Thursday, 6 May 2010

Thursday, 6 May 2010

Thursday, 6 May 2010

Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Karakia.

Visitors

Japan—Prime Minister’s Fellow, Councillor Mrs Hiroe Makiyama, National Diet

Mr SPEAKER: I have much pleasure in informing the House that the Prime Minister’s Japan Fellow, Councillor Mrs Hiroe Makiyama from the National Diet of Japan, is present in the gallery. I am sure members would wish that she be welcomed.

Business Statement

Business Statement

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): When the House resumes on 18 May, the Government will look to progress the Electoral (Administration) Amendment Bill, the Private Security Personnel and Private Investigators Bill, and a range of first readings on the Order Paper. The Budget will be read on Thursday, 20 May.

Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour): I want to make a couple of inquiries of the Leader of the House about the Budget—obviously, not its contents, but issues of process. The first item is whether the Government intends to repeat the practice last year, which was very helpful to members, whereby once the Minister of Finance commences reading the Budget speech, the Budget documents are made available for members to look at and follow through as the Budget speech is being read. The second item is whether members should prepare for an extra sitting as a result of the Budget, either on Thursday evening or on Friday.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): On the first point, yes, it is our intention that the good practice of making sure that copies of the Budget documents are rapidly made available to members is continued. It was a good process last year. It is part of the new and open way in which this Government likes to operate. We are setting new and very high parliamentary standards for the conduct of public business. As for the member’s concern about when he may be able to head home in order to reconnect with Teddy, he will just have to wait until the day.

Tabling of Documents

Proposed New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement 2008—Board of Inquiry Report

Hon DARREN HUGHES (Labour): On to more serious and statesmanlike matters, I seek leave of the House to table the report of the board of inquiry into the Proposed New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement 2008.

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.

Committees

Business of Select Committees

Commerce Committee—Authority to Release Departmental Report on Financial Service Providers (Pre-Implementation Adjustments) Bill

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): I seek leave for the Commerce Committee to have authority to release the departmental report on the Financial Service Providers (Pre-Implementation Adjustments) Bill to submitters on that bill for further comment, despite Standing Order 235. Before you put that leave, Mr Speaker, I want to indicate that there was some confusion over the status of that report at the time that I spoke to the chairman of the committee yesterday, but it has been cleared up, and there will be no difficulty with the report being made available.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is no objection.

Questions for Oral Answer

Questions to Ministers

Whānau Ora—Significance

1. RAHUI KATENE (Māori Party—Te Tai Tonga) to the Minister responsible for Whānau Ora: What is the significant change anticipated in the Whānau Ora approach?

Hon TARIANA TURIA (Minister responsible for Whānau Ora): The Whānau Ora approach is intended to place families at the centre of flexible and innovative service provision. It will provide for a different way of working with w’ānau, building on their strengths so that they can take ownership of their own needs. This new approach will see families become less reliant on State agencies, and agencies acting as facilitators rather than fixers.

Rahui Katene: How will the providers be selected?

Hon TARIANA TURIA: Providers will be selected through a process of expressions of interest beginning in June this year. The Whānau Ora governance group will oversee the expressions of interest process.

Hon Parekura Horomia: Can the Minister confirm whether any new funding will be set aside for Whānau Ora in the next 4 years, or is it just a “Take from Pita, to give to Paula” approach?

Hon TARIANA TURIA: We have an agreement at this moment for funding of $134 million over the next 4 years. Who knows what the Budget next year will hold?

Rahui Katene: How will contracts be integrated through a Whānau Ora approach?

Hon TARIANA TURIA: There is a focus on the Ministry of Social Development contracts and health contracts, at present. Those contracts will be integrated in the first instance, which will make savings and compliance a really important first stage.

Katrina Shanks: How will Whānau Ora encourage flexibility and innovation?

Hon TARIANA TURIA: The greatest innovation will come from skilled practitioners who are able to go beyond crisis and intervention to build skills and strategies that will contribute to w’ānau empowerment and positive outcomes. This funding encourages Government agencies to be responsive and flexible enough to align with w’ānau aspirations, and it also enables w’ānau ownership of solutions and actions in ways that are unique.

Hon Annette King: As over 800 non-governmental organisations were part of the Pathways to Partnership programme, many of which were to be fully funded through the Pathways to Partnership funding, which is now being diverted to Whānau Ora, how many of these providers will receive funding under Whānau Ora, and how many will have to operate with less funding?

Hon TARIANA TURIA: Nobody will operate with less. I cannot give any guarantees about who will receive this funding, because there is an expressions of interest process.

Kelvin Davis: Can she explain why Whānau Ora, which was once touted as an overarching programme designed to overhaul the delivery of social services to Māori, with funding of $1 billion, has morphed into a small-scale programme for all New Zealanders that is being run out of Te Puni Kōkiri on a budget of less than that of John Key’s proposed cycleway?

Hon TARIANA TURIA: The fact is that this is not a programme. There is integrated funding, which, in the first instance for 20 providers, will be well over $100 million—that will be contributed. The money that is being set aside for W’ānau Ora is about the capability of the providers—the training for the navigators. It will be used for the research that will run alongside it. It will be the first time that the Government will have value for money.

Te Ururoa Flavell: Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Kia ora tātou katoa. How will providers that are not included in the first wave of providers be supported to undertake a fantastic Whānau Ora approach?

Hon TARIANA TURIA: This is already happening, and it is really exciting. The Government’s whole approach is about moving towards integrated contracting, trusting communities and families to know what is best.

Te Ururoa Flavell: What kinds of investments will be made in whānau to realise aspirations of self-reliance and self-management through the fantastic Whānau Ora approach?

Hon TARIANA TURIA: The important investment will be to restore self-belief in these families so that they do not need the State to be their parent.

Accident Compensation—Sensitive Claims Clinical Pathway

2. Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) to the Minister for ACC: Does he accept ACC’s new clinical pathway for victims of sexual abuse, introduced in October 2009, has drastically reduced the number of people who have been sexually abused who are approved by ACC for counselling?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for ACC): The decline rate for the Accident Compensation Corporation’s (ACC) sensitive claims unit has increased from 5 percent in 2000 to 41 percent in 2008, when the new guidelines were launched by the Hon Steve Maharey. The decline rates have continued to increase since they were introduced, although the major change in the reported data is the large number awaiting further information. These delays are a concern. That is why last week I announced an independent clinical review.

Hon Annette King: Is he aware of Ashburn Clinic, a psychiatric centre in Dunedin, which has worked successfully with ACC to provide treatment to victims of sexual abuse since 2000, but to which no patients have been referred since his announced changes to ACC guidelines, and, even more alarming, patients in treatment have had their cases reviewed and funding stopped, often rendering planning for a safe discharge extremely difficult; and where does he expect these people to get their treatment from?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I am not aware of any communication I have had with Ashburn Clinic. I would recommend that, if there are concerns that that private-hospital facility has about ACC’s management of sensitive claims, it refers them to the independent clinical review panel that was set up and is being led by Dr Barbara Disley, a former mental health commissioner, because I will take a very strong lead from that review team as to whether ACC is properly meeting its legal responsibilities for those victims of sexual abuse or assault.

Hon Annette King: I seek leave to table a letter written to me from the director of Ashburn Clinic pointing out all of the issues that I raised in my question today.

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.

Lynne Pillay: Has he seen the report from Rape Crisis that states that the new clinical pathway imposed in October 2009 has almost destroyed the sector, that the review, which will not be completed until late July, is too late for some, that many survivors are suicidal, and that no alternative was put in place?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The first point I make in response to the member is that clinical guidelines for dealing with sensitive claims were undertaken on research work done by Massey University and launched by the Hon Steve Maharey in March 2008. I invite the member and any counsellors, psychotherapists, or others who have concerns about those guidelines or ACC’s processes to make direct submissions to that clinical review team.

Lynne Pillay: In light of the avalanche of evidence showing that the changes made to ACC’s clinical guidelines last October are having a disastrous impact on the lives of vulnerable people, will he listen and reinstate the previous clinical guidelines while the review is under way?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The first point I make is that under the previous Government in 2008—

Hon Darren Hughes: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My colleague is trying very carefully to put a very sensitive topic area to the Minister. She had no political content in her question; she simply asked about two dates, and what guidelines would operate while the review is under way. A Minister cannot stand up and say as the beginning of an answer: “The first point I would like to make is that the previous Government x, y, and z.” Clearly, this is all within his portfolio responsibilities for the warrant he holds at present.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: In the member’s question, she made reference to the change in the number of sensitive claims. I wanted to point out to the House that to advance the argument for change, one has to show that cases were not being declined previously.

Mr SPEAKER: I invite Lynne Pillay to repeat her supplementary question because in my view it was not that. Her supplementary question specifically asked whether the Minister would contemplate going back to old guidelines while the review is being conducted. I invite Lynne Pillay to repeat her question.

Lynne Pillay: In light of the avalanche of evidence showing that the changes made to ACC’s clinical guidelines last October are having a disastrous impact on the lives of vulnerable people, will he listen and reinstate the previous clinical guidelines while the review is under way?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I note that under the previous clinical guidelines that the member wants to return to, 2,400 sensitive claims were declined per year. I also point out that the member is incorrect in her assertion, in that both the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists and the College of General Practitioners have issued statements strongly supportive of the changes that ACC has made. I do not wish to engage in a clinical argument. That is not my area of expertise. That is why I have sought an independent review team of skilled clinicians to look at the differing views and to provide recommendations on a constructive way forward.

Hon Annette King: Has he heard of a group of survivors of sexual assault called Courageous Women, who are challenging the changes to ACC guidelines, and is he prepared to meet them and hear their stories and the impact the changes are having on their lives?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I have heard of the group only through the newspaper. I have made no decisions as Minister in respect of the issue of sensitive claims, because it is a very clinical area in which I am not wanting to interfere in decisions; the only decision I have made is that there is sufficient concern to justify a clinical review, and I invite Courageous Women, or members of the Opposition, or any other group that has concerns about ACC’s work in this area to make their submissions to that clinical review team.

Hon Annette King: In light of that answer, why did he phone a member of the Courageous Women who is an advocate against sexual assault and berate and bully her, saying the Courageous Women who signed T-shirts to highlight their concerns at his policy were part of a fiasco and a media circus, and if she wanted to speak out, the only appropriate forum was his review?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Firstly, I totally reject the member’s assertions. On Monday I read claims in the newspaper that this group was to meet with me. The first my office had heard of any request was when I read that in the newspaper. The person concerned phoned my office three times on Monday—

Hon Annette King: For an appointment.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: —that is right—and she said that if she did not get an answer by 4 o’clock she would be going on the radio. I phoned her and said to her that the proper place for her to direct her concerns was the clinical review, and I think that is entirely appropriate. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: I say to Labour members that they must immediately remove that. If members do not want to leave the House they will remove that immediately. [Interruption] I am on my feet. Members know the rules. The member who is speaking may use visual aids when he or she is speaking; other members may not. A member was not speaking then, and that was totally outside the Standing Orders.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: In light of the claims made by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, I seek leave to table an email, in respect of the conversation I had with the person concerned, from persons who were listening to those who were part of the conversation, to show that the claims that have been made by Annette King are not correct.

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

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

Budget 2010—Roads of National Significance

3. GARETH HUGHES (Green) to the Minister of Finance: Will the Government in Budget 2010 continue to spend billions of dollars on the seven roads of national significance identified in the National Infrastructure Plan?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Associate Minister of Finance) on behalf of the Minister of Finance: Yes. The Government is forecast to spend $11 billion over the next 10 years on State highway construction, which will include substantially progressing the seven roads of national significance. We are doing this to lift our national productivity and economic growth by easing prominent bottlenecks within and around our five largest metropolitan areas, and by linking our major sea ports and airports more effectively into the State highway system.

Gareth Hughes: Can the Minister of Finance confirm that two of the motorways, Pūhoi to Wellsford and Transmission Gully, have benefit-cost ratios of less than 1, meaning that for each dollar spent they will not achieve even $1 in benefit?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The Minister can confirm that depending on which way the Transmission Gully road is measured, one can come up with a benefit-cost ratio of less than 1. The Minister can also confirm that when the road was announced it was pointed out that it would be constructed in a very challenging environment, and that if we wanted a high benefit-cost ratio on the Transmission Gully road, we would have to move the capital city somewhere else so that the road could be built much less expensively. In the case of Pūhoi to Wellsford, depending on the discount rate used, and taking into account the wider economic benefits, from memory the ratio ranges from 0.8 to 1.6.

Gareth Hughes: Does he have any advice from Treasury to support his view that it is good economics to fund projects when the costs outweigh the benefits?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: No, the Minister does not have any specific advice in that regard. Of course, there is a huge range of Treasury advice on a range of issues, but Treasury is certainly keen to see the Government focus on economic growth, and we are certainly doing so. Roading forms part of a plan that we have developed for some time now, and it seems to be bearing early fruit in terms of a reduction in unemployment numbers, and in comments from the Governor of the Reserve Bank that New Zealand is back on the road again.

Gareth Hughes: Will he admit that recent OECD analysis referenced in his National Infrastructure Plan actually shows there was no positive relationship between motorways and economic growth in New Zealand?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: No. The Minister of Transport has been through that report at some length and it does not actually say that, at all. He is happy to take the member through it if the member so desires.

Hon Darren Hughes: How does he plan to come up with the $600 million shortfall between the funds he has available to him as the Minister of Finance and the funds that are required to build the seven roads of national significance over the next 7 years?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I am not sure exactly which numbers the member is referring to because—

Hon Darren Hughes: There’s no money for all this.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: No, the National Land Transport Programme projects $10.7 billion to substantially progress the roads of national significance over the next 10 years. It makes no prediction as to what will be completed within 7 years.

Gareth Hughes: What is his response to all the evidence that spending on trains and buses creates twice as many jobs as spending on motorways, because motorway construction involves more land and machinery than people?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I think the member is referring, once again, to the OECD report. I am happy to take him through it at some point, because the points he is making are not reflected in the analysis of the appropriate approach for investment in New Zealand. The analysis reflects that we historically have had a very road-dominated transport system, which we are continuing to invest in.

Gareth Hughes: I seek leave to table graphs from pages 62 and 63 of the OECD report on infrastructure investment, which show there is no correlation between motorways and economic growth in New Zealand, and a strong, positive link—

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

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

Gareth Hughes: Can he name any city in the world that has eliminated congestion and enhanced economic productivity by widening motorways and attracting more cars into crowded urban areas?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Yes, I can. There is one north of here called Auckland, which has made good progress with roading investment. With the combination of good roading investment and good public transport investment, I strongly predict that in the next 4 or 5 years we will have a much better transport outcome in Auckland.

Gareth Hughes: Is it fiscally responsible when the Government is cutting funding across the board for it to be spending tens of billions of dollars on motorway projects that fail to deliver jobs, fail benefit-cost analysis, and fail to provide for our future?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The Minister would reject all of those assertions. I point out to the member something that he may not be aware of, and that is that we have a hypothecated roading revenue system in this country whereby road-user charges and petrol excise duty are reinvested into the roading system, largely to improve it. That system, of course, was signed off by the previous Government, of which his party was a member.

Gareth Hughes: I seek leave to table a report from the US that demonstrates that economic spending on public transport—

Mr SPEAKER: Whose report is it?

Gareth Hughes: It is entitled What we learned from the stimulus, and it is by three non-governmental organisations based in the US.

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.

Government Proposals—Treasury Criticism

4. Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) to the Minister of Finance: Which of the Government’s proposals have been criticised by Treasury as representing poor value for money?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Associate Minister of Finance) on behalf of the Minister of Finance: Most Ministers and most Governments have been criticised by Treasury for certain elements of their proposals. For example, Treasury is regularly critical of proposals to take GST off food, because that would cost about $2.5 billion in lost tax revenues per annum. That would dramatically push up our levels of foreign debt, which is another thing that Treasury is also critical of. Treasury is also critical—

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: —of moves to increase—

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Sorry, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: I should think so. This is a question on notice, which states: “Which of the Government’s proposals have been criticised by Treasury as representing poor value for money?”. I have been listening carefully to the Minister, and I have not heard any list. It is a question on notice.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. An open question like that surely has to allow the Minister some scope to narrow it down to the portfolio area in which it is asked. If it is just a general question, I will get my office to come over here with a wheelbarrow full of stuff relating to the previous Government’s policies, which Treasury consistently said were poor value for money.

Mr SPEAKER: I hear what the member says, and if there are many criticisms it could be a very long list, so maybe we would not expect the Minister to make an exhaustive list. But no attempt was made to advise the House as to which of the Government’s proposals have been criticised by Treasury. The question appears to be in order. It is a very particular question. It is a primary question. It is capable of being answered, and I do not expect the answer to attack the Opposition without making any attempt to answer the question.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Mr Speaker—

Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: I think we should give the Minister a chance to answer the question.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The member will be aware that Treasury criticises a huge range of proposals made by many Governments, and it also criticises some policies that actually proceed. One policy that the member may be interested in is the Government’s Youth Opportunities programme, which Treasury criticised, yet it seems to have had a positive effect alongside the Government’s other policies, with the unemployment rate today announced as having fallen to 6 percent, from 7.1 percent in the December 2009 quarter.

Hon David Cunliffe: When the Minister said earlier he would not be funding the cycleway project—not this year, not next year, and not the year after—was this because he agreed with Treasury advice that it was poor value for money?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The Minister always defers to the Prime Minister’s superior judgment to that of Treasury. Of course, we are funding the cycleway project.

Hon David Cunliffe: Following on from that answer, why is he continuing to implement policies like the cycleway, which Treasury said was low-quality spending, when he is axing home help for the elderly on the same grounds?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The Government has a huge range of policies that are designed to improve economic growth, in order to take the toughest edges off the world recession. I note that the Government is having some success in that regard, with a reduction in unemployment reported in the household labour force survey this morning from 7.1 percent to 6 percent. I also note the comments by Mr Bollard, the Reserve Bank governor, who says New Zealand’s recovery from the global crisis is now entering a “new, less fragile stage” in an article headlined: “NZ economy trucking again”.

Hon David Cunliffe: Given the Minister’s contention that the recovery is now fully under way, what does he say to the hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders who have gone without wage rises, who face rises in the cost of living, or who have lost their jobs? What does he say to them, now that he is trumpeting the arrival of the recovery?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The recovery is still in an early stage. The household labour force survey figures are moving around, but they are improving. This is very encouraging when we consider the experience of many other countries in the world, including that of many in Europe, that are still struggling with the global economic recession.

Simon Bridges: What kinds of economic policies would threaten New Zealand’s recovery and destroy jobs?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The biggest threat to our recovery would be an economic policy mix that featured soaring debt, higher taxes, and never-ending Budget deficits. This Government inherited precisely that scenario in late 2008, when New Zealand had already been in recession for most of that year. This Government has taken concrete steps to reduce our debt, to get our economy growing again, and to get people into sustainable jobs. That is evidenced in figures today. Labour never learns: it is still promoting a recipe of more debt and higher taxes.

Health Services—Minister’s Statements

5. Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) to the Minister of Health: Does he stand by all of his recent statements on health services?

Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health): Yes, including the announcement that the Government has approved and funded a bowel cancer screening pilot that will cost in total $31.6 million over the next 5 years. Bowel cancer is the most frequently diagnosed cancer and the second highest cause of cancer death here in New Zealand. In 2007 almost 3,000 people were diagnosed with bowel cancer, and 1,252 people died from the disease. However, it is a cancer that, if diagnosed and treated early, people have a good chance of surviving.

Dr Jackie Blue: What further details can he advise concerning the bowel screening announcement?

