Thursday, 30 July 2009

Thursday, 30 July 2009

Thursday, 30 July 2009

Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Karakia.

Business Statement

Business Statement

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): When the House resumes on Tuesday, 4 August, it is the Government’s intention to make progress on the Road User Charges Amendment Bill, the Limitation Bill, and the Immigration Bill. It is also expected that we may make a start on the Committee stage of the Appropriation (2009/10 Estimates) Bill. That is an 8-hour debate, and we should get some of it done in the coming week. Also, following agreement by the Business Committee, David Shearer will make his maiden statement to the House on Wednesday, 5 August at approximately 5.45 p.m.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): Is it the intention of the Government to pass the emissions trading legislation in the next 3-week sitting block?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): I understand that the previous Government passed emissions trading legislation. The current Government is looking at how it may improve it. I expect that when the improvements are made, the Government will advance it through the House.

Questions for Oral Answer

Questions to Ministers

Economy—Reports

1. Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received on the New Zealand economy?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): I have seen reports that a combination of a global recession and a decade of economic mismanagement has left New Zealand with very large fiscal deficits and a weakened export sector. That will present significant challenges in getting this economy on the road to recovery, but there are some interesting signs, such as the National Bank’s National Business Outlook survey this week, which shows increasing business confidence.

Hon David Cunliffe: Does he agree with the Reserve Bank governor’s statement today that “The level of the dollar in particular, is not helping the sustainability of future growth, and brings with it additional economic risks” and with the statement from the Manufacturers and Exporters Association that “High interest rates hurt the real economy, put upward pressure on the exchange rate and put more jobs at risk.”?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I do agree with the view that for New Zealand to have a sustained recovery based on a stronger export sector will be a challenge with the dollar at the current levels. But I imagine that that member will not try to make a political point about that, because it is precisely record-high interest rates and a record-high dollar, driven by the previous Government’s reckless economic management, that have put the export sector into such a difficult position.

Amy Adams: What other reports has the Minister received on the economy?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I received a report that the Opposition’s recession response package is still on its way. The early indications, though, are that it will remove means testing for social welfare, raise the age of New Zealand superannuation eligibility, and spend a lot more public money on things that do not work.

Hon David Cunliffe: Does the Minister agree with the Reserve Bank governor when he said that: “the forecast recovery is based on a further easing in financial conditions. If this easing does not occur, the forecast recovery would be put at risk. In these circumstances we would reassess policy settings”; if so, does he consider that the failure by banks to pass on cuts to the official cash rate could constitute just such circumstances?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I think that would be a very marginal influence on financial conditions. The fact is that what will drive recovery in the short term is a very substantial drop in interest rates in New Zealand—in fact, it is the largest cut in the official cash rate in the developed world—along with Budget 2009, which has pumped around $3 billion of Government money into protecting people from the sharpest edges of the recession. But in the long run neither of those is sustainable, and we will have to shift from borrowing and consumption to investment and exporting.

Hon David Cunliffe: Why does the Minister consider that the pass through of cuts to the official cash rate through the financial system would be of only “marginal” relevance to policy settings, when the official cash rate is the primary, indeed only, instrument of monetary policy used to control inflation and credit conditions?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I was referring simply to the issue that the member has raised a number of times, and that is the issue of the pass through from the official cash rate to the floating mortgage rate, where, as I think we have agreed, there are some questions as to whether banks have passed through enough. But the larger picture is that the official cash rate, cut from the peaks under that member’s Government to what it is now, is one of the largest in the developed world, and many New Zealanders are enjoying the benefits of lower interest rates.

Dr Russel Norman: Does the Minister agree that the high interest rate - high exchange rate reality we find ourselves in is driven, in part, by the Reserve Bank’s concern to keep the lid on house price inflation; and hence, will he adopt measures that specifically target potential inflation that could come out of a housing bubble rising again?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I think members on all sides of Parliament would share a concern that New Zealand does not head off down the track of another housing bubble. As the Government has indicated before, we are quite happy to see an open debate about what measures might assist the Reserve Bank governor to avoid the situation that occurred over the last 3 or 4 years.

Hon David Cunliffe: If the Minister is happy to have that debate, and in light of reports that the Bank of New Zealand has cut its bank fees by up to $25 million per year, and given estimates that similar fees across the sector amount to some $100 million per year, will he now allow Government members to participate in the banking inquiry, in order to encourage other banks to follow suit?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: We welcome that move by BNZ, because it proves the point that the Government has been making for a number of months—that is, the power to change banks’ behaviour lies primarily in the hands of their customers. I hope that BNZ will enjoy the benefits of customers putting pressure on other banks to go down the same path.

Dr Russel Norman: Does the Minister agree that part of the reason for the housing bubble is the way that housing investment is treated under the taxation system; would he therefore support a reconsideration of the taxes around capital gains tax, excluding the primary family home, and also ring-fencing the losses around investment properties so that we can change the incentive structure created by the taxation system, which contributed to the bubble at the heart of a lot of the problems in the New Zealand economy?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I would not want to prejudge any position that the Government might take, other than to say we have indicated publicly that the advice from Treasury and the Inland Revenue Department is to go down that track. We have said they would find it hard to win an argument with us about that. Nevertheless, the Tax Working Group that the Government has set up with Victoria University will be canvassing those issues, and we welcome further debate on them.

Question time interrupted.

Visitors

Australia—Members’ Ethics and Parliamentary Privileges Committee, Queensland Legislative Assembly

Mr SPEAKER: I am sure members would wish to join me in welcoming a delegation from the Members’ Ethics and Parliamentary Privileges Committee of the Queensland Legislative Assembly, led by Kerry Shine MP, who are seated in the gallery today.

Question time resumed.

Questions for Oral Answer

Questions to Ministers

Treaty of Waitangi Settlements—Progress

2. PAUL QUINN (National) to the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations: What progress is the Government making towards its goal of settling historical Treaty of Waitangi claims?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): Today the House will vote on the third reading of the Port Nicholson Block (Taranaki Whānui ke Te Upoko o Te Ika) Claims Settlement Bill, which will settle the claims of those iwi whose rights were breached in the sale and the management of the Port Nicholson Block. The settlement provides for cultural and commercial redress, including a financial package of around $25 million. It will vest a number of culturally significant sites in Taranaki Whānui. However, it is worth noting that no public access will be affected by the settlement, which satisfies all historical claims by the iwi involved. This is a significant step towards the Government’s goal of settling all historical Treaty claims in a just and durable manner.

Paul Quinn: Why is the enactment of this bill significant?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: Once the bill has been passed the Prime Minister will deliver the Crown’s apology to Taranaki Whānui representatives, and then they will formally forgive the Crown in accordance with the deed of settlement. This is an unprecedented step for an iwi to take. It marks the desire on the part of the trust to ensure that there is closure between the Crown and Taranaki Whānui, and, hopefully, it will mark the beginning of a new relationship between iwi and the Crown. This is very welcome, and it shows how successfully Māori and the Crown have succeeded in working together to address the wrongs of the past for the good of all New Zealanders.

Paul Quinn: What benefits will the Taranaki Whānui settlement bring for the Wellington region?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: One of the features of this settlement is the extent of engagement between iwi, local government, and central government. This will result in better conservation outcomes, and management of a number of natural resources and specific sites in the region, although, as I said in my answer to the primary question, it is important to emphasise continued public access being protected for all New Zealanders. The Government is committed to helping local government and iwi work together to promote the best possible management of natural resources in a way that ensures all New Zealanders can continue to enjoy them in a sustainable way.

Corrections (Contract Management of Prisons) Amendment Bill—Reports on Submissions

3. Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) to the Minister of Corrections: What reports, if any, has she received about submissions to the Law and Order Committee on the Corrections (Contract Management of Prisons) Amendment Bill?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Corrections): On 11 May 2009 the chief executive advised me that staff from the Department of Corrections would be making submissions to the Law and Order Committee in a private capacity or as Corrections Association of New Zealand representatives. Obviously, I had no concerns about this. Staff have the same rights as anyone else in terms of making submissions to a parliamentary select committee.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Has the Minister seen reports about ACT MP and select committee member David Garrett threatening prison officers who submitted against the bill yesterday, saying: “You’d be aware that given your submission here, you wouldn’t get offered a job anyway, would you?” Will she be seeking assurances from the ACT leader and Government coalition partner, Rodney Hide, that Mr Garrett will be required to withdraw his threats and to discontinue threatening the future job prospects of Department of Corrections staff; if not, why not?

Mr SPEAKER: Before I call the Minister to answer that question, I point out to the House that there is no responsibility on the Minister’s part for the actions of another member of Parliament. She has no ministerial responsibility for that. I am happy to let the member not waste a supplementary question, but it needs to be in order.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The initial question asked was a straight question to the Minister about whether she had seen reports about Mr Garrett’s comments, and I think that is in order. The second question simply asked whether she would be seeking any assurances. It is up to the Minister to answer, of course, but the first part of the question has to be in order. It asked simply whether she had seen reports regarding his comments. If she chooses to go on to say she will seek assurances, or whatever—

Mr SPEAKER: I hear the honourable member. Certainly the first part of the question is in order, but I am afraid the second part is not.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I have heard some reports about what happened in the select committee yesterday. I am clearly not responsible for comments that Mr Garrett made, but I note that the member who is asking the question was the chair of the committee, and the order of the committee should have been controlled by him.

Chester Borrows: What other reports has the Minister received on the Corrections (Contract Management of Prisons) Amendment Bill?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I have received a report that new section 199, inserted by the bill, describes details that must be covered in every prison management contract, including the fact that objectives and performance standards for the management and care of prisoners cannot be lower than the standards applicable to prisons operated by the Department of Corrections. In addition, the contracts will provide for programmes designed to ascertain and address the causes of prisoners’ offending, and to assist their reintegration into society.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Will the Minister give the House an assurance that, contrary to Mr Garrett’s threats, no prison staff members will jeopardise their future job prospects by expressing their personal views to a select committee on proposed Government policies; if not, why not?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I can certainly give an assurance to the member that I believe, and this Government believes, absolutely in the right of individuals, including our staff members, to make submissions to a select committee. In fact, I will read from a letter from the assistant regional manager at Auckland prison to staff that said quite clearly that officials have the same political rights as other members of society, including the right to make submissions to, and appear as witnesses before, select committees. It also said that officials should be careful, however, that their attendance in a personal capacity is consistent with their professional obligations to the Government of the day; it goes on to talk about that. I absolutely support that view.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Given that answer and the gravity of the threats, will the Minister go further and ask her chief executive to assure all Department of Corrections staff that they are entitled to comment on proposed Government policy in the manner that these prison officers did, and that, despite some worrying trends in this Government, they should not feel threatened or intimidated by Mr Garrett’s behaviour?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Yes; I can even go further than that. In fact, I can read from a statement that the chief executive of the Department of Corrections has asked to be attributed to him today. It says: “I refute absolutely any suggestion that I threaten staff with disciplinary action should they appear before the select committee in their private capacity. My understanding is that those appearing made it clear at the beginning of their submission that they were there in a private capacity.” That was from the chief executive, Barry Matthews. I understand that numerous reports have described comments otherwise from the department, and I am happy to front up with the information and the evidence.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Will the Minister give the House a further assurance that she will not be releasing private information held on Department of Corrections databases about these prison officers—or any other staff who choose to exercise their democratic rights and oppose her Government’s policies—in an attempt to intimidate them in the same way that her ministerial colleague Paula Bennett did in respect of two solo parents?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I do not think that question even deserves the dignity of an answer. It is so bad. Quite clearly I do not have access to such information; I do not want access to such information. Frankly, if I wanted to intimidate someone, they would know it.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: I must have silence to hear the point of order being raised by the Hon—[Interruption] I want to hear a point of order from the Hon Clayton Cosgrove.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Disregarding the smokescreen at the end—

Mr SPEAKER: I have asked the House to be quiet so I could hear a serious point of order, and what the member has just said is not within order. He must come to his point of order.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: It was a straight question and has to be seen as such, given the fact that the Minister’s colleague has already released information using databases, and given that this Minister, as Minister of Corrections—

Mr SPEAKER: I have heard enough—

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: —does have access—

Mr SPEAKER: The member will sit down now. The member admittedly started with a fair point of order questioning whether the Minister had answered his question, but went on to try to bring in information. That is out of order. Look, the member’s question was highly political and he got a highly political answer. He can expect that when he asks highly political questions.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The question asked whether she would be accessing databases. That was the question—

Mr SPEAKER: The member will sit down now. If that was all he had asked, it would be fine, but he went on to make significant political imputation in the rest of his question. If he wants a simple straight answer to a question, he should ask a simple straight question and not load it with the political loading that he built into that question.

Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Given that Standing Order 401(l)—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: This is a point of order.

Hon David Cunliffe: —prohibits a member from “assaulting, threatening or intimidating, a member or an officer of the House”, would it be in order to seek clarification from the Minister as to whether her previous statement extended as far as members of this House?

Mr SPEAKER: Before I call the Hon Rodney Hide I must say I did not hear the first part of the member’s point of order, because there was noise in the House. I apologise for that, but I will hear the Hon Rodney Hide.

Hon Rodney Hide: The member has been here a while and should appreciate that what he is raising is a matter of privilege. There is an appropriate way of doing that and it is not by way of point of order.

Mr SPEAKER: I thank the honourable member for his intervention. He is quite right.

Economy—Reports

4. CRAIG FOSS (National—Tukituki) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he received on the economy?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): I have seen several reports, including comments made by the Governor of the Reserve Bank today. The basic picture is that the economy shows signs of stabilising following a recession that has lasted about 18 months. Growth is not yet strong, but at least the economy appears to have stopped contracting at the rates of last year and earlier this year. There is, however, a marked difference between leading and lagging indicators. Lagging indicators such as employment are still worsening; we expect unemployment to keep rising for some time. By contrast, forward-looking indicators such as business and consumer confidence have improved over the past 6 months.

Craig Foss: What reports has he seen about the outlook for unemployment?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Employment is one of the last indicators to respond to changing economic conditions. It is the last to improve in an upturn and the last to turn down when the economy is slowing. So, unfortunately, unemployment is likely to continue to rise. The household labour force survey for the June quarter will be published next Thursday. We expect it to show an increase on the 5 percent unemployment rate reported for the March quarter, as the impacts from the recession continue to show through.

Hon David Cunliffe: In light of the massively rising unemployment, is he concerned that the OECD has recently re-rated the efforts of his Government’s stimulus package from the claimed 5 percent of GDP to only 3.5 percent of GDP, and has dropped New Zealand’s rating from the top five to the ninth in the OECD on a per capita basis; and can the Minister therefore explain why his Government is retrenching at the same time that unemployment lines are growing?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The member just contradicted himself. If there is a stimulus of 3.5 percent of GDP, that is precisely not retrenching. The evidence for that is that the Government is out in the market right now, in the process of borrowing billions of dollars to inject into the economy. One of the effects of that is that our unemployment rate is one of the lowest in the developed world. Despite the fact that Australia has not had a technical recession when we have had seven quarters of contraction, our unemployment rate is still lower than Australia’s.

Craig Foss: What indicators has he seen showing an improvement in business confidence?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The National Bank’s National Business Outlook shows an improvement in business confidence, but, as I have said before, an improvement in the outlook for businesses is not a guarantee that unemployment will stop rising, nor is it a guarantee that the economy will pick up strongly. We would expect that, on the basis of these indicators, the economy will show some improvement in the last quarter of this year or perhaps in the first quarter of next year, but the situation remains patchy. Some businesses are doing quite well, and others are really struggling.

Craig Foss: What comments has the Minister seen about the Government’s role in keeping down unemployment?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I have seen one relevant comment, and I will quote: “Any mug, or any Government, can overspend, live on borrowed money, and, in the short term, sustain consumption and demand, and thus keep unemployment down a little lower than it otherwise would have been.” Those comments came from former employment Minister Phil Goff, when he was the fresh face of the Labour Party. He appears to have changed his mind, though. Well, it was 20 years ago! It—

Mr SPEAKER: The Minister had gone on for quite long enough. When I get to my feet, the Deputy Prime Minister will cease and sit down. I alert him to that point.

Question No. 3 to Minister

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Forgive me for interrupting the next question. The Minister of Corrections, in answer to a number of my questions, quoted from at least one document provided to the Minister of Corrections, including a document from a regional manager. On that basis, under Standing Order 367 I ask her to table the document or documents.

Mr SPEAKER: Can I just check that the Minister was quoting from an official document.

Hon Judith Collins: Yes, I was.

Mr SPEAKER: The Minister has been asked to table those documents, and therefore must table them.

Hon Judith Collins: Yes, I am.

Document laid on the Table of the House.

Beneficiaries—Release of Personal Information

5. CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Was the personal information she released relating to two solo mothers retrieved from a SWIFTT terminal located in her ministerial office complex?

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment): First of all, there is no terminal. Second, yes, the system was accessed from my office. Third, the member may not be aware that the Social Welfare Information for Tomorrow Today (SWIFTT) access was actually installed by the previous Government into my office in order to make it easier for seconded staff to access benefit information in the course of their work.

Mr SPEAKER: I call Charles Chauvel. [Interruption] The Hon Trevor Mallard and the relevant Government member will cease that level of interjection. I have called Charles Chauvel for a supplementary question.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I did create half of the noise then, but Gerry Brownlee created the other half. I object to being named, when he was not.

Mr SPEAKER: The Hon Gerry Brownlee, likewise, will not interject like that. We have had enough of that. I have called Charles Chauvel on a supplementary question. [Interruption] Members, please show some courtesy to Charles Chauvel asking a supplementary question.

Charles Chauvel: What advice has the chief executive of her department, Peter Hughes, given her about the appropriateness of her actions in regard to the public release of confidential information held on his ministry’s database?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: The chief executive has been unwell with the flu for the last couple of days, but I had a conversation with him. At the end of the day, it was my decision, not his. He certainly acknowledged that I had made that judgment call and that he backed me on that.

Charles Chauvel: Does the Minister recall the following part of the Privacy Commissioner’s guidelines, which she said she read, that state: “If the individual has misrepresented the facts on which … actions were based, the Minister could say that there are some undisclosed facts which give a somewhat different picture and, if the individual would authorise release of further details, … the Minister would be happy to oblige.”; if she does, why did she not follow those guidelines in this case?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: As I have said numerous times, I certainly did look at those ministerial guidelines. I made a judgment call based on them, and I am quite willing to stand by that.

Sue Bradford: Can the Minister tell the House what would be likely to happen to a Work and Income front-line case officer who released personal details about a beneficiary to the national media without that beneficiary’s knowledge or permission, and is she at all conscious that she might apply the same standards to herself?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: That would be an operational matter.

Hon Lianne Dalziel: Why did the Minister tell the House yesterday: “There is certainly access to interest-free student loans.”, when beneficiaries are not entitled to use student loans for the particular purposes she was outlining, as she had just been told by one of the women who presented to her “a compelling argument to extend these loans to beneficiaries for these purposes.”?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Thank you for the opportunity to clear this up. That sole mother was saying that the $1,000 she could borrow for course-related costs was not enough and that she needed more to get her through her study. That is what her argument was. She can borrow up to $1,000 under the student loans scheme for course-related costs if she fits the criteria. I think the member may be getting student loans and student allowances mixed up. Yesterday in the House, when she was trying to table things, she said allowances in one place and loans in another place. Yes, beneficiaries can access student loans for course-related costs of up to $1,000.

Charles Chauvel: Is the report in today’s New Zealand Herald stating that the Minister has asked her officials to look into interest-free study loans not an admission that her decision to cut the training incentive allowance was a lousy one in the first place?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: It is really clear that that sole mother yesterday put to me that the $1,000 she could borrow was not enough to cover all of her course-related costs, and as a consequence she may need to borrow a uniform on top of that. We had a discussion about how that would be, and I said I certainly would look into some of that. She made a compelling argument, and that is fair. That is what a debate is about.

