Tuesday, 27 April 2010

Tuesday, 27 April 2010

Tuesday, 27 April 2010

Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Motions

New Zealand Defence Force—Deaths of Air Force Personnel in Anzac Day Helicopter Crash

Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): I seek leave to move a motion without notice on the tragic helicopter crash that claimed the lives of three Royal New Zealand Air Force personnel on Anzac Day.

Mr SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There is none.

Hon JOHN KEY: I move, That this House express its deep sympathy and condolences to the family, friends and colleagues of those lost in the crash of an Air Force Iroquois helicopter on Anzac Day. On Sunday morning, as New Zealanders across the country attended Anzac Day dawn commemorations, three Royal New Zealand Air Force Iroquois helicopters left Ōhākea, bound for Wellington. They were heading south to take part in a fly-past in honour of their fellow servicemen and women on Anzac Day. Sadly, one of the helicopters did not make it. The Iroquois crashed into a hill near Pukerua Bay, leaving three fine servicemen dead and their colleague with serious injuries in hospital.

Flight Lieutenant Hayden Peter Madsen, aged 33, Flying Officer Daniel Stephen Gregory, aged 28, and Corporal Benjamin Andrew Carson, aged 25, were lost. They were young men. They had the world in front of them, but they are now mourned by us all. They were much more than talented helicopter pilots and crew; they were partners and husbands, sons and brothers, and, to their colleagues, they were three good mates.

Since becoming Prime Minister, I have been privileged to have had a glimpse into the family that is the Royal New Zealand Air Force. Only last month I spent time with No. 3 Squadron at Ōhākea, and was impressed with their professionalism, skill, and capability. Their camaraderie was strong. I have been a passenger in Iroquois helicopters flown by those talented people, and I have the utmost respect for their abilities. Muddy, Dan, and Ben were part of that family. If there is a redeeming feature to this tragedy, it is perhaps that those left behind have that tight Royal New Zealand Air Force family to call on for support.

I was in the privileged position of giving the address at Chunuk Bair on Anzac Day, with travelling members of the Royal New Zealand Air Force on hand. As I looked down, I could not help but notice that many of the Air Force men and women had tears streaming down their faces. That showed how deeply personal this loss is for them all, and what a tight family the Royal New Zealand Air Force is. Sergeant Stevin Creeggan can also call on that support as he recovers in hospital after surviving the crash. We wish him all the best for a full recovery, and our thoughts are with him and his family.

This is a chapter in the Royal New Zealand Air Force’s history that we wish had never been written. That the crash occurred on Anzac Day only adds to the pain and sense of loss, and reminds us again of the risks our servicemen and women take every day. Muddy, Dan, and Ben will not be forgotten. They died doing what they loved. I must also add that this tragedy has been felt around the world. While travelling back from Gallipoli, I was touched to receive a message of condolence from Her Majesty the Queen. The Australian Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, has also passed on his sympathies.

This is a tough time for the Defence Force. Only yesterday, Private Te Tahuna Tahapeehi died after a road accident outside the Linton military camp, representing the fourth military death in 2 days. We stand alongside the families, friends, and colleagues of those men as they mourn their loss.

Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition): I join with the Prime Minister today on this very sad occasion in expressing, on behalf of the New Zealand Labour Party, our sadness at the tragic loss of life of the three Royal New Zealand Air Force personnel from No. 3 Squadron who were killed in the Iroquois crash on Anzac Day. I also record our sorrow at the death yesterday of a young soldier from the neighbouring Linton army base, who was killed in a motorbike accident. To the family and friends of Flight Lieutenant Muddy Madsen, Flying Officer Dan Gregory, Corporal Ben Carson, and Private Te Tahuna Tahapeehi we offer our sincere condolences, and we share in the grief that they will feel at this time.

All were young men with so much ahead of them in life: the prospects of raising a family and of developing promising careers in the New Zealand Defence Force. All four young men had served their country in overseas deployments in East Timor, and in the case of Dan Gregory, in Afghanistan also. We have, as I know from having been a Minister of Defence, a comparatively small Defence Force that is very close-knit. It is like a family. In Ōhākea, and at Linton, and in our military bases across New Zealand and around the world our Defence Force personnel are suffering a sense of shock and loss at the deaths of these men.

Loss of life in any accident is tragic, but the fact that three men lost their lives before dawn on Anzac Day, as they flew from Ōhākea to Wellington for a flyover of the Dawn Parade, makes the loss particularly tragic. For those of us who learnt early in the day of that accident, the playing of the last post on Anzac morning was particularly poignant.

I also express our best wishes for recovery to Sergeant Stevin Creeggan, whose survival in that crash was a miracle.

On this occasion I also note that daily our Defence Force personnel in the course of their duties often put their well-being at risk. We have an obligation to minimise that risk, and I acknowledge and pay tribute to the Royal New Zealand Air Force for the quality of its training and the quality of its aircraft maintenance. We have had the Iroquois for 44 years, and this is only the second occasion on which there has been a crash that has resulted in loss of life.

Once again, to the families of those who have lost their sons we express our sorrow and our condolences in the House today.

METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green): The Green Party also wishes to join the leaders in this House in extending our aroha, our sympathy to the friends, whānau, and colleagues of the three aircrew who were killed on Anzac Day. We also extend our deepest sadness on the tragic death of the young man, Private Te Tahuna Tahapeehi, who was killed in an accident outside Linton. I know that the Linton army camp community too is very tight-knit, and this will be a tragic loss for them.

All these young men—Flight Lieutenant Hayden Madsen, Flying Officer Daniel Gregory, Corporal Benjamin Carson, and Private Te Tahuna Tahapeehi—served their country because they believed in and loved our country and wanted to serve its people. All, I understand, had seen active service in East Timor—a time of pride for our country that we assisted there in a peacekeeping way. All of these young men were willing to put their lives at risk for us all because they believed in our country. They were loved and respected, and they will be very sorely missed by their friends and whānau. But their friends, whānau, and colleagues can be very proud of what they achieved in just a few short years. We wish all of their whānau the very best.

We also wish Sergeant Stevin Creeggan a very speedy recovery. Of course, this time will be very bitter-sweet for him and for his whānau, as well.

It is always tragic to lose young men such as these, and it is particularly poignant that we lost three of them on Anzac Day. But the truth is that to lose young men of such potential and of such strength and value, on any day and at any time, is a tragic loss. Kia ora.

Hon HEATHER ROY (Deputy Leader—ACT): I rise on behalf of the ACT Party to mark the passing of three Royal New Zealand Air Force personnel: Flight Lieutenant Muddy Madsen, pilot; Flying Officer Dan Gregory, co-pilot; and Corporal Ben Carson, helicopter crewman, who were tragically killed on Anzac Day. It shall always be that we remember they died on this, our special day of remembrance and commemoration. It is fitting that we remember them. These men volunteered to serve their country and its air force. On that fateful morning they would have risen from their beds early, and proceeded to their duty stations. They carried out their orders, just as the thousands who have served this country before them have done. Their thoughts would have been on doing the best job they could, in remembrance of their forebears.

On Thursday we will farewell these men in the presence of their families and whānau, both personal and air force. Representatives of the wider defence community will be present, along with those who represent this nation. That is also fitting. It will be a sad day, and it will also be a day of remembrance, where we will learn more of their lives and of them as individuals and as a team, members of a squadron. We will learn how they have lived their lives and fulfilled their dreams. We will hear of their love of flying, and of the strength they derived from their comradeship in service, both within the Royal New Zealand Air Force and the New Zealand Defence Force. We will hear of their commitment as servicemen, and we will be reminded that they have all served this country on operational deployments. It is fitting that we remember.

These men will be sorely missed by their friends and colleagues at Ōhākea and more widely in the Royal New Zealand Air Force. Our thoughts are with their families and their loved ones at this time of loss. We also think of their colleague Sergeant Stevin Creeggan, who survived this devastating crash. He was part of the team, part of the squadron. He is facing his own long journey on the road to recovery. Our best wishes are with him, and our thoughts are with his family, whom I met yesterday. They too are greatly affected by this tragedy.

Our thoughts are also with the family, the friends, and the Defence Force colleagues of Private Te Tahuna Tahapeehi, who was tragically killed yesterday at Linton army base.

We join with the other parties in this House in extending our sympathies and our condolences to the families and friends of these four fine, talented, young men. They will be sorely missed.

Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Māori Party): Every year on 25 April New Zealanders gather and listen to the words of a poem written in 1914 for the fallen. Those words had even more poignant relevance this year:

They went with songs to the battle, they were young,

Straight of limb, true of eye, steady and aglow.

They were staunch to the end against odds uncounted,

They fell with their faces to the foe.

They shall grow not old, as we that are left grow old;

Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn.

At the going down of the sun and in the morning

We will remember them.

They are the words that will play out in the hearts and memories of the family of Squadron Leader Nick Cree, killed in the line of duty in January this year. They will be words of meaning to the family of Flight Sergeant Andrew Forster, who was killed near Waiōuru 2 months earlier. And today we think of the families of three wonderful young men, staunch to the end against all odds. They are young men who shall not grow old, who are robbed of their potential for a bright future, and whose families are deprived of their loved one who died in the course of his calling to duty.

The Māori Party stands to honour the lives of Flight Lieutenant Hayden Madsen, Flying Officer Daniel Gregory, and Corporal Ben Carson. We express our deepest sympathies to their wives, and to the families they leave behind. We pay a special acknowledgment to the members of the Defence Force, who will be grappling with such heavy grief in their collective loss.

The significance of such a tragic accident occurring on Anzac Day will now become part of the legacy for our nation. The fierce and intense battles fought on Gallipoli in 1915 have always stood as a vivid metaphor for the power of the human spirit. The first major military action fought by the Australian and New Zealand forces during World War I brought to the foreground attributes of great bravery, incredible courage in the face of adversity, tenacity, ingenuity, and powerful forces of loyalty. The cost to New Zealand was 2,721 dead and 4,725 injured—a staggering 88 percent casualty rate. It is a loss that has been sustained over the generations, and has led to what we might now describe as the debt of suffering in which Australia and New Zealand unite to remember the fallen. This year that loss was given a tragic and personal meaning through this extraordinarily bitter blow.

We also acknowledge the passing of Linton army camp Private Te Tahuna Daniel Tahapeehi. Our thoughts also extend to the one surviving crewman, Sergeant Stevin Creeggan, and I am sure we join with all the House in wishing him a full and effective recovery.

We extend our aroha to all the families involved, to the families of all servicemen and servicewomen, to the Defence Force, and to all New Zealanders as we commemorate this devastating loss.

Nā reira haere koutou, haere koutou, haere. Haere ki te okiokinga hei whāriki mā mātou.

[So depart, you who have died, farewell. Go to the resting place and become our mat.]

At the going down of the sun and in the morning we will remember them.

Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future): It is sadly customary in the lead-up to Anzac Day each year for there to be inevitable speculation about the day’s continuing relevance to contemporary generations, and speculation about how difficult it is to imagine the conditions and the circumstances with which those who left these shores to fight in the two great world conflicts had to cope. On last Anzac Day morning the crash that occurred at Pukerua Bay and claimed the lives of Flight Lieutenant Hayden Madsen, Flying Officer Daniel Gregory, and Corporal Benjamin Carson, and allowed the miraculous escape of Sergeant Stevin Creeggan, I think gave a relevance to New Zealanders of what the day is all about, and the sacrifice of those who had gone before in so many previous conflicts, and what they had encountered during the course of such conflicts.

We take for granted our freedom today, and that is said often during the Anzac Day commemorations. We also take for granted the presence and the contribution of our armed forces, and the expectation that they will always be there to do their duty. These young men were doing their duty on Sunday morning. They could not have contemplated, as they set off, the circumstances that were about to befall them. Like others, I join with people right across New Zealand in expressing to the families of those young men, to their wider air force family, and to all New Zealanders with a connection to the services a sense of absolute sadness, of deep shock, but of huge admiration for their dedication and their commitment.

As the previous speaker said, age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn. We will remember them. We will always remember the sacrifice of those who have done so much to secure the circumstances in which we live today. I simply say to their families and friends that although these times will be difficult, sad, and stressful, there will be long-term consolation for them in knowing the regard in which they were held, the admiration for the service they performed, and the call to dedication and duty that they demonstrated. May they rest in peace.

Motion agreed to.

Questions for Oral Answer

Questions to Ministers

Budget 2010—Effect on Families

1. CRAIG FOSS (National—Tukituki) to the Minister of Finance: How will the Budget next month help New Zealanders and their families get ahead in this country?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): The Budget next month will help to achieve that by focusing on four main goals: lifting the long-term performance of the economy, the reform of the tax system, better delivery of public services, and maintaining firm control of the Government’s finances.

Craig Foss: As part of the Budget, how will the Government ensure that it continues to manage its finances in a responsible way on behalf of taxpayers?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Government will continue to improve public services, funding that from cuts to low-quality spending and from the new operating allowance. We will live within the $1.1 billion operating allowance for new spending and will restrict annual increases from this figure to 2 percent per year from next year. Even with this restraint, core Crown debt is forecast to triple to about $65 billion by 2014, as we borrow to fund the deficits. To turn this round, the Budget will redirect another $1.8 billion of lower-quality spending between now and 2014 into high-priority areas, such as health care, education, and law and order.

Hon David Cunliffe: Which of the following will make it easier for New Zealand families to get ahead: increasing tax on all the basics, when most people are struggling to pay their weekly bills, or giving tax cuts to those people on the highest incomes and small change to everybody else?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The member will just have to wait for the Budget to see the details. The Budget will be good for the economy, and it will help New Zealand families to get ahead.

Craig Foss: What are New Zealand’s main economic vulnerabilities as the Government deals with those challenges?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: There are two main vulnerabilities. First, a Treasury forecast in December predicted a cash deficit of $10.1 billion in the current year to 30 June. Treasury has also forecast that the Government will not return to surplus until 2016. The second vulnerability is New Zealand’s total external debt, including that of households, businesses, and the Government. It has ballooned from $90 billion owed to foreign lenders in 2000 to $170 billion today, and is forecast to approach $250 billion by 2014. Those facts were clearly lost on Labour’s spokesperson on finance, when he said: “New Zealand’s problem cannot be primarily that it has a yawning budget deficit, because it does not.”

Hon David Cunliffe: Can the Minister confirm that on taking office his Government inherited zero net Crown debt from the previous Government, and that in describing borrowing he has misrepresented the data by claiming that the Government is borrowing $240 million a week, when half of that is rolling over old debt; and can he further confirm that New Zealand’s gross and Crown net debt are around one-third of the OECD average?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I am confused by the member’s claim that there was no debt when he left office, and he said in his second sentence that half of our borrowing is going into rolling over existing debt. The credibility of that analysis is carried through into Labour’s recent promises to put up taxes, spend more, borrow more, and leave it to our children to pay the bill.

Craig Foss: What alternative approaches to managing the Government’s finances has the Minister seen?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I have seen a misguided recipe for borrowing and hoping, taxing and spending, and leaving a mortgage on the future for our families. It comes from Labour’s leader and its spokesperson on finance. The fact is that the current Government is following very sensible economic policy, which is to prevent a rapid rise in our debt, to lift the growth rate of our economy, and to give people incentives to save and to get ahead, and less incentive to spend too much and borrow too much.

John Boscawen: Why will the Government not help New Zealand families by following Australia’s lead today and putting the emissions trading scheme on hold until 2013, especially since John Key promised during the election campaign that “we shouldn’t be the world leader, because that will come at the expense of our economy.”, and that he sees no sense in New Zealand putting export jobs into another part of the world, or does that election promise not matter?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The issues around the emissions trading scheme are complex, and the Australian situation is a bit different from what the member said it was. But I am puzzled by the willingness of that member’s party to promise to honour the property rights of forest owners, who will receive over $1 billion dollars worth of credits. ACT wants the forest owners to keep their credits, but it thinks the taxpayer should pick up all the debits. I am not sure whether he has consulted Sir Roger Douglas about that, but that is very poor public policy.

Hon Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I do not believe the Minister addressed that question. We got a long discussion about ACT’s position on it, but the question was quite clear: why would we not follow Australia?

Mr SPEAKER: As I heard the Minister’s answer, he disputed the way in which the path taken by Australia was described in the question. He is perfectly entitled to do that when he answers a question.

Whaling—Catch Limits for Southern Ocean

2. GARETH HUGHES (Green) to the Minister of Foreign Affairs: How many whales, if any, does he believe it is acceptable to have hunted and killed in the Southern Ocean?

Hon MURRAY McCULLY (Minister of Foreign Affairs): None.

Gareth Hughes: Is the protection of the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary over the next 10 years a bottom line for New Zealand negotiations?

Hon MURRAY McCULLY: The Government’s position, which I believe reflects the position of the vast majority of New Zealanders, is that we wish to see the elimination of whaling in the Southern Ocean at the earliest possible time. There has, for some time, been discussion at the International Whaling Commission and, most recently, through its support group to see whether we can negotiate that outcome. On Friday a proposed consensus decision was released by the chair and deputy chair of the International Whaling Commission. New Zealand flatly rejected that proposal as being inadequate.

Gareth Hughes: Is the Minister saying that it is still on the table that New Zealand will support International Whaling Commission - sanctioned whaling in the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary over the next 10 years?

Hon MURRAY McCULLY: I am saying that the New Zealand Government understands, as do most others, including many non-governmental organisations, that there is only one process that can achieve the elimination of whaling in the Southern Ocean in a relatively short space of time, and that is the International Whaling Commission process. Those who assert that we should head off to the International Court of Justice needs to understand that that process could take 4 or 5 years, and, even then, achieve an adverse outcome.

Gareth Hughes: Given that your wait-and-see diplomatic approach has failed and resulted in an unacceptable response, what will you do in the next 2 months to ensure the absolute protection of whales in the Southern Ocean?

Mr SPEAKER: I did not want to intrude when the member referred to the Speaker early on in that question, but he cannot ask the Minister what the Speaker might be doing. I invite the member to rephrase his question, because every time he refers to “you” he is referring to the Speaker.

Gareth Hughes: Given that the Minister’s wait-and-see diplomatic approach has failed and resulted in an unacceptable result, what will the Minister now do over the next 2 months to give absolute protection to whales in the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary?

Hon MURRAY McCULLY: I intend to do exactly what I indicated publicly on Friday the Government would do. Having rejected the proposal put on the table by the chair and deputy chair of the International Whaling Commission as being unrealistic and unacceptable, I indicated that we would explore urgently with key players at the commission whether there was genuine room for a substantially different outcome from that proposed in the document released on Friday, in order to see whether it was worthwhile for us to invest further in that process. That is precisely what I am doing.

Auckland, Local Government Reform—Input of Aucklanders

3.Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement on the reorganisation of local government in Auckland that “The Government wants Aucklanders to have the maximum impact into the proposals”?

Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes.

Hon Phil Goff: Why has he failed to honour that commitment to the extent that this morning the New Zealand Herald described the Government as having a “tin ear” on reorganisation and that two-thirds of Aucklanders polled believe that the Government has ignored their concerns about the reorganisation?

Hon JOHN KEY: I would have thought that that member would be the last one wanting to talk about polls. I also note that the New Zealand Herald’s editorial said that the member’s proposal was light on detail. There has been extensive consultation with the public, and I am sure that when the third bill comes back from the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee it will reflect that.

Hon Phil Goff: Why is he giving the Auckland Transport Agency, which is unelected, the right to pass by-laws, but is denying that power to the elected local boards?

Hon JOHN KEY: Because we think it makes sense for the agency to be able to set some initial parameters in relation to the local boards, and that is because, over time, they need to reflect those communities. As that system plays out, I am sure that the Auckland Council will set new policies there.

Hon Phil Goff: Why is he imposing on Auckland the requirement to have council-controlled organisations, when every other council in this country is able to make that decision for itself?

Hon JOHN KEY: For a start, the Leader of the Opposition looks very confused when it comes to council-controlled organisations. Only last night—

Mr SPEAKER: I did not intervene on an earlier occasion when the Prime Minister launched into something to do with the Opposition when he started answering a question, because the questioner had put a couple of statements into his question that gave the Prime Minister the liberty to do so. But that was a reasonably straightforward question. It was not about the Opposition; it was about the matter that the Leader of the Opposition asked about. I think the Prime Minister should first answer that question.

Hon JOHN KEY: I note that just last night the Leader of the Opposition was saying that council-controlled organisations are all right. Council-controlled organisations have been in operation around the country—

Hon Darren Hughes: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You gave a very clear ruling about the way the Prime Minister should answer the question, yet he got up and restated a position about the Opposition. This is question time. It is for the Government to explain its record, not to comment on the Opposition’s.

Mr SPEAKER: I think that is a perfectly fair point. I invite the honourable Leader of the Opposition to re-ask his question so there can be no confusion as to what it was.

Hon Phil Goff: Why is he imposing council-controlled organisations on Auckland City when every other city in this country is able to make that decision for itself?

Hon JOHN KEY: Because we believe that that is the right structure for Auckland. Council-controlled organisations have been in operation for quite come time and have widespread support, including from the Opposition.

Hon Phil Goff: Why is the Government repealing the requirement for Auckland City to get the consent of Aucklanders by referendum before any privatisation of the Ports of Auckland can take place?

Hon JOHN KEY: Let me make it clear that there is no privatisation as part of the reform of Auckland. It is nothing to do with that. If there are asset sales, then that is a matter for the Auckland Council, just like it would be for any other council. I have no doubt that, when those elections take place, members, as they seek election, will make it clear what their plans and proposals are in that regard.

Hon Phil Goff: Why is the Prime Minister ignoring the advice given to him by four Government departments, the Auckland mayors as a group, the Auckland chamber of commerce, and the vast majority of submissions to the select committee that the transport agency should be an in-house operation and not one that is passed across to a commercial council-controlled operation?

Hon JOHN KEY: Firstly, we reject that assertion. Secondly, I tell the member that I have seen that the most significant issue that Auckland faces is probably transport. There is a widespread willingness to see transport operating efficiently in Auckland, just as there is around the country. I might add that, when he was in Government, I did not see that member ripping up the equivalent of the transport agency, which is exactly what the council-controlled organisation is.

Hon Phil Goff: In overruling the objections of all of those bodies, is it still his intention to overrule the Auckland district plan that will prevent mining on Great Barrier Island, or will he listen to the overwhelming majority of people in the poll last night who said they did not want that?

Hon JOHN KEY: As the Government knows, we are going through a consultation process in relation—

Hon Darren Hughes: As the Government knows?

Hon JOHN KEY: As the Opposition knows, we are going through a consultation process when it comes to mining. In due course, we will be reflecting on that. All I can say is, whether mining on Great Barrier Island is a good idea is yet to be proven. I know that having the Mayor of Auckland sitting in Cabinet is not a good idea—unless we happened to be a Labour Government, in which case that person would be an addition in both IQ and quality compared with those members sitting over there.

Māori—Strategies Addressing Equitable Access to AlcoholConsumption Reduction

4. RAHUI KATENE (Māori Party—Te Tai Tonga) to the Minister of Justice: What strategies have been introduced to respond to evidence that over the past decade Māori drinking prevalence rates have now reached the same level as non-Māori, and yet Māori report higher unmet needs for reducing alcohol consumption?

Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice): The primary strategy that this Government has introduced is the whole-of-Government Drivers of Crime strategy. Reducing alcohol-related harm is one of the four priority areas of the Drivers of Crime strategy.

Rahui Katene: Does he agree with the Law Commission that a new Act, an Alcohol Harm Reduction Act, is required; and how will Māori solutions be included and community ownership sought in developing a new Act to address inequalities such as the fact that Māori women suffer more adverse effects as a result of other people’s drinking than any other subgroup by ethnicity and gender?

Hon SIMON POWER: Legislative change in the areas covered by the Law Commission’s report tabled today is likely. In the event that legislation in the area of alcohol is on its way to Parliament, then all New Zealanders, including those who have specific issues around harm-related matters, will have the opportunity to make submissions during the course of any legislative changes, if that is the wish of Parliament.

Whānau Ora, Minister—Statements

5. Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) to the Minister responsible for Whānau Ora: Does she stand by all her recent statements?

Hon TARIANA TURIA (Minister responsible for Whānau Ora): I am hoping I can, but it will really depend on what statement the member is referring to.

Hon Annette King: On what evidence did she base her answer last week that there had been 30 years of failed provision from existing service provision, and that is why Whānau Ora was needed?

Hon TARIANA TURIA: The statistical data that is collected, which is floated in front of us on a daily basis, as to how badly Māori families in particular are doing.

Hon Annette King: Has she read the Social Report 2009 from the Ministry of Social Development, which shows that there has been substantial improvement for Māori in many measurable indicators, particularly over the last 10 years, during a time when she was in fact a Minister in a Labour-led Government; and why does she call those gains, made for Māori and provided by mainstream and Māori providers, failures?

Hon TARIANA TURIA: I think it is important to acknowledge what has worked well, but we think we can do considerably better. Hence the new programme.

Hon Annette King: Does she stand by her statements that the approach this Government is taking to address the well-being of whānau is a different approach from that taken in the past; that the Government has committed itself to work with whānau, hapū, and iwi; and that the Government’s policy aims to drive Māori development through a new partnership approach between whānau, hapū, and iwi; and is she aware that all those statements were made when she was in a Labour-led Government; if so, what changes has this Government made to that approach?

Hon TARIANA TURIA: It is one thing to make statements; it is another thing to implement them.

Hon Annette King: Does she stand by her statement that training has already begun for the 20 providers for Whānau Ora; if so, who are the providers, how were they chosen, and why have they not been announced yet?

Hon TARIANA TURIA: What I did say was that some providers had begun to provide training to their staff. They have done that from their own budgets and in their own time.

Aquaculture Reform—Progress

6. SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki - King Country) to the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture: What announcements has he made today regarding aquaculture reforms?

Hon PHIL HEATLEY (Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture): Today I announced that the Government has agreed to a range of measures to support the aquaculture industry’s goal of generating annual sales of $1 billion by 2025. We want to help boost the sector’s potential to generate sustainable economic growth for New Zealand while still protecting the environment and the interests of other coastal users. This is actually about creating jobs and getting more people into work, particularly in the regions, where they really do need those jobs.

Shane Ardern: Why are these aquaculture reforms necessary?

Hon PHIL HEATLEY: No new aquaculture space has been created under the current law. Any new aquaculture space that has come into stream in the last few years has come under the old law. We want to free up the regulatory bottlenecks that have kept aquaculture planning in limbo. The industry has been stifled by inflexible rules, which have been stopping companies and small businesses from investing. If we want jobs and growth in the regions, these are the types of initiatives we need.

Debt, External—Vulnerability of New Zealand

7. Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by his statement that our total external debt “is clearly New Zealand’s single biggest vulnerability”?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): Yes, and I will explain that just for the benefit of the member, who seems to want to make a significant problem worse. Last year the OECD said that New Zealand had “one of the OECD’s highest levels of foreign debt, the result of sustained and sometimes large current account deficits that reflect a long period of unbalanced growth”. By the time this Government was elected, simply servicing that external debt was costing over $13 billion, which was more than $6,000 per household, per year. That is one reason why New Zealand was placed on negative credit watch following the global crisis. We just escaped a downgrade, a sharp lift in interest rates, and a deepening of the recession, because of the responsible approach taken in last year’s Budget.

Hon David Cunliffe: When will the Minister make it clear to New Zealanders that of the total external debt, by far the majority is private debt rather than Crown debt; therefore, why is it that his solution to that problem is to cut, cut, cut needed programmes from the Government Budget rather than to address the private external debt at its core?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: We have made it clear that a fair chunk of it is private debt. As it happens, over the next 4 or 5 years the growth in New Zealand’s external debt, which is currently $170 billion, will be largely driven by increases in Government borrowing, and it is forecast to reach $250 billion. That is why we want to manage Government expenditure. The member has a different view on that: he thinks that that is a low number, and therefore it does not matter if the Government runs up debt. We happen to disagree with him, and we are happy to debate the issue.

Amy Adams: What steps is the Government taking to reduce these debt problems?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Almost all of the Government’s policies will lead to New Zealand being less exposed to this vulnerability. These include limiting the growth of Government debt and getting the Government’s books back into surplus; being responsible with new spending; restructuring the taxation system to deal with the underlying imbalance in the economy by encouraging savings, investment, and enterprise rather than encouraging borrowing, consumption, and property speculation; and investing in worthwhile infrastructure. Next month’s Budget will report progress on all of these fronts.

Hon David Cunliffe: If those are the Minister’s priorities, does he agree with Exporter magazine that the Government has shown apathy on the exchange rate, has low marks for adding value, is at the bottom of the class for abolishing market development grants, and that its focus on “ ‘digging exports out of the ground and growing more sheep’ will not make us a wealthy nation”?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: No, I do not agree with that assessment. Last week I met with a large group of chief executives from our largest companies, and I have to say that their approach was much more constructive than that, as we worked through a programme of work to deal with the kinds of issues that the member has raised.

Amy Adams: What approaches to dealing with economic vulnerabilities has he witnessed in other countries?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: In the House the Opposition has often quoted the Australian Labor Government and its policies. The Opposition may be interested to know that yesterday Federal Treasurer Swann indicated that his Budget is committed to reducing the deficit and accumulated debt, operating within strict rules that limit new spending growth to 2 percent, delivering tax cuts, and continuing to fund worthwhile infrastructure. I must say that that all sounds very familiar. Our own Budget may well be fairly similar to that of the Australian Labor Government, and both those Budgets will be quite different from the approach outlined by the New Zealand Labour Party.