Hon TONY RYALL: The final decision on which district health boards will be the sites for the pilots will be made following an expressions of interest process, which is expected to cover a minimum of 60,000 people aged from 50 to 74. This process will enable the Ministry of Health to assess willingness, capacity, and readiness, and will allow a coordinated approach to planning and implementation. It is a long-awaited initiative that if successful, and if a national programme is rolled out, could save up to 270 lives a year over time.

Iain Lees-Galloway: Given that we hear the Minister congratulate himself day after day for elective surgery increases, what does he say to Dr Clive Solomon, a surgeon operating at the front line, who said that the Minister’s figures were “questionable”, and a “blatant misrepresentation of health figures for political expedience.”?

Hon TONY RYALL: I would say that he is wrong. I say that that is wrong, and that it is quite clear we are heading into the district health board election season.

Hon Luamanuvao Winnie Laban: How can this House trust his so-called good news on health, when each day my office is called by another older person who is suffering because of the Minister’s health cuts—which is why we will listen to the views of those older persons, not the Minister’s?

Hon TONY RYALL: That member can recite that mantra as much as she likes. The fact is that more services are being provided at the front line in New Zealand every day. If members look, for example, at Capital and Coast District Health Board, they will see that 500 more Wellingtonians had elective surgery last year than in the final year of the failed previous Government, whose members are seated opposite.

Adult and Community Education—Funding

6. Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour) to the Minister for Tertiary Education: Does he stand by the decisions the Government has made with respect to funding adult and community education?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Tertiary Education): Yes. This Government has had to make some difficult decisions regarding adult and community education, because the previous administration left behind a $521 million hole of unfunded commitments in Budget 2008.

Hon Maryan Street: In this New Zealand Sign Language Week, is the Minister aware that his predecessor had this to say last year about guaranteeing funding for sign language classes: “New Zealand Sign Language will continue to receive adult and community education funding, because it fits within the Government’s adult and community education priority. … The courses will not be cut.”; if he is, how is it that sign language classes previously held at Napier Boys’ High School, Tamatea High School, and Hastings Boys’ High School are no longer running in 2010, because of funding cuts?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Yes, I am aware of that. In relation to the Hawke’s Bay schools that the member mentioned, I am not aware of the specific provision in Hawke’s Bay. But if she would like me to make some inquiries on her behalf, I am happy to do so.

Lynne Pillay: How is it that sign language classes at Tikipunga High School, which serves the Whangarei, Kaikohe, and Kerikeri areas; at Rutherford College in Te Atatū; at Kelston Boys High School, which is right beside the Kelston Deaf Education Centre; at Tauranga Boys College; and at Tauranga Girls College are all unable to deliver services this year because of funding cuts?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The Government has made a decision to refocus adult and community education funding on providing a number of programmes, including literacy, language, numeracy, and foundation skills, and sign language. The individual funding decisions are made by the Tertiary Education Commission. But if the member has concerns about the lack of provision in a particular area, I invite her to contact my office and I will investigate that.

Hon Maryan Street: If sign language is one of the Government’s priorities for adult and community education, how, in New Zealand Sign Language Week, is it that courses at Fairfield College and Melville High School in Hamilton, at Shirley Boys High School in Christchurch, and at Taieri College in Dunedin cannot be offered in 2010, because of funding cuts; is this a sign of how the Government delivers its priorities?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: As I said to the previous speaker, the funding decisions are made by the Tertiary Education Commission, based on the Government’s priorities. Once again, I am happy to address any specific concerns about lack of provision in a particular area, but schools and other providers are prioritised by the Tertiary Education Commission. I note that the biggest reduction in adult and community education funding occurred under the previous Government, where the number of students funded for adult and community education dropped from 279,000 students in 2004 to 77,000 students in 2008.

Electricity—Number of Households Changing Suppliers, March 2010

7. KATRINA SHANKS (National) to the Minister of Energy and Resources: How many households switched electricity suppliers in March 2010?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister of Energy and Resources): A total of 34,892 households switched electricity suppliers in March this year. That is the highest number of customer switches since August 2001. It is 48 percent more than in March last year, and is a very good sign that people are making choices for cheaper electricity.

Katrina Shanks: What steps is the Government taking to promote customer switching and competition within the electricity market?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: The recent ministerial review of the electricity market endorsed competition as the best way to constrain retail electricity price increases. The Government agreed with a series of recommendations made by the expert advisory group. It has agreed to reallocate Tekapo A and Tekapo B power stations from Meridian Energy to Genesis Power and to create virtual asset swaps amongst State-owned generators to facilitate a better market. The benefits forthcoming from the transfer of Tekapo A and Tekapo B have already been seen, with Genesis Power aggressively entering the Christchurch and Dunedin markets and offering extremely competitive price packages. We expect the same to happen in the north very soon.

Education, National Standards—Plain English Reports for Parents

8. Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) to the Minister of Education: How important is it that parents receive plain English information on their children’s progress against national standards?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education): It is very important that the information that parents receive explains to them clearly and in plain language how their child is doing at school. This means providing information that tells them what progress their child is making and how he or she is achieving in relation to the national standards.

Hon Trevor Mallard: How would the Minister explain in plain English to the parents of a year 8 student that, notwithstanding their child being in stanine six, being in the top half of the asTTle results, fulfilling the expected requirements of the New Zealand curriculum, being in the average and above group for the progressive achievement test, and being ranked in the top third of the OECD, their child has failed to meet the numeracy requirements of her national standards?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: The member fails to understand that the national standards are designed to lift standards, and they are aligned to National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) level 2. In those circumstances, that child would not be on track to achieve at NCEA level 2.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was about measurement, not lifting, and it was about how she would explain that a child who is average or above in New Zealand has failed. The question did not ask about how the tool is to be used in the future.

Mr SPEAKER: With respect to the member, I listened quite carefully to the Minister’s answer. Unless I misheard her, I believe that she was pointing out in her answer that the standards that are being set may be a little higher than those in previous tests, and that someone who might have been above the average in the asTTle tests may not meet the national standards, which may be set differently. The member can pursue that point in supplementary questions.

Allan Peachey: What support is being provided to schools to help them to report to parents in plain language on children’s achievements and progress against the national standards?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: More than $26 million of existing professional development funding has been budgeted for, and is focused on, delivering extensive, specialised support around national standards, including reporting to parents. We have also provided a range of online resources and a self-review tool to support schools’ improvement of their reporting practices.

Hon Trevor Mallard: How will having a national standard that her ministry says 50 percent of year 8 students will not meet help to identify the bottom 20 percent of students, who she says make up the tail of underachievement that she wants to focus on?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: The national standards are designed for all students, not just the bottom 20 percent. First of all, no good teacher would ever label a child who did not reach the national standard as a failure. No good teacher would ever call a student a failure. Secondly, schools will be reporting to parents about the progress and achievement that their child is making in relation to the national standards.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think you know what it is. Again, it was a pretty simple question about how, when we have a standard that is set at 50 percent, it helps to identify the bottom 20 percent. I do not—

Mr SPEAKER: On this occasion I support the honourable member. The question was reasonably concise. It asked how schools would identify the bottom 20 percent of students that the member understood were causing concern. The Minister did not give any information on that at all. It would be helpful if she could do so.

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: The national standards are designed for all students, not just the bottom 20 percent. Teachers are required to report on all students to their parents in writing, in plain language, twice a year. Even the bottom 20 percent will be reported on to their parents as to how they are progressing and achieving against the standards.

Hon Trevor Mallard: How, then, do her standards differentiate between a child who is in the bottom 10 percent and a child who is, say, at 45 percent of his or her cohort?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: The discussions between teachers and parents are held entirely at their discretion. So how teachers explain to parents where their child is at at that particular point in time, and explain how that child has progressed, is up to them. Teachers know best. Their relationship is with the parents. But what parents must know—and we know this because parents have told us this—is how their child is progressing against the national standards.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is the same point of order that I had raised before. I asked how the national standards help to differentiate between a child who is at 10 percent and a child who is at 45 percent. The discussion with the parent does not actually help to identify where a child sits against the standard.

Mr SPEAKER: Again, the Minister focused in her answer on how teachers would report to parents, rather than on how the standards would differentiate between the bottom 10 percent of students and, say, a student who is achieving at around the 45 percent level. It would be helpful if the Minister could indicate in her answer to the member’s question how the national standards will differentiate between those students.

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: If the member cares to read the national standards, he will see that they set out very well what is expected at standard. There are exemplars for teachers to use, and, of course, they can use their professional judgment on where the child’s achievement and progress sit. Teachers can also use a whole range of assessment techniques and tools to ascertain that. A good-quality teacher will know what the difference is in a child’s achievement and progress.

Hon Trevor Mallard: What, then, is the point of having a standard?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: Mr Speaker—

Hon Tony Ryall: Back to basics.

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: Back to basics. The national standards are designed to ensure that every single New Zealand child is able to achieve and progress in reading, writing, and maths, so that he or she will achieve NCEA level 2 as the minimum qualification that a modern child needs in order to live a full and successful life. I understand that that is a difficult concept for the Opposition to grasp.

Hon Trevor Mallard: How will identifying half of the year 8 children as not meeting a standard help every child to achieve NCEA level 2?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: That is exactly the point. It is the legacy of the 9 years of the previous Labour Government that half the children in year 8 are not on track in mathematics to achieve NCEA level 2.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The question asked how identifying children would help them to get to NCEA level 2. That was the purport of my question, and you understand that, Mr Speaker. The question asked not how they would get there; it asked what the point is of having those standards if they do not assist children to get there.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: The member should not go pleading to you, Mr Speaker, on the basis of his interpretation of his own question. The Hansard will show what he asked. Equally, it will show that the response was very good. The fact that he claims that 50 percent of year 8 students will not meet a standard simply means that those students have an awful lot of work to do. The Minister pointed out that that is the legacy of the previous Government’s failings.

Mr SPEAKER: That is a nice try, but the difficulty is that the member asked a pretty fair question on how identifying a certain number of children as not meeting a standard will assist them in reaching NCEA level 2. It is a fair question, and it is perfectly capable of being answered. To say it is all the fault of the previous Government that 45 percent of students are not meeting the new standard does not really answer that question. I think the question deserves an answer before a political criticism is made, because it is a fair question. I can think of all sorts of ways of answering that question. I think an answer is deserved.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. If this matter relates to a year 8 standard, then it is patently evident that most of the years of those children’s education were under the previous Government.

Mr SPEAKER: That is not a point of order. The member knows that the Minister does not need that kind of help to answer a pretty simple question.

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: The standards will provide signposts for teachers and parents to notice, recognise, and respond to.

Police—Facilities

9. CHRIS TREMAIN (National—Napier) to the Minister of Police: What is the Government doing to ensure police have the facilities they need to effectively serve New Zealand communities?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Police): I am pleased to report that tomorrow I am opening the 10th new police facility since becoming the Minister of Police. The new station in the Hawke’s Bay community of Tamatea will provide a base for the Napier tactical response team and the community constable. This Government is keen to ensure that all communities, large and small, have the police they need to make them feel safer in their homes and on the streets. Single-officer stations will also be opened over the next 6 months or so in Russell, Karamea, Granity, and Nuhaka.

Chris Tremain: What role has the Tamatea community of Napier played in ensuring they have a community police base?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I am advised that this station has been a classic example of community policing in action. The community and police jointly recognised a problem, then worked together to find a solution. It has involved local residents, the three schools in the area, local businesses, and the council. I am told that the residents are now feeling much more reassured, and that they are keen to work with the new constable at the grassroots level to take ownership of crime problems in their area, which is something Labour could never bring itself to do.

David Garrett: Has she investigated what resources and facilities would be required to implement a zero-tolerance policing policy in even one major police district?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: No, I have not.

David Garrett: Is she aware that zero-tolerance policing is widely accepted as the reason for dramatically reducing crime rates in New York State, and would she consider trialling such a policy here?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: No. I think we need New Zealand solutions. Last time I checked, New York City had 37,000 police officers for a population of 8 million. I am not sure we want to have an equivalent number here.

MAF Biosecurity New Zealand—Confidence

10. Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour) to the Minister for Biosecurity: Does he have confidence in his ministry’s ability to protect New Zealand against biosecurity risks?

Hon DAVID CARTER (Minister for Biosecurity): Generally speaking, yes, particularly when we consider the enormity of the task ahead of us in protecting New Zealand’s biodiversity and biosecurity.

Hon Damien O’Connor: Why did he reassure this House just last year that his Government’s policies would “significantly strengthen and enhance our biosecurity system”, when last week an independent report stated there were 29 deficiencies in the biosecurity processing of imported raw pig meat, including the import risk assessment?

Hon DAVID CARTER: The issue to which the member is referring is the import health standards for pork imports into this country. We received, quite recently, a very substantial report—67 pages—which is detailed and wants further work before we conclude. I am intent on solving this issue with a lasting solution. This is something that started before 2005, to which the previous Government simply turned its back. I want to achieve a way we can meet our obligations by demanding good access for exports and allowing fair importation into New Zealand, but at the same time balancing the need to protect New Zealand’s biosecurity.

Hon Damien O’Connor: Given that it is the second time that an independent review panel has found his department’s import safety risk assessment to be deficient, in order to protect New Zealand will the Minister suspend all imports of raw pork products—as happened with bee product imports from Australia—until all the panel’s recommendations have been addressed; if not, why not?

Hon DAVID CARTER: As I said to the member, we will analyse this very complicated report with care. We have, as of the end of last year, established 737 import health standards without difficulty. We have two challenges, which we inherited from the previous Labour Government, concerning the importation of honey and pork products, and I will consider them with care, accepting advice from my biosecurity officials.

Hon Damien O’Connor: Given the UN Food and Agriculture Organization’s recent advisory that Governments undertake “re-examination of possible routes of entry and measures to reinforce controls,” and “more rigorous checks at ports and airports.” in order to protect against a heightened threat of foot-and-mouth disease, will he reinstate the 56 front-line biosecurity staff whom he sacked last year?

Hon DAVID CARTER: The first point I make to that member is there has been no cut to Government funding at the front line, whatsoever. As soon as we were aware of notified foot-and-mouth outbreaks in both Japan and Korea, we heightened awareness at the border and we increased our profiling of visitors coming through from those countries. But the point I think Mr O’Connor needs to be aware of is that our biosecurity should not respond to incursions that occur in Asia just when they occur, because, frankly, foot-and-mouth is prevalent throughout that continent at all times. Our systems at the border need to be prepared to manage that risk, not only when we are notified, but on the assumption that foot-and-mouth is in China, Japan, and Korea at all times.

Hon Damien O’Connor: I seek leave to table two documents. The first is a report of the independent review panel on the provisional import health standards for pig meat and pig meat products into New Zealand.

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 Damien O’Connor: The second is a document of notification for importers of bee products from Australia. It is an import health standard that advises the industry that it can no longer import bee products from Australia.

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.

Pilots, Commercial—Safety and Monitoring

11. Hon TAU HENARE (National) to the Associate Minister of Transport: What recent measures has the Government taken to improve the safety and monitoring of commercial pilots?

Hon NATHAN GUY (Associate Minister of Transport): I have recently announced two new initiatives by the Civil Aviation Authority. It will work with the Ministry of Justice to introduce random checks on commercial pilots for any criminal convictions that have not been declared. This will be in addition to the existing check required when a pilot first enters the system. Also, the Civil Aviation Authority is proposing to introduce an electronic database, which will enable it to more effectively gather information and monitor medical issues affecting pilots.

Hon Tau Henare: What recent measures has the Government taken to improve the safety and the monitoring of commercial pilots?

Hon NATHAN GUY: I wanted to reassure the travelling public of New Zealand that these new measures are in addition to the current legislative requirements and will be cost-effective. I am very confident that airlines take the issue of drug and alcohol abuse seriously and that the vast majority of pilots do an outstanding job.

Local Authorities—Privatisation of Infrastructure

12. BRENDON BURNS (Labour—Christchurch Central) to the Minister of Local Government: Does he favour the privatisation of local authorities’ infrastructure?

Hon JOHN CARTER (Associate Minister of Local Government) on behalf of the Minister of Local Government: No. The Minister favours efficient and effective delivery of services provided by councils. Some are best delivered by councils directly and some by private enterprises contracting to a council. He supports councils making their own decisions within the law and representing the wishes of the ratepayers.

Phil Twyford: Does his Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill allow private ownership of water infrastructure for periods of up to 35 years?

Hon JOHN CARTER: Yes. Let me reiterate that there is no proposal, however, to privatise water anywhere within New Zealand. The House has been told on a number of occasions that the decision is simply this: to take what the previous Labour Government had in place for many years, which was that a council could enter into a public-private partnership for 15 years, and to allow an extension of up to 35 years if the council and the ratepayers deem it to be appropriate.

Brendon Burns: If a council did not build it, does not own it for 35 years, does not operate it, does not maintain it, and does not control it, as his changes to the Act allow for, how can it be anything other than privatisation?

Hon JOHN CARTER: The fact is that the member first of all needs to look in the dictionary to see the definition of private ownership. I say to the member that the fact is we are talking about public-private partnerships with regard to the management of water; the councils will always own the water supply. That is what the law requires to have happen. We are not talking about privatisation. The councils own the public water supply. It may be that they will deem that the most efficient and effective way to get good performance of delivery of water to the public is to ask the private sector to administer the water, but there is no way that that is privatising the actual asset.

Phil Twyford: Does he agree that, under his bill, activities or functions can be shifted from the public sector to the private sector; if so, is he aware that he has just met the definition of “privatisation” widely accepted in the academic literature?

Hon JOHN CARTER: No, he does not. If that member is an example of what academics think, then I do not think we have a problem with regard to privatisation in this country.

Brendon Burns: When he compared his proposals to allow private sector involvement in water services with his having his lawns mowed by a contractor, was he aware that under the provisions of this bill the lawn-mowing contractor would own his lawn, and that he would be stuck with him for 35 years?

Hon JOHN CARTER: The member fails to understand that when we talk about the provision of water and public-private partnerships we are talking about the administration of the water, not the ownership. In this case, the fact is that the lawns continue to grow, and the councils will continue to own the water supply in New Zealand and to provide water to the public of New Zealand.

Question No. 2 to Minister

LYNNE PILLAY (Labour): I seek leave to table a survey from the Royal New Zealand College of General Practitioners, which shows that it is currently consulting about concerns about the Accident Compensation Corporation’s guidelines.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection.

Visitors

Māori King—Te Arikinui Tā Kīngi Tuheitia

Mr SPEAKER: I have much pleasure in informing the House that Te Arikinui Tā Kīngi Tuheitia is within the precincts of this Chamber. I am sure members would wish that he be welcomed and accorded a seat on the left of the Chair.

Te Arikinui Tā Kīngi Tuheitia, accompanied by the Minister of Māori Affairs, entered the Chamber and took a seat on the left of the Chair.

Bills

Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Bill

Third Reading

Hon TARIANA TURIA (Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector) on behalf of the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations: I move, That the Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Bill be now read a third time. Hauraki, Ngāti Maniapoto, Ngāti Raukawa, Waikato, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa. E rere kau mai te awa nui mai i te Kāhui Maunga ki Tangaroa; ko au te awa, ko te awa ko au. Nā tēnei kaupapa, nā tēnei wānanga ka puta mai te kōrero, ko ngā wai honohono i te pō ki Parikino, tēnā tātou. Nō reira, kei te Kaihautū me ngā mema Pāremata, tēnā tātou katoa.

[The great ancestral river flows from the cluster of mountains to the sea; I am the river, and the river is me. From this philosophy and occult science emerged the saying, the binding waters from the darkness to Parikino, greetings to us. Therefore, Mr Speaker, and members of Parliament, greetings to us all.]