Katrina Shanks: Can the Minister assure the House of the Government’s commitment to protecting core benefits?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Yes. We are totally committed to maintaining core benefits. One thing I have learned since becoming Minister is that the previous Government avoided tough decisions by adding layer upon layer; no hard decisions were really made. We are in tough times, and I have had to make hard decisions. However, I have been up front and honest about every one of those hard decisions. I have not hidden behind staff members, which is a bit hard for that side to understand, and I will continue not to do so.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Would the Minister support a front-line Work and Income official who released the details of the amount that she, the Minister, received as a beneficiary on the training incentive allowance without the Minister’s consent; if not, why not?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Members on the Opposition side of the House are always keen to blame the staff. Just yesterday we saw that member Trevor Mallard try to blame the staff in my office for accessing information—that was the furthest from the truth. Now Opposition members are trying to bring in hypothetical staff situations in the ministries. I made a decision and I will stand by it. I know that is hard for the member to understand.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It was a very direct question, and it was: “Would the Minister support a front-line official who released her details?”. It had nothing to do with the Minister’s release of a beneficiary’s details.

Mr SPEAKER: I say to the honourable member that I do not need help on this point of order. I hear the point the member makes—and he makes a genuine point—but the dilemma is that it is a hypothetical question. Our Speakers’ rulings show that where hypothetical questions are asked there is a wide latitude in the way Ministers can answer them. Members cannot expect Ministers to answer hypothetical questions. That is the dilemma in asking that kind of a question.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I will continue that discussion a little bit. No one expects—

Hon Member: Is it a point of order?

Mr SPEAKER: It is a point of order.

Hon Trevor Mallard: No one expects a definitive answer. We changed the Standing Orders in order to allow for hypothetical questions. Even a hypothetical question should be addressed. My submission to you is that nowhere in the Minister’s answer, which referred entirely to the past, was there any reference to, or any addressing of the hypothetical question.

Hon Rodney Hide: Mr Speaker, I will take you back to question No. 5. It was actually about the Minister’s actions and the use of a terminal in the Minister’s office. It was all about the Minister’s behaviour. The Minister was subsequently asked about the behaviour of staff, and she quite rightly pointed out that that was an operational issue. The member has come along with a hypothetical question that talked about the behaviour of staff, when the substantive question was all about the Minister’s behaviour, which she has been up front and honest about and has answered all questions about. The substantive question is not a question about the behaviour of particular staff.

Mr SPEAKER: I appreciate the member’s points. This is a difficult issue. One of the dilemmas with hypothetical questions is that if we try to force Ministers to answer them too closely, we can create hypothetical answers that then really lead to major problems for the House. That is why I have real difficulty in asking the Minister to be more precise in answering a hypothetical question, especially when it relates to hypothetical actions about a staff member. That is what is such a dilemma.

Hon Lianne Dalziel: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is a difficult point of order to make, because I am not sure how we have got to this point. The question I have asked was directly related to a question that I asked yesterday, and referred specifically to course costs over $1,000. That was the original question. The answer the Minister gave was that is where the question of the student loan scheme came in. I knew that the student loan scheme did not apply, and that is why I sought leave after you rightly pulled me up for taking a point of order that was not a point of order. Mr Speaker, you said to deal with it in a proper way, so I sought leave to table the criteria that related specifically to these elements. If the Minister now knows that her answer yesterday was incorrect, she needs to make a formal correction to the House.

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Speaking to the point of order.

Mr SPEAKER: I will hear the Hon Paula Bennett, but I do not want to go any further than that.

Hon PAULA BENNETT: It is a debating issue. We disagree on this point.

Mr SPEAKER: I think that is the dilemma I have. I found the exchange today to be informative, yet I still must confess that I am not clear on exactly what the provisions are. That is why the point that the Hon Paula Bennett has made, which is that there seems to be some debate over these exact arrangements, shows that it is not a matter of the Minister having given an incorrect answer. What is more, a Minister must decide if an incorrect answer has been given, and correct it if it has been given. As Speaker, I cannot ask the Minister to correct an answer. I cannot judge an answer’s accuracy or otherwise. That is why I do not believe I can assist the member beyond that. The previous supplementary question was a good question. I see no reason why further supplementary questions cannot be asked in order to clarify the issue.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: When the Minister received the extra information about the person on the benefit, did she consider putting the information in a brown envelope and slipping it under the door of a member of the press gallery, as occurred under the previous Government with the member who just asked the question?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Well, yes, I knew that another practice had gone on previously, but I decided to be up front and honest. I know that Labour struggles with this fact, but, yes, I was on a benefit for years; yes, I managed to get off it; and, yes, I then joined the National Party. That is the way it goes.

I seek leave to table a letter written by the Ministry of Social Development to Ministerial Services in 2005 explaining why it was advantageous for Minister Maharey and Associate Minister Barker to have those systems installed in their offices.

Mr SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that document being tabled? There is no objection.

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

Government Expenditure, Increase—Effect on Productivity

6. JOHN BOSCAWEN (ACT) to the Minister of Finance: Will increasing Government expenditure by 17 percent from 31.8 percent to 37.3 percent as a percentage of GDP over the next 2 years improve productivity and enable us to achieve the Government’s goal of closing the income gap with Australia by 2025; if so, how?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): As I have said previously, the sharp increase in Government spending in recent Budgets has left us with a large deficit burden, which is not helpful to New Zealand’s economy and, at the moment, will take 10 years to clear. The Government believes, however, that reversing this trend in Government expenditure is essential if we are to achieve better long-term growth. We are going about this in a responsible and measured way. Budget 2009 halved future spending allocations to make it clear to the public sector, and to the public, that the rate of growth will be slowing right down. We are working with the Public Service on a range of initiatives to increase its productivity and provide more services for less money.

John Boscawen: Does the Minister regard Michael Cullen as a fiscal conservative; if not, why had he, in just 2 years, increased Government spending by over $100 per week per household?

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: I think I can anticipate the member’s point of order. I invite the member to rephrase that supplementary question, because the honourable Minister has no responsibility for the views of the previous Minister of Finance.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It might be slightly unusual, but I think Rodney Hide and I may be up on the same point of order. The Minister has no responsibility for Michael Cullen, but he can have an opinion on Michael Cullen’s spending habits. It would be absolutely wrong to say that Ministers cannot have a view. I am proud of the work of Michael Joseph Savage—

Mr SPEAKER: We will not get into debate by way of a point of order. The dilemma is that the supplementary question invites the Minister to comment on Labour Party policy. That is the dilemma with the question. I guess the Minister could tell the House what he understands that to have been, but he must not then climb into criticising it or commenting on it. I will hear the Hon Rodney Hide, though.

Hon Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It seems self-evident to me that a Minister of Finance can be asked to comment on previous Budgets, and therefore on former Ministers of Finance. Maybe the question should be regarded as being whether the Minister regards the previous Minister of Finance, Michael Cullen, as a fiscal conservative. Of course a Minister has to be able to take questions about previous Budgets. How else could we establish a comparison, over time?

Hon Peter Dunne: I think the point that has just been made is true up to a point, but that point is that it can be only with reference to policies that are of relevance today. Otherwise, we could start comparing this Minister of Finance with Richard John Seddon, Julius Vogel, or any historic figure. Surely it must be only where there is a link to something that is relevant to the circumstances of the time.

Mr SPEAKER: The way we normally handle these matters is that Ministers are asked whether they have reports on certain previous policies. The idea of phrasing it in that way is to try to avoid inviting Ministers to climb into the policies of other parties, which are not their responsibility. I invite John Boscawen to repeat the question and to try to avoid the risks of inviting the Minister to climb into another party’s policies.

John Boscawen: I will make the question even simpler and ask: why has the Minister been prepared to increase Government spending by over $100 per household per week, in a period of just 2 years?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: That is a much less interesting question. Michael Cullen might regard himself as a fiscal conservative, and compared with the current people who are leading the Labour Party, he certainly was, because this crowd want to send the pixies to the bottom of the garden to get the printing presses running flat out. The reason this Government has increased its spending is that we believe it is important to protect people from the sharpest edges of the recession, but the member should not take that as an indication that the Government thinks all existing Government spending is effective. Quite a bit of it is not, and over time we will find that ineffective Government spending and stop it.

Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga: What steps is the Government taking to lift productivity?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Government has been very busy taking steps to lift productivity. We are getting our regulatory regime right, so that business can thrive; we are setting out to lift performance in the public sector; we are investing in productive infrastructure; we are introducing national standards into our education system; and we are undertaking a stocktake of our taxation system, to ensure that it is world class.

John Boscawen: Would the Minister like to hazard a guess as to what the average household is getting for the extra $100 a week, apart from the cycleway?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I am sure the householder is not getting the full $100 value for Government spending, because the way in which the Government has been run for the last 10 years means that it has not been focused on delivering value for money. It has not been focused on getting the best out of every dollar. That is one reason that New Zealanders changed the Government. They want the new Government to be careful with their money and to make sure it does protect the vulnerable and provide high-quality services.

Ministers—Confidence

7. Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) to the Prime Minister: Does he have confidence in all his Ministers?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of the Prime Minister: Yes.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Does he still have confidence in Paula Bennett, given her use of confidential beneficiary details; if so, has that confidence been dented?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Prime Minister does have confidence in Ms Bennett. He also has confidence that she will see off the member’s boasts around the place that he is going to get her because Labour does not like her.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have a particular problem now because I know of your rulings, but I want to make it clear that the Prime Minister told an untruth about something that I said. It is just not—

Mr SPEAKER: The member must sit down now. If he wishes to ask further questions around his question he will obey the Standing Orders. The member cannot litigate an answer by way of point of order. That is simply what the Standing Orders provide.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I seek leave to make a personal explanation in relation to comments made by the Prime Minister.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to make a personal explanation in relation to the answer given by the Hon Bill English in respect of comments made by the Prime Minister. Is there any objection to that course of action? There is no objection.

Hon Trevor Mallard: The Prime Minister’s reply indicated that I had used a set of words about Ms Bennett. That is untrue.

Jo Goodhew: What other reports has the Prime Minister seen on the use of personal information by previous administrations?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The reports the Prime Minister has seen indicate that previous administrations, such as the previous Labour Government, made a habit of releasing information. The previous Prime Minister released a lot of personal details about the police commissioner, and then when she was asked she had no comment and said it was nothing to do with her. A former Minister of Immigration put information in an envelope and slipped it under the door of the press gallery, and then she got sacked because she said she did not do it.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Does the Prime Minister agree, in view of Paula Bennett’s answer today—that is, that it would be an operational matter if a staff member released private information—that Paula Bennett’s actions are completely his responsibility as the Prime Minister?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: One of the differences between the previous Government and this one is that Ministers in this Government make decisions and take responsibility for them, which is exactly what she has done. I have to say that getting lectured by that member and the Labour Party about intimidating people is absolutely ridiculous.

Hon Trevor Mallard: How does the Prime Minister explain how it is in the public interest to suppress the reason he lost confidence in Richard Worth as a Minister, but then to publish private, personal, and confidential information from beneficiaries?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Labour members may be surprised to know this, but what is paid to beneficiaries is actually advertised heavily in every Work and Income office. People can walk into my parliamentary office, pick up a pamphlet, and look up the payment that is made to a sole parent with three children. That is not confidential information, actually.

Jo Goodhew: Does the Prime Minister know of other examples where personal information was leaked to the media through anonymous sources?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: There are so many examples of that occurring under the previous Labour Government that the Public Service thinks that that is how things are meant to be done. They are as surprised as Labour members are that a Minister who provided information to get a balanced debate has said that she did it and she stands by the decision. I must say, public opinion seems to be with that Minister.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Would the Prime Minister have confidence in the Minister for Economic Development if he revealed commercially confidential information supplied to New Zealand Trade and Enterprise if the company that supplied it criticised Government policy; if not, where is that line drawn?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I think that is about two layers of hypothetical questions. What I can say is that Ministers are not going to go down the track of a former environment Minister who used the briefing from his chief executive to attack a Government whistleblower as “sad and incompetent” and then publicly revealed employment details about that whistleblower. In a case I dealt with in Opposition a teacher gave me details of National Certificate of Educational Achievement exam results, which are publicly available, and was pursued as a “sad alcoholic” for weeks on end.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I seek leave to make a personal explanation in relation to the answer that has just been given.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to make a personal explanation in relation to the answer just given. Is there any—[Interruption] I put this again to the House because it is an important issue. Denying leave to make a personal explanation is a major issue. Leave is sought to make a personal explanation. Is there any objection? There is objection.

Before I call the member for his supplementary question, I will say that I know, as I said yesterday, that this issue is deeply held, but when a Minister answers a question that might be a hypothetical question, that is no reason to depart miles away from the question and to make a very provocative answer. I am troubled that the House declined leave for the Hon Trevor Mallard.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Would the Prime Minister have confidence in the Minister of Police if she used the police computer in her office to access the criminal records of Sue Bradford when she opposed, as she regularly does, Government policy on police matters; and if not, where is the line drawn?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: This line of questioning makes me wonder just what Labour was up to when it was in Government. The fact is the Prime Minister expects Ministers to follow the protocols, guidelines, and legal principles in respect of the treatment of private information in the public environment.

Jo Goodhew: What commentary has the Prime Minister seen on the release of the information?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: This release of information has certainly prompted widespread public debate—and it is a legitimate debate—about how balanced this kind of information should be, whether or not a Government is being attacked. We had some concern about the strength of public commentary against a sole parent receiving a benefit; we do not endorse that. A number of newspaper editorials, though, have supported the Minister. The New Zealand Herald said the Minister was right to give the public the facts. The Press in Christchurch said the Minister was justified, and the Dominion Post commended the Minister for commendable openness. The Labour Party attitude, I think, just shows how far out of step with the public mood it is.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Would the Prime Minister have confidence in his Deputy Prime Minister if that Minister revealed the abortion records of someone who took a public pro-abortion position in opposition to Bill English; if not, where is the line on revealing private information drawn?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: This really does confirm my concerns about what the Labour Government was up to. That is a ridiculous question. The Prime Minister would expect every Minister to follow those guidelines and conventions that respect the privacy of information that is private, and make well-judged use of public information for the purposes of public debate, which is what the Minister has done.

Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples—Recognition of Māori Rights

8. CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green) to the Minister of Foreign Affairs: Why has he not recognised the collective rights of Māori as affirmed by the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples?

Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) on behalf of the Minister of Foreign Affairs: Although New Zealand has not yet publicly affirmed and recognised the declaration, the Prime Minister has indicated that he would like to see New Zealand move to support the declaration, provided that we can protect the unique and advanced framework that has been developed for the resolution of issues related to indigenous rights. The Government has sought advice on the implications of supporting the declaration, and the extent to which any risks can be mitigated. Officials are still preparing that advice, and no decisions one way or the other have yet been made.

Catherine Delahunty: Why is the Government so reluctant to recognise Māori rights under international law, when Māori have been so generous and practical in their negotiations with the Crown over these rights in Aotearoa?

Hon SIMON POWER: There is not reluctance, just care, involved in this process. New Zealand’s position on the declaration does not change the Government’s ongoing commitment to a good-faith approach to working with Māori.

Catherine Delahunty: Would it not be timely, given that it is Te Wiki o Te Reo Māori and the end of Matariki, for the Government to recognise the UN declaration, which upholds the rights of tangata whenua and te reo Māori?

Hon SIMON POWER: I understand the member’s point, but it would be more timely to make sure that if support was forthcoming, it would be done in a way that was carefully thought out, meaning that any proposition would be enduring.

Catherine Delahunty: Could he outline the advantages to Aotearoa New Zealand of supporting the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples?

Hon SIMON POWER: The advantages are that, in an aspirational way, it would reflect many Governments’ commitments to working in good faith with Māori on many issues. However, as the Prime Minister and I have both said—in this House, I believe, and certainly before a select committee in recent times, in any event—the important point is to make sure that the unique framework constitutionally put in place primarily by the Treaty of Waitangi is not disrupted by any affirmation of the declaration, and it is important to make sure that any affirmation, if it were to occur, is enduring.

Question No. 9 to Minister

Hon MITA RIRINUI (Labour): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Otirā, tēnā koe kai te Kaihautū. Tēnā koe e whakahaere i tō tātou whakamoemiti, whakawhetai i roto i te reo wairua a te reo rangatira o te motu. Otirā, kai te kaihautū te āhua nei kāre te Minita Tuarua mō te Hauora kei roto i te Whare. Nō reira, kei te kimi tautoko ahau mai i te Whare kia waiho ake taku patapatai ki te taha kia hoki mai anō te Minita.

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

[Greetings indeed to you, Mr Speaker, and also for conducting our prayer in the chiefly language of the nation. Mr Speaker, it appears that the Associate Minister of Health is not present in the House. I seek the support of the House to defer my question to her until she is present.]

Mr SPEAKER: The member can seek leave to defer his question, but it must be done with the leave of the House.

Hon MITA RIRINUI: I do seek leave.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to defer the question to the Associate Minister of Health. Is there any objection to that? There is objection. The member will put his question.

Health, Māori—Improvement for Tamariki and Whānau

9. Hon MITA RIRINUI (Labour) to the Associate Minister of Health: He aha ngā whakapaitanga kei te rapua e ia mō te hauora me te oranga o ngā tamariki me ngā whānau Māori?

[What steps is she taking to improve the health and well-being of Māori tamariki and their whānau?]

Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health) on behalf of the Associate Minister of Health: Kei roto i ngā kaupapa o Te Manatū Hauora ngā tikanga hei whāinga kia tautokohia ngā whānau kia tae ake ki te taumata o te ora. Ko tāku ki te mema, tirohia taua kaupapa.

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

[The honourable Minister Tariana Turia states that support for families to achieve maximum health and well being is in the Ministry of Health’s statement of intent. I refer the honourable member to it.]

Hon Mita Ririnui: Ki te Minita anō, he aha a ia i tautoko i te whakakahore o te hōtaka hua rākau o roto i ngā kura, ngā hōtaka HEHA me te pūtea a ngā kura mō te kai ora ahakoa, ko te matehuka me te mate mōmona tinana te tino mate o ngā tamariki Māori, otirā, ko te mahi o ngā hōtaka kua whakakorengia, he ārai atu i ēnei mate?

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

[Why did the Minister vote to scrap the Fruit in Schools programme, the Healthy Eating - Healthy Action programme, and the Nutrition Fund, when one of the biggest threats to the health of Māori children is diabetes and obesity, which all these now scrapped programmes were aimed at preventing?]

 Hon TONY RYALL: I can advise the member that the Associate Minister has not voted to scrap the Fruit in Schools programme; in fact, the Fruit in Schools programme will continue. What the Government is concerned about is that in the last year the programme cost $12 million, but only $6 million was spent on the fruit. We think that more effective use could be made of those resources.

Te Ururoa Flavell: Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Kia ora tātau katoa. Ki te Minita Tuarua, me pēhea e taea ai e te whānau ora te hāpai i te hauora me te noho ora o ngā tamariki Māori me wā rātau whānau?

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

[How will the work of the Whānau Ora task force advance the health and well-being of Māori tamariki and their whānau?] 

Hon TONY RYALL: The priority of the task force is to review funding and delivery policies as they relate to whānau to ensure that the interconnectedness of health, education, welfare, employment, and lifestyle aspects of whānau well-being are taken into account. We know that the best outcomes for whānau will be arrived at through a holistic approach, and such an approach is often the most cost-effective and efficient way of delivering services for whānau.

Hon Mita Ririnui: Ki te Minita anō, kei te tū kaha tonu anō ia i runga i te mana tāna kōrero e pēnei nā “Me āta titiro tātau kāhore he kaupapa here o te Kāwanatanga hei whakataumaha i te oranga o ā tātou tamariki.”, mēna ka kī āe, he aha ai a ia i tautoko taumaha tamariki me ō rātou whānau mā te tapahi i te hōtaka hauora, pūtea tautoko me te huarahi whai mātauranga hoki?