Mr SPEAKER: Before I call the next supplementary question, I ask both front benches, please, to be a little more reasonable with their interjections. I found it hard to hear the Minister during that answer.

Hon David Cunliffe: Can the Minister confirm that in suspending contributions to the New Zealand Superannuation Fund, giving tax breaks to polluters to continue polluting, cutting investment in research and development, and borrowing to give tax cuts to his rich mates, it is his Government that is mortgaging New Zealand’s future?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I am sure the member will be happy to outline in detail his plans to increase more rapidly the burden of debt that—

Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is a well-established convention in the House that a Minister, particularly a Minister of Finance just before a Budget, cannot cover for his own lack of policy by inviting the Opposition to write it for him.

Mr SPEAKER: We will not have a point of order like that.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: [Interruption] I think the member is brighter than his tie. The answer to that question is no.

Ambulance Services—Improvements to Front-line Emergency Services

8. Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua) to the Minister of Health: What reports has he received of improvements to front-line emergency ambulance services?

Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health): Members may recall that the Government invested an extra $48 million over 4 years for ambulance services, including 100 extra paramedics. I am pleased to advise today that almost half of those 100 paramedics have started work, and the rest are on track to be recruited in this quarter. This is already making a significant impact on ambulance services, especially on the ability to have double-crewing for call-outs in some areas. For example, with the additional paramedics, Wairarapa District Health Board is now able to operate the Greytown station 24/7, and staff are able to take well-earned leave.

Dr Paul Hutchison: What other improvements to front-line ambulance services can the Minister report?

Hon TONY RYALL: Yesterday my colleague Nathan Guy and I attended a celebration of care closer to home in Kapiti. On the Kapiti coast, Wellington Free Ambulance has halved the number of hospital admissions on its call-outs. Its paramedics assess patients at home first, and treat them on the spot if that is appropriate. Wellington Free Ambulance, through its 24/7, treat-at-home, urgent community care pilot, funded by this Government, has seen 1,161 Kapiti patients, and admitted only 399 of them to hospital. That is a drop from 75 percent hospital admissions to just 34 percent. Over half of those patients are over 75 years old.

Hon Ruth Dyson: How many more elderly will need an ambulance, following his decision to strip more than 3,000 people in Southland and Otago of their home help?

Hon TONY RYALL: I have been assured by the district health boards that no one will be left unsafe in their homes, but I have also been advised by the Otago District Health Board and the Southland District Health Board that during the time of the previous Government in the last 3 years, hundreds of people in that area actually had their home care stopped. There will be more information on this matter in question time later this week.

Hon Ruth Dyson: How many more people in Palmerston North and Horowhenua will need an ambulance, following his decision to allow the 24-hour-a-day district nursing services to be scrapped?

Hon TONY RYALL: The changes that are being considered at MidCentral District Health Board have nothing to do with the level of funding that the Government has given them. The Government has, in fact, increased funding for MidCentral District Health Board by $26 million in the last year, and there will be more money next year. I assure the member that care will be available for those people in Palmerston North.

Methyl Bromide Gas—Use in New Zealand

9. SUE KEDGLEY (Green) to the Minister for the Environment: Is he concerned that while the European Parliament has banned the use of methyl bromide, a highly toxic and ozone-depleting gas, New Zealand’s use has increased by 500 percent since 2000, despite our commitment under the Montreal Protocol to reduce our use of the gas?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment): Methyl bromide is a cause of some concern, but, as is so often the case with the member from the Greens, she is incorrect and misleading in her claims. New Zealand is meeting its phase-out obligations under the Montreal Protocol, which exempts quarantine use. Other uses, principally sterilising strawberry beds, have dropped from 150 tonnes a year in 1990 to 0 tonnes in 2009. The member’s numbers are also double the official reported figures. Methyl bromide is used for fumigation purposes for exports of logs and timber products, due to the quarantine requirements of Australia, China, and India. Alternative approaches are being trialled. The Environmental Risk Management Authority is currently reassessing the use of methyl bromide, there is an opportunity for public input, and I have full confidence in that process.

Sue Kedgley: Does the Minister accept our obligation under the Montreal Protocol to refrain from the use of methyl bromide, to use non - ozone-depleting technologies wherever possible, and, where we do use methyl bromide, to minimise our emissions of methyl bromide through containment and recovery?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The member seems to overlook the fact that the Montreal Protocol specifically excludes the area of quarantine activity. Furthermore, the Government and the industry—for instance, at Port Nelson—are trialling the recapture of methyl bromide, and alternatives are being used and trialled. However, the quarantine requirements of countries such as China, India, and Australia, to which New Zealand has substantially increased its log and timber exports, currently require the use of methyl bromide.

Sue Kedgley: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was very straightforward: does he accept our obligations under the Montreal Protocol—and I read them out—yes or no? The Minister did not answer the question. Does he accept the obligations under the Montreal Protocol?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: As I explained in my answer, the member’s assertion is incorrect, because the—

Mr SPEAKER: I have heard enough already. The member made no assertion—that was what was actually quite good about her question. She simply asked whether the Minister accepts New Zealand’s responsibilities under the Montreal Protocol. There is no assertion in that, whatsoever. I think that although the Minister’s explanation was certainly not in any way political or critical, it would have been helpful had he answered the question before giving that further explanation. I ask the Minister to answer the question.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The Government is committed to meeting New Zealand’s obligations under the Montreal Protocol, but the member in her primary question does not seem to realise that the principal area of increased use of methyl bromide is for quarantine purposes, which are not covered by the requirement under the Montreal Protocol to reduce its use.

Sue Kedgley: Given that the Government has committed to minimising our emissions through containment and recovery—which the Minister just confirmed in this House—why is the Government allowing 300 tonnes of the gas to be released directly into the atmosphere each year, when perfectly effective alternatives are available that do not destroy the ozone layer or put workers at risk, such as heat treatment for imported food and cars, and recapture technologies?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: As I pointed out to the member, recapture technologies for methyl bromide are being trialled at my own port in Nelson. But if the use of methyl bromide was suddenly stopped, there would be a huge problem for New Zealand in terms of its exports of logs and timber products to key markets like Australia, China, and India, which require its use. I invite the member, if she has a concern about safety, to make submissions in the very credible, open, and transparent process that is provided by the Environmental Risk Management Authority in its review of methyl bromide.

Sue Kedgley: Is it acceptable that this highly toxic gas is being released directly into the atmosphere at ports all around New Zealand, where people work on a daily basis, and near office blocks, apartments, people’s homes, stadiums, and railway stations?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Responsibility for setting the conditions of use for methyl bromide lies, appropriately, with the Environmental Risk Management Authority. As I have said, the authority is taking the initiative to review those conditions of use to see whether they are adequate. I rely on the authority’s very high levels of technical expertise to make sure that those conditions of use are appropriate.

UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples—Impact on New Zealand Law

10. Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti) to the Minister of Māori Affairs: Does he agree with the Prime Minister that the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples “will have no impact on New Zealand law”?

Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES (Minister of Māori Affairs): Article 46 of the declaration ensures that the laws of the sovereign States that support the declaration remain intact. But as laws change with the changing culture of society, then, who knows, the declaration may be able to inform new laws. That would give a Labour Government a chance to change its mind and support the declaration.

Hon Parekura Horomia: Did the Minister just affirm the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, or did he put pen to paper and sign up to it, on behalf of the New Zealand Government?

Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES: The original vote taken was a vote. Now, people declare; they do not sign anything. There are two countries yet to declare.

Hon Parekura Horomia: Is it his intention to advocate changes to New Zealand law to facilitate movement towards the aspirations of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples?

Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES: I am quite happy that the processes that we have in place at this moment support those of the declaration and, more important, of the Treaty of Waitangi.

David Garrett: Does the Minister agree with a former New Zealand Permanent Representative to the United Nations, Rosemary Banks, that article 26 of the declaration “implies indigenous peoples have rights that others do not”; if he does not, why not?

Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES: No.

Hon Shane Jones: Kia ora, Mr Speaker. Does the Minister agree that the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples means that only members of iwi and hapū are indigenous New Zealanders; if that is the case, what does he think the status of Pākehā is?

Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES: The status of Pākehā is that of tangata Tiriti, through the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi.

Hon Shane Jones: Does he believe that New Zealanders of non-Māori descent can ever claim to be either native or indigenous to New Zealand?

Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES: They certainly can agree to be native, because we are all native to this place. But at the end of the day we are all New Zealanders working together.

Te Ururoa Flavell: Tēnā tātou katoa. What other countries have changed their position on the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples?

Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES: When I had finished making our declaration at the United Nations, I was immediately met by the permanent representatives of the United States and Canada, who said that we had put them on the spot. The following day they made speeches indicating that they too will be following suit.

Rest and Meal Breaks—Proposed Legislative Changes

11. DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) to the Minister of Labour: Why is the Government amending legislation relating to rest and meal breaks?

Hon KATE WILKINSON (Minister of Labour): The Government is concerned that the current regime is too inflexible. It is important for all workers to have reasonable rest and meal breaks, but there needs to be sufficient flexibility in the legislation so that it works for all industries, all employers, and all employees. We have a bill for consideration tonight that will do just that.

David Bennett: What feedback has the Minister received on the bill?

Hon KATE WILKINSON: I have received numerous emails and letters from New Zealanders who are frustrated with the practical implications of the current law, including one communication from a teacher, who said: “The current legislation has made things worse for schools, not better. I believe that teachers need more flexibility in their break times, and things were working well beforehand. Our duty times have doubled from 45 minutes a week to 90 a week, as our management team insists this has to happen to cater for the law.”

Hon Trevor Mallard: Does she agree with the statement that the current legislation merely codifies what went before; if so, can she remember who made that statement?

Hon KATE WILKINSON: Yes. That was an aspirational statement made by me during the reading of the bill passed by the previous Government. As the member will well realise and remember, we had raised concerns that the major issue was not in relation to the provision of the breaks but to the prescriptive nature of the timing of those breaks. Our fears have been realised, and we are fixing it.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Can she remember using the air traffic controllers as the major reason for the urgency behind this bill, and is she aware that when the parties sat down they sorted it out very easily?

Hon KATE WILKINSON: Certainly the air traffic issue was a catalyst for considering the flawed legislation, but the Civil Aviation Authority was only one of several groups that approached me about this flawed legislation. We listened to them, and we are fixing it.

Accident Compensation—Sensitive Claims Clinical Pathway Review

12. LYNNE PILLAY (Labour) to the Minister for ACC: Why does there need to be a review of ACC’s sensitive claims clinical pathway to determine whether or not survivors of sexual abuse are receiving timely decision making and services?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for ACC): Changes were made by the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) to the way that it manages sensitive claims, in response to new Massey University guidelines launched by the Hon Steve Maharey in 2008. I have been extremely reluctant to interfere in clinical practice issues in such a sensitive area, but in response to concerns from counsellors and psychotherapists I agreed to establish an independent clinical review.

Lynne Pillay: Why does the Minister continue to say that he is focused on delivering to victims of sexual abuse, when clinicians, victims, and Massey University have all repeatedly told him that the guidelines he introduced fail to deliver timely services? For example, it was reported today that a 15-year-old who was raped is still waiting, after 4 months.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Professional groups, like the Royal New Zealand College of General Practitioners, have issued a statement strongly in support of ACC’s pathway for dealing with sensitive claims. If the member has a particular case about which she has concerns, I invite her to refer it to Dr Barbara Disley, a very respected former mental health commissioner, who is to lead the review. I have to say I am disappointed that the member was not interested in even being consulted on the personnel or terms of reference of the review.

Dr Jackie Blue: What trend has there been in ACC’s acceptance rate of sensitive claims since 2000, and can the Minister confirm that 2,400 claims were rejected in 2008 by the previous Government?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The member makes a very good point. Between 2000 and 2008 the rate of rejection of sensitive claims grew from just 5 percent to 41 percent. [Interruption] The member Annette King is shouting out about caring. Where was she? What did she or Lynne Pillay do when 2,400 sensitive claims were rejected in 2008? They were silent, and that shows that this is simply about Opposition politics, rather than genuinely caring for people who have been sexually—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This question relates to matters that are extremely sensitive, yet I think the Minister is doing his best to answer. It does not help when a Labour front-bencher is calling across the House: “You are a liar.” I think the Hon Ruth Dyson should be asked to apologise for making those comments.

Mr SPEAKER: Because I did not hear them, I have to ask the honourable member whether she made that interjection. If she did, I would ask her to withdraw and apologise.

Hon Ruth Dyson: Yes, I did, and I withdraw and apologise.

Mr SPEAKER: I realise that this is an issue on which people have very strong feelings, and that is why I do not insist on silence. This is a place of passionate debate. I felt the Minister was handling the level of interjection pretty competently, and that was why I did not interfere, but that kind of interjection is unacceptable.

Lynne Pillay: Was the decision to deny counselling to sexual abuse victims part of the directive from the Deputy Prime Minister, Bill English, to cut low-value spending, and how long will it be before the Minister realises he cannot continue to cut services to people without disastrous consequences?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I have made it abundantly plain to ACC that I have no expectations of any cost savings in respect of sensitive claims. I have had no involvement in the changes that have been made in this area, and members opposite know that. The changes are based on Massey University’s clinical guidelines, which were launched by the Hon Steve Maharey in 2008. The claims from the member are simply incorrect.

Lynne Pillay: Why would ACC host another costly workshop, advertised to be held on 7 May, to explore gaps in services that have arisen because of the guidelines; and if the Minister’s own department knows there are gaps in services being provided to sexual abuse victims, why does not the Minister?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: This Government is determined to ensure that people entitled to receive accident compensation cover in this highly sensitive area of sexual abuse or assault receive the care they need. That is why on Monday I announced an independent clinical review. I think it speaks volumes about the member that when I offered to consult her both about the membership and the terms of reference of the review, she said she was not interested. She just wants to play politics in this sensitive area.

Lynne Pillay: I seek leave to table an email advertisement from the Accident Compensation Corporation about its workshop identifying gaps in services for the victims of serious assault.

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

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

Hon Phil Goff: How does the Minister account for the fact that in October 2008, 300 victims of sexual abuse had been approved for counselling, and by February this year that figure had dropped to six?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The member’s numbers are quite incorrect. They are not true. I would ask that member, if he wants to make politics out of something as tragic and difficult as sexual abuse and neglect—

Hon Phil Goff: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: A point of order has been called.

Hon Phil Goff: The Minister answering the question is not answering the question. He embarked on a diatribe about my making politics of the issue. I asked a straight, factual question; he should address it.

Mr SPEAKER: The Minister did answer the question—in fact, quite specifically—the minute he said the member’s figures were wrong. The Minister should not have gone on from that point, because it is correct that the question was not loaded with political comment. But the Minister’s answer was that he considered that the member’s figures were wrong.

Questions to Members

Marine Reserves Bill—Date of Last Consideration

1. GARETH HUGHES (Green) to the Chairperson of the Local Government and Environment Committee: When did the committee last consider the Marine Reserves Bill?

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (Chairperson of the Local Government and Environment Committee): The committee last considered the bill on 4 June 2009.

Gareth Hughes: When will the committee next consider the Marine Reserves Bill?

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: The member will be aware that further information on the committee’s consideration of this item of business remains confidential until the committee makes its final report to the House.

Metiria Turei: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That was an answer to some other question, but it was certainly not an answer to this one. The question was “When will the committee next consider”. What the member has attempted to answer is not a question about confidential information. I think that a better answer could be sought.

Mr SPEAKER: The member has raised an interesting point. Although we have to be careful with questions to chairs of committees, I think the member could indicate whether the committee is yet to decide when it might next have this bill in front of it. This matter is the subject of a committee decision. Therefore, when the member says that the matter is confidential to the committee, we need to respect that, but it may be possible to indicate that the committee is yet to make a decision on it, or whether the committee has made a decision. I leave it in the member’s hands.

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: Thank you, Mr Speaker, for your guidance. The committee will next discuss the report when it chooses to.

Marine Reserves Bill—Report-back Date

2. GARETH HUGHES (Green) to the Chairperson of the Local Government and Environment Committee: When will the committee report on the Marine Reserves Bill?

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (Chairperson of the Local Government and Environment Committee): The current reporting date for the Marine Reserves Bill is 30 December 2010.

Gareth Hughes: Will the committee call for further submissions, given the 7-year delay since the last submissions?

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: At the risk of sounding like a parrot, I say the member will be aware that further information on the committee’s consideration of this item of business remains confidential until the committee makes its final report to the House.

Metiria Turei: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I understand the need to have a defensive answer, but that was not an answer; it did not address the issue. A more reasonable answer could—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: I apologise to the member, but I say to members that a point of order is being heard.

Metiria Turei: An answer that does address the question could be made. That answer certainly was not one that did so.

Mr SPEAKER: The area of what is confidential to the committee is a very difficult area. If the committee has made a decision with regard to hearing further submissions, it may well be that that matter is confidential to the committee. But what would not breach confidentiality, in my view, would be to give an indication of whether further submissions have been called for. Because the chair of the committee has a role in calling for submissions, I think it is reasonable that the chair of the committee answers questions in respect of calling for submissions. I do not want to be unduly unfair on the member, because he is quite right that decisions of the committee are confidential. But chairs have a particular role with regard to calling for submissions, so it may be possible to indicate whether the intention is to call for further submissions.

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: Thank you again, Mr Speaker, for your guidance in answering this particular question. The committee will determine whether it will call for future submissions at such time as it gives that matter consideration.

Offices of Parliament

Address to Governor-General

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): I move, That a respectful Address be presented to His Excellency the Governor-General commending to His Excellency the appropriations and information for the 2010/11 financial year in respect of Vote Audit, Vote Ombudsmen and Vote Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment.

Officers of Parliament are independent from the executive. It is therefore appropriate that their budget-setting process is different from that of the Government. The Officers of Parliament Committee considers Budget requests from the three Officers of Parliament. It makes recommendations to the House. The House then sends an Address to the Governor-General requesting that the estimates be included in the main Appropriation Bill for the coming financial year.

Some features of the estimates worth noting here include a capital injection of half a million dollars to enable the Office of the Controller and Auditor-General to manage increased pressure on its capital requirements, an increase of $320,000 in core funding for the Office of the Ombudsmen for the next 2 years to deal with a rising backlog of cases—this reflects the busy work of the Opposition in many ways, but the funding will be reviewed as part of the consideration of the 2012 Budget—a further increase of $230,000 for the Office of the Ombudsman for the next 3 years to carry out monitoring under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, and a reduction of $150,000 of funding per year for the audit function of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment. This occurs because the monitoring function that the commissioner performs in relation to the Electricity Commission is likely to be removed with the passage of the Electricity Industry Bill that is now before the House. These appropriations are the subject of the Address to the Governor-General. I look forward to the House supporting them, as they obviously support the various Officers of Parliament through this process.

Hon STEVE CHADWICK (Labour): I rise to speak on the draft budgets for Officers of Parliament. The Officers of Parliament Committee is a very important committee of Parliament, as the Leader of the House pointed out. All parties act as the executive on this committee, and undertake the scrutiny of some very important votes: Vote Audit, Vote Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, and Vote Ombudsmen. I do not think many people know about the Officers of Parliament Committee in terms of parliamentary function, but I have found it a very important committee for the enactment of those different votes.

As the Leader of the House said, the Officers of Parliament Committee looked at Vote Audit. The Office of the Controller and Auditor-General has asked for another $500,000, which would still be subject to approval. The increase in this vote was because the office is revenue-dependent. Its costs are fully funded back, and have been since 2007. It has incurred some increased additional costs because it audited long-term council community plans—a very important role, which it has finished.

Another reason the office asked for the extra $500,000 is that there is pressure on its capital requirements. It has an extra 90 staff because of the audit functions that we have put on this vote. Over 6 years, there has been quite an increase in work. It also flagged to us that it is looking for alternative premises, which is something that, in the future, we will examine in terms of this vote. The department is managing—well, the Office of the Controller and Auditor-General is not really a department—on some quite outdated systems. There is an old document management system that has been going for 8 years, and a 10-year-old management system, which also needs to be upgraded. So we listened to all of that information, which was put to us very convincingly. We were aware of the very financially constrained times last year, and we are aware of some pressures going forward.

The Office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment is a very small office with a small number of staff, and it is a vote of only $2.7 million. Staff assured us that they are going through the same line-by-line, value-for-money approach that we thought was very important. They found lots of efficiencies as they carry out the functions they mentioned. They have outsourced their library services. They have really felt the squeeze, but they have gone to an open-plan system in their offices, which was impressive.

The Office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment has a very important role in terms of measuring the health of our environment and reporting back to Parliament. It also had to report on the new Environmental Protection Authority, which, I think, the Officers of Parliament Committee will monitor in the future. It has looked at a strategic approach to biofuel production. It has done a lot of work, and we commend it for its work. It has a small number of staff, but it manages to meet those requirements.

The last vote that we looked at was Vote Ombudsmen. The Office of the Ombudsmen is an interesting office that is under considerable pressure. It talked about 1,928 complaints that have not yet been assigned. That is a growing sign of pressure on the Office of the Ombudsmen. There has been a 22 percent increase in demand for its services, and the office feels it needs to be responding to this increase.

I think it was very interesting that Sir Guy Powles, who recommended setting up the Office of the Ombudsmen, said: “The Ombudsman is Parliament’s man, put there for the protection of the individual, and if you protect the individual you protect society.” The Office of the Ombudsmen takes that role very seriously. It was concerned about its unassigned cases, and it asked for one more investigating officer.

It was also very interesting for the committee to know that the Office of the Ombudsmen is now reporting on the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which was an additional compliance cost it had to meet. We took that into account in the draft budget that we put before the Minister of Finance in the House today. I am proud the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities was signed by the previous Labour Government in 2008.

Members of the Officers of Parliament Committee worked in a consensual way, under your leadership, Mr Speaker, as the chair of the committee. It is an enjoyable committee. We take the role very seriously. I believe that all of us agree that the budget pressures on all these votes need to be taken seriously, and I believe we responded seriously to their requests.

Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green): I rise to address this motion, which the Green Party is, of course, prepared to support. Generally, we believe that these three agencies, the Audit Office, the Office of the Ombudsmen, and the Office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, all do excellent work. They have a special role to play as Offices of Parliament. They are independent of the executive branch of government, and they are, in fact, offices of this legislature, which is why we in the Officers of Parliament Committee get to determine their budget, as opposed to the Minister of Finance doing so. That is as it should be.

When we look at the three budgets—not that there is any inherent reason to compare them—it is noteworthy to see that the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment receives a small budget. It is $2.6 million in the forthcoming year, compared with $8.6 million for the Office of the Ombudsmen, and, in fact, compared with $61.7 million for the Audit Office. The Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment not only has a small budget but has a small staff: only 15 full-time people. So one has to ask, with the greatest of respect for the individual competence of Dr Jan Wright and her colleagues, just how much can be undertaken to fulfil that office’s role, important though it is.

When I look at the four statutory functions of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, I find two in particular attend to our interests: the first and third functions. The first function is to determine whether the current environmental laws are working adequately, and the third one is to advise the Parliament and the Government on environmental issues. Well, of course, that third remit produces different effects. It is one thing to advise the Parliament, but it is another thing to advise the Government. The Parliament debates matters, and the Government decides on them. So the advice, which may be the same, that goes to both Parliament and the Government may end up having a different outcome. In fact, one could legitimately ask how much notice is taken—at least by the Government—of the advice of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment. We could look at climate change to see an example of that.

In the annual report of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment dated 30 June 2009, the parliamentary commissioner acknowledges that “climate change is the environmental challenge that dwarfs all others.” Yet the parliamentary commissioner made eight recommendations in her submission to the Finance and Expenditure Committee in October last year. They were very important recommendations to the Government pertaining to the proposed legislation. I take this opportunity to read them out. The first is that the allocation of free carbon credits should be granted only if there is a genuine reason for it, and that the reasons should be stated publicly for each particular activity. The second is that New Zealand should not align itself with Australia’s proposed scheme—and that issue is of considerable pertinence to us today. The third is that a cap on the number of carbon credits freely allocated is vital in order to create the right incentives and reduce fiscal risk for the Government and policy uncertainty for business. The fourth is that the phase-out of free carbon credits is far too slow. The fifth is that the allocation to the agriculture sector should be reviewed. The sixth is that transparency should be increased, particularly regarding allocations. The seventh is that the allocation provided to protect competitiveness should be reassessed more regularly than 5-yearly. The eighth and final one is that the provisions that are meant to reduce the negative impact of the emissions trading scheme on the tree weed problem should be strengthened.

Those eight different recommendations were made to the Government in accordance with the statutory functions of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment. Which of those eight were adopted by the Government? I stand to be corrected, but my understanding would be none. So one could, perhaps, conclude that there might be some merit in having a budgetary line item—not necessarily tucked into the budget for the Office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, because one would need it to be independent of that office—to determine how much general advice from the parliamentary commissioner to the Government has, in fact, been adopted.

I will draw one more issue to the attention of this House. True to the principles of the Office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, members will find in its annual report that the office does, in fact, produce its own carbon footprint for analysis. It emitted 15.8 tonnes of carbon emissions over the last year, which was a slight decrease on the amount in the year before that. That, I think, also posits a question for the attention of this House: should it be the case that Government departments—the Office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment not being a Government department—also produce their carbon footprint for scrutiny and analysis by the House or by the public? We remember that the previous Government had a scheme, which I think was called Govt³, in which the three lines of sustainability—environmental, social, and economic—were to be scrutinised, Government department by department. The present Government saw fit to abolish that scheme in March of last year. My question is, why? Would it not have been in order for Government departments to continue to provide that information? Certainly the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment is setting out its own model in that area.

Finally, I note, in the context of the good work that the Office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment does, its latest report to the OECD, which was only about a week or so ago. I noticed on page 39 of that report, entitled How clean is New Zealand? Measuring and reporting on the health of our environment, a recommendation that the Government should at least advance national environmental reporting legislation. The Green Party strongly supports that recommendation from the parliamentary commissioner. I personally shall be exploring, I hope in dialogue with the Government, ways in which the idea of sustainability indicators can be produced and integrated into Government legislation.

With those words, I endorse the motion and pay tribute to the Office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment and to the other two independent bodies for the work that they do. Thank you.

RAHUI KATENE (Māori Party—Te Tai Tonga): I take the opportunity of this Government motion to commend the work that the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment is doing. The Māori Party places enormous significance on our roles to protect natural values, to achieve sustainable development, and to keep our environment healthy, safe, and intact for everyone and for future generations. We start, of course, from the perspectives of whānau, hapū, and iwi as tangata tiaki to take whatever measures are necessary to ensure the well-being and future good health of the environment. This is the goal that all of us take very seriously, so we have been very impressed by the work of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment in trying to set in place roles and responsibilities for regular reporting on the state of the environment to different public entities. The report she issued last week encouraged us to consider the value of a national environmental reporting Act. The Māori Party is interested in this idea as a mechanism to report in a systematic way on the state of the environment. In fact, it was a bit of a shock to learn from Dr Wright’s report that we are the only country in the OECD that does not have a formalised process for regular national reporting on the environment.

Hon Steve Chadwick: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I want to raise an important issue. This is the draft Budget debate on these Offices of Parliament; it is not about the value of these votes. I have not heard anything about the Budget.

Mr SPEAKER: The member makes a very good point. I have not wished to intervene with members, because one could argue that statements of intent and that kind of thing do relate to Budgetary documentation, and, therefore, one could argue that the work programme of these offices is relevant to that extent.

I must tell the House that I have a growing concern that members are coming to this House with a typed-out speech and reading the speech to the House. This is a House of Representatives where members debate issues. The question we are debating at the moment is that a respectful Address be presented to His Excellency the Governor-General commending to His Excellency the appropriations and information for the 2010-11 financial year in respect of those votes. I expect to hear some debate around that motion—that is what this House is debating. I am concerned that too often we are hearing speeches prepared by party research units read out to the House that form no part of any recognisable debate whatsoever.

I do not want to be unfair to any member, so I say to the honourable member Rahui Katene that I am not being critical of her. I just want to alert the House to the fact that this is something I will be discussing further with leaders in the House. I am very concerned that we are seeing this place as no longer a place of debate but a place where, too often, prepared speeches are read to the House. This is a House of Representatives. The freedom of speech in this place was hard fought for over many years, and we should not throw it away lightly. I apologise, but the member should be mindful of the motion we are actually debating.

RAHUI KATENE: Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I take your point. This report is money well spent by the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment. We hope this House will be taking up the suggestions she has made in this report, because it will show that the money has been well spent if we listen to them.

We want to bring attention to the fact that the commissioner’s work programme has increased over the last little while. We note that on the basis of this increased demand, the report recommended that the commissioner’s annual appropriation be reduced by only $150,000 of the recommended $312,000 annual provision for the Electricity Commission audit function. Although it may appear to be a bit of a Clayton’s provision, it provides ongoing support to endorse the work of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment. We need to make it clear to the House that what this office is doing is very important and that we see the importance of what it is doing. We see that it is very important that we bring this into the House to look not only at hard economics but also at what those economics are doing to our environment. We have a longstanding interest in measuring indicators and the economy in a way that encourages everyone to take responsibility for the good health of the environment. For that reason, we hope this House takes seriously the work of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment. Thank you.