My river, Whanganui, connects me to the famous proverb “I am the river and the river is me”. Her origin—Te Kāhui Maunga, the family of mountains—is also the origin of the Waikato River. That connection is a matapihi, the component that links the third reading of this bill to something preordained and succinctly outlined in the phrase uttered by my kuia: “Ko ngā wai honohono i te pō tēnā.”

This is a most auspicious day in this Parliament, and we are honoured with the presence of Te Arikinui Tā Kīngi Tuheitia, Te Whare o Te Kāhui Ariki, and the tribal peoples of Waikato-Tainui. In their presence, we are connected to a noble line of leaders who have striven for the river to be restored to its former health and well-being. We pay tribute to the leadership and vision of Kīngi Pōtatau Te Wherowhero, Kīngi Tāwhiao, Kīngi Māhuta, Kīngi Te Rata, Kīngi Korokī, and the beloved Te Arikinui Dame Te Atairangikaahu. The ancestors have laid a pathway for the people to follow, and it is a pathway that is honoured in this settlement. I am reminded of the words of the late Sir Robert Te Kotahi Māhuta when talking about the river: “It is a gift left to us by our ancestors and we believe we have a duty to protect that gift for future generations.” We pay our respects to those of Te Whare o Te Kāhui Ariki, and today we think particularly of the legacy of the late Lady Raihā Māhuta, who, along with co-negotiator Tukoroirangi Morgan, played such a distinctive role in the efforts to restore and protect the Waikato River environment.

The Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Bill fulfils the aspirations of the people to protect the gift of their awa for future generations. A special feature of the settlement is that in seeking to protect the Waikato River, Waikato-Tainui have established an impressive precedent in the form of a co-governance entity and subsequent arrangements. I have every confidence that the co-management approach, which has been reviewed and refined over the last 2 years, will provide a vital context for other river settlements. The co-governance approach will usher in a new era of resource management in which accredited commissioners appointed by Waikato-Tainui, Ngāti Raukawa, Ngāti Tūwharetoa, Ngāti Maniapoto, and Te Arawa river iwi will be appointed to Waikato Regional Council hearing committees and boards of inquiry for applications for resource consent.

The enhanced model represents a significant shift from six statutory boards to a single co-governance entity, the Waikato River Authority. It is an inherently positive approach. The authority comprises equal numbers of Crown and iwi-appointed members, with care taken to include other iwi with interests along the river. Iwi and the Crown will sit together at the table overseeing the management of the health and well-being of the river. It is as it should be, and it is a sign of things to come.

The authority will have a pivotal role in monitoring the implementation of Te Ture Whaimana, which is a direction towards the development of the vision and strategy. Another key aspect of the settlement is the $210 million clean-up fund, which we know to be vital to the economic, environmental, and recreational progress of the area. We know that a narrow, reductionist approach to activities on the river has led to the degradation of the waterways. It is so pleasing that this bill provides the investment to support the iwi in meeting their kaitiakitanga obligations in caring for their puna wai, roto, and awa. The authority will administer a contestable fund that will be available to iwi, local authorities, landowners, and others for initiatives to clean up the river.

The challenge for iwi throughout Aotearoa is to ensure that w’ānau, hapū, and iwi are empowered to implement their aspirations to be fully involved in the management of the awa. A distinctive aspect of the settlement is the importance placed on two fundamental principles that represent the essence of the awa and the essence of the people. The settlement promotes the concepts of te mana o te awa, which is respect for the tupuna awa, and manaw’akahaere, which is the exercise of control, access, and management of the river and its resources in accordance with tikanga. These concepts are extended in provisions that recognise and provide for the exercise of customary activities by members of Waikato-Tainui. Iwi members are also authorised to harvest flora material for cultural purposes in accordance with a plan to be agreed to with the Director-General of Conservation.

The span of the claims for raupatu in the rohe of Waikato-Tainui stretches out beyond 120 years of New Zealand history. Its story is punctuated at one end by Kīngi Tāwhiao leading a delegation to visit Queen Victoria in 1884, and at the other end by the deed of settlement signed in 1995. The search for justice and redress is rewarded today with a settlement that rightly returns iwi to a governance role in respect of their rivers. Again, I return to Sir Robert’s vision: “The river belongs to us just as we belong to the river. The Waikato tribe and the river are inseparable.”

Today is a tribute to te Kauhanganui, Te Arataura, and the representatives of more than 50 marae that have so much invested in the success of this settlement. I also acknowledge the commitment and support of the members of the Māori Affairs Committee in their work on this bill. This bill is a means of settling a longstanding Treaty grievance, but fundamentally it is about establishing a robust basis for a productive and dynamic ongoing Treaty relationship with Waikato-Tainui. At the very heart of the relationship is a focus on the health and well-being of the awa and its tributaries. This is a vision of the iwi, but it is shared by Environment Waikato. It is the ambition of all key stakeholders that there be an integrated, holistic, and coordinated approach to the natural, physical, cultural, and historic resources of the Waikato River. I am immensely proud to be part of a Parliament that is providing an opportunity for everyone to unite for the single purpose of restoring and protecting the health and well-being of this river. Kotahi te kōhao o te ngira e kuhuna ai te miro mā, te miro pango, te miro whero.

[There is but one eye of the needle through which the white, black, and red threads must pass.]

Waikato-Tainui are to be commended for their leadership in protecting the unique life-force of their river in the interests of generations to come. My other river, Whangaehu, starts at Te Wai-a-moe on Ruapehu and cascades down to Nukuhau, the beginning of Waikato-iti. Today my relatives of Ruapehu have gone to the Waikato-iti to pray and to acknowledge the third reading of this bill so that the Waikato at the pūwaha will one day be as clean as it is at the foot of Ruapehu. I join with them all, in spirit and in deed, in extending our deepest blessings to all of Waikato-Tainui descent at this turning point in their tribal history. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): Ki te Kīngi Tuheitia me tō ahurei, e mihi ana. Tēnā koutou mō tō kaha ki te tae ake ki konei, ki a koutou o te Kīngitanga, Tainui whānui. Me koutou o Raukawa, Maniapoto, Ngāti Tūwharetoa, Te Arawa tēnā koutou. Nā te mea i roto i wētahi o tātau ngā kanohi Māori i konei, kua tae ake te wā mō te otinga o tēnei tino take. Mai i te pakopako o ngā pū o te Kāwana, mai i ngā heke, ngā neke, ngā piki, ngā āhua katoa, e mau matatau i a koutou o Tainui ki tērā. Nā te pai hoki o te pire nei e tae tahi anō, e noho tahi atu te iwi ki te taha o rātau e tuku ture mō te āhua o te awa nei. E mihi kau ana ki a koe e Koro, e Michael tēnā koutou. E Tuku ka nui te mihi. I tō tātau Minita Māori e Pita e mihi kau ana. Ki a koe Chris tēnā koe. E tautoko atu te nui o ngā kōrero e kōrero a Tariana mō te āhua o te kerēme nei. E mōhio atu tātau te pakaritanga i roto i a Bub, a Te Kotahi, i a rātau mā ā muri rā. I tae tahi atu tātau i konei hei whakaae, ahakoa i reira kē tētahi rōpū e kāre e whakaae.

[King Tuheitia and your entourage, I acknowledge you. I commend you, the King movement and Tainui at large, on your efforts to get here, as well as you of Raukawa, Maniapoto, Ngāti Tūwharetoa, and Te Arawa; well done. There are Māori members in our midst today who feel that the time to settle this important matter has arrived. Tainui, you are very much aware that since the time when the Governor fired the muskets, there have been many trials and tribulations, setbacks, ups and downs, and everything that was to happen has taken place. You saw all that. What is good about this bill is that the people have been able to get alongside others to create a bill that will look after the river. I acknowledge your part in this, Koro Wētere, Dr Michael Cullen, and Tuku Morgan. I applaud your efforts. I also commend our Minister of Māori Affairs, the Hon Dr Pita Sharples and the Minister, the Hon Chris Finlayson. I support the majority of what the Hon Tariana Turia said about this claim. We are very much aware how Bub, Sir Robert Te Kotahi Mahuta, and others back then who followed after him, worked hard. So we have arrived here together to endorse this bill, even though one party opposes it.]

For the first time Tainui has been included in the management of the awa—the river. It is historic and poignant, because Tainui has never before at any time been part of the river’s management or clearly involved in the decision making. The passageway for travel, the waterway to carry their goods for bartering and exchange, is certainly what they have lived and have imbued in their history. Ironically, it was along the same passageway that the soldiers attacked Tainui. As my colleague Tariana Turia said, it is an honour to be here today to ensure that those sins and ills of the past are put aside, and that that is recognised. There is a host of examples where the iwi opinion has never been considered—for example, the power station, and other issues relating to buildings along the awa. Today, we will put that aside.

I certainly recognise the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, Chris Finlayson, for his efforts, and I recognise especially my former colleague Dr Michael Cullen, the Minister of Māori Affairs, and also Koro Wētere, who is here today.

Nā kē ngā kōrero o Kotahi. Nō tātau te awa, nō te awa tātau. He taonga tuku iho nā ngā tūpuna taua taonga mō ngā uri whakatupu. E kore e taea te wehe te iwi o Waikato me te awa. E whakapono ana mātau, ko tā mātau he tiaki. Ki a Waikato-Tainui, he tūpuna te awa o Waikato, e mau ana te mana, te mauri, me te kaha o te iwi. He mauri motuhake tō te awa. He wairua ake tōna, he tuakiri tino kaha, he mauri tuatahi, e kore e wehea.

[This is what Te Kotahi said. The river is ours, and we are of the river. It is a treasure handed down by the ancestors for the coming generations. The people of Waikato and the river are inseparable. We firmly believe that our role is to look after it. To Waikato-Tainui, the Waikato River is an ancestor that holds the status, life-force, and strength of the people. The river has a unique life-force. It has its own spirit, a real, powerful identity, and a unique life-force. All are inseparable.]

Words have been spoken in the treasured language of Tainui. Certainly, all of those people have been on the journey right from the time of Pōtatau Te Wherowhero Tāwhaio. It is important to say at this time, just in case I forget, that the king’s role is inherited, and it is important in relation to all the actions that will pervade the development of this settlement that that is taken cognisance of. He is not there just as a figurehead, but we can build up his role in a way to ensure that his say is real and not just platitudes of thanks.

Regarding te mana o te awa, to Waikato-Tainui the Waikato River is a tipuna—ancestor—which has mana and prestige and, in turn, represents the mana and mauri, life-force, of the tribe. The river has its own mauri, its own spiritual energy, and its own powerful identity. It is a single indivisible being. I know that partners, whether they be local authorities, environmental groups, or other organisations, have struggled to understand, appreciate, or even accept that. Today is a day of acceptance. Today is historic in this country. We should relish what has certainly taken a great effort to put together. Respect for te mana o te awa—the spiritual authority—in order to protect the power and prestige of the Waikato River is at the heart of the relationship between the tribe and the ancestral river. Waikato-Tainui regard their river with reverence and love. This is a simple issue about love—non-sensual, but very strong in its meaning.

I can recall the days when Robert Māhuta came here in a big station wagon, with a mattress in the back, and the people would bring their kai in a bin. They would come down and try to convince those dastardly Ministers about what should be corrected. They have moved on now. I commend Te Kauhanganui and Tainui Group Holdings, and all of those groupings in Tainui that matter, like Te Arataura—he mihi atu ki a rātou. It is a real irony that we have got this far. It is great that we can celebrate.

I want to mihi to Raihā. I was there the day when they put all the white seats out in front of Waihī, and the lady tō tātou Te Arikinui Te Atairangikaahu named her as her spokesperson. I could hear this bit of a kikokiko with the Tainui people, but most were all right. I can see two of them up in the gallery now. I say to them that it was the right thing to do. I am sorry that Raihā is not here, but I know that she would not want us to be sad. She would want us to celebrate this great day, and that is what we intend to do. That is what we intend to do.

There is a host of detail in the bill. It is well read, it is well spoken, but there are simple things that we have to remind ourselves of. If this nation is serious about nationhood, if it is serious about giving Māori a better shot, then certainly we have to get into cooperation like this. There is nothing to be afraid of.

I commend the iwi and Māori for coming to the table, because that is not easy. For those who are scaremongering and saying that this bill will create incessant pain, I say: “Go jump.”, because they are not right. That is a disgrace.

The Labour Party will support this bill and will ensure that it goes through. I ask the ACT Party to reconsider its stance, even at this late call. I tell Mr Garrett that it would take a brave party—and a brave person, seeing that he is here by himself—to disagree! This bill is not hocus-pocus, as his leader has said. It is about real nationhood, going forward. This bill is about thinking about this country, about all New Zealanders, and also it is about Māori standing up after they have been pillaged, plundered, and debauched. At the end of the day, that is what today is about—a celebration. We need to do that.

We could go on to the details in the bill, but, in summary, I want to recognise Raihā and Tukoroirangi Morgan, because there is nothing like being a great leader in Māoridom. They say: “You count the knives in your backs.” That is why most Māori members in this Parliament have that. Mihi kau ana ki tō tātau kaiwhakahaere a Tau. To Tau and my colleagues on the Māori Affairs Committee, I say: “We have done a not bad job.” I mihi to them.

Labour will support this bill. Michael Cullen has led us to this point in more modern times. We give Tainui our best wishes, but we want to remember that this is a model in contemporary times that can solve a whole lot of issues. The rubbish talked about Māori not knowing where they want to go, and about them all being bad, mad, and sad, comes to an end with this sort of thing.

I say to those mischief-makers on the other side that Tainui is going forward commercially, it is going forward culturally, and it has a king and a leader. I say to colleagues on the other side of the House that making sure that he is safe is an integral part of this journey forward. This is a great day to celebrate. This is historic and we are really, really thankful that we are here. Kia ora tātou.

I mihi to my colleague Nanaia Mahuta for the effort that she has put in, to Mita Ririnui, to Shane Jones—I was going to say “to me”, but I had better not.

E mihi kau ana ki a koe te Kīngi Tuheitia, ki a koutou o Tainui whānui, kia kaha, kia māia. Ki a koutou e Shane, ngā kaituhi, ngā kaimahi, e Koro, koutou e mahi atu ngā mahi e mōhio atu te mamae o te hīkoi pēnei tonu, kua tae atu te wā hei oti pai. Kia ora tātau.

[I acknowledge you, King Tuheitia and you of Tainui at large; be strong and steadfast. Acknowledgments to you, as well, Shane, the secretariat, officials, and Koro, all of you who experienced the trials and tribulations of a journey such as this one, and now the time to settle it well has arrived. Greetings to us.]

Hon TAU HENARE (National): Māku anō e hanga tōku nei Whare. Ko ngā pou o roto he māhoe, he pātete. Ko te tāhuhu he hīnau. He whakatupu ki te hua o te rengarenga me whakapakari ki te hua o te kawariki.

[I shall fashion my own house. The pillars inside will be of māhoe and pātete, and the ridgepole of hīnau. Those who inhabit the house will be raised on rengarenga, and nurtured on kawariki.]

It is fitting that I begin my kōrero today with the vision that King Tāwhiao left for his people. It is a vision that constructs the foundation from which the tribe Waikato-Tainui continues to build its capacity. Māku anō e hanga tōku nei Whare. That means “I shall build my house. That statement, although simple to comprehend, is only one part of Tāwhiao’s bequest to his people. He not only challenged them to build their own whare but also said to do it from the lesser-known timbers of the forest. To comprehend his vision in its entirety, one must have an understanding of the tribe’s raupatu. Inevitably, they are all on roads that lead directly to the steps of this Parliament today.

Firstly, I want to digress to acknowledge the many people who have made the journey to be with us today. We have been able to accommodate some very fine-looking people here in the public gallery. They have come to witness and celebrate the third reading of the Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Bill with the people of Waikato. I sense that the numbers in the Grand Hall outnumber the people above us in the gallery. I acknowledge their presence here at Parliament today, along with those who are watching through television and listening via our iwi radio networks. I also digress to acknowledge the Hon Michael Cullen, who is here, for his sterling effort in the previous Government, the late Raihā Māhuta, and my very own brother-in-law Tuku Morgan.

It is said that Tāwhiao held his kingship through the most turbulent era of Māori-Pākehā relations. He was appointed to the throne in 1863 on succession to his father Pōtatau te Wherowhero, and 2 years into his reign legislation was passed that provided for military settlements to be established on confiscated land. I want to pause to point out that it is no coincidence that in building their own whare, Waikato-Tainui have sited their tribal hub amidst the former military settlement that was confiscated from them under the 1865 legislation. Provoked by British advances to go to war, Waikato were unjustly branded as rebels. Under the 1865 legislation, they lost more than 1.2 million acres of their own land. This act of confiscation became known to Waikato-Tainui as raupatu. Rendered virtually landless, the economic, social, and cultural impacts of that placed Waikato at their most vulnerable point in time.

My job is not to reiterate a history lesson as we ascend to this third reading, but to emphasise the vision of Tāwhiao, and, in particular, to put some context around his bequest to his people to build their own capacity. The challenge to develop that capacity was founded on their cultural vision and values. He wanted them to be strategic with innovation and have the propriety required in an evolving political environment. This brings me back to where we are today: witnessing the third reading. The bill of Waikato-Tainui, in seeking recognition of the unique relationship they have with the Waikato River, is testimony to Tāwhiao’s vision. The bill’s acknowledgment of te mana o te awa and the recognition of Waikato-Tainui manawhakahaere is a first for this House, this country, and—dare I say it—the world. Simply put, to Waikato-Tainui the river is a living ancestor. The concept of an ancestor river, unfamiliar to Pākehā, is central to Waikato belief. That river is a representation of the tribe’s spiritual authority and power, and it harbours the life-force of its people. The river has its own mana and, although some may grapple—and I am sure they do—with that concept, to protect that mana is crucial to its future health and well-being.

The tribe has provided an archive of historical responsibility exampling the statements from kaumātua and kuia further supporting the belief that the river has always been a source of sustenance, healing, comfort, and hope. The relationship that Waikato-Tainui has with its river is unquestionable. I am pleased that the Crown, our Government, and the Opposition are formally recognising that unique and special relationship through this bill. I acknowledge those kaumātua and kuia who are here with us today. This is a celebration of their toil. I especially say to the rangatahi to celebrate this relationship always and recognise the role they will play as kaitiaki.

E te Kīngi Tuheitia me tō whānau hoki, [Kīngi Tuheitia, and his family as well] I welcome him to share this forum with us and to take his seat in our House, which was built by Parliament and the people of New Zealand. I look forward to the continued realisation of King Tāwhiao’s vision for his people as we continue to build our House here and as King Tuheitia continues to build his house in Tainui.

Nō reira e te Whare, e te Kīngi, e Tainui Waka, a tēnā koutou, a tēnā koutou. Ka nui te aroha, ka nui te mihi ki a koutou ngā mōrehu o ngā hau e whā; tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

[So to the House, the King, and Tainui Waka, I acknowledge and greet you. There is much love and acknowledgment to you, the survivors of the four winds; greetings, salutations, and acknowledgments to you all.]

Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour): E Te Arikinui Kīngi Tuheitia, tēnei te mihi ki a koe. E Te Kāhui Ariki, e Tainui nui tonu, nau mai, haere mai. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

[To the paramount chief, Kīngi Tuheitia, I greet you. To members of the King movement and Tainui at large, welcome, welcome. Greetings, salutations, and acknowledgments to you all.]