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

[To the Minister again, does she stand by her statement that “We must ensure that no policy of this government creates greater hardship for our children.”; if so, why did she vote to cut health programmes, financial support, and educational opportunities?]

Hon TONY RYALL: No such claims can be made and justified. That member will recall that he was in a Government where his health Minister, David Cunliffe, cut over $100 million out of health programmes, including $26 million cut from public health promotion.

Te Ururoa Flavell: Ki te Minita, he aha ngā mea kua oti nei i a ia kia eke te māiatanga ā-hauora mō te iwi Māori ki tōna teiteitanga?

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

[To the Minister, what action has he taken to ensure that the health potential of Māori is maximised?]

Hon TONY RYALL: I can reply that at the Maori Tobacco Intelligence Summit in May, the very busy Associate Minister announced that she would be reviewing smoking cessation services to ensure that they support improved health outcomes for Māori. She has also asked the Ministry of Health to focus its work to make sure it works for Māori, including reducing the incidence and impact of cancer on Māori, ensuring high-quality interventions for diabetes and cardiovascular conditions, and providing early detection screening and quality, integrated primary health care services. The major initiative that the Minister is leading is the ground-breaking Whānau Ora approach, which will completely redesign the way that services are provided to whānau.

Hon Mita Ririnui: Ki te Minita anō, he aha tōna kōrero ki ngā whānau Māori mēnā ka whakahē rātou ki te kaupapa here hauora o tēnei Kāwanatanga, ka kore e ia e tohatoha atu i ō rātou ritenga ki ngā nūpepa me ngā reo irirangi o te motu pērā anō i tōna Minita a Paula Pēneti?

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

[To the Minister again, what assurances can she give Māori families that she will not follow the precedent of Paula Bennett and release personal health-related details about individuals to the media if by chance they make a complaint against the health system?]

Hon TONY RYALL: I can give the member an assurance from the Associate Minister that she will ensure that public debate is fully informed on all the matters that they need to be aware of. I know that the Associate Minister works very, very constructively with Minister Bennett in her other portfolios, but her main focus is on improving services for Māori, and particularly on the development of Whānau Ora.

Kōpū Bridge Replacement—Progress

10. SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) to the Minister of Transport: What progress has been made on replacing the 82-year-old single lane Kōpū Bridge?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Transport): I am pleased to report that on Tuesday the Prime Minister and I joined 94-year-old George Williams as he turned the first sod for the replacement Kōpū Bridge. The people of Coromandel and Hauraki Plains have waited a long time for this moment. This Government is honouring the commitment made in February in the half a billion dollar jobs and growth package to accelerate roading projects and other infrastructure projects around the country. This particular project has been accelerated by over 12 months.

Sandra Goudie: What economic impact will this project have on the region?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The $47 million project will employ 50 people on site at its peak, and provide a further 100 jobs in downstream activities supplying material and providing support services. I am sure locals will appreciate those jobs. The project will greatly improve freight and passenger access into the Coromandel region, which will boost the economy and tourism. It will also result in significant time savings of up to an hour, at times, for travellers. This comes on top of other recent announcements, such as the Kamo bypass project, which will provide 80 jobs, and the Victoria Park project, which will provide 300 jobs.

Sandra Goudie: What feedback has the Minister received from locals on the progress now being made?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I received much positive feedback yesterday from locals, who are pleased the project is finally going ahead. I also saw the comments of Pipiroa Country Kitchen cafe owner, Sydney Campbell, who said that the sod-turning for the new bridge is a great advance for the whole district—work on the bridge was supposed to have started in 2006 and locals have been taking bets as to whether it would be finished in their lifetimes. I am pleased to report that under this Government, the locals will have a new bridge in 3 years.

Workforce Productivity—Information and Technology Industry

11. CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South) to the Minister for Communications and Information Technology: Does he stand by his statement: “The government wants to ensure New Zealand has a skilled and productive workforce.”; if so, does he believe this should apply to the information and technology industry?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Communications and Information Technology): Yes and yes.

Clare Curran: In light of Telecom’s decision to contract out the work done by its telecommunication engineers, does the Minister agree that the industry is now running the risk of losing many skilled engineers? Should not the Government be doing something about it to ensure New Zealand has the capability for the roll-out of ultra-fast broadband?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: It is not my role as Minister to comment on specific private contracting relationships between private companies. Telecom, of course, is a private company, having being sold by a previous Government.

Louise Upston: What is the Government doing to ensure that New Zealand has a skilled and productive workforce with good information and communications technology skills suited to the 21st century?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The National Government knows digital literacy across our population—along with smart, connected communities—is critical to this country’s future. To this end, the Government has given a $3 million boost to the Computers in Homes programme, which will empower over 1,600 families throughout the country who do not currently use the Internet to bridge the digital divide. We have also given over $1 million in support of the expansion of the Computer Clubhouse programme, and we have made $34 million available in this year’s Budget for upgrading school computer networks to prepare schools for the ultra-fast broadband initiative.

Clare Curran: Will the Minister deny that as a result of Telecom’s contracting out of engineering, those engineers could have their income cut by 50 to 66 percent; and will he take action to prevent New Zealand telecommunications engineers leaving for higher incomes in Australia?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Once again, I am not, as Minister, able to comment on specific private contracting relationships. I understand that Chorus recently signed contracts with three service provider companies to provide the workforce that Chorus relies on. In an industry where the norm is for 2 to 3-year contracts, Chorus has committed to 10-year contracts worth a total of around $3 billion to provide long-term certainty and confidence within the telecommunications industry.

Clare Curran: Why did the Minister tell the Commerce Committee that an industry training organisation needs to be driven by the information and communications technology industry itself when it is now becoming abundantly clear that Telecom’s decision will see a severe skills shortage in the industry?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I am not sure that I agree with the member’s contention, but I certainly believe that the first port of call for industry training is with the industry that seeks the training. It is most important that the industry takes the initiative.

Medicines—Funding

12. Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) to the Minister of Health: What extra funding has the Government made available for medicines this year?

Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health): I am pleased to confirm today that the Government has increased the funding for subsidised medicines by $40 million for the 2009-10 financial year. The increase is made up of $31 million for the community pharmaceutical budget managed by Pharmac, and $9 million extra for cancer medicines managed by the district health boards and the Ministry of Health, including Herceptin. It takes the total community pharmaceutical budget to $694 million. That is a huge increase at the time of the worst recession since the 1930s, and fulfils another election promise made by the Government.

Dr Jackie Blue: What is Pharmac doing with this big increase in spending for medicines dispensed through community pharmacies and hospitals?

Hon TONY RYALL: Pharmac advises me that planning on how the new community budget will be spent is well advanced. It includes new spending on medicines to treat cystic fibrosis, hepatitis B, leukaemia, auto-immune disorders, heart disease, and arthritis, and to support smoking cessation. It is a good first step forward in the Government’s aim to achieve better access to medicines for New Zealanders.

Hon Ruth Dyson: What additional funding for statins and insulin will be required as a direct result of his cancellation of obesity reduction programmes?

Hon TONY RYALL: I think the member is hypothesising about what may or may not be the impact of things that may or may not be happening. I observe that the member was in a Government that cut the budget for chronic disease management, which affects some of the most vulnerable New Zealanders in this country, by $10 million. That Government also cut $26 million from public health promotion.

Hon Ruth Dyson: In order to ensure that people can afford to collect their medicine from the chemist, will he now guarantee that the $3 prescription charge will not be increased?

Hon TONY RYALL: Yes.

Bills

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

Third Reading

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): I move, That the Port Nicholson Block (Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika) Claims Settlement Bill be now read a third time.

E ngā mana, e ngā reo, e ngā iwi o Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika, he rā nui, he rā tino whakahirahira tēnei. Kei te mihi atu ki a koutou i runga i te aroha me te harikoa, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

[To the authorities, languages, and people of Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika, this is a great and magnificent day. I greet you with affection and happiness; greetings, greetings, and greetings to you all.]

I acknowledge those iwi who form Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika: Te Ātiawa, Taranaki, Ngāti Ruanui, Ngāti Tama, and other iwi from the Taranaki region. I welcome those who have travelled from Taranaki and throughout the Wellington region and are here in the gallery today to listen to this third reading.

This bill is the final settlement of all the historical Treaty of Waitangi claims of those represented by the Port Nicholson Block Settlement Trust. They are claims that relate to the Port Nicholson Block, which lies within the Wellington and Hutt Valley areas. The bill gives effect to certain provisions of the deed of settlement that settles the historical claims of Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika in the Port Nicholson Block.

The claim commenced in 1987 with the lodging of Wai 145 with the tribunal. Those claims and the claims of the other Wai claims that are settled with the passing of this legislation were reported on by the tribunal in its Wellington district inquiry in 2003. The Port Nicholson Block Claims Team was then appointed to negotiate the historical claims in this area. The passing of the bill concludes a long journey for Taranaki Whānui, and I acknowledge all those who are part of the collective and who have worked so hard for many years to make this day possible.

I acknowledge the many kuia and kaumātua who are no longer with us and who provided leadership and inspiration to all negotiators. I am sure the whānau of those kuia and kaumātua are immensely proud of their actions and that their descendants will benefit from this settlement. I am pleased that many of them are here today to witness their Treaty settlement now passing into law.

As I have previously stated in the second reading, the sad reality is that as a result of the actions or inactions of the Crown and its agents, Taranaki Whānui have been deprived of almost all their lands in the Port Nicholson Block. Although the initial purchase was negotiated by the New Zealand Company, the Crown instigated a commission of inquiry into the company’s purchase, and despite reservations about that company’s process it none the less completed the transaction. The Crown did not ensure that the interests of the Māori owners were protected; the Crown acknowledges this. Taranaki Whānui suffered prejudice when their valuable urban tenths reserves were taken as endowments for public purposes; the Crown acknowledges this.

In short, the Crown failed to ensure that the agreements reached in 1839 by the New Zealand Company—and, later, the Crown—and those iwi who now make up Taranaki Whānui were, in fact, honoured. Those iwi also suffered a loss of their connection to Wellington Harbour, their forests, their waters, and their natural resources in the Port Nicholson Block. The deprivation caused by those losses cannot be measured. These losses have inflicted profound suffering. This bill enables the Crown both to recognise its past wrongs and to provide some atonement for its actions and inaction.

The Crown is providing cultural redress over a number of areas to Taranaki Whānui. This includes the vesting of the Wellington Harbour islands in the Port Nicholson Block Settlement Trust, with all current reservation classifications in place. The trust and the Department of Conservation will jointly manage the islands. The Pencarrow Lakes will also be returned as cultural redress, as will the Korokoro Gateway site and the Point Dorset Recreation Reserve.

Another site of great significance to the iwi is Pipitea Marae. The marae land and the improvements will be vested in the new Pipitea Marae Charitable Trust, in which the Port Nicholson Block Settlement Trust and the Ngati Poneke Maori Association will have equal representation. This arrangement allows the Ngati Poneke Maori Association to continue its role in promoting Māori culture while providing for the iwi of Taranaki Whānui to re-establish their connection with what was formerly their kāinga.

The bill also provides for the Port Nicholson Block Settlement Trust to purchase, and in some cases lease back, a number of commercial properties in the Wellington and Lower Hutt areas. This will enable Taranaki Whānui to enhance the economic capacity of their members, and to regain their position as a key player in the local economy.

In its apology the Crown says it is deeply sorry it has not always lived up to its Treaty of Waitangi obligations and that it has breached the Treaty in its dealings with Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika. The Crown apology states that through this settlement the Crown is seeking to atone for its past wrongs, restore its honour, which has been tarnished by its actions, and begin the process of healing.

Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika has provided a statement of forgiveness to the Crown in response to the Crown apology. This enables both the iwi collective and the people of New Zealand to close the circle on this Treaty grievance and move on. This is a unique and special event that humbles me as Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations. The willingness of Taranaki Whānui to draw a line under the past signals a strong desire to place a firm emphasis on the future.

I particularly want to acknowledge the leadership and generosity of spirit that Sir Paul Reeves has shown, both in initiating and indeed in penning the statement of forgiveness. The full account of the Crown’s apology will be delivered by the Prime Minister in the Beehive theatrette immediately following the enactment of the bill. Sir Paul will respond by formally delivering the statement of forgiveness to the Crown.

Another initiative in this settlement is the formation of a whole-of-Government relationship between the Crown and the Taranaki Whānui community. The focus of the relationship is on supporting the desire of the Port Nicholson Block Settlement Trust to provide for the enhanced well-being, revitalisation, and protection of its members. This will include an annual hui involving relevant Ministers of the Crown and the trust. Hopefully, this will provide the basis for a solid foundation for further iwi-Crown relations.

In conclusion, I acknowledge the role of the trust in drawing together a range of iwi with interests in the Port Nicholson Block. This is a testament to the efforts of Professor Ngātata Love in working across iwi for a collective benefit. I recognise the roles of others within Taranaki Whānui in negotiating the deed of settlement as trustees of the Port Nicholson Block Settlement Trust. For the Crown, I want to acknowledge my predecessor the Hon Michael Cullen for his work. I also acknowledge the work of former Associate Ministers the Hon Shane Jones and the Hon Mita Ririnui for their work. I acknowledge with pleasure the presence in the House of the Hon Mahara Okeroa, and I thank him for his good work and for what he is now doing for me.

I commend the work of the Office of Treaty Settlements in negotiating this settlement on behalf of the Crown. I acknowledge the work of Mr Brian Roche in negotiating the settlement. The bill signifies an important achievement for Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika, the Crown, and the people of Wellington. I have moved that the Port Nicholson Block (Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika) Claims Settlement Bill be now read a third time.

Hon MITA RIRINUI (Labour): Otirā hei te Whare, me pēhea rā te kōrero māku. He tamaiti tēnei nā te Moana-a-Toi, mai Ngā Kurī a Whāre ki Tihirau, mai Maketū ki te tonga, kua tū nei i runga i te papa tapu o Pipitea hei aha, hei māngai kōrero mō te hau kāinga kua tatū mai ki raro i te tuanui o tēnei Whare.

Nō reira, kei ngā rangatira aroha mai, aroha mai. Ehara tēnei te tū te takahia tō koutou mana i whakarere iho nei ō koutou mātua tūpuna i te wā i a rātou. E tika ana kia mihi ake nā ki a koutou ka roa koutou hīkoi mai ana i runga i tēnei huarahi kia tutuki pai ai te kerēme i whakatakotohia koutou i mua i te Karauna, te aroaro o te Karauna. Koinā anō ka roa koutou hīkoi mai ana, i tēnei wā tata tonu te mutunga o tēnei hīkoi. Otirā, nā runga i tēnei mōhio mihi kau ana ki a koutou, wā koutou tīpuna kīhai te haere ā-tinana mai, otirā, te wairua hihiko o rātou kei runga i ō koutou pokohiwi i tēnei rā, kia rongo mai te katoa o ngā tūkinotanga a te Karauna ki a koutou anō i ngā rā taha ake nei. Nō reira, e tika ana kia mau tonu ki tēnei o wā tātau reo rangatira tae noa atu ki te mutunga o taku kōrero. E mihi ana ki a koutou te hūmārietanga kei roto i te ngākau, o tēnā, o tēnā, o tēnā o koutou. Anei nā te Minita kua whakatauhia kua tāpaehia rā ngā hara o te Karauna ki ō koutou aroaro, ā, kua murua. Kua murua i ōna hē, ōna hara ki a koutou, me te maumahara anō i te kaupapa o tērā o ngā matakite o ngā poropiti i te wā i a ia e ārahi atu ana i a koutou i te huarahi o te tika, o te pono, o te rangimārie, ko taua tupuna, ā, ko Te Whiti, ko taua tipuna anā ko Tohu. I tēnei wā kua puāwai kua whai hua hoki āna kōrero ki a koutou anō.

Nō reira kei ngā kaumātua, kei ngā kuia, kei ngā kaiārahi kei waenganui i a koutou, tēnei te mihi atu ki a koutou, me te mihi anō ki te moana e tere mai rā, ki ngā awa, ki ngā maunga tae noa atu ki tērā maunga tipuna. Me te maumahara anō ki tērā kōrero, ahakoa rā he maunga tītōhea, rere ngā manu ki reira inu ai. E kore, e kore e mimiti. Ko te wairua o te kōrero kei te koropupū tonu, koropupū, koropupū kei waenganui i a koutou. Nō reira, kua tae mai a koutou hei tauira mō ā koutou uri whakatipu kia mārama ai a rātou i te āhuatanga o te huarahi i whai nei i a koutou i te hūmārietanga i hāpai nei i a koutou i waenganui, i roto i ngā whakawhitiwhiti kōrero, i roto i ngā tautohetohe ki te Karauna, i roto i ngā āhuatanga katoa kei runga tonu rā kei a koutou.

Nō reira kai te Kaihautū o te Whare nei aroha mai, tēnei te kī ki te iwi kua tatū mai, tatū iho nei ki a koe kei taku hoa rangatira te Minita o ngā rā ki muri, e Mahara, nāu tonu te tono ki a mātou ngā mema Māori kia kamakama rā ki te whakatutuki i tēnei kerēme a tō iwi a Taranaki ki Te Whanga-nui-a-Tara. Nō reira hari koa ana te ngākau kua tatū mai, nā runga anō i ngā kupu tawhito ngā kōrero poropiti a tō tipuna a Whiti, a tō tipuna a Tohu, i whakatauhia mai i whakamāramahia mai i au te wā i a tāua e mahi ana i wētahi atu mahi.

Kua whakamāramahia te Minita mō Ngā Take Kerēme i ngā āhuatanga e pā nei ki tēnei pire. E tika ana hoki kia mihi ake ki a ia mō tana tautoko. Kīhai hoki te wareware te tīmatanga mai o ngā whakawhitiwhiti kōrero i waenganui i te Karauna me te Kāwanantanga Reipa; tērā wahine Minita a Mākerete Te Wirihana, nāna ngā kōrero i ārahi i tōna wā, ahakoa te taumaha o te kōrero, ka haere tonu. Pērā anō rā i te Minita mai i a Ngāti Tūwharetoa, a Maaka Burton, ka tau te mana ki runga a ia kia ārahi nei i ngā whakawhiti korero mō te kerēme nā, tae noa mai ki tēnā rangatira a Tākuta Michael Cullen; nāna te tono ki āna minita katoa, kaua e pōuri haere kaua e pōturi haere, otirā, kia kamakama rā, ka roa a Te Āti Awa mai Te Whanga-nui-a-Tara e tatari mai ana kia puāwai, kia whai hua ngā kōrero o tua whakarere.

E tika ana kia mihi ake ki a rātou ngā Minita kua puta ki waho rā i te anga o ngā raiona, ā, me te mihi anō ki te Komiti Motuhake Māori, i whiriwhirihia i ngā āhuatanga e pā ana ki te pire; ki te heamana a Tau Henare, te tino hōnore me ōna āpiha katoa, mai rā i te tīmatanga mai o tēnei Kāwanantanga tae noa ki tēnei wā. Kore kau he raruraru ki waenganui i a mātou nā runga i tēnā komiti, ahakoa ngā kupu taumaha kua karawhiua nei mai i tēnā, mai i tēnā, mai i tēnā, kaha hoki te heamana ki te ārahi nei i ngā kōrero kua tutuki pai ai.