Motion agreed to, and Address agreed to.

Bills

Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Bill

In Committee

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): I seek leave for all the provisions of the bill to be taken as one question.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is anyone opposed to that course of action? There appears to be no one. Leave is granted.

Preamble, clauses 1 and 2, Parts 1 and 2, and schedules 1 to 6

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): I am pleased to be here today in this historic debate on the Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Bill, and I commend and support the Minister regarding the way that he wants to get through this bill. I thought it was nigh on time, in the Committee stage, to mention that I lay claim to supporting and ensuring that this bill got here today in this form. I recognise Michael Cullen and a whole lot of other people who aided in the bill getting here, and I commend the Minister.

Quite clearly, in Part 1 the bill gives effect to the settlement of the raupatu claims under the 2009 deed. I think that the Hon Tau Henare spoke as well as I have ever heard him speak the other day, in the sense of describing where things have got to. Just in case I forget to do so later, I will now mention the Māori Affairs Committee, given that we put it all together. The initial settlement was signed between Waikato-Tainui and Michael Cullen in August 2008. The preliminary provisions are quite clear as to the overarching purpose of the settlement. It is a new way, and certainly all those parts, particularly in relation to establishing the Waikato River Clean-Up Trust, hang on the efforts that were put in by Raihā Māhuta to ensure that people got what was theirs by right: to clean the river, and to recognise that it could supply them in a swimming capacity and with tuna, eels, that grow more healthily. It is to be cleaned up. Recognition of the redress to Waikato-Tainui and of the Kīngitanga accord is something that I think people will look forward to as they go along.

I do not think I would be exaggerating if I said this settlement is an international test, and that is why I have always believed that Māoridom generally, in the sense of sorting things out, are way ahead of people in a whole lot of other countries. Certainly, this is brought to the test in the sense of the guiding principles of interpretation. There has been a fair bit of tension around the vision and the strategy, and those issues were brought forward by people with different world views. We had the sticky Pākehā view and the sticky local view—people who are used to holding power and designating the direction in relation to a settlement like this. The guiding principles are quite clear. It is an agreement that was expressed in the 2009 deed, and it has taken a lot of work and goodwill. I want to mention Tainui, not only as an iwi but also for being responsible for carrying on Kīngitanga for the nation, and for the effort that they have put in on all of the issues that they have been tested by. The interpretation of the authorities and of the Waikato River Authority will take into account all the wishes that the Tainui people have been keen on.

I think that this debate is a great sign from Parliament that all parties—all but one party, that dastardly deed maker over there—are drawing together to get through the Committee stage of this bill and come to a more than amicable agreement. The ACT Party is outrageous. It talks about hocus-pocus, and that is shameful—it really is. That sort of comment is unfit to be put out on something that is dear to people’s hearts. Everybody, including the Minister, has put effort into trying to bring us together. I have heard the leader of the ACT Party preach about nationhood, but what a lot of garbage that is when he starts to mention hocus-pocus. This is a dream. There are issues that are relevant to Tainui’s inherited rights that were tuku-ed by the tūpuna—by their ancestors. Tainui have a right, and it should be affirmed by this Parliament. They do not bother to go overseas and do hocus-pocus, like that leader, in order to get things done there. ACT does that. We have been involved with this development all the way through. The council and local authorities have had challenges, but I am very proud to have been part of this discussion.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato): In speaking to the Committee stage of the Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Bill, I want to reaffirm the positive sign that Labour will continue to support it, and to highlight a number of issues I think should be raised for consideration in the House and be put on the record. In the first instance, it was the Minister’s suggestion to have another look at this legislation. Let it be a salient lesson to everyone in the House how difficult it is for iwi to move forward on Treaty claims. When this settlement was reached with Labour on 22 August 2008, there were clear undertakings agreed to by Waikato-Tainui. Then we had the subsequent election and the consideration of the current Minister of whether this current Government could work through the provisions of that agreement.

When the independent review panel was instituted, with the Minister’s view in mind to look at co-management provisions and the streamlining of those, it took over 12 months to then revisit this settlement. That period of gestation was felt not only with a certain amount of goodwill on the part of Waikato-Tainui but also with a high level of difficulty in terms of trying to get traction and movement in finalising the terms of an agreement that Waikato-Tainui thought had been agreed to.

I raise that with the Minister in the chair, the Hon Christopher Finlayson, because in his attempt to look at a better way of addressing this it left a gestational period that in many respects was a difficult period for Waikato-Tainui. In recognising that, I make the point I raised earlier in the second reading that although the Minister’s attempt to look at streamlining the co-management provisions may have been achieved, I reinforce that it would not be Waikato-Tainui’s view that this settlement is a one-size-fits-all approach. Every iwi that has a river and that wants to go through settlement will come up with various mechanisms that are more workable for it.

I raise that with specific regard to the establishment of the Waikato River Authority. That provision was implemented largely as a result of recommendations of the independent panel, largely to condense the five statutory boards in the original settlement to one river authority. There is some rationale that may lead people to think that having everybody sitting around the same table is a good thing. Certainly Waikato-Tainui have said they will have a look at it and try it out, and that it is a matter that might need to be looked at in the review. I think that it is helpful for all iwi along the Waikato River to be able to sit around the table together and have a say in what is happening in the integrated management of the river. That is a positive move, and greater benefit could be derived from that when we look at the river system as a whole and at what happens on the land and in the waterways.

But I say that if we were to apply the same thinking to, for example, the Waipā River, where there are only a couple of iwi along that catchment, and if we were to transport the other iwi from the Waikato River Authority on to a Waipā River authority, I think there would be some difficulty. I urge the Minister to consider the application of his streamlined provisions in a very pragmatic way that looks at the reality of how river systems operate and where iwi actually reside along a river. It is understandable for Waikato; not so for Waipā. I raise that as an early issue that needs some further clarification in debate and thinking, not for the purposes of this settlement but for the purposes of what the Minister proposes to do, which is implement a streamlined approach for the co-management of waterways.

I also say in relation to the role of the Waikato River Authority that it was with some trepidation amongst Waikato-Tainui that it conceded having only one iwi member alongside the other four members of this authority. Many of those within the iwi felt that their voice and their view in relation to the priorities for managing the catchment from Karapiro down would be lost amongst the voices of other iwi who were in the upper catchment. Obviously there will be offsets between interests in the upper catchment vis-à-vis interests in the lower catchment. But it is worth a go. It is worth a shot. Probably the point to mention now is that if it is worth a shot, then we should have a look at it.

DAVID GARRETT (ACT): My understanding is that as we are debating the Committee stage as one question we can start at the beginning and work through. I have read this bill with great interest, including the preamble, which, in my opinion, illustrates a number of things. Firstly, it certainly educates those who do not know anything about the history of confiscation in the Waikato area. It also illustrates the dangers of omission and that the Māori people are willing to play a very, very long game.

I refer specifically to the part of the preamble that sets out a series of what I understand to be correct historical facts about the invasion—and that is what it was—of the Waikato in the early 1860s, allegedly on the grounds that Tainui were rebels, and I will come to that in a moment.

The preamble sets out a couple of major steps: the Crown military forces crossing the Mangatawhiri River in July 1863; the Crown occupying Ngāruawāhia in December 1863; and the confiscation of lands that followed in 1865. The preamble then goes on to say, correctly, that the Crown assumed control of, and exercised jurisdiction of, the river thereafter. But a bit further on—after a couple of recitals that do not say very much—it is very interesting to see these recitals: “(11) In the changing legal and political landscape of New Zealand, Waikato-Tainui have always maintained the importance of their unique relationship with the River, and the need to respect and restore its well-being: (12) Robert Te Kotahi Mahuta, who led the Kiingitanga search for justice from the 1970’s …”, etc.

So we have a little jump there from 1865, when there were widespread confiscations not just in Waikato but elsewhere, to the 1970s. That little section omits some crucial parts of history. It is a myth that used to be long promulgated that Māori grievances about confiscation were dreamt up in the recent century. That is certainly not so. My understanding from a study of history is that there were indeed complaints right from the beginning, and there was an assertion that land—and resources, but particularly land—had been wrongfully confiscated in the 1860s.

In the 1920s—omitted from the preamble here—no doubt at the urging of the Māori leaders of the day, an inquiry called the Sim Commission was set up. In 1928 the commission made a report that was quite startling. It stated: first, that Waikato-Tainui were not rebels; second, that their lands had been wrongfully confiscated from them; and, third, that there should be full and generous compensation forthwith. That report was issued in 1928.

For just under 20 years nothing happened, and, sadly, that has been the history of these disputes in this country. But in the mid-1940s—which, again, has been completely omitted from this potted history—the then matriarch of the Tainui tribe, Princess Te Pūea, when asked to agree to conscription of Māori into the armed forces refused unless the Raupatu confiscation grievance was addressed.

What happened in the 1940s culminated in the Waikato-Maniapoto Maori Claims Settlement Act 1946. It is very interesting that it mentions the Sim Commission of 20 years before in its recommendations. Its title reads as follows: “AN ACT to effect a Final Settlement of certain Claims relating to the Confiscation of Māori Lands in the Waikato District, and to provide for the Control and Administration of the Moneys granted as Compensation.”

The central provision of the Act is remarkable for its day in its clarity and lack of ambiguity. It states in section 3(1): “In settlement of all claims and demands which have heretofore been made, or which might hereafter be made upon His Majesty’s Government in New Zealand in respect of or arising out of the confiscation of lands in the Waikato district (being the areas of land shown … ), there shall be paid to the Tainui Maori Trust Board … the annual sum of five thousand pounds payable on the first day of April in each and every year: Provided that … there shall be paid … without further appropriation … (a) As soon as practicable … the sum of five thousand pounds … and … the annual sum of one thousand pounds,”.

In the early 1990s, when the last settlement was made with Tainui, some people raised the 1946 Act and it was decried for three reasons. Firstly, supposedly, these settlements were for derisory amounts. Well, I have done some research. In 1946, £5,000 was the value of a dairy farm, so today it is $2 million or $3 million. Let us be conservative and say that it is $2 million. So they were not derisory sums at all. The second reason was that, supposedly, it was negotiated with the wrong people. Well, I have read the account by Michael King of the final settlement between Princess Te Pūea and her lead advisers and Peter Fraser himself, the Prime Minister of the day.

I will paraphrase, not quote directly, the crucial chapter, which says something like this: when Te Pūea heard Fraser’s offer of £5,000 per year, she was so surprised that she urged X to his feet to accept before Fraser could change his mind.” I am confident that that is a very accurate paraphrase. Where did I get that? As I have said, it is from Michael King’s Te Puea: A Life. Who pointed me in that direction? I will tell members: the then lawyer for Tainui. I said that I wanted to get some balance on what was being argued at the time. She told me to go and get that book and read it. She said it is the best account there is. After I did so I thought that she could not have remembered what was in it, because it was quite clear that the deal was settled back then.

The third ground is that that supposedly derisory amount of $3 million a year was eroded by inflation. Certainly it was, but everyone was affected by inflation in the years from 1946 to 1990. If one retired in 1970 on a handsome pension of $65 per week, by 1975 one would be in major trouble because of 5 years of 18-percent inflation. Inflation affected everyone. It has become a bit of an old cliché. I sold my first house for $18,000. It was sold the other day for $360,000. I am not entitled to go and get back that money.

I come back to the bill. There is talk that in the 1990 settlement the river was reserved. Well, I read the 1946 Act word for word this morning, very carefully. There is absolutely no mention of the river, at all. I will not repeat that section, but it was a full and final settlement of grievances. The claim in this bill that we are talking about today is that back in the 1990s the river was reserved. It probably was, because it is a very long game. That is why this “DRIP”—the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples—has been sanguinely declared on this side of the House to be meaningless and of no effect; we do not have to worry about it. They said similar things in the 1980s.

The illustrious former Prime Minister and premier lawyer of the country, Sir Geoffrey Palmer, said at the time that section 9 of the State-Owned Enterprises Act was meaningless window dressing. Sir Roger Douglas was in Cabinet at the time. It was meaningless window dressing to keep the Māoris happy and it will not have any effect—that is what Sir Geoffrey Palmer said. Yet 25 years later we are still debating and still having court cases about what that means. That led directly to the principles of the Treaty, which was dreamed up across the road by the late Sir Robin Cooke and others on the bench. They said: “Well, Parliament must have meant something; it cannot have meant nothing. They have not said what the principles are so we will make some up.” That is effectively what they did.

Hon Parekura Horomia: Sit down, you blimmin dopey runt.

DAVID GARRETT: Oh yes, the member has got very noisy, but I say to Mr Horomia that he was very quiet early on. When I was recounting the early bit, the stuff that he did not disagree with and did not hurt him, he did not say a word. But now he is getting very noisy.

This bill is a very dangerous bill. National has said that it is a one-off, but we heard from the other side of the House immediately—and we heard it just a second ago—that it is a model for the future.

Hon TAU HENARE (National): I was going to wait until the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, Mr Finlayson, spoke on the Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Bill, but I though that I might as well get in while the going was good. A while back—a long time ago—my nana used to say to me that when I was perturbed at somebody saying something, I should just ignore that person. I will just stay on Part 1 of this bill. It sets out what this bill does in a way that nobody could misunderstand if he or she were to read it. It is about the restoration and protection of not only a body of water but also, I think, a people’s relationship with that body of water. It is not just about protection and restoration today; it is about it being restored and protected for the sake of generations to come.

Part 1 gives effect to a deed of settlement that has, in fact, been signed twice: not only by Michael Cullen but also by our side of the House. It essentially recognises the significance of both the role that the river plays for the iwi and the effect that the iwi has on the river. If I can be so bold as to do this, I will tell the people who stand up and say this legislation is not democratic that democracy is not about only the principle of one vote. Democracy is about participation. Democracy is about getting on and coming to the right decisions. It is not how we come to those decisions but actually getting there that is important. I think that what we see in front of us is all about participatory democracy rather than the one person, one vote, old-hat stuff that a lot of people pull out of their bag when they argue a point.

I will finish on this note. I am no scholar of history, but I believe—and I can be corrected if I am wrong—that the people in Tainui who refused to be conscripted were interred at Narrow Neck between 1914 and 1918, not in the 1940s as Mr Garrett has said. In the 1940s Tainui made up some of the very strong members of the Māori Battalion. It was from 1914 to 1918 that the Government conscripted members of the Tainui iwi, and it was because of raupatu that Te Pūea said they would not fight on behalf of the Crown. I say that just to correct something that Mr Garrett said. [Interruption] Oh, now he agrees with me—now he agrees with me. I think the great thing about this place is that one can go back, read one’s Hansard, and then come back into the Chamber to apologise. But that is OK.

One of the terrible parts of our history was the flu epidemic in 1918. My own great-grandmother died in the flu epidemic. It had an effect on the people who lived along the river. To my amazement even today, when I look back on it and at what Te Pūea did, I see that the epidemic’s effect on the people was devastating—it was absolutely devastating.

All that I will say is that this bill is a new era in co-management: a new era in trying to work together for a common purpose. This legislation is not about someone saying he or she has $200 million in a pocket; this is about the Crown, iwi, and local authorities trying to get together in order to clean up a waterway. It is a significant waterway, not only to folks in Auckland who get their water from it but also spiritually to the people who live along, and whakapapa to, the river.

Hon MITA RIRINUI (Labour): I thank the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations for seeking leave of the Committee for the provisions of the Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Bill to be heard as one question. I think it would be very difficult to focus on various parts of the bill without going beyond those parts and talking about other issues that are important to the whole process of treaty settlement.

I listened very carefully to Mr Garrett’s contribution. I think he is somewhat confused about what we are talking about this evening. The Waikato raupatu settlement was about land—it was about land. Mr Garrett also failed to acknowledge that, regardless of what happened prior to 1995, the Crown acknowledged that Waikato-Tainui had been dealt with unfairly and that there were good reasons to revisit and settle all land confiscation matters pertaining to Waikato-Tainui.

That was about compensation. This Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Bill is about reinstatement—the reinstatement of a number of things. It is about the reinstatement of the health of the Waikato River, which is important to all the people of Waikato, and it is also about the reinstatement of a longstanding relationship. Like David Garrett said, this is a longstanding issue. Members would have heard it said in this Chamber on many occasions: “Waikato taniwha rau, he piko, he taniwha, he piko, he taniwha.”

[Waikato of a hundred chiefs, at every bend of the river is a chief.]

In other words, for all the tribes of the Waikato River, wherever there is a bend there is also a rangatira of Waikato-Tainui. Through the actions of the Crown, the particular relationship that those iwi had with each other and with their ancestral awa was broken. The Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, the Minister in the chair, acknowledged the importance of that relationship during the second reading of this bill.

To return to what David Garrett said about time lapses from 1865 onward, and about things that were mentioned and were not mentioned, I am reminded of the statement made by Sir Robert Te Kotahi Māhuta in 1975, when he said: “Nō tātou te awa, nō te awa tātou. E kore e taea te wehe, te iwi o Waikato me te awa. He taonga tuku iho nā ngā tūpuna. E whakapono ana mātou—”

David Garrett: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I am genuinely sorry to interrupt, but the interpretation is not audible and I would very much like to hear it.

Hon MITA RIRINUI: I will accommodate that.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Thank you. Proceed.

Hon MITA RIRINUI: He was saying in terms of the relationship between Waikato-Tainui and the river that nō tātou te awa, we are of the river, and the river is of us. Waikato-Tainui can never be separated from their river—the Waikato River. It is a treasure handed down to them from their tūpuna, and they are faithful to their tūpuna, and they are faithful to their river. What they are saying is that their particular ownership, when defined, comes in the form of a responsibility: a responsibility to take care of the river, a responsibility to ensure the health of the river, a responsibility to ensure the sharing of the river, and a responsibility to ensure the legacy that is passed on to future generations is a sound legacy, a legacy that future generations will be proud to receive and take responsibility for. So that is what I mean when I talk about this particular bill being about reinstatement. It is different from the approach of the Waikato raupatu settlement, which David Garrett referred to.

I also found interesting the comments made by my colleague Nanaia Mahuta on the history of Waikato-Tainui, and on the contributions that many people have made over time, and also the sentiments she expressed not only during her second reading speech but also during the Committee stage of this bill about that particular relationship. She mentioned that when the iwi of Tainui resisted the actions of the Crown in order to protect their estates, they were branded as rebels, which was the sort of stigmatisation that no iwi could be proud of. That being the case, they are seeking more than just reinstatement of the health of the river; they are also seeking the reinstatement of their integrity, and, in this case, the Crown apology will be very, very important, if it is worded properly.

My people of Tauranga Moana joined Waikato-Tainui when they took up arms and resisted the actions of the Crown, and they were also branded, or stigmatised, as rebels. The Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations will have the opportunity to meet Tauranga Moana iwi to talk about such issues, about the relationships that we have with our waterways, with our moana, with our awa, with our maunga—with our lands—and how important it is for that relationship to be reinstated. I am sure this particular bill will provide the Minister with considerable insight into how to deal with those matters. He will find that, as with Waikato-Tainui, he will be dealing with a people of immense integrity; a people who want to deal with the issues of the past, put them behind them, and move on. They want to share their development and their triumphs with the people of all of Tauranga, regardless of who they are and where they came from originally.

I take this opportunity to take a call to emphasise the importance of reinstating a relationship, a relationship which can be defined, in the case of Waikato-Tainui, in many, many different ways. I look forward to the Minister’s response to the speeches made today, and I hope he will provide us with some insight into how he will deal with similar matters in the future.

DAVID CLENDON (Green): I will take just a short call on behalf of the Greens, primarily to simply affirm our continued support for the Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Bill. We believe that the bill is a step towards both restoring the mana of the affected iwi and hapū and acknowledging what was taken away from them, and going some way towards restoring what was taken away. It might also lead to some very positive environmental and social outcomes, which will be very positive—and far from incidental—but additional benefits from this sort of settlement bill.

I preface my comments by echoing my colleague who spoke when this bill was last debated in the Chamber in regretting the recent loss of Lady Māhuta, who did an extraordinary amount of work for her iwi and, indeed, for the entire country, specifically in advancing causes like the restoration of the management of the Waikato to its rightful owners.

As a default position we support these settlement bills. It is timely to recall that the delay in bringing them to fruition has been a characteristic of the process over many years, and we have seen too many generations of elders of all iwi fail to see the beneficial outcomes of many of these claims. We urge this and indeed every Government to adequately or even generously support, resource, and facilitate the conclusion of many of the outstanding settlements, all of which have a common aim of settling claims in a proper, fair, and sustainable manner.

We heard in an earlier discussion this afternoon, and it has been stated many times, that New Zealand’s natural environment is in a very poor state—an indefensibly poor state—and our economic, cultural, and social well-being, and indeed our lifestyles, are threatened by the degradation. The proposed clean-up trust that this bill establishes is, to some extent, a novel initiative. It is also a long overdue initiative. The Waikato, along with many of our rivers, is in an appalling condition. It is little short of a national disgrace. The sacrifice of the river—the quality of the river water—to the combined demands of farming, urban development, waste discharge, and excessive extraction needs to be stopped and, indeed, reversed. We see this settlement and the various agencies and practices it will establish as a very positive step towards doing that.

The co-management model that this bill proposes is not common in New Zealand; it is much more common overseas. I think it is useful for people to understand that co-management means much more than simply having two parties with an opinion, with an ability to influence outcomes. Co-management is quite a sophisticated structure in terms of land and, indeed, water management. It is an adaptive approach, which is to say that one learns by doing. It is adaptive in that one effects changes, one looks at the responses, both environmentally and socially, to those changes, and one continues to adapt to the real outcomes. It is not a theoretical approach; it is a very hands-on, grounded approach at the operational level, and that is one of the powers of a co-management approach.

It acknowledges the value of the scientific input of Western science, if you like, but also acknowledges indigenous knowledge. It has had significant success internationally in incorporating the best of what we call hard, or Western, science and indigenous knowledge that has accumulated over many generations—indeed, over centuries. It allows for putting a scientific assessment of water quality alongside a tool like a cultural health index, which informs people in a very rich and positive way about the well-being of that environment in cultural terms, and it puts things in a framework that both sides of a co-management arrangement can actually accept, deal with, and move on with.

Co-management works only with a very high and sustained level of stakeholder engagement. It will fail to the extent that all stakeholders are not engaged and do not feel that they are participating, and we hope that that will lay to rest some of the expressed opposition and some of the concerns of some of the opponents of this bill, who continue to fear that engagement will be taken away from them.

Finally, a co-management approach always obliges practitioners to look at the detail and also to keep coming out and looking at the bigger picture. One does not get lost in the small detail, and one does not get lost in what is happening on one site; one is obliged always to come out and have that wider look to take in that wider concern. So we actively and positively support the notion of co-management. Thank you.

PAUL QUINN (National): It is indeed a privilege to be able to speak to this bill during the Committee stage. I will comment on just a couple of points. The first is the fact that there have been some comments about the delay in bringing this before the House. I think it is appropriate to record that at the time this was brought before the first select committee, when I joined, five administrative bodies were involved in the framework in administering this river through the settlement process. I recall, without wanting to drop officials in it, turning to the officials and asking them whether they really and truly believed, and could look me in the eye and say, that creating a multitude of five bodies was an appropriate and successful way to administer the river. The simple answer is that it was not, and the Minister showed the leadership, along with the leadership of the tribe—and in that respect I acknowledge Tuku Morgan, who is here with us today—to provide a more streamlined administrative process in creating the river authority that we now have before us.

That leads me to the second point that I will address, which is that some concern has been expressed—in fact, I saw a press release today from Federated Farmers around the fact that this bill was going through and their objections to it, etc. A lot of that concern is around the vision and the strategy, how it takes precedence over this and drives that, and so on and so forth. I think it is misplaced concern, because in the first instance the vision is, if you like, a dream that Waikato-Tainui, the Government, and local government have for the future of this river. Those broad statements of what people are looking for are set out in schedule 2; I think it is worth just touching on some of those. They are not, in my view, offensive; they are not going to drive people to the ends of the earth.

What is wrong with talking about, for instance, “the restoration and protection of the health and wellbeing of the Waikato River:”? This is, after all, what we all want in the environment. What about “the restoration and protection of the relationships of Waikato-Tainui with the Waikato River, including their economic, social, cultural, and spiritual relationships:”? These are visions, and it will be the job of the management to set out a process that over the long term will achieve the vision and the strategy. A further schedule, I think schedule 3, provides for this vision and strategy to be reviewed with the agreement of the authority. Again we need to record that the authority is made up of five Māori representatives and five Government appointees, with one of each co-chairing, so it will be a process of consensus. The whole way that it has been constructed, and the way in which Waikato-Tainui and the Crown have entered into these arrangements, is about building a relationship, building consensus, and achieving a great goal for this area of the country.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato): Without putting too fine a point on the issue of the Waikato River Authority moving away from the five statutory boards model, it needs to be noted that there were extensive consultations with a number of iwi along the river with regard to what would be the best management approach for the Waikato River. The statutory board model presented at the time was based, in fact, upon a lot of the feedback from those consultations and from those iwi. Notwithstanding that, it is important to again recognise that the co-management framework really applies from the Karapiro down, and that there are distinct variances or differences between the concerns and priorities of the upper catchment of the Waikato and those of the lower catchment. But everyone—each iwi along the whole of the river—recognises that if we are going to do it well, we all need to be involved in it. So I put on the record that that statutory board model actually recognised some of the peculiarities of iwi relationships, and, I guess, Waikato not wanting to impose something for upper catchment iwi that may not reconcile with their priorities and their imperatives.

I also relate some comment to the member for ACT. People should not be discouraged by the views presented by ACT on this issue. ACT voted for the first reading, but then it saw that it could not digest the progress of this settlement, and it has since said that it is not going to support it. But on the points of history, none the less I am so pleased that Mr Garrett has taken up the challenge of learning some of New Zealand’s Māori history.

In terms of its Treaty settlement history, as it relates to Waikato-Tainui, that contribution needs to be considered quite strongly alongside another discourse—that is, that this settlement is preceded by the Waikato Raupatu Claims Settlement Act. In that Act is contained an extensive history, which details references to the Sim Commission. That point needs to be made, because there was no intention, at all, by simplifying, if you like, a preamble in the river settlement, to get away from the facts. The facts remain that Sim Commission clearly recognised the injustices of raupatu that affected Waikato-Tainui, and that the raupatu was illegal and unjust. That was clearly stated, with reference to the raupatu settlement. The history, I think, and the context for why this settlement is constructed in the way it is, is clearly cross-referenced to the previous settlement that was reached in 1995.

Mr Garrett went on to recognise the role of Princess Te Pūea. One of the things that had been very clear in the Kīngitanga experience was the fact that political relationships and alliances had had their time, and their place and purpose, and had achieved outcomes along the way. Indeed, it was as a result of some very strong political alliances that in the time between Te Pūea and Ngata, and various politicians of the day, much progress was made—that concerning development of lands, and the like. But I say to Mr Garrett that he forgets that in terms of Treaty settlement history it was not until 1975, when a Labour Government established the Waitangi Tribunal where claims could be heard, that we started to have the ability for these types of issues and claims to be aired in the public light.

We were failed by history; many iwi will tell that story. In 1985, when again a Labour Government made those claims retrospective, claims like this were coming to the fore. I made the point in my second reading speech that it was not until 1987 when my father, the Tainui Māori Trust Board, and Ngā Marae Tōpu lodged the statement of claim for the Waikato River, that this type of historical breach could be aired and given its true place in history to be rectified. And that is being done today. This is a dynamic and evolving opportunity not only for Waikato-Tainui but for the nation to say that we want to go in a different way when it comes to looking at the resource management of our taonga, our waterways. We are not afraid to be able to present that, with all its challenges, in this settlement, and to bring it to the House. I indeed support the intent and the overall aspiration of what is contained in this settlement.

There was a comment, and a very good comment, made by the Greens, with regard to a co-management model being adaptive and informed by evidence. I am very pleased that throughout the course of continuing to negotiate the finer points of this settlement, a scoping study has been undertaken to look at what would be some of the priority projects, if you like, to take place, in order to help to improve the health and well-being of the river.

The proof of the pudding, I agree, is in the eating. It is in the practical implementation of co-management agreements and protocols, which, at the coalface, will see riparian planting along our waterways. Farmers will be obligated to fence off waterways, and plant. We will see our local people employed through opportunities that will continue to lift the well-being of their local streams and tributaries into the river. That is where the proof of the pudding of this co-management model will be and should be. But I reiterate that the opportunity through the clean-up fund to have a contestable fund, which will be accessible by all peoples and many communities, to show their effort along the waterway is, I think, an exciting thing. It will build bridges rather than divide communities. It should incentivise people to look at the health and well-being of our waterways and to say “We want to continue to work to improve their health so that we can all benefit from that.”

Paul Quinn said that Federated Farmers’ objections should be noted, and I note them, too. But my response, and that of many communities where those similar types of objections have come up, is that at the end of the day Federated Farmers wants certainty in whom it is dealing with, in regard to the river. All I can say on that front is that this legislation will provide certainty. It is just that the landscape has changed, and that that organisation is looking at different faces on the other side of the table. So it should be; it is a sign of the times that Māori want to continue to be more involved in resource management, because models of the past, quite frankly, have failed us. They have failed the environment and failed our communities, so things need to change.