I acknowledge Lady Raihā Māhuta. Arohanui ki a koe, I say to Nanaia. As the first Pākehā to rise to speak in the third reading of the Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Bill, my speech may seem to be a little pedestrian, but let us make no mistake: although I cannot imitate the humour of my matua Parekura Horomia, I have the heart to support this very important legislation. Let us make no mistake: it is as important to Pākehā as it is to te whānui Tainui. I recognise another matua, Koro Wētere. Tēnei te mihi ki a koe, I say to Koro. I acknowledge also Tukoroirangi Morgan and his presence in the Chamber this afternoon. I have another special matua who is also in this Chamber, and that is Dr Michael Cullen. It is a great delight to look across these benches and see again his wise face here this afternoon.

I pay tribute to all those who have worked and waited for this settlement. The initial settlement with Waikato-Tainui was signed by Michael Cullen on behalf of the Crown in August 2008. In this legislation we have something that is unique to Aotearoa New Zealand, and something that I hope can be taken further, as new arrangements, new settlements, and new ways of doing things are forged not only in this generation but in the next.

I want to quote from the legislation, because I am so struck by the way that it is framed up. I have a very strong sense as a Pākehā of Aotearoa New Zealand identity in this legislation. I want to read something that I identify with as a Pākehā member of Parliament; it is from Part 2 of the legislation. It simply says: “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 to Te Puuaha o Waikato (the mouth) and includes its waters, banks and beds (and all minerals under them) and its streams, waterways, tributaries, lakes, aquatic fisheries, vegetation, flood plains, wetlands, islands, springs, water column, airspace, and substratum 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 statement means a great deal to Tainui. It means a great deal to me as a New Zealander, because here is something very significant printed in black and white in the law of our land. We have come to that point where we are able to recognise such things, to express them in their original language, and to credit them with legal status. And this is new. This is not simply an interpretation of Te Tiriti o Waitangi; this is about a new model of co-management of a waterway that is of enormous importance.

That leads me to the second piece that I wish to quote from the legislation. It is under clause 9, “Scope of vision and strategy”, below the heading “Te Ture Whaimana”. Clause 9(1) states: “The Waikato River and its contribution to New Zealand’s cultural, social, environmental, and economic wellbeing are of national importance.” The Waikato River is of importance to me, as a Pākehā, for all those reasons, as much as it is to Māori and to whānui Tainui for all of the antecedent reasons that they hold dear.

This legislation makes me feel very proud. Sometimes laws are passed in this Parliament that I am not proud of, but this is one that has, far and away, the majority support of members of Parliament. Although we have had some not very likable or respectful speeches in the course of the passage of this legislation, we are at the stage now when the vast majority of this House recognises the importance of the Waikato Awa, and its importance across almost everything that is important to human beings: our cultural, spiritual, physical, and economic well-being.

The co-management model that we have in this legislation is unique; by virtue of its very language it can be found only in this country. It cannot be found anywhere else in the world because of the language, because of te reo, and because of the antecedent history—the things that went before—and connection with the awa. The deed of settlement inside this legislation will allow for an unprecedented era of co-management of the river, and that co-management will take into account—because it is charged to do so by this legislation—the cultural, spiritual, physical, and economic well-being of Aotearoa New Zealand. This legislation is for all New Zealanders. There is no doubt that that wonderful river feeds some of the richest pasture and land in our country. Even if one were to take only an economic perspective, that would be reason enough to support this legislation. But there are many more reasons besides that.

So with all of my respect to the members of the Māori Affairs Committee, which has shepherded this legislation through the House, to those who, as I said earlier, have worked and waited for this, and to those who have passed on in the course of working and waiting, I pay a tribute, and I acknowledge what they have done. To those, particularly those here in the House, whose fingerprints are all over this legislation, I pay my respects. As a Pākehā member of Parliament I am proud and delighted to lend my support to, and to join with my colleagues and mātua here in the Labour Party in supporting, the third reading of this most significant legislation. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou. Kia ora koutou katoa.

DAVID CLENDON (Green): Kei te mihi nui, kei te mihi aroha ki Te Arikinui te Kīngi, tēnā koe. Ki ngā rangatira mā, ngā kuia mā, ki te mana o te Kīngitanga, te mana o ngā hapū katoa o Waikato-Tainui, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

[A huge and loving greeting to you, paramount chief, the King. To the many chiefs and elderly womenfolk, to the sovereignty of the King movement, and the authority of all the subtribes, greetings, salutations, and acknowledgments to you all.]

It is a pleasure and a great privilege to stand for the Greens today, to speak to, and to acknowledge the work that has gone into, the Waikato-Tainui Rapuatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Bill, which will be passed today. I acknowledge the sense, the wisdom, and, overall, the commitment that has led to the celebration—because today is a celebration—that is emerging through the passing of this bill.

When Māori assert claims to be kaitiaki of a place, it is often seen as an assertion of a right. And indeed it is a right; kaitiaki have rights to places. But what is often overlooked is that it is also an acceptance of a very significant, absolute, and indeed unavoidable responsibility. I believe that it is that responsibility, that sense of duty, that drives iwi, hapū, and whānau to have the determination to maintain the claims, to maintain the effort, not just for years or decades but over generations. It is that sense of responsibility and duty to our land, to our rivers, to our mountains, and indeed to our whānau that maintains that energy, commitment, and determination, and I offer respect to that.

There is often confusion and, on occasion, even mockery of Māori spirituality—the fact that Māori acknowledge Papatūanuku and Ranginui. We talk of the mauri of a river. We populate our motu with atua, taniwha, and tūpuna. One may observe that as numbers of generations of non-Māori spend longer in this place, they in their turn develop a sense of place, a sense of the value of this place. It goes beyond the ascetic or the amenity, and gets closer to the spiritual attachment felt by indigenous peoples for their earth, their awa, their mountains, and their sky. It is to be hoped that this evolving awareness of the value of place and this place will lead to a better understanding and a greater support and recognition of the justice of the restitution that is signified by these settlements.

Today is an appropriate day to reflect on the language of the Crown apology within the deed of settlement in 1995. The Crown openly acknowledged that the military and the legislative confiscations of Waikato-Tainui land were simply wrong. It was wrong in Māori terms, it was wrong in British terms, and it was wrong in international law. The language of the apology included a statement that the confiscations have caused Waikato to the present time to suffer feelings in relation to their lost lands akin to those of orphans, and that they have had a crippling effect on the welfare, economy, and development of Waikato. I think the richness of that language reflects not only the damage to the spiritual well-being of people who had their place torn from them but also the fact that it completely destroyed a very viable existing economy, an economic base.

Māori in the Waikato and elsewhere in New Zealand in the 1860s, the mid-19th century, to some extent were victims of their own success. They adapted very quickly to new crops, to new means of producing food, and to meeting other needs of the new settlers. Although in some cases there was gratitude from settlers, it also led to avarice and to a determination to take those resources away. We know in this case that it led gunboats up the Waikato River.

Those who would criticise Māori today for being overrepresented in all the negative social statistics either do not know their history or simply choose to overlook that a highly effective, highly efficient economy based on the available resources, and with well-established use rights, was completely shattered through those years. That left Māori in a parlous state. Generations later, these settlements are steps towards restoring the capital base, the land base, that will enable Māori to rebuild on their own terms an economy that meets their cultural and economic needs, and that in turn will make massive contributions to the wider New Zealand economy.

The river, the awa, the taonga that is being returned today to Waikato-Tainui is in a degraded state. It must be said that the river, over many years, has been polluted with human waste, with trade waste, and with waste from agriculture. The water quality has been reduced by overuse. The water has been pumped to Auckland, which has offended both Waikato-Tainui and the hapū of Tāmaki-makau-rau. It is important to acknowledge that there has been a great lack of care and respect for this taonga, and that there is now a positive step towards restoring management, which will be coming from a sense of aroha, of caring—a sense of respect, care, and commitment to improving the status of that water.

During an earlier reading of this bill, I spoke of the strength and the power of the co-management model. I will not repeat what I said then, except to say that the co-management structure, the authority that has been established, represents a great generosity of spirit on the part of Waikato-Tainui, who could legitimately claim sole rights to manage and to utilise that treasure, that resource. It is that generosity of spirit, which is typical of most of, indeed all, the settlements, that has enabled Māori to be willing to compromise, to accept the realities of the 21st century, and to take back in good spirit and in good heart what is offered, and to make those arrangements with the Crown.

I do not wish to cloud what is undoubtedly a day to celebrate, but it must be acknowledged that the settlement process is still an imperfect and flawed process. It appears that in almost every case of settlement there is a rightful return of lands to people, but also there can be another confiscation of lands. The settlement process too often fails to recognise the rights of smaller iwi and hapū to their tino rangatiratanga, and to their kaitiakitanga, and fails to return land taken wrongfully, and often violently, to those from whom it was taken. The settlement process itself is in need of review in order to improve the redress and to avoid further breaches of the rights of those people.

But today indeed is a day of celebration. It is a day that demonstrates that New Zealanders, Māori and non-Māori, can come to these arrangements, can meet each other’s needs and requirements, and can acknowledge each other’s rights. In that sense I will finish my statement by again complimenting Waikato-Tainui, and indeed the Crown, the Government negotiators, and those who have committed time, intelligence, and energy to this process. Kia ora koutou. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

DAVID GARRETT (ACT): I rise on behalf of the only party to oppose this bill.

Hon Parekura Horomia: Shame on you.

DAVID GARRETT: It is a shame, I say to Mr Horomia, that he is not giving me the courtesy I gave him, which was to allow him to speak without interruption, although I was sorely tempted. But I thought I would show respect by not interrupting the member. It is very sad that Mr Horomia should take that attitude at the outset.

There will be those who will be offended by my speech—most notably, I suspect, my colleagues to my left. I would simply like to say that that is not intentional; I am not rising to give intentional offence. The ACT Party genuinely believes the contents of what I am about to say. As I have said, I hope that some members at least will have the courtesy to listen, as we have listened with respect to them.

I wish to start by quoting, as best I can, William Hobson, New Zealand’s first Governor, who, when signing the Treaty of Waitangi, greeted each Māori co-signer with the words: “He iwi tahi tātou”—we are one people. The Treaty promised that we would all be equal in the eyes of the law, regardless of race. It did not say that Māori and Pākehā, as two separate entities, were equal partners. That is an invention of the 1990s. Article 3 expressly gave Māori all the rights and privileges of British subjects. Although that seems a little funny today, it was seen as something that had great value in 1840.

There were indeed many breaches on the Crown’s side, and those are rightfully being redressed. But today we believe that in this House the Crown is committing another major breach by putting the Waikato River under co-governance. Co-governance of our resources was not envisaged by those who signed on to create a new nation in 1840. It represents the abandonment of the cornerstone of democracy: one person, one vote. It makes a lie out of article 3 of the Treaty. The Kīngitanga Accord, contained in schedule 1 of this Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlements Bill, explains the impact of co-governance. The accord states that decisions must be made by consensus. That would not be a problem if half of the people who will be making up the Waikato River Authority were not undemocratically chosen by, and representative of, such a narrow base.

Waikato-Tainui and other tribes are effectively being granted veto power over anything that may have an effect or impact upon the river. The accord specifically states that they have control over the “development, amendment and implementation of strategies, policy, legislation and regulations … and the processes for granting, transfer, variation and renewal of consents, licenses, permits and other authorisations for all activities that potentially impact on the health and wellbeing of the Waikato River,”. That is a lot of power and trust being placed in the hands of such a few people, many of whom will be unknown to most New Zealanders.

I ask exactly whom these people represent. The 2008 Waikato River deed of settlement on which this bill is based seems to have been written with very few Māori in mind. The deed states that the Waikato River represents the mana and mauri of Waikato-Tainui. The river is a metaphysical being with its own mauri. The concept of mauri—life-force—will, in our view, have little significance to most Māori, who according to census figures are mostly Christian. But that phrase is essentially the life-force of this bill. It is that belief in a life-force that has given life to many of the clauses in the bill. The Crown is giving half of the control of the Waikato River and its surrounding land to five iwi led by Waikato-Tainui because of a religious belief—or a world view, as Ms Street referred to in earlier debates—

Hon Parekura Horomia: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am surprised at the analysis that this bill is based on religious belief alone. That member has gone way outside what the bill is about.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker): With respect to the member, I say that that is not a point of order. It is a point of view, but it is not a point of order. Order concerns the House.

DAVID GARRETT: Nice try, I say to Mr Horomia, but it has—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker): Excuse me, I say to the member, but I have not sat down yet. I will just say to the member that it is out of order to refer to a point of order once it has been dealt with.

DAVID GARRETT: People can believe in whatever they like. The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act protects freedom of religious expression, but what makes this bill we are debating so dangerous is that it promotes one group’s belief or life view—ontology, I believe, is the technical term—over all others.

This bill and the 2008 deed of settlement can be traced back to the 1995 deed between Waikato-Tainui and the Crown, which specifically excluded the river from the so-called full and final settlement. Section 24 reserved a future claim to the river, for reasons unknown to me, but perhaps for a time when iwi leaders could secure for themselves a more attractive package. We can leave aside for a moment the fact that the 1946 settlement, which I referred to in an earlier speech on this bill, was said to be a full and final settlement of all raupatu claims, but was set aside by the next “full and final settlement” in 1995. We will leave that aside. The disturbing factor about both the 1995 settlement and this one is that they are based on deeds of settlement that in neither this bill nor the 1995 Waikato Raupatu Claims Settlement Act form part of the legislation itself.

Perhaps that is deliberate, because when we find and read those deeds, it is clear from their terms that they are not in fact the final word on the subject matter, at all. Both may be amended by agreement between the Government and Waikato-Tainui. That fact, and the history since the 1940s at least, tends to suggest that the grievances will never be fully and finally settled. The more honest Māori radicals, such as Mr Harawira and Professor Margaret Mutu, admit that this is the case. They say that no generation of Māori can bind those who follow.

Twenty years ago Sir Geoffrey Palmer said that the reference to Treaty principles that he inserted into the State-Owned Enterprises Act would be meaningless; that has proved to be very, very wrong. So when the Government flew Pita Sharples and Māori Television to New York to sign the aspirational Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, we are inclined to believe Hone Harawira when he says that we will see the declaration applied to our children—

Te Ururoa Flavell: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Anei au e whakarongo nei ki ngā kōrero o te mema. Kei te pātai au ki a au anō, he aha te take o ēnei kōrero ki tēnei pire? Ko ngā kōrero e kōrerohia nei, ē, kei tāwāhi kē e iri ana. Nō reira kō tāku ki a koe, whakahokia te tangata nei ki te pire, ki te ngako o te pire e kōrerohia ake nei. Kua tae mai ngā manuhiri kei te hiahia rātau ki te whakarongo ki te pūtake o tēnei pire. Kia ora tātau.

[I have been listening to the member’s speech, and I wonder, what does it have to do with this bill? The speech he is making pertains to matters overseas. Therefore, Mr Assistant Speaker, bring him back to the bill, to the nub of it. The visitors are here; they want to hear what this bill is about. Greetings to us.]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker): The member has gone outside the strict realm of the bill, but he is drawing on that material to make his point. I sense from the member that he is in an uncomfortable position because he is articulating a position that is a minority view. This is a House of robust debate. It is also a House of free speech. I think the member should be entitled to exercise his right of free speech.

Te Ururoa Flavell: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Kāre aku raruraru kia kōrerohia ngā take o te wā ki roto i te Whare Pāremata nei. Koinei te wāhi tika hei kōrero i ngā take. Engari ko tēnei take, e hāngai tonu ana ki tēnei pire. I waihotia mai ai wētahi, i tuhia e ētahi hei painga mō ngā tamariki, mō ngā mokopuna o āpōpō. Ko ēnei kōrero he kōrero mō ngā take i tua atu o tēnei pire. Koinei kē te pūtake o taku nawe. Nō reira, ko tāku noa ake, ko te kī atu, he pai tonu te kōrero engari, whakahokia mai te mema ki te pūtake o tēnei pire, koa, koa.

[I have no problems if we talk about current issues in the House. This is the proper place for matters to be debated. But this matter relates directly to this bill. Some were bequeathed and recorded so that future generations would benefit from it. These statements are about things that go beyond this bill. This, then, is the real crux of my complaint. What I am simply saying is that there is nothing wrong with talk, but please bring the member back to what this bill is about.]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker): I respond to the member again by saying that this is my ruling on the matter, and I do not want to have another point of order on it. I have ruled on it. The member is making a point of criticism about the bill. He is making a point of criticism about the clause. He is then articulating the arguments to support that, and it is perfectly within his right to do so. If the member does not continue on at length about that, it is acceptable; it is acceptable in passing. At this point, the member has not gone beyond that. I have ruled on the matter.

Hone Harawira: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Ā, tū ana au ki te whakatika i te kōrero hē a te pokokōhua nei i te mea, e mōhio ana au kua rere atu te Minita i raro i te maru o te Kāwanatanga ki te Āporo Nui engari, ko te pou whakaata nā rātau anō rātau i utungia.

[I rise to correct the false statements made by this boiled head, because I know that the Minister flew as part of the Government to New York, but the television crew paid their own way.]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker): I thank the member for the information. That is not strictly a point of order; there is nothing to rule on.

DAVID GARRETT: For the last couple of decades, the Treaty settlement process, of which this bill forms part, has been characterised by Governments on both sides making thoughtless, token gestures, only to see them take on unexpected legal significance. It is no wonder that many people are feeling angry. Now, we have completely abandoned full and final settlements and entered an era where nothing will ever be settled, where grievances will be created against ordinary people by both Crown and Māori, and where those who are aggrieved will have nowhere to turn.

Many New Zealanders, regardless of their race, have an affinity for the Waikato River. Most of us value it greatly for what it provides. We do not have to be Māori to feel a connection, or to be angry when the river becomes dangerously polluted—or so we have thought. But this bill says that our connection does not matter. One hundred and seventy years on from the Treaty signing, we are further away than ever from being one people. This bill, in fact, is saying the exact opposite: forget Hobson’s “We are one people.” This House is today making a conscious choice as to which of those two people are more important.

Many people will not believe me when I say that we in the ACT Party fervently wish Māori to have the same health statistics, education statistics, welfare statistics, and, yes, crime statistics as the rest of us. The problem with this legislation and similar bills is that it encourages Māori to look backwards, to dwell on grievance rather than to look forward. Aside from the other objections, we are no means certain that this bill will help the people it is meant to help—Māori people. We believe that we are heading further down a very dangerous road, and the ACT Party is unashamed to oppose this bill. Thank you very much.

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): In its journey from Lake Taupō to the sea, the mighty Waikato River flows through the heartland of Waikato-Tainui and the iwi who have agreed to participate in its co-governance. The relationship of the iwi with the river lies at the heart of their spiritual and physical well-being and their identity. To Waikato-Tainui the river is a tupuna that has mana. As New Zealand’s longest river, the Waikato River is an important natural feature in our country, as well as being a resource of strategic importance. Its importance as a resource is marked by the fact that there are more than 470 resource consents affecting it, which take from it nearly 250.6 million cubic metres of surface water per day, enough to fill around 100,000 Olympic-sized swimming pools. There are over 80 point-source discharges discharging directly into the river on the main stem, and approximately 1,600 discharges to its tributaries. The river supplies around 13 percent of New Zealand’s electricity generation, and, from within its catchment area, approximately one-fifth of New Zealand’s exports and more than 10 percent of our GDP. The river flows through some of the most intensively used and modified rural areas in our country.