Me pēhea rā te kōrero māku i roto i te pire nei, aroha ana au ki te iwi kua tatū mai, i te mea rā tae noa mai rātou i te marae, i te whenua o Pipitea kua tae mai nei hei manuhiri, ehara hei iwi kāinga. Toku nei wero nā ki te Kāwanatanga, nō wai, nō hea kē tērā kaupapa? Tae katoa mātou ngā mema o te Whare nei, mai ngā tōpito e whā o te motu, hei kaikanohi hei kaitautoko hei kaiwhakamārama mō a rātou kei roto i ngā marae kāinga, ehara hei rangatira mō te iwi kua tatū mai. Nō reira kai te Kaihautū me tika te whakaaro, tēnei nā te whenua a Pipitea, nei nā tōna iwi kua tatū mai, ko rātou kua tatū mai ki roto i te Whare nei kua tatū ā-manuhiri mai, nō reira nā runga i tēnā e mihi kau ana ki a rātou nā rātou i noho wahangū, i noho mārie, i runga i te whakahē o te Kāwanantanga o te Whare Pāremata.

Kāore e tino roa atu ēnei kōrero, kua tutuki rā ngā mahi whakahirahira e pā nei ki tēnei pire o tēnei kerēme o te iwi whānui ki Te Whanga-nui-a-Tara, kīhai i te wareware Te Āti Awa mai i te maunga tītōhea, nā kua tae katoa mai rātou. Nō reira kai te Whare nei, mihi kau ana ki a tātau otirā ki te kaupapa kua whārikihia waenganui i a tātau. Nō reira kei te Kaihautū kei te Whare katoa, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa. Mr Deputy Speaker, hei aha noa te whakamārama, he kōrero ā-wairua kē tāku ki te iwi nei.

[Greetings to the House, whilst seeking the words befitting the occasion. I stand here as a child of Te Moana-a-Toi, the lands from Bowentown in the west to Whangaparāoa in the east; and of the region from Maketū to the south. I stand here on the sacred ground of Pipitea, offering words to the home people who have come to this House.

To the home people, I greet you in humility and ask for your forbearance. I do not stand here to trample upon the mana bequeathed to you by your ancestors. It is right to acknowledge the long path you have travelled to reach the settlement of your claims here in the presence of the Crown. Journey’s end is at hand. So I acknowledge and commend you. Although your ancestors are not here, their spirit and energy are upon you this day, that all may hear of the ill-treatment by the Crown of you in the past. So it is right that my contribution today be entirely in our noble language. There is much to be admired in the acts of grace you have displayed. Today, in your presence, the Minister has settled and acknowledged the wrongs of the Crown. In an act of grace, you have forgiven the Crown for its wrongs against the people. This calls to mind the prophets Te Whiti and Tohu, who led the people on the path of righteousness, truth, and goodwill. Today in your presence, those principles have borne fruit. Acknowledgments must be given to the elders and leaders.

I also want to acknowledge the surging seas yonder, the rivers that flow from the mountains, and the ancestral mountain [Taranaki]. I recall the saying that, although it is a barren mountain, birds fly there to drink from the wellspring that never runs dry. Similarly, the spirit and the words of the prophets shine on in you, their descendants. They are here for the children and the grandchildren, so that they may know the path taken, and so that the negotiations and discussions with the Crown were conducted by the home people in a spirit of goodwill.

So, Mr Deputy Speaker, I ask you to bear with me. I acknowledge the people who have come here, including my friend, and former Minister, Mahara; it was you who exhorted the Māori members of this House to work energetically to settle the claims of your people of Taranaki ki Te Whanga-nui-a-Tara. So the heart is glad that you have come to witness the realisation of the words and prophesies of your ancestors Te Whiti and Tohu. You enlightened me about these things when we worked together here.

The Minister for Treaty Settlements has explained the details of this bill, and I thank him. Lest we forget, the negotiations between the iwi and the Crown were instigated by the previous Labour Government, led by the then Minister, the Hon Margaret Wilson. Despite difficulties, the work continued and progressed under Minister Mark Burton, who hails from the domain of Ngāti Tūwharetoa. He was succeeded by Dr Michael Cullen, who urged all ministers to eliminate unnecessary delays and maintain the focus and impetus of discussions, for Te Āti Awa of Te Whanga-nui-a-Tara had waited for so long to realise the aspirations of the people. I thought it proper to acknowledge the work of former Ministers who are no longer in this House.

Acknowledgment must also be given to the work of the Māori Affairs Committee from the day this Government took office to this day, to the chairperson, the Hon Tau Henare, and to the staff. Although discussions between committee members were at times heated, the chairperson’s leadership ensured the focus remained on the outcome.

I search for words befitting the stature of this bill. Great is my regard for the people present here, for they have come to the marae and land of Pipitea as guests, not as the home people. I turn to the Government and ask, whose idea was this? Members come here to this House from all parts of the country to represent the interests of their people. It is not right that this iwi should be here as our guests. We must get it right. The name of this piece of land we stand on is Pipitea, and the people of Pipitea have come to this House, but as guests. Despite this, and the opposing view of the Government on this matter, this iwi has displayed nothing but restraint and grace.

I will not take much longer. The significant work on this bill that addresses the claims of these people in Te Whanga-nui-a-Tara has been accomplished. Let us not forget to acknowledge the presence here today of those Te Āti Awa still living under the shelter of Taranaki mountain. On this matter that has been presented before us, I say to the members of the House “Well done!”. Mr Deputy Speaker, fellow members, and the people present in the House, I acknowledge you all. And, Mr Deputy Speaker, I ask that my words not be interpreted, as they were from the heart.]

Hon TAU HENARE (National): Te mea tuatahi, tēnei mihi ki Te Rangatira o te Whare nei, a Lockwood Smith, me tana kaha, me tana mita o tō tātou reo i roto i te Wiki o te Reo Māori. Ka huri au ki te mihi nui atu ki a koutou ngā mōrehu o ngā aituā. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

[The first part of this acknowledgment is to the Speaker of this House, the Hon Lockwood Smith, for his ability to use and pronounce our language faultlessly in Māori Language Week. I turn now to extend a huge greeting to you, the survivors of misfortunes. So greetings to you, greetings to you, and greetings to you all.]

It is a pleasure, an honour, and a privilege to stand in the House today after so many years. First of all, I congratulate the team. The team is very big, both on the Government’s side and also on the hau kāinga side. I suppose this is an opportunity for people to speak in platitudes about the hard work and how good we are feeling. I suppose that is good in one way. I do not want to go off the beaten track a wee bit, like I normally do; I want to take the opportunity to remind the nation that until we get to a place where every settlement has been done, we cannot truly be on the road to being a unified nation. I mean that sincerely, to both sides.

When one looks at the history as far back as 1839—170 years ago—coincidentally to September 1839, it is a date that rings throughout the nation, because that is really the start of what I would suggest were some clandestine operations by the then colonial Government that were intended to diddle iwi Māori out of what was rightfully theirs. When we get to today and, as my colleague said, reflect on the hard work of the select committee, the Minister, the former Minister, and all those members who worked on the deal over those long, long periods even before we were here, it is incumbent on us to think about what the country can be, and not, I hope, drown ourselves in the platitudes and the good feelings of today. Sure, it is a good day for Taranaki Whānui, but in my humble opinion it could have been even better.

My grandfather came to Wellington in the 1920s after taking off with a woman from Wellsford, and ended up in Karori. My father was a born and bred Wellingtonian.

Te Ururoa Flavell: Too much information.

Hon TAU HENARE: The member says that is too much information. My uncle was in the same class as one of the esteemed gentlemen in the gallery. The affinity that my grandfather had with the local people was such that I feel very, very sorry today. I am not filled with joy. I am not filled with happiness. I am actually filled with a lot of sadness that we have come to a point in our history where all we can give is a few buildings, a few dollars, and an apology. I am not suggesting for one minute that we open the Bank of New Zealand—or the Bank of England, or whoever owns it these days—but I suggest that we take the opportunity today, with those good feelings, to look into the future and say “Our nation is unique.” I believe our nation is the best in the world, and it is about time we started recognising the unique difference that we have, as opposed to what Australia, England, America, or wherever has. We need to leverage off the good work, the uniqueness, and the hard work that has been put in by the people in the gallery, the people in this House, and the people of this nation.

Taranaki Whānui people were part of the First Echelon contingent of soldiers who crossed our waters back in 1939, which was, coincidentally, 100 years after this all started. Iwi Māori have paid their dues once, twice, and three times over. So it is incumbent on us as a nation not only to recognise that contribution but also to use it to our benefit, and to the nation’s benefit. By that I mean that we need to leverage off our uniqueness and take it around the world. In times of recession, who better than us to lead the way? But I suppose we have to get to the end of the line, in terms of Treaty settlements.

I do not want to speak for too long, but I must, at this point, make some comments about Ngāti Tama. I ask members to forgive me if I upset a few people; I am not usually like that.

Hon Ruth Dyson: It’s not about you.

Hon TAU HENARE: No, it is not about me, and thankfully it is not about that member either. While the select committee was involved in its tiny part—and I do mean very tiny, in terms of the whole issue—the issue of Ngāti Tama came up in terms of whether we should agree with an opt-out clause. The select committee was quite strong in its recommendation that it hoped the opt-out clause in the Port Nicholson Block (Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika) Claims Settlement Bill would not be used as a precedent for other settlements. I have to absolutely agree.

It is all right to start at a point and start negotiating as a team, but when we get closer to that final hurdle I do not think it is right for groups to pull out because they are not happy with it. The right time to pull out is at the beginning, not at the end. If we are part of the team, then it is incumbent on us to see it through. If there are issues, they should be sorted out in a manner that is more appropriate than in a select committee.

My final words are that the Government should never be put in the position of choosing whom to deal with. That is not its job. That responsibility lies with iwi Māori. I put out this warning not only to Māori but also to the Crown: never ever get into the position of thinking that the Crown will be the arbiter of where the issues are and where the raruraru is. That decision is for iwi Māori to make, not for the Crown to make. Yes, I am a wee bit happy because they do get the deal, and from here on it is all up to them. I thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to speak in this debate.

Me mihi au ki a koutou ngā mōrehu o ngā aituā, ngā mōrehu o Taranaki Whānui.

[I must acknowledge you, the survivors of misfortunes, and Taranaki Whānui.]

Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour): Tēnā koe, Te Kaihautū. E ngā mema o tēnei Whare Pāremata, tēnā koutou. E Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika, ngā mātua, ngā kuia, ngā rangatira mā, tēnei te mihi ki a koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

[Greetings to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and to members of Parliament. To Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika, to the elderly men and womenfolk, to the leaders, I extend this greeting to you, greetings, greetings, and greetings to you all.]

This is a day of relief and it is a day of celebration. I want to take just a few minutes—not many, probably not the whole time that I could—to talk a little about both the facts and the feelings around the Port Nicholson Block (Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika) Claims Settlement Bill. I want to recognise, and pay tribute to, people who have gone before, from both parties. I want to pay tribute to the leaders who have persisted with this claim on the part of Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika and who are no longer with us. I want to pay tribute also to colleagues of mine who, although still living, are no longer in this House. I pay tribute especially to Michael Cullen, and I wish to pay tribute to my friend the Hon Mahara Okeroa, who is with us in the Chamber today. I acknowledge the work of the current Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations in bringing this settlement to its conclusion. But I acknowledge all the work that has gone on before between the parties to bring this to fulfilment.

I want to draw, for a moment, on the deed of settlement of historical claims relating to the bill that is before us in its third reading today. The historical account refers to the tension that existed between settlers and the Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika. It is said that settlers believed that the land had been purchased and that that entitled them to possession. The sections allocated to the settlers by the London lottery in 1839 included Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika pā, cultivation, and urupā sites. When settlers began to arrive in Wellington the allocation of the land was the source of considerable tension. Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika did not believe that they had alienated their pā, cultivation, or urupā sites.

There was then a long history that was traversed. The process of getting to the administration of any arrangement took an inordinately long time. As a result of some of the exchanges, however, it is very clear that the process of colonisation impacted very severely on Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika. As the new town of Wellington developed, there were altercations as Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika tried to maintain their culture, traditions, and resources as best they could, according to tikanga, in the new developing settlement. But, as a result of some of the exchanges that occurred, it was very clear that much of the new land that Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika were pressured to move to, away from their traditional lands, proved inadequate to sustain their way of life. The Port Nicholson deed had provided that one-tenth of the total area of the Port Nicholson Block would be held in trust for the future benefit of the chiefs, their families, and heirs for ever. This became known as the Wellington tenths arrangement. 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, and that is traversed in the Waitangi Tribunal report, and, in fact, in my earlier speech on this bill I referred to that and to the historical accounts in it. I recommend that people read the report at some point, in order to grasp the enormity of the alienation, and, hence, the root of the grievance.

Those are some of the facts pertaining to this day and our arrival at this moment, but I will also talk about some of the feelings around it. They will be strong, they will be deeply felt, and they will be very mixed. There will be sadness that those who had initiated some of this are no longer with us and unable to see this moment of fruition. There will be sadness, also, that it has taken this long to get to this point. However, there will be some joy that we have arrived here. Human interactions are complicated. When I became a trustee of the Crown Forestry Rental Trust in 2000, I thought I was pretty aware of the vicissitudes and complexities of politics; then I encountered Māori politics and I learnt another layer again of complexity and difficulty. But I also learnt a great deal of respect for people who engage, and who have engaged over time, without losing faith with their tūpuna, to seek justice and to seek an enduring settlement. I pay tribute to all of those who are gathered in the gallery today for their contribution to that effort.

It is a moving moment. There should be joy and there should also be anticipation and great excitement, because I know of some of the plans that Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika have for their people. They are exciting plans: investment in education; investment in training; investment in jobs; and partnerships with industries that will provide exciting, quality, skilled, and long-term possibilities for their people. I look forward to that. I have my own attachment to this settlement, as well. Given that, if I may use the language, my whakapapa is Ngāti Pākehā o Taranaki, I have a deal of satisfaction in seeing some of the things I was never taught about at New Plymouth Girls’ High School be resolved, be addressed, and be visited in this settlement. The complexity of the emotions cannot be overestimated, but I hope that, in amongst it all, there is hope for the future, because what this settlement represents is yet another hugely significant milestone in the development of Aotearoa New Zealand. I commend all parties who are part of it, and I commend this bill for its third reading.

METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green): Tēnā koutou katoa e te iwi, e ngā iwi. Tēnā koutou katoa. I am pleased to be able to stand to speak on the third reading of the Port Nicholson Block (Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika) Claims Settlement Bill. It is important for us in this House to recognise and to congratulate iwi who have pursued settlements through the settlement process. It is a long and laborious, difficult and expensive task. Those who undertake it deserve enormous congratulations on the work that they do. Settlements, though, do not give me much pleasure, and they certainly are not legislation that I enjoy speaking about in this House. I have expressed, and the Green Party has expressed in the past, a great deal of concern about the way that settlements are dealt with by the Crown. This settlement, like all other settlements, highlights the flaws of the process that the Crown has established, and it clearly shows how those flaws impact on the iwi first and foremost. But, none the less, the flaws never seem to encourage the Crown to truly look at the process to deal with those flaws, so that subsequent iwi are not subject to those same problems.

I am aware that there has been discussion in the Chamber about the concept of forgiveness that is included in this legislation, and it truly is a remarkable step for iwi to include that concept in their settlement. Personally, I confess I find it difficult; the Crown does not deserve forgiveness. It will never deserve forgiveness for what occurred. But it does deserve—“instructions” is not the right word—a clear indication from Māori as to what needs to change, such that the Crown can make good the harm that the Crown committed in the past. Although I fully acknowledge the right of the iwi to include the concept in the legislation—I congratulate them on taking such a significant step, and the Green Party is deeply humbled by that choice—we none the less believe that the Crown’s obligation is such that, firstly, it cannot be forgiven, and, secondly, that that obligation can be met only by what it does as opposed to what it says.

I guess that it is here where the settlement process, in our view, is so significantly flawed. The flaws in the settlement process are, of course, structural flaws. They include the process by which the Crown picks winners in settlement processes, partly by the use of the large natural groupings process, but by other processes as well. Also, negotiations often begin by the Crown putting its view on the table. That view then very rarely ever changes, such that iwi are often not given any real room for negotiation as to the restitution. Further, the negotiating power and resources lie with the Crown—with the perpetrator in these cases—as opposed to those who have suffered the harm. And the resources and the negotiating power are so completely out of proportion in favour of the Crown. The minuscule proportion of the losses that are returned to iwi is never discussed in the public domain and it is not made clear by the Crown. The Crown never clearly identifies just how little of what was taken and lost is actually returned. Because of that failure by the Crown in the settlement process, the community never gets the full picture of what the claim is really about, what was really lost, and that what is returned in the public’s name to iwi is just a tiny, tiny percentage of what was taken. It is a percentage that under any other kind or form of law where one would expect restitution or some kind of compensation, would not be accepted by any other community. No other community would accept that minuscule proportion of return. But the community does not know that. All they hear about is millions of dollars. All they hear about is claims. And the Crown makes no effort to inform and educate the community about the nature of the claims, especially in local areas, such that there is awareness and willingness to undertake this process by the public as a whole.

I said that the impact of the flaws in the process is then borne by the iwi—and it is. The Crown takes no hits, if you like, for the flaws in the process. It is the iwi who suffer the criticism of a community that does not understand what the story is, why those resources are being returned, and why a few million dollars simply cannot truly reflect the fiscal value of what was lost or the need of the iwi at that time to use those resources to provide for ongoing support for the iwi over a long period of time. It is the iwi who suffer the division within their hapū and their iwi from the process by which winners are picked by the Crown. We have seen that reflected here in the settlement, and we know that not all iwi, not all hapū, and not all members within this settlement are happy with the process, and some have split away. The harm of that division is borne by the whānau themselves. I am not talking about the Crown—the Crown does not need to take any responsibility for that, and indeed the Crown often says it refuses to take responsibility for that. It tells iwi that if they have a problem internally they should sort it out. But the problem is caused by the process that forces iwi into this—and it is force; it is duress. This is the only process on the table. Iwi have no choice but to engage with the Crown on the settlement process, because the duress of poverty is real for the collective that needs to care for its own. Indeed, such care by iwi for their own is demanded by this Parliament and by the community, but with very few resources and within a structural settlement process that is geared against them.

I know that there are members here in the gallery who have worked so hard on this settlement, and my words are not words of congratulation or celebration for it. But it is my role in this Parliament to hold the Crown to account for the process by which this legislation came about, and to speak where I can on behalf of those for whom the settlement process has caused harm. There are some of those people within the iwi to whom this settlement bill relates. So I make no apologies for setting out our concerns here in this Chamber today on the third reading of this bill.

The Green Party has a very clear policy on these issues. It is our view that there is a need to develop a process of models of restitution, of nationally sustainable compensation over time, but a process that is worked and developed by Māori, by iwi, and by hapū for the losses they have sustained. I guess it is part of the process of restorative justice that those who have lost must be at the heart of the process and must have control over the process and be decision makers within that process, and that is certainly not the case with the settlements. We have had settlements in this country for a very long period of time, and a lot of work has gone into trying to make the process better, particularly by iwi, by Māori. The Crown has tended to resist that, because the process works so well for it. Perhaps we may see over more time, as more settlements are completed, a shift, but until the process is one where Māori are at the heart of it and are decision makers over how the process is structured, we will not have a truly comprehensive and durable settlement process for these issues.

Finally, I reiterate the Green Party’s support for this legislation; we always support settlement legislation. I reiterate our support for the iwi, the whānau, and the hapū who have worked so hard on this legislation to make sure that it came to fruition, and who have borne the cost of it, and who will now have the responsibility of seeing it through and making it effective. I wish them all the very best, most sincerely, all the very best for doing that work, and I hope that now there is some more information in the community about the settlement. I hope that the community understands it better and that the Crown might start to make these steps towards creating a truly durable process by Māori, for Māori. Kia ora koutou.