The question of whether that will lead to higher costs is the other criticism from the territorial authorities. Will this model lead to higher costs for ratepayers? There is no easy answer to that, but it is a legitimate concern that has been aired to negotiators. Waikato-Tainui are mindful of that, and in working through a real and practical approach to co-management, as envisaged in this agreement, we would hope that over time investment in the river is a better value-for-cost contribution for everyone. That investment, I think, has to be something that is clear and reported back to communities. Those outcomes, again, should be demonstrated.

In relation to the intent of this settlement, I am pleased that the opportunity for joint management agreements are ones that will see, in an overarching way, more iwi commissioners come on to the scene to hear resource consents. I would like to hope that my own member’s bill, which looks at elevating the recognition of iwi management plans in the planning cycle, will be a bill that will be supported across the House, because it attempts, basically, to streamline this approach and apply it in a very broad context. I think that that is a positive way forward.

I also say, just as a quick quip, with regard to issues raised regarding the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, that historically Waikato-Tainui have been to international forums to seek redress for raupatu, but each and every time they were told to go back to their own Parliament here in New Zealand. We know that any gain that will be of value to Māori, to iwi, will be made at home, when this Parliament starts to look at making laws that take account of the visions and aspirations of what iwi want to see, of what Māori want to see—that is, the better management of our resources in our areas. So nothing gained overseas will deliver more than the tin tacks delivered here, on the streets at home.

Briefly, I think that the opportunity again for Waikato-Tainui to continue to consolidate its relationship through the Kīngitanga Accord with the various ministries will be a good thing. When we look again at practical opportunities, let us look at Te Pūaha o Waikato, and let us look at what is happening with whitebaiting and the regulation of that down in that area. There is an expectation in that community that things could be done better and in a more integrated way. Perhaps, under this accord, under this sense of integrated management, we could get a win-win outcome for that community: the preservation of the whitebait fisheries and a better management of it. These are but some of the opportunities that can fall from this particular agreement.

I also point to the fact that the vision and strategy have now dropped from having recognition in the national policy statement to being in the regional policy statement. At the end of the day, what people want to see is that the vision and strategy are embraced at a real level in the plans and rules of the regional council, so that everything that happens within the domain of the Waikato River hinges on those high ideals and principles that are contained in the vision and strategy.

In saying that, I point out that the Guardians Establishment Committee—Gordon Blake, Tukoroirangi Morgan, and every member who participated on that committee—worked long and hard to ensure that the vision and strategy was not an airy-fairy document but something that many communities, many people, and Waikato-Tainui can hold as solid aspirations to be achieved and realised through the implementation of this settlement. That process, in itself, was again a bridge-building one, and should be commended. To all the members who were on that committee, I offer my personal thanks for their commitment and tireless effort to produce a vision and strategy of which I think we in this Parliament can all be proud, should members take the time to read it. It is one that I think other iwi may want to look to as a starting point for conversations about what they want to see for their rivers and waterways. Those are the types of issues that I think are important to highlight in the Committee stage. They should not be ignored.

Can I just make a final point to the Minister, while I have the floor, and it does not require a response. When it comes to the application of the streamlined model, I urge horses for courses and that the model, where it fits, should be looked to as a positive one. But where it does not fit—and iwi will soon tell us that these are the clunky bits, and are very pragmatic about it—I urge the Minister to consider that, especially as it applies to the Waipā River. It was no coincidence, when the Waikato Maniapoto Maori Trust Board was established, that that relationship was an inherent one relating to our whakapapa connections. Also, in history, when the confiscations affected Waikato so traumatically, it was Maniapoto that looked after Waikato. There are deeper connections in that, but in its simplicity, when we try to look for a solution for the Waikato River, we cannot have a clean Waikato River without a clean Waipā River. The solutions are really hand in hand, in terms of what the Minister does in negotiating forward a Treaty settlement and a model to help Maniapoto clean up the Waipā River. We cannot have a clean Waikato River without a clean Waipā River. That is the reality. It is the biggest tributary going into the Waikato River, and affects the health and well-being of it. When we are looking at a sustainable model for waterways, in this instance we have to see the two as hand in hand. Kia ora tātou.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Just before I call the honourable Minister, I advise members that the interpretation problems that we had earlier have been remedied.

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): I acknowledge the comments of the previous speaker, Nanaia Mahuta, and because of her contribution I think it is appropriate, now that she has finished her call, to make a couple of comments. I acknowledge the very lengthy gestation period of the Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Bill; it was long. I have already paid tribute to the negotiators for Waikato-Tainui and the iwi itself, because I thought their performance was a classy one. They were prepared to allow additional time for the incoming National Government to take a look at the arrangements in order to see whether something more streamlined could be developed, and indeed it has been.

The second point that the member raised was the issue of costs. That is a very important issue. I think there are a few myths about costs in this whole exercise. It is fair to say there is an ongoing debate about costs as they relate to the implementation of Treaty settlements. The joint management agreement mechanism provided for in the bill is an existing mechanism under the Resource Management Act 1991. In this instance it has been tailored to provide more effective participation for iwi, and I do not believe that the implementation of the Waikato River joint management agreements will be at an additional cost to ratepayers in the region.

The other point I would make about costs—and it is borne out in the settlement—is that as part of the settlement the Crown has provided a $210 million contestable clean-up fund for iwi, local and regional authorities, stakeholders, and the public to use for river clean-up activities. The Crown will also pay for the ongoing costs of the authority, for the fees of members of the authority, and for iwi participation in the arrangements. So a very generous contribution has been made by the Crown to the costs of implementing this settlement.

The member also raised the issue of the vision and strategy, and Mr Quinn referred to the review of the vision and strategy. I thought that was a most helpful intervention on his part. I think it would be helpful for those who are concerned about the reviews to take a good, hard look at clauses 13A to 13C of the bill, and at schedule 2B. One can see that the review process set out there is a very rigorous one that permits good engagement by all relevant parties in the community and members of the public, to ensure that the review is done well. I note clause 13A, which states: “Within 3 months of the settlement date, the Authority must begin a review of the vision and strategy—”. As Mr Quinn observed, clause 13B provides for regular subsequent reviews. So I do not think that there can be any cause for concern about the review procedure for the vision and strategy, if people take the time and trouble to read the particular provisions of the bill that I have referred to.

Another point—and I thought it was a very valuable one—was made by Mr Henare, quite apart from his correcting the historical account given earlier in the debate by Mr Garrett. It was about the idea of democracy being one person, one vote. As Mr Henare observed, that is one aspect of democracy, but it is not the only one. I do not know whether the ACT members are suggesting that in order to have a pure Athenian democracy in New Zealand, every single person who plays a role in the State should be elected. I would caution him against that, by reference, for example, to—

Hon Shane Jones: Yeah, we might end up with his younger brother.

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: I was thinking of elected judges. I always recall the first time that I went to the United States. All around San Francisco there were signs stating “Bye-bye Birdie”. It was a reference to the Chief Justice of California, who was up for re-election. The right-wing lunatics—or probably in San Francisco they were left-wing lunatics—had put those signs up all around Russian Hill and Nob Hill. It was a most odious performance, in my view. Of course one person, one vote is a very important matter, although our system permits one person, two votes. But I do not necessarily think that because of the way that the river authority is structured, there is some kind of democratic deficit, even though that seems to be of much concern to the ACT Party.

Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour): I am pleased to rise to speak in the Committee stage of the Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Bill. I rise—having been conferred with a new status, it would seem, today by the Minister of Māori Affairs—to speak as a native of New Zealand. I am pondering on that and on what its various combinations, permutations, and interpretations might mean for me. However, I will work my way through that in due course. I dare say there are a number of other people around the country who might have been watching question time who are reflecting on their status as a native of Aotearoa New Zealand.

With that novel approach I want to discuss a number of things, and, because we are debating the Committee stage as one question, as I understand it, I am able to address Part 2 as much as any other part. First of all, I welcome the comments of the speaker from the ACT Party—not because they were inherently worthwhile, although some of them probably were—in part because it was a much better speech than I thought it would be. We were treated to some fairly despicable comments made by ACT Party members last week, when this Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Bill came before the House. The reference to hocus-pocus and to that categorising of another world view I thought was disrespectful, unfortunate at the very least, and despicable at worst. At that time I said that although I do not have, share, or was born into the same ontological perspective or world view that Māori have, that does not stop me from appreciating an ontology that is different from my own.

However, one of the things that I celebrate and appreciate in different ontologies and different world views is that this legislation sets down in black and white some very significant and unique language that would be found nowhere else in the world. I think that is significant and that it should be brought to the attention of this Committee. For example, in Part 2, the “Statement of significance of Waikato River to Waikato-Tainui” states: “The Waikato River is our tupuna (ancestor) which has mana (spiritual authority and power) and in turn represents the mana and mauri (life force) of Waikato-Tainui. The Waikato River is a single indivisible being that flows from Te Taheke Hukahuka o Te Puuha o Waikato (the mouth) and includes its waters, banks and beds (and all minerals under them) and its streams, waterways, tributaries, lakes, aquatic fisheries,” and so on. It goes on to state: “as well as its metaphysical being. Our relationship with the Waikato River, and our respect for it, gives rise to our responsibilities to protect te mana o te Awa and to exercise our mana whakahaere in accordance with long established tikanga to ensure the wellbeing of the river. Our relationship with the river and our respect for it lies at the heart of our spiritual and physical wellbeing, and our tribal identity and culture.”

That is to be celebrated. It is to be celebrated that that kind of characterisation, that kind of description, of a relationship that is from an ontology that is not universally shared but may be appreciated is part of the foundation of this nation. I understand what it means to be a native of Aotearoa New Zealand as a partner in Te Tiriti. I understand that. I recognise that this is the way that indigenous people may achieve recognition, status, respect, legal recognition, accord, and, in this case, authority over a natural resource. I welcome that. I think that it is part of where we have come in our journey in working through Treaty settlements.

I said last week that I thought that the co-management model in Part 2 was unique. I have since read something that the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations wrote a little while ago, where he was quoted as saying that it is not unique and that, in fact, in the 1990s the previous National Government had a similar co-management model with Ngāti Whātua o Ōrākei at the Michael Joseph Savage memorial at Bastion Point, or Takaparawhau, in Auckland. There was a co-management model between the Auckland City Council, I think, and Ngāti Whātua. Even if this is not unique, I still consider it to be an evolutionary development of the kinds of solutions that may be found for the modern day. As we proceed through Treaty settlements and as new issues emerge—because they will emerge and they are emerging—we can find novel ways of addressing them.

The other point I will just make is in relation to clause 9. Again, I think it is important to bring this to the attention of not only the Committee but also the New Zealand public. The subheading above clause 9 is “Te Ture Whaimana”. As I understand it, that is the authority of this model. It states the scope and vision of the strategy. It recognises right at the outset: “(1) The Waikato River and its contribution to New Zealand’s cultural, social, environmental, and economic wellbeing is of national importance.” That is something for everybody. That is something for Māori and Pākehā alike. The Waikato River and what it contributes to one of the most fertile and productive parts of Aotearoa New Zealand is of economic significance and importance to everybody, but it is also important to New Zealand’s cultural, social, and environmental well-being. That is the stuff that underpins this legislation.

I congratulate the Māori Affairs Committee. There has been a number of amendments, and I also notice a Supplementary Order Paper dated today in the name of the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, I presume. Some small, technical details still require a little bit of amendment, but I think that the work the select committee has done on this bill has been very significant. I congratulate the select committee members on that. In this bill we have a number of landmarks, signals, and signs in this co-management authority model that can be used for future settlements. They can be used as issues arise as our partnership under the Treaty of Waitangi matures, develops, and evolves over the next century. This has been and is a significant moment for the passage of this legislation.

JOHN BOSCAWEN (ACT): I firstly acknowledge the contribution of Nanaia Mahuta, who went to great pains to point out that the Committee should not be disappointed with the contribution of ACT or with ACT’s view. She is absolutely right, because we are presenting a unique view. We are presenting a view that is different from that of any other party in this Parliament. Mr Garrett took considerable time and effort to explain some of the historical background to the negotiations between the Crown and Tainui over the last 150 years. I see that the Minister in the chair, the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, is smiling. Well, I am not sure whether he listened closely, but Mr Garrett explained that in the 1940s, before Princess Te Pūea would agree to conscription she required that a settlement be reached. There had been a demand for a settlement previously, but she demanded that a settlement had to be reached before she would agree to the conscription of Māori. That settlement was reached, and Mr Garrett pointed out that it was an immediate payment of £5,000 and an annual payment of £5,000 thereafter. Those payments continued until the early 1990s.

As Mr Garrett freely acknowledged, that £5,000 payment—$10,000 in today’s terms—has been eroded by inflation. But, interestingly, inflation in New Zealand really took hold only from about 1975 onwards. Mr Garrett also pointed out that in those days £5,000 was the value of a dairy farm. In essence, there was a full and final settlement that was worth one dairy farm initially and was then worth one dairy farm every year thereafter, ad infinitum.

What was Mr Henare’s contribution? Mr Henare said that Māori were locked away. He said that Māori went to jail during the period from 1914 to 1918. That may well be so. Mr Henare may be absolutely right. But that is not what Mr Garrett said. He did not even comment on the period from 1914 to 1918. He said very clearly, and I invite any member of the Committee to challenge it, that before Princess Te Pūea would agree to conscription during the Second World War she required a settlement, and she got that settlement.

It was also interesting that Mr Henare made that claim, and he made it by saying that he was no scholar of history. He actually acknowledged, before he uttered those words, that he did not know anything about the subject, but he offered to make those comments. But it was worse than that, because we heard absolutely condescending comments from the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, who said that Mr Henare correctly corrected Mr Garrett’s historical account. So there we have it. The Minister said that Mr Henare, who freely acknowledges that he is no student of history, corrected Mr Garrett. Once again, I see the Minister smiling. Well, it has come as a shock to me this afternoon, and I do not think I would have understood it myself unless I had actually heard it with my own ears, that the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, the Hon Christopher Finlayson, is challenging the whole basis of our democracy. He knocks the concept of one person, one vote. He made the condescending comment—

Hon Nanaia Mahuta: I seek leave to have the Hansard transcript changed from “should not be disappointed” to “should be”.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): That is not a point of order. The interruption of a member’s speech is not something we should encourage.

JOHN BOSCAWEN: While I am on the subject, something else is quite unique about the view of the ACT Party. In this very House last week we were the only party that stood up to support moves to reduce youth unemployment. We proposed a member’s bill to bring back youth rates, which would have done something about Māori youth unemployment. If the member had been concerned about it, she might well have spoken in favour of it, and voted in favour of it.

Hon Tau Henare: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I do not know what that has to do with the Waikato River legislation.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Thank you. I am sure the member will come back to the subject. We are debating the Waikato River legislation.

JOHN BOSCAWEN: I certainly will. I would not have believed it unless I heard it with my own ears. The Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations said that it was cheating the concept of one man, one vote. He said that in New Zealand we have a one person, two votes system. Yes we do; we have a party vote and an electorate vote. I say to the Minister that we may even have one person, 100 votes. Someone who owns 100 separate pieces of land in 100 separate territorial locations has a vote in each of those local body elections.

I noticed that the Chairperson allowed Nanaia Mahuta to speak for 15 minutes, and I intend to speak for no more than only—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): The Chair decides the relevance of a speech, and also who gets the call. I have given the member the call, and we will carry on from there.

JOHN BOSCAWEN: Let us move to the issue of co-governance. This bill sets up the Waikato River Authority, which is charged with governing the Waikato River. Currently, the Waikato River is governed by the Waikato Regional Council. Every person in the electoral district of the Waikato Regional Council gets a vote. It is one man, one vote. That may seem a bit strange because earlier this afternoon we heard from Tau Henare, who said that one person, one vote was old hat. Well, I wonder how many supporters of the National Party understand that the whole basis of our democracy is under threat this afternoon, and I do not make that claim lightly. The Waikato River legislation appoints the Waikato River Authority, and it allows the iwi of the Waikato area to appoint half the members. The other half are appointed by the Crown. The Waikato River is currently managed by the Waikato Regional Council, and every member of that council gets to vote.

I noticed that Maryan Street commented earlier this afternoon on Rodney Hide’s contribution to the second reading of the bill. She said that his comments were at best disrespectful and, at worst, despicable. Rodney Hide was speaking up for the people of New Zealand. He was speaking up for democracy. He was speaking up for the principle of one man, one vote. Maryan Street also talked about evolutionary development. She said that if the Waikato River Authority is not a unique order, if it has not previously been copied, and she gave the example of Bastion Point in Auckland, then it may well be unique now, but it will be developed. We will have further evolutionary development. So I take it from that comment that Labour is very happy to put in place management structures and governance structures that are anathema; the concept of one man, one vote is diametrically opposed.

David Bennett: It’s a shame the ACT Party isn’t run by one man, one vote.

JOHN BOSCAWEN: That is right. I hear clapping from Hone Harawira. He absolutely believes in that.

One of the other things that the ACT Party presents a unique view on in this House is the Government’s decision last week to affirm the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and in particular article 26. Mr Harawira, who is sitting beside me and clapping, would be well aware that the first point of article 26 states: “Indigenous peoples have the right to the lands, territories and resources which they have traditionally owned, occupied or otherwise used or acquired.” When Mr Hide stood in Parliament last week and asked the Prime Minister what lands, territories, and resources Māori did not have before the arrival of Europeans, the Prime Minister could not tell him. Now, Maryan Street may think that Rodney Hide is being despicable or disrespectful, but he is speaking up for the people of New Zealand. He is speaking up for the concept of one man, one vote. If we are the only five members in this Chamber who are doing that, then I am very proud to be one of them. Thank you.

KELVIN DAVIS (Labour): We have a tendency to overcomplicate some of these issues. The Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Bill is about restoring and protecting the health and well-being of the Waikato River, not just for this generation but for the generations to come. Why are we doing that? We are doing it because right now the river is polluted. It has had years and years of herbicides, pesticides, and effluent dumped into it. That has made it unsuitable for swimming and for gathering food. Māori cannot gather their traditional food sources. That is the reason we are here debating this bill. What is the alternative? Is it to continue to dump herbicides, pesticides, effluent, rubbish, and goodness knows what into the Waikato River? That is not an option. That is why we are here debating this bill.

I really struggle to see what the ACT Party has against the bill. The bill talks about a single co-governance entity. Well, what is wrong with that? The bill previously provided for a number of entities to look after the river, which would have led to confusion and ambiguity over roles. It would not have led to the river being cleaned up. What is wrong with having a vision and strategy for the river? What is wrong with having a vision of a river where our kids can swim without jumping into a pile of rubbish and where native eels are not overrun by exotic species? There is nothing wrong with having a vision for the river and putting in place a strategy to ensure that that vision is fulfilled.

What is wrong with having the Waikato River Clean-Up Trust, a group to sort out the clean-up of the river? What is wrong with iwi participating in the resource consent process concerning the Waikato River? The attitude that Māori should not have the right to be involved in that process is wrong. That sort of argument builds up resentment and anger within Māori, because we have been excluded from decision making over our resources for way too long. I believe that this whole bill is long overdue. What is wrong with having joint management agreements? What is wrong with sharing the decision making? There is nothing at all wrong with it. It is long overdue. What is the problem with recognising customary activities?

When the Māori Affairs Committee was at Hopuhopu, I recall a farmer who spoke about his farm, which was next to a lake. Over the years the water level of the lake had been reduced, and he was able to get a whole heap of extra land for his farm so he could raise more cows, or do whatever he did. He had absolutely no concern about the rights of iwi to continue to fish for eels in the swamps that had been drained and to gather food in the traditional Māori way. He could not see that an injustice had been done to Māori. He believed that his method of growing food and gathering food was far more important than the way in which Māori had gathered food traditionally over the years. He just did not care that Māori rights, the Māori way of doing things, and our lifestyle had been diminished and harmed. What is wrong with a cultural harvest? In the legislation there is a provision that talks about cultural harvest.

Let me tell all the Tainui-Waikato people listening to this debate that I had a friend who was a navy diver, and he had the job one day of swimming into the intake pipe that goes from the river under the road into the Meremere power station. His job was to clean it. He told me that as he was swimming up the pipe to clean it—and he is a naval diver; he has been in many dangerous diving situations—the moment he was the most fearful was when he swam into a nest of blind eels. “Talk about pollute the Waikato River!”, he told me—not in those words. At the moment he swam into that nest, he did in fact pollute the river. It was the scariest moment of his diving career.

There are many eels and other native organisms and species that Māori have had access to over the years, and this bill will help Māori to reclaim that access and be able to continue with those traditional practices.

I will address, finally, what Rodney Hide spoke about the other day. Rodney Hide was not speaking about the principle of “one man, one vote”. He was speaking about the hocus-pocus—those were his words—of the Māori understanding of, and the Māori relationship with, the Waikato River. He does not believe—and that is fair enough; that is his right—that the Waikato River is an entity. He does not have that emotional, cultural, and spiritual connection with the river. [Interruption] I am not from Waikato-Tainui; I am from up north. I have a spiritual, cultural connection with the Taumarere River up there, but those two rivers do have a connection in our family whakapapa and history. That is because of a place in the Waipā tributary, a place called Te Rore, where my tupuna Pomarenui met his Waterloo.

Te Rore was the place where he camped overnight, and, unfortunately for him, a few of his Tainui enemies caught up with him and happened to kill him. It was said that when they were preparing him for dinner, they found corn kernels from his morning meal inside his stomach. They planted those kernels and from there the corn crops around Tainui and Waikato grew.

Hon Shane Jones: Cultural harvest!

KELVIN DAVIS: So there we are; we are talking there about a cultural harvest.

But the point I really am trying to make is that Māori have an emotional, spiritual, and cultural connection with our rivers, with our mountains, and with our lakes. It is because over the centuries things have happened that tie us and bind us to these particular features. It reminds me of mountaineers. When they go climbing mountains, they say one has to respect the mountain. Commercial fishermen out on the sea say that one has to respect the sea. That concept is similar to the concepts Māori have in respect of our rivers, our lakes, and our tīpuna maunga.

So with that, I thank you, Mr Chairman, for the opportunity to speak on this bill. I say again that I cannot understand why the ACT Party is so opposed to all these different opportunities to co-manage and clean up this river so that our kids can swim, our people can gather food, and all the pollution, which has had a negative effect on the river, can be cleaned up. Kia ora.

CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green): He mihi nui ki Tainui-Waikato, tēnā koutou. I was not going to take a call on the Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Bill, but sometimes the rhetoric around one is overwhelming. I am very excited that we are moving into a more sophisticated era under Te Tiriti o Waitangi, and we are moving beyond the limited concept of conservative Pākehā that one man, one vote is the only manifestation of democracy possible in Aotearoa. I stand as a Pākehā, proud to live with Te Tiriti o Waitangi as our founding document, and absolutely committed to finding new ways through the colonisation effects of the past. Only people who do not understand what colonisation means would say that this is not a step forward, and that the co-management that is being proposed is not an incredibly positive model for Pākehā, for tangata Tiriti, for tauiwi katoa as well as for Māori. It is said “He piko, he taniwha”, and the terrible, terrible thing is, through the governance of the Crown and Environment Waikato, it has become “He piko, ngā paru”. Waikato-Tainui has every reason to seek redress. It has found with the Crown a positive way forward in the situation, because this river, like so many awa across the motu, has been deeply abused.

Maybe the ACT Party do not get it, but for me as a Pākehā, rivers are the veins of the land, they are the sources of life, and they are part of my spiritual identity, not at all through whakapapa—my whakapapa goes back to Ireland—but through experience of living in this country. It is so important that we start growing up and stop relying on the failed policies of regional authorities to address the issues of tangata whenua, and the constant tokenism, the constant setting up of liaison people or advisory groups, when what we need is co-governance. What we need is respect for the Tiriti and rangatiratanga to be upheld.

So members should think about Waikato. I stood with Pakihana Hawke from Ngāti Whātua o Ōrākei when they were talking about putting that pipeline from Waikato into Tāmaki-makau-rau, and Waikato’s river is so dirty, but the Franklin District councillors were happy to license it to be pumped with all that pollution into Tāmaki for the people to drink—that is what has been going on. It is not the fault of the tangata whenua; it is the fault of the people who are on those committees, those wonderful democratic bodies that have allowed us to pump polluted water into Auckland to drink, let alone the abuse of tangata whenua.

I also think about what is really going on and what the big challenge is for co-management and for clean-up of Waikato, because Waikato is like another awa, the awa Tarawera. Both of them have pulp mills that have used and abused them. Waikato has been abused by the Kinleith pulp and paper mill for a very many years whereby the effluent from that pulp mill goes to Lake Maraetai through a tributary into Waikato, and that effluent is full of organochlorine chemicals. That is just one major abuse that has been vested upon the people who might have liked to be able to exercise their customary rights over the Waikato River.

So co-management and a facing up to the vision that this bill is helping to facilitate cannot come too soon for the Green Party in terms of the life force of that river. It is very important for us to acknowledge that the regional councils around this country, particularly with reference to Waikato and places like Tarawera, have continued to license and issue resource consents that have destroyed the mauri and the mana of the rivers. I remember when we were fighting the issue about the water going into Tāmaki-makau-rau that there were more than 40 resource consents for tanneries, dairy effluents, the pulp mill, and also the toxic dumps that are actually on the banks of the Waikato, and all of that was being licensed. It was not some kind of accident, it was something facilitated by district councils and by regional councils of elected members who said they were democrats but who were actually abusers.

I cannot wait for the day when we have a proper dialogue at a regional level where tangata whenua can educate people who do not have a concept of what customary knowledge is, what the life force of a river is all about, and how we maintain and sustain it for the well-being of everyone in the community. I welcome this fund that will allow us to contest the best ways to clean up rivers, because we are tired of having to listen in court hearings to tangata whenua asking for their rights; they should be granted. Kia ora.

HONE HARAWIRA (Māori Party—Te Tai Tokerau): Tēnā koe, Mr Chairman. Hoi nō, hei kōrero tuatahi, me mihi au ki a rātau te hunga kua w’etūrangitia, rātau e whai nei i tenei ture i te wā e ora ana. Nō reira, rātau ki a rātau, tātau anō ki a tātau e hui tahi nei i roto i tō tātau Whare, tēnā koutou huri rauna kia ora tātau. Kia ora tātau. Tēnā koe e Tuku kua tae mai nei i roto i a tātau, kia rongohia i ngā kōrero a te kiore e whai nei i tōna whiore i tēnei rā, ki taku taha matau.

Te rongo anō ki ngā kōrero, ā, kia tautoko i te tū rangatira a Waikato-Tainui me tō rātau awa. Mai i nohinohi ana kua rongo mātau i tērā kōrero “Ko te awa ko au, ko au ko te awa.” Nō reira me mihi au ki a koutou i tata oti nei i tēnei hīkoi kia w’akatutukitia ai te kaupapa o taua kōrero. Hari ana kei konei mātau katoa ngā mea Māori e kōrero tautoko ana tātau i a tātau i runga i te whakaaro rangatira, tērā kia whakahokia mai te mana o tō tātau taonga ki a tātau anō rā. Nō reira, tēnā tātau. Tēnā tātau, me tērā whakaaro kua kōrerohia nei, e te kiore e kōrero nei i taku taha mō tēnei mea te moni kua tukuna e te Kāwanatanga i ngā tau kua pahure ake nei. I te mea, ka hoki taku mahara ki tētahi atu kōrero e mea ana, mēnā ko te whenua i riro atu, ko te whenua me hoki mai. E tika ana taua kōrero. Me te mea anō hoki mēnā e hiahia ana te tangata nei ki tōna moni, ka pai. Engari, whakahokia mai te katoa o taua whenua kua tāhae nei i ngā tau kua pahure ake. Nō reira, hari ana au kia tū nei i tēnei rā ki te tautoko i tēnei kaupapa me te mōhio anō hoki, kei reira tonu wētahi whakaaro kia whakamana tūturu ai i a Waikato-Tainui me tōna awa.

Nō reira hari ana au i te mea kei konei a Reipa, kei konei a Nāhinara, kei konei te Pāti Māori, kei konei te Rōpū Kākāriki e tū kotahi ana, ki te whakamana i tēnei whakaaro, me te mihi anō hoki ki a koe e te tuahine e Nanaia e kōrerohia ana kei roto i tēnei pire wētahi huarahi mō ā mātau nei whanaunga puta noa i te motu. Tērā kia hanga i tētahi rōpū mā te iwi, mā te Kāwanatanga hei tohungia, hei kawe i te mana mā tētahi rōpū anō hei whakahaere i te taonga. Nō reira, i roto i tēnei ngā whakaaro pai mō mātau anō hoki pea kei roto o Te Tai Tokerau, engari i tēnei rā, he tū poto tēnei ki te mihi atu ki a tātau anō rā, ngā uri o Ueoneone, me Reitū rāua ko Reipae e nohonoho nei i roto i tō tātau Whare. Tēnā koutou, me tā tātau nei awa. Tēnā tātau, kia ora tātau katoa.

