Volume 662 Week 39 - Tuesday 20 April 2010 
Volume 662 Week 39 - Tuesday 20 April 2010 
[Volume:662;Page:10227] 
Tuesday 20 April 2010 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Obituaries 
James Gladstone (Jim) Edwards 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I regret to inform the House of the death on 5 April 2010 of James Gladstone (Jim) Edwards QSM who represented the electorate of Napier from 1954 to 1966. I desire on behalf of this House to express our sense of the loss we have sustained and our sympathy with the relatives of the late former member. I now ask members to stand with me and observe a period of silence as a mark of respect for his memory. 
Honourable members stood as a mark of respect. 
Motions 
Poland—Death of President Lech Kaczynski and Other Dignitaries 
Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 I seek leave to move a motion without notice on the recent plane crash that claimed the lives of the Polish President and other dignitaries. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There is none. 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: I move  
That the House express its sympathy and concern to the people of Poland following the recent plane crash that claimed the lives of the Polish President and other dignitaries 
. On 10 April 2010 Polish President Lech Kaczynski his wife and many respected senior Government officials lost their lives in a place crash in western Russia. The presidential party was on its way to commemorations for the 70th anniversary of the massacre of some 22000 Polish officers during World War II. The sudden passing of 96 people is a tragedy for Poland. It has been deeply felt by the Polish people and by the Polish community in New Zealand. President Kaczynski was admired for his strong leadership and commitment to his country and he will be greatly missed.  
The New Zealand Government extends its condolences and thoughts to the Polish people as they grieve. We cherish our warm relationship and the values we share with Poland. Many of the senior Government figures and officials who died had met New Zealand Ministers and had assisted in furthering ties between our two countries. Some had links to the New Zealand Polish community.  
New Zealand’s acceptance of more than 700 Polish orphans in 1944 who were known as the Pahiatua children holds a special resonance in both countries. Some of the officials who lost their lives had worked with our Government on celebrations and book publications for the Pahiatua children. Last September the Minister of Veterans’ Affairs Judith Collins visited Poland to mark the 70th anniversary of the start of World War II. Her visit shows the strong links between our two countries. When the Germans invaded Poland’s Baltic coast in 1939 at the beginning of World War II New Zealand did not hesitate to respond. About 140000 New Zealanders served overseas during that war.  
There has been an outpouring of grief throughout Poland since this tragic plane crash. Our thoughts and heartfelt sympathy are with the people of Poland as they mourn the loss of so many lives. 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 The Labour Party extends its deepest sympathy to the people and the Government of Poland as they mourn the loss of not only President Kaczynski and his wife Maria but also 94 other Polish leaders killed tragically in that plane crash. The tragedy took place as those leaders were flying to Russia to commemorate the 70th anniversary of the massacre by the Soviet secret police in 1940 of the Polish officer corps. Some 22000 Polish officers were massacred at that time which has left a lasting and deeply traumatic impact on the people of Poland. For this tragedy to occur on the same day 70 years later adds to that trauma. The loss not only of their President and his wife but also of 15 parliamentarians heads of the armed services independence and Solidarity leaders and in fact the last leader-in-exile from the Second World War has had a deep impact on the Polish people. It truly has been a time of national mourning a time when Polish people from all sectors of the community have come together to grieve and to comfort one another. 
I also extend my sympathy to members of the Polish community in New Zealand. I have a very special connection with that community: my sister-in-law is the daughter of two Polish refugees from the 1940s. I know that the president of the Polish Association in New Zealand Eric Lepionka and the association’s members are feeling this tragedy very deeply. We extend our sympathies to them and to the Polish Ambassador and her family. 
I acknowledge that this comes against a background of suffering by people in Poland who for centuries have been the victims of oppression by large countries to their west and to their east. I acknowledge also the courage of the Polish people in their fight for democracy and freedom. The one positive thing that may come from this tragedy is the warming of the relationship between the people of Russia and Poland as they together mourn the loss of the people who were killed. Our sympathy and our thoughts are with the Polish people today. 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 The Green Party extends its deepest condolences to the people of Poland for the loss of their President Lech Kaczynski in this terrible accident. Mr Kaczynski was an important leader for his people and his country and will be sadly missed. 
This tragedy seems particularly cruel in that the people of Poland have lost not only their President but also their First Lady and many outstanding individuals who served in the Polish Government. Such sudden and tragic loss of life is hard to comprehend and we support the people and the Government of Poland as they come to terms with what has happened. 
We send our thoughts to Polish New Zealanders and others here with close connections to Poland and acknowledge the impact that this event will have had on them and to the families and loved ones of all 96 people who lost their lives we send our sincerest aroha and love. Kia kaha. Kia ora. 
Hon RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 On behalf of the ACT Party I rise with the other parties in this Parliament to extend our condolences to the people of Poland to Polish people everywhere and to the families who lost loved ones. Lech Kaczynski made it his life’s work to fight for the thing we value most in this place: democracy. 
Does my voice sound like it is in a bottle? 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Yes it does. 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: I will hand over to the Maori Party and will wait to see whether the sound system can be fixed. I do not want to drive everyone nuts. 
Hon TARIANA TURIA (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 The Maori Party stands to share in the collective sorrow of the House as we pay our respects to the people of Poland in their homeland and to the many who have come to call Aotearoa home. This was a national tragedy beyond all proportion. The death of top Polish political and military officials including the President Lech Kacyznski his wife Maria and 94 others has been described as Poland’s worst tragedy since World War II. 
There is poignant irony in the fact that the fatal journey taken by those senior leaders was en route to the 70th anniversary of another severe tragedy in that nation’s memory. As the news filtered through of the tragic plane crash associations were quickly made to the events of 70 years ago when an estimated 22000 prisoners held in Soviet internment camps were murdered under the instruction of Stalin. The senior members of the Polish bureaucracy and the President were travelling to a memorial service in the Katyn Forest to remember and mourn for the lives of those lost 70 years prior. 
There has been no question of the depth of the nation’s grief as we observe the streets of Warsaw lined with thousands of mourners the candles flickering and the simple placards with photographs of the 94 victims who lost their lives. Each simple wreath of flowers reminds us of the personal dimensions to this tragedy. We feel a close association in our own world through the simple placement of a condolence book in Parliament. We have seen the people come to cry to pay their respects and to remember. 
And so our statement is simply one of peoples reaching across the world to others. We pay our respects to the families the children taken before their time families who were robbed of parents and grandparents. May they all rest in peace. 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 United Future joins with the other parties that have spoken in this debate to express sympathy and sorrow on the death of President Lech Kacyznski and his party on route to the Katyn massacre commemorations in western Russia recently. 
It is very hard for us to comprehend the magnitude of a tragedy that takes out in one fell swoop as it were virtually the entire infrastructure of a nation. The looks of grief that my colleague referred to and the shock and horror on the faces of the people of Warsaw and other cities as they have come to grips with that bring home I think the enormity of what has happened the high regard in which the president was held by his people and in many senses the historic suffering of the people of Poland. In this country we have our own history with the Pahiatua children the Prime Minister referred to. 
Poland in many senses has always been at the forefront of international suffering; the irony of the massacre being that it took place on the day on which this tragedy occurred. The president played an important part in Poland’s liberation from communism in the early 1980s. All these things add up to an image of a country that was starting to flourish as a centre of culture and democracy and a real haven for its people in a way that perhaps had not been the case for a long period of time. So the tragedy is a doubly serious one for the people. I simply want to put on record my condolences and my sympathy with the people of Poland the Polish community in New Zealand and all those who have been affected by this tragedy. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Before I put the question I must apologise to members that their ability to speak in the House has been compromised by the sound system playing up. I apologise to members. I take it very seriously when a member’s ability to speak is affected. 
Motion agreed to. 
Ministerial Statements 
UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples—Government Support 
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I wish to make a ministerial statement under Standing Order 347 relating to New Zealand’s endorsement of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. I seek leave for members to be allowed a slight and reasonable extension on their contributions beyond the 5 minutes envisaged in the Standing Orders if so required. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There is no objection. 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: This morning at 4.45 New Zealand time 12.45 p.m. New York time the Minister of Maori Affairs the Hon Dr Pita Sharples appeared before the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues and announced New Zealand’s support for the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples as follows. 
“Hei te tini hei te mano e rau rangatira ma tena koutou tena koutou tena koutou katoa.” 
[ 
To the very many the indefinitely large number and to the leaders of a hundredfold greetings greetings and greetings to you all 
.]  
“In September 2007 at the United Nations 143 countries voted in favour of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. New Zealand was one of four countries that voted against the Declaration. 
Today New Zealand changes its position: we are pleased to express our support for the Declaration. 
In keeping with our strong commitment to human rights and indigenous rights in particular New Zealand now adds its support to the Declaration both as an affirmation of fundamental rights and in its expression of new and widely supported aspirations. 
Maori hold a distinct and special status as the indigenous people or tangata whenua of New Zealand. Indigenous rights and indigenous culture are of profound importance to New Zealand and fundamental to our identity as a nation. A unique feature of our constitutional arrangements is the Treaty of Waitangi signed by representatives of the Crown and Maori in 1840. It is a founding document of New Zealand and marks the beginning of our rich cultural heritage. The Treaty establishes a foundation of partnership mutual respect co-operation and good faith between Maori and the Crown. It holds great importance in our laws constitutional arrangements and the work of successive governments. 
The Declaration contains principles that are consistent with the duties and principles inherent in the Treaty such as operating in the spirit of partnership and mutual respect. We affirm this objective and affirm the Government’s commitment to build and maintain constructive relationships with Maori to achieve better results for Maori which will benefit New Zealand as a whole. 
The Declaration is an historic achievement: the result of many years of discussions—22 years in fact—and of hard work and perseverance by many people. I acknowledge the long involvement of Maori in the elaboration of the Declaration and the extent of their investment in its development. 
The Declaration acknowledges the distinctive and important status of indigenous peoples their common historical experiences and the universal spirit that underpins its text. The Declaration is an affirmation of accepted international human rights and also expresses new and non-binding aspirations. 
In moving to support the Declaration New Zealand both affirms those rights and reaffirms the legal and constitutional frameworks that underpin New Zealand’s legal system. Those existing frameworks while they will continue to evolve in accordance with New Zealand’s domestic circumstances define the bounds of New Zealand’s engagement with the aspirational elements of the Declaration. 
In particular where the Declaration sets out aspirations for rights to and restitution of traditionally held land and resources New Zealand has through its well-established processes for resolving Treaty claims developed its own distinct approach. 