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki): Kia ora huihui tātou katoa e te iwi. E te raukura haramai, e te raukura haramai. Me pēnei rawa te kōrero. Tēnei te ara kai runga, ko te aro o tēnei tipua, ko te aro o tēnei ariki, ko te aro o tēnei matua iwi, ko te aro o Ranginui e tū nei o Papatūānuku e takoto nei. Kia rarau iho rā ngā tapuwae o Tāne. Tēnei te pō nau mai te ao. Tēnei te pōuri o te ngākau pēnei ana tā koutou haramai ki te rongo i ngā kōrero a te Karauna e kī ana, āe, āe, i mahi au i taku mahi. Tēnei te ao e kōrerohia ake nei, ko koutou tēnei kua tatū mai ngā uri o rātou mā e te iwi, e te raukura tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

E pai tonu te kōrero a te mema a Mita Ririnui i te ahiahi nei, e te tuakana tēnā koe, i whakarite nei kia kōrero Māori anake i te ahiahi nei. Ko te mate o te Whare Pāremata kei aku rangatira, ko te tikanga o te Whare Pāremata, ka kōrero Māori mō te wā poto kātahi ka whakapākehāhia. Kua āhua noho tapepe te kōrero. Arā, nā Mita tērā i whakatika i te ahiahi nei, kia reo Māori mai te tīmatanga ki te mutunga, ā, ko au tēnei te uri o te waka a Te Arawa ka whai i tana tauira.

He pai tonu taku tū atu ki mua i a koutou i te mea, ko au tēnei he taokete nō roto i a koutou. Ko taku hoa rangatira nō roto o Taranaki tūturu ake, nō Te Pūniho, nō Parihaka, nō Ngāti Ruanui, anā, ko te toto o aku tamariki he wāhanga ki a Te Arawa, he wāhanga anō rā ki a Taranaki. Nō reira me pēnei ake pea te kōrero, ka waiho ake tēnei hei tāhuhu kōrero mō te āhuatanga o wāku kauhau, taku kauhau ki a koutou i te ahiahi nei.

E kī ana te kōrero a te waiata: “titiro titiro ki te maunga tītōhea runga o Parihaka, Wai-te-toroa, Ngāti Moeahu, Ngāti Haupoto ko te tākiritanga i te kahu o Wikitōria, kaitoa, kaitoa. Ko Tohu ko Te Whiti ngā manu e rua i patu te hoariri ki te rangimārie, kss auē, kss auē. Ahakoa te pahūtanga o Parihaka uē, uē, uē, hā!” Ko te tūmanako i oti pai tērā momo karakia, tērā momo waiata, tērā momo kōrero i te mea, arā noa atu ngā kōrero o roto i tērā ngeri me kī, tērā waiata.

Kei mua koutou i te kahu o Wikitōria, kei mua koutou i te kahu o Wikitōria. Ko tae mai te āhuatanga o te raukura ko Te Whiti tērā, ko Tohu Kākahi tērā. E kare mā he wiki nui tēnei. Āe, ko te Wiki o te Reo Māori; āe i tēnei wiki i kōrerohia te āhuatanga o te pire mō Matariki, kia noho a Matariki hei rā whakanui mō te motu, ko ētahi kei te whakaae, ko ētahi kāore anō kia areare mai ngā taringa ki te kōrero. I te tīmatanga o te wiki nei i whakanuia te āhuatanga o Kāterina Heikōkō Mataira mō te āhuatanga o tana matatau ki te āhuatanga o tō tātou reo; i te ahiahi nei i runga i ngā pikinga ki te Whare Pāremata i tae mai ngā tamariki nohinohi nei, ki te kī ki te motu me mutu i te āhuatanga patu tamariki. He aha te āhuatanga ki runga o Parihaka? Patua te hoariri ki te rangimārie. Nō reira ko koutou tēnei kua tatū mai, e whai tonu nei i te wairua o tērā waihotanga mai. Koinei te aroha atu ki tā koutou haerenga mai. Ko te nuinga o ngā whakataunga kerēme, ē, ka riro mā te Karauna e muru i āna hara, e kī atu āe, engari nā runga i tā koutou whakaaetanga ko koutou tēnei e kī ana kāti, kua are mai ngā taringa ki wā koutou kōrero, kei te pai, kei te pai, kei te pai. Me waiho mā te rangimārie tāua e tūhonohono, ko koutou tēnei e whai nei i tēnā tauira, koinei te aroha atu ki a koutou katoa. Tēnā koutou, haramai.

Kua kōrerohia te āhuatanga o ngā mate mō te rua tekau mā rua aha rānei ngā tau kua roa koutou e tatari ana. E hia kē nei te hunga kua ngaro atu i roto i te āhuatanga o te raukura. Kawea mai te āhuatanga o ngā mate huhua o te wā kei aku rangatira, kia arare mai ngā taringa o ngā mema o te Whare Pāremata i te wairua o tēnei rangi. I te wā i noho au i waenganui i a koutou o roto o Taranaki i raro i te maunga tītōhea, i pātai au i te pātai ki au anō. Me pēhea e taea ai e wai rānei te rongo i te mamae o te muru me te raupatu mēnā karekau ō whenua, mēnā kua murua tērā whenua i raro i ō waewae? Pēhea e taea ai te rongo i te mamae i ngā taumahatanga? Ko au tētahi i haere ki Parihaka i te tekau mā waru, tekau mā whitu ia marama, ia marama, ia marama. Ko ngā tamariki, ko ngā mokopuna i kōrero mō te āhuatanga o te muru me te raupatu. I rongo ngā taringa i te āhuatanga o te tangi o te roimata, ngā kōrero mō te ekenga o te Karauna ki runga o Parihaka, ā, pērā anō hoki, arā, ki te motu koinei te raruraru kua kite mai ai i roto i ngā kerēme. Nō reira, he mea pai tā koutou haramai, ahakoa te pōuri o te ngākau i te mea, ka pānuitia ā ngā rā kei mua i te aroaro ko ngā kōrero kua puta i te Whare Pāremata i te rangi nei. Ka mutu ka rongo tātou, ka rongo ngā tamariki ngā mokopuna ā te wā ko ngā kōrero i puta i te rangi nei.

Engari he paku pātai tāku; he whare tāku kei roto o Korokoro; āe, kua rongo ngā kōrero a te Minita ko tana kī mai, ē, ko te wāhanga whenua o Korokoro nō koutou, nō reira me pēnei rawa taku kōrero, mēnā e pai ana kia whai wāhi pakupaku nei a Te Ururoa i waenganui i a Korokoro mō te wā poto i au e noho ana i te Whare Pāremata, hei wāhi noho mō māua ko taku tamaiti, i a ia i te whare wānanga, i au i konei, he wāhanga whenua pakupaku noa iho e hoa mā, nā runga i te āhuatanga o te hononga ā-toto nei waku tamariki tāku e kōrero nei, waku tamariki tēnei e kōrerohia, nei kia whai wāhi o roto i ngā whiriwhiringa. Ehara he kōrero, he kōrero, he kōrero.

Ā, me kōrero au mō te wā poto nei mō te āhuatanga ki tā koutou whakaaro nui ki te āhuatanga o tērā kōrero ki te Karauna ā kō ake nei, ā kō ake nei ka kōrerohia tērā take i raro nei. Hei aku rangatira, ki taku mōhio koinei te wā tuatahi kua tū ake tētahi iwi ki te kī ki te Karauna, kei te pai kua rongo, kua mārama, kua hokia mai te whenua, me haere tāua ki te paerangi. Me haere tāua tahi ki te paerangi. Ko te tūmanako ia ka rongo ngā nūpepa i tērā kōrero me ngā pouaka whakaata, kia rongo te motu ehara a te iwi Māori i te iwi matapiko. He ngākau nui o roto i te iwi Māori, anā, ko koutou te tauira, whakaatu nei i te aroha a tētahi ki tētahi, i kōrerohia e rātou i te wā i a rātou.

Nō reira, kāti ake. Te tūmanako ia ka tere pau wā tātou kōrero, ka tere mutu wā tātou kōrero kia eke ki raro kia hainatia te pepa, kia noho kōhatu ngā kōrero i runga pepa mō ake nei. Hoi anō ko tāku hei kupu whakamutunga, ki a koe Tā Paora tēnā koe, haramai rā ki tō Whare. Ki a koutou ngā kaikōrero mō te iwi, Ngātata ko koutou tēnā, arā anō wētahi i ārahi i tēnei kaupapa ki tōna mutunga, me mihi rā ki a koutou me tā koutou whakaaro nui. E tika ana tā te mema nā, tā te mema o te Nāhinara, arā anō wētahi raruraru engari, waiho tērā mā te iwi Māori e whakatika. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

[Greetings to the people. Welcome to the raukura plume, welcome to the raukura plume. Let me state thus: this, the high path in the presence of this demigod, of this god, of this principal people, of Rangi, who stands above, and Papatūānuku, who lies here; may the paths of Tāne converge this night before the dawn. My heart darkens at the treatment you have endured in coming here today to listen to the Crown admit its wrongs. I acknowledge you, the people.

The member Mita Ririnui made a very good point in his speech—acknowledgments, my kin—declaring that his entire speech would be delivered in our Māori language. The rules of this House direct that all speeches delivered in our language be rendered piecemeal to allow for an English interpretation. This type of interpreting makes it hard for Māori speakers, because it interrupts the natural flow. Today, Mita has challenged this shabby treatment of the Māori language; he has shown how Māori should be spoken here: one delivery from start to end, uninterrupted. This descendant of the ancestral canoe Te Arawa will follow his lead.

I stand here proud to say I married into your iwi. My partner is Taranaki Tūturu, Te Pūniho of Parihaka and Ngāti Ruanui. Therefore, the blood of my children, part Te Arawa, part Taranaki, will form the basis of my speech this afternoon.

To recite part of a waiata: “set your gaze upon the barren mountain that looms over Parihaka, over Wai-te-toroa, and in the presence of Ngāti Moeahu and Ngāti Haupoto, throwing off the garments from Queen Victoria. Good job! Good job! Tohu and Te Whiti, the two birds who triumphed over their foes, with love as their weapon. Heedless to the thunder that reverberates over Parihaka, uē, uē, uē ha.” I trust that my rendition was not too poor, because that change has many layers of meanings and understandings.

O people of Te Whiti, of Tohu, the people of the raukura feather, you are here present in the sanctum of Queen Victoria. This has been a momentous week, being Māori Language Week. Further, the bill seeking statutory recognition for Matariki was debated in the House; some agree, some do not. Kāterina Heikōkō Mataira was honoured for her efforts to preserve the language; and this afternoon on the steps of Parliament there gathered many young children to promote non-violence. I recall the guiding principles of Parihaka: through goodwill you will overcome your foe. You, the iwi, have kept true to that legacy; that makes the occasion more poignant. In most claims settlements, the Crown admits the wrongfulness of its actions. However, in this instance, you, the people, have said: enough; let peace weave us in unity. You have followed this path, so I extend love to you all. Greetings, and welcome to you all.

Members before me have spoken of the people of the iwi who have passed on in the 22 years since the claim was lodged. You have lost many who were involved in the claims from the start; but they are here now, upon your shoulders, symbolised by the raukura plume. People, let our lamentations resound in this House so that members hear the deeper meanings of this day. When living amongst you in Taranaki under the shelter of the mountain, I would ponder the following question: how can you truly understand the pain and trauma of confiscation if you yourself have not had your lands taken from beneath your feet? Each month, on the 17th and 18th days, I would join with others at Parihaka. There, the young people would speak about the confiscations and the plundering, and when the discussions inevitably turned to the invasion of Parihaka by the Crown, the tears flowed freely. It is a good thing that you have come, although I have misgivings that the matters stated today in the House of Parliament will remain on the public record. The children and the grandchildren will be able to read the words uttered today.

But I have a small request. I have a house at Korokoro. The Minister has stated that Korokoro now belongs to the iwi. Might I be able to retain my residence at Korokoro for a short period, while I serve my time in this House and my son attends university? My friends, a small piece of land for Te Ururoa, and let us not forget the blood ties of my children! But I jest—an attempt at humour!

Let me talk now of the signing that will follow the proceedings of the House, and your magnanimous gesture to the Crown. In my knowledge, this is the first time that an iwi has said to the Crown: it is good, all have heard and all understand; the land has been returned, so let us walk as one into the future. It is my real hope that the media highlights this settlement, so that the country knows that Māori are not a mean people; rather, they have goodwill in abundance. You are the shining example of this legacy spoken of by your forebears.

But enough—it would be a good thing if our debate ended soon, so that the document can be signed and the words therein stand for ever. In conclusion, greetings, Sir Paul, welcome back to the House. To the representatives of the people, to you Ngātata and the others who brought the claims to their conclusion, I congratulate you on your vision and sense of purpose. The National member who stood up before me is quite right, there are problems amongst Māori; however, leave those for Māori to address. Greetings to you, greetings to you, and greetings to you all. Thank you.]

PAUL QUINN (National): E Te Mana Whakawā o te Whare, tēnā koe. Tēnā koe e te Whare me ōku hoa mema Pāremata. Aku mihi nui ki a koutou katoa. Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika, ngā rangatira, ngā kaumātua e kui mā, e koro mā tēnā koutou. Hoki mai rā ki te Pāremata. Aku mihi ki te Kāwanatanga a Nāhinara, E tautoko ana ahau i te pire. Kia ora huihui tātou katoa.

[Greetings to you, Mr Assistant Speaker, and to you, the House, as well as my fellow parliamentarians. Huge acknowledgments to you all. Greetings to you, Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika, leaders, elderly men and womenfolk, greetings.]

This third and final reading of the Port Nicholson Block (Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika) Claims Settlement Bill represents the final step in this process. Firstly, it acknowledges the injustices that have occurred to Taranaki Whānui since the time of the New Zealand Company’s transactions, commencing in 1839, and the role the Crown has played in perpetuating those same injustices. Secondly, the Crown unreservedly recognises and acknowledges that it has not lived up to its Treaty of Waitangi obligations. Thirdly, it acknowledges the Crown’s seeking of atonement. In achieving those three steps, both parties and this nation can move forward in a lasting relationship, whereby Taranaki Whānui and the Crown can stand together as first amongst equals in the same way that other iwi who have settled stand as equals with the Crown and future iwi will also stand.

Getting to this step has not been an easy task for the parties involved. For Taranaki Whānui, who, since 1987, the date when they filed their claim with the tribunal, have been seeking redress to address their grievances, and for the Crown, which has had to confront its own ghosts, both the deed and the bill have raised issues that have required reflection and debate as both documents have worked their way along the validation path. But today that is all behind us. In this House, the people’s House, we join as one to acknowledge and salute Taranaki Whānui. From today Taranaki Whānui will be the masters of their own destiny. They will have the tools to stand tall and live out the challenge that is theirs. That challenge is to receive this settlement as their rightful inheritance, born from the sweat of those who have gone before them, and leave it evermore strongly founded for those who follow.

I know that the Taranaki Whānui are already well on the way under their current leadership. We have visible signs of that in the Athletic Park development, the development of Pipitea Street, and proposed developments throughout the region. That reflects the influence that these settlements have, once they are agreed to, on the regional economies throughout New Zealand. Taranaki Whānui will be no different in the impact that they will have economically, within the conservation estate in the area, and culturally in being able to progress and promote, as a full partner, the development of their people and their region.

There will be challenges, there will be pitfalls, and there will be stumbles, but the key issue is that we learn and take strength from those pitfalls and stumbles, and that we move forward as one. I am proud to stand here in this House today to acknowledge and congratulate Taranaki Whānui’s leadership and its people on reaching this outstanding milestone.

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): Ki a koutou o Taranaki Whānui ki te Upoko o Te Ika e mihi kau ana. Ki a koe Tā Paora, Haami, Ngātata, koutou katoa, ngā whāea whai atu a tēnei tino take. E tika tonu te mihi atu ki a rātou e kore e konei i a rātou i tīmata atu i tēnei, ngā tūpuna ō koutou, ō matua, rātou mā. Nō reira mihi kau ana ki a koutou. I te kī atu te mahana hoki te kīkī a te whare te tū toa hoki atu a te rere o te raukura, nō reira ki a koutou tēnā koutou. Nau mai haramai. Haramai ki te whare nei o koutou, tātou.

Nā te mea e mōhio atu tātou mai rā anō, mai i te tīmatanga te pakopako o te pū o te Kāwana i reira mai te natia o te whenua, ngā āhuatanga katoa te taumahatanga o tēnei take, nā te pai hoki kua tae atu tēnei rā kua ea, kua tae atu te tīmata o te pai ahakoa ngā piki ngā heke, kei a koutou tērā kei a tātou tērā. Nā te mea mō ngā tino kōrero a Whiti rāua ko Tohu mō tō rātou whakaaro i te mau kaha atu te āhua o te humārie, ahakoa te taumahatanga te pakopako o te pū ngā āhua pērā tonu e puta kaha atu tērā o roto i a koutou o Taranaki Whānui. Nō reira, mō tērā e mihi kau ana.

Kua rongo atu koutou ki ngā kōrero o ngā kanohi Māori i konei e mihi atu i a koutou mō tō kaha. I a koe te tuakana e Mahara tēnā koe, tēnā koe mō tō hoki tata atu ki ngā tūru nei. E mihi kau ana mō tō kaha e hoki pai atu koe ki te wāhi nei e Mahara e tino mihi atu i a koe mō tō kaha pērā i a Mita, a Shane mā, a rātou mā. No reira tēnā koe. E tika tonu te mihi atu ki a koutou o te Rōpū Māori mō to whakaaro Ururoa i a koe. E Paora tēnā koe. Mōhio atu koe te taumahatanga o te āhua nei; te whanaunga e Hekia ki a tērā atu tātou o te kāinga e tae pēnei tonu ki a rātou. Nā te tika mihi atu ki a Margaret Wilson rāua ko Mark Burton me tērā tino tangata o tātou a Michael Cullen. E tuku atu taku mihi ki te Minita nei a Christopher Finlayson mō tōna kaha, mō tōna pono, e pono atu i tae atu i konei.

E rongo atu i te patapatai o te korokē rā o te Nota mō tōna pīrangi hei whakahaere tonu atu i te hoki o te pūtea ki a Taranaki. Pai ana tērā ki te Rōpū o Reipa; i te pirangi koutou ki te whakapiti atu te hoki, pai ana engari nā te mea e mōhio atu tātou he rā tino pai atu tēnei. E rua tekau mā rua ngā tau a muri rā e tae atu i te tīmata te tukunga o te kerēme nei, he roa rawa atu i te tae atu i konei. Kua rongo atu tātou ki ngā kōrero katoa mō te take, mō te mahi taurekareka a te Kāwana mō te mahi taurekareka a wētahi ki wēnei. E wero rātou i waho rā a te whānau whānui a Taranaki ki a rātou. E wero atu ai rātou i roto i a rātou kāre he kōrero mō tērā, engari nā te mea e pai ana to rātou mahi. Ahakoa ko tēnei anō te wiki o te reo Māori, nā te mea e mamae atu i roto i aku e noho wahangū te nui o rātou Ngāi Pākehā e noho atu rātou e rongo atu ki te rekareka o te wiki nei o te reo Māori engari, kāre i mōhio atu i te haere mō te kiko o te take nei. Nō reira tēnā tātou.

[To the people of Taranaki Whānui ki te Upoko o Te Ika, greetings. Sir Paul, Haami, Ngātata, and the grande dames and all of the iwi who worked on this claim, greetings. It is only right to reflect on your ancestors and your elders, the people who started this journey, yet are not here on this day. So I salute you. It warms my heart to see the galleries full, resplendent with the raukura plume. Welcome, welcome. Welcome to your place, to our place.