[Greetings to you, Mr Chairman. Indeed, I acknowledge in the first instance those ones who have passed away and who followed this bill when they were alive. So I say unto them, you, the dead, remain there, and we, the living, the ones assembled here in our House, to ourselves, greetings throughout. Greetings. Greetings to you, Tuku, who have arrived here in our midst to hear the squeaks from the mouse on my right-hand side, chasing its own tail.

But you have also heard supporting statements in regard to Waikato-Tainui’s noble stance about their river. From the time I was a toddler, I heard the expression “I am the river, and the river is me.” So I commend you as this journey draws to a close and the nub of that expression reaches fulfilment. How overjoyed I am that we, the Māori ones, are all here supporting each other with one noble thing in mind, that control over our resources be returned to us. So congratulations to us all. Greetings to us, and that thought put forward by the mouse beside me about the money given by the Government in previous years. It brings to mind the expression that if the land is taken, then it must be returned. That is correct. If a person covets money, that is fine. However, return all of the land that was stolen in the past.

So I am pleased to stand today to endorse this bill, in the knowledge that there are other ideas around formalising Waikato-Tainui control over the river. I am glad, too, that Labour, National, the Māori Party, and the Greens are standing together to endorse this bill. I also acknowledge the member Nanaia, who spoke on the bill, and about initiatives that our relatives around the country could pick up on: that is, to establish a group working for the people whom the Government will appoint to manage the resource. Perhaps there are positive elements for us to adopt in the far north, but today I take this short call to acknowledge all of us, descendants of Ueoneone, Reitū, and Reipae, seated about this House. Greetings to you, and especially our river. Greetings to us, and thank you all.]

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): E tautokotia atu ngā kōrero a te tangata o te nōta, a Hone, mō te āhua o te awa nei. E mihi kau ana ki a rātau e mau kaha mai rā nō, te whakatikatika o tēnei tino take. E kite atu tātau te tīmata a Bob mā, a rātau mā i whai i muri mai o tēnei, tae mai ki te wā nei. Kei te kite atu ki te kaha rawa i roto i a tātau, i a koe e Tuku, tēnā koe, me te tuahine a Nanaia. Engari e tino mihi atu ki taku hoa, ki te wahine rangatira a Lady Raihā mō tōna kaha rawa. Ahakoa e kore i konei, e mōhio atu tātau e tinanatia tōna kaha i roto i te pire nei. Nō reira, tēnā tātau.

[I endorse the statements made by the member from the far north, Hone, in respect of this river. I also acknowledge those who worked hard, right from the outset, to settle this important matter. We saw the initial work by Sir Robert, and by others who followed to the present day. We note how hard we have worked, including you, Tuku—congratulations, and to you as well, fellow member Nanaia. My highest accolade goes to my friend Lady Raihā; her efforts were untiring. Although she is not here, we know that her efforts are embodied in this bill. So greetings to us.]

Nearing the end of the select committee hearing at Hopuhopu, Lady Raihā Māhuta, the last speaker, suggested that it was like being on a stage set for a Shakespearean play. She pontificated about Shylock chasing his pound of flesh. She said it felt like that—Shylock chasing the pound of flesh. I have listened to the ramblings of the ACT Party today. They smacked of King Lear and Much Ado About Nothing. That is what they sound like.

It is interesting that those members utilise the actions of Princess Te Pūea. Why she was chasing the beginning of a settlement was not just about conscription; it was because of what the British had done to Waikato-Tainui. The British took gunboats up the river and set to on every corner, as history tells us. The better parts of Michael King’s writings suggest that, along with Parihaka, it was one of the worst instances—not too dissimilar to what happened at Ngātapa in Tairawhiti—of setting on a people anā. And they were a people who chased and embellished paimārire.

It was interesting to listen to Mr Garrett quantify. He is a bit of a mathematical wizard, and he suggested that £5,000 at that time is now worth $1 million.

David Garrett: No, $3 million.

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: I got the figures wrong—£5,000 then is now worth $3 million. He went on and on and waxed lyrical about gaps in the summaries up to the finality of this Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Bill. He talked a whole lot of rubbish, because he left out hang of a lot of things about the crude profit made by the British farmers. One would not have to be a rocket scientist or historian to understand that the British were not silly. They saw the flat, rolling lands of Waikato and Taranaki and they wanted them. It was no accident; they knew what they were doing. With subtle debauchery, they put asunder cultural practice that had been very, very strong. When members starts to quantify, to align figures with figures, and to make excuses, saying that was the size of it and it should be this amount of money now, I say that that is a whole lot of rubbish. This issue is not just about money; this is about Māoris who stand up to speak on the marae and say: “Ko Titirangi tōku maunga. Ko Ūawa tōku awa. Ko Ngāi Tahu tōku iwi.” They always embellish the signature statement of where their mountain top is by their river—every one of them. Whether they are from up Kāretu, or from down Mangatuna, or from Hauraki, they always do that. It is significant that people continue to do that today.

The reference to conscription and the scaremongering about weakening democracy are a farce. I have to say that to Mr Boscawen, because what the heck is going on with Environment Canterbury? Why should there not be four Māori seats on the new Auckland Council? That would be a nice touch. I agree with the spokesperson for the Greens, Catherine Delahunty, who suggested that we could progress in harmony. Let us not preach and teach about nationhood, then bugger off and use redneck tactics. It is outrageous. Let us take leadership from the chair of the Māori Affairs Committee, who in a bold effort has ensured that the Waikato River Authority is real. Everybody has a vision and a strategy. I refer to the joint management and to those issues built up by Gordon. There were great efforts made in this journey. One should be proud that this country is taking a turn to understand and imbue something that is real partnership. We do not have to go offshore. Labour started it, and we support it at the end. We commend the Minister, Chris Finlayson, for completing it, and we do not do so lightly.

The cultural activities are as important as the monetary return. Whatever one may say, this issue is not just about money. I suggest to my two ACT parliamentary colleagues sitting opposite that they take a lesson from Māori and wallow in the energy that will come about after the settlement is signed off. They should wallow in what Māoridom do know about—kotahitanga.

How can those members sit there and say that this is wrong? We all have cultural connections. Catholics still do things they were doing 5,000 years ago. I am not very Christian, because we do get jumbled: my mum was a Mormon, my dad was a Ringatū, and my nanny brought me up as Church of England. But nobody says anything about that. People still skip around the maypole, and nobody says anything about that. They still have Christmas.

David Garrett: I’m going to say something about it in 2 minutes, if you wait.

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: Those members are too mean to have Christmas. But people still have Christmas. This is no different. We are ensuring that cultural activities, customary issues, passed on by our ancestors that have stood the test of time continue, and this bill does that. This is a great bill. It is one of the better pieces of legislation in this country.

DAVID GARRETT (ACT): I am glad that Tau Henare is still in the Chamber, because I always like to correct things when I have got them slightly wrong. On this occasion, having checked the reference, I am very happy to say that Tau is correct and that Princess Te Pūea suspended the dispute about the raupatu claim for the duration of the war. The events that I described took place in 1945, so Tau was correct there. He could have taken a wager off me, but he chose to be kind, and I am grateful to him.

I think it is worthwhile recording the circumstances of that settlement in 1945, and I will read from Michael King’s book Te Puea, published in 1975, at chapter 13, “Raupatu and other causes”. King says this: “The eventual offer made on the marae the following day was for £6000 per year for 50 years, and £5000 thereafter in perpetuity. The boldness of the move took the conservative spokesman by surprise. Before disagreement could erupt yet again, Te Puea told Roore Edwards to get to his feet and accept. He stood up and said,”—and I will do my best—“ ‘Kua oti te take nei,’ which Mick Jones translated to Fraser”—that is, Peter Fraser—“as ‘the matter is finalised satisfactorily’. In this manner, a sore that had festered for eighty-two years was at last on the way to being healed.” So I was slightly incorrect, and I am very happy to acknowledge that.

I have learnt a new word here tonight from the Hon Maryan Street—ontologies. I have not had time to check the dictionary, and I do not have a laptop, but I suspect from the context that it means world views. The Hon Maryan Street talked about competing world views, and that is absolutely fine. I do not care whether someone believes that the Waikato River is a living entity with a life force. I do not care whether Mr Finlayson still holds to the religion I was imbued with as a young boy that states that a piece of wafer, on the ringing of a bell, literally becomes the flesh and blood of Christ. As a man of 51, I find that absurd. But if the Hon Chris Finlayson wishes to continue to believe it, that is his business. I have no problem with that. If other people wish to believe in the tooth fairy, I have no problem with that. In the last 20 years or so a number of New Zealanders have declared their religion as Jedi, which I believe is taken from a series of science fiction films of the 1980s. Who cares? That is their business.

But what we have here is a world view of a specific, narrow group of Māori that is being foisted upon not just Pākehā New Zealanders, but also other Māori. We are supposed to have a secular Government, yet highways have been delayed because of the alleged presence of a taniwha. This is the same kind of thing. No one in this country, whether Māori, Pākehā, Chinese, or whatever, should have his or her plans and life—

Catherine Delahunty: Disrupted by—

DAVID GARRETT: —no, “disrupted” is not the word I was looking for at all—governed by the ontology, religion, or superstition of others. That is very, very easy when we get this kind of bill, full of vague, undefined terms. The writer on environmental matters, Owen McShane, has said that many landowners and resource users will find that they are having to deal with evidence based on religious beliefs rather than scientific or experiential evidence. One can measure environmental and economic impacts, but it is impossible to calculate the impact of any kind of development or use on a life force. We cannot do it. That will not stop those with vested interests, whatever race they are, from doing it. It will be very tempting for them to claim some damage to the river’s life force, or mauri, which I understand is the Māori word, in order to block competition with their own economic projects. It is tempting, and, I daresay, inevitable.

The Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Bill gives control to a tiny, elite group backed by those hard-core environmentalists who are opposed to any kind of development. In this ancient, animistic religion, it is a vehicle to assist their own fringe causes. The people of Auckland should be worried about this. The Waikato River is an important source of water for the Auckland region. How will the co-governance model respond to the demands of a growing population north of the Bombay Hills? Will the needs of the human population be too much of a strain on the metaphysical being that is allegedly the Waikato River? Will its mythical inhabitants, or its mori—

Catherine Delahunty: Mauri!

DAVID GARRETT: Mauri; thank you, I am trying my best. Will that be more important than the very people whose actions—

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Well, try harder.

DAVID GARRETT: Mr Cosgrove should give it a go. He never even bothers.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I do all the time.

DAVID GARRETT: Does he? He is not very good. Will that be more important than the real human beings whose actual life force depends on that water? This bill is packed with phrases that will not mean anything until case law defines them, and we have seen that before.

Hone Harawira: Ka pai.

DAVID GARRETT: Mr Harawira is affirming that that is so. We have an activist Supreme Court in that edifice across the road that will be quite happy to define things that are left vague in this bill. It has done it before and it will do it again. It is looking forward to it, I am sure. This is another example of how a very few Māori in the elite have gained disproportionate power thanks to the Māori Party’s deal with the National Party. The only reason the emissions trading scheme—

Hon Parekura Horomia: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. The member alluded to the “elite”. This is about a whole lot of people and a whole lot of different levels in society. It is outrageous.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I hear the member. Those are debating points and that is not acceptable.

DAVID GARRETT: The member has successfully disrupted my flow, which I am sure was his intention, so I say well done to him.

Hon Member: Your life force has been disrupted.

DAVID GARRETT: Yes, my life force has been disrupted so I will have to just ad lib from here as best I can. Put in a couple of sentences, our objection to this bill is that it allows control by an elite according to a particular world view. Or, if we forget about the elite, it is control of an important resource according to the world view of a very few. That is dangerous and it is undemocratic. We are opposed to it, and we will continue to oppose it as long as we get the chance, in this bill and in any other bill that contains similarly bad principles. Thank you.

Hon SHANE JONES (Labour): A, kia ora anō tātau. I te tuatahi ka tukua ki roto i te reo Māori ēnei kōrero ōku. Ētahi wāhanga hei tirohanga mā tātau i roto i tēnei pire. I te tuatahi, kua tukua te hōhonutanga o te Tiriti o Waitangi kia whai waewae ai ki roto i tēnā iwi o tātau, arā, a Waikato-Tainui. Kua tukua te Tiriti o Waitangi me tōna ūpoko tuarua, kia whiwhi ringaringa ai i roto i te mana whakahaere kua waihangatia ki roto i tēnei pire.

Ehara i te mea he rā hari tēnei, kāo, he rā pōuri nā te mea i rainei roa i te tatari rātau kia whiwhi reo ai rātau mō ngā taonga e hāngai tonu ana ki ō rātau whatumanawa, ki ō rātau ngākau. Nā reira e tika ana tātau kia mihi atu ki te iwi nā rātau te kaupapa nei i poipoi, nā rātau te kaupapa nei i manaaki i tō rātau wā. Mā te wā e titiro pēhea kē rānei ngā uri whakatupu me tā rātau taka, tā rātau poipoi i tēnei kaupapa. Otirā mihi noa atu tēnei ki a rātau i ngā taha e rua, i hahau, i manaaki, kātahi ka whakapuāwaitia i tō tātau aroaro i tēnei rā. Nā reira, tēnā tātau katoa.

[So greetings to us all once again. Firstly, I would like to make some statements in Māori in respect of some provisions for us to consider in this bill—in the first instance, the provision for the Treaty of Waitangi and its enormous implications in the bill, which gives traction to that tribe of ours, Waikato-Tainui. Article 2 of the Treaty of Waitangi provides the governance entity created in this bill with the tools and mechanisms to carry out its functions.

It is not as though this is a joyous day—no, not at all. It is tinged with sadness, too, because they have waited a very long time to have a say in how things so close to their hearts and very existence are managed and conserved. Therefore, it is appropriate that we acknowledge the people who nurtured and took care of this matter when they were alive. Time will tell how the younger ones treat and nurture what this bill will generate. Indeed, I acknowledge those on both sides of the House who fashioned and developed the bill that is before us today. Thank you.]

There are two aspects to the Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Bill that are very deserving of some focus in the most positive way. The first is the real meat that is given to the concept of co-management. I refer here to the obligation on those statutory authorities to work with the tangata whenua to detail plans that deal with plant life, ngā hua whenua, the flora and fauna, customary practices—not the least of which is fishing—and a host of other things. It is a genuine attempt to try to build into the machinery of the law some processes where both perspectives can be brought to bear. That is not easy. This most certainly will be not the last attempt that is made. I dare say that refinements will take place on this bill in the future. But unlike colleagues from that side of the House, we have to trust ourselves. And we have to trust the people to whom we are bequeathing this responsibility, not only physically but also in a chronological and a generational sense, so that they will want to carry this perspective forward, so that we can create, in our resource management and with those ancestral treasures, as the Waikato refer to them, something larger than ourselves.

That is what is sadly missing in this bleak, impoverished view being given on that side of the House. It is not so much that those members do not believe in themselves; it is that they do not seem to believe in anything. They seem to think that their status will rise by deriding and attempting to humiliate or to belittle those features of identity in the current cultural mix that represent modern New Zealand society in so far as we are dealing with the implementation of the Treaty settlement. I think that that is probably the most worrying aspect.

But we can derive great solace from the fact that those members will not be here for long anyhow, and the Waikato-Tainui will be here well beyond us and our families, as they are a group whose identity is derived from a cosmic metaphor. It is a blend of the taha wairua and te taha tangata. That is what will go on to define New Zealand when we celebrate 200 years of the Treaty of Waitangi and well beyond, not the view reflected in this sort of “Prendergastian” blast this afternoon. All that that is doing is reminding voters that we must never surrender the future of New Zealand’s race relations stewardship to such barren minds, who have a very narrow and self-serving agenda, which is to cause themselves to grow and to try to impoverish the rest of us in our zest to hand on something better to our mokopuna, to our children, so that these ancestral squabbles can pass by.

That is why it is a pleasure to stand with our colleagues today. Who knows? Maybe Waikato-Tainui will one day be able to stop the State-owned enterprises from privatising that Huntly power station, because it will have the first right of refusal. This is a great day. Kia ora tātou katoa.

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): I thought that I would make brief reference to the spiritual and cultural references in the Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Bill. I thank members for their very helpful contributions. As Maryan Street said, it is a very interesting ontological argument. I have to confess that I was looking up the etymology of that word and Mrs Chadwick must have pimped on me to Maryan Street, because she came along and said to me “Don’t you know the meaning of ontology?”. But, anyway!

A number of points have been made, but I just refer Mr Garrett to clause 8(1) of the bill, which says: “The Crown recognises the statement of significance of the Waikato River to Waikato-Tainui as stated in this section.”, and that statement is set out. The inclusion of those references was made at the request of Waikato-Tainui, who wished to articulate their relationship with the river in their own words. Those references are carefully defined, so I do not believe that the potential confusion that has been suggested by Mr Garrett and his colleagues, will occur. I can recall, a couple of years ago actually, making a speech that was not as intense as Mr Garrett’s contribution, but it was critical of some references to this sort of thing. I think it was in the Te Arawa lakes legislation. I would like to think that a few years on not only have I grown older but I have grown up, because I think those references are appropriate in this bill.

I do not think that it is very helpful for any member of this House to indulge in some form of cultural imperialism: that if there are references to Western Christianity, or something like that, then it is acceptable, but references to this sort of thing represent, as the National Business Review foolishly said on Friday, some kind of challenge to the separation of Church and State. It is nothing of the sort. It is not a challenge to the separation of Church and State, and I think the member demeans himself in relation to that kind of thing. I simply say to him, and it was a point made, I think, by Mr Horomia—who referred to Christian practices going back 5,000 years; actually, I think it is about 2,000 years, but maybe he has a greater insight into these things than I do—that it is very easy to diminish Seder dinners, masses, and things like that. People find their own way to happiness and their own way to eternity. My very strong advice to Mr Garrett is to bone up on hell and purgatory. After that contribution I think he is in dire, dire need of some study, because I say on balance that I think he is headed there.

JOHN BOSCAWEN (ACT): It seems to me that there are two ways we can conduct this debate. We can actually talk about the issues that are in this bill, the Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Bill, or we can use the opportunity to attack people and to attack the way they present their arguments. That is what we heard from Parekura Horomia and, sadly, Shane Jones.

Mr Horomia talked about Much Ado About Nothing. He said the implication was that the objections of the ACT Party are much to do about nothing. He talked about Mr Garrett and me, and he certainly implied that Mr Garrett and I were scaremongering about democracy. Mr Jones said that ACT Party members do not seem to believe in anything, that they belittle this debate, and that we must ensure that New Zealand’s race relations are never surrendered to the ACT Party, or words to that affect. I could respond in kind. I could attack Mr Jones. I could attack Mr Horomia. I do not intend to do that.

What I want to do, though, is to answer the question of Kelvin Davis. Mr Davis asked what was wrong with the bill. The objectives of the bill are to clean up the Waikato River and to reduce the pollution, the fertilisers, and the nutrients that flow into the river. There is nothing wrong with that. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

Let me restate our objections to the bill—slowly, clearly, and succinctly. Under the way this country is governed right now, we have a series of regional councils throughout the country. They are elected. There is the odd unitary council.

Hon Shane Jones: No, you don’t. You’ve got nothing in Auckland and nothing in Canterbury.

JOHN BOSCAWEN: Let me speak specifically, then, about Waikato. Its resources—the air, water, and soils—are currently governed by the Waikato Regional Council. People living in that electoral district have a vote. They can vote for that council. The council has the obligation to manage the water, control and issue water rights, and create property rights in respect of water. What is the option for people who do not like the decisions of the Waikato Regional Council? At the next election they can stand and oppose the people who currently run that council.

This bill proposes setting up the Waikato River Authority. It will not have elected representatives. Half of its representatives will be appointed by iwi, and the other half will be appointed by the Crown. We can ask what is wrong with that. Well, this country is a democracy—one person, one vote, and no taxation without representation. The ACT Party objects to this bill doing away with those principles.

We heard from Maryan Street that the concept is probably unique, and that it will lead to evolutionary development of our democracy as the years go by. In fact, we heard from Catherine Delahunty that she was just enthralled at the prospect that we would move away from the concept of one person, one vote to the concept of co-governance, where there will be the fifty-fifty management of our resources between iwi and non-iwi. That is not a democracy. Mr Chairperson, I understand you represent the seat of Waikato. I cannot believe that the farmers you represent—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Order!

Hon Parekura Horomia: Mr Chairperson—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I am on my feet. The member cannot bring the Chairperson into the debate. Even though I do represent the Waikato, the member cannot bring the Chairperson into the debate.

JOHN BOSCAWEN: I apologise, Mr Chairperson. I acknowledge that I am still learning.

Let me try to summarise the ACT arguments. We have a democracy in this country.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Not in Canterbury.

JOHN BOSCAWEN: We have just celebrated Anzac Day, I say to Mr Cosgrove. People gave their lives to fight for their democracy. They went across to the other side of the world and made sacrifices to fight for something that is absolutely fundamental in a democratic country, and that is the right to have free elections on the basis of one person, one vote. We have just recognised the 95th anniversary of Anzac Day. It was good enough for our Prime Minister to go to the other side of the world to acknowledge the sacrifice that was made in fighting for our freedoms. Something that was absolutely fundamental to that is the principle of one person, one vote.

I stand in the Chamber today with opponents all around me. Only my colleague Mr Garrett and I are standing up for that view. I am very, very happy to carry that responsibility. There will be people listening to this debate on the radio and there will be people watching it on television. I am standing up for those people who believe that New Zealand is founded on a democracy, that we should have one person, one vote, and that everyone should have an equal say. So if there are farmers in the Waikato who are not happy with the allocation of water rights, they continue to have the right they currently have, which is to petition or lobby the elected representatives of the Waikato Regional Council. If they are not happy with the result of that, they have the right to stand for election themselves and challenge the councillors, who are democratically elected.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: They want to with Environment Canterbury, but you’ve already sacked them.

JOHN BOSCAWEN: This bill sets up the Waikato River Authority. It is not a democracy, and Mr Jones, Mr Parekura Horomia, and Mr Cosgrove can sit there and smirk, smile, and shout as much as they like, but I am prepared to stand up for people in New Zealand who believe democracy is very, very special in this country. It needs to be fought for, and if I am one of only five people who are prepared to do so, I do that with pride.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri): I seek leave to table a document. The document is a statement by the Minister of Local Government and ACT leader, Rodney Hide, and it states that he and his colleague Nick Smith sacked the democratically elected body Environment Canterbury.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Is this a public document in the public domain?

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: Media clippings, statements—everything.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I will not accept that.

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): I will stand quickly to commend the Minister and all the support for this great bill, the Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Bill. I especially commend Labour members, including former member Michael Cullen. I make a special mention of the Māori Affairs Committee and our colleague on that committee, Nanaia Mahuta. I thank Hone Harawira for his kind words, and everybody else. This is a great bill. Kia ora tātou.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Christopher Finlayson to the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 119 in his name to clause 34P be agreed to:

to omit from subclause (14) “management”.

Amendment to the amendment agreed to.

The question was put that the amendments as amended set out on Supplementary Order Paper 119 in the name of the Hon Christopher Finlayson be agreed to.

Amendments as amended agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the preamble, clauses 1 and 2, Parts 1 and 2, and schedules 1 to 6 as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 117

New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Māori Party 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1.

Noes 5

ACT New Zealand 5.

Preamble, clauses 1 and 2, Parts 1 and 2, and schedules 1 to 6 as amended agreed to.

Bill reported with amendment.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON (Steve Chadwick): I move, That the report be adopted.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the report be adopted.

Ayes 117

New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Māori Party 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1.

Noes 5

ACT New Zealand 5.

Report adopted.

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

Bills

Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (Expiry and Application Dates) Amendment Bill

First Reading

Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice): I move, That the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (Expiry and Application Dates) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. At the appropriate time, I intend to move that the bill be referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee for consideration, that the committee report finally to the House on or before 1 June 2010, and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting except during oral questions, during any evening on a day in which there has been a sitting of the House, and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, despite Standing Orders 187 and 190(1)(b) and (c).

The Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Act 2005, passed by the previous Government, contains two important provisions that are due to expire on 30 June 2010. First, the Act restricts the awarding of compensation to prisoners to those situations where no other remedy is deemed appropriate. Second, if compensation must be awarded, the Act allows victims of the prisoner to claim against it before the prisoner can access the money. This amendment bill extends these provisions for a further 2 years to ensure that victims are not locked out of this process from 1 July of this year. This is a transitional measure to ensure that victims’ access to prisoners’ compensation does not lapse prior to the introduction of further legislation in this area later this year.

The Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Act, I am afraid to report, has not worked as well as what, perhaps, was intended. At the time that Labour introduced the legislation the then Minister of Justice, Phil Goff, predicted that it “will restrict compensation for inmates to exceptional cases … Where payments are made, it maximises the prospect that victims will be the beneficiaries, and I make no apology for that,”. Since the Act came into force 17 awards of compensation have been subject to the victims’ claims process and finalised, totalling over $139,000. The Act has allowed over $25,000 of that amount to be paid in reparations owed to victims. However, only four out of the 17 awards have been the subject of successful victims’ claims, totalling over $38,000 paid out to victims. This has meant that prisoners have still received over $60,000 at the end of the process. Unfortunately, payments to prisoners on 13 out of 17 occasions can hardly constitute exceptional cases. It has to be said that without the victims’ claims process put in place by this Act, admittedly, and giving credit to the last Government, prisoners would have received the whole amount. But clearly—and, perhaps, understandably—there is reluctance on the part of victims to claim against an offender’s payout, and that is working to the benefit of the offenders.

The Government’s policy, as outlined before the election, is to provide that when compensation is awarded to a prisoner, anything remaining after the prisoner’s victims have sought redress will be redirected to the victims’ services appropriation. As the House will be aware, the victims’ services appropriation is being used to fund additional services and entitlements for victims generally. This appropriation already includes funding from the disestablished Criminal Justice Advisory Board—that seems like a long time ago now—and the Sentencing Council, and will be accompanied by revenue generated by another Government initiative: the $50 levy to be imposed on offenders from 1 July 2010. In October last year I announced eight new initiatives to be funded by the appropriation. Three are already under way, and the remaining five will commence on 1 July. Until legislation is ready to redirect unclaimed compensation into the victims’ services appropriation, this bill is necessary to ensure that the direct victims of prisoners continue to have priority in compensation awards.

The previous Government also predicted that the Act would deter further compensation claims by inmates, “as there will be no financial incentive for them to do so … if … the first call on any damages given to any prisoner who is wronged goes to the victims the offender has wronged.” However, there are currently a further eight awards at various stages of the victims’ claims process; a much greater number of outstanding claims still exist as a result of the behaviour management regime, which was found to breach prisoners’ human rights when it operated at Auckland prison from 1998 to 2004. Most important, this bill ensures that those claims will continue to be covered by the existing prisoners’ and victims’ claims regime. The bill also clarifies that if a prisoner makes a claim before 1 July 2012, any compensation payable as a result of that claim will be subject to the victims’ claims process in the Act, regardless of whether the claim is resolved by that date.

The applicability of the process was previously in doubt due to a drafting ambiguity. The Government does take the matter of prisoner mistreatment seriously. The best way to reduce such complaints from prisoners is to stop these breaches from occurring in the first place. However, where breaches occur the responsible agencies need to be held to account, and retaining compensation as a remedy will continue to act as a disincentive for ill treatment. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri): I say from the outset that, given that the previous Labour Government drafted and passed the original legislation, we will support the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (Expiry and Application Dates) Amendment Bill. It is, in essence, a technical amendment to further extend and to bridge for some 2 years the provisions of the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Act to, as the Minister of Justice said, ensure that current claims will continue to be covered by the legislation.

I suspect even the most hardened souls in this Parliament, although I wait in anticipation, would acknowledge that two wrongs do not make a right. I do not think that anybody in this House thinks that a prisoner should be assaulted; nor would anybody agree that a prison officer or anybody else should be assaulted or experience inappropriate behaviour towards them. That in no way, of course, negates the gravity of what a prisoner had done to the primary victim—the victim in the community, who may well have been raped, assaulted, or worse. We are in danger, as politicians in this Parliament, of sometimes pontificating at people. I am one person in this Parliament who has to acknowledge that I have never been a victim of a crime. It is easy for me to be, as it were, less emotional and possibly more logical because I have not had a loved one who has been dealt to by an individual. I always acknowledge that and am mindful of that as we have these debates. I suspect that had I or a member of my family been dealt to in tragic circumstances such as we have read about in the papers over the last year or two, I would probably be rather more animated and probably less tolerant in respect of my response to that crime. That being said, as I have said before, I do not think anybody would tolerate a wrong being done to a member of the community; likewise it serves no just purpose for a wrong to be done to somebody who is incarcerated.

However, in my view, it also serves no just purpose that a person who has wronged a member of our community gains compensation for a wrong done against them. That is not appropriate, and that compensation should be put up for the original victim of the crime to access. That was the intent, if you will, of this legislation. I quote from Mark Burton in 2004: “The reason that Parliament passed the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Act was precisely to recognise that victims have the right to make a claim against any such compensation and to simplify the procedure for doing so.” The Minister is correct that there have been some difficulties with that legislation. Its intent, I think, was absolutely clear. Despite some political comments that I am sure will be made by people other than the Minister, the legislation showed that the previous Government’s intent was to deny those who had done wrong the opportunity to be compensated—and, also, that that compensation was a sanction imposed on those who had offended against that person in incarceration—and, equally, to allow the victim in the community to take advantage and to gain some of the money or resources in respect of that compensation.