That approach respects the important relationship that Maori as tangata whenua have with their lands and resources both currently and historically and the complementary principles of rangatiratanga and kaitiakitanga that underpin that relationship. It also maintains and will continue to maintain the existing legal regimes for the ownership and management of land and natural resources. 
New Zealand acknowledges and understands the historic injustices suffered by Maori in relation to their land and resources and is committed to addressing these through the established Treaty settlement process. Many Maori groups have already benefited from the transfer of considerable land forest and fishery assets through negotiated Treaty settlements; many more are in the process of negotiations with the Government towards settling their claims. These settlements contribute to the re-establishment of an economic base as a platform for future development. Redress offered in Treaty settlements is however constrained by the need to be fair to everyone and by what the country as a whole can afford to pay. 
Further where the Declaration sets out principles for indigenous involvement in decision-making New Zealand has developed and will continue to rely upon its own distinct processes and institutions that afford opportunities to Maori for such involvement. These range from broad guarantees of participation and consultation to particular instances in which a requirement of consent is appropriate. 
In those processes and institutions we acknowledge that our ongoing national dialogue is grounded in the Treaty of Waitangi. We further recognise that Maori have an interest in all policy and legislative matters and acknowledge the determination of Maori that custom worldviews and cultural heritage should be reflected in the laws and policies of New Zealand. Maori have been and continue to be active in developing innovative responses to issues with a strong indigenous perspective and engaging with successive governments on possible paths forward. 
We will continue that conversation within the relationship that the Treaty and New Zealand’s constitution as a whole afford. Further we will continue to work in international fora to promote the human rights of indigenous peoples. New Zealand acknowledges the ongoing process of dialogue and debate over the meanings that may be given to the aspirations put forward by the Declaration. 
New Zealand’s support for the Declaration represents an opportunity to acknowledge and restate the special cultural and historical position of Maori as the original inhabitants—the tangata whenua—of New Zealand. It reflects our continuing endeavours to work together to find solutions and underlines the importance of the relationship between Maori and the Crown under the Treaty of Waitangi. Its affirmation of longstanding rights supports and safeguards that ongoing relationship and its proclamation of new aspirations give us all encouragement and inspiration for the future. No reira tena koutou tena koutou tena koutou katoa.” 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Before I call the next member I will give members guidance as to how I intend to interpret the leave granted by the House. The Government Minister took 2 minutes more than the norm in making his address to the House; I propose that the parties that would normally have 5 minutes to speak have up to 7 minutes should they choose to use it and that the parties that would normally have 2 minutes to speak have up to 3 minutes should they choose to use it. 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato) 
: 
 E nga mana e nga reo e nga karangatanga maha tena koutou. Nga mema o tenei Whare tenei te mihi atu ki a koutou. On behalf of the Labour Party I rise to speak to the decision of the National-led Government to ratify the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and to recognise the symbolism of this gesture amongst indigenous peoples—in particular the tangata whenua here in Aotearoa New Zealand. History has shown that Maori as tangata whenua have continued to assert and uphold their identity rights and interests against a varied historical background. Much of that determination has been against a backdrop of conflict sheer grit misunderstanding and tenacity. With the passage of time and with political effort—and engagement with hapu iwi and Maori—New Zealand has evolved as a nation and has a record that is second to none in the forum of indigenous rights. Yes indeed the Treaty of Waitangi is the founding document of our nation. 
The fourth Labour Government established the Waitangi Tribunal with the specific intention of ensuring that a domestic process for resolving historical grievances could commence. The Treaty settlement process emanated from that first step and we continue to support the process of direct negotiation as a means of rectifying past wrongs and moving forward together. It was with regret that in 2007 the Labour Government was unable to sign the declaration. We believed that it deserved to receive more than a lip-service approach. In particular there were inconsistencies between the text and New Zealand’s constitutional and legal framework that would be difficult to overturn while retaining the fabric of what our society is working towards. We believed then as we do now that upon signing such a declaration there has to be a genuine attempt to implement the articles that build the spirit rights and interests of indigenous peoples. Many of the 143 countries that originally signed the declaration had no intention of implementing it. In Labour we are proud to say what we mean and to do what we say. 
This document is not a time for window dressing empty promises or hollow gains. If the National Government is serious about this declaration and about realising its aspirations then why has it been signed under a veil of secrecy? More important—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member must be heard. 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA 
: More important why have New Zealanders been prevented from participating in a debate on an issue that has a profound impact on the future that we see for this country? Why is the Prime Minister not making this announcement in the House? The Government has taken care to recognise that this document is aspirational and non-binding an approach that should weigh heavily on the efforts of those people who wanted the declaration to be a strong platform for the continued assertion of indigenous rights. 
Labour continues to hold reservations about articles in the declaration that appear to be inconsistent with domestic solutions that recognise New Zealand’s unique history and legal and constitutional— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I apologise for interrupting the honourable member. When members interject in response to something that a member is saying I have no problem with that. But when interjections are being carried out across the back of the House that have nothing to do with what the member is saying that is totally unacceptable. I ask members on both sides of the House to desist from that. 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA 
: We continue to hold reservations about articles that appear to be inconsistent with domestic solutions that recognise New Zealand’s unique history and legal and constitutional structures. Those are articles 19 and 32 which imply a power of veto over the State. In addition to this the Government has given no indication as to whether it has reconsidered the nature of property rights as implied by articles 26 and 28. 
We put these matters on the table simply to draw the attention of the House to the aspects that have in broad forms robust debate in our communities and for which the Government should be accountable. At least one Government MP is promoting tupuna title; it may be a closer reality now that the declaration has been signed. The Government should be upfront and respond on that matter so that everyone can see the kind of aspirational non-binding symbolism that has been recognised today. In recognising this and other matters concerning the declaration Labour will continue to advocate in a real and meaningful way for the rights and interests of tangata whenua today and tomorrow. Maori know too well that our most durable solutions can be achieved at a domestic level here in Aotearoa New Zealand. No reira tena koutou tena koutou tena koutou katoa. 
METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 The Green Party is committed to a society that is prosperous sustainable and equitable that treats all people in our community fairly and that is premised on the recognition of Te Tiriti o Waitangi and the rights of Maori as tangata whenua in Aotearoa. And so we welcome the announcement that Aotearoa New Zealand is finally recognising the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. It has been Green Party policy for many years and we are very pleased that it is at last happening. We consider the declaration to be the minimum international standard for the protection of indigenous communities around the globe and their right their entitlement to self-determination. The concept of self-determination is protected in the UN charter for people; indigenous communities are people too. 
This battle has been going on for 20-odd years and I acknowledge and pay respect to the Maori Party—to Tariana Turia to Pita Sharples and their team—which has managed to pressure a National Government into recognising the agreement. Kia ora! The declaration recognises— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: No pressure! 
METIRIA TUREI 
: No pressure! 
Hon Tau Henare 
: We just did the right thing. 
METIRIA TUREI 
: Yup! The declaration recognises and helps to protect the rights of Maori and it is great to see that progress is being made. The struggle to have the declaration recognised has been going on for a very long time and I pay tribute to all of those others in the Maori community who have fought long and hard and have been very active on this issue—to name a few Moana Jackson Aroha Mead and Nganeko Minhinnick. Others too whom Tariana Turia has referred to today fought hard for this declaration to be recognised but they have died in the intervening years. We pay our respects to all of them and to their whanau for their commitment to the declaration. 
It is an achievement particularly worthy of celebration because of course John Key’s Government has been very hostile to the development of iwi and hapu rights since—[ 
Interruption 
] They do not like it do they. We need only consider John Key’s opposition to Maori having seats on the Auckland super-city council for example. It is all right to recognise a UN declaration but it is not OK to give Maori decision-making capacity on the council of our biggest city in this country! I think the National Government has agreed to recognise the declaration only because it continues to assert that here at home iwi and hapu interests must remain subservient to those of the Government. We heard that from Murray McCully on the radio this morning. The whole idea of placing restrictions or caveats on the declaration is certainly the wrong message to be sending on what should be a day of celebration. The declaration was already watered down to meet the needs of States and it does not need to be watered down any further by a National Government hostile to Maori interests. 
One of the main objections to recognising the declaration particularly from the previous Labour Government in the last few years has been the desire to amend it to make it consistent with New Zealand’s domestic law and we have heard that again today. Of course one of the problems with this is that iwi and hapu rights under Te Tiriti o Waitangi do not have constitutional protection in New Zealand law which is unlike the position of some other indigenous communities who do have that protection in their own States. We can see the result of the lack of that protection in our domestic law in Labour’s foreshore and seabed legislation which took away Maori rights and secondly in National’s foreshore proposal which simply mimics what Labour did—it makes no changes. 
But none the less we acknowledge that the struggle for recognition of Maori rights continues despite which party might be in Government. Today is a good day for Maori and for all New Zealanders. Our status as one of only three countries in the world not to sign the declaration was an ongoing source of shame for us in the international community and of course here at home. We have an obligation to act as responsible global citizens. New Zealand’s failure to support the declaration left many millions of indigenous people around the world without a framework for the protection of their basic human rights—their human rights as indigenous peoples their human rights as indigenous collectives. New Zealand has made a small step—a small step—but none the less a step towards supporting and protecting those vulnerable communities around the globe. This declaration gives our country another tool to work through the issues of colonisation and to help create a fair society based on Te Tiriti o Waitangi. I congratulate the Maori Party on its success. Kia ora. 
Hon RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 Mr Speaker—[ 
Interruption 
] I wonder whether I can move to another seat. I am in your hands Mr Speaker as to where I can speak from. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I ask members to be reasonable. There is a difficulty with the microphones in that quarter of the House. The member can speak from any seat at all and I ask members to be reasonable about that. If the member relocates to a seat that is reasonably convenient let us see whether we can get the sound system working properly. 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: The ACT Party is both shocked and appalled to find itself supporting a Government that has covertly given recognition to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The declaration asserts that Maori have rights and privileges not enjoyed by other New Zealanders. The declaration is the very antithesis of ACT’s policy of one law for all New Zealanders. It is the antithesis of the policy that we should have one law regardless of people’s religion their race the colour of their skin their ethnicity their culture or indeed their degree of indigeneity. The declaration is divisive and is a further step for New Zealand down the path towards being a divided nation. The declaration clearly splits New Zealand into two rather than bringing New Zealand together as one. 