We heard of the past relationship with the Crown, the invasion of your lands, and the confiscations and oppression, so it is a good thing we have come to this day with a new beginning, and the challenges the future will bring to you and to all of us. We give due acknowledgment to Taranaki Whānui ki te Upoko o Te Ika, because despite the oppression and violence perpetrated in the past, the people have kept true to the principles of peaceful resistance set forth by Te Whiti and Tohu.

We have listened to the speeches of the Māori members extolling the resolve of the people. Greetings, Mahara, you have returned to this place where you once occupied a seat; you return to the House on a positive note—like Mita, Shane, and others, I commend and thank you for your work on this important matter. Allow me to congratulate the Māori Affairs Committee on its work; Te Ururoa, Paul, you know the enormity of the work here; to my kin Hekia, when the time comes for our people, let us take the example of this iwi on how to conduct ourselves in such matters. It is right to acknowledge the work of previous Ministers Margaret Wilson, Mark Burton, and of course Michael Cullen. Minister Christopher Finlayson has been tireless in his approach and consistent in his focus.

I heard the member from the north say the settlement funds should go directly to the people of Taranaki. If there are moves to enhance the settlement, Labour will support them. It has been 22 years since this claim was lodged, and that is far too long to wait, especially after the wrongful actions committed by the Crown and others against these people. Taranaki Whānui ki te Upoko o Te Ika have challenged these actions here in the House and out in the community, and I applaud them for that. This is Māori Language Week; notwithstanding that, it pains me that Pākehā give support to the Māori language, yet are ignorant of these important matters. Thank you.]

Quite seriously, I say this is a wonderful day to celebrate. One can sit here and listen to the platitudes about the tenacity of the Government, of the agents of the Crown, and of the local authorities in taking action to put right what was put asunder a long, long time ago. The fact that it has taken 22 years to get to this point is a shameful reflection on some of us. There is only one lot of people to thank today for the celebration, and it is the Taranaki people. We need to express that point clearly, because it takes a strong people, no matter what nation one is in, to accept an apology that should have been given a long time ago. I am unapologetic about recognising the strength of the Taranaki people in doing that. It is an amazing thing to do.

It was an incredible thing to do that the Crown forces towed their cannons to Parihaka and shot down on the Taranaki people because they were progressing economically. Their businesses were starting to show fettle and rising up to be examples for those around them. That is what the Crown did. What Te Whiti and Tohu recognised amongst their people was that they were a people of peace. Today the raukura signifies that as it flies; it recognises that tenacity and humility. So I certainly recognise the Taranaki people and all the people up there. It is incredible that their ancestors were shot at, and that their land was dished out in a lottery in London before the settlers even came here. That is simply what happened: a lottery was run in relation to the lands of the Taranaki people before the Pākehā got here.

I find it incredible that the Taranaki people have the decency to accept the apology today. I respect that. It makes me very proud, as a Māori, that Māori are strong enough to do that. The Crown has struggled for a long, long time to etch, scribe, or develop an apology to those people. Today that apology has happened. I saw you winking at me, Mr Speaker, and I was not sure whether that was to tell me to hurry up, slow down, or wait. But whatever that friendly wink may have been for, this bill is about more than that.

When Māori walk by each other, no matter where one is in the country, they have a habit. They look at each other across the street, and if they are not too sure which iwi the other person belongs to, they will nod their head. That is a signal of recognition, and today is certainly that. This is a signal of recognition, but let it be more than that. Let it be about more than the few buildings that we are giving back. One of the people in the gallery told me that they used to follow their grandmother up the street collecting the rents, up that main street there—I do not want to name it, because they have a lot of names there; it was not in Pito-one; it was there—and they did well. The grandmother used to go to each shop to collect the rent. Once the people modernised themselves and changed that process, other properties disappeared. I think it is a great thing today that the descendants of those great leaders are here to ensure that this settlement is carried through.

This is a proud day and the local authorities should be thankful. I say to the whole nation, given that there is this nonsense of scaremongering about what Māori may or may not do, thank goodness we have the Taranaki Māori in Wellington! If we are serious about being united, and if we are serious about common goals, then thank goodness we have these Māori here! This town is lucky, this Parliament is lucky, the Pākehā are lucky, and the Asians are lucky that the tangata whenua are still here—today shows us that.

I will not be here tonight to witness the apology, because I have to go to Gisborne and help some Māori up there who have lost something, too. But I want to tell members that if we are serious about unifying as a nation, and if we are serious about nationhood, we must remember the part that Māori play. Today is a great example of that in this country’s history, and I certainly commend the actions of the Taranaki people to this House.

Nō reira, e mutu ana pēnei tonu. I a koutou mō te kaha rawa i roto i a koutou mai rāno mō tēnei take. E tino mihi atu tēnei ki a koutou. Kia kaha, kia māia. Hei tae pai atu ngā mokopuna i a rātou mā e mau ana i te raukura mō koutou katoa. Tēnā tātou.

[So I conclude by reiterating that you have worked really hard from the outset over this matter. I admire you greatly for this. Be strong and bold. All in good time, the grandchildren will bear the plume for you all. Greetings to you.]

HEKIA PARATA (National): E Te Mana Whakawā, ngā mema Pāremata, e te tungāne Mahara, tēnā koutou huri noa i tēnei Whare. Ki a Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika, tēnei au e tū ana i te whakaiti, i te hōnore, i te whakahīhī, i te oranga ngākau i runga anō i ēnei kaupapa katoa, ki te mihi ki a koutou ngā kanohi ō rātou kua hipa atu i te tatau o Hine-Nui-te-Pō, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa kua tō mai nei ki tēnei Whare, i runga i tēnei kaupapa ātaahua i tēnei ahiahi. E tautoko ana ahau i ngā mihi kua mihia ki a koutou, e tangi hoki ahau mō rātou kāre e taea te noho ki waenganui i a koutou, me te maumahara kei konei katoa rātou i runga i te wairua pai ki te tautoko i tēnei rā whakahirahira, tēnei rā whakahōnore, ā, ehara i te mea i a koutou anake engari, me kī i a tātou katoa ngā iwi o Aotearoa whānui. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

[Greetings to you, Mr Assistant Speaker, members of Parliament, brother Mahara, and to you throughout this House, greetings. To you, Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika, I stand before you in humility with honour, pride, and absolutely happy inside about all these matters. As I acknowledge you, faces of those who have passed through the doorway of the Great Maiden of the Night, greetings to you, greetings to you, and greetings to you all who have arrived in this House this afternoon for this admirable matter. I endorse the acknowledgments bestowed upon you, and mourn those not able to be in your midst, but remembering that they are all here spiritually to support this great and honourable day, not just for you but, let us say, for all of us, the tribes of New Zealand at large. So greetings to you, greetings to you, and greetings to you all.]

I rise to support the third reading of the Port Nicholson Block (Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika) Claims Settlement Bill. My colleagues have spoken before me about much of the content of the bill; I rise simply to endorse all the sentiments that have been expressed here today. The bill represents a culmination of a history and herstory of which many parts are shameful, but the fact that it has culminated in this agreement allows honour to be restored not only to Taranaki Whānui but also to the Crown. That is one of the key features of the Treaty settlements. They allow us to put back together the relationship that was originally envisaged by the Treaty of Waitangi, or to at least begin again that process.

Treaty settlements do not mark the end of a relationship, they simply signal a milestone that has been achieved in a relationship that has stuttered and faltered and now must begin again, stronger for all those challenges, wiser for all those challenges, and with some small support, because we all know that Treaty settlements can never recompense people for all that was taken from them and for the lost opportunity of the things that were taken from them. But it is a beginning, a new beginning.

This Treaty settlement is not about restoring Taranaki Whānui’s rangatiratanga, because no one can take that away from them, or from us. We all carry with us our everyday rangatiratanga, but what Treaty settlements allow us to do is to get on and execute tino rangatiratanga practically, rather than talking about it, singing about it, and waving flags about it—actually practising it.

The responsibility of leading falls hard upon the shoulders of those who take that responsibility. Negotiating claims is not an easy matter. People are making judgment calls all the way, and all through that process they must try to keep together the collective, no matter how difficult and how turbulent the path.

It is a tribute to all of Taranaki Whānui that they are at this stage today. I look forward to seeing the revival of the narratives and the stories of all the history and herstory of Te Whanga-nui-a-Tara that Taranaki Whānui’s tīpuna endowed on the place names and landmarks of the geography and topography of this area. They and their descendants will go on not only to build new stories of achievements and contributions to the citizenship of this city and this country but also to contribute to our position in the global set of villages that we now occupy.

I thank all Taranaki Whānui very much for having the patience and tolerance to commit to the process. I celebrate with them, having achieved this stage, and I look forward to working with them and supporting them in whatever way I can in the pathways they carve ahead of them. This is a day, yes, of sadness for those who have not been able to be here, but it is also a great day of celebration that Taranaki Whānui allow us to share with them. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, kia ora tātou katoa.

GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. Tēnā tātou e te Whare. Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika nau mai, haere mai. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou katoa. It gives me great pleasure to stand here today as the member of Parliament for Wellington Central to welcome the final stage of a very, very long journey. It is a great day for Wellington, it is a great day for the Taranaki Whānui, and it is a great day for everybody in this House to be able to witness one of the final steps in this journey.

Twenty-one years ago Ralph Heberley Ngātata Love and Mākere Rangiātea Ralph Love submitted a claim to the Waitangi Tribunal. To stand here today 21 years on, and respect that effort, that bravery, that leadership, that wisdom, and that vision is a fine thing. To all of those gathered here in the gallery today and to those who have passed, this is my respect and the respect of this House for all the work that they have done. To all of the officials, to all of those who have worked hard on this on both sides, I pay my respect.

Also I pay respect to the Ministers who have worked on this claim on both sides of this House, and I particularly want to mention Margaret Wilson, Mark Burton, and especially the Hon Dr Michael Cullen. When I was at the Pipitea Marae last year to see the deed of settlement signing, it was a tremendous occasion. I know that Dr Cullen felt very personally and very deeply that he wanted to see this settlement pass through into legislation as quickly as possible. I acknowledge the Māori Affairs Committee for the excellent work it did on ensuring that this bill comes to us today.

The 21-year delay since the tribunal claim, however, pales in comparison with the years of hurt, alienation, loss of mana, and access to resources that Taranaki Whānui have felt here in Wellington. This bill gives effect to the deed of settlement that will finally deal to those injustices. I give a commitment today, as the MP for Wellington Central, that I will be sending this deed of settlement to every school in this city. This is the kind of thing that every person growing up in the city of Wellington, Te Whanga-nui-a-Tara, needs to understand and know. If we do not learn from our history, we are destined to repeat further injustices on other people throughout our lives. I hope this deed of settlement will be seen and understood for its historical account—which is a moving account—of the injustice that was visited upon the Taranaki Whānui. But also I hope it is seen and understood for what else it contains, for the apology from the Crown, and, moreover, for the statement of forgiveness—the remarkable and unique statement of forgiveness that is being given today by the Taranaki Whānui.

This deed of settlement also includes the redress. It will help a lot of people in Wellington to understand the fact that this is a positive, forward-looking settlement. It is a settlement that acknowledges the injustices of the past. But it ensures that in the lands, the sea, and the islands that are returned to Taranaki Whānui today, there is an ongoing partnership in their management, and an ongoing role for Taranaki Whānui and for all the people of Wellington to ensure that those assets, those incredibly important islands, lands, and seas, continue to be enjoyed by all people in Wellington. I particularly want to support the importance of Pipitea Marae, its place in this city, its place as an important cultural icon for Taranaki Whānui, but also as a place for all Wellingtonians, where we come together on special occasions. I am glad that has been given a special role in the settlement.

In the short time remaining to me, I reflect again that this is a day that is a cause for celebration. It is also a day to reflect on the injustices of the past and ensure that we, the people of Wellington, work together in the future to continue our harmonious and great city. Thank you.

Hon SHANE JONES (Labour): Ā, tēnā tātou katoa. Te tuatahi he tuku mihi atu ki ngā kaihautū o te waka kua ū mai ki roto i te Whare Pāremata i tēnei rā, Taranaki Whānui, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa. Kei roto tonu tātou i te wā o Matariki, roto nōki i te wā o te reo Māori. He haringa, he koanga ngākau ka tatū tēnei kaupapa mō te hia rānei tau e tārewa ana i raro i te tiahotanga a Matariki, i roto nōki i te whakanuinga o te reo Māori. Nā reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

[Greetings to us all. In the first instance, I acknowledge the helmsmen of the canoe that berthed here in the House of Parliament today, Taranaki Whānui, I extend greetings to you, greetings, greetings, and greetings to you all. We are still in the time of Matariki, and also the time of the Māori language. There is a sense of gladness and rejoicing that this matter that has been suspended for so many years is settled at last, as Matariki beam down and while the Māori language is being celebrated at the same time. So greetings to you, greetings to you, and greetings to you all.]

I make a small contribution, along with my fellow parliamentarians, to the debate on the Port Nicholson Block (Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika). As I have said in Māori, we are drawing to the end of the Matariki portion of the maramataka. It is great to know that this piece of history is being completed—in terms of the bill’s journey through the House of Representatives—under the eyes of Matariki, and at a time when we are celebrating the renaissance of the Māori language.

The Taranaki people have a saying, amongst a host of others: “E kore a Taranaki e ngaro he harakeke tōngāinui waiwiri.” It refers to the fact that waiwiri is a type of flax, and that although the leaves die and perish at the base, it nourishes and regenerates a new generation, a relevant saying when one thinks of the large number of people have sought to keep the kaupapa of the Wellington Tenths claim alive over many generations; it has passed from one generation to another, to another. This settlement, hopefully, marks a time when a new phase and a new set of deliberations and challenges begin: how to take the endowment and the legacy arrived at through an apology and a transfer of wealth to the tangata whenua so that it might be husbanded and a new quality of both leadership and stewardship can be shown to the fellow citizens of Wellington by the tangata whenua.

Before I complete this speech a few names ought to be mentioned. I recall driving my uncle the Rev. Māori Marsden down to Motunui in the 1980s, at the time when former Prime Minister Mr Muldoon had a synthetic fuels plant agenda. We were greeted by Aila Taylor, and that bunch of stalwarts, Marge, Ina, Ivy, and a variety of others. In many respects, when we stand here today as Māori, joining with our kin and our fellow parliamentarians, it is important to bear witness and offer testimony to the people who carried this torch with no money, very little recognition, and against open hostility. We should remember those people and pay homage to them.

Of course, I cannot claim to have married into the Taranaki people. But I give Sir Paul Reeves notice: I have seven children, and I am working on it. I am sure I speak on behalf of all of us—the Māori in the House, along with our Pākehā colleagues—when I tell the Taranaki Whānui to take this waka forward into uncharted territory and create something that will last as long as the legacy of grievance that has held them together. They should let the spellbinding nature of success bind them even closer and closer into the future. Kia ora tātou katoa.

SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. This will be a very short call, and as someone who has had nothing to do with this settlement and no affiliations to the iwi concerned, I hope it will be a speech of some humility.

However, I do appreciate the history, the grievance, and, perhaps at times, the bitterness that has gone with all of this. I acknowledge more recently the blood, sweat, tears, and all of that, as I said, to get to today. Having mentioned the path, I also touch on a future that I hope is filled with potential and is ripe for the plucking. I hope for a much brighter future that will include some money, some ownership, and an apology. But, more than that, I hope there is an ability to move on to a new chapter.

Finally, I agree with what the Hon Tau Henare said: this is but one chapter in a book of settlements that this country needs to write before we hopefully can move on to better, more enjoyable books. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

Bill read a third time.

Waiata

Bills

Road User Charges Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Transport): I move, That the Road User Charges Amendment Bill be now read a second time. I would like to thank members of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee for their prompt consideration of this short bill. This bill does two things: it enables the exemption of light electric motor vehicles from the requirement to pay road user charges, and it ensures adequate notice of road user charges increases.

The Government supports new technology as a means to bring about low-carbon transport. In the future, as new technologies emerge and more vehicles become less reliant on traditional fossil fuels, we will need to give further consideration as to how we recover the cost of those vehicles using the roading network. It is important that all road users pay the costs they impose on the roading network. That is the principle of the user-pays system we have, and it is implicit in the hypothecation of road revenues. This bill deals with one new technology that is available now: vehicles able to run wholly or partly on electricity. Having electric vehicles in our fleet has advantages. They are more efficient and they are cheaper to run than conventional vehicles. They will reduce our need to import fossil fuels and increase the security of our transport and electricity systems against energy disruptions, while maintaining personal mobility. They produce little or no toxic emissions, and they have the potential to substantially reduce transport greenhouse gas emissions. Unfortunately, for the time being those vehicles are expensive.

This bill proposes a practical means to encourage the uptake of electric vehicles, a goal announced by the Government in 2007. In her first reading speech on this bill, Jeanette Fitzsimons commented: “we are asking all road users—rich, poor, and unemployed—to pay the road-user charges for those who can afford to buy electric vehicles.”, and that she would be “very concerned if the subsidy were to go longer than the 4 years that is proposed.” That is one reason why the 4c per kilometre exemption from paying road-user charges for light electric motor vehicles is to be transitional and limited in duration. The Government’s intention is that exemption will expire at the end of June 2013, at which point the initiative will be reconsidered. Several submitters on the bill pointed out that when the exemption expires, plug-in hybrid electric vehicles will be subject to both road-user charges and fuel excise duty for the petrol they use. This is a matter that will be addressed before the expiry of the exemption in 2013.

It is only reasonable to give notice of increases to road-user charges. These charges are a significant cost for commercial transport operators. This bill proposes to give 6 weeks’ notice of increases to charges, as recommended by the Road User Charges Review Group and supported by submitters to the select committee. The problem in the past with giving notice was the loss of revenue through large-scale pre-purchasing of road-user charges at cheaper rates. This bill proposes a tidy and neat solution to that problem. It provides that road-user charges licences for heavy vehicles expire 1 month after an increase comes into effect. Licences for lighter vehicles would not expire early. I will take this opportunity to respond to questions about the expiry of heavy vehicle licences raised by the previous Minister of Transport, the Hon Annette King, in her first reading speech on the bill. She asked how this requirement would work, and what it would cost to administer. The fact is that in a normal course of events most operators of heavy vehicles purchase their licences on a weekly or fortnightly basis, so they will be largely unaffected by the expiry of licences 1 month after the fee changes. Refunds of road-user charges for unused kilometres will be available for those who need to purchase a new licence that overlaps with an old licence. Customers in that situation will be credited their refund at the time of the purchase of the new licence. No one will need to actually apply for any refunds, because they will be automatically provided at the time the new licence is purchased. No additional administrative costs for the expiry and refund process are expected.

The Hon Annette King also asked about avenues for trucking firms, in particular, to rort the system, and what leakage of revenue could result. Quite simply, there will be no additional avenues for firms to take advantage of the system, because this proposal is closing down an opportunity currently in place. Yes, there will still be the ability for heavy vehicle owners to buy licences 1 month ahead, and some may alter their purchasing practices to do that for that month. That behaviour will be monitored. It can be accounted for in future increases if necessary. I also point out that the licence expiry provision is a reinstatement of a similar provision that was repealed in 2002. It was repealed because of the burden of transaction costs, administrative difficulties, and inconvenience carried by the approximately 400,000 light vehicle owners and the Government agencies involved in that relicensing. Therefore, we are not seeking to provide for the expiry of truck licences for light vehicles in the same way as we are for heavy vehicles. The benefits in terms of lower administrative costs of road-user licensing continuing for light diesel vehicles exceed any expected revenue losses.

There are a number of changes that I intend to make to streamline the road-user charging system. One of those is to put in place a systematic and predictable system for changes to the rates of road-user charges. Let us not forget that, unlike fuel excise, road-user licences are purchased in advance, and those advance purchases come at a cost. That cost, when combined with future streamlining of the charging system, will put the system on a more businesslike footing.