The Minister was right when he said that the easy way to fix this was to stop breaches against prisoners’ rights. However, I note, in passing, the Government’s measures to cut the budgets of our correctional institutions and organisations like the Prisoners Aid and Rehabilitation Society, a 132-year-old institution, which I call a protector of victims’ rights. Some would say that that is rehabilitation, which does not work so they are against it. I say that that organisation is actually a protector of our community, because it tries to change the behaviour of people who have committed wrongs inside our prisons, in the hope that they do not offend again and create further victims, future victims, in our community. The Prisoners Aid and Rehabilitation Society is actually a victim protection organisation, a community protection organisation, yet this Government has chosen to cut the resources to it.

It is interesting also that the Minister talked of victims’ rights, and I support him in his comments. Despite all the political rhetoric we heard before the election from some minor party now represented in this House, I wager that not one member on any side would say that he or she was not prepared to stand by and support victims. I wager that not one member on any side of this Parliament would say that we should not have victim support, but that it is a right for victims to be supported, whether that is by having a shoulder to cry on, or whether it is counselling support or monetary resource.

I note that victims of sexual crime—some of the most heinous and disgraceful crimes against innocent members of our community, whether children, young women, young men, or elderly folk—had been eligible for accident compensation and counselling, and for psychiatric assistance. They have been through physical torture, and then go through mental torture for the rest of their lives. Yet, as we debate a victims’ rights bill and a victims’ support bill—this is germane, I tell the House—this Government has told the Accident Compensation Corporation to cut costs. Now victims of heinous sexual crime, who are tortured mentally every day of their lives, are being denied basic counselling services. I am told—and I am not trying to be grotesque about this—that a number of those victims have taken their own lives recently. That is sad; that is a tragedy. That is a responsibility that will be visited upon those who denied them that assistance.

I say that this bill is appropriate. It is a technical bill, and we will support it. But when we come to talk of victims’ rights, I am waiting for the ACT Party to get up and give us its view on the denial of counselling services to victims of sexual abuse and sexual assault. It is interesting that during the debate on the accident compensation aspects of the bill, where victims are now being denied those basic services as they go through life, there was not a whimper, not a word of protest, from the ACT Party or Mr Garrett, who purported to be the only person—I think he once said—who stood by victims. I wait with great interest, as we debate this technical bill that has bipartisan support, at least, for Mr Garrett and his ilk from the ACT Party to tell us whether they support the Government decision to deny those who have been assaulted or worse through sexual crime, the basic counselling services they need to get through their lives. That is what is happening every day in our community. I would wager that in every electorate office around this country, whether those offices are Labour or National, Green or ACT, women and men have come into our offices after tragic circumstances, who cannot in any way now access those services through ACC.

There are those in our community, and some commentators, who say “Hang on, that is not an accident. That’s not something ACC should cover.” Well, I ask them who should cover it if they were the victims. I do not care who covers it. I say that the State should cover it, and I say that the State has a responsibility to be the shoulder that that victim can cry on, and the agency that provides the services, counselling, and support that the victim needs. The State has a responsibility.

Labour will support this legislation—we wrote it and we passed it. I acknowledge, as the Minister has said, that it has had some difficulties. I look forward to some of the learned professionals who claim to be the ones who stand by victims, who claim to have victims’ rights at the heart of their political policy, and who say they have stood by victims in other places outside this House, to get up and address that issue. I know of no other issue that is more important than that. We have men and women in our communities who have no support, apart from their whānau or loved ones, if they have them. They have no professional counselling, because that has been denied to them. If we are really serious about victims’ rights, I say that that, along with this legislation, is something that fundamentally we must and should address.

CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui): I thank the previous speaker, Clayton Cosgrove, for his contribution and for a number of the comments that he has made.

One of them was that the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (Expiry and Application Dates) Amendment Bill is a technical piece of legislation—and it is. It will receive support, as I understand it, from across the House, and so it should, because all of us would agree that the offender who finds himself in custody, and then through some other circumstance finds himself with access to a significant amount of money, should be forced to pay his victims out first; or, at least, his victims should have the opportunity to make a claim against that new-found wealth, no matter how it was achieved. Unfortunately, if the offender happens to win it in Lotto, victims will have to go through protracted court proceedings to get their mitts on any money that he may have. But, under this legislation, victims have the ability to make a claim before the victims’ special claims tribunal to access money.

The bill will be referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee. I thank the committee members who have served on that committee from time to time. This is the 17th piece of legislation that has come before that committee over the term of this Government, and 12 pieces of legislation have exited and been reported back to the House. We would just like to pat ourselves on the back for a moment, and say that that is more legislation than has been reported back from any other select committee. We look forward to discussing these matters when they come before us.

This legislation shuts another door. What I am mindful of is that, over the course of this Government and previous Governments, we have shut a number of doors in respect of those who find themselves in custody. What we also know from experience, and from our learning over generations, is that a number of people who find themselves to be offenders and quite rightly behind bars have found themselves at some stage to be victims, too. We, as a civilised society, must stop closing our minds to that. We need to address things within the history of those inmates in prison, so that they do not go on to create further victims. So, whereas I fully support this legislation, I also fully support any move to assist in the rehabilitation of offenders or to run programmes of a restorative nature in prison.

I will pick up on something that the previous speaker said. Clayton Cosgrove was saying that the victims of sexual abuse and other abuse had traditionally had their counselling paid for by the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC). For a number of years now, especially since 2003, report after report has asked whether ACC should be the agency dealing with these matters. The throwaway line that the member used was “Well, abuse is not an accident.” Actually, if we scrutinise it, we see that it is not an accident. What we do know is that successive Governments, in spite of that fact, have allowed ACC to become the provider of all those counselling services, when those services could quite rightly and quite justifiably sit more appropriately under a mental health cap, for instance, or under a Ministry of Social Development cap. That is where they should be.

Lynne Pillay: No funding; there’s no funding.

CHESTER BORROWS: I will take the point of Ms Pillay, who is calling out right now, and say we do not care whose bucket it comes out of, as long as the taxpayer—

Lynne Pillay: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I take issue with that. I did not say that we do not care. I said that this Government has cut the funding.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is a debating point.

CHESTER BORROWS: I want to make it quite clear that I was not saying that she does not care.

Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. What recourse does the Opposition have when a Government member deliberately misrepresents an interjection from the Opposition?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: If the member has taken offence, under Standing Order 116 she can state her objection. But a member cannot litigate a debating point; that is a matter of debate, whether or not the member likes it. But if the member has taken offence, Standing Order 116 allows some recourse.

Lynne Pillay: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have taken offence, given that that is certainly not what I said.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: We are not getting into a debate of whether it is right or wrong. I hear the point. I ask the member to withdraw the comment.

CHESTER BORROWS: I withdraw and apologise. I apologise because I was not clear enough in what I said. I did not say, and I certainly did not intend to say, that the member had said “We do not care.” or imply in any way that the people on the other side of the House or in any other part of the House do not care.

The point that I was trying to make was that we, as citizens of this country, do not care who, or what bucket, what portfolio, or what Government agency, gets dipped into to pay for funding for counselling. We only care that it is funded. Surely the member has no complaint about that. Because we quite rightly expect that if someone who has been abused as a result of an attack—whether it be sexual abuse, physical abuse, or anything else—needs counselling, then the wherewithal to cover the cost of that counselling will be met by the taxpayer. My criticism has been that we have traditionally allowed ACC to do that, when quite rightly it fits within other portfolios, which have escaped it. That is what the Government is trying to put right at this stage.

This bill will receive support from across the House, and so it should. But the point I am trying to make is this: while we run around within the criminal justice area, shutting doors on free and democratic rights in a civilised society that it is incumbent on the State to provide for people in its custody, we must remember the other side of their offending, which needs to be addressed. To leave them without access to rehabilitation—as successive Governments have done, which, as we are addressing now—was wrong. We need to recognise them for the people they are, and to recognise all the things that interact to affect their behaviour and their existence, with the result that they offend against victims of crime. I hope that at some stage this House will scrutinize as to exactly what we provide for people behind bars as closely as we scrutinise what we provide for people outside. Thank you.

LYNNE PILLAY (Labour): On behalf of the Labour Opposition, I stand to add my comments to those of Clayton Cosgrove, who spoke previously, that we support the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (Expiry and Application Dates) Amendment Bill. I will talk briefly about the purpose of the bill and give some history.

The original bill was introduced by the Labour Government in 2004 and came into effect in 2005. It regulated the awarding of compensation to prisoners for breaches of their rights. The Act also provided a regime whereby victims of compensated prisoners can claim for damages, payment for which would come out of the prisoners’ compensation awarded. When Labour brought the bill forward, it was done as a matter of justice so that victims of crime would get some redress.

We are supporting, effectively, a roll-over or an extension of 2 years of the application of this Act. The Government has said that it will be introducing a second prisoners’ and victims’ claims amendment bill later this year. Certainly, we see this amendment bill as a minor technical change. The Government will have no opposition from this side of the House to legislation that will improve services and support to victims.

My friend Chester Borrows, who spoke previously, began very well by commending the Justice and Electoral Committee, and I think that was a very sensible thing to do, because the committee is hard-working. But I was very, very disappointed in Chester Borrows—I did not take offence at his comments because I do not think there was any malice intended—when he talked about the accident compensation scheme maybe not being the appropriate vehicle for compensation for victims of sexual assault. That may not be the case, but that is the system we have in place. That is the system whereby victims of sexual assault and serious crime receive the counselling they need and deserve. It is the only, and currently the appropriate, way for those victims to receive counselling. Chester Borrows simply did not understand that. But I will not stand in this House and blame him. Do members know why? It is because the Minister for ACC does not get it, either.

The Minister for ACC, despite the advice he is given, does not understand the reality for victims of sexual assault in New Zealand, as it is at the moment. Despite professionals, psychotherapists, counsellors, and survivors of sexual assault writing to the Minister, this unfortunate experiment that is happening, as Chester Borrows spoke of previously, is not providing victims with the support they need and deserve. That is a very, very serious situation. I know that the other two speakers before me have made considerable comments on that point, and I feel it is appropriate, given Chester Borrows’ statements, that I clarify to the House that that is certainly not the situation. The cutting of services and support provided by accident compensation has been absolutely dreadful. Although the intention was to save the Accident Compensation Corporation money, in terms of providing counselling services, the human cost is absolutely immeasurable.

I commend Simon Power for some of the work he is doing for victims’ rights, but I urge the Minister to talk to Nick Smith and explain the situation to him—in fact, I suggest that they have a caucus session on it. Clearly, Chester Borrows, who is a well-meaning member, who has been very committed in terms of the Justice and Electoral Committee, does not understand. I can see that there is clearly a big communication dysfunction within the National caucus. Perhaps if that was cleared, then we would not have the sad situation that we see for victims of—

Simon Bridges: No problems in your caucus!

LYNNE PILLAY: I will not respond to that joke at the moment. I do not think this is a joking matter.

Simon Bridges: You were just being sarcastic about—

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member cannot bring the Speaker into the debate.

Simon Bridges: The member was just being sarcastic about this side of the House.

LYNNE PILLAY: In terms of the challenge that I am being sarcastic, I am merely speaking the truth. The truth is that going from 300 to 400 cases a month down to six cases receiving the support they need and deserve is a travesty; it is an absolute travesty. That member needs to take note of what is happening, and needs to raise the issue in his caucus, as indeed I hope that Simon Power, the Minister of Justice, will.

I want to move on and talk about some of the other issues for victims of crime in this country. The previous Labour Government passed the Sentencing Act, which went quite a considerable way in terms of victims’ rights. In respect of restorative justice, the Labour Government passed the Victims’ Rights Act in 2002, which gave victims the right to information and the ability to have input into sentencing decisions. That went a long way towards providing more support for the victims of crime in our country. As we know, the aim of the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Act 2005 was to ensure that victims of inmates could claim against any compensation that those inmates were awarded. I look forward to further improvements to what has already been put in place being brought into this House, as the Government has said it will do.

Also, very important in terms of victims’ rights, we can look at the introduction of the Victims Charter in February 2008. That was developed so that victims would be aware of the services and support that were available to them. At this time I acknowledge all the good work that many agencies throughout New Zealand do for victims, including Women’s Refuge, Victim Support, and those who operate the 0800 line that was introduced under the previous Labour Government, which gave more support to victims. More funding was also introduced by Labour to support victims of domestic violence through the processes of the Family Court. There was also the introduction of independent victim support advocates, who provide support for victims of domestic violence.

Although we have seen some progress on victims’ rights, and I acknowledge that, it is very sad—as many people in women’s refuge organisations have said—that we still have a very good bill dealing with domestic violence victims’ rights languishing on the Order Paper. Why? It is because it is a Labour bill. I ask this House to consider putting aside party politics and to look at what is best for victims. I take this opportunity, if I may, to request that the Government give very careful consideration to moving that bill forward on the Order Paper so that real improvements are made with regard to victims’ rights and there is more support for victims of domestic violence.

As I said before, there will not be any opposition to this bill from Labour members. Indeed, any bill that provides support or services for victims has our support. But I would also say that it is a pity that the Minister for ACC does not have in his mind the same principle of supporting people who are victims and survivors of serious sexual assault. Thank you.

DAVID CLENDON (Green): Kia ora koutou. I fear that I will disappoint an earlier speaker in his assumption that no opposition to this Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (Expiry and Application Dates) Amendment Bill would be spoken in the House. In the very short time since we have had access to this proposed legislation, we have been confronted with the difficulty that the Greens supported the final reading of the legislation that this bill now seeks to extend for a further 2 years. On balance, however, we will oppose this bill, as we think it is unfortunate that only a matter of a few months before the sunset clause in this 5-year-old legislation takes effect, there is a somewhat belated attempt to leave in place inadequate legislation while work is done to develop a better alternative.

It has been admitted by members who have spoken from both sides of the House so far that this legislation has not been a success. It has not generated or presented the outcomes that were hoped for it, and we think time and energy would be better spent finding more positive and long-term solutions to the undoubtedly important task of securing just and fair outcomes for victims of crime, while also ensuring that the basic human rights of prisoners are acknowledged and preserved, in line with both our domestic and international law and conventions.

We can safely predict that this position will once again make us vulnerable and will stimulate certain parties to accuse us again of being soft on crime or of being out of step with public expectations and preferences. In fact, we believe that the public mood is for outcomes that genuinely work, rather than those that reflect the very narrow and very punitive approach of a few. That is a point that I will refer to later.

The 2005 Act restricts awards of compensation sought by specified human rights claims made by persons under the State’s control or supervision. It provides for the making and determination of claims that the victim of a prisoner may make against compensation paid in respect of specified human rights claims made by a prisoner. It is a somewhat convoluted and complex solution to what was a very real problem. It is worth recalling that at the time, the legislation was triggered by findings that there had been systemic breaches of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, particularly under the so-called behaviour management programme at Auckland prison. These breaches included a failure to allow inmates on the behaviour management programme adequate opportunities to exercise, a failure to notify the medical officer when inmates were put under the programme, and issues related to basic hygiene, cell cleanliness, and access to clean clothing. Strip-searches were routinely undertaken by officers with an inadequate understanding of the grounds for conducting such searches. Many of those searches, therefore, did not comply with sections of the Penal Institutions Act. The court held that taken individually, these unlawful acts would not have been sufficient to breach the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, but taken in combination they revealed treatment falling “well below standards that befit a human being”, including the treatment of a person behaving badly in prison, and, therefore, constituted breaches of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.

We originally opposed the 2005 bill that became the Act that the Government is seeking to extend due to our concerns that it could be seen to violate prisoners’ rights. It removed a mechanism for stopping abuse in prisons and went only a short way towards meeting the needs and legitimate expectations of victims of crime. We listened to the debate at the time and we changed our position to support its third reading, on the clear understanding that there would be a comprehensive inquiry into prisoners’ rights. This inquiry was duly put in place. It reported back to this House in December 2007. It must be said that that report contained some very good recommendations, but there is too little evidence that those recommendations were picked up by the previous Government or, indeed, the present Government. For example, the report proposed in 2007 a one-stop shop for victim support—a properly resourced agency that would ensure victims had access to adequate information, services, and outcomes that were appropriate to their needs. It would be an agency that did not rely solely on the goodwill of many hundreds of volunteers. Too much of the victim support work being done in this country now is left to non-governmental organisations and to poorly resourced voluntary and private organisations.

The report proposed in 2007 the establishment of a compensation regime focused on recompensing victims for their loss. It recommended a gap analysis to identify where victims’ needs were not being met, and various other quite admirable proposals were made. Some good advances have been made since then. The Victims Charter was mentioned earlier. That was a positive outcome. But it is difficult to support an argument that the victims of crime are substantially better off now than they were 5 years ago.

There is a still glaring need to establish an independent prison investigative authority, which the Greens have long advocated for. We could model such an agency on the very good examples established in Britain or Western Australia. We will oppose this legislation, which, in its present form, has been more symbolic than real. Very few victims have benefited from it. Very few affected prisoners have taken advantage of the provisions within it. Arguably, very few of them know of it or would choose to use it.

The legislation overall and its continuance are symptomatic of the view that prisoners should lose any rights, which was specifically proposed by a Government member speaking earlier in this debate about prisoners’ voting rights. Treating prisoners as non-citizens, as people not possessing rights or not deserving of rights, is entirely counter-productive and worsens post-release integration problems. There is ample reason to adopt a more enlightened approach.

Evidence from Scandinavia, and especially from Norway, shows that those systems that give most regard to human rights, and impose the fewest denials of human rights on convicted people, deliver the lowest levels of reconviction. Norway, for example, has a reconviction rate of 20 percent, whereas ours is effectively double that. Imagine the financial savings and the benefits in terms of social and individual well-being we might see if we could emulate that reconviction rate here, if we could cut our reconviction rate in half.

I mentioned that the provisions of this legislation are complex. In Finland we know that victims of crime are compensated by the State, which then enacts appropriate measures against offenders to endeavour to recoup some of what has been paid to the offender. It is a much cleaner, more straightforward, and much more appropriate mechanism than this rather convoluted legislation that we are confronted with. The concern that prisoners might somehow gain financial benefit that is denied to the victim is very easily resolved, and that point was made by the Minister presenting the bill. If we put in place more and better mechanisms to protect the human rights of prisoners and ensure they are treated in accordance with national and international law and convention, then there will be no avenue for offenders to gain financial redress.

There are solutions available to the admittedly very complex problem of needing to provide fair recompense to victims of crime without compromising our commitment to humane treatment and human rights for all citizens. But those solutions will not be found in perpetuating inadequate and dated legislation. Thank you.

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Kia ora tātou katoa, e hoa mā, i tēnei pō.

Paul Quinn: You’re back.

TE URUROA FLAVELL: I am back. From the Māori Party’s perspective, I will cut to the chase straightaway. At the nub of the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (Expiry and Application Dates) Amendment Bill is the issue of human rights, including a person’s right to a reasonable way of life, even when in prison. I refer the House to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, under which our Government is required to ensure that inmates are treated with dignity, and that effective remedies are available when violations of those rights occur.

One would think that human rights should have always been up there in our history, but when we look back, it has not been so. One hundred and thirty years ago, this Parliament passed the 1879 Maori Prisoners Trials Act and the Maori Prisoners Act. That legislation was the Government’s racist response to the passive non-violent land-rights occupation—well, it was talked about as being occupation, but in fact it was a stake in the land—for those people of Parihaka. Under those laws, prisoners were held indefinitely without trial, contrary to one of the most basic rights guaranteed to all British citizens and set out in the Magna Carta.

As a part of that history, an important player at the time was the member of Parliament for Northern Māori, a man by the name of Hone Mohi Tāwhai, who served in this House from 1870 to 1884. History tells us that he was asked to sit on what was called the West Coast Royal Commission on the grounds that he would be impartial, not having been in any war, and, for his part, he decided to take some pretty radical actions. He opposed the prisoners detention bill that was being rushed through the House. He refused to support blindfolded such a hurried set of measures. He publicly criticised the shipping of Māori prisoners from Taranaki to jails in Dunedin, because he knew that that was just a move to get rid of them. He also knew that they would die in the colder climate. He also refused to sit on a commission with a gentleman by the name of William Fox and another gentleman by the name of Francis Dillon Bell because of their involvement in the land confiscations in Taranaki. Mr Tāwhai, an honourable member of Parliament in his time, had one clear message during the discussion: laws not made in accordance with Te Tiriti o Waitangi would be the cause of ill feeling between Māori and Pākehā, and he urged Parliament not to pass laws from which such evils would flow.

I recall Mr Tāwhai as we consider this Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (Expiry and Application Dates) Amendment Bill, because it is desperately important that we remind ourselves always about our commitment to human rights, just as I also remind us of the 2004 United Nations Committee Against Torture review of New Zealand, which expressed the concern about “the findings of the Ombudsman regarding investigations of alleged staff assaults on inmates, in particular regarding the reluctance to confront such allegations promptly, and the quality, impartiality, and credibility of investigations.” That is a damning finding, which emerged, as members may well recall, from the inquiries into the running of the Mangaroa Prison in Hawke’s Bay some years ago. The inquiries found systematic beatings and torture of prisoners by senior prison officers. They used hit squads to beat the inmates. They held inmates naked in overnight pens and lock-ups outside. They also denied inmates medical attention for injuries for injuries such as bruising, black eyes, and cracked ribs. The key is that although the public expressed its outrage that the nine prisoners were awarded compensation and a public apology, very little attention was given to the fact that some of the prison officers who committed those criminal acts were later re-employed and apparently compensated for wrongful dismissal.

So, yes, let us have a debate about the definition of rights and victims, but let us also be clear that the people whom we do not like are not always the offenders, and the people whom we want to feel sorry for are not necessarily the victims. Yes, we are comfortable in talking about the role of the State in punishing offenders and depriving them of some of the privileges of citizenship, but we cannot sanction the violence against inmates that some people in this House may well turn a blind eye to.

Offenders lose their freedom when they get sent to jail, but that does not mean they should also lose their lawful human rights. Imprisonment is the punishment, not the site for ongoing additional punishment that goes way beyond the scope of the court sentence. Yet we know that the rights of prisoners are breached on a daily basis. Article 10 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights says: “All persons deprived of their liberty shall be treated with humanity and with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person.” It also says: “The penitentiary system shall comprise treatment of prisoners the essential aim of which shall be their reformation and social rehabilitation.” Yet member of the House have just spoken recently to a bill that would deny inmates the right to vote. We are about to get another bill denying them compensation.

The Māori Party supports the rights of victims to be restored to their full potential, and we welcome a broader approach to victim support that strengthens and empowers individuals and their families. But we cannot ignore the fact that prisoners, who are themselves vulnerable to violence, who have nowhere to escape to and no one to turn to, often become victims themselves of brutal rape, assault, and murder in jail. Those inmates will not be in jail for ever. They will return to our communities, and if they have been taught that extreme violence is their pathway to success, and that a brutal ignorance of the law is acceptable and accepted management practice, then that will be the future they will bring back into society.

The Māori Party supports a radical rethink of our penal system, but not along the lines of the uninformed comment that the Ombudsman referred to in his 2007 inquiry into the criminal justice system, which stated that denying prisoners their human rights and booting them while they are down would simply not work. So, in closing, we urge this House to think about ways in which we can create a more effective criminal justice system, a system that punishes offending, supports victims, and helps offenders become more positive members of our society. The Māori Party will not be supporting this bill at its first reading.

SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga): I want to pick up on what my colleague from the Māori Party, Te Ururoa Flavell, was saying. On the face of it, I suppose it was a reasonably powerful point that Paul Quinn’s member’s bill, the Electoral (Disqualification of Convicted Prisoners) Amendment Bill, takes away prisoners’ right to vote, and with this bill, the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (Expiry and Application Dates) Amendment Bill, we are taking away their right to get compensation. We have, apparently, done that previously, and we are continuing that with this bill. But I do not think that is the case. In fact, as I understand this bill and previous bills, none of them have done that. They have not said that prisoner A, who has suffered an egregious harm in prison, cannot go to court or to the independent authority and get compensation. That still occurs, and, in egregious cases, compensation is forthcoming. What Acts passed under the previous Labour Government did, and what this extending of that regime does, is simply state that, if prisoner A does get that compensation, it is right and proper that he or she also is legally obliged to pay reparation, or the like, to a victim or to various victims. That money can be used for that. When members think about it, that is no different than what happens in civil cases where someone goes to court, wins compensation, and that money goes to pay other debts. So I do not think it is necessarily a bad thing at all.

With the exception of the Greens and maybe the Māori Party, as well, this bill really has widespread support, because it is just technical. I think the explanatory note puts it well when it states that it is a bill that “bridges the gap between the expiry of the current regime and the enactment of a second Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Amendment Bill to be introduced in Parliament later in 2010.” So this is no great shakes. It is not, in any sense, doing anything controversial or anything radical; it is continuing what we have. As I have already said to the House, I think what we have at the moment is pretty good. There is room for improvements, and that will come in legislation to be introduced later this year. But what we have is, nevertheless, a good start.

I think the other thing I will say, lastly, is that this bill can be located in a wider context, and I appreciate that the Opposition has some difficulties with that. But last year, and continuing on this year, the justice policy and theme of this Government is to put victims at the centre of the justice system in order to do better by victims. So it is good that this bill is continuing that. We will expand upon that, making things even better with a bill in the same vein later this year, which will improve on previous law in the area of compensation for victims.

CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour): The Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (Expiry and Application Dates) Amendment Bill seeks to extend the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Act 2005 passed by the fifth Labour Government. That Act regulated the awarding of compensation to prisoners for breaches of their rights, and this is in line with our international obligations and with the practice in other Western democracies.

The original Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Act was about respecting the rights of both perpetrators and victims of crime, allowing prisoners compensation for breaches of their rights while at the same time providing a regime whereby victims of prisoners who received compensation could make claims for damages, payments of which would come out of the compensation.

The bill currently before the House is a minor technical change extending the restrictions on the awarding of compensation for a further 2 years, from 1 July 2010 until 30 June 2012. It will ensure that the victims’ claims process will also apply to compensation awarded in respect of a prisoner’s claim made between 1 July 2010 and 30 June 2012

Paul Quinn: It’s only a two-page bill; you don’t need to read from speech notes.

CARMEL SEPULONI: While the current Act states that the awarding of compensation expires on 1 July 2010 and the victims’ claims process applies only to compensation claims before that date, this bill extends the provision of the Act by 2 years, I say to Mr Quinn.

Labour will support this bill going to the Justice and Electoral Committee as it makes only a minor technical change. But we do have a question for the Government. When will the Government act on the promises that it made at election time? They were promises made to protect the rights of victims of crime, but to date we have seen no evidence whatsoever of that happening. These promises were made during the election campaign, yet since then victims have been worse off in practice. In particular, sexual abuse victims are worse off. They are no longer able to access the support that they need under accident compensation, because of new rules put in place by National. Instead of struggling with the barriers to accident compensation funding that National has put in place, sexual abuse victims have turned to Rape Crisis centres for help, but these centres have had their funding also cut by National. Sexual abuse victims feel betrayed by this Government, which promised to make their lives better but, in fact, has made them worse.

We heard Mr Chester Borrows earlier discussing the fact that it does not matter which bucket of funding is being accessed to address the needs of these victims, but the issue is that this Government is not making any funding available for victims. So when the Government takes away the opportunities through accident compensation that were afforded to victims for the counselling that they need, there is no other avenue for them to go down with regard to getting the support that they need, which is sometimes a matter of life or death for individuals and has far-reaching impacts in terms of repercussions. The fact that victims are unwell and have not received the support that they need has impacts not only on them as individuals but also on their wider family network, and on New Zealand as a society.

National promised action on crime rights so that fewer New Zealanders would be victims of crime. However, the latest crime statistics show how hollow that promise really was. The number of crime victims is growing, not decreasing, under this Government. In 2009 violent crime rose by close to 10 percent and murders rose by 25 percent, and this is unacceptable. Those voters who bought into the National Party slogan that it was basically going to do away with crime altogether must be sitting there now and asking themselves what they voted for. Although National and ACT claim that their “three strikes” law will help to prevent crime and deter criminals, officials have warned us that it may even force our homicide rate up even higher.

I challenge this Government to act on its election promise. Fewer New Zealanders should be victims of crime, and those who are victims should have their rights protected. We do not need hyped-up policies like a “three strikes” law that may not change crime statistics at all, or may even result in more crime. We need a society where New Zealanders are safer from crime and a society where victims are helped, not hindered, on the road to recovery. The current Act states that the awarding of compensation to victims expires on 1 July 2010, and the victims’ claims process applies only to compensation in respect of claims made before that date. This bill will basically extend that provision to 30 June 2010.

National made some lofty promises at the election about looking after victims’ rights, but in practice victims are worse off under this National Government. Sexual abuse victims are no longer able to get the support they need under accident compensation, thanks to the changes that the National Government has made. National and ACT are pushing through a “three strikes” law that officials have warned will make things worse, not better, for victims. It will result in fewer guilty pleas and more appeals, meaning that more victims will have to go through lengthy and difficult trials and appeals processes. Officials have also warned that the new law could lead to an increased rate of homicide. Why is the Government not doing anything to prevent more people from becoming victims of crime? The latest crime statistics show that the number of victims is growing, not decreasing, under that Government, and that is something New Zealanders are genuinely concerned about.