The UN declaration sets us up to enable foreigners from the UN to come to New Zealand to pontificate and to criticise New Zealand’s race relations policies laws and processes. For these and for other reasons the former Prime Minister Helen Clark refused to ratify the declaration. At the time the Hon Parekura Horomia said that the declaration was incompatible with New Zealand’s laws and democratic processes and that it ignored reality and would be difficult to implement. Helen Clark and Parekura Horomia were both right. 
I am very disappointed that the Prime Minister John Key has covertly foisted the declaration on New Zealand and I consider the statement that the recognition of this declaration has no practical effect to be naive in the extreme. I am very disappointed that the Prime Minister has failed to honour our no-surprises policy set out in the ACT-National confidence and supply agreement. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The honourable member has had the additional time that I—[ 
Interruption 
] It may have escaped honourable members’ attention but I am on my feet. I gave members a fair indication of how I intended to interpret the leave granted by the House. The member has had just over the extra minute of time to make his statement in response to the ministerial statement. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. There are two points I would like to raise with you. Firstly I would like an assurance that Mr Hide’s time was not truncated by his musical chairs arrangement. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I can assure the honourable member that I allowed extra time for that. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: There was a lot of interjection on the member as he was not speaking from his normal seat in the House. I seek leave for an additional 2 minutes to be given to Mr Hide to make his contribution. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for an additional 2 minutes to be granted to the member. Is there any objection to that course of action? There is objection. 
RAHUI KATENE (Maori Party—Te Tai Tonga) 
: 
 This morning in our early dawn over in New York more than 2000 indigenous people rose to their feet to give a rousing ovation for the historic decision of New Zealand to support the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Immediately the wires were hot proclaiming that New Zealand backs indigenous rights. It is time now to celebrate to consolidate and to be proud to stand alongside some 143 other nations throughout the world that are prepared to back indigenous peoples. 
Today is a historic day on which we finally right the wrong that was done on 14 September 2007: the previous Labour Government’s bizarre decision to oppose a declaration that at its very essence sets a minimum standard of human rights for indigenous peoples. Today is a day on which we mihi to those champions—the indigenous advocates the Maori leaders activists and academics who have devoted so much of their time and resources to achieving the outlawing of discrimination against indigenous peoples. We think of all those who have passed on before experiencing this incredible moment: Erihapeti Rehu-Murchie Alec Kaihau and Dame Mira Szaszy. We think of those of our people who have lived with the declaration for nigh on 22 years: Nganeko Minhinnick who was there at the very beginning; Aroha Mead; and Moana Jackson who was the chair of the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues for 5 important years. We also recognise our own Hone Harawira who has been such a passionate advocate within the larger movement. Many more people in our thoughts today can claim the success as theirs and can be proud that they have stood tall to support the rights of indigenous peoples to maintain and strengthen their institutions cultures and traditions. We join with people who have been sending emails all day who are celebrating this day and who are so happy about this day. We congratulate the Government on taking this important step. 
This is a very important day for our Parliament. We are somewhat surprised however that an issue has been raised about how the declaration sits within domestic laws. This was a statement built into the text of the declaration when it was adopted in 2007 by way of article 46 so it is a non-issue. I also say that the previous Labour Government had its chance to water down the declaration and it took every chance that it could to water it down. The only thing Labour regrets is that it was not able to water it down any further. 
This is a day for celebration a day when Aotearoa is proud to move forward on the path of justice dignity and fundamental freedoms for all. 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Leader—Progressive) 
: 
 We are told that there was a standing ovation for Pita Sharples’ speech from members of the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues. I wonder whether the following countries stood up and whether Pita Sharples noticed: Zimbabwe Ethiopia Fiji Iran Israel Burma Rwanda and Somalia. We do not need in this country any lessons from countries like those on how to treat indigenous peoples. We need no lessons whatever. It is egregious for the Prime Minister and others to crawl to the likes of that forum with that membership and to tell us that things will change. Nothing will change. These are just idle words that mean nothing whatsoever. New Zealand has done more for the indigenous peoples of this country than all of those countries have done put together twice over. We did not need any lessons from the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues to do that. New Zealand is honoured around the world for the way in which it introduced Waitangi Tribunal resolutions and the way in which we have settled grievances with the indigenous people of this country. For us to seek the solace of countries like those on that list and many more makes me ashamed of the Parliament of this country. It makes me ashamed that we would debate with some kind of glee the fact that we received a standing ovation at the UN from countries like those. 
Let me say that New Zealand is already widely acknowledged as a world leader in recognising such rights and it has a longstanding process through the Waitangi Tribunal for putting that recognition into practical effect to the very real advantage of righting past injustices of the Maori indigenous people of this country. The UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples on the other hand is simply an expression of pious hopes without any necessary practical effect whatever. It has no practical effect; it is not binding. In fact Mr Power the Minister of Justice told Parliament that the Government is considering the different meanings of the aspirational text. Well which meaning did the Government sign up to? Did it not know? Has the Government read it? Does it know what it means? The answer to all those questions is no. It has nothing to do with it. It is to do with the deal between National and the Maori Party to get the Maori Party to run alongside the Government. 
It is idle for the Maori Party to claim some kind of great triumph for getting the countries I mentioned earlier to stand up. The Maori Party should be ashamed of itself for thinking that this declaration is some kind of triumph. It is part of the agony that we have to watch and see this take place. 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 There is an extraordinary irony in this debate on the rights of indigenous people. Over the years in this House on many occasions we have had discussions about United Nation conventions and the very people who today are standing up to decry this decision have in the past lauded agreements like the international convention that outlaws political discrimination and the conventions on the rights of women the rights of children and the ending of racial discrimination. Those members said it was our responsibility as good international citizens to be part of those causes and part of the institution that New Zealand was proud to be in the vanguard of establishing: the United Nations. Now today when the rights of indigenous people are up for discussion and when a number of basic democratic rights that all of us take for granted will be conferred on them we start to see games being played. 
This decision does not impact upon New Zealand’s domestic law in any way. It is an aspirational decision in the same way that all of the other conventions to which I made reference also are. The point is that New Zealand puts its mark alongside those of other countries in saying we believe that the rights of indigenous people in this instance have some validity and ought to be recognised. It is interesting to note that as a result of today’s decision only the United States and one other country—Canada I think although I am not sure about that—have yet to sign the convention. If we are so out of step with other nations as Mr Anderton said we are why is it that today only the United States and Canada are yet to join the international community in recognising the rights of their indigenous people? 
This country has a proud record of upholding and of being part of United Nation’s decisions. This is one more step in that line of progress and should simply be viewed as such. I find it richly ironic that those who have for so long held up the UN as a vanguard and as a mantle now turn round when it comes to honouring the rights of our indigenous people to say this decision is irresponsible dangerous and unacceptable. 
Personal Explanations 
Canterbury Water Management—Minister of Agriculture’s Involvement 
Hon DAVID CARTER (Minister of Agriculture) 
: 
 I seek leave of the House under Standing Order 349 to make a personal explanation with regard to a number of claims made in this House about my involvement in Canterbury water issues. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: On 31 March and 1 April certain incorrect claims were made in this House in relation to Canterbury water issues. This is the earliest opportunity I have had to address these allegations. 
Firstly it was claimed that I stood to benefit financially if the proposed Hurunui irrigation project went ahead. This claim is untrue. There is an existing historical consent to irrigate approximately 40 hectares of my 1700-hectare Cat Hill property from the Hurunui River. This consent was transferred to me when I bought the property approximately 4 years ago. It has not changed since and I have no intention of applying for more water in the future. If the Hurunui irrigation project proceeds it will have no impact on the existing historical consent. The Cat Hill property cannot be further irrigated. Therefore I do not stand to benefit financially as Russel Norman stated. 
The issue of minimum flow restrictions is irrelevant. In the entire time the consent has been in my name the minimum flow rate restrictions which have triggered at 10 cubic metres per second have never been in place. To claim therefore that I stand to gain some financial benefit due to a greater certainty around these minimum flow rates is simply untenable. 
Russel Norman then claimed that I had inappropriately intervened in the Hurunui water conservation order process. This is also incorrect. Last year in conjunction with the Hurunui mayor Garry Jackson and Bede O’Malley chair of the Canterbury Water Management Strategy steering group I discussed with all parties involved in the Hurunui water conservation order process the possibility of trying to reach a consensus solution but only after reserving their right to appeal to the Environment Court. 
This collaborative approach was undertaken with all parties in an attempt to avoid the combative and expensive court process and it reflects the approach recommended by the Canterbury Water Management Strategy. All parties were initially positive about this approach but subsequently some withdrew support and decided to proceed with Environment Court action. 
Finally I would like to address my answer to written question No. 14809. The question was received in conjunction with 19 other very similar written questions from Russel Norman. In the context of these other questions I interpreted— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is with some regret that I interrupt a personal explanation but this has now gone to the point where the Minister is explaining a ministerial response—an answer to a question to a Minister—and that cannot be a personal explanation. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: If I am allowed to carry on for another minute I think it would explain the situation completely to the satisfaction of Mr Mallard. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The point of order the member has raised relates to making a personal explanation about an answer given to a question. Were the question being technically corrected by a Minister the member would have a fair point. I do not know exactly what the Minister will say but if it is about how it relates to him personally then I think it is in order. I will allow the member to continue. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: Written question No. 14809 was received in conjunction with 19 very similar written questions from Russel Norman. In the context of these other questions I interpreted written question No. 14809 as asking whether I had discussed with any parties the suggestion of not appealing to the Environment Court. This was certainly not the case as I had urged all parties to lodge an appeal to protect their position in the interim until a consensus solution could be reached. Therefore I answered “No.” to the question. 
In hindsight I can appreciate that that answer was not as clear as it possibly could have been and I apologise for any confusion that it may have caused. However as I have explained I entirely refute all allegations made by Russel Norman in this House on 31 March and 1 April. Thank you. 
Questions to Ministers 
UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples—Government Support 
1. 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does he stand by his statement “New Zealand takes its international obligations seriously and does not support texts unless we are able to implement them”? 
Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Are there are any articles in the text that his Government signed up to this morning that he is not able or is unwilling to implement? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: I think it is important to understand that the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is just that—it is a declaration. It is not a treaty it is not a covenant and one does not actually sign up to it. It is an expression of aspiration; it will have no impact on New Zealand law and no impact on the constitutional framework. What is more the advice we had from Crown Law was that whether or not New Zealand affirmed it in areas where we do not have law or constitutional arrangements already the declaration could be imported already and that people have already tried to do so so affirming it would have no effect whatsoever. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: As the Prime Minister has told this House that he does not sign up to texts unless he intends to implement them within the text that he signed up to this morning does he intend to implement wholly or partially articles 19 26 or 32? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: We did not sign up to anything; we affirmed a declaration that is non-binding and aspirational. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: In saying he did not sign up to anything this morning does that confirm that what he signed up to is totally meaningless? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: No. The reality is that New Zealand has a very proud record when it comes to indigenous rights and for New Zealand not to have affirmed the declaration when Crown Law’s advice was quite clear that this was a non-binding aspirational goal that would have no impact on New Zealand’s law or New Zealand’s constitution looked to me to be a bit churlish. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Which of his Ministers was correct this morning: his Minister of Maori Affairs Pita Sharples who said this signature came without caveats; or his Minister of Foreign Affairs who said it came with caveats? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: Both of them are correct. I would not describe the statement made in reading the affirmation to the declaration as being a caveat but it clearly spells out that it is a non-binding aspirational goal that does not supersede New Zealand’s law or New Zealand’s constitutional arrangements. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Why did he breach his no-surprises agreement with his coalition partner Rodney Hide by covertly agreeing to sign up to this text without telling him or the rest of New Zealand first? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: For a start it is a bit hard to do things covertly when we put out a press release to say we were doing it. That is the first thing. The second thing is that for quite some time I have been saying the Government was working towards this including as late as last week when I said: “From New Zealand’s perspective it is true we have been working and looking at ways we might adopt the declaration. Progress is being made and I am happy with that progress.” 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: Does his Government support article 26 of the declaration which states: “… Indigenous peoples have the right to the lands territories and resources which they have traditionally owned occupied or otherwise used or acquired.”; if so can he tell the House which parts of New Zealand or which natural resource were not traditionally owned occupied or otherwise used or acquired by Maori before European settlement? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: We support that only where it is consistent with the Treaty of Waitangi. I might add that last year Australia affirmed the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples as has the vast majority of the world. The last time that I looked the indigenous people of Australia were not taking control of the entire country nor were other indigenous peoples around the world. It is a non-binding aspirational goal. Where it is consistent with the Treaty of Waitangi Maori will have their lands. 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister did not address my question. It was not about Australia and it was not about whether endorsing the declaration was aspirational or non-binding. My question was about whether his Government supports article 26. Then I asked if the Government did support that which parts were not already owned occupied or used by Maori before European settlement. None of that was addressed. It had nothing to do with Australia. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member has raised a finely balanced point of order. My interpretation of the Prime Minister’s answer was that he was pointing out that the article has no binding effect; therefore it cannot alter who owns what in New Zealand at all. The member still has a further supplementary question. If he wishes to dig deeper into that issue I think he can do so with that further supplementary question. 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Actually we do not have a further supplementary question because Mr Boscawen has a question for oral answer. But the point is that whether or not the declaration is binding this was a serious question about whether the Government supports the article. It was not about whether the declaration is binding or whether Australia did this or that; it was about whether the Government supports article 26. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member makes a fair point. I invite him to state his question again and give the Prime Minister a chance to answer it. 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: Does his Government support article 26 of the declaration which says: “… Indigenous peoples have the right to the lands territories and resources which they have traditionally owned occupied or otherwise used or acquired.”; if so can he tell the House which parts of New Zealand or which natural resource were not traditionally owned occupied or otherwise used or acquired by Maori before European settlement? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: Only where it is consistent with the Treaty of Waitangi. That is exactly the process when people go through a Treaty claim. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Was Dr Sharples correct when he said the decision to sign the text was made weeks ago by Cabinet; if so why was no announcement made why were the media not informed of Dr Sharples’ impending trip—other than Maori Television—and why was the event taken out of the ministerial diary of events? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: If he said “signed” then he cannot be right because one does not sign the declaration; one affirms it. 
Rahui Katene 
: Is there any sense of how New Zealand’s decision to support the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples has been received on the international stage? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: Yes. The statement of Mr Carlos Mamani chair of the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues is extremely positive. Mr Mamani said that in declaring its support for the declaration “ … the Government of New Zealand has reaffirmed the principles of respect non-discrimination and good faith enshrined in the Declaration. The Permanent Forum looks forward to continuing its engagement with the Government of New Zealand in a spirit of cooperation in order to advance the rights of indigenous peoples in New Zealand and around the world.” 
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: How will the signing of this text contribute in any practical way to resolving problems that face Maori in New Zealand today? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: In a practical sense there is much more likely to be advanced results in that regard when it comes to Whanau Ora. I look forward to the Opposition supporting that. 
Rahui Katene 
: What does he think will be the consequences for the international reputation of New Zealand of headlines such as the one from  
Metro News  
in Canada: “New Zealand reverses opposition to UN Declaration on indigenous rights US reviewing stance” or the one from AFP at the United Nations stating simply: “New Zealand backs indigenous rights”? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: I think the reaction will be very positive. That really is the point about New Zealand affirming the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. New Zealand has a very proud record. It has nothing to be ashamed of in this area. We have a strong legal basis and constitutional framework. I cannot see why New Zealand would not want to be there affirming on the world stage that we care about the rights of indigenous people. 
Superannuation—Effect of Government Policy on Movement of Rates 
2. 
CRAIG FOSS (National—Tukituki) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What impact has Government policy had on recent movements in New Zealand superannuation rates? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 Since 1 October 2008 a combination of tax cuts and other adjustments has seen superannuation payments increase significantly. In that time the single rate for a person living alone went from $571 a fortnight to $636 a fortnight which is up by nearly $65 in the hand per fortnight. The rate for a married couple went from $879 a fortnight for each person in October 2008 to $974 a fortnight which is up about $100 in the hand or more than 11 percent. The adjustments are a combination of the effect of tax cuts and inflation adjustments. 
Craig Foss 
: How would superannuitants benefit from tax changes being considered by the Government? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: They will benefit in the same way that the previous Labour Government argued superannuitants benefited from the tax cut it introduced on 1 October 2008 which Mr Goff appears to have forgotten about. As a result of the tax cut given by the Labour Government in 1 October 2008 superannuitants paid less tax on their national superannuation and the increase in the after-tax average wage lifted the 66 percent floor. In addition if the Government were to increase GST superannuation payments would be increased up front by just over 2 percent to reflect a one-off general rise in prices. 
Craig Foss 
: Is it possible that retired people whose income is from New Zealand superannuation could be directly worse off compared with today as a result of measures being considered in the Budget? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Superannuitants will know that because of their experience of the benefit of tax cuts on national superannuation it is not possible for them to be worse off as a result of the kinds of measures the Government is proposing. 
Craig Foss 
: What reports has he seen about how superannuitants might be reimbursed for any GST increase? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I have been confused by some reports I have seen from the Leader of the Opposition who says he is opposed to any increase in GST but if an increase is put in place he will not roll it back. 
Recession—Effect on Individuals and Families 
3. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Does he stand by his statement that “it will probably be some time before individuals and families feel better off again”? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 Yes I stand by that statement. Under the mismanagement of the previous Government the New Zealand economy went into recession early in 2008. Families were then hit by the global recession. It will take us some time to undo the damage done by a Government that forgot that a country must earn before it spends. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Will New Zealand families be better off paying 7 percent more for petrol and 2 percent more for food as confirmed today by Statistics New Zealand? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: That was one of the lower annual CPI increases quite a bit lower than when the member was in Government. I did not see him crying crocodile tears about it then. If we had left Labour’s emissions trading scheme in place families would be facing very big rises in petrol prices. 
Carol Beaumont 
: Does he agree with Ministry of Consumer Affairs advice that to lower their grocery bill consumers should shop around and how will New Zealand consumers be able to shop around an increase in GST which will further raise food prices? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I think it is pretty much common sense that New Zealanders shop around to find the lowest price whatever is happening in terms of prices going up. I wonder what the member does. Does she go to the same supermarket every week regardless? That would be a bit odd I would have thought. 
Amy Adams 
: How much better off would New Zealanders be if our underperforming economy had grown at similar rates to other countries between 2005 and 2008? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: In the 3 years from September 2005 to 2008 this economy grew by less than 1 percent. However that figure was outstripped by annual population growth of 1.1 percent meaning that over the last 3 years of the previous Labour Government per capita income growth was negative when the rest of the world was booming. Had the economy grown at roughly the average rate of recent years the average household would now be $5000 better off after tax. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Which of the following does he think will have the biggest impact on Kiwi families: breaking his promise that he would not raise GST or standing by while they face higher food and petrol prices? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: What will have the biggest impact on Kiwi families is a Government that is focused on turning this economy round so that it becomes one where earning matters as much as spending. That is what all our policy is focused on. The previous Government thought it could spend money when it had not earned it and now we are paying the price. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Why does the Minister not just admit that his Government has no credible plan for growth and that he cannot get over his personal resentment that the previous Minister managed to cut debt in half and have the world’s lowest unemployment rate and the longest post-war expansion and why does he not take responsibility for his own policies instead of Labour’s? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I know the previous Minister of Finance was not a patch on what the member would have been if he had the job but I wish Dr Cullen had been as good as Mr Cunliffe thinks he was. We are dealing with the legacy of a Labour Government that squandered the good times. We do not want New Zealand families to have to pay the price for that for any longer than is absolutely necessary. 
Carol Beaumont 
: I seek leave to table the March newsletter of the Auckland City Mission which tells the story of families unable to afford food. 
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. 
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Agricultural Sector—Global Research Alliance 
4. 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki - King Country) 
 to the  
Minister of Agriculture 
: What significant steps has the Government recently taken to progress the Global Research Alliance? 
Hon DAVID CARTER (Minister of Agriculture) 
: 
 Two weeks ago the Hon Tim Groser and I co-chaired the first full meeting of the Global Research Alliance on Agricultural Greenhouse Gases here in Wellington. The meeting was a resounding success and demonstrated just how far the alliance has come since New Zealand launched it in Copenhagen 9 months ago. With 29 member countries and a practical work programme agreed upon this initiative is well and truly up and running. 
Shane Ardern 
: What were the key outcomes of the meeting of the Global Research Alliance on Agricultural Greenhouse Gases? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: In essence the meeting shaped the alliance’s future work programme for the next 12 months. From New Zealand’s perspective it reaffirmed our major involvement in the Global Research Alliance on Agricultural Greenhouse Gases with New Zealand continuing to host the secretariat and co-leading the livestock research group. That significant role is an acknowledgment of New Zealand’s leadership in the area to date and the success with which we have brought the alliance into existence. 