This bill deals with two specific issues relating to road-user charges. It was considered by the select committee on 23 July, and no major issues arose from its consideration. I will be following the committee’s advice and submitting one minor wording change by way of a Supplementary Order Paper at the Committee stage. Again, I thank the select committee and the officials for their work on the bill. The bill will help encourage electric vehicles on to our roads, resulting in cleaner and quieter streets, lower fuel bills, and fewer greenhouse gas emissions. The bill also provides a transparent notification system for increases to road-user charges while safeguarding the revenue that is used to maintain and develop this country’s roading system. This is a good bill, and I commend it to the House.

DARIEN FENTON (Labour): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. I appreciate the opportunity to make a contribution to the second reading of the Road User Charges Amendment Bill. The Minister alluded to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee’s consideration of this issue. We did it very sketchily, thus there is a very brief report back to the House. Labour remains concerned about the rushed process, and unconvinced that it was necessary. The report-back period was less than a month, including a 2-week adjournment, and the Minister of Transport has still not provided any explanation or justification as to why the bill had to be dealt with so quickly. The problem with this is that we are not seeing the proper scrutiny of legislation that we would expect to see from our Parliament, because we are constantly being told that bills have to be reported back faster than would ordinarily be the case. This is not good lawmaking. The process means that until today there were still unanswered questions, and we had to wait until today to hear the answers to the questions that both Annette King and I raised in the first reading debate. The answers did not come up in the select committee and I appreciate that the Minister has attempted to address those questions today.

Although Labour is supporting this bill, we will be watching very carefully to see how it plays out, and whether the system as outlined by the Minister actually works. As noted in the select committee report, we are concerned about the issue of the time frame for the exemption of electric vehicles from road-user charges, and again I acknowledge that I was pleased to hear the Minister’s commitment to the 2013 expiry date. My colleague Jeanette Fitzsimons raised this issue in her first reading speech to the House, and it is also alluded to in the select committee’s report. In the short time that we had to deliberate on the bill, Labour and the Greens agreed that the exemption period should not be indefinitely extended, but we also agreed that the time frame for exemption should be in the primary legislation. That is not happening in this bill. We remain concerned about that, because we believe the exemption represents a subsidy from low-income motorists to those who can afford electric vehicles, which are, as the Minister said, very expensive—very expensive. If the time frame for the exemption is not in primary legislation then it remains open to the Minister to decide that time frame, even though he has given a commitment today—and I was pleased to hear it because the exemption becomes a subsidy from those who cannot afford the relatively high cost of an electric vehicle to those who can.

The reason that Labour does not like the bill and is opposed to it is that we believe in lending a helping hand to those most in need. For example, why should a low-income family, managing on a minimum wage, contribute a percentage of their taxes towards other people who would like to buy an electric vehicle. The fact that someone is considering such a purchase suggests that he or she does not need any help from the taxpayer. In addition, we heard from the Minister for ACC, Nick Smith, that he is considering the idea of lower registration fees for safer and more modern vehicles, which, again, would unfairly penalise people on lower incomes. We need to think about these things, as we look towards further technology. Members on this side of the Chamber, and I think across Parliament, recognise there is a problem. We all support doing something about it but we need to take into account the varying situations of the population.

When the Minister for ACC came to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee a couple of weeks ago he said that one area to look at was the motor vehicle account, where the motor vehicle levy is a flat fee. He said: “I am advised that if we all had 5-star safety vehicles, that would knock 40 or 50 percent off the cost of the motor vehicle account, yet we all pay the same motor vehicle levy. Is there a capacity to provide greater financial incentives in that area?” That said to me that those 5-star safety vehicles would be generally newer, and, like electric vehicles, more expensive. So Labour would have a problem with the idea of supporting cheaper registration fees for those who can afford new cars. It is the same sort of subsidy—that is, from the poor to the rich. The price differentiation might well be acceptable to the Government but Labour believes that it is contrary to the values of fairness and equity—values that most New Zealanders believe in. If we are not careful with these sorts of measures we could be heading for a situation like the information divide, where some families still do not even have a phone. They are absolutely out of the loop in a society that is increasingly reliant on the World Wide Web, yet those people are information poor and continue to be so. That makes them increasingly disadvantaged. So we have to be careful that in creating incentives for changes in the vehicle fleet towards lower emissions and safer vehicles, we do not create a class of people who are unable to access subsidies and better, more efficient cars, or who end up paying more than the better-off, because they are unable to replace their older vehicle.

One of the purposes of this bill, as stated in the explanatory note, is to “encourage the uptake of light electric motor vehicles, which are expected to improve the efficiency of the motor vehicle fleet, decrease reliance on imported fossil fuels, improve energy security, and reduce the vehicular emissions affecting air quality and greenhouse gas levels.” That is a very laudable purpose, and Labour supports it, although I have to say the Government’s record so far on these things is pretty patchy. It is interesting that while we are debating this bill there is another process going on. The Government is proposing a rule change to allow heavier trucks on the roads. I want to take a moment to talk about that, because it is causing concern up and down the country. That rule change will encourage a transfer of freight from rail and coastal shipping, which are both very efficient and clean modes of transport, back on to the emission-producing, fossil-fuel guzzling, and very dangerous heavy trucks on our roads. The Government, I have noticed, is running into some trouble with that consultation. The New Zealand Transport Agency’s assessment of the effect of that rule on State highways, local roads, and bridges fails to provide a sensible cost-benefit analysis. In fact, it has looked only at the benefits; it has not looked at the costs. We know that 306 State highway bridges would require strengthening, or detailed investigation, and an estimated $85 million would be required to fund the work over a period of several years. Of those bridges only 13 have already been included on the approved 2009-12 bridge replacement and upgrade programme, due to their current condition. So in the South Island no section of State Highway 1 has bridges that can support 50-tonne trucks. In the North Island no section of State Highway 1 from Taupō to Wellington has bridges that can support 50-tonne trucks. In addition, we heard the other day that the Auckland Harbour Bridge has missed out on the list of highway upgrades needed for heavier trucks. Hamilton—

David Bennett: Nothing about bridges in this bill.

DARIEN FENTON: Hamilton—the city of that member—is concerned about the impact of heavy trucks on its local roads and on road safety, when traffic volumes and levels of heavy freight are set to compound in the coming years. It supports sustainable transport progress, which involves transitioning more of the freight carried by trucks on to rail. So it seems to me that this proposed change somewhat contradicts the efforts of the Government to try to reduce the emissions and the traffic on our roads and to have more efficient vehicles.

The bill is pretty timid, and I think I have said that before. We could be doing so much more. If we look to the UK, it is investing £250 million to promote low carbon transport vehicles over the next 5 years, and it will be offering subsidies of up to £5,000. Now, that would take care of the issue about the low paid not being able to afford more efficient vehicles. Denmark has announced a $135.8 million investment in an electric car charging network in the country. That is very interesting and is worth looking into, because New Zealand has many similarities with Denmark. If that nation can be so adventurous and forward-thinking, particularly in a time of recession, then why not New Zealand? Labour supports this bill. We think it is pretty timid. However, we are going along with it. I have raised concerns today, and, as I said, we will be watching carefully, and we will be watching the “heavy truck” debate as it escalates through the country, because, quite frankly, the Government has botched the issue.

DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East): The previous speaker is a member of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, which did such a fine job under such fine leadership, in progressing this bill to this stage. I am sure the previous speaker would like to thank her committee for its hard work, and the officials for their support, and the chair as well for the leadership and direction provided in that committee. We need to give special praise to the Minister of Transport.

I was offended in that speech where the speaker tried to say the Government of the day was moving too quickly on environmental issues. Labour feels that the Government of the day should not be advancing the take-up of electric cars in this country. Labour obviously does not believe in having a clean, green New Zealand. It does not believe in environmental issues. It does not believe in taking advantage of technology, which would advantage New Zealanders. The Labour Party is a party of the past. What more would we want to see of a previous century, no less? The last time Labour was elected was in a previous century. That is the reality of the Labour Party. Labour members want to create a “classless society”. Those are the two words that came out of the last speech. They have a problem with people having money and being able to afford clean, green technology. If we think about that, what does it mean for New Zealand? Labour members have a problem with New Zealand being rich enough to have clean, green technology to look after our environment.

Dr Cam Calder: That can’t be true!

DAVID BENNETT: That is what Labour members think. They want to take New Zealand back to some communist State where everything is controlled by the Government, where they know best; where no technology is involved, everybody lives on some great land-based system that does not deliver any technological advances, does not take advantage of a modern economy, and does not deliver the clean, green solutions that this Government wishes to deliver for our people.

Let us just think about a classless society. Did Labour members represent a classless society when they were in Government? I am thinking about Labour initiatives like KiwiSaver. Were initiatives such as that designed for people who could not afford to pay for them? No, they were designed only for those people who could put some of their wages into it. Labour members did not look after the classless society when they had a chance. Labour did not look at creating a level playing field where everybody was the same. Labour members say one thing but do another thing. This bill is a perfect example of when Labour will not acknowledge what is good for this country and good for transport.

Darien Fenton: Tell us about the trains in Waikato!

DAVID BENNETT: That is a great example. It is great to see that we have some Labour members here from the Waikato region. They have been going on about trains in the Waikato. I will give those members one little piece of advice about the trains in Waikato. Labour members want to have a passenger train that goes from Hamilton to Auckland. They want the trains to run in the morning and in the afternoon so that work people can use it. They say that is the best thing we could do for the Waikato.

Let me ask those members one question: where on the main trunk line is there no electrification? It is between Hamilton and Auckland. So if they want to have a train between Hamilton and Auckland, what kind of train will it be? It will be a diesel train, and if it is a diesel train, it is a dirty train. Yet in Hamilton East at the last election Labour fought against our expressway and for a train to Auckland—a train based on diesel technology. I challenge Labour members to go to the people of Hamilton and tell them that they would put a train on that track and make it clean and green. Would they do that? Would Labour members put a clean, green electric train on that track?

I would like to see Sue Moroney say that, because it would mean that David Cunliffe would have to find another couple of billion bucks to pay for it. That is the reality of what Labour members are dealing with. If they want to have clean, green technology in the Waikato then they should go out there and say it. They will not do that, because they know they are dealing with the only bit of track that is not electrified, and that they would have to put a dirty train on that track to be able to deliver that. That is the farce that the Labour Party is. Labour members do not go out there and tell people the true story. They just go out there and say: “Let’s have a train. The trains are clean and green.” What kind of emotional detachment is that from the reality that it would be a dirty diesel train?

National members have a much better plan. Firstly, we have a plan that the people of Hamilton actually voted for. That is the first thing. And it is a plan that will actually work. We will build the expressway that Labour was not going to build—

Sue Moroney: Oh, what rubbish!

DAVID BENNETT: Labour was going to build it. It had 9 years in which to put it in the 10-year plan. In fact it took it out of the 10-year plan; it took out the Te Rapa Bypass. We will make sure that that road is built. That road will allow electric cars to drive from Hamilton to the outskirts of Auckland, to hop on to a good public transport network that will be electrified and will take people into and out of Auckland at a fast rate using electric, clean, green technology. It will be clean, green transport from Hamilton to Auckland.

What is Labour’s alternative? It is to tell people to hop on to a dirty old train that cannot even get into central Auckland because the Auckland Regional Transport Authority says that it is full now. So the train would not even get into downtown Auckland, but Labour members do not tell the good people of Hamilton that. They do not tell the good people of Hamilton that the report that came out from the Auckland Regional Transport Authority said that this train could not get into Britomart transport centre because it is full.

Dr Cam Calder: You’re joking!

DAVID BENNETT: No, it will not be allowed into Newmarket, either. So that train would not get into central Auckland. So where does Labour expect it to go? The train could get into Papakura—that is where it can go. You might as well drive there in an electric car on our new motorway—

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Two things: first, the member keeps bringing me into the debate; second, this bill is about road-user charges and we are on a second reading speech, not a first reading speech. The member has 2 minutes 40 seconds left and I would actually like to hear about road-user charges. I ask the member to continue.

DAVID BENNETT: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. One of the big parts of this bill is to bring in electric cars. We are reducing the cost of electric cars. Electric cars will be the main things running on the Waikato Expressway in 30 or 40 years’ time. That is the nature of this bill. This bill is very relevant to the people of Waikato because it shows vision, it shows direction, and it shows leadership. More important than that, and more important than all of those things, it shows one thing that Labour members did not show to the good people of the Waikato—it shows action. We will build a road. We will not just campaign and say we are advocating for a rail network; we will build the road, which is more than the Opposition has done.

Carol Beaumont: Mr Speaker—

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member still has 2 minutes.

DAVID BENNETT: Labour members are trying to break up this fine speech.

If we look at electric vehicles, they are very important. We are not looking at having a classless society, which is what Labour wants to create. We are looking at a society where we want to take advantage of the technology of the world. We want to be a country where people can go out and buy the technology. We are not looking at a pre-industrial State, which is something Labour wants to see the rebirth of. We want a country where there is nothing wrong with people succeeding and achieving and there is nothing wrong with people wanting to spend their money on electric cars. That is an important avenue for New Zealand to go down if we want to have a clean, green economy.

This bill is very important in that respect. It is the first step in recognising that we can have a clean, green transport environment on our roads. That flies in the face of the rhetoric we have heard about rail as an alternative to roading. Roads will be the clean, green alternative in the future. The big economies of the world are investing in that technology. They have a reason to want to have that technology, and they will make that technology economically available not only to those who can afford it now but to the masses. People will find in time that everybody will be driving electric cars, because that is the future of transport. It is just of matter of time, and it will happen.

CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour): Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker. I offer my apologies to the previous speaker, David Bennett, for interrupting his speech, but he was supposedly speaking on the Road User Charges Amendment Bill, and I intend to look at that bill in a bit of detail. But before I do that, I note that the previous speaker, the chair of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, which I am a member of, has just given the most bizarre speech I have heard in my parliamentary career so far. I honestly do not quite know how he managed to get the topic of communism into that speech, but let me stand here with some pride and say that, yes, Labour is the party that believes in fairness, social justice, and sustainability. Frankly, if that is in comparison with a Government that gives tax cuts to the rich and increases funding for private schools at the same time as reducing funding for very important things like adult and community education, then I really do wonder.

Contrary to what the previous speaker said, the Labour Party did invest a significant amount in both roads and public transport. The previous Labour Government did a lot in the transport area. As much as the previous speaker may try to rewrite history, he will find, if he looks at funding for roading in Auckland, for example—which was absolutely ignored by the previous National Government—he will see that significant changes were made under the previous Government. The current National Government has, of course, moved the emphasis in transport funding away from public transport and on to roads. And that gets me back to road-user charges. The Transport and Industrial Relations Committee read submissions on the Road User Charges Amendment Bill, and that was because there was not enough time for anybody to actually come and present their submissions to the committee so that we could debate the issues and ask questions.

The bill amends the Road User Charges Act 1977 in order to achieve two outcomes. The first is the exemption of light electric motor vehicles from the requirement to pay road user charges, as my colleague Darien Fenton outlined previously, and the second is the provision of notice of increases to road-user charges, with the road-user licences for heavy motor vehicles expiring 1 month after an increase comes into effect. The select committee examined the bill and recommended that it be passed, and it did not recommend any amendments to the House. Advice was taken from Ministry of Transport officials during that process. A number of issues were raised by submitters in written submissions. The Motor Industry Association suggested that if the road-user charges system continued in its present form, consideration would need to be given to either an exemption or a modified rate for plug-in hybrid vehicles. That is something Labour agreed with. Secondly, committee members had some concerns around the drafting of new section 21(2), inserted by clause 6. Again, we agreed that the wording was a little bit unclear in respect of whether licences issued before the increase took effect are subject to expiry, and we dealt with that. The third area was, as Ms Fenton has already outlined, the time frame for exemption of electric vehicles.

Why is this legislation being rushed through? That is one of the questions we need to ask ourselves, as Darien Fenton mentioned previously. The report-back period was just under 1 month, with a 2-week adjournment included in that, and still there has been no explanation for it. It is all very well for Government members to jump up and down and say the Government is an action-orientated Government. Only in very limited circumstances does the Government need to rush through legislation, it seems to me. During my relatively short period in this House, my experience of the select committee process has been a very positive one. I think it is a very fine feature of our system. The submissions that are made to select committees, the opportunity for people to come along and make oral submissions to a committee, and the ability of select committees to then question those submitters are very important parts of our parliamentary process in New Zealand. It is a process that provides the people of this country with confidence in the system. It gives them the right to be heard on legislation that is being put through the House. I have no understanding at all about why this bill is being rushed through, and why people have not been able to make oral submissions. That means we do not get the proper scrutiny of legislation that one would expect to see from this Parliament. There has been a bit of a common practice, it seems, of rushing things through under this National Government. So I sincerely urge members across the House to make every effort to ensure that legislation is given proper scrutiny.

I will focus the rest of my speech on the road-user charges part of this bill. Labour instigated the road-user charges review, because there had not been a review for 18 years. During that period of time, as members might expect, the ratio of trucks to cars had changed enormously, as had the weights being carried by those trucks. The upshot of that was a greater inequity between trucking firms and private vehicle motorists over who should pay for road maintenance. Darien Fenton outlined to us that more is happening in that space, that the Government is looking at allowing further heavier trucks on our roads, increasing the damage that trucks do. The Government also looked at initiatives like Sea Change, which provided a strategy for moving heavy freight by sea using clean technology—unlike what the previous speaker, David Bennett, was talking about—and completely wiped its hands of them. The Government said it was not going to have a bar of that strategy. So the Government will get rid of strategies like Sea Change, which would potentially take really heavy freight off the roads, and it will instead put heavier trucks on our roads.

I will go back to the history of the road-user charges review. When Labour was in Government we faced the situation where truck drivers got extremely agitated about the putting up of road-user charges with no notice. But that was done for a very important reason: on the previous occasion when notice had been given, there was a great deal of purchasing of road-user charge certificates. A large amount of Crown revenue was lost through forward-purchasing. This bill clearly tries to put in place some sort of middle ground. I think that is appropriate. I think it is appropriate that there is notice. I think it is appropriate that a real effort is made to ensure that there is no bleeding out of Government revenue. Goodness knows, we all know it is important, in these hard economic times, that Government revenue is maintained. The previous Minister of Transport, Annette King, met with Road Transport Forum New Zealand over that whole process. She said that the Government would work with them to put in place a process that was fair. The objective, as I mentioned, was not only to increase road-user charges without a great loss of revenue to the Crown, but also to give sufficient notice to truckies. This bill has finally come in, and it has arisen from the inquiry initiated by the Hon Annette King. I will make a side point. There was a lot of huff and puff before about this Government being action-orientated. Well, in fact, this is yet another bill that is effectively the result of the previous Government.

I will just finish up by talking about the fact that people who purchase, under the provisions of this bill, their road-user charge certificate in the notice period allowed prior to the price increase will have only 1 month to use them. The bill will close the loophole whereby people could go out and pre-purchase a lot of road-user charges at the old rate, use them indefinitely and thereby save themselves money. I think it is a good, common-sense provision. It provides some fairness and equity all round, and, of course, that is what Labour is about. It is not about the Communist Manifesto, I say to Mr David Bennett; it is about fairness, equity, and sustainability.

SUE KEDGLEY (Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Green Party is pleased to join in the consensus of this House in supporting the Road User Charges Amendment Bill. We are particularly pleased about the incentive it provides to use the new technology of electric cars by waiving road-user charges for the next 4 years. Why would we—why would anyone—not support electric cars? They do not have emissions, they improve the efficiency of the fleet, and they are a tiny step towards energy independence. They are, as an earlier speaker said, a form of clean, green transport.