I want to touch on Labour’s record on victims’ rights because it is pertinent to what we are discussing at the moment. In 2002 Labour introduced and passed the Sentencing Act, which introduced a presumption in favour of reparation, and it resulted in the sentence being used more frequently. In 2002 the Sentencing Act also recognised the potential of restorative justice processes to make offenders more accountable to victims, and it enabled courts to take both financial and non-financial offers of amends by an offender into account.

Labour introduced and passed the Victims’ Rights Act in 2002. It extended a number of rights to victims, such as rights to information and the ability to have input into sentencing decisions through victim impact statements. In 2003 the Ministry of Justice launched a campaign to trace those who owed money, and it spent $385,000 on advertising an 0800 number for people to call. The establishment of new collection centres further bolstered the collection and disbursement of reparation, and $9 million was allocated in the 2003 Budget for that purpose.

Labour passed the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Act in 2005. It ensures that victims of inmates who are awarded compensation could claim against that compensation. Labour introduced the Pay or Stay initiative in September 2006, which enables the Ministry of Justice to stop people who have unpaid fines or reparations if they are travelling overseas, or stop them on their return to New Zealand. The Evidence Act 2006 provides for the needs of vulnerable witnesses and victims by making provisions for witnesses to give evidence in alternative ways, such as from behind a screen, via closed-circuit television, or on pre-recorded video.

Those are only a few of the things that Labour did to protect the rights of victims. I could go on with that list, but I will not. At the end of the day, we need to remind this Government that National campaigned very hard prior to the 2008 election on the fact that it would reduce crime and would protect the rights of victims. To date, 15 months later, we have seen no evidence of that.

Labour will support this bill at its first reading because we have a commitment to the victims’ claims process and because we believe that the National Government can and should be doing more for victims’ rights. Thank you very much.

KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National): I stand in support of the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (Expiry and Application Dates) Amendment Bill, which is a technical bill. It amends the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Act 2005. It will extend the restriction on the awarding of compensation to prisoners for another 2 years, from 1 July 2010 until 30 June 2012. This provision applies to the victims’ claims process with regard to any compensation awarded to the offender. It will also apply to any settlement that takes place out of court. This bill recognises that victims should have the first claim against any compensation that is awarded to a prisoner.

Is it fair that victims of crime have been neglected for a long time? This National Government feels that it is time we gave them the support that they deserve. We are committed to addressing the physical, emotional, and financial stress that victims have faced due to crime. This Government wants to put victims at the heart of our justice system.

I have seen recent incidents where families are suffering both financially and emotionally because of crime. I cite the incident of Navtej Singh. He was a young man who was working at his shop when he was killed. His aged parents, his young wife, and his children are suffering both financially and emotionally. Another young man, Hiren Mohini, who was a taxi driver, was killed in Auckland while he was working the graveyard shift. I have full sympathy for his mother, wife, and two daughters.

This bill states that where a prisoner is awarded any compensation, the victim of that prisoner has the right to claim against that compensation. In conclusion, I say that victims’ rights should come before the rights of offenders.

This bill will now go to the Justice and Electoral Committee, which is well chaired by Chester Borrows. We have a very good association with the members of the Opposition on that committee. We have very cordial relations with them. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): I rise to support the first reading of the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (Expiry and Application Dates) Amendment Bill. I refer to some comments made by Simon Bridges that I agree with. This bill does not take away all the rights of criminals to get compensation in some cases. We can all, at least in theory, envisage circumstances where the State, through prison officers, could breach somebody’s rights. They could terribly brutalise them, torture them, or unjustifiably deprive them of their liberty. In those situations it is absolutely right and proper that prisoners, bad people though they have been, should have rights to guard against the State acting like that. This bill acts as a curb against inappropriate actions on the part of the State. It would be wrong for this Parliament to take away all the rights of prisoners in such cases. If we look for examples, we find some of the things that happened during World War II where people were imprisoned and treated terribly. Of course those people ought to have had their human rights upheld. If their human rights are abused, then it is appropriate that they have legal remedies through the New Zealand courts. I agree with Simon Bridges that that is appropriate.

The original Act states that that is well and good, and this bill extends that provision to a later date, and that is well and good. However, when a criminal has harmed someone else and that other person may have a reparation order that has not been paid, or the victim had a right to take a civil action against a prisoner and receive some form of compensation but did not or could not because the prisoner was broke and it would be like getting blood from a stone—there was no likelihood of being paid—why would they waste their time and effort on making a claim against that person in prison?

Where there is a change in circumstances as a consequence of compensation being awarded in favour of the prisoner, we need to preserve that money so that the victim of the prisoner’s crime has the ability to make a claim against the prisoner and effectively attach the claim to the money that otherwise would be paid out to the prisoner. That, of course, is very appropriate. I think that just about everyone in this House would agree that, whilst not taking all rights away from a prisoner who has been abused, rare though those cases are, when compensation is paid to a prisoner—and let us not forget that there are high tests before a prisoner would get any compensation, as people will not have sympathy for prisoners; there has to be a pretty gross violation of prisoners’ rights before they get any compensation—it is important that we preserve the sum of money, where appropriate, so that someone who has been injured by the prisoner and who had a right to compensation or reparation can have recourse to the money that would otherwise go to the prisoner.

That is the balance that this legislation sought to achieve. Indeed, if we had gone further and had completely banned any right of compensation, we would be going a step too far and we would be in breach of various United Nations conventions. We would be doing something wrong.

Paul Quinn: DRIP.

Hon DAVID PARKER: I do not know what the member means. This legislation gets the balance right. I will respond to some of the suggestions that were made earlier that tried to defend the Government’s record in respect of victims’ compensation.

Compensation for victims and the treatment of victims in New Zealand largely rely upon the accident compensation system, in terms of the counselling victims receive following a traumatic injury. Nowhere is that more true than in respect of people who have suffered sexual crimes. The victims of sexual crimes are often left in a depressed state, and their lives can fall to bits. If the person who abused them was a family member they can have problems with keeping or making good and strong personal relationships in their lives. I do not think there are many people in this country who do not think that the victims of sexual crimes should have access to proper counselling; they most definitely should. Yet this Government, through Dr Nick Smith as the Minister for ACC, has overseen a huge decrease in the approval of people for counselling. So marked is it that on a year-by-year comparison 300 claims per month were approved in the prior year, compared with six claims this year.

Three hundred claims, compared with six claims, is more than a 95 percent decrease in the approval rate. I do not think that makes sense. I think anyone can see that something has gone seriously wrong. It was pointed out to the Minister last year that this was seriously wrong. It was pointed out by the Labour Opposition, and by the psychotherapists and the psychologists. It was pointed out by the Massey University academics whose work Dr Smith was purporting to rely upon, but which they say the Accident Compensation Corporation has misused under his supervision. For the Minister to now turn round and say that we have to have some sort of inquiry to see what has gone wrong, without restoring the prior status quo until it is fixed, is adding insult to injury on the part of the women, mainly, who have been abused and cannot now receive counselling in New Zealand.

I think that is disgraceful, to be perfectly frank. I think that the very least the Government and the Minister could do is say: “We’ve got this wrong; we’re going to restore the status quo while we sort it out.” But instead the Minister is hiding behind process. He is not willing to admit fault, notwithstanding the fact that the approval rate has gone down from 300 claims a month to six claims in, I think it was, February. The facts speak for themselves. More than 200 women in that month alone suffered the effects of sexual crimes, without receiving any counselling. Counselling sessions generally cost around $100 or more per session. Most of those women who have been abused, who have been the victims of some horrendous sexual crimes, cannot afford that and they have no avenue through which they can get counselling at present.

The Government is not addressing the issue. All that Dr Smith says is that we will have a review. But we know that it is patently clear that the first and foremost thing that should be done is to return to the prior system while the Government sorts it out, instead of persisting with this new system that, as I said, in February had only six approvals for counselling throughout the whole of New Zealand. Do we think that New Zealand is such a perfect society that only six out of those 300-odd applications were worthy? Are we saying that the other 294 women were lying? Are we really saying that they had some sort of pre-existing mental illness that meant that they deserved what happened to them? Are we saying that they should not get treatment?

I really take issue with some of the comments that have been made by National members in this debate. They raised the issue of accident compensation, and tried to say how well they are doing for the victims of crime, when this is the real situation and these most-damaged people, in respect of being the victims of violent sexual crimes, are getting no help whatsoever.

In returning to the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (Expiry and Application Dates) Amendment Bill, I can say that we support the bill. Thank you.

PAUL QUINN (National): There is really not much more that I can add, other than to say I compliment the last speaker for the front end of his speech, which I think explained in some detail what this bill sets out to achieve. But he was slightly verbose, and could have been much more succinct. None the less, he covered the detail. As he said, all this bill does is extend an existing provision for another 2 years until a more permanent solution is implemented by this Government in the future.

As other people have mentioned, this is a very technical bill. It is only 2½ pages long and, like members on both sides of the House, I look forward to its expeditious consideration by the select committee. With those few words, I commend the bill.

Hon STEVE CHADWICK (Labour): I rise to take a short call on this bill because we cannot miss an opportunity to attack the Government. It is bringing in a bill that we will support because it is about extending the dates for the legislation that we brought into the House in 2005, but we cannot miss an opportunity to attack National members who went out at the election and said that they would fix law and order issues—that was one of their major aspirational goals—and that they were going to put victims of crime at the centre and look after them.

The Government can bring this little, technical bill to the House today to extend the time frame for another 2 years until 2012, but it cannot admit that it has sexual abuse victim services completely wrong. The Minister in the House, at question time today, when put under some pressure, said: “Oh, but I have set up a review committee.”, and he has some very respectable people on the committee, but he does not need to do that. He knows full well that he got the criteria for referral to a treatment pathway for victims of sexual abuse completely wrong. David Parker said that the number of cases being approved per month has gone from 300 down to six, yet the Government is still refusing to say that it has got it wrong. It has put in another review team that will report back. What a waste of time that is, while victims of sexual abuse are suffering every single day. The trauma to a victim of sexual abuse—a child, a woman, or a man—will extend on to the full family. That family belongs to a community, and that community also wears the effects of the lack of treatment services and correct intervention pathways for victims.

Yesterday I met Louise Nicholas, who said to me that this Government has got things completely wrong in relation to sexual abuse care and treatment pathways. Three hundred sexual abuse counsellors in this country have already lost their jobs. They had been working with victims of sexual abuse but they no longer have that work. It is not rocket science to see that if we have reduced the number of cases each month, from 300 down to six, then those skilled health professionals have no work.

What will happen when the review committee comes back with the inevitable finding? And it will. This is just a time-wasting mechanism that the Minister has set in place. He cannot admit that he has got it wrong. We will need to re-enact and get those counsellors back into the workforce to meet the demand. It is wrong. It is a crock. It is everything but putting victims at the centre of crime. I think that the Government will pay a price for this next year during the election campaign because this is an issue that is affecting the well-being of our children and our families. But, not only that, National was going to fix crime. It was going to address the drivers of crime, but the latest crime statistics show that the number of crime victims is growing under National, not decreasing. Crime rates rose by 4.6 percent in the 2009 calendar year, and violent crime increased by 9.2 percent. The rate of murders has increased by a massive 25 percent, yet National members said that they were going to fix crime. When we were on the campaign trail every National candidate blamed the Labour Government again and again for not fixing crime. We will have a Budget in the next couple of weeks. Will that do it for families that have been dispossessed and disconnected? I do not think so.

This Government needs to hang its head in shame over its entire efforts to address the drivers of crime. We support this bill only because it extends the time frame on the legislation that we brought to the House in 2005. National said that we did nothing about the victims of crime or about compensation. I could not resist taking the call. I think this is a disgrace. It is a sad day when the Government has the energy to get this bill before the House but it cannot simply fix the correct service pathway for the treatment of victims of sexual abuse. The Government cannot do that, but it can bring this bill to the House.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (Expiry and Application Dates) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 108

New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1.

Noes 14

Green Party 9; Māori Party 5.

Bill read a first time.

Hon KATE WILKINSON (Minister of Labour) on behalf of the Minister of Justice: I move, That the Justice and Electoral Committee consider the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (Expiry and Application Dates) Amendment Bill, that the committee report finally to the House on or before 1 June 2010, and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions), and during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, despite Standing Orders 187 and 190(1)(b) and (c).

Motion agreed to.

Bills

Employment Relations (Rest Breaks and Meal Breaks) Amendment Bill

First Reading

Hon KATE WILKINSON (Minister of Labour): I move, That the Employment Relations (Rest Breaks and Meal Breaks) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. At the appropriate time, I intend to move that the bill be referred to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee.

This bill has been introduced out of necessity, for the sake of common sense. Statutory rest and meal breaks were added to the Employment Relations Act under the previous administration last year and came into effect on 1 April 2009. National supported that legislation then as it gave statutory recognition of breaks, reflecting standard practice across New Zealand. This Government still supports the intention of that law, and wants to assure all New Zealanders that their right to adequate breaks will retain statutory protection. To make that perfectly clear, I say all workers will remain entitled to reasonable rest and meal breaks under this bill. I expect that, as was the case with the original law, most workers will see no change to their arrangements under this bill.

If the existing legislation provided sufficient flexibility, this bill would not even be before the House. The fact is that the existing law has created a number of problems due to its being overly prescriptive both in terms of what constitutes a break and of the extent of flexibility about when breaks may be taken. Although professions such as sole-operated air traffic control towers had functioned quite happily for 60 years without issue, they now find themselves to be in breach of the law. Labour claims that its amendments fixed that issue, but that is not the case. The Civil Aviation Authority made it clear that if towers were to be closed as required under the law, they had to be shut at the same time in order to ensure that pilots were not forced to deal with a forever-changing timetable of closures around the country. That meant that New Plymouth, Napier, Gisborne, Rotorua, and Invercargill would all have faced disruption to their schedules, cancelled flights, and a resulting loss of revenue.

It is not only air traffic controllers who have been caught out by this law. Pharmacies, schools, and sole-charge operations such as petrol stations have all struggled to implement it. School principals have raised concerns that, if insisted upon, the current law could push out the hours that a school has to stay open to beyond 4 p.m. It is important that the law is workable and practical for every school. Other hard-working New Zealanders have also felt the impractical effects of the current law. For example, I received a letter from a mother who works part-time as a night-fill staffer for a supermarket. She was unhappy about the changes. She and her colleagues have always worked from 7 p.m. until 11:30 p.m., with a 15-minute paid break at 9.30 p.m. The new law has resulted in them now taking a 30-minute unpaid break at 11 p.m. and returning to the job for the final half hour, eventually knocking off at midnight. None of the staff want to have that 30-minute break; all they want is to do the job and go home to bed before midnight, not to sit in the staffroom doing nothing. It was suggested that in order to avoid taking the break they cut back their hours to work 4-hour shifts, but that would mean a loss of income. Clearly, there is a practical problem here, and that is the fundamental concern with regard to the law as it stands.

No one opposes a worker’s right to have meal and rest breaks, but dictating a general rule for every single situation does not allow enough flexibility. Instead we are left with instances where many employers are faced with two choices: either to continue as normal and break the law, or wear the cost of compliance and inconvenience. Neither is an appealing option, especially when the staff and the employer had their own arrangements that have long been agreed to. I have received letters from employers and employees about this issue, questioning why they cannot just keep to their arrangements, which have worked without complaint for years. Unfortunately, the practical implications of the current law simply do not match up with its intention.

This bill is about common sense. The National Government supports all workers’ right to take breaks. That was why we voted for the amending legislation in 2008, but the principal Act needs to be fixed. Its prescriptive nature means that it is being used to cause disruption and create difficulties that did not exist before. On paper it might have appeared sound, but practically it is flawed.

This bill will amend the principal Act so that it provides a requirement for employers to either allow for rest and meal breaks that give employees a reasonable opportunity for refreshment or make compensatory provision. These amendments will move the law from prescription to flexibility, encouraging employers and employees to negotiate terms that best suit their workplace. This will maintain service or production continuity and is more in line with the flexible arrangements that work so well across the country. This bill will provide flexibility, so that the timing of rest and meal breaks suits, as far as is reasonable, the continuity of service or production at the workplace. The nature of breaks varies according to the nature of work. The bill provides for employees and employers to negotiate alternative compensatory measures in lieu of breaks, such as later start or earlier finish times, or accumulated time in lieu. Such arrangements are not facilitated by the current legislation.

A code of practice that provides additional guidance for employers and employees on determining suitable rest and meal break arrangements will also be developed. This will help small and medium sized businesses to identify some workable solutions on the duration and timing of breaks in different circumstances. Employers’ obligations under the Health and Safety in Employment Act 1992 will continue to apply; so too will the duty of good faith under the principal Act.

This amendment will preserve the legislative intent to provide breaks that support employees’ well-being, but it will offer greater common sense and flexibility in order to ensure that our laws support productivity in New Zealand. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): The Employment Relations (Rest Breaks and Meal Breaks) Amendment Bill is an interesting bill from the Minister of Labour, Kate Wilkinson. It was very, very urgent. In fact, if one looks at the bill, one can immediately accuse the Minister of two things: first, of being very, very slow to get her legislation into the House, and, secondly, of being lazy and not even getting clause 1, “Title”, correct. She has stated the wrong year in that clause, for example. That is just a sign of how poorly this Minister has focused on her legislation and on the requirement to get it right.

I will also quote from the material that the Minister has supplied to us. The “Consultation” section of the explanatory note of the bill states: “Officials have advised they have concerns about developing the proposed amendments to the rest breaks and meal breaks provisions of the principal Act at speed and without adequate consultation. This may result in policy being designed and implemented with unintended consequences, including unforeseen regulatory compliance impacts and administrative costs.”

We have now the major embarrassment of a Minister who introduced a bill nearly a year ago as something that was really, really urgent, but badly drafted, badly consulted on, and not worked on properly. Then she left it just sitting on the Order Paper for that period of time. What did she say at the time was the reason for the bill? She said there was an urgent problem with regard to air traffic controllers. Do members know what the urgent problem was? It was that some dipstick in the Civil Aviation Authority had indicated that everyone had to have meal breaks, all around the country, at the same time, and that pilots were too thick to work out that when their flights were delayed they had to contact air traffic controllers to say they would be late. Pilots do that anyway. When pilots are off their schedule, they always contact air traffic controllers. It comes up on the screens of the air traffic controllers, so they know whether a plane will be late and whether their meal or rest break might be delayed. It is a basic safety thing. There was never a problem, other than one that was very close to being a figment of the imagination in the mind of the Minister of Labour, who was scrambling for an excuse in order to tip the existing legislation over.

But of course what the Minister forgot was that as the amending legislation was coming through the House in 2008, she was less than full and frank. She did not really tell us what she thought. She was in a pre-election sort of phase of not wanting to disturb anyone and of pretending that she was friendly to workers, especially women workers. She was in that sort of phase at the time, and she made some really interesting comments on that legislation. She said: “it merely codifies what is already happening in most workplaces”, and it “should have been relatively uncontroversial.” So what has changed? What has changed in workplaces since that time?

Sue Moroney: Ah, air traffic controllers.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Well, air traffic controllers and nothing else.

Then there was a lovely statement. I very rarely agree with the Minister, but it was one she made on the third reading of the amending legislation in 2008. She said “Rest breaks and meal breaks are not there just for health and safety issues, of course; they are also there for the socialising impact between employees so that they get to know each other and it can be a happy and productive workplace, and we certainly support that.” That is what the Minister said, and she is right. We have a cup of tea together, we have a break and a chat, we get to know our workmates, and we have a happier workplace and are more productive. That is a good thing. Why is she wrecking that now? Why were productive workplaces important before the election but not important after the election? There has been very little in what the Minister has said that would convince us that they are at all important.

What we are seeing, though, is something that comes from a Minister who, before her time in Parliament, was one of the main promoters of the Employment Contracts Act. Kate Wilkinson has had quite an interesting history in industrial relations law over a period of time. We are seeing her get back to her natural roots. She is getting back to the point of supporting the sweatshop employers whom she supported and represented in the past, when she represented them from outside Parliament. Now she is representing them from inside Parliament; she is doing their bidding here tonight. Notwithstanding her fine words before the election, when she was pretending to be friendly to workers, especially women workers, she has now turned her back on them. She has rejected them, and she is saying that she does not care if they do not get a break. She is saying they can work right through that time and have a break at the end of their shift. It is sort of wonderful: one of the things that will flow out of this legislation is that people will work for their 8 hours, and will then be allowed to take their two 10-minute breaks and then half an hour.

Darien Fenton: Unpaid.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Unpaid for the half-hour. That is the sort of approach that this Minister is promoting at this stage.

The Minister should just admit that this bill is badly drafted. She has not used the last year, in which time the bill has been sitting around, to get it updated. She has done no further consultation on this bill in that time, and she was too damned lazy to update it.

Carol Beaumont: Shoddy.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: It is shoddy—like John Key with his trust, really.

Sue Moroney: Sloppy.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Sloppy is the word. Like the Prime Minister, the Minister has been sloppy in her approach to her work. She is so far out of date that she did not even have the good grace to get the bill printed with the right date in it. Now we have the Minister of Justice in the House, and he has a much better reputation than Kate Wilkinson for consulting on these things. He certainly would never get to the first reading of a bill and have the wrong date in it. He would never do that; he is far too competent to do that. At some time over the next 10 minutes it would be good if Simon Power had a word in Kate Wilkinson’s ear and told her that when she introduces legislation, she should not be sloppy but should just get the date right to start with.

DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East): I rise to speak on the first reading of the Employment Relations (Rest Breaks and Meal Breaks) Amendment Bill and to say that we give our full support to our very diligent and hard-working Minister of Labour. The previous speaker, Trevor Mallard, did not understand the nature of this legislation. He looked at it from a purely political perspective, not from the practical perspective of trying to encourage New Zealanders in the workforce to do their jobs to the best of their ability and to achieve the degree of efficiency and productivity that everybody wishes to see in the workforce.

As chairman of the great Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, which will consider this bill—

Allan Peachey: Outstanding.

DAVID BENNETT: —it is an outstanding committee, is it not—I say that we look forward to debating this bill in the committee. No doubt the Labour members of the committee, who are very constructive members, will be speaking later in this debate. They will assist us in the process of going through the public submissions and looking at the heart of this legislation.

Carol Beaumont: Always want to hear from the public.

DAVID BENNETT: Yes, I know. We always want to hear from the public, and that is the whole point of the submission process. But I think the public also has to have a little bit of a reality check about what the previous Government did in passing the existing legislation.

I know that Sue Moroney, my colleague across the Chamber, used the existing legislation as the defining feature of her being in the previous Labour Government for its final 3 years. That legislation was the thing that she passed. It was her pride and joy. The thing is that the previous Government had to pass it under the cover of other debatable issues in the labour relations area, rather than having it pass as legislation standing on its own two feet. In doing so, that Government created an environment in which many political parties voted for that legislation in this House.

Basically, this legislation is looking at a real issue in a constructive way. This Government looks at one issue and we work out the solutions for it. We are not trying to hide it in a series of pieces of legislation around other issues; we will be up front, let the public have their say, and work through this issue.

We need to have that flexibility in our workforce and in our employment relations for productivity and also for personal reasons. I think one thing the last speaker, Trevor Mallard, said that is true is that in an employment arrangement, there is the need for staff—employers and employees—to come together and have that time where they mix, mingle, and learn from each other about what is going on in their job and their business at that point in time. This legislation will do that, because we are giving more flexibility. We are not having a rigid approach that could potentially limit the ability of that relationship to develop.

We look forward to this legislation going before the select committee. It is all about providing flexibility so that the employment arrangement can develop and foster that degree of unity amongst staff in the business and employers, and so that we can achieve the best productivity and success for people working in a particular industry at a particular time. We look forward to the legislation coming before the select committee, where I am sure that all members will address the questions in a very open and fair manner.

SUE MORONEY (Labour): I think that last contribution to the debate on the Employment Relations (Rest Breaks and Meal Breaks) Amendment Bill goes to show that National has no idea what meal breaks and rest periods are all about. Not once in that member’s contribution, nor virtually at all in the contribution of the Minister of Labour, was the question of health and safety in the workplace addressed. That is exactly what meal breaks and rest periods are all about. It is not about people somehow having a right to spend some time chatting with their workmates; it is about all the research and evidence that exists not only in New Zealand but internationally that tells us that when workers are fatigued, and when they have not had the opportunity to rehydrate and eat, that is when things go wrong at work.

When I talk about things going wrong at work, I am not just talking about a widget not being produced properly; I am not just talking about shareholders not getting the maximum profit out of the workplace that they might have wanted on that day; I am talking about people losing their lives. That is the seriousness of the bill we are addressing this evening.

National says it is introducing flexibility, but it is actually giving these workplaces a recipe for disaster. The Minister spoke about giving flexibility so that workers could decide to have their break at the end of the shift. Well, let us think about that from a health and safety perspective. If someone is in an environment where they work for 8 hours before they get to have a break—because they have used the wonderful flexibility that this bill affords to not have a break for 8 hours—and on hour 7½ they make a big, fatal mistake that ends either their life or that of a co-worker, will the Minister stand up and take responsibility for that because she has allowed that flexibility into the workplace? That is exactly what National is proposing to introduce into a workplace where it knows the power relationship is uneven.

The idea that workers and their employers will sit down together and mutually agree that the workers will not have their break until the end of the shift is a complete nonsense, and National knows it. The employer will be making these decisions. That is what this bill is all about: giving carte blanche to employers to decide what is in their best interests in terms of productivity. Never mind the health and safety of the workforce! Never mind what workers actually want to do! National is giving that right over to employers to decide how they will do it. Well, that has had some really disastrous results in the past, which is why the previous Labour Government brought a bill before this House and successfully put it through Parliament. Yes, I say to Mr Bennett that I am proud of that. As a member who has actually put some legislation through this House, I know that if Mr Bennett ever achieves that he might also understand how important it is that when one has actually gone through that process, a Government that never warned anyone it was going to do so does not come along afterwards and tamper with it and take the impact of that bill away.

When I came into Parliament one of the things I wanted to do was ensure that we had better work-life balance, not for people within this precinct—I am sure you understand that, Mr Assistant Speaker Roy—but for all New Zealanders. That is why Labour’s bill was so important. It ensured that workers had the right to take breaks at work. From listening to National members debating this issue, one would think that Labour had put in place a bill that said people had to stop work at 10 o’clock and they had to stop work for 10 minutes. That Act of Parliament did no such thing. It simply provided for two 10-minute tea breaks and a half-hour lunch break for the average length working day. It was no more prescriptive or restrictive than that, yet National is pretending that there was a straitjacketed Act of Parliament that was creating havoc throughout the workplaces in this land. That is a load of rubbish.

Some of the stories that led me to argue for this area of law to be fixed up were from people in very vulnerable parts of our employment area. The particular group that came to see me were people working in service stations in the Waikato. They were in the position that they could not take a meal break at all during the day.

Hon Member: The Minister is laughing.

SUE MORONEY: Well, members opposite may find this extremely funny, but what had happened was that the staffing hours had been cut for the service stations right throughout the area. We all know that gas companies have been making money hand over fist, yet they were cutting back hours. They cut back the hours to the bone, and it meant that every time a car drove on to the forecourt the worker, who may have been trying to have his or her meal break, had to stop eating lunch, go out, and serve that customer. Repeatedly these workers were not getting meal breaks. That was the group that came to see me. On further investigation, I discovered that it was an even larger problem.

I wonder what investigation the Minister did before she went down this path. In 2006 there was an investigation into the causative factors associated with summertime workplace fatalities. It was an important piece of work because, amongst other things, it discovered that here in New Zealand there are two peak times when work-related fatal incidents are most likely to occur. I would really like the Minister to take heed of this because it is very important with regard to this bill. One of those peak times is in the late morning, between 10.30 and 12.30; the other is mid-afternoon, between 2.30 and 3.30. The trend is applicable to all industries, but is particularly relevant to the agricultural sector.

The Minister ought to be taking that sort of thing into account. It screams out to me that those are the times of the day when people ought to have had a break. They should have taken 10 minutes to have a drink of water—I feel like I will need to do that myself in a minute—rehydrate, get their energy levels back up again, take a little break from work, and then get back into it. The evidence internationally and in New Zealand tells us that this prevents deaths in our workplaces. That is the reason for rest periods and meal breaks; not so employers can shuffle it to the end of workers’ shifts just before they are about to go off and have the big break anyway, but actually to prevent accidents from happening in the workplace.

I think it is very interesting that the Minister not only has not looked at the research that was done here in New Zealand, in preparing this bill, but also did not listen to her own officials when they warned her—and the official documents tell us that they warned her—not to have a knee-jerk response to the airline dispute that was happening at the time. They told the Minister that it was an industrial dispute, and urged the Minister not to have a knee-jerk, legislative response to it, because if she became the kind of Minister who uses legislation to intervene in industrial disputes, there would be no end to it.

Did that Minister listen? The Minister clearly did not listen; she went against her officials’ advice. She has not looked at the research and evidence. She does not care about health and safety in the workplace. She does not understand the role of meal breaks and rest periods with regard to health and safety in the workplace, and she is putting New Zealand workers at risk.