Today, the river is degraded and badly polluted. Approximately 90 percent of its wetlands are gone. Bacteria levels downstream from Hamilton are often unsafe for swimming. Levels of arsenic in the river almost never meet safe health standards. In the lower river, levels of nitrogen and phosphorous fail to meet ecological standards, and water clarity fails to meet the recreational standard. This settlement establishes vital initiatives focused on restoring and protecting the health and well-being of the Waikato River. These initiatives include a $210 million clean-up fund. Without question, these initiatives befit the deep significance of the river to Waikato-Tainui and the iwi whose rohe it flows through. Indeed, these initiatives befit the strategic importance of the Waikato River to the social, cultural, environmental, and economic well-being of all New Zealanders.

In the bygone era of the 19th century, Waikato-Tainui enjoyed a golden age of peace and prosperity. Large areas of the Waikato were cultivated for wheat, potatoes, maize, and kumara. Several flour mills were established. Waikato-Tainui were among the first to trade in value-added exports, with ships taking flour to Australia. Waikato Māori even established their own trading bank, but peace and prosperity were to be short-lived. The huge pressure for land for rapidly growing numbers of settlers led to the formation of the Kīngitanga in 1858. Its purpose was to place tribal lands under the protection and mana of the king as a guarantee against sale. With this head-on clash of aspirations Crown forces invaded in 1863—1.2 million acres were seized. With the valuable Waikato territory now held by the Crown, land was quickly allocated to settlers. In 1995 it was estimated that the true value of the land loss was around $12 billion. The Crown’s invasion was found to be wrong and completely unjustified. It is now acknowledged that Waikato Māori never rebelled; they merely defended hearth and home against an unlawful invasion. When the Crown’s military forces crossed the Mangatawhiri River in July 1863, they proceeded by land and by river. The loss of both was a double blow for Waikato-Tainui. It denied the iwi their rights and interests in the river and their mana over it.

The failure of the Crown to respect, provide for, and protect the special relationship of Waikato-Tainui with the river has been a source of distress for the people of Waikato-Tainui for many years, as has the pollution, degradation, and extensive detrimental modification of its environs and wetlands. The 1995 settlement did not deal with the tribe’s claim in relation to the river. This bill settles the river claim. One of the significant aspects of the settlement is the new relationship between the Crown and the Kīngitanga. It is a mark of our maturity as a people and as a nation that we have come so far in a little less than 160 years. At the third reading in 1995 of the Waikato Raupatu Claims Settlement Bill, the then Minister of Māori Affairs, the Hon John Luxton, said: “The future that we all have to live is a common road forward from here. We need to learn more about each other on the way. … We are never able to turn back the clock, but we can find ways to make amends for grievances. … It is only right that … we should find opportunities to let those grievances go, and to seek by resolution to give hope for our children and grandchildren.”

So the time has arrived to usher in a new era based on optimism for the future rather than despair for the past. Today, as we usher in a new era of co-governance over the river, we acknowledge our common road forward. New relationships arising from the settlement will lead to greater understanding and learning. The settlement embraces a real opportunity to let grievances go, by demonstrating respect for te mana o te awa and acknowledging manawhakahaere in a tangible way. This is very much a settlement based on optimism for the future and a real sense of hope for generations to come.

The settlement is the culmination of the dedicated and determined efforts of many. I will acknowledge some of them in this House this afternoon. The claim was lodged by the late Sir Robert Māhuta, whose foresight and drive inspired many, especially the young members of the Waikato-Tainui claims team. Sir Robert’s mission was carried on so ably and with such courage and determination by Lady Raihā Māhuta, who sadly has not lived to see this day. I acknowledge the presence in the House of Mr Tuku Morgan, who has always been future-focused and forthright in his engagements with the Crown. His tireless contribution to negotiating the settlement on behalf of his people had a major influence on the outcome. I acknowledge the work of my predecessor, Dr Michael Cullen. I acknowledge the Hon Parekura Horomia, who apparently is too self-effacing and shy to acknowledge himself. I acknowledge the Hon Mita Ririnui. I also acknowledge Peter Buckley and his team at Environment Waikato. They have made a very, very positive contribution. I especially acknowledge Brian Roche, the Crown negotiator, and the officials who have worked so hard on this matter over so many months. There is much detail in the bill, which members can read for themselves, and the detail has been covered in the Committee of the whole House.

In conclusion, I say that in 1995, when the Waikato Raupatu Claims Settlement Bill was being read in this House a third time, the Rt Hon Jim Bolger observed that the occasions that made the frustrations of politics worthwhile were relatively few. He said: “This is one such occasion, in which we move beyond the bickering and the point scoring to the substance of the work that this Parliament and parliamentarians are charged with.” Today I think we can all feel a similar sense of satisfaction, and of the worthiness of what we, as politicians, can achieve by working constructively and in good faith with iwi. This is a time to be proud; it is a time to look forward with great optimism.

PAUL QUINN (National): E mihi kau ana ki a koe te Kīngi Tuheitia, ki a koutou o Tainui whānui, kia kaha, kia māia. Ki a koutou e Shane, ngā kaituhi, ngā kaimahi, e Koro, koutou e mahi atu ngā mahi e mōhio atu te mamae o te hīkoi pēnei tonu, kua tae atu te wā hei oti pai. Kia ora tātau.

[I acknowledge you, King Tuheitia, and you of Tainui at large; be strong and steadfast. Acknowledgments to you, as well, Shane, the secretariat, officials, and Koro, all of you who experienced the trials and tribulations of a journey such as this one, and now the time to settle it well has arrived. Greetings to us.]

Firstly, I will make a few acknowledgments. I start by saying that when the 49th Parliament came together in December 2008, the Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Bill was before it, and the new Government had some issues that required, in its view, to be reviewed. In that regard, I acknowledge the spirit and willingness of the Tainui leadership under Lady Raihā and Tuku Morgan in engaging with the incoming Government to consider the changes that the new Government wanted, and, in doing so, bringing through to fruition in December 2009 a revised deed of settlement. So I think it is appropriate to acknowledge the leadership of Waikato and the people of Waikato-Tainui in agreeing to the new Government’s position.

I also acknowledge the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, the Hon Chris Finlayson. He and his officials carried out the work of the incoming Government to bring together and put the new proposals to Waikato-Tainui, and edge a way forward. That required a measured and considered approach, particularly in establishing the new co-management arrangements that the Government wanted. I think that speaks highly of the excellent work that the Minister and his officials were able to achieve. I also take the opportunity to acknowledge the former Minister, Dr Michael Cullen, who is amongst us today, proudly, a recent addition to the Ngāti Awa whānau, and also the Hon Koro Wētere, and, of course Tuku Morgan. My final acknowledgement goes to the Māori Affairs Committee. Its spirit of camaraderie manifested itself particularly in this bill. I think it shows great leadership in the work that it does.

I will very briefly canvass the key purposes that drive this bill. There are about four. The first one is acknowledging te mana o te awa and the place that the Waikato River has for the Waikato people. The second is the mana whakahaere. The third is health and well-being. The final one is the co-management arrangements going forward. With respect to those, I say that in 1995 Waikato were at the vanguard of Treaty settlements with respect to raupatu. Today, once again they are in the vanguard of a co-management settlement on natural resources, which, I have no doubt, will form the template going forward. In particular, in that regard, I am aware that my uncle Bill Bird, for instance, was keenly awaiting the outcome of this with respect to its application to the Rangitaiki River. I am sure it will be duplicated in other areas.

So with those few words, again, it gives me great pleasure to be able to stand with humility to acknowledge Waikato-Tainui for its achievements and for joining with the Government and the nation in allowing this settlement to come to fruition. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

Hon MITA RIRINUI (Labour): Otirā kei te Kaihautū, me pēnei rā taku kōrero i te ahiahi nei. Kei waenganui i a tātau tō tātau Kīngi, nō reira, e tika ana kia whakapāoho i ngā kōrero i roto i tō tātau reo rangatira kei konei a ia. Me pēnei rā te tīmatanga kōrero māku i te mea rā, kua tatū ā-wairua mai rātau kua ngaro ki tua o te ārai me te tuku whakamoemiti, whakawhetai ki te wāhi ngaro, ā, kia noho tonu ōna manaakitanga ki runga i a tātau i ngā wā katoa. Nō reira ngā whakamoemiti, whakawhetai, kai te tū tonu i ngā wā katoa.

Kei tō tātau Kīngi, e Tuheitia, tēnā koe e tatū ā-rangatira mai ki waenganui i a mātau, otirā i a tātau, i runga anō i te kaupapa kua whārikihia i roto i tēnei te ana o ngā raiona. E mihi ake ana ki a koe, otirā, ki te Kāhui Ariki, ā, ki a Waikato-Tainui nui tonu, kua takahia mai te huarahi, mai i te nuku o te whenua ki te rohe o Te Āti Awa ki Te Whanga-nui-a-Tara i runga te karanga o te rā. Nō reira tēnā koe, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa. Otirā kei taku pāpā e Koro, nei tonu rā anō koe, hei maumaharatanga i ngā mahi i mahia nei e koutou, i te wā i a koutou e mahi ana i ngā mahi i kawe nei e koutou i roto i tō tātau Whare. Nō reira tēnā koe, tēnā koutou, e Tuku, me tēnā o ngā rangatira e noho nā ki tō taha, Tākuta Michael Cullen. Kei te tū whakaiti i runga i te maumahara, nāu tonu tēnei kaupapa i ārahi i runga i te huarahi i roto i a Tainui nui tonu, kia tutuki pai ai i tēnei rā. Harikoa ana te ngākau kua tatū mai koe.

Tāku tū, he tū poto noa iho i te mea, kua kōrerohia ngā mema Pāremata o roto i te Whare nei, i ngā tūāhuatanga katoa e pā ana ki tēnei pire, te pire kei waenganui i a tātau. Koi rā, kua tutuki rā tērā kōrero, mai rā i tāku whanaunga mai i Te Tai Tokerau, te hanga hoki au i tāku Whare. Ko te kaihanga o tēnei Whare, ko ngā tīpuna kua ngaro atu. Ko rātau rā i whakarere iho nei i ngā kōrero kia mārama ai tātau, ka pēhea wā tātau mahi katoa o ngā rā kei te heke mai, i ngā mahi hei painga mō ā tātau tamariki mokopuna. Koi rā, kua tū whakaiti kei konei tō tātau rangatira, tō tātau Ariki, tō tātau Kīngi, ā, me tana rōpū, ōku whanaunga katoa mai i Tainui, mai i Ngāti Maniapoto, mai i Raukawa, mai i Ngāti Hauā, ngā iwi katoa o roto i a Waikato. Nā, kua tae mai rā ki te āta whakaarohia, ki te āta whakarongo ki ngā kōrero kua horahia nei.

Ahakoa rā ngā kōrero o tēnā, o tēnā, o tēnā, ahakoa kāore tētahi e whakaae ana ki te pire, kai te pai. Kei te pai. Koinei te Whare e kīa nei te ana o ngā raiona, ahakoa tēnā raiona kua kore he niho, kei te pai. Kōrero i ngā kōrero, kōrero i ngā kōrero.

Tatū rā ki a koe, kei te Minita Māori, e Pita, tēnā koe i tae atu ki tāwāhi i runga anō i tēnā kaupapa. Ahakoa tae atu koe i runga i te kore mōhio, i runga anō i te kūare, kei te pai. Nāu tonu rā i whakatutuki ngā mahi i whārikihia e ō mātau tūpuna, koi rā te poropiti a Rātana, koi rā te tūpuna a Rēweti Te Wheno, koi rā ngā tūpuna o Tainui nui tonu. Nā rātau tēnei kaupapa i takotohia i runga i te tēpu, o te Kooti Nui o te Ao, i mua i ngā Kīngi tekau mā rima kua oti rā, kua tutuki ai tērā kōrero—he iti tāu, he iti. Ahakoa rā, ka taea ā tōna wā ka tū au i roto i te Whare Nunui o te Ao, ki mua i ngā Kīngi tekau mā rua. I tērā rā, nāu anō tēnā kaupapa i whakatutuki. Koi nā nō, ahakoa kua tae atu koe i runga i te kore mōhio, kei te pai. Harikoa ana ō mātau ngākau nāu tonu tēnā mahi i whakatutuki.

Nō reira hai te Whare, e tika ana kia mihingia tātau katoa. Kei tēnā, kei tēnā, kei tēnā o tātau ō tātau whakaaro mō te pire ko te mea nui kē, kua tae ki te mutunga. Kua takahia mai rā e ngā whanaunga o Waikato, o Te Arawa, ki roto i te Whare, hei tautoko i te pire, otirā, tautoko i ngā kōrero katoa. Hoi anō, waiho ake ēnā āhuatanga i konā. Tēnā koe taku rangatira, e Parekura, ahakoa ngā mihi whakatete rā o tētahi ki a koe, kei te pai. Mihi ana ki a koe kei te Minita. Mihi ana koe te teina o tēnā o ngā Minita a Tākuta Michael Cullen, nāna tēnei kaupapa i kawe mai ki roto i te Whare i tērā tau, ko koe te Minita i taua wā. Hoi anō harikoa ana te ngākau, kua honohono ngātahi nei tātau ki roto i te Whare i runga i tēnei o ngā kaupapa.

[Indeed, Mr Deputy Speaker, let me commence my address this afternoon by saying this. Our King is amongst us, so it is appropriate that I announce his presence here in our noble language. I begin my speech in this manner because those who have passed on are here in spirit, so we must praise and bless the realm that is no longer before us, and seek that the Creator above bestow his praises and blessings upon us at all times.

To our King, to you, Tuheitia, I extend greetings to you as you grace us with your presence in regard to the matter that has been presented before us in the den of lions. I acknowledge you and the aristocracy of Māoridom, Waikato-Tainui at large, who have traversed the country to the domain of Te Ātiawa here in Wellington in response to the call of the day. So greetings to you, and greetings to you all. Indeed, to you, my elder statesman, Koro, seeing you here once again brings to mind the work that you and your colleagues did and accomplished in our House. So greetings to you, and former colleagues, Tuku, and that leader beside you, Dr Michael Cullen. I stand humbly before you at the very thought that you guided this matter through Tainui at large to its realisation today. How pleased I am that you are here today.

My call is only a brief one, because every aspect relating to this bill in our midst today has been addressed by members throughout this House. And like my kin from the far north, I too construct a house of my own, whose creators are the ancestors who have passed on. In the talk that they left behind about the house was the legacy that regardless what we create for the future, it must be of benefit for coming generations. That is it. So I am humbled by the presence of our leading monarch, our paramount chief and King and his entourage, including all my relations from Tainui, Ngāti Maniapoto, Raukawa, Ngāti Hauā, and all the people throughout Waikato. Now they have arrived here to consider and listen intently to the speeches put before them.

Regardless of the individual speeches of endorsement by this member or that member, or whether one is opposing this bill, that is fine. It is great. That is why this place is called the lion’s den. Even though that lion is toothless, it is quite all right. Say what you want to say.

So I come to you, the Minister of Māori Affairs, Dr Pita Sharples. Congratulations on your trip overseas on that matter. Even though you went somewhat uninformed and ignorant, that is OK. You accomplished what our ancestors set out to do before you, like the prophet Rātana, Reweti Te Wheno, and quite a number of Tainui ancestors. They presented this matter before the world’s highest court of 15 rulers. So it was adjudicated and ruled upon, and brings to mind the saying: yours was but a minor accomplishment, a little one. And in time I will stand inside the greatest house of the world and before 12 rulers, 12 kings. And on that day I will acknowledge the matter you accomplished, even though you went somewhat uninformed and ignorant, but that is fine. We were very pleased, all the same, with what you achieved.

To the House, it is appropriate that everyone be congratulated on the views that each of us have on the bill, and, just as important, it is at its final stages. The kin from Waikato and Te Arawa have come into the House to support the bill and all the speeches. But let us leave those sentiments there. I acknowledge you, my senior colleague Parekura; despite the smarting comments cast in your direction from that member, that is all right. I commend you too, the Hon Dr Michael Cullen. As a junior Minister, you originally brought this matter into the House when you were the Minister responsible at the time. It is pleasing, indeed, for all of us to join up once again in the House on this matter.]

What a privilege it is to be involved in this debate this afternoon—although there are not many differences being expressed. I take this opportunity to humbly thank Kīngi Tuheitia and his rōpū for being here today. This is a very, very significant occasion. When we think about the history of the Waikato-Tainui claim and consider many of the statements made here in the House this afternoon in relation to that history, we have to take into account those who do not agree. That is fine with many of us in this House. As has been said, this is a House of robust debate, and everybody should be given that opportunity. We have a saying where I come from, where the House is more aptly named the “lion’s den”. Sometimes a lion stands up with no teeth, and it roars and chews away at nothing. But this is an opportunity for those people to have their say.

There are many people to acknowledge. I am afraid that if I name them individually I will embarrass myself by leaving somebody out, but there are people who have to be mentioned. They are the lead negotiators for the settlement. Lady Raihā Māhuta held her ground through the most difficult negotiations and did not take any weasel words from officials, and she made that very clear. She made me and my former colleague the Hon Dr Michael Cullen sit very patiently and quietly and listen to her views on how this bill should be shaped, how the mana whakahaere of Waikato-Tainui should be reinstated and protected, and how we should consider what is best for the river.

This has always been about the health of the river. It is not about many of the issues raised by David Garrett of the ACT Party, although he is entitled to his views. It is about the future and the fact that our mokopuna—not only the mokopuna of Waikato-Tainui but all our mokopuna—will be given some ideas on the way they should manage this estate in the future, because that has been seriously overlooked in the past.

In the gallery I see many of the mayors of the Waikato region who played a tremendous part in bringing together a lot of the councillors, some of whom, in my experience, resisted much of the discussion. At the end of the day, through their leadership and the co-chairmanship of Tuku Morgan and Gordon, who steered this waka through a very, very difficult path, they were able to complete the work that had been designated to them.

There are very many people to acknowledge here. At various times I might get the opportunity to thank them. The Māori Affairs Committee did a tremendous job. There were not a lot of differences expressed, but I thank the chair of the committee for the steady hand he had on the committee. I also thank officials, such as John Grant and Liz Monro, who were specialist advisers on how the legislation should be shaped to acknowledge the issues raised by Waikato-Tainui. Indeed, I also thank the officials from the Office of Treaty Settlements and my parliamentary colleagues from both sides of the House for a job well done.

Nō reira, nā runga i tēnā, e te Kīngi, mihi ake ana ki a koe. Tuku atu ngā mihi o te Tūmuaki o te Haahi, nāna i kōrero tahi māua i te pō. E tuku ana i tāna mihi ki a koe nā te mea nā he kaupapa nui tēnei, nāu tonu tō iwi i ārahi mai. Nō reira tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, kia ora tātau.

[So with that in mind, I acknowledge you, the King. I convey the sentiments of the head of the Rātana Church, whom I spoke with last night. He is aware of the importance of this matter, and that you were leading your people here. So salutations and greetings to you and to us.]

DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East): Tēnā koe. E Tainui waka, tēnā koutou katoa. It gives me great pleasure to stand as a National member of Parliament and support the Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Bill through the House. I acknowledge the many people who have made this settlement possible, such as Lady Raihā Māhuta. I say to Nanaia that we pay our respects for Lady Raihā’s service to her people and her achievement in this settlement. Tukoroirangi Morgan is a great leader who is forging a great path for his people and who has tremendous respect and support in Waikato. It is great to see him here today. I acknowledge the previous Minister of Finance, Michael Cullen. He has taken a tremendous interest in this settlement. I acknowledge his work and the work of past Ministers of Māori Affairs such as Koro Wētere, who is here—it is great to see him here. I thank and congratulate the members of the Labour ministry who started the first settlement process on the banks of the Waikato River on what they did in presenting the settlement.

The Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, the Hon Chris Finlayson, has done an excellent job in making the settlement that is coming to fruition today possible, so I say well done to him. I see members of his negotiating team in the crowd today. I say to Brian Roche, especially, and his team that they have done a great job in portraying this settlement. I thank the Māori Affairs Committee—Tau and his team; I thank him for his excellent leadership. I thank all the iwi representatives here from the many iwi of the Waikato and other tribes, and also those local industry leaders who are watching and are present today, for coming to this place and for being part of this settlement. I encourage them to celebrate this settlement because it is a special and unique part of this Parliament when settlements like this progress through. I say well done to them and I thank them for their presence here today. We tremendously acknowledge and support their endeavours in coming here and being with us to share in this settlement.

Not long ago we stood on the bank of the Waikato River and looked at the first settlement. We witnessed an initial desire by the parties to come to a settlement in regard to the river. Today we see the significance of the intent of the parties to come together to an enduring settlement—a settlement that will work and achieve its purposes. I congratulate those who have made that transition to not merely a settlement, but to the effective settlement that we see here today.

This settlement is a day of celebration for Tainui. It has been a very long time coming, and we have heard the story of our history. It is a history that many of us do not share a great deal of pride in, but we understand the dilemma and also the passion of the Tainui people to rectify and build on that history. I thank them and say that they should celebrate today. The goodwill that has been demonstrated by the Tainui people is something that we do not see much of in a lifetime; I think the people of Tainui should take great credit for not only talking about and acknowledging past issues but also working constructively for something going forward. They should take great pride in that willingness to come and talk and to move forward, and as a country we take great pride in the people of Tainui and their role.

The key aspect of this settlement is co-governance. The establishment of the Waikato River Authority with its combined membership of iwi and Crown sets a new mandate for making decisions in our region. It will possibly set a new mandate for this country. The co-governance arrangement entrenches the strategy and vision for the river, which will become a reality through the co-governance body. But there are some challenges, and those challenges are on the people of the Waikato to make the co-governance arrangement work. We have come together today in agreement on a structure going forward. We need to come together in the future to make that agreement a reality so that we can achieve the common goal of helping that river sustain our people and our region in the future. We all share this common goal, which is important not only for environmental and economic reasons but also for spiritual and aesthetic concerns that are part of our region and our people.

I have great faith that the people of the Waikato will achieve that purpose. The ability to come here, negotiate, and settle is part of showing that we have the desire and the ability to work together as a region. This is the democratic choice of the people of the Waikato—let us make no bones about that. The people have come together. We see a common vision and we see how it can work. Our region is mature enough, our people are mature enough, and Tainui and all those others who will be involved in the Waikato River Authority will be mature enough to make this vision and strategy work. We look forward to that happening in the future of our region.

It is a time for Waikato, not just Tainui, to celebrate. We need to move forward as a region and work together, and this is one of the ways we can do so. To the people of Tainui and other iwi, I bring from the other people of the Waikato our desire to work together and celebrate in this achievement, because our strength is a lot more than just a piece of paper; it is the bond that we share in our region. Tainui has a huge role in that region and we see it getting bigger and better in the future, as well.

As a Waikato dairy farmer I pay particular tribute to the people of Tainui for the way they have come together and made this constructive settlement a reality. We look forward to working together to achieve the purposes and vision of this settlement. It is a special day for our region. It is a special day for Tainui. It is a time to celebrate, but also it is a time to know that we have work to do together to achieve our purposes. We can and will achieve them because the people of Tainui and the people of the Waikato region will desire to do so. Thank you.

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki): Kei te Kīngi Māori, tēnā koe. Kei te Kāhui Ariki, Tainui waka, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa. Nō ngā rā tata kua hipa, i tangihia tērā o roto o Ngāti Manawa, pēnei i a koutou, i tuku nei te māmā o tō tātau mema ki te kōpū o Papatūānuku, a Raihā. Ko rātau tērā kua whakangaro atu, i te tirohanga kanohi. Nā rātau anō ēnei kaupapa i kōkiri i te wā i a rātau. I tae atu ki mua i te aroaro o te Karauna ki reira kōrero ai i ngā take. Engari, tērā pea nā te pukumahi, nā te heke o te werawera, nā te ngau o mamae rānei, kāore rātau i kite i te puāwaitanga o tērā o ngā moemoeā. Nō reira, kei te Kīngi Māori, ko koe tērā te kanohi o rātau mā, te Kāhui Ariki, nau mai, tēnā koe, tēnā koutou, kia ora tātau. E taku kīngi, kei te tū i runga i te āhuatanga o te whakamā. He whakamā pēnei nā, i rongo koe i te kōrero a wētahi. Ko ngā kōrero i runga i te marae, he kōrero rangatira. I ētahi wā pēnei i tā te kuia e kōrero nei, i ētahi wā i roto i te Whare Pāremata, he whakaiti te kōrero. Nei au e tū nei ki mua i tō aroaro me te kī, ē, kua pā mai te whakamā, i rongo koe i ēnei kōrero. Ko ngā kōrero o ōku koroua i te kāinga, kaua e whakautu i te kōrero a te rorirori. Mēnā ka pērā, kua whai mana tana kōrero. Nō reira aroha mai, i rongo ngā taringa i ngā kōrero a wētahi.

Ko tāku tū, he kaha tautoko i te kōrero a te nuinga. Nōu te rā, nō koutou te rā, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, kia ora tātau. Ko tāku noa ake ko te kī atu, me tuku karakia kia whakawātea au i taku whakamā. Nō reira me pēnei ake te kōrero—tēnei te ara kei runga, ko te aro o tēnei tipua, ko te aro o tēnei ariki, ko te aro o tēnei matua iwi, ko te aro o Ranginui e tū nei, o Papatūānuku e takoto nei; kia rarau iho rā te tapu o Tāne, tēnei te pō, nau mai te ao.”

Nō reira haramai me ngā mate o te wā, kei aku rangatira, haramai ki roto i te Whare Pāremata. Nei te uri o Ngāti Te Ata, nei te uri o Tūhourangi, nei te uri o Pikiaorangi, kei te kōrero au ki a au anō. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, kia ora tātau. Ā, kāti. Waiho te āhuatanga o te hunga mate kia moe, kia okioki. Te tikanga ko tā tātau ko te whakanui, ko te whakanui i tēnei rangi, te whakatinanatanga o ngā mahi i ngā tau kua hipa ake. Me mihi rā ka tika, ā, ki te hunga kāinga e noho nei, e pupuri nei ā i te kāinga nei mō Te Āti Awa, ngā karangatanga maha o konei. Ka mutu, me mihi ki ngā Minita, ā, o tērā taha o te Whare, o tēnei taha o te Whare. Nā rātau anō rā i kōkiri i te take nei. E te Tākuta, Maikara Karana, hoki mai ki tō Whare. Ko te Whare nāu anō rā i whakamātautau i te wā i a koe. Nō reira tēnei te mihi atu ki a koe, ko koe tēnā, ā, i whakatakoto i te kōrero ki mua i te aroaro o te Whare Pāremata.

Ā, koutou ko ō hoa, a Mita, a Parekura, ā, me huri anō rā ki tēnei taha anō hoki, ki te tangata nei, ki te Finlayson nei, i whaiwhai haere i ō tapuwae, tae rā anō ki taku Minita e noho nei, ki te Tākuta Pita Sharples. Tangata pai. Tangata pai a Pita Sharples. Tērā kōrero tērā. Me mihi rā ki taku tuahine, ko koe tērā, ā, i roto i te Whare Pāremata i ngā tau kua hipa ake. Arā, ko koe tērā i tāpiri atu i ētahi kōrero ki te pire e kōrerohia ake nei. Ka mihi rā ki te komiti, kua kōrerohia kētia e rātau te Komiti Take Māori.

Me mihi rā ki ngā manuhiri kua hoki mai—e Koro, tēnā koe. Nau mai. Me mihi rā ki a koe e Tuku, hoki mai ki tēnei Whare. He nanakia te āhua nei, he nanakia tonu tō kōrero ki ngā Minita. He aha i pērā ai taku kōrero? Pēnei tā te David Bennett e kōrero nei, kua herea te Karauna ki ngā take katoa e pā ana ki te awa o Waikato. E kore e taea e ia te oma, te waiho mai ai i ngā raruraru ki te Ao Māori, me mihi ka tika. Nō reira ka mahi tahi koutou, te iwi me ngā kaunihera. He tauira pai tērā, ē, mō te motu. He tauira pai tērā mō te motu.

Ka mutu, i rongo au i te kōrero i kōrerohia mai rā e te mema Maryan Street mō tētahi wāhanga o roto i te pire. Nā ko te clause 8 tēnei, te wāhanga tuawaru tēnei o te pire. He pai kē me pānui atu au i te reo Pākehā, kia matua mōhio ai tātau ki te tikanga o taku kōrero. Anā, e pēnei ana te kōrero i roto i te pire:

[To the Māori King, I greet you. To the aristocracy of Māoridom, to the Tainui canoe, salutations and greetings to you all. Just recently we mourned the death of that elder in Ngāti Manawa, just as you did when you committed Raihā, mother of our fellow member, into the bowels of mother Earth. They are two who are lost from view and will no longer be seen. They instigated these matters in their time. They went before the Crown to negotiate the issues. However, because of the workload and energy spent, perhaps, or the grief and pain it caused, they are not able to bear witness to the realisation of another dream. So welcome the Māori King; you represent them. Greetings to the aristocracy of Māoridom, and salutations to you collectively and to us. Oh my King, I stand here somewhat embarrassed because of what I heard others say in this House in your presence. Oratory on the marae is noble. But as the fellow lady member commented, statements in this House can sometimes be quite demeaning. That aside, I stand before you, embarrassed that you heard such criticisms. My old people back home would say, do not honour the words of an idiot by responding. So if you heard those remarks, please bear with us.

I stand to wholeheartedly support what the majority has stated. The day belongs to you and your people, and we commend, acknowledge, and salute you, and us as well. As for me, I will deliver an incantation to release me from my embarrassment, and it goes like this: “This is the path that I traverse—one that concerns this deity, this leader, this particular tribe, and the Father of the Heavens above and mother Earth stretched out before us; let the sanctity of Tāne gather together. This, then, is the night, but welcome enlightenment.”

So come forth with the deaths of the moment, my leaders, and welcome to the House of Parliament. Here is the descendant of Ngāti Te Ata, of Tūhourangi and Pikiaorangi, even though I am in fact referring to my own connections. Greetings and salutations to you collectively, and to us as well. Enough, leave those who have passed on; rest, and sleep there. Our part today is to celebrate, and quite rightly too, the culmination of the work accomplished over the years. Without a doubt I must acknowledge the local tribe of Te Āti Awa and the many callings here. Further to that, I must acknowledge the Ministers on that side and this side of the House, and the part they played in bringing this matter before the House. The Hon Dr Cullen, welcome back to your House, which you tested during your time here. I acknowledge and recognise your contributions to the House.

And indeed I acknowledge as well your fellow Ministers the Hon Mita Ririnui and the Hon Parekura Horomia. I turn to those Ministers as well on this side of the House, to the Hon Christopher Finlayson, who followed in your footsteps, and the Hon Dr Pita Sharples sitting over here—good man! He is a good one, the Hon Dr Pita Sharples. But that is another case. I also acknowledge my sister colleague; that was you in the House throughout those past years. You introduced the bill today and contributed to the debate. I commend the work of the Māori Affairs Committee in its deliberations and considerations.

I must acknowledge former members who are among visiting dignitaries—the Hon Koro Wētere, salutations to you, and welcome; Tukoroirangi, welcome back to this House, and greetings. Your negotiations with the Ministers must have been very persuasive. Why do I say that? Well, it is as David Bennett said, the Crown has been tied to every conceivable thing that has to do with the Waikato River. It is impossible for it to leave any problem behind for Māoridom to deal with. Oh yes, I have to doff my hat to you, Tuku. So I have to congratulate the tribe and the councils collectively on arriving at that arrangement. It is a good model for the rest of the country to follow.

Further to that, I took note of what the member the Hon Maryan Street had to say about a provision in the bill. That was clause 8 of the bill. I think it is better that I read it in English so that the meaning of what I am on about is clearly understood. It goes like this:]

“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 to Te Puuaha o Waikato (the mouth) and includes its waters, banks and beds (and minerals under them) and its streams, waterways, tributaries, lakes, aquatic fisheries, vegetation, flood plains, wetlands, islands, springs, water column airspace, and substratum as well as its metaphysical being.”

E Tuku, ka rawe tēnā kōrero. Ka rawe tēnā kōrero. He aha ai, ka pātai au ki a au anō, hā, he aha te hē o Te Arawa? He aha te hē o Te Arawa, kāre mātau i paku kite i te wai o roto o ngā roto o Te Arawa? Ko koe tērā, ā, kei roto, ana kua pānuitia “waters”, “streams”. Whiwhi a Tainui i ngā wai, ha! He aha tā Te Arawa, karekau! Karekau he wai, ko te papa ō raro anake. Me mihi rā ki a koe kai taku rangatira, mō tērā wāhanga. Tērā pea e tika ana, kia hoki mai a Te Arawa ki te Whare Pāremata.

Kāti, hei kupu whakamutunga, e pēnei ana te kōrero a Raihā, i te wā i hainatia mai ai te kaupapa nei, i te tau kua hipa ake, i te Tīhema, i Hopuhopu. Anei tāna, anei tāna.

[Tuku, what an excellent clause! Why, I say to myself, what was wrong with Te Arawa? Where did Te Arawa go wrong? We did not see a drop of water in the Rotorua lakes. But look at you, contained in the clause that I read out were the words “waters” and “streams”. Tainui got the waters; well how about that! What did Te Arawa get? Nothing! Not a drop of water—just the bottom of the lake. I have got to hand it to you, my chief. Congratulations on that provision. It is only natural justice that Te Arawa must come back to Parliament.

Enough. In conclusion, this is what Lady Raihā said when this settlement was signed last year in December at Hopuhopu. This is what she said:]

“Iwi leaders who hailed from the Whanganui River were interested in how the model would work, she said. ‘I think Sir Archie [Taiaroa] is looking sideways at this. It can only be improved as it goes to other iwi.’ ”

Koinei taku mihi tuatoru ki a koe e Tuku, ki a kōrua ko tō hoa. Tēnei tauira, he tauira pai mō te motu. Nā Tainui tēnei kaupapa i ārahi, kua waitohungia i roto i te pire nei, ka whakatinanahia i ngā tau kei mua i te aroaro. Hei aha? Hei tauira pai mō te motu. Me mihi, me mihi, me mihi ka tika.

Nō reira kāti ake māku, he whakatakoto i ētahi kōrero i te taha o ētahi kua kōrerohia kētia. Ko tāku noa ake ko te tautoko i ngā kōrero katoa, me te kī atu me whakanui te rangi nei, ka tika i te mea, koi nei te rā o te whakatinanatanga mai o ngā moemoeā o rātau kua huri. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, kia ora tātau. Hei whakamutu i taku kōrero, me pēnei ake ahau nā runga i te āhuatanga o te ngaronga o ētahi.

[My third acknowledgment to you and your fellow negotiator, Tuku, is this. This model is a good one for the country. Tainui took the lead in this; it is written into this bill and will be implemented in the years ahead of us. Why? Because it will be a template for the country. Of course, you have to be congratulated, not once, but three times over.

So all that is left for me to do is to add to what others have already contributed and to support it; and to say, of course we have to celebrate this day as one where the dreams of those who have passed on are realised. Greetings and salutations to you collectively, and to us. I end my address with this farewell lament as a tribute to those who have passed away, and in particular the two I mentioned at the start.]

Waiata

He paku kōrero tērā mō te hunga kua ngaro atu i te tirohanga kanohi. Waiho rātau kia okioki, me whakanui, me whakanui, me whakanui te rangi nei, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, kia ora tātau, kei raro.

[And by way of a brief explanation, that was a tribute to those who are lost for ever and will no longer be seen. Leave them there to rest, and let us celebrate and toast this day; so salutations and acknowledgments to you collectively, and to us. I end here.]

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato): E te Kīngi te Tumuaki, tō kōrua tira kua eke mai nei ki te tautoko i tēnei kaupapa, tēnā koutou. Tēnei anō e maumahara i a rātou i whakapau kaha ki te whakatutuki i ngā kaupapa mō te take raupatu, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa. Karangatia ngā mauri tūpuna, ngā mauri taniwha, ngā tumutumu o Rauwhitu, ē Ngeru, Tarakōkōmako, Karutahi, Paneiraira, Ruakaiwhare, Waiwaiā, Tuheitia ē. Waikato taniwharau, he piko, he taniwha!

E te iwi e mātai iho rā ki tō tātou Tupuna ā-Awa, he wai whakahono i ngā iwi o te motu mai te kuikuinga ki te pūaha puta atu ki Te Moana-nui-ā-Kiwa. E taku waiora e rere ē. Ko te ora o te awa kei te kapo o te ringa, kei te kokonga o tōku ngākau ē. E ora ana ia, e ora ana tātou. Tōku awa koiora, Waikato ē!

[Oh King, your president, your entourage who have arrived to support this matter, salutations to you collectively. I pay homage to those who are no longer here, but toiled so hard to bring matters relating to the confiscation to its conclusion; salutations and acknowledgments to us all. Call upon the life-forces of the ancestor and deities; the pillars of Rauwhitu ē Ngeru, Tarakōkōmako, Karutahi, Paneiraira, Ruakaiwhare, Waiwaiā, and, indeed, Tuheitia. Waikato of a hundred chiefs, at every bend a chief. Oh, the people who look upon our ancestral river, whose waters flow from its source to its outlet into the Great Ocean of Kiwa, are the bonds that link the tribes of the land. Flow, my life-giving waters, flow. The well-being of the river is in your hand and in the corners of my heart. While she thrives, so will we. Waikato, my living river.]

I am pleased to contribute to this, the third and final reading of the Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Bill. I acknowledge the many who have gone before us—those old people who carried the burden of raupatu until such time as history might be corrected, resolution reached, and redress made to the peoples of Waikato. In the time of Dame Te Ata and my father, certain old people provided a backbone of support during the hardest of times when all they had was a deep belief and hope. I carry around a picture of them as a reminder that a small team of committed people is worth gold: the likes of Hēnare Tūwhāngai, Pumi Taituha, Rua Cooper, Tawhi and Kare Kīngi, Dave Manihera, Hōri Rāwiri, Waea and Sue Mauriohooho, Ngāhina Te Uira, Pita Keremeta, Fred Kaa, Rewi Graham, Te Naere Hetet, Hati Toka, Piri Raihe, Tom Tauroa, Pop Herewini, and James Ritchie, to name a few. Yet there are so many more too numerous to mention. But these few were a small and steely backbone for Dame Te Ata and both my parents, and they will never be forgotten.

The settlement should be understood in conjunction with the Waikato Raupatu Claims Settlement Act 1995, which went some way to reconciling the confiscation of over 1.25 million acres of Waikato lands, including the Waikato River. The settlement should be understood against the backdrop of several outstanding claims yet to be resolved—namely Maioro, Wairoa, and the west coast harbours of Manukau, Whāingaroa, Aotea, and Kāwhia. Once the remainder of those claims have been settled, the Crown will have fulfilled a longstanding fiduciary obligation to Waikato for the unjust and illegal confiscations suffered by Waikato in the 1860s.