But let us get real and remind ourselves that electric cars are not an immediate panacea; they do not provide a great panacea for New Zealand’s serious transport problems. We need only to contemplate that an electric car costs double to quadruple the cost of a conventional car—that is, $40,000 to $80,000. The Ministry of Transport estimates that in 2010—next year—there will be 30 electric cars, and by 2020 there may be 30,000 electric cars on the road. So we are not talking about a panacea. The chair of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, David Bennett, waxed on as though electric cars were going to solve New Zealand’s transport problems. Let us get real. As Rahui Katene said in an earlier speech, because of the cost of these cars, particularly in the first few years, it will be a revolution for the rich. Unfortunately, ordinary New Zealanders will not be able to fork out $40,000 to $80,000 for an electric car.

Nevertheless, it is good that we are encouraging the use of electric cars. I do not know how many members saw the film Who Killed the Electric Car?, which was a very interesting film. Many decades ago the technology for the electric car was developed, and it started to be rolled out all over America. The film points out that all of the main car companies colluded to kill the electric car, because it provided such competition to the diesel-powered car. That was why they killed the electric car. It is great that finally, decades later, we now support the electric car, and some of the main car companies are supporting and getting behind it instead of trying to kill it. That is indeed progress.

I wonder whether the road-user charge exemption will also extend to electric buses. The Green Party had a huge fight, put forward a major petition, and was instrumental in saving the electric trolley bus in Wellington. The electric trolley bus was about to disappear from New Zealand. We hope that this incentive for electric cars will also extend to electric buses, and that this Government will support the use of electric buses being extended in New Zealand—particularly here in Wellington, with the doubling of our fleet. I very much doubt it, as this Government has slashed public transport funding and is pouring all the money into roads. Now, $7 goes into roads for every $1 that goes into public transport.

David Bennett was raving on about the train between Hamilton and Auckland, which an earlier Labour speaker had suggested the Government should be supporting. He went on about the fact that the train runs on diesel. Well, we all know that, but I ask why this Government, if it is so enthusiastic about electric, clean, green transport, does not look at electrifying the remaining parts of the main trunk line—the line between Hamilton and Auckland, and the small part of the line between Ōtaki and Palmerston North. Why are we not doing that? David Bennett said that this bill showed that the Government is giving direction, vision, and leadership on clean, green transport, but I ask what about electrifying the rail line between Hamilton and Auckland, and between Ōtaki and Palmerston North. That would show real leadership. That would show real vision.

The second issue in this bill that I will mention is who will pay for the maintenance of our roads—the road-user charges. Of course, all of this came about because truckies were up in arms about their road-user charges. That brings me to the issue, which others have mentioned, of the huge, juggernaut trucks that are about to be unleashed on our roads. The Government is fast-tracking a proposal that, sadly, was initiated by the Labour Government, which did the pilot to allow 72-feet long, 53-tonne trucks on our roads. Has anybody heard of anything so stupid?

First of all, these huge, juggernaut trucks will destroy our roads. I am quite sure that the truckies’ road-user charges will not pay for that destruction of the roads. Already questions are being asked about some of the Minister’s estimates of the huge cost of upgrading numerous bridges as well as the roads.

The second issue is that roads in New Zealand are narrow. They are windy. They are hilly. They are utterly ill-suited to heavy, juggernaut trucks. What will happen when heavy, juggernaut trucks are unleashed on our roads? We will have more deaths on our roads. Trucks are only 4 percent of our vehicle fleet, but they represent 18 percent of the deaths on our roads. We will see more crashes and more serious accidents. Why? Because these huge, juggernaut trucks will take longer to brake; it will take much longer for people to pass them; and they will be 6½ feet longer, so when they go round corners they will go over the centre line. Already, there are numerous corners on the State highway over the Rimutaka hill where trucks go over the centre line. If we drive between Napier and Gisborne, we find numerous corners where trucks go over the centre line. They are a hazard to anyone who is trying to go round the corner at the same time.

New Zealanders are only just becoming aware of this Government’s unleashing of this new proposal for juggernaut trucks. I can tell members that people whom I speak to are horrified. They cannot understand why these trucks are being proposed. They are worried about the destruction that juggernaut trucks will cause to roads and bridges. They know that the road-user charges that the truck industry pays will not begin to pay for the destruction to roads, much less pay for the cost of the deaths and the serious injuries that will be caused on our roads. Will the industry pay for the cost of those deaths and serious injuries? I do not think so.

Let us be real: although this bill is a great step to encourage electric cars for those who can afford them, it is not a panacea for the problems of transport in New Zealand. If the Government is serious, as David Bennett claims it is, about trying to introduce clean, green transport into New Zealand, why would it not be investing in public transport and in upgrading our rail infrastructure? We can look at what is happening with the trains in Wellington. Because of years of deferred maintenance, thousands of commuters have been stuck for hours in trains. Our whole train network in Wellington is falling apart because of deferred maintenance. Surely, that should be the priority. That is what the Government should be doing.

What about electrifying the rail network in Auckland? I am assured by people in Auckland that there is still no Government commitment to fund electric locomotives in Auckland. I ask the Government to please tell us whether its enthusiasm for electric transport extends only to the electric car. What about the electric train and the electric bus? Is the Government committed to electrification of Auckland rail? I ask the next National speaker to confirm when the Government will make a commitment to buy electric locomotives to enable the electrification of the Auckland rail network. Why is this Government slashing public transport funding at the very time when we know that our public transport system is collapsing?

Dr JACKIE BLUE (National): I am pleased to speak on the second reading of the Road User Charges Amendment Bill. The bill amends the Road User Charges Act 1977 to enable regulations to be made exempting light electric motor vehicles from road-user charges. The Government sees the bill, which will exempt owners of light electric vehicles from paying road-user charges for 4 years, as a first step towards encouraging the uptake of such cars.

At present, light electric vehicles weighing up to 3.5 tonnes are classed as diesel vehicles for the purpose of road-user charges. That results in a cost of approximately 3.6c to 4c per kilometre, money that is used largely to develop and maintain the roading system.

The Government sees private vehicles continuing to be the most significant mode of transportation for most New Zealanders. The statistics are that 84 percent of people go to work by car, truck, or motorbike, and that 70 percent of all freight in New Zealand goes by road. The environmental impact of the widespread use of private vehicles needs to be taken into account. Therefore, it is important that the Government encourages the use of alternative fuel technologies in order to help meet our environmental obligations over time. The Government considers that the bill will encourage the uptake of electric vehicles.

Alternative fuel technologies can make a significant contribution to improving the efficiency of our vehicle fleet. Importantly, electric cars can also decrease our reliance on imported fossil fuels and improve our energy security. Combining highly efficient electric motors with our competitive advantage in renewable electricity generation will reduce the greenhouse gases produced by the transport sector, as well as the harmful emissions affecting air quality.

The road-user charge exemption will come into effect on 1 October 2009 and will apply until 2013. The Government will reassess the initiative at that time. The initiative will have the effect of aligning the treatment of electric vehicles with that of biofuels. The bill is about the Government supporting a new fuel technology and encouraging a change to it.

The bill also provides for 42 days’ notice of a road-user charge increase. That has been done to minimise potential revenue loss caused by pre-purchasing of the road-user charge by the heavy motor vehicle industry following notification of a road-user charge increase. The bill provides that heavy vehicle road-user charge licences will expire 1 month after an increase comes into effect.

The history of that particular issue is that in 2008 road-user charge rates were increased without notice to operators at a time that coincided with high fuel prices. Operators were unable to pass on the increases to customers straight away and publicly demonstrated against the increases. For heavy motor vehicle operators, the road-user charge represents a major cost of doing business. Changes in road-user charge rates that cannot be passed on to consumers in a timely manner will significantly decrease marginal profitability. Notification will improve businesses’ liability to operate, by providing them with time to pass on the costs of road-user charge increases.

It is important to note that notification carries a risk of revenue leakage through large-scale pre-purchasing of the road-user charge. The level of anticipated revenue leakage from notification of the next road-user charge increases for light motor vehicles scheduled for 1 October this year is not known. On the one hand the road-user charge is a pre-purchase system, and there is a benefit associated with paying the Government money ahead of time, but on the other hand light motor vehicle owners have also historically not pre-purchased significant quantities of the road-user charge. Although notification of road-user charge increases will also be given to light motor vehicle owners, pre-purchasing is expected to have little impact on revenue.

The Ministry of Transport has assessed the bill and says that the bill’s two distinct outcomes will not have a significant effect on economic growth. The two distinct outcomes are to enable the exemption of light electric motor vehicles from their requirement to pay the road-user charge, and to provide notice of increases to the road-user charge to all diesel motor vehicle owners.

There is no doubt that electric motor vehicle technology can make a significant contribution to improving the efficiency of the motor vehicle fleet. Increasing the proportion of light electric motor vehicles in the fleet decreases reliance on imported fossil fuels and improves energy security. Combining highly efficient electric motors with New Zealand’s competitive advantage in renewable electricity generation will reduce the greenhouse gases produced by the transport sector, as well as the harmful emissions affecting air quality. Light electric motor vehicles are also much cheaper to operate per kilometre than conventional motor vehicles.

The global market for electric motor vehicles is already severely constrained. It is expected to remain that way over the next decade due to the low production volumes of first-generation electric motor vehicles. Until economies of scale start to reduce prohibitive battery costs, early electric motor vehicles will have a price premium of roughly double to quadruple that of a conventional motor vehicle. For example, a $20,000 conventional motor vehicle becomes a $40,000 to $80,000 electric motor vehicle.

New Zealand is not initially viewed as a priority market, with manufacturers focusing on large subsidised markets that can absorb the technology premium, so hastening the transition to large-scale production and a more accessible product is something we need to do. Although New Zealand is not a light electric motor vehicle manufacturer, the Government plays an important role in the uptake of electric motor vehicle technology. Part of that role is to remove barriers that could prevent or delay the uptake of a market for light electric motor vehicles in New Zealand. One barrier is the requirement to pay the road-user charge. That view was reinforced by the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority market research in 2008, in which 52 percent of 524 respondents stated that having to pay the road-user charge would affect their decision to purchase a light electric motor vehicle.

As light electric motor vehicles are not exempted under Section 4 of the principal Act, their owners are required to pay the road-user charge. The current road-user charge rate for a light electric motor vehicle weighing 3.5 tonnes or less is $36 per 1,000 kilometres. It costs the owner of a light electric motor vehicle approximately $432 per annum, based on an average travelling distance of 12,000 kilometres per year. In comparison with the upfront capital cost of early electric motor vehicle technology, the road-user charge would appear to have a very minor influence on the purchasing decision of an individual or a business. However, the general negative perception about the road-user charge, particularly of owners of petrol motor vehicles who have not previously paid the charge, make it a barrier to the uptake of electric motor vehicle technology.

The National Party promised in the lead-up to the 2008 general election that owners of light electric motor vehicles would be exempt from paying the road-user charge. The proposed exemption is transitional and limited in scope, and is not intended to set a precedent for road-user charge exemptions. The objective of the amendments proposed in the bill is to mitigate a perceived barrier to light electric motor vehicle uptake that is imposed by the requirement to pay the road-user charge. Exemption from the road-user charge will provide light electric motor vehicles with a comparative advantage in operating costs, and also signals the Government’s broad support of electric motor vehicle technology to the emerging market.

In summary, with the bill we are delivering on an election promise to exempt light electric motor vehicles from the road-user charge. Exempting electric cars from road-user charges for 4 years is a first step towards encouraging their uptake. The Government is keen to encourage the uptake of electric vehicles, though we see the use of private vehicles continuing to be the most significant mode of transport for most New Zealanders. Therefore, it is important that we encourage the use of alternative fuel technologies to help meet our environmental obligation over time. We believe that alternative fuel technologies will bring a big contribution to improving the efficiency of our vehicle fleet. I commend the bill to the House.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour): I might have the last say today, which would be quite an honour. I say that we should congratulate National for this legislation. I think it is good legislation for a couple of reasons. One of them deals with the dilemma that whenever a Government announces an increase in road-user charges with any lead-in time, there is a rush to buy those road-user charges, with the corresponding loss of potential revenue to the Crown. That has always been a bit of a dilemma. When my colleague the Hon Annette King attempted to increase road-user charges—in a way, it was necessary, to pay for road funding across this country—without any notice, we had a massive uproar up and down the country.

This Road User Charges Amendment Bill establishes a compromise situation whereby the maximum period for which road-user charges may be purchased from the time of notice will be 42 days. There is a lead-in time, people have the warning, and if they have not used the charges, then they can apply for a refund. The Government should be congratulated on doing that.

The next thing the Government should be congratulated on is its new wisdom. It has finally accepted that there is an issue of climate change in this country. That is quite amazing, really. We must acknowledge educational progress whenever it occurs, because in May 2005, National’s learned leader, John Key, said about climate change: “This is a complete and utter hoax, if I may say so. The impact of the Kyoto Protocol, even if one believes in global warming—and I am somewhat suspicious of it—is that we will see billons and billions of dollars poured into fixing something that we are not even sure is a problem.” Of course, he did learn, and in 2006, in one of the classic Key flip-flops, he said: “I firmly believe in climate change and always have.” That was a revelation to the country, I would have to say. So in the spirit—

Michael Woodhouse: He never said climate change was a hoax.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: That is exactly what he said, and that member should go and read history. That flip-flop has allowed the introduction of this bill and I congratulate the Government, because it is one step down the path to recognising not only that we have an issue internationally but also that we should do smart things to try to reduce our emissions.

What the Government is doing is reducing the road-user charges on electric vehicles. That seems like a great idea. I believe that the Minister for the Environment, Nick Smith, has an electric vehicle; I am not sure how many other Ministers do. I am not sure whether that means he should declare a conflict of interest when passing this bill; it should, perhaps, be stated upfront. I am not sure whether any other members in this House have an electric vehicle. If they have, then they should say so when they are speaking on this legislation. That Minister has; I do not know whether he has stated it. Anyway, we move on.

It is a principled issue and I acknowledge that this is smart legislation. But it is not perfect, at all. The thing about the business people in the National Party, of course, is that they will often, and with some justification, say: “We want the Government out of our business. We just want to get on with the job of business. We do not want subsidies. We do not want handouts.” Well, what we see in this legislation is indeed a cross-subsidy. It is a cross-subsidy from those people who pay for the roads to those people who are in a position to assist with climate change. I think we accept that it is a reasonable cross-subsidy, because we have to do something about climate change. But the reality, of course, is that we are doing it only for those people who can afford to pay twice as much for an electric vehicle. We have to be mindful of that.

The points made by my colleagues were very sound ones. This bill will mean cross-subsidisation, because the poorer people who will have to drive petrol cars—and indeed hybrid cars, which is an issue I will come back to—will be paying full road-user charges and paying for the roading network in this country. Those who can afford to have an electric car will not have to pay for the roading network. We all need it, we all utilise it, and we all benefit from it, so there is a question of whether that subsidy should apply. I say that perhaps it should, for the greater good of reducing our overall carbon emissions.

But the question I would then ask is, what about hybrid vehicles? Because hybrid vehicles are lower-emitting vehicles, and so too are small diesel vehicles, should we look at the road-user charges for those vehicles? Why did the Government not include those vehicles in this legislation? I believe that small diesel vehicles should be exempt from road-user charges. In the way that we are trying to incentivise the uptake and purchase of electric vehicles, we should be doing the same for small diesel vehicles and for hybrid vehicles. Why did the Government not go that far?

Michael Woodhouse: Because they don’t exist.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: The member says that small diesel vehicles do not exist. The member should get out there and look around. There are hybrid petrol vehicles and there are small diesel vehicles, both types of which are far more lower-emitting vehicles than the conventional petrol ones that most of us drive. We need to move in that direction, and I think the approximately $400-plus a year subsidy that we will be giving through this legislation, over a 12,000 kilometre a year average, is a reasonable incentive. It is a gesture, and I think it is one that we should make from Parliament, but we should also make the gesture for those people who buy small diesel vehicles. Those vehicles are a little louder and a little noisier, but they are lower-emitting, and many of them now, of course, have outstanding performance. There is little reason not to purchase them. If the change in legislation and the reduction in the road-user charges is the tipping point, then the Government should have looked at that as well.

Part of the problem, of course, is that the Government rushed this legislation through. The Government did not hear submissions on this legislation. Had it done so, it would no doubt have heard some of those sensible and logical points when they were brought to the table. We have to be a little smarter in the way we impose charges, so that we incentivise better behaviour. In fact, the emissions trading scheme is all about that. The member on that side of the Chamber has to learn a lot when he comes to this House—that through Parliament we try to promote good behaviour, but we do not ignore opportunities that are before us.

I say that the Government, in passing this good legislation, could have passed better legislation. The Government could have included light diesel vehicles and hybrid vehicles. Why did it not do that? I think it is an insult to all those people who have made the effort to lower their emissions by purchasing those vehicles, often at greater expense, that the National Government has ignored what they have been attempting to do to lower our national emissions—some of them for many, many years.

I say again that I congratulate the Government on acknowledging that there is a climate change issue. John Key has finally got it, in spite of saying in May 2005 that it is a complete and utter hoax. It is one of many, many flip-flops from the Prime Minister. Thankfully, this one has moved in the right direction.

The flip-flop that says “We will not privatise State assets.” will be one that will take this country down the gurgler. We should wait until that occurs. We are not hoping that it will occur, but I bet that that is what will happen. John Key and the way he has flip-flopped on so many things will mean that he will flip-flop on the privatisation of State assets. The roads and many of the infrastructural assets of this country that the road-user charges have paid for will be privatised for private benefit. I say that the passage of this legislation is a good move, but it could have been so much better.

JOHN BOSCAWEN (ACT): I did not intend to participate in this debate; I will probably speak only until 6 p.m. and leave it at that.

It was very interesting to listen for the first time to Damien O’Connor speak in the House. He very proudly declared that John Key has acknowledged that there is an issue of climate change. Let me say to Mr O’Connor that of course the climate is changing. It has been changing for centuries; it has been changing for millennia. The climate is always changing. He thinks it is important to say there is climate change, but that is nonsense. The issue is whether humans impact on climate change or whether it occurs naturally, and it has been occurring naturally on this Earth for many, many millennia. I acknowledge that there is climate change, but since 2001 temperatures on this globe have been going down, so I ask why we would penalise working New Zealanders when we are not certain there is an impact.

Mr Bennett talked about the benefits of this bill and about incentivising people to buy electric cars. I noticed that Mr O’Connor was happy to acknowledge that. Mr O’Connor also talked about cross-subsidisation. He talked about the situation whereby someone who could not afford to buy an electric car, at twice the cost of a regular car, is subsidising someone who could afford it. It was very interesting for that member to raise the issue of cross-subsidisation, because with KiwiSaver poorer people who cannot afford to save are, through their taxes, subsidising those who can afford to save. In particular, people on lower incomes, who do not get as big a subsidy from the Government as others do, are subsidising people who can afford to pay more and who have higher incomes. We have cross-subsidisation in KiwiSaver. One of the first things this Government did, before that member came back into this House, was to reduce the level of that cross-subsidisation from 4c in the dollar to 2c in the dollar.

Sue Moroney: It’s not a subsidy!

JOHN BOSCAWEN: That is exactly what it was! The Government was subsidising people’s savings at 4c in the dollar, and the subsidy is now 2c in the dollar. In my view, we should take that subsidy down to zero and we should make KiwiSaver compulsory.

I was also interested in Mr Bennett’s comments criticising the Labour Party for wanting a classless society. I say to him that we should have a classless society. In New Zealand we have two classes of people: the haves and the have-nots. We have the privileged and the unprivileged. We have people who can afford to save through KiwiSaver and get a subsidy, and those who cannot. We have people who can afford private medical insurance, and those who cannot. We have people who have access to good health care, and those who do not. Those issues are confronting our society, and we should be ashamed that we have a two-class society. We should be moving towards a classless society. I actually congratulate the Labour Party. I wish its vision was true.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 6 p.m.