KEITH LOCKE (Green): The Green Party will be opposing this Employment Relations (Rest Breaks and Meal Breaks) Amendment Bill for many of the reasons that have been expounded by the previous speaker, Sue Moroney. It is an important bill on health and safety concerns; it undermines the health and safety of workers. Breaks and meal breaks are important, not only to prevent injuries and deaths but also so that people can have a rest, be human, and not be slaves to a clock, working hour after hour without proper rest.

If we look at the explanatory note of the bill, we see that there does not appear to be anything wrong with the status quo. The explanatory note states: “Under the status quo, employers and employees are encouraged to work out mutually satisfactory arrangements that fit within current legislative provisions, and can draw on the mediation services of the Department of Labour to assist them to do so.” Apparently, the air traffic controllers, who have been used as an example for the bill going forward, have worked out the situation together with their employers, so that is not a reason to proceed with the bill.

I think that the greater harm—and it was outlined by the previous speaker—is that there is an unequal relationship in the workplace. Many workers in non-unionised retail outlets, restaurants, etc., work for long periods without breaks now. I know some of them myself. A young 19-year-old I know works in a shop. I talked to her recently and asked when she had her breaks. She said that they were very busy in that shop and sometimes they go for hours without a break. She was not even aware of the law; she was not a member of a union. That is happening in workplace after workplace already, so rather than make it easy for employers to get away without giving appropriate rest breaks, we should stay with the present law and not proceed with this amendment.

John Ryall, who is the national secretary of the Service and Food Workers Union, wrote an article criticising this new amendment. He said that his union made a submission to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. It brought forward the case of a union member, an Indian immigrant worker, James Joseph, who had the problem of working split shifts. He worked from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m., and then from 4.30 p.m. to 11 p.m. When he insisted on having a short break every 3 hours, he was called a troublemaker and was sacked. He was told by the employer that it was just not possible because the restaurant was too busy. That can happen in workplace after workplace.

To enable proper rest periods, sometimes the employer has to be subject to a certain inconvenience—that is the reality—in order to protect the health and safety, and the rest periods of workers. That is what, perhaps, some people in the National Government do not quite understand. National members have said that this legislation is important for sole-charge workers and for air traffic controllers. In the past, bus drivers have been used as an example. Well, it seems to me that the very people we would want to be the most alert, and to have proper breaks, would be air traffic controllers and bus drivers, because it is not just their health and safety that is of concern. If a plane comes down, all sorts of people will be killed and all sorts of families will be left with a tragedy. It is similarly so with bus drivers. If a bus driver gets a bit tired and goes off the road or crashes into a car, what happens?

From any way we look at it, we should not allow a law that brings in the looseness of compensatory measures. Workers will be able to go without a rest break for a few hours, as long as employers provide compensatory measures. But those are very ill-defined as to their frequency and length. There is just a bit in the legislation to say that such measures can be time in lieu, or a different start or finish time. Exactly what that amounts to is not defined in the legislation. So things are being set up for the employer to determine the provision without the worker, who is often in a very disadvantaged position, particularly if he or she is un-unionised, being able to correct the situation.

I think that this bill is a departure from New Zealand’s tradition. We have an old tradition going back through New Zealand’s industrial history of awards of having clearly defined lunch and smoko breaks. It is true that we are a bit more flexible now, but we do not want to depart too much from the tradition where workers have smoko breaks—we would not call them smoko breaks now; we would call them morning and afternoon tea breaks—and at least half an hour for lunch. That is something we grew up with, something that we were proud of, and something that differentiated us from the United States, for example, which did not have such legislation. I was quite horrified many years ago, when I was in industrial situations where we had smoko breaks, lunch breaks, and very rigid times, to learn that in America they did not have any legislation protecting that situation, whatsoever.

We have to protect what we have gained over the years. The Green Party will be opposing this particular legislation.

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker, kia ora tātau katoa. Nā runga i te hiahia kia kōrerotia tō tātau reo Māori i roto i te Whare nei, kua kawe haerehia tēnei kōrero i roto i te reo Māori.

Ehara i te mea nō ināia tonu nei tēnei momo āhuatanga nō mua noa atu, nō ngā tau kua hipa. I a au e āta rangahau ana i tēnei o ngā pire ka āta kite atu, ā, i te tau 1908, i tū tētahi raruraru nui o roto i a koe pea i Te Wai Pounamu i te takiwā o Te Poutini, i te tāone o Blackball. E ai ki tā wētahi, kāore tētahi o tērā hunga, o tērā tāone, i whakaae kia mutu wawe nei tana kai. I te tekau mā rima meneti i whakaritea mai ai mō te wā tina. Ko te ingoa o te tangata nei ko Hickey. Ka mutu, nā runga i tana kore whakaae kia mutu tana kai i te wā whakaritea mai ai, ko ia me ōna hoa e ono i panaia i te mahi. Ā, i te kaiwaro tēnei o roto o te tāone o Blackball. I tērā wā ko te kaiwhakahaere o tērā wāhi, i hiahia ia kia whakarahi ake ngā hāora mahi mō te rā, ki te tekau hāora. Nā, nā wai rā, nā wai rā, ā, i pahū mai tērā mea e kīa ana ko te Blackball strike, ā, ka mutu, i puta mai te uniana me tana kore hiahia ki te whaiwhai haere i tērā tikanga, ā, he hiahia kē nō rātau kia waru hāora i te rā mō te wā mahi. Nā, i haere te take nei ki te kōti, ā, ka mutu, i whainahia ngā kaiwaro nei, ka mutu, kāore ngā tāngata nei i hiahia ki te utu i ngā nama, ā, i haria katoatia wā rātau taputapu i hokona, engari i tōna mutunga mai ka kī mai ngā kaiwaro kia kaua e hoko ngā taputapu e kōrero ake nei. E ai ki taku mōhio e toru ngā marama e pēnei ana te āhuatanga, ā, tōna mutunga mai me kī, i hoki ngā tāngata nei ki roto i wā rātau mahi.

Ā, i pēnei rā taku whakamārama ki a koe, Mr Assistant Speaker i te mea, anei tātau i tēnei wā tonu nei kotahi rau tau mai i tērā wā, ā, e kōrerohia ana tēnei pire, āhua ōrite tōna pūtake, tōna ngako, engari arā anō ētahi paku rerekētanga. E ai ki tā te pire, me whakarite i ētahi wā whakatā, ētahi wā kai, me te kī anō hoki me whakaaetia ngā wā me te roa o te kai i waenganui i te kaiwhakahaere rānei, te pāhi rānei, te rangatira rānei o te mahi me te kaimahi. Koinei kei te pūtake. Ki te kore, ā, ka mutu, me whiriwhirihia ētahi wā e pai ana ki a rāua mō te whakatā me te kai. Nā, taku mōhio tērā pea ka ohorere ētahi o ngā kaimahi, ngā kaiwhakahaere o ētahi toa, kāore ētahi momo tikanga pēnei i ēnei, e whakahaeretia ana i tēnei wā tonu nei, arā, mō tētahi wā kia kai te tangata, te kaimahi i tāna kai. Nō reira, nā runga i tērā whakaaro, tērā pea e tika ana kia tae mai tētahi ture pēnei i tēnei, me kī, kia whai wāhi ngā tāngata ki ēnei momo tikanga, arā, mō te whakatā, te roa o te whakatā me te kai i wā rātau kai. Tērā pea i pōhehe ētahi, i reira tonu tēnei momo tikanga i mua i te mea, ko te nuinga o tātau he kapu tī, he kapu kawhe rānei me te miraka. Koinei te āhuatanga o wā tātau mahi, o wā tātau noho i roto i te Whare Pāremata, ka mutu, i roto i ngā toa. Engari, te āhua nei kāore tērā i te tika mō te katoa o Aotearoa.

I a au e āta titiro ana ki tēnei pire i rongo au, tata ki te 93 pai hēneti o ngā kaimahi kei roto, me kī, he kirimana ā-mahi wā rātau, ā, kei roto i ērā kirimana, he wāhi anō rā mō te whakatā, ka mutu, ko te wāhi ki te kai mō te kapu tī rānei. Nō reira tēnei ture e kore e paku pā atu ki tērā, nō reira he mea pai tērā āhuatanga ki a au. Ā, i a au e rangahau ana, ka kite atu anō hoki, e tata ki te 18 pai hēneti o ngā kaimahi o Aotearoa, kei roto i ngā uniana i tēnei wā tonu nei. Nō reira, te āhua nei ko te nuinga o te hunga kāore i te tino whai i te uniana, ana ko tērā te hunga kei roto i ngā mahi pēnei i te mahi hōtērā, te mahi hoko kai, tērā momo āhuatanga, nā runga pea i te āhuatanga o te hunga taiohi, o te hunga rangatahi kei roto i tērā momo mahi. Kāti, i roto i tēnei ao hurihuri he pai tonu kia pēnei tonu tātau, kia whai wāhi anō rā ki te whakatā me te kai. He mea pai kia whakaora i te tangata, pēnei i tā Sue Moroney e kōrero nei, kia whai wāhi te tangata ki te whakaora i a ia, whakapiki i tana ora, kia whakahihiko i a ia. Nō reira koia tērā te painga o tēnei momo pire.

Ka mutu, i a tātau e wetewete nei i tēnei pire, ko te mate kē, ana kei te pūtake o tana kōrero anō hoki, me whakaae ngā mea e rua, te kaimahi me te rangatira, arā, te pāhi o te mahi. Ki te kore e rāua tahi e whakaae ki te hāora, ki te roa rānei o te whakatā, ā, he raruraru kei te haere, he raruraru kei te haere. Nō reira, ki te kore rātau e whakaae, ki te roa rānei, kia pēnei rawa tana whakatā, ā, ka mutu, te tikanga ka waiho ake mā te rangatira, mā te pāhi rānei e whakatau. Anei, anei te roa, anei ngā hāora. Nō reira, tērā pea ka raruraru i reira, ka raruraru i reira.

Ka mutu, tērā pea ko te raru nui kei roto i tēnei kupu i te reo Pākehā, ana ko te “reasonableness” i te mea, kei a Stevie Chadwick te tikanga o tōna “reasonable”, kei a Te Ururoa Flavell te tikanga o tōku “reasonable”. He rerekē anō rā te tikanga o tēnei kupu “reasonable”. Nō reira koinei tētahi whakatūpato i roto i tēnei pire i te mea, tērā pea nā runga i te tikanga o tēnei kupu “reasonable”, ka pahū mai, ka raruraru ā te wā pea.

Nō reira, ko te Pāti Māori tēnei e whakaae atu ki te tautoko i te āhuatanga o te tiaki i ngā kaimahi, ā, ka mutu, me whakarite āhuatanga i te wāhi mahi kia noho hauora, kia noho ora ai te tangata i roto i ngā mahi katoa, kia kore ai a ia e raruraru nā runga i te āhuatanga o ngā raru o ngā pēhitanga kei runga i a ia. Ka mutu, arā nō nei ētahi mea me kaua e waiho kia iri hei mea tautohetohe i waenganui i te pāhi me te rangatira o te mahi. Nō reira, ko te pātai nui ki a mātau, ko tērā e pā ana ki te nohonga o te kaimahi me te rangatira, ko te chief rānei, ko te pāhi rānei o te mahi, nā runga i te tikanga o tērā kupu “reasonable”.

Kāti, me kī ka waihotia ake tēnei hei mea tautoko mā te Pāti Māori i tōna pānuitanga tuatahi, ā, kia kite mai ai i te āhuatanga o ngā kōrero ka tae mai ki te komiti whāiti. Ka mutu tērā, ana ka āta titiro anō rā te Pāti Māori ki te hōhonutanga o ngā kōrero ka puta, ka whakatauhia ā muri ake i tērā. Nō reira, nā runga i tērā kōrerokia ora tātau.

[Greetings to you, Mr Assistant Speaker, and to us all. Because of the desire for the Māori language to be heard in the House, this speech will be delivered in Māori.

It is not as though the issue around meal breaks is a current one, but it has been around for a long time. As I researched this bill carefully among others, I discovered that a huge problem erupted on the West Coast of the South Island in the town of Blackball in 1908. According to some, a local of that town refused to end his meal quickly in the stipulated time of 15 minutes for lunch. Hickey was this person’s name. Because he refused to end his meal in the allocated time, he and six of his workmates were fired. This took place at the Blackball mine. The manager of that mine at the time wanted to increase the working day to 10 hours. Eventually, the legendary Blackball strike broke out, when the union became involved because it did not want the working hours increased to 10 hours but kept at 8 hours. This matter was taken to court and the miners were fined. However, the miners refused to pay, and their possessions were seized and auctioned to raise the money to pay the fine. The miners told everyone not to buy the auctioned goods. As I understand it, this went on for 3 months, until the men were finally reinstated.

I have gone about it this way, Mr Assistant Speaker, because here we are again, 100 years from that incident, debating this bill today, and although the reason is quite different, there might be only some minor differences. The bill states that the duration of rest breaks and meal breaks should be agreed upon between the employer, boss, or chief, and the employee. This is the nub. If this does not occur, the two must negotiate the duration of the breaks acceptable to both. I think employers and shop managers will be surprised that laws were not already in place around the provision of meal breaks for workers. So perhaps it is time that a law like this is introduced that addresses the duration of rest breaks and meal breaks, although one would think it would be a case of basic rights, like providing tea, coffee, and milk. That is the situation here in Parliament in regard to our work and environment. It is like that in shops, as well. But that does not seem to apply to most of New Zealand.

In the process of examining this bill, I found out that nearly 93 percent of active collective agreements already provide rest breaks and meal breaks, and because this bill will not affect that at all, it is all good to me. During my research, however, I also found out that at the moment, nearly 18 percent of workers in New Zealand belong to trade unions. So it appears that the majority of those not in unions, and more likely to be affected, working in jobs such as those in the hospitality industry, hotels, fast-food outlets, and so on, are young workers. In this evolving world, we would expect employers to be already providing adequate breaks. It is beneficial that one has a chance to re-energise, as Sue Moroney suggested, to re-hydrate, restore energy, and health levels and focus as well. So that is a positive in this bill.

However, while we debate this bill, there is an aspect that the member has identified as being crucial to this bill, and that is the employer and the employee. Both the employer or the boss, and the worker, must agree. If neither of those two agree to the duration of the rest, we have a real, big, enduring problem on our hands. If there is no agreement, that would mean that it would be left to the employer or the boss to make the decision—here, whether one likes it or not, is the duration. So right there, and for sure, will be a stalemate.

In addition, there is also a problem perhaps with the English word “reasonableness”, because Steve Chadwick has her own idea what “reasonable” means to her, and I, Te Ururoa Flavell, have my own idea what that word means to me. The word “reasonable” has many interpretations. So just a cautionary word that having this word “reasonable” in the bill may possibly create problems in the future.

Therefore, the Māori Party supports the right of workers to be treated fairly and with dignity, and to have a safe and healthy workplace and not to be burdened by any stress. Further to that, discontent and disagreement between an employee and employer, chief, or boss, is not the desired outcome from that word “reasonable”.

Finally, leave that point there; the Māori Party supports this bill at its first reading, and looks forward to seeing the kinds of submissions that come to select committee. When that has been done, the Māori Party will examine the extent of the reports made and then make a determination. On that note, greetings to us all.]

Hon TAU HENARE (National): Anybody who is listening on their crystal sets at home will believe, after listening to some of the members of the Labour Party, that the sky is going to fall in, that it is the end of the world in terms of workers’ rights, and that all this sort of—

H V Ross Robertson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The member has been here for some time now, and I refer him to Speakers’ ruling 48/3, which refers to addressing people who are outside the House or radio listeners. The member referred to transistor radios. I suggest—

Hon Simon Power: He said crystal sets.

H V Ross Robertson: I am sorry. He referred to crystal sets, which is much the same thing. He should be addressing the House and not those who are listening on crystal sets outside the House. He has been here a long time and he should know better.

Hon TAU HENARE: I apologise for that—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy): No, I will make a ruling.

Hon TAU HENARE: —gross misdemeanour—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy): The member will be seated. Speaker’s ruling 48/3 states that the “blatant talking to people outside the House” is not in order. I think that is the measure of a certain type of behaviour that I do not believe the member crossed, but I caution him not to cross it.

Hon TAU HENARE: Well, I will take my apology back and save it for another day. It is good to see that Ross Robertson is on the job. It is really good to see him on the job. He is like one of those delegates in one of the businesses that the Labour Party mentioned earlier on. He is fastidious. He is on the verge of being—oh, I will not say it. He is like a little Rottweiler, making sure that everybody has what the old national award said that he or she is entitled to. This is what the Labour members’ argument is all about. It is as prescriptive as the Country Women’s Institute’s recipe book of 1951. And, I must add, there is nothing wrong with that recipe book; I have used it myself on a couple of occasions.

The old law that Sue Moroney dined out on for a number of years was far too prescriptive. The amendment that my colleague the Minister of Labour is moving tonight is about being flexible. It is about good faith. It is about protecting the rights of both employers and employees. You know, we would not get productivity going at the rate of knots in this country, when we have climbed out of the mess we were in, if it were left up to members on that side of the House.

What are we talking about here? All we are talking about is being able to ask workers when they would like their lunch break, when they would like their smoko break for the morning period, and when they would like to have their smoko break in the afternoon. What Labour members do not realise is that workers can actually think for themselves. They can sit down with the boss without the unions, and without having the union clip the tickets as they go along and pay their union fees. I know that that is what happens, because I have been there. I have been there, and some of the worst employers, might I add, were union officers. The worst employers, whom they rail against, were the likes of the Northern Hotel Workers’ Union.

Sue Moroney: It was only you, Tau. It wasn’t everyone else; it was only you.

Hon TAU HENARE: I was a member of the Northern Clerical Workers Union, which was a very, very fine outfit.

Hon Member: We’re a broad church.

Hon TAU HENARE: We are a broad church. But is it not great to hear the old Fabian Society ramp up the old cloth cap arguments that we had in the 1970s? I have news for the Labour Party. I have news for the Labour Party, and it is all bad. The days of those battles have gone, the winning and losing of those battles has gone—[Interruption]—and, as my learned colleagues say, the wall has come down. We now live in a more peaceful society. We now live in a society where we can be flexible, where we can say to each other: “Excuse me, Mr Boss-man, I would like my 10 minutes now.”, rather than being constrained by the Fabian Society, whose members tell me that at 10 o’clock in the morning I am to have my smoko break, and at 12.30 I am supposed to have my lunch break.

This is the 21st century; these are not the days of Blackball, as my colleague from the Māori Party said. These days are not those days. We have moved on. We are a better place. We are a more flexible place. There is nothing wrong with workers making decisions for themselves.

CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour): I rise to speak against the Employment Relations (Rest Breaks and Meal Breaks) Amendment Bill, and I hope to address some of the points of the bill, unlike the previous speaker, Tau Henare. Unashamedly, I stand here to say that I support workers’ rights at work. I support their rights to have a fair rate of pay, to be safe and healthy, to work a reasonable number of hours, to have a holiday from time to time, and, to have—yes—breaks during the working day.

Meal and refreshment breaks are a right and most New Zealanders would consider them a right. That has been the case for a long time. People will say that the law provides for them to have a rest break, a lunch break, or whatever, and currently it does—that is right. But for a significant period of time after the National Government’s Employment Contracts Act dismantled our awards system, workers had no legal right to meal and rest breaks other than what was negotiated in contracts and what was provided for in health and safety provisions. Despite the fact that New Zealanders think we all have the right to a morning tea break, a lunch break, and an afternoon tea break, or whatever—which we have, thanks to the previous Labour Government—there was a period when people did not have that right, and we are heading back there right now.

I think that the bill is very short-sighted. I have seen no evidence provided for the need for it. As Trevor Mallard indicated, the Minister of Labour introduced it as a matter of great urgency then left it languishing. There has been no consultation with anybody since, and no examples have been provided as to why we need it. But this bill will mean that certain workers—the most vulnerable workers, certainly—will miss out on having breaks when they need them.

Who is at risk? It is the young workers, migrant workers, and workers for whom English is a second language, for starters. The Service and Food Workers Union said that one of the most common queries it received leading up to this legislation was about workers’ rights to have a break, to have a cup of tea, to have something to eat. Anywhere, in any of the service industries, there is that tension—whether it be a service station, a retail outlet, a cafe, or a restaurant. Certainly, in my experience in the retail industry, that was the case. People were pressured not to have breaks. People worked through the day and did not have breaks.

I remind members across the House that they voted for the Employment Relations (Breaks, Infant Feeding and Other Matters) Amendment Act, which this bill amends—they supported it. I do not know what has happened in the meantime. Trevor Mallard quoted the Minister of Labour. She said that it was important for workers to have breaks for health and safety reasons, and for socialising between employees, which produces happy and productive workplaces—for all of those good reasons. Well, those reasons still exist. I will reiterate them.

Sue Moroney quite rightly pointed out a fundamental reason, which is health and safety. But there are other reasons. The breaks are there so that workers can refresh themselves, and so that they can balance some of their other responsibilities. Most people need to be able to ring the kids, pop out to the shops, or post some letters—things like that. That is the nature of working life nowadays, with, often, two adults in the family working.

The current provisions are flexible. I do not think anybody across the House has even looked at the Act, from the sound of the contributions so far. It is an absolute disgrace that this bill was introduced less than a year after the Act came into force, without any real analysis of how it was working. What is the reason? Is it another example of what the Prime Minister said in his speech at the opening of this year’s session about looking at the costs that labour rights were imposing on employers? He meant that as a result of those costs, jobs were not being created. If we have the flexibility not to have any rights at work, will that create more jobs and impose fewer costs? In modern, productive employment relations people’s rights at work need to be protected. This Government has already taken quite a substantial list of rights off people.

I note that in times of high unemployment, something which this country is currently facing, the right to negotiate one’s meal breaks on this level playing field—this magical level playing field—is even more difficult. When someone is part of a group that has rates of unemployment of up to 30 percent, like young Māori men, and that person finally gets a job, is he going to feel that he has the right to negotiate with the boss on the breaks that he wants? Frankly, I think he will be taking the job on the employer’s terms.

Some of the language and the concepts in this bill are very vague. Timing is to be at the discretion of the employer, subject to the requirement of reasonableness; I would like somebody across the House to tell me what that might mean. Or how about the compensatory measures? There is no objective manner of measuring their adequacy in particular cases, which will lead to the opportunity for greater disagreement between employers and employees. Again, that will not be particularly productive, and productivity is something that, supposedly, this Government is very much committed to, although we have not seen a lot of evidence of that.

What really annoys me about this bill is that it is quite sneaky. The language dresses it up to say that the Government is maintaining workers’ rights to have rest breaks and meal breaks—it will retain them—but, essentially, all of the rights are put in the hands of the employer. All of it, ultimately, is at the discretion of the employer. The Minister can shake her head, but she might want to refresh herself about what the bill actually says. With this magical level playing field, if there is actually negotiation and an agreement cannot be reached, who ultimately gets to decide? The employer gets to decide. The employer sets any requirements as to the length of the break or how the break is actually taken. All of that is in the bill. So, ultimately, the right will lie with the employer. That is what the Government is proposing here. I think that will lead to greater uncertainty, and to greater disputation in some workplaces. But, most worrying, I think it will revert us to the situation prior to the current Act coming to this House, when the reality for many workers was that they did not get a break. Maybe they got a break sometimes, but often they did not. They did not get the breaks that people felt were the normal breaks that New Zealand workers were entitled to by law. The reality was quite different to the law.

That is what I think is very sad about what is being proposed in this bill. For some reason that has not been clearly articulated, we are potentially destroying legislation that had been in place for less than 12 months when the Minister of Labour, in great urgency, put this bill into the House, only to leave it languishing there for a number of months and doing nothing further on it. I ask members opposite to think about what they are trying to achieve with this bill. Again, I want the Minister to stand up to take a call and tell us about what the explanatory note refers to as “a reasonable opportunity for rest and refreshment”. Who will decide that? Who will decide what restrictions are reasonable and necessary? Who will say what these compensatory measures will look like? Will it be acceptable for someone to agree that he or she will not have any breaks for a period of 3 weeks, and then will have a whole day off? Is that a fair measure? How good is that for health and safety?

Let me finish by giving an example of the health and safety issues that Sue Moroney raised earlier. This example was raised in a submission on the bill that became the current Act. It was a quite substantial submission from the Council of Trade Unions. It talked about rest breaks being recognised as having a role in ensuring worker productivity. Research undertaken in a car plant in Swansea over a 3-year period found that the risk of accidents during the last half-hour of a 2-hour period was double that for the first half-hour. The suggestion was that more frequent breaks could reduce accidents. It was concluded that increasing the frequency of rest breaks for workers who operate machinery could substantially reduce industrial accidents, and that frequent work breaks—it gave the example of 10 minutes every hour—could actually improve work performance. If the Government had looked at some of the research, instead of bringing into the House the hasty response that is this bill, we might be in a different place. Thank you.

ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tāmaki): I have the great privilege to have been elected to represent the Tāmaki electorate in this House. In that electorate there are streets such as Morrin Road, Lunn Avenue, and Apirana Avenue. Those are streets that the previous Labour speaker, Carol Beaumont, would never have heard of and would never have visited. They are streets that are full of small businesses, small industries, and employers with two or three employees working together to be productive. They are full of people who are prepared to put up their capital, take a risk, and use their entrepreneurial spirit and initiative to create a business and create work for two, three, or four other people. I reflect on a conversation that I had in one of those streets just the other day. I was talking to a gentleman who had set up a business and employed one person. He had employed that person as a young lad 15 years ago. He taught him the business, taught him the trade, and can now trust that young man to look after the business when he is away. Neither the employer nor the employee needs Labour members in this House or in legislation telling them how to conduct their relationship. That is what Labour seems so determined to do.

It is time that Labour began to understand that healthy employment relationships are not based on its rules, its domination of union secretaries, or its laws passed in this House. They are based on normal human beings establishing decent relationships between themselves. It is time that the “hate the boss” mentality was removed from this country. Without people who are prepared to risk their capital and back their entrepreneurial spirit, there will be no jobs for anybody else. The Labour members gave their speeches, but they did not really engage in debate with this side of the House. Their speeches were clearly directed at their former colleagues the trade union secretaries, one or two of whom may have been listening, with no relevance at all to where this country is at and what the average New Zealander is thinking.

The purpose of this bill is very simple. Firstly, it acknowledges the importance of relationships between employer and employee, and acknowledges that that relationship is best established at the local workplace level. It is not best established by being legislated for in this House, by having union officials sticking their noses in, or by taking away the freedom of men and women to work together to produce goods, to generate income, and to get on with life. I very strongly commend the Employment Relations (Rest Breaks and Meal Breaks) Amendment Bill to the House, and I look forward to engaging with Opposition members at the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. Thank you.

DARIEN FENTON (Labour): That was a bit of a tirade by the previous speaker, Allan Peachey. It reminded me a lot of Bill Birch. It sounded like Bill Birch was back with his speech on the Employment Contracts Act, saying we should bring it back. My goodness me! When the Minister of Labour, the Hon Kate Wilkinson, gets to speak again some time in the future, I would like to know whether she agrees with what that member just said. If so, I think we all need to be quite worried. I might get Allan Peachey’s Hansard and send it off to all the unions. I am told that that Minister meets regularly with the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions, and I say good on her; I am not criticising her for that. I will send off the Hansard where Allan Peachey says all of those things about trade union secretaries and interfering union officials. I thought that the National Party had moved on, I really did. Even though I do not have high expectations of the National Party, I thought that we had moved on from that kind of rhetoric.

Unfortunately, the Employment Relations (Rest Breaks and Meal Breaks) Amendment Bill is the second piece of legislation that this Minister of Labour has brought into the House that takes away workers’ rights. I notice that she told a recent industrial relations conference that 2010 will be the “Get Stuff Done Year” for her labour portfolio.

Sue Moroney: The “Get Stuffed Year”.

DARIEN FENTON: The “Get Stuffed Year for Workers”. I wonder if this is what she is talking about. Is taking away workers’ rights getting stuff done? This is a very hastily and poorly drafted bill. It was rushed into the House late last year in a panic because the Minister thought that the air traffic controllers were getting out of control. It was rushed into the House without consultation or giving notice to anyone, including the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions. John Key went along to the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions conference the week before—

Hon Steve Chadwick: He smiled and waved.

DARIEN FENTON: He smiled and waved, yet he never said a word about this legislation, which was introduced the following week. What has been interesting about the speeches from the opposite side is that National supported the Employment Relations (Breaks, Infant Feeding and Other Matters) Amendment Bill when it was introduced by Labour. It made a real virtue out of it. I remember that Minister, who was then an Opposition member, making a real fuss, and making a virtue out of doing so. I have to admit that it was a surprise to us at the time, because it is the only piece of workers’ rights legislation that improves things for workers that the National Party has supported in 20 years. It was worth celebrating at the time, but the speeches that we have heard from members opposite tonight make us wonder if they are in denial. They make us wonder if it was an election ploy to try to prove to workers that National was not as scary as they believed.

The Minister was part of the select committee during the consideration of that original bill. She, along with me and many others, heard the submissions on Labour’s bill.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 10 p.m.