I particularly wanted to highlight some of the more difficult aspects that will test the ongoing commitment of the Crown and successive Governments to give effect to the intention of this settlement. Today is significant not only for Waikato but for the nation, and we will be able to track the transformational effect of this settlement only 10 or 20 years hence. Co-governance and co-management are entirely new approaches in so far as resource management is concerned but, as I have said in previous speeches, the sole beneficiary of this settlement is indeed the river. We want to see it cleaned up. It may take a generation, it may take two generations, but it requires a long-term commitment and sustained action to realise that vision. I hope that changes to the Resource Management Act do not dilute the intent of this legislation, particularly the creation of the Environmental Protection Authority. In any event, such matters would be considered in the 5 to 10-year review, alongside the practical implementation of the vision and strategy and the overall effectiveness of the river authority.

Old and young people from Waikato-Tainui are here today because they understand the enormity of this task. There are expectations that this settlement will contribute to tangible outcomes at a marae, community, and local level that could in time see employment opportunities grow, that could see sustainable business ventures emerge, that could see young environmental scientists and planners graduate, that could see ecotourism ventures flourish, and that could see critical alliances between iwi, local government, and the farming community forged. Several opportunities are contained in this settlement, but it will require people talking to people. I am saddened that the Minister of Local Government does not agree with this settlement, unlike his predecessor, but his position must not be a barrier to achieving the objectives envisaged. Local government and Tainui will need to work together, because we cannot afford patch protection and lengthy resource consent processes that are contrary to achieving a healthy river. Land-based activities need to take account of their impact on the river. Members of the farming community are key contributors to our economy in the Waikato—in fact, nationwide. Waikato-Tainui understand that, but there must be open dialogue to ensure that everyone’s interests are on the table, rather than a backdoor-deal approach to policy-making.

The river settlement will be a learn-by-doing approach, in both its co-governance protocols and its co-management practices. On the issue of water, specifically, I tell the House that Waikato-Tainui has indeed already shown a generosity of spirit, when in 1994 Auckland was suffering from drought conditions affecting the city’s water supply. I was an undergraduate student working for the Tainui Māori Trust Board when a hui was held at Hopuhopu, and Sir Barry Curtis flew down by helicopter to make a request of the old people to tap into the water supply of the Waikato. There was robust debate, but the final response enabled a pipeline to extract water, as many Waikato-Tainui lived in Auckland. The old people said at the time that if people were thirsty they should be quenched, and that if they could help they would. There was a belief at the time that water belonged to us all. The Government’s super-city plans might see the privatisation of water assets. If that is the case, then Waikato-Tainui interests should be remembered and preserved. We have an ongoing concern in Watercare Services, and a discussion should take place very quickly with Ministers and iwi leaders to protect those interests. The benefit of hindsight is a great thing. Treaty settlements that envisage a close and integrated relationship with local government may consider inviting its representatives to the table, alongside those of the Crown, at an earlier stage. The experience of Waikato-Tainui has shown that local body politics can be critical to achieving a successful outcome to one’s settlement.

At this point, I acknowledge the Guardians Establishment Committee, co-chaired by Gordon Blake and Tuku Morgan, with Crown appointees Traci Houpapa and Jenni Vernon; local government representatives Andra Neely, Clint Baddeley, Alan Livingston, and Bob Simcock; industry representative Don Scarlet; iwi representatives Roger Pikia, Weo Maag, Dean Stebbing, and Stephanie O’Sullivan; and Waikato-Tainui representatives Linda Te Aho, Taipū Paki, and Rangi Māhuta. Vision and Strategy for the Waikato River is an overarching document that will guide regional plans and rules. I have made the point in earlier debates that if dropping the vision and strategy to the regional policy statement level has a limiting effect, then it should be a subject of the review.

I am sure that those people at Te Pūaha o Waikato will welcome better preservation and management of their local whitebait fisheries. The Government-sponsored enterprise was certainly a model to learn from, and I am sure the experience is one that bodes well for New Zealand, to forge mutual respect for resource management approaches, inclusive of te ao Māori. The Clean-Up Trust fund will be a welcome addition to local communities, alongside the river and its tributaries, that are committed to projects that make a difference. I am pleased that the scoping study is a good attempt at compiling a local picture of expectations in setting out priorities for projects that can restore the life of the river. A more realistic cost-projection will also be achieved.

The Sir Robert Mahuta Endowment Fund, set aside for the endowed college, was a welcome contribution that will be put to good use. I am told that the initial seeding grant for the University of New Zealand, which is now Auckland University, was from lands confiscated in the Waikato. The irony of this gesture is not lost, and will remain in the tribe’s collective memory in the years ahead. The college will look towards getting a cadre of leading indigenous thinkers, in subject areas such as environmental studies, natural resource management, and water. It makes absolute sense that our spiritual, mental, and physical well-being will be nourished from this settlement.

Another unique component of this settlement is the Kīngitanga Accord. At the highest level it is important to maintain a strong relationship between the current and future Governments and the Kīngitanga. Raupatu occurred because Waikato-Tainui believed that unity under the Kīngitanga was a means of asserting absolute authority and dominion over our lands, our waterways, and our taonga. Our ancestors were chastised for that belief, and history has shown that they suffered as a result. Today, the Kīngitanga remains a symbol of unity. Only time will tell and show how this relationship with the Crown is nurtured, but there must be an ongoing and deliberate attempt to build a better future.

I will draw attention to a related matter, in closing. The hope of achieving a healthy Waikato cannot be achieved if we have a dirty Waipā. The Waipā River is the largest tributary flowing into the Waikato River. Waikato and Maniapoto have historical and traditional links, which serve only to strengthen each other’s interests on this front. To delay a settlement with Maniapoto would stifle progress for the Waikato River. I urge Ministers to expedite negotiations with Maniapoto to align objectives for both of these significant waterways.

My thanks go to former Labour Ministers Michael Cullen, Margaret Wilson, Mark Burton, and Parekura Horomia, for their efforts; they have made all the difference, alongside the personal commitment of former Prime Minister Helen Clark. Thanks must also go to Minister Chris Finlayson, because with the support of his Prime Minister progress has been made. I also give a personal thanks to local MPs from the Waikato, as I know that the tribe values its relationship with them all. For Waikato-Tainui this settlement has gone forward under the care and stewardship of my late mother, Raihā Māhuta, and Tuku Morgan. Their work has been supported by a young and committed technical team, with special expertise from Shane Solomon, and with the support of long-time friends of the tribe, Denese Hēnare and Ann Parsonson. A team of kaumātua and kuia travelled all around the place, with co-negotiators, to many hui. They offered whatever little support they could give, and they mattered when the support was needed most.

This is a unique settlement, and urges an entirely different relationship between iwi, central government, and local government. It can be a settlement that redefines what the future of this nation can look like, if we work hard at it. The restoration of the health and well-being of the river is critical to the settlement’s success. Not many children get a chance to acknowledge the achievements of both their parents in this House. I have done so in the knowledge that their hard work and effort enable Waikato-Tainui and the Kīngitanga to stand humbly and proud, in the knowledge that we are in a better place because of their effort. But the compelling motivation for achieving this particular outcome is best summed up in my mother’s own words, when she said: “I have committed myself so that my mokopuna, Huirama, Amaya, Tukaroto, Te Winiwini a Rongo, Kainuku Marquesas, and Waiwaiā Nukutawhiti, in their lifetime will be able to enjoy the river, take food from it, and have their spirits sustained by it. So from the lofty dreams of our old people, even the smallest child shall enjoy the benefits.” I have much pleasure in confirming Labour’s continued support for this settlement.

Nō reira e te Kīngi, māu anō e pupuru ēnei taonga ō rātou mā kia kore ai e ngaro. Kāti rā mō tēnei wā. Pai mārire ki a tātou.

[So, my King, these treasures that belonged to those who have departed are now yours to hold so that they will never be lost. I leave it there for now. May goodness and peace prevail over us.]

Bill read a third time.

ACT Party votes for the Noes ordered by the Speaker to be recorded in the Journals of the House of Representatives.

Waiata

DAVID GARRETT (ACT): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Of course it is a foregone conclusion, but I believed you would have heard my clear call for a party vote. I did not want to be rude and interrupt the waiata, but ACT wishes to have its vote recorded.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I was listening carefully and expected a call for a party vote. I am not surprised that you did not hear it, Mr Deputy Speaker, because I did not either. I thought the member was being polite and voting on the voices, as he has a right to do, and deciding not to divide the House. That has been the procedure of politeness in this House for many years, and I thought the ACT Party might have been following that tradition, by voting No on the voices but not calling for a division. We did not hear a division called for.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I thank the member. I certainly did not hear the member call for a party vote. I also listened very carefully, knowing that the ACT Party had voted against the bill, but I did not hear a call for a party vote. I made the decision that we proceed, and that was at my discretion. The vote stands as recorded.

Bills

Electoral (Finance Reform and Advance Voting) Amendment Bill

First Reading

Debate resumed from 4 May.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Electoral (Finance Reform and Advance Voting) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 112

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

Noes 9

Green Party 9.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Electoral Legislation Committee.

Bills

Education Amendment Bill

Third Reading

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education): I move, That the Education Amendment Bill be now read a third time. The Education Amendment Bill amends the Education Act 1989. The changes in the bill will improve efficiency in the schooling system, reduce compliance costs for schools and early childhood education services, and improve the quality and effectiveness of education legislation.

The first significant amendment, relating to police vetting, will reduce compliance costs and streamline administration for schools. The changes will minimise the risk that some non-teaching staff and contractors may have unsupervised access to children in early childhood centres and schools before they are vetted by the police. Schools and early childhood education services will continue to be required to obtain a police vet for all non-teaching staff. The police vet must be requested within at least 2 weeks of the person concerned starting work, and it must be obtained before that person can have any unsupervised access to children and young people. Only contractors who have, or who are likely to have, unsupervised access to children must be vetted by the police.

The bill makes police vetting of household members mandatory when children enrolled in a home-based service are being cared for in a home other than their own. This provision applies to all household members who are 17 years of age or older. During the Committee stage, there were some fond reminiscences from members opposite of the previous education amendment bill, which was brought into the House by Labour. Those members conveniently forgot that that bill contained some Draconian vetting requirements that, according to the primary teachers union, “could seriously impact on community and family involvement in schools and centres”. It went on to state that it could include parents, grandparents, or any adult who helped with sports teams at lunchtime, who came in to listen to an individual child’s reading, or who helped out during a gardening or a clean-up project. No one talked about that in the Committee stage with any fond reminiscences. The bill also removes the New Zealand Teachers Council as the conduit for the police vetting of all non-teaching staff and contractors. Schools and early childhood education services will now apply directly to the New Zealand Police for that service. Again, in the Committee stage, it was interesting that an Opposition member, who clearly had not read the bill or had forgotten what the bill did, talked about the extra costs for early childhood centres, in particular, of the police vetting that is proposed in this bill. That service is, of course, currently provided by the police at no expense.

The second significant amendment to the Education Act 1989 allows for information matching between the New Zealand Teachers Council’s register of teachers and the Ministry of Education’s payroll database, to identify those who are teaching in schools without registration. That will provide a more reliable and efficient method of monitoring teacher registration and tracking the employment of teachers, to ensure that they are meeting current teaching and safety standards.

The bill makes a range of other amendments to the Education Act 1989. It clarifies that when a person is appointed as a limited statutory manager or commissioner for a school, he or she can be appointed as being from a named body corporate. My original proposal was changed at the Education and Science Committee in a bit of déjà vu from the Hon Trevor Mallard and Sir Roger Douglas. I have gone with the change, and I am prepared to try it. But I will just point out in this House that the hysteria from some members, both in the Education and Science Committee and in this House, about the possible privatisation of schools as a result of this measure comes from sheer ignorance—there is no other explanation for it—of the complex issues involved when the Minister of Education or the Secretary for Education has to put in place a statutory intervention. My desire was to enable the Minister of Education or the Secretary for Education to appoint a number of people with differing skills, because we need a wide range of skills—employment skills, education skills, and skills relating to communicating with communities—and sometimes it just not possible to get one individual who is capable of carrying out that task. So my desire was to have the ability to appoint a number of people who might have differing skills. However, I am willing to work with what we have, and to make sure that we can be of assistance to schools. Of course, any appointments of limited statutory managers or commissioners will continue to be made on a case-by-case basis to ensure that we get the best fit of skills and expertise, and we strive at all times to keep those interventions to as short a time as possible.

The bill allows for the retrospective validation of Crown payments following changes of proprietors in integrated schools when those changes did not follow current processes. The Minister of Education can change the timing of elections for school boards of trustees so that the elections can be held later in the school year. That will reduce the pressures that schools face at the beginning of the year, and will make the election process more efficient and manageable. For schools that are about to close, school boards will be exempt from triennial board elections, which would be a waste of money, time, and resources.

The Minister of Education can establish a combined board to set up two or more new schools, and will be able to stagger the opening of the new schools. We have wished we had the ability to do that with the two schools in Papamoa that are currently under construction. We had to establish two separate boards to manage the establishment of those schools. Special schools can apply to the New Zealand Qualifications Authority for accreditation in their own right to assess against the standards on the national qualifications framework. The bill provides the Education Review Office with discretion over the frequency of its review of private schools, to give it the same flexibility to review less frequently private schools that are doing well, as they are doing with the State system.

The bill streamlines functions relating to the independent disciplinary bodies overseen by the New Zealand Teachers Council, enhances the efficient administration of student loans and allowances, and introduces a small number of minor remedial amendments to clarify certain definitions and to correct some drafting errors in the Education Act 1989. We have not forced schools to keep students in school by repealing the ability of the Secretary for Education to provide the enrolment exemptions that the previous Labour bill required.

I must conclude by saying how disappointed I am that during the Committee stage, the Opposition spokesperson on education, the Hon Trevor Mallard, admitted to the House that Labour had conducted a filibuster to try to force the hand of the Minister of Education to make a change for a particular school that two previous Ministers of Education in his own previous Government had refused to make. The filibuster held up the passage of legislation through the House, a major purpose of which was to ensure the protection and safety of young children in education. At long last, this bill is now proceeding, and I commend it to the House.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): There are a few points I want to make. It is a pity that the Minister of Education did not acknowledge in her speech the ceremony she went to this morning. Today within the precincts of the House we have seen New Zealand’s top scholars of 2009. They are a truly wonderful group of young people, who are evidence of an education system that is working well for the very best kids. I say that I am especially proud of Wellington’s disproportionate number of top scholars. They have done well. I am particularly proud of the way the State schools have gone. Some State schools, though slightly less prestigious than others, have had some very good results, and even Invercargill was represented amongst the top scholars—it was a pity that Dunedin was represented, but Invercargill did proportionately very well! I acknowledge the Governor-General and the fact that he made a very generous speech on that occasion. The only other thing I would say is that the Minister’s speech on that occasion matched her speech on this one.

There are number of points I will make about the Education Amendment Bill. The first point is that I sit somewhere between the bill that Labour introduced when it was in Government and the bill that the Minister introduced. I think Mr Peachey chaired the Education and Science Committee well to a midpoint. We took on board some of the criticisms, and we managed to distinctly improve the legislation as it went through the committee. There was an unusual combination of ACT, Labour, and Green members on the committee ensuring that the accountability mechanisms as part of the commissioner and statutory manager arrangements were brought properly into law. I acknowledge the role of Sir Roger Douglas and the work that he did on that issue in the committee. I think we now have legislation that makes a positive improvement to the Education Act.

One of the things that I thought we might have heard about from the Minister was how progress is going on the rewrite of the Act. I would have thought that it would be ready for introduction now. It is a major piece of work. It is fair to say that the education legislation is a dog’s breakfast. During my time as the Minister of Education in the first part of the last decade, a lot of work was done towards rewriting the Act, and I would have thought that it be just about ready now. When that legislation hits the House, it will be a major job for the select committee to make sure that the various pieces of legislation knit together properly in the new Education Act. I hope the title of that Education Act will have a date at the end of it that starts with the digits“20”, rather than it being any later than that.

The bill validates some payments in respect of the change of proprietors of integrated schools. I think that is a very good example of how a validation that does not cost the Crown any money works. As the Minister of Education has pointed out, there was another proposal. That proposal was to relieve King’s High School in Dunedin of some obligations that it currently has to Westpac bank. Again, it would be at no disadvantage to Westpac bank and at no disadvantage to the Crown to use money that is otherwise available to King’s High School in order to pay off some debt. I think it is fair to say that a previous principal and a previous board had entered into an arrangement by way of a misunderstanding of the way forward. The Minister has indicated that she will not support that. I have indicated that that is something that the Labour Party, and, I am assured, the Greens, will pursue going forward.

There are a number of finance bills—and I know that Mr Tremain knows there are a number of finance bills—that generally go through the House without debate and without amendment during the Committee stage. There will be numerous opportunities to introduce validating clauses that will be within the scope of those bills. All I invite the Minister to do is to look at the three or four schools that are involved and make the policy change. Then I am sure debate in the House will go more smoothly. I am not inviting her to spend any money at all; I am asking her to look at the schools.

I went to the Minister’s office and she told me she would fix that up—I went to the Minister’s office and she told me she would fix it up. If she does fix it up, the problem will go away, but until she fixes it up the House will debate amendments on what otherwise could have been uncontroversial validating legislation. This is one of the things that members of Parliament in the Opposition can do, and it is one of the things that Ministers can do: when there is something wrong, it is the putting right that counts.

I know that two of my colleagues made a mistake. The original mistake happened in my time. It was not advice from the Ministry of Education, and it was not advice from me, but the principal and the board got it wrong. We accept that. A couple of my colleagues considered the issue, and I do not think they considered it well. I have accepted that. That is something that I will take on—

Hon Darren Hughes: Most loyal of characters.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: No, my arguments were clearly not persuasive enough.

But I know that eventually we will get there. It is like water on a stone: eventually we will get there, and the right thing will be done for King’s High School. I do not know about the other three schools. I will visit them, I will talk to them, and I will find out their circumstances. The Minister has been kind enough to give me a list of those schools. We will work to see whether they do fit in to the same category or whether there is a try-on. If it is a try-on, we will not support them, but if they do—

Hon Anne Tolley: If you want to be the Minister, get elected.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: That is the classic comment of that Minister, who says it all over the place. She said it three times at public meetings around the country. When she runs out of logic, and when she does not have an argument, she says: I’m not doing it for any reason, at all; I’m doing it because I’m the Minister.” She said that on three separate occasions, and she just said it again—“If you want a change, then become the Minister.” She is saying that she is allowed to do stupid things because she is the Minister. I tell her that she is not allowed. She will be held to account.

She will have to discuss with the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance, the whips, and the Leader of the House why she will not let King’s High School spend money, which is allocated to it in the Crown accounts and will cost the Crown nothing, on paying off an old debt rather than having $5,000 a month in interest going to Westpac bank. It should be there for teaching staff. It should be there for computers. It should be there for the special education of the students. But she would rather that money was paid as interest to Westpac bank. Of course it was a mistake, it was wrong, and we have it in our power to fix it.

One of the things that that member will do when she has been around here for a bit longer will be to say that sometimes people make mistakes and that they should admit to them. I admit that I made a mistake in that area. I should have convinced my colleagues to fix it; I was reminded of it by the new principal. I have taken up that advice, and I will continue to do it.

Having said all of that, the Education Amendment Bill is pretty good. It is not perfect, and there are a few things that could have been improved, but it is pretty good. The Labour Party will support it notwithstanding the bad grace of the Minister throughout the passage of the bill.

ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tāmaki): I also would like to take a few minutes to echo the words of the Opposition spokesperson on education, Trevor Mallard, and offer my congratulations and those of the National Government to the top scholars who were honoured today. I had the privilege over a number of years of attending that function.

Hon Trevor Mallard: There was one there from Rangitoto College, wasn’t there?