Shane Ardern 
: What other reports has he seen on the Global Research Alliance on Agricultural Greenhouse Gases? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: The Global Research Alliance on Agricultural Greenhouse Gases and New Zealand’s role in it have been universally applauded. From China to Argentina Ghana and the Netherlands New Zealand’s leadership role in addressing agricultural emissions and bringing both developed and developing countries on board is now well recognised. The United States has described the alliance as “powerful and laden with potential” while domestic organisations as diverse as the Green Party and the Wellington chamber of commerce have also praised it. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Which of his colleagues is correct about access to intellectual property generated by the Global Research Alliance on Agricultural Greenhouse Gases—the Prime Minister who said 2 weeks ago that it will be made available free to other nations or Tim Groser who on Saturday said that “anyone who thinks that the whole thing can be done on the open source method is probably not really aware of the power of private markets”? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: The details around intellectual property will still be determined by the alliance. In some cases that information will be available freely and given freely to developing countries; in other cases there will be private interests to protect. As I said the only person in the world I have seen criticising this initiative is Charles Chauvel. 
Charles Chauvel 
: I seek the leave of the House to table a transcript of an interview with Tim Groser on Saturday 18 April. [ 
Interruption 
] I do not think it is readily available to members and they might like to read the contradictory comments that I mentioned. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Just so that there will not be further interjection I take it that it is a radio interview transcript the member— 
Charles Chauvel 
: It is a television transcript Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: What sort of transcript? 
Charles Chauvel 
: It is a transcript of a television interview at 10.43 a.m. on 18 April. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not think we will be seeking leave to table recent media transcripts. 
Health Services—Minister’s Statements 
5. 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Does he stand by all his statements on health services? 
Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health) 
: 
 Yes including the statement that the Labour Government doubled the health budget and got a lot less for it. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Why would 80-year-old Mr Desmond Peat—an ex - Royal Navy serviceman who contracted polio after his war service has had his left leg amputated has a fused left wrist is on the waiting list for a heart bypass operation and has just had his 1½ hours of home support cut—give any credence to the Minister’s statements on health? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: If the member was to bring that case to me I would be prepared to look into it as I have done for her colleagues. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: What has embarrassed him more: his colleague the Minister for Senior Citizens John Carter threatening Grey Power over its involvement in the Labour-Green aged-care inquiry; or his colleague Jo Goodhew refusing to comment on the distress of Ruby Martin an 86-year-old woman who cannot kneel hang out her washing or lift anything heavy and who has just had her home support cut? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: I have never ever been embarrassed by those two colleagues which is not something that members opposite say about the person who asked the question. 
Nicky Wagner 
: What statements has the Minister seen about methods for assessing home support for the elderly? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: I have read Grey Power’s recent lobby report which reports that its representatives met with Ruth Dyson. They reported in relation to Mrs Dyson and home care: “She is totally against assessing by telephone and has stated that the only way to assess a person is to visit them in their homes to see firsthand how they are coping.” That is very interesting because it was Ms Dyson’s Government that formalised telephone assessments in a pilot scheme in 2006 and further voted substantial public money to roll it out nationally in the 2008 Budget. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: How does he reconcile his statements on putting clinicians at the centre of the health system with the list recently published by senior doctors of examples where there has been no clinical input at all into significant health decisions? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: I am very well aware that clinicians throughout New Zealand are responding to the opportunities that this Government is encouraging in order to give them a much greater say in the running of the public health service. That response is reflected up and down the country where many nurses in particular are taking responsibility for the way that they organise their wards. They find they are spending much more time caring for patients than they ever did under the mismanagement of the previous Government. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: How does he reconcile his statement that integrated family health centres were already available in Auckland with his heralding of these centres as new and innovative? Why is he demanding the establishment of centres to open when in his own words these centres already exist? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: I think that when we look at the word “embarrassment” and the question just asked members will find it quite difficult to understand the question. I interpret her as saying that the need to consolidate general practice and to provide services for New Zealanders is something the Government supports and I say that we will be seeing a lot more of that over the next couple of years. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Despite your earlier request Mr Speaker that members not seek leave to table information from a newspaper article when I referred to the plight of Mr Desmond Peat the Minister implied he had no knowledge of it and therefore on that basis only I seek leave to table the letter from Mr Peat published 2 weeks ago in the  
Otago Daily Times 
 that outlines the situation he is in. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not think Otago is a backblock of New Zealand. We will not be seeking leave for that. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: I seek leave to table the speech given by Mr Ian Powell to the Australian Medical Association called “Challenging times uncertain directions” which outlined his concern and that of senior doctors at the lack of clinical input into significant health decisions. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Emissions Trading Scheme—Cost Applied to Average Dairy Herd 
6. 
JOHN BOSCAWEN (ACT) 
 to the  
Minister for Climate Change Issues 
: What will be the cost applied to the average dairy herd by the emissions trading scheme from 1 July this year? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Climate Change Issues) 
: 
 Dairy herd methane emissions have grown from 5000 million tonnes in 1990 to 9000 million tonnes today. Although this is a cost to New Zealand under the Kyoto Protocol it is not being borne by farmers. This Government has deferred the entry of agriculture for 2 years because of competitiveness issues. Dairy farmers like all New Zealanders will face a price impact for fuel of 3.5c per litre and for power of 1.2c per kilowatt hour from 1 July. This cost was halved by National’s moderation of the emissions trading scheme. The cost of that scheme for dairy companies is estimated to be 1.8c per kilogram of milkfat which amounts to $2100 for the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry’s model farm on an average milk income of $820000 or 0.2 percent of turnover. 
John Boscawen 
: How does the Minister reconcile his answer with Meat and Wool New Zealand’s analysis that the emissions trading scheme will cost the average dairy farmer $3900 per annum from 1 July this year another $3900 per annum from 1 January 2013 and finally a further $2400—a total of $10200 per annum—from 1 January 2015? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I will make three points. The first is that I have not seen the analysis that the member has referred to but I note that the largest emissions from farms are those for methane and nitrous oxide which are not to be applied from 1 July. In fact this Government has deferred their cost by 2 years. In respect of the cost for fuel and power the cost for a dairy farmer will be exactly the same as for all New Zealanders. In respect of the analysis I have seen the cost to dairy companies will be 1.8c per kilogram of milkfat—the price of which at the moment I think is 680c per kilogram—or 0.2 percent of a dairy farmer’s turnover. 
Chris Auchinvole 
: What advice has the Minister received on the overall cost of the emissions trading scheme to consumers and businesses in its first year; and how does this compare with the value of the allocation this year to the forestry sector? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The overall cost to consumers and businesses of the emissions trading scheme in the first year will be $400 million. It is estimated though that in the same first year $1.1 billion will be allocated in carbon credits to the forestry sector. By honouring commitments to give credits to the forestry sector and by softening the costs to consumers and businesses the Government will be making a significant loss on the emissions trading scheme. Those advocating deferring the emissions trading scheme need to acknowledge that they would be interfering in the property rights of foresters who in good faith have planted trees since 1990 thus offsetting New Zealand’s 23 percent increase in gross emissions. 
Foreshore and Seabed Act Review—Customary Title 
7. 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
 to the  
Attorney-General 
: What will be the practical effect of the change to the approach for establishing customary title in the Government’s preferred option in terms of its geographic extent compared with territorial customary rights under the Foreshore and Seabed Act? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) 
: 
 It is not possible to predict the exact extent in advance of a negotiation or court process but as a starting point I have tried to take a principled approach to developing the proposed test for customary title based on how the law could have developed after the decision of the Court of Appeal in relation to Ngati Apa and by taking into account the various submissions that were made to the review panel. Final decisions have yet to be made on that test. 
Hon David Parker 
: Does the Minister stand by his statement on  
The Nation  
that he is happy to negotiate with iwi over common law rights to foreshore and seabed at the same time that he is negotiating over breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi; if so what does he say to those concerned that this mixing up of different claims could see customary title being awarded via negotiation in circumstances where the common law would not allow it? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: Yes I do although I do take into account statements that have been made at various meetings. For example in Napier last week former Labour MP Bill Sutton emphasised the need for transparency and I certainly take that on board because I thought it was a very helpful intervention on his part. Care does need to be taken when one is negotiating both—as for example is happening with Ngati Pahauwera at the moment—to make sure that political decisions are not made that might derogate from a strict application of principle. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Why does the Government’s preferred approach propose to restore the right for people to go to court to investigate customary title? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: Because the 2004 legislation extinguished uninvestigated customary title and removed the ability of iwi and hapu to go to court. That is a fundamental human right and the Government is keen to restore it. 
Hon David Parker 
: What advice has the Minister received about the effect of affirming the declaration of indigenous rights on foreshore and seabed claims? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: I have received general advice but I also take into account the approach that would be taken to determine any issue where the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples could arise. One would first of course have to go to the particular words of a section in any replacement legislation. One would of course have to look at the general scheme of the Act and one would bear in mind that the declaration is as the Prime Minister said this afternoon an aspirational document which has already been referred to in a number of cases to date. I also refer the member to the 1996 report of the Waitangi Tribunal on the Taranaki claims. The draft declaration was referred to there. 
Hon David Parker 
: Does the Minister agree with the Prime Minister that if the Government’s preferred option proceeds people will not notice any difference compared with the status quo? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: It is a statement of the obvious but the Prime Minister is omniscient and I am one of his humble servants. I would have thought that taking into account all the submissions that have been made and the calibration there will be an effect but there will not be an enormous effect. I am focusing there on tests for customary title. I am also taking into account for example the very helpful submission provided by the Labour Party to the review panel by Dr Cullen where for example he spoke about calibrating the test to take into account post-1840 customary transfers—a proposition with which I agree. So they are the sorts of things that need to be addressed and I think we can achieve a just result without going overboard. 
Canterbury—Hurunui River Water Conservation Order Application 
8. 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Did he read the letter from the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society dated 3 December 2009 alerting him to the fact that the Minister of Agriculture had asked applicants for a water conservation order on the Hurunui River to freeze their application; if so when? 
Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes; I read the letter after the member raised the issue in the House on 30 March. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Does the Prime Minister consider that when a major non-governmental organisation points out that it has serious concerns about the conduct of a Minister in his Government and moreover when the answer a Minister has given to a written question is incorrect taking action in 4 months is fast enough? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: I believe that the Minister addressed that issue by making his personal statement in the House today. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My question was about the Prime Minister’s behaviour. It was about whether he was acting with sufficient alacrity—whether 4 months was fast enough. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member has further supplementary questions. I think it would be a bit pedantic for me to ask for a more precise answer to that question. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Does he agree that the contents of the letter and the Minister’s personal statement today contradict the Minister’s answer to written question No. 14809 that he had not discussed the water conservation order process on the Hurunui River with any party; if so will he ask the Minister to formally correct the answer? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: No only I would note that the Minister gave some clarification and some basic principle around what he was talking about when he gave that answer to that question and I think gave some context to it. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The question asked whether he would ask the Minister to correct the answer. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am almost moved to caution the member for implying in his question something that the Minister has already given a personal explanation to clarify and that cannot now be disputed any further. Given the events that have taken place I think the Prime Minister’s answer was reasonable. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Has the Prime Minister looked at the written question to the Minister of Agriculture that is the subject of this debate which states: “Has he discussed an appeal on the … report on a Water Conservation Order application … with any party …?” to which the Minister’s answer was clearly “No.”? Has he actually looked at that question? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: No but I am happy with the explanation the Minister gave in the House this afternoon. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: When the Prime Minister met with Gerry Brownlee and David Carter on 23 November last year to discuss—and I quote from the file note—“how to advance economic development through irrigation development” did David Carter declare at that meeting his interest in the Hurunui region? 
Hon David Carter 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Earlier I made a personal explanation. I do not have a personal interest in any further development of the Hurunui water project. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Speaking to the point of order Mr Speaker— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There is no need to have a debate on that matter. What the Minister has said is absolutely correct. He made a personal explanation to the House in which he told the House he has no personal interest in that matter and that cannot be disputed now in the House. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. What the Minister actually just said in his point of order and in his personal explanation was that he has no personal interest in further development in that region. When you repeated it you said he has no personal interest in the region. He clearly has an interest in the region. He said in his personal explanation that he has no interest in further development of irrigation in the region. My question is about his current interest in the region. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I hear the honourable member and indeed if the question relates to the existing consent then that is fine. I invite the member to repeat his question. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: When the Prime Minister met with Gerry Brownlee and David Carter on 23 November 2009 to discuss—and I quote from the file note—“how to advance economic development through irrigation development” did David Carter declare his interest in the Hurunui region? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: No and he would not need to because he did not have a conflict of interest. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: When he met with Gerry Brownlee and David Carter on 23 November 2009 to discuss “how to advance economic development through irrigation development” did David Carter indicate that he had spoken to the applicants for the water conservation order to suggest that they freeze it? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: No but I have no issues with the Minister actually trying to involve parties in discussions in order to avoid lengthy litigation. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Is it not the case that he is having a lower standard for potential conflicts of interest in this case because he and his Government have an explicit agenda to promote irrigation in Canterbury? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: No. It is the case that the member is making things up about the Minister because he cannot win the argument about the environment. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister by alleging that I am making things up is alleging that I am lying. I am not making things up. I am not lying. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I did not discern from the Prime Minister’s answer that he was in any way impugning the member’s integrity. It was perhaps an unnecessary addition to the answer. I ask the Prime Minister to withdraw that last part of the answer. 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: I withdraw. 
Education National Standards—Minister’s Understanding of Consequences 
9. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: Is she aware of and does she understand the intended and unintended consequences of national standards? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 Yes I am aware of and understand the intended consequences of national standards. I am also aware that some have suggested unintended consequences but I have found that once the full facts are on the table the unintended consequences seldom stack up. I am sure the member will enlighten me on his view of the unintended consequences. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Is one of the intended consequences of national standards to allow parents to take their students out of schools that do not appear to be performing as well against the standards and send them to another school with better results? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: Parents can do that now. In fact parents throughout New Zealand do that now. We believe that parents should have some choice over where their children are attending school. 
Colin King 
: What reports has she received of unintended consequences as a result of the introduction of national standards? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: I have received a report that suggests that one unintended but quite useful consequence of national standards has been that the Labour Party has put itself offside with 73 percent of parents who support the scheme. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think that answer was entirely gratuitous and not necessary at all. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Is one of the intended consequences of national standards also to partly abolish school zoning so that it is easier for students to shift schools as the  
Otago Daily Times 
 last week reported the Associate Minister of Education Heather Roy as saying? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: No that has nothing to do with the introduction of national standards. If the member examines the speech of the Associate Minister of Education Heather Roy he will see that she was speaking as an ACT member and she was speaking about a report from a working-group that is not Government policy. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Is she therefore ruling out Heather Roy’s suggestion as reported by the  
Otago Daily Times 
 that there will be a partial abolition of school zoning? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: I have stated that I have received the report and I am considering it and taking advice on it. 
Electricity National Grid—Improvements 
10. 
PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA (National—Maungakiekie) 
 to the  
Minister of Energy and Resources 
: My question is to the Minister of Energy—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I say principally to the Government front bench that I have called the members’ colleague and a little courtesy to him would be helpful. [ 
Interruption 
] Could I ask both front benches please to show courtesy to the member at the back. 
PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA 
: What recent improvements have been made to the national electricity grid? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister of Energy and Resources) 
: 
 I am pleased to advise the House that two important projects have recently been completed by Transpower to improve the security of electrical supply through the national grid. The first is the replacement transformer at the Wilton substation here in Wellington and the second is a new substation in the Penrose district of Auckland. Both of these important projects will improve transmission security of supply in Wellington and Auckland respectively particularly during peak times during the winter. 
Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga 
: What improvements will be made to the national grid over the coming years? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Transpower has a multibillion-dollar programme of investment planned for the next few years. The biggest part of that programme is the new Pole 3 high-voltage direct current link between the North Island and the South Island and I was pleased to launch its construction programme yesterday. Pole 3 will replace Pole 1 which has almost come to the end of its 45-year life. It is one of the most important pieces of national infrastructure that will be built over the next few years and it will cost close to $700 million. It is money very well spent and it secures security of supply throughout New Zealand. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Is the Minister concerned that Treasury describes his proposed transfer of oversight of new transmission investments to the Commerce Commission as “one of the weaker elements” of his electricity reforms because the commission “does not have significant expertise in electricity matters”; and how can the House be satisfied that the planned $3.5 billion investment of public funds into the grid upgrade will receive proper oversight in light of those concerns? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: No. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Why does the Government not put in place for a period of time the same dividend policy for the State-owned generators that it has for Transpower which would allow the generators to remedy the dearth of new electricity generation that has occurred on his watch without big price rises for consumers? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I do not accept the assertion the member makes. 
Charles Chauvel 
: I seek leave to table the Treasury paper outlining Treasury’s concerns about the Commerce Commission taking over oversight of investment generation from the Electricity Commission. 
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. 
Ministers—Compliance with  
Cabinet Manual 
11. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Labour) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does he expect all Ministers in his Government to comply with paragraph 4.53 of the  
Cabinet Manual 
; if so what sanctions would he consider where a Minister failed to comply with this rule? 
Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes; and I am not aware of any case where a current Minister has been represented at the expense of the Crown in line with the provisions set out in chapter 4 of the manual. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Is it his view that this rule applies regardless of which agency of the State funds any legal representation? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: No because in the case of a Minister those expenses would be paid for by the Crown and in the case of an MP they would be paid for by the leader’s office and therefore not by the Crown. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Has Cabinet since he became the Prime Minister ever considered a request for direction in respect of costs being retained by a Minister where they covered damages that were awarded to that Minister if the Minister’s expenses were paid for by the Crown? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: Not to the best of my knowledge no. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: In what circumstances would he agree to an individual retaining financial costs that were awarded to that individual when all or a substantial portion of the legal fees were paid for by the taxpayer? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: That is a hypothetical question and I do not answer hypothetical questions. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. We had some changes in the Standing Orders of the House at some stage in the past while you and I were both here that allowed hypothetical questions. To say that a question is hypothetical when he does not like it— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: To save the House’s time I say that I heard the question very clearly. The Prime Minister is not responsible as Prime Minister for taxpayers’ money that might be used that is sanctioned by the Speaker for that purpose for example. [ 
Interruption 
] I am on my feet. Where a Minister’s costs are paid that is a matter for the Prime Minister because they are paid by the Crown. Where costs for a member of Parliament are funded that matter is finally sanctioned by the Speaker. The member in his question did not distinguish between the two because the member said “the taxpayer”. The taxpayer can also cover those payments sanctioned by the Speaker. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: In any event the Prime Minister said that he considered it a hypothetical question. He can of course answer that question but he went on to say that he does not answer hypothetical questions and that is a perfectly reasonable response to the member. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I believe it is a reasonable response in this circumstance because the Hon Trevor Mallard is right that the Standing Orders that used to rule out hypothetical questions were changed so there is no reason why a hypothetical question cannot be asked. But in my view that question started to move away from the area of the Prime Minister’s ministerial responsibility. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think that you are entirely right in your interpretation of the question in that it could have covered either one of the areas that the Prime Minister is clearly responsible for. When the Prime Minister came into Government he said he would have better accountability— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will resume his seat right now. The Prime Minister answered questions very clearly where he had responsibility. He answered questions very clearly about that and said that he was totally unaware of any case where that had not applied. He also made it clear to the House that he had no intention of changing any rules in that area. My concern about the member’s final question was that it started to move away from the Prime Minister’s area of direct responsibility and in those circumstances I do not think that I could ask the Prime Minister to respond more precisely than he did. 
School Trustee Elections 2010—Closing Date for Nominations 
12. 
JO GOODHEW (National—Rangitata) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: When do nominations close for the 2010 school trustee elections? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 Nominations close this Friday—on 23 April. I encourage all those who want to stand to ensure that their nomination is in by this Friday to make sure that they can be involved in the upcoming elections. These elections are about finding trustees who are able to provide high-quality leadership for schools and it is important that people put themselves forward for the challenge of providing this service to their local community. 
Jo Goodhew 
: When will the school trustee elections be held? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: Parents around the country will vote on 7 May to fill more than 15000 trustee places. Over the last 21 years more than 100000 New Zealanders from all walks of life have given their skills and time as school trustees. I look forward to working with the newly formed boards this year. 
Speaker’s Statements 
Chamber Lobbies and Galleries—Audio System Faulty Microphones 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Before I go on to the next item of business—and I have received a couple of letters from members about this matter—I want to apologise again to members in the back quarter of the House on the Government side. The speakers were tested prior to the House sitting today and they were operating properly prior to the House sitting. It seems that maybe something was disconnected when members came into the House. The technicians cannot come into the House at the moment to remedy that so I apologise to members. We will just have to do the best we can. Members should feel free to move elsewhere if their own microphones are not working. 
