growth—that is, get better at producing goods and services that the world wants and being paid more for them. We must liberate the tradable sectors of our economy—for example, agriculture, fisheries, manufacturing, tourism, and forestry. This bill will help the industries that make us money to do so. The streamlining of this bill will cut away some of the red tape and concomitant compliance costs, and make it easier to do business.

What, then, are the aims of this bill? We have heard some of them from the great leader, the chairman of the Local Government and Environment Committee, Chris Auchinvole.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: The helmsman.

Dr CAM CALDER: “The great helmsman” is another term that is used—at the select committee only, of course. What are some of the aims of this bill? We wish to allow the Department of Building and Housing to issue national multiple-use approvals to dwellings and buildings that are to be replicated on a substantial scale. We have heard about that from the honourable member who spoke before, Maryan Street. That is a very important point. The Building Amendment Bill (No 2) is part of changes needed to address the compliance costs facing homeowners, developers, and builders. These changes, as we said, are crucial to New Zealand’s economic development.

As part of our first 100 days, as members know, the National Government streamlined and simplified the Resource Management Act to improve resource consent processing and cut compliance costs. The reform of the Building Act has the same intention as our work on the Resource Management Act, and is part of our ongoing commitment to cutting red tape. Last year, as we may have pointed out earlier in the debate, the Building Act was estimated to have loaded up to $20,000 on to the cost of building a new house, making housing affordability a thing of the past for many New Zealanders. As the Hon Maryan Street pointed out, housing affordability is a part of the allure of the bill to members on all sides of the Committee, and it is wonderful to see the cooperation that has taken place to allow the bill to proceed so swiftly.

The global recession is hurting our building industry and costing Kiwis their jobs. These changes to cutting red tape will make it easier for people to do business—for developers who are building the homes, and for homeowners who want to retain the services of a private builder and his team. They will make it much easier for those jobs to be done and will boost the building industry at a time when many companies are struggling and builders are looking for work.

Builders have complained of waiting up to a fortnight at a time to get on-site building inspections done, adding to costs that have been crippling for builders and frustrating for homeowners. This should not happen, and we are making changes to tackle problems like these.

Some other purposes of this bill were alluded to by honourable members. We are reducing the statutory time frame for the processing of building consent applications from 20 working days to 10 working days, particularly when the application includes a national multiple-use approval. We can differentiate between major and minor variations to consented building work, so that minor changes can be made without going through a full process.

CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour): I thought I would talk through the life of this bill, the Building Amendment Bill (No 2).It has not been around long, and I thought it would be timely to consider it. The bill was introduced by Labour prior to the House rising for the 2008 election. Its first reading was in March of this year. It was referred to the Local Government and Environment Committee, which reported back on 11 May 2009. I had the pleasure of speaking on the second reading of this bill when it came up on 26 May. We are now at the Committee stage looking again at this bill. It has support across the Chamber, which is always a very good thing.

I want to follow on from my colleague Maryan Street and talk about why Labour supports this bill and, in fact, introduced it. For the first part, we introduced it as part of a coordinated approach to assist in increasing the supply of good quality, affordable homes. Both the Hon Maryan Street and Nicky Wagner talked about housing becoming increasingly unaffordable in recent times.

I want to put on record the fact that the previous Government was very focused on the issue of housing. It knew how central having a decent place to live is to people’s lives. So it put in place a number of initiatives to help housing affordability. It looked at initiatives such as KiwiSaver helping people to save for a deposit, it looked at enhanced assistance for first-home buyers through the Welcome Home Loan scheme, and it also introduced a shared-equity programme. The rental for State housing was reduced, and we looked at initiatives like the Hobsonville development, which was started to assist in the provision of affordable housing. Of course, that recently had a sad ending when the Prime Minister made sure that it did not include the affordable-housing component any more. I do not think that people wanted it in their neighbourhood.

Certainly, as I said, the previous Government was very focused on affordable housing. It passed legislation to enable territorial authorities to increase the supply of affordable housing in their local areas. It announced a review of public land for potential new housing developments, and a boost for the not-for-profit sector. With this bill, through reducing compliance costs for starter homes and cutting red tape, it again assisted with housing affordability. That puts it in context.

This bill was introduced by Labour to help reduce unnecessary delays in the building consent process, which causes frustration for everybody, and also to reduce both the direct and indirect costs to owners and developers associated with the construction process, while ensuring that quality homes and houses are constructed. That is very important. It is not about getting rid of all of the requirements around quality, because we all know where that leads—this country has had a very unfortunate experience in that regard. It is about ensuring that quality is retained.

The main purpose of the bill—and Cam Calder also outlined some of this—is to extend the functions and powers of the Department of Building and Housing to allow the issuing of national multiple-use approvals for dwellings and buildings; reduce the statutory time frame for the processing of building consent applications from 20 working days to 10 working days; differentiate between major and minor variations to consented building works; and make it voluntary for an owner to obtain a project information memorandum.

Once the Local Government and Environment Committee had considered this bill it had very few changes to recommend back to the House. One of the main changes was to allow minor customisations, as prescribed in regulations, to be made to plans and specifications that have national multiple-use approval. Clause 5 states: “minor customisation, in relation to an application for a building consent that incorporates plans and specifications that have national multiple-use approval, means a minor modification, addition, or variation to those plans and specifications”, whereas a minor variation has been defined as a “minor modification, addition, or variation to a building consent that is permitted by regulations”. The select committee also recommended that the time frame for the processing of national multiple-use approvals should be able to be imposed by regulation

JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth): The builders whom I know are generally can-do people—practical, efficient, and able to string a chalk line at the flick of a wrist and leave a sharp blue line that is as straight as John Key’s promise to superannuitants. Builders often have to make minor variations, and they can do that blindfolded, yet we have required that they submit new plans, fresh specifications, and new consents, at considerable cost and delay. This amendment bill is all about giving our builders a fair go. The red tape we have talked about has been a noose around their necks, mainly because the bureaucrats in our councils who have to give consents have become risk-averse.

We have some great builders in our country. In fact, I have built a few homes in the past, but I cannot say that I am a great builder, after listening to the Hon Clayton Cosgrove’s comment about many of us here in this Chamber having some experience. On the second house I built I decided I would save some money, and I am sure that that will send a shiver down many people’s spines as they think about saving money when building a house. But I was determined to design it and do the plans myself. It took me many, many months, let me tell members, to learn the NZ3604 code. As I learnt that, then learnt the art of using software to create a plan, I proceeded. After 6 months I applied for my consent and—believe it or not—it was granted. Then I gave it to my builder, who is a good friend of mine and excellent. He looked at it, and asked where we were going to put the windows—where was the detail? I said that he had them. Unfortunately he had to do some minor variations to the task, but in a sense he created a great improvement on what I had presented to him.

This bill recognises that minor variations take place, because we have builders out there who do an excellent job and want to improve buildings at the request of homeowners. Therefore, getting rid of the red tape is getting rid of the noose around builders’ necks. Thank you.

Parts 1 and 2 and clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.

House resumed.

The Chairperson reported the Port Nicholson Block (Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika) Claims Settlement Bill without amendment, the Disputes Tribunals Amendment Bill without amendment, the Insolvency Amendment Bill without amendment, and the Building Amendment Bill (No 2) without amendment.

Report adopted.

Sittings of the House

Sittings of the House

JO GOODHEW (Junior Whip—National): Since we have made good progress this evening, I seek leave for the House to rise early.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy): Leave is sought for the House to rise early. Is anyone opposed to that course of action? There appears to be no opposition. Leave is granted.

The House adjourned at 9.55 p.m.