ALLAN PEACHEY: I believe there was, I say to Mr Mallard; I would be surprised if there was not. On occasions I had the privilege of leading the school that had the most top scholars in New Zealand. I pay my respect to those students.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Grace Abbott, for German.

ALLAN PEACHEY: I thank the member.

I also pay my respects to their teachers. I used to say to the youngsters who were competing for scholarships—and it is a competition; there is no sense in beating round the bush—that the edge they would have, nine times out of 10, would be in the quality of their teachers. Great teaching is what gives a youngster that little bit of edge that enables them to compete against other youngsters of equal ability who benefit from that quality of teaching.

I have a couple of comments on the Education Amendment Bill. I recall the Education and Science Committee hearings well. We operated under quite a bit of time pressure. We operated under quite a bit of time pressure, and we got through and had the bill reported back. I appreciated the assistance and the cooperation of all the members of the committee and the officials.

I will make reference to one part of the bill that I think is particularly important, and that is the provision on the governance of schools. For far too long, schools have been allowed to fail. Plenty of reasons, excuses, and explanations have been given. One of the greatest ones, which was brought back to me by thinking about the top scholars today, was that New Zealand has a world-class schooling system. In many ways it does, but that cannot be an excuse for the long tail of failure that is occurring. One of the things that we have learnt over recent times is that good governance and good principals can turn round a failing school very, very quickly. I need look no further than my own electorate of Tāmaki, where two examples in particular stand out: Point England Primary School and Tamaki College. With changes of leadership and enlightened governance, things suddenly began to move. I have also had the frustration of trying to get action where a school has been failing and it has taken too long. The only people who suffer from that are the students. I am delighted that this bill is providing the mechanism to give far quicker and far more effective intervention when it needs to be occurring, before the problem gets so bad that the community votes in large numbers with its feet.

We must also remember—and this will be my final point—that the easiest way to fix a failing school is to replace the principal. Great principals will run great schools regardless of the calibre of the board, but with a great board and a weak principal the school will not flourish. That is the easiest and most straightforward way to fix failing schools. This House cannot do that, and legislation cannot do it; it has to be a decision of whoever is governing the school at the time. Now, as a result of this legislation, the Government will have much greater flexibility in dealing with those failures and dealing with them in a timely and effective manner. I certainly welcome that part of the bill. I commend the bill to the House.

SUE MORONEY (Labour): There is a long-held saying that timing is everything. I think the Education Amendment Bill is a case in point that timing really is everything. I mention that because when the Education and Science Committee considered this bill, it did not know what we know today about what will be happening to the early childhood sector and its funding. I do not know whether many speakers have alluded to this yet, but much of the bill—not all of it, but much of it—applies to early childhood education as well as compulsory education.

I say at the outset that Labour supports the bill at the third reading, because the police-vetting procedures in the bill are the right thing to do, particularly in respect of early childhood education. Parents entrust their very young children to that system. It is important that Parliament makes sure that the system has all the safety checks that need to be in place. So Labour supports the bill from that perspective.

But, now that we know that the Government plans budget cuts for early childhood education, it is hard to know how the sector will afford to resource the extra requirements that this bill puts on it. The extra—

Hon Anne Tolley: They’re free. That is how.

SUE MORONEY: The Minister seems to think that those requirements are free. She does not understand that administrative requirements take time and cost the sector.

Hon Anne Tolley: Well, they pay for them now. They don’t have to.

SUE MORONEY: OK, the Minister of Education says she will pay for them now, but she has already allowed her colleagues to take $57 million from the sector. Earlier this week we learnt that the childcare allowance has been changed so that $57 million can come out of that sector. Government funding will be cut to the tune of $57 million over 4 years. That will affect 11,000 families. The Minister for Social Development and Employment had official advice given to her in a Cabinet paper that that measure would reduce the amount of funding that providers in the sector would receive. So, before we even get to the cuts that Anne Tolley has signalled for early childhood education, we see cuts to the tune of $57 million, which is money that providers will not be able to use to implement the types of procedures in this bill.

So we already know that funding for that sector is in trouble. But it is about to get worse. I would feel much more comfortable supporting this bill in the third reading if the Government would come clean on what its plans are for budget cuts to early childhood education.

Hon Anne Tolley: Be patient.

SUE MORONEY: The Minister is saying “Be patient.” That is a terrible message for the families of this country. They know that they now face some cost increases in early childhood education, but they do not know what they are. I am not sure whether the Minister understands the pressure that families are under. Families have been speaking to me about their concerns about cuts to the 20 hours of free early childhood education, or whatever the changes might be, and they have told me that they budget carefully every week.

Hon Anne Tolley: 3 weeks.

SUE MORONEY: I tell the Minister that they budget going forward, as well, and I think the Minister needs to understand. I know of families that tell me they have a 2-year-old turning 3 during the course of this year, and they have already budgeted for what they will do when the 2-year-old turns 3, because that child’s childcare arrangements and early childhood education reduce when he or she turns 3.

Hon Anne Tolley: They’ll just have to wait and see.

SUE MORONEY: I say to the Minister that that is not good enough. It really is not good enough, because families are budgeting on a week-by-week basis for what they will spend on food, mortgage repayments or rent, clothing, and childcare and early childhood education. However, all the Minister can say is that “They’ll just have to wait.” Well, I say to the Minister that that is not good enough. And what are they waiting for? They are waiting to be told how this Government will increase the costs to those families. That is what they are waiting for. I say to the Minister that I am sure that they are holding their breath with glee!

When Anne Tolley was National’s spokesperson on education and was on the campaign trail, she promised that there would be no increase in fees, that the fee controls would stay the same.

Hon Anne Tolley: That’s right—for 20 hours.

SUE MORONEY: She also said that there would be no change to the subsidies for early childhood education.

Hon Anne Tolley: Absolutely. For 20 hours.

SUE MORONEY: So she is now giving a guarantee again in this House that there will be no cut to the subsidies for that sector, and that there will be no change to the fee controls. We look forward to that being honoured in the Budget.

The promise has already been broken by her colleague Paula Bennett, the Minister for Social Development and Employment. The subsidy levels for the childcare allowance have already been changed. That will increase the costs of families receiving that allowance. The Minister of Education can use all the weasel words she wants, but she gave the impression to the constituency, and to those parents and families, that a National Government would not tamper with early childhood education. That is the impression they were given. Many of those parents voted for National because they believed it. They trusted National and took it at its word, and those parents will feel betrayed if their costs increase as a result. They will feel betrayed—and justifiably feel betrayed—if their early childhood education costs increase, because that certainly was not the impression that she gave prior to the election. It was certainly not the impression that the current Prime Minister, John Key, gave prior to the election. We look forward to those members honouring that commitment when the Budget comes on 20 May.

It is very difficult to support this bill at its third reading, because Labour members know that it adds costs on to the early childhood education sector, but we do not know what cuts will be made to its funding. It is hard for Labour to be clear that this legislation is doable, practical, and something that the sector can afford.

I was at a conference for early childhood educators earlier today in Christchurch, and already the sector is concerned about its ability to deal with children with special needs and disabilities, because of the lack of resources that already hampers that issue. Representatives of the sector are already saying that, even as things stand now, without any of the National Government’s cuts having been made, they are struggling to resource and to look after children with disabilities and special needs. I heard many troubling stories that, in order to make the resources fit, centres were quite illegally and unlawfully turning away children with special needs and disabilities. That is the situation that the sector already faces. If the Government reduces the sector’s income even further by cutting its funding, not only children with special needs and disabilities will be turned away but also many other children. We are inflicting costs on that sector through the very bill that is before us.

Finally, I want to move briefly from the early childhood education sector to the compulsory education sector. This bill does many things that improve the Government’s ability to make choices to help failing schools. I visited Fraser High School in Hamilton last week. It has been subject to statutory management for just under a year. I was really pleased to hear the school report that it is now about to plan its board of trustees election process so that it can move out of statutory management and back into a situation where the community has control of the school. I congratulate Fraser High School. I know that it will have a tough year, but as a local member of Parliament I am right behind the school to support it in the very tough year that it faces. I wish Fraser High School all the best. I hope that Fairfield College and St Andrews Middle School—it was announced just this week that it is moving to statutory management—which are also in Hamilton, can follow in the footsteps of Fraser High School and work their way towards getting back boards of trustees. Thank you.

CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker Roy. Tēnā koutou. The issues in the Education Amendment Bill have been thoroughly covered in the debate on its previous stages, so I will speak on the context and why the Greens are voting against the bill.

The changes to vetting procedures for people involved in home care, and for tradespeople and others working in schools, are an effort to make the process less onerous. Underneath that is a need to be fair to adults while protecting children. We have only to look at the track record of some institutions, from the churches to some schools, to see that children under so-called care and protection are vulnerable, and that people have taken the opportunity to exploit them. Thus, the Green Party welcomes the measured approach in this bill, but also would like to address this deeper question: why are the vulnerable so often attacked by people with greater power? This phenomenon is greater than a few individuals with sick behaviour. In the 1950s these issues had no names, but we all knew they happened. These days the issues are named, and that is healthy. However, some social attitudes towards children and sexuality and power remain incredibly toxic, as Internet child pornography has comprehensively demonstrated. This bill is fair enough on these issues, and a review of procedures to provide fairness for all is important. We support it.

In terms of data matching, the bill appears to be playing a role of coherent modernisation, and we support that, as well. However, on the matters of corporatisation around statutory managers for failing schools, the term “body corporate”, and the issue of combined boards, the bill is unsatisfactory. Again, the context has to be analysed. The Minister of Education took pains in the Committee stage to explain that the word “corporate” had no sinister intent, and I appreciate that. However, one person’s progressive is somebody else’s Trojan Horse. The Green Party is opposed to the language in clause 22 of Part 1, which confirms the legitimacy of the body corporate governance role. Everything that has happened in this House since the second reading has made us even stronger on this issue, given the direction this Government is taking towards privatisation across the board. This is the major theme I will talk about. It is related to Part 1, and links the Government’s overall educational platform, particularly with reference to its agreement with the ACT Party.

We do not support board combining, because it erodes local community power. We do not support the term “body corporate”, because it is a red light; it is a warning that a Government has an interest in facilitating public-private partnerships—or, as we call them, publicly palatable privatisation—in education as well as in prisons, and who knows in what else. Public-private partnerships are useful to a Government that made a public promise not to privatise State assets but wants to advance by stealth a privatisation agenda. The terms used in clause 22 of this bill have alerted us to the underlying issue, and, given what has happened to prisons, not to mention the axing of public bodies such as Environment Canterbury and the latest Local Government Act amendment bill, it cannot be said that we are being alarmist or extreme in wanting to defend, at every point, public assets in education.

The issue for us is a quality public education system and the gradual encroachment of the private sector. The proposal to allow a private contractor to build a school and thus have a lease is not a new idea. In other countries public-private partnerships have been trialled and have resulted in very mixed outcomes for schools and communities. I met with United Kingdom researcher Dexter Whitfield recently when he was touring with his book Global Auction of Public Assets, in which he talks specifically about the education sector and the effects of public-private partnerships on infrastructure, which relates to the wording in this bill in terms of bodies corporate. Meeting him reminded me of the extent to which this bill is not so much softening up the electorate as much as it is confirming a trend towards a corporate model of education, starting with the confused nightmare of school bus contracting and the experts surrounding teachers who are contractors, instead of teachers themselves, in terms of professional development and educational support. The assumption is that the corporate contractors are more efficient, but as Dexter Whitfield documented, this is not remotely or necessarily true. A corporate organisation has a primary duty to its shareholders. A school in Northern Ireland that sat empty for more than a year because of a dispute with a contractor is a good example of this. Who benefited? It was not the children.

So although the Greens support the improvements made by Labour MPs Trevor Mallard and Grant Robertson, we do not support this bill. We are disappointed that no other party in this House can join the dots and see the links between public-private models, which are being shoehorned into schools, and this bill, as well as what is being force-fed into water management and into prisons. There is a coherent agenda here, and we do not support it. We do not want to be buying back our schools, their buildings, and their governance in the future, like the rail-tracks we have had to buy back as a country. It is a failed model that costs citizens across the board over time. It has been done once; let us not do it again.

We stand by our record of opposing this and we know that somebody will read Hansard in the future and see that the Green Party was signalling the direction that education was going in at every stage, with every bill. We alone have stood up and challenged the erosion of public schools, which is being facilitated by this bill. We reject it. We support the public school system, including kōhanga and kura, for the benefit of all children, to be governed and owned by the public of this country so that Tomorrow’s Schools does not become about corporate schools and a corporate tomorrow, but about the governance of parents, teachers, and kids for the benefit of all students.

Inequity and privatisation are not private matters. They require our critique, as does this bill, and hence our opposition to it. It pains me to vote against the bill, because we thought that many parts of it were sensible. We thought that the select committee process was useful and that the negotiation was useful. We wanted to make amendments that would be practical and we supported the amendments Labour put up, but we have come to the point now where, having seen what happened in the House with water management this week, and having seen what happened to Environment Canterbury under urgency, we refuse to close our eyes and pretend there is not an agenda here that affects education.

Anyone who read the subtext in the Education Forum this week will have seen that public-private partnerships are the agenda.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I never dirtied my mind with that.

CATHERINE DELAHUNTY: I read it because it referred to public-private partnerships and I wanted to see what it said. Then I saw what Bill English said. It is clear what Bill English is thinking. He has made it really clear that he wants to try an experiment; he wants to privatise and see what can be done through that model. It is privatisation by stealth. It means that the Government can keep an election promise and can hoodwink the people of this country that, with bills such as this, nothing is really changing. Actually, things are changing really, really fast, and every little bit of softening up is of concern to us. We stand on the principle that public means public and private means private, and that the middle ground is being co-opted for the benefit of the few and the powerful. In education there is nothing more damaging than the few and the powerful having more rights and resources than children across this country, who deserve the best at all levels.

As it was said in the movie Boy: “Every child”—and that child came from one of the poorest homes—“has potential.” In order to keep that potential we absolutely need our schools not to be governed by corporates, not to be fixed by corporate agendas, but to be governed and fixed by our own initiative as communities and our own educational ethos in the public school system. So the Green Party is proud to be standing up and putting on the record our opposition to this bill. Kia ora koutou.

Hon Sir ROGER DOUGLAS (ACT): I want to make just one or two points on the Education Amendment Bill, and I will certainly not speak for more than 2 or 3 minutes.

I want to make it clear that the ACT Party will be voting for this bill at its third reading. But I want to make it clear, as a member of the Education and Science Committee, where I stand on the issue that Trevor Mallard raised in reference to the validation of some expenditure that King’s High School, in Dunedin, had incurred, and its desire to pay that debt off out of its future capital grants. I believe, irrespective of what the situation is or what the rules are, that the school should be allowed to do this. I think that for three basic reasons: firstly, it will not cost the Government one extra dollar in terms of expenditure; secondly, the Government does not need to spend one dollar earlier than it would otherwise spend it; thirdly, I believe that the board of governors is better equipped, because it is closer to the action, to determine how that money should be spent than some bureaucrat in Wellington. I for one simply cannot understand the attitude that the Ministry of Education takes and why the Minister does not simply tell the ministry to pull its head in.

Debate interrupted.

Voting

Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Bill—ACT Party Votes

DAVID GARRETT (Whip—ACT): I seek the leave of the House for the ACT Party’s votes on the third reading of the Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Bill to be cast as Noes, and for the vote to be recorded in the Journals of the House of Representatives.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy): The provision is set out in Parliamentary Practice in New Zealand by McGee, at page 204. Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there anyone opposed to that course of action? It appears not; the Journals will therefore record that.

Bills

Education Amendment Bill

Third Reading

Debate resumed.

RAHUI KATENE (Māori Party—Te Tai Tonga): I am pleased to take a call on the third reading of the Education Amendment Bill. In many respects this is a catch-up bill, which addresses some legislative loopholes and policy glitches that have arisen from a host of issues raised in the last few years. It is also an opportunity to update certain outdated provisions. In its scope, the bill provides the means to deal with unregistered teachers, incompetent boards, or issues impacting on the safety and well-being of students.

The Māori Party has a keen interest in addressing educational participation and performance, and, as such, supports any initiatives that seek to raise a school’s expectations about the achievements of all of its students. Our focus has been on a range of other measures, such as promoting whānau engagement, reducing teacher-student ratios, increasing professional development for teachers—particularly in cultural competency—and in giving the opportunity to incentivise and reward schools that reduce underachievement and disengagement. In that context, the chance both to improve the safety of children, and to reduce compliance costs for schools, is something that we fully support. We also support any initiatives that create improvements in respect of the well-being and education of students.

The focus of this bill, with regard to the suitability of teachers or other staff for employment in a school, is an important one. We are also pleased that increased scrutiny has been introduced to ensure that non-teaching staff will be vetted before they have unsupervised access to children. These are important safeguards to keep our children safe.

But I want to digress and share with this House a wonderful initiative, as a way of providing a broader context in which to consider this bill. This year a Māori immersion class is being piloted at Dunedin North Intermediate, at the southern end of the Te Tai Tonga electorate. The class, Ka Puanani o te Reo, meets on Tuesdays with one teacher and a resource teacher of Māori to provide an integrated programme around language development, reading, writing, art activities, and music. The distinctive feature of this class is that it is a unique initiative in partnership with whānau, schools, Ngāi Tahu, and the Ministry of Education. But the spirit of cooperation extends even further, reaching out to welcome students from schools right across the Dunedin community.

I wanted to share that initiative because it is an example of schools with a deep commitment to the best interests of their students. It is a model of schools working together. It is a model where success and achievement are intimately linked in the effective participation of all students. So often in this House we focus on failure and flaws rather than on breeding success. It is perhaps timely to consider that in the context of this bill, which tidies up areas of neglect in the current legislation.

Notwithstanding that, I acknowledge that the changes made in this bill are made in response to concerns raised by schools, early childhood education services, contractors, and commentators such as the Children’s Commissioner. We welcome the moves to improve the safety of children, and to reduce compliance costs for schools. We understand that the amendments specifically to do with police vetting have been tested internationally in the United States, England, Canada, and Australia, and have been found to provide an effective safeguard for child safety. It is, however, disappointing to note that although the amendments were discussed with a wide range of education sector organisations—such as the School Trustees Association, the Principals Federation, the Secondary Principals’ Association, the Post Primary Teachers Association, the New Zealand Educational Institute, and the early childhood advisory committee—there were two notable omissions from the consultation process: Te Kōhanga Reo National Trust and Te Rūnanganui o ngā Kura Kaupapa Māori o Aotearoa. Legislative changes that impact positively on the well-being and education of students, including those about the suitability of teachers or other staff for employment at a school, are of utmost importance to all schools, and that includes schools in Māori immersion settings.

Finally, I support the intention of the bill to promote an expectation that registered teachers will be teaching, and that responsible people will be working in close proximity to children. The Māori Party is happy to support this bill.

NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central): I rise to speak on the Education Amendment Bill. I acknowledge the Minister of Education for bringing this bill to the House. I will briefly mention that I support this bill because it ensures that the children of New Zealand are safer, and it reduces compliance costs. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour): I rise to speak to the third reading of the Education Amendment Bill. I note three points, of which two are in the bill and one is missing. The two items in the bill that I wish to draw attention to, which Labour supports completely, relate to the provisions on police vetting and the provision relating to information matching between the New Zealand Teachers Council and the Ministry of Education to identify individuals teaching in schools without registration. Both items go to the heart of the quality of teaching in schools and the safety of the students who receive that teaching. So both items are critical.

The third item, however, is absent from the bill. I am sorry for that. The Labour Government had proposed an Education Amendment Bill (No 3).

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 6 p.m.