Urgent Debates Declined 
Prison Wiri—Commissioning 
UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples—Government Support 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from the Hon Clayton Cosgrove seeking to debate under Standing Order 380 the Government’s intention to commission a new prison at Wiri which will be designed built and operated under a public-private partnership. This is a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility. The test for whether a particular case requires the attention of the House is a high one. The decision to commission the new prison follows the passage of the Corrections (Contract Management of Prisons) Amendment Bill which was given its third reading on 24 November last year. The House has only recently considered the issue in principle. Every subsequent decision made under the legislation will not necessarily be of sufficient importance to justify setting aside the business of the House. I am not persuaded that the matter deserves the immediate attention of the House by way of an urgent debate today. There will be other occasions on which it can be debated. The application is therefore declined. 
I have also received a letter from the Hon Rodney Hide seeking to debate under Standing Order 380 the decision of the New Zealand Government to reverse our previous opposition to the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. This is a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility of the Government. However a Minister cannot raise a matter for debate under Standing Order 380—I refer to Speakers’ ruling 171/3. A debate on a matter of urgent public importance is an opportunity for a member to hold the Government to account. The application is therefore declined. 
Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Bill 
Second 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 second time 
. 
Kei te rere iho a roimata ki te awa o W’anganui kei te rere iho a wai kamo ki te awa o Waikato. E iri te rau kawakawa e riri ki w’are aitua. Moe mai ra e kui e moe mai ra. 
[ 
Tears flow down upon the Whanganui River as they do from the eyes upon the river of Waikato. Hang up the leaves of the kawakawa hang them upon the house of calamity. Slumber there ancient one rest there 
.] 
It is appropriate to acknowledge the passing of Lady Raiha Mahuta a woman who was such a significant force in the passage of the Waikato River claims. Lady Raiha the co-negotiator of the claims with Tukoroirangi Morgan can rest in peace knowing the significance of the model that they have created will be an enduring legacy. The imprint of this legacy is woven throughout the Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Bill promoting and emphasising the fundamental goal of restoring the health of the Waikato River. As someone from one river tribe to those of another I want to acknowledge the unique and distinctive role that our awa play in every aspect of our lives. As river people we share a special bond with our awa tupuna recognising that it is our collective responsibility to protect the mana of the river. The legislation that we debate today reminds us that the health and well-being of the Waikato River is vital for the economic environmental tourist and recreational goals of the Waikato region and indeed of Aotearoa. 
But other profound associations for Waikato-Tainui with their awa are protected within this bill. The reflections of the kuia Iti Rangihinemutu Rawiri explain some of these precious connections between the people and their river: “The Waikato River is our tupuna and looks over us throughout our lives. The river feeds us nurtures us and takes care of us healing our hurts and protecting us from harm. The river is our lifeline from which we take our name our identity and our mana.” In this sense the Waikato River was always more than simply a water highway a place to swim fish or play in a site for waka ama a food basket a source of kai. The people go to the awa to pray to be healed and to be cleansed. The relationship between the people of Waikato-Tainui and the river is one in which the mana the prestige and the mauri the life force of the two are indivisible. Waikato-Tainui described this relationship in the two key principles of their claim: te mana o te awa and mana whakahaere. 
I set out this broader world view of the Waikato River as a direct challenge to other views that may place our waterways in a singular context of economic utility. Such a focus has seen the health of the river progressively decline to the distress of the people of Waikato-Tainui. Tangata whenua take up a collective responsibility for the preservation and protection of the taonga and the resources within their tribal boundaries. This is a responsibility they hold seriously: to be tangata tiaki fully involved in the care and protection of the awa the river environment and the people. This bill emphasises the importance of the role of tangata tiaki. The people of Waikato-Tainui promote the concept of a korowai a protective cloak laid over te awa tupuna to respect and care for its ongoing health and well-being. 
In itself the legislation formalises the recognition of te mana o te awa introducing a new regime for the co-governance and co-management of the Waikato and Waipa Rivers that fully involves the iwi. This in turn enacts the tribal commitment to mana whakahaere the exercise of control access to and management of the river and the resources needed to maintain the life force of the river. For Waikato-Tainui mana whakahaere has long been exercised under the mana of the Kingitanga so today we acknowledge Kingi Tuheitia and Te Whare Kahui Ariki. 
I particularly commend Waikato-Tainui for their forbearance and initiative in being willing to reopen negotiations. Uppermost in the mind of the co-negotiators was how best to restore the health and well-being of the river. For that reason when the new Government initiated an independent review of the co-management arrangements in the original deed of settlement signed in August 2008 they did so willingly as part of their commitment to improving the outcomes. The 2008 legislation was deemed to be too cumbersome to become operational so again I commend all the parties for taking the initiative to go back to the drawing board to find a solution that will work. 
Based on that review Waikato-Tainui renegotiated the co-governance aspects of the settlement which led to the signing of a new deed of settlement in December 2009. The features of the new arrangements that have been incorporated into the bill are as follows. Governance functions relating to the river are to be consolidated in a single co-governance entity to be known as the Waikato River Authority. This is a considerable improvement on the previous arrangements which would have led to the establishment of five new entities. The vision and strategy will be the primary direction-setting document for the Waikato River and will be administered by the Waikato River Authority. The vision and strategy will be described as “Te Ture Whaimana” and will be incorporated directly into the  
Waikato Regional Policy Statement 
. 
The bill establishes the Waikato River Clean-Up Trust. This is a major investment and a significant environmental initiative. The trust’s contestable fund will be administered by the Waikato River Authority rather than having a separate trustee. 
Iwi-appointed commissioners will participate on hearing committees and boards of inquiry in respect of applications for resource consent to take use dam or divert water into the Waikato River for point-source discharge to the Waikato River and for activities listed in section 13 of the Resource Management Act if they relate to the Waikato River. Instead of establishing a separate statutory board the bill now provides for joint management agreements to be established between Waikato-Tainui and the Waikato Regional Council and between relevant territorial authorities for functions under the Resource Management Act that relate to the Waikato River. 
Certain customary activities of Waikato-Tainui are also recognised. These include the use of waka taua waka kopapa and waka tete at tribal events such as the annual Ngaruawahia Regatta. This is an important new feature and removes an anomaly that meant that members of Waikato-Tainui needed to seek permission to practice fundamental features of their culture and long-held traditions. 
Finally provision is made to vest certain river-related sites of significance in Waikato-Tainui for Waikato-Tainui to gift lands to the Waikato Regional Council for flood protection purposes and for Waikato-Tainui to participate in the co-management of Crown-owned river-related lands. 
The concepts behind the arrangements that are given effect to in this bill are not new. But for the first time in a Treaty settlement this bill focuses on giving tangible effect to these concepts. I thank the Maori Affairs Committee for its work on the bill to ensure that it gives effect to the new deed of settlement and for providing submitters with an opportunity to comment on the new provisions. There is no doubt that what has been achieved with this legislation will establish a precedent for other iwi. The co-management arrangements in this bill signify an important development in resource management and decision making. The tribal agreements with a range of ministries and the shared representation at the governance levels usher in a new era in Treaty relationships. Iwi and local authorities will now sit side by side at the top table working together to care for and protect te mana o te awa. It is with much pleasure that I commend this bill to the House. 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Labour—Ikaroa-Rawhiti) 
: 
 He tika hoki i runga i te tu nei e mihi kau ana ki te Kingi Tuheitia me tona ahurea. Ki a ratou e rere atu e rere atu. Ki a koutou e Tuku me to hoa pukumahi a Te Rai e mihi kau ana. Tena koutou. E tika atu te tu nei ki te mihi ake ki te wahine toa a Raiha e rere atu. Ko tona kaha rawa ki te tautokotia atu te ahua nei o tona awa. E mohio atu tatou mai i te timata ko tona tane a Kotahi i konei e wero atu ki te Kawana mo te tino take nei o te awa mai i te roaroa atu kia tae ki te wiki nei. No reira tena ano te mihi ki nga tokorua nei a Tuku raua ko Raiha mo to ratou kaha me wetahi o ratou nga kaimahi a muri a nga tari e tautokotia atu. 
He whakaaro i roto i aku mo te take nei mai ra ano. I timata te pakopako o te pu o nga hoia o te Kawana i tae atu i Ngaruawahia e tuku atu ki a ratou o Tainui to ratou mahi kino. Mai i tera wa e tae atu ki tenei wa e kore atu tatou e whakatikatika. Na te pai o te rangi nei kei te tae tata atu tatou ki te otinga. No reira he tino take tenei mo nga kereme. Ahakoa te nui o nga kereme mo nga wehewehe mahi atu a te Kawana ki te iwi tenei ano wetahi o nga tino kereme e mahi atu ratou o Tainui. He tangi mokemoke e kore i konei te wahine ra a Raiha me wetahi o o tatou wahine kaiwhakahaere o te motu. Wetahi o nga wahine rangatira kei te mohiotia e wetahi o tatou penei i a wau e manaaki atu e mau atu te ahua o to hoa. No reira tena tatou. 
[ 
It is appropriate that I stand to greet King Tuheitia and his movement and those who have passed on. I wish to acknowledge Tuku and his hard-working colleague Lady Raiha. It is only right that I acknowledge Lady Raiha who has passed away for her efforts in supporting aspects relating to her river. We know that right from the start her husband Sir Robert Te Kotahi Mahuta would come here to challenge the Government over the Waikato River. That continued over a very long period of time to this week. Therefore I acknowledge Tuku and Lady Raiha for their efforts as well as departmental officials and staff for their support behind the scenes.  
I have a historical perception on this matter. When the land wars broke out soldiers of the Crown at the outset went to Ngaruawahia and committed wrongdoings against Tainui. We have refused settlement from that time to the present. The good thing about today is that we are close to it. This settlement is a critical one in the claims process. Even though a large number of claims are about the divisive actions by the Government towards tribes this claim that Tainui has worked through is one that really stands out. I grieve with sadness that Lady Raiha is not here today as well as some of our other leading women administrators and leaders of the nation that we and I knew personally. Raiha we will continue to embrace and uphold all that your late husband strove for. So greetings to us all 
.] 
I rise today with a lot of pride and humility to support the move towards the passage of the Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Bill. I commend the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations of the day the Hon Christopher Finlayson and the officials especially those who have been there for a long long time. It is certainly right that King Tuheitia and his people have something to celebrate that is real. Just in case I forget I do want to mention the two recent co-negotiators Tuku Morgan and Lady Raiha Mahuta and also the former Ministers for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations Michael Cullen Mita Ririnui Shane Jones and especially myself! 
I say seriously that it is something to celebrate. It is something that Raiha was dogmatic about—and she was that. The call from her people resounded as both she and Tuku put it forward that the river was patu. They had two simple points to make. One was to clean it up so the tamariki and rangatahi of Tainui could swim in it like the old people used to. The other was to ensure that the fish survived and they could feast on them like their ancestors used to. The buggery that happened and was enacted on Tainui by the forces of the Government is well-known. That it took place in Ngaruawahia and stripped them and put them into the ground is something that this bill will certainly put right. The issue in relation to te mana o te awa has always been in both the mind and the heart of the Tainui people as well as the awa in the sense of the korowai which they wished to have purveyed. All of those issues relevant to the river need to be recognised and are important. 
Manawhakahaere embodies the authority that Waikato-Tainui and other rural tribes have established in respect of the access to and management of the Waikato River and its resources in accordance with tikanga values and ethics. As my colleagues chortle over here I want to ensure that it is understood that most of the movement in relation to this settlement was done by the Tainui people. 
David Garrett 
: Which settlement? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: It is a great settlement. 
David Garrett 
: No; which settlement? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: It is a great settlement that is about to happen. It is the one that will ensure that the great city of Auckland has a clean water supply. It is the one that that member David Garrett will not recognise in relation to representation. Only today we heard the famous ACT leader mentioning divisiveness as we watched a Government front bench that was scrambling. The invasion and war and of course the confiscation has been an integral part of history that people have used as an excuse to ensure that finality was not brought to the settlement. 
I along with my colleagues Nanaia Mahuta Shane Jones and the rest of the Labour members am very thankful that we have this bill today. The purpose of the bill is to give effect to the settlement of raupatu claims under the 2009 deed recognise the significance of the Waikato River to Waikato-Tainui and recognise the vision and strategy for the Waikato River which David Garrett is short on. He gullibly does not appreciate tradition or cultural heritage. He bandies words about loosely because he is one of the troops and endowed with red-neckery—if there is such a term. There have always been rednecks from the beginning even if they were soldiers and now their protégés still huff and puff about why this is not right. That member over there should certainly come to a wananga so I can teach him better. Some people’s behaviour puts an honourable settlement asunder. That member’s performance in chortling just then is just that. The teams on both sides both the Crown and Tainui have certainly worked hard and against all odds to get here. I want Mr Hide to remember that Maori are charitable and that they do give after being plundered bombed and shot to pieces. That is what this settlement is quite clearly about.  
Na te mea i roto i aku i tae atu a Te Raiha ki te komiti. 
[ 
Because I know personally that Lady Raiha turned up at the select committee 
.] 
Lady Raiha Mahuta turned up right at the end of the select committee and she was mauiui—very very mauiui. That blockhead does not understand what that means. She stepped up to the counter and she said: “This is like Shakespeare’s play being played out all over again.” 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: That’s true. 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: I say to Mr Hide that a pound of flesh is being sought but nobody can take any more because we want to settle it. That member can bloody well sit there and snidely say that this should not be good— 
David Garrett 
: How much was $6000 worth in 1944 Parekura? Do you know? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: I know more than that member about this. He can sit there snidely with that ungracious behaviour at a very very important time when there is something very very important to celebrate. I know about what has been taken from the Tainui people and I know the great effort the negotiators and a decent Minister—for this settlement anyway—have undertaken. For the environment and the culture of the river this is a very very important settlement. It shows that we care about the tangata whenua. This is real stuff. This is not aspirational. This is not a bill or a signing-up that is being misrepresented by the Government. I want to commend Tuku Morgan and especially Lady Raiha. She is not here but certainly her spirit embodies these few final days of legislation. Kia ora tatou. 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 I too want to begin my contribution on the Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Bill by paying my respects to Lady Raiha Mahuta. She was a dedicated and dignified negotiator for Waikato-Tainui. She earned the respect of all those who negotiated with her. Throughout as Mr Horomia said she was ably assisted by Tuku Morgan and I acknowledge his great work. My last meeting with Lady Mahuta occurred a few days before her death. She was desperately ill but made every endeavour to get to that meeting. The Prime Minister was also there. She wanted to attend that meeting because she wanted to discuss the time frame for progressing this bill through its final stages because of its importance to her and to her iwi. 
The river and its catchment play a significant strategic role for New Zealand as a source of energy. It is the location of a very significant primary industry and of course of recreational activities. There are very important values and relationships between the river the people and its communities including public and private interests and these need to be recognised. 
It has always been important that the proposed arrangements be effective in achieving positive outcomes and in meeting the purpose of the deed. For that reason the incoming Government initiated an independent review of the deed of the arrangements in the deed of settlement signed in August 2008 and based on that review renegotiated certain aspects of the settlement. This led to the signing of a new deed of settlement in December 2009. In saying that I too acknowledge the work of the previous administration in negotiating the original deed. I particularly acknowledge the work of my predecessor Dr Cullen and the work of Messrs Horomia and Ririnui. 
I acknowledge also the willingness of Waikato-Tainui to reopen negotiations. It was a significant step to take in terms of reopening a deed of settlement but I believe it has resulted in improvements that will bring about more streamlined arrangements and better outcomes for everyone. It is appropriate to acknowledge the work of the independent review panel chaired by Mr Evan Williams of Auckland and the willingness of the iwi along the Waikato River and the Waipa River to support the process. The Waikato Regional Council and other regional authorities have made a significant contribution to ensure we can achieve a sound economically efficient model for the river. In that regard the support and close interest shown by the Minister for the Environment has been very helpful indeed. This occasion cannot pass without also acknowledging the work of the Crown’s chief negotiator Brian Roche and his team. 
Mrs Turia has outlined the features of the new arrangements which have been incorporated in the bill. There are important policy objectives associated with the framework and I do not need to dwell on them because she has already spoken to those. 
This bill provides effective legal mechanisms for Waikato-Tainui to participate in the governance of the river reflecting the significance of the river to Waikato-Tainui. The bill streamlines improves and coordinates governance and management arrangements for the river to support its strategic importance to New Zealand and also for the restoration and protection of the health and well-being of the river. Most important the bill provides clear direction and certainty about co-governance of the river. 
Cornerstones for the new arrangements are that governance functions relating to the river will now be consolidated in a single entity to be known as the Waikato River Authority and the vision and strategy will be the primary direction-setting document for the river. The contestable clean-up trust is a major investment by the Government and a significant environmental initiative. The far-sightedness of Waikato-Tainui in negotiating such a fund which has long-term benefits for the river is to be applauded. 
This bill will settle a longstanding Treaty grievance and at the same time ensure that the ongoing Treaty relationship with Waikato-Tainui is based on sound arrangements with real outcomes. The vision of Sir Robert Mahuta the determination of Lady Mahuta and the patience and dedication of so many of the people of Waikato-Tainui have borne fruit and the outcome is one from which the entire community will benefit. 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato) 
: 
 Tenei e tika ana me whakahoki nga mihi kua wharikihia nei e koutou kei waenganui i a tatou i tenei Whare e pa ana ki taku whaea a ki a ratou katoa e huri ki tua o te arai. No reira tena koutou katoa. Tenei ano e mihi atu ki nga tini mate i whakapau kaha ki nga mahi hei whakahoki i o matou nei whenua i raupatutia ana ki te kite i tenei wahanga kei waenganui i a tatou i tenei rangi te whakahoki o to tatou nei awa tupuna a Waikato. 
[ 
It is apt that I respond to the tributes that you expressed amongst us in this House specifically to my mother and indeed to all those who have passed beyond the veil. A personal greeting to you all. I too acknowledge the many who have died and were involved in this settlement to have our confiscated lands and our ancestral Waikato River returned to us. They worked hard exhausted themselves and regretfully did not see the part of the settlement before us today 
.] 
I stand and acknowledge the many tributes that have been put forward in this House specifically to my mother and indeed to the many people who have passed and have been involved with both the Waikato River settlement and the Waikato raupatu settlement. Many people have exhausted their effort determination talent expertise and wisdom to see the return of Waikato lands and our awa to our people so that we can look forward and so that there is a future for the next generation. 
I acknowledge that this is the second reading of the Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Bill and I want to add a contribution that may be helpful in terms of the debate that is about to take place in the Committee stage that will lead on to the passing of this legislation. I want to acknowledge the key tenets of this settlement. They are mainly to see the health and well-being of the Waikato River restored. Unlike the lands settlement the major benefactor of this one will be the Waikato River itself. It is a very different kind of mind-set or space to put oneself into when we are talking about the health and well-being of the river and the challenge over a generation to see it restored to what many of our old people remembered a clear and pristine state. 
Many people in the House may say “Look this is an unachievable task.” but back in 1987 when a statement of claim was put forward to the Waitangi Tribunal to say that the Waikato River and those lands that were confiscated from us belong to us and we belong to them and they will be returned a lot of people did not believe that. The passage of time has now seen the realisation of that very very ambitious aspiration and we should really acknowledge that that in itself is a huge huge milestone. 
I acknowledge that the two key elements underpinning this settlement are quite simple: the mana of the awa and manawhakahaere for the awa. If I can I will add some clarification for the House because many interpretations have been put forward. It is my belief that if one were to condense a sense of what mana of the awa is to our people there would be no straight interpretation but history will show that Waikato at no point ceded authority over our river to anybody. We still maintain and affirm the strong sense that the mana of the awa is intact and we are merely its caretakers custodians or caregivers if one likes and that that mana has basically transcended everything else over a long period of time. 
That is why manawhakahaere becomes so important because the future will show that our relationship to the river and our ongoing connection to the best interests of and outcomes for the river will sustain our people and lead to the well-being not only of the Waikato but also of all those who live in our region. It is about the ongoing care protection and management of the river. That is my interpretation of it. 
The challenge to negotiate a precedent-setting agreement such as this has not been without sacrifice and struggle. I did say in 1987 when the statement of claim was lodged that nobody believed that it would happen but it has happened and we recognise that. I acknowledge both the National and Labour Governments which have played their respective roles in the challenge to see history rectified to see past wrongs rectified and to see that justice is served. It is pertinent to note that the signing of the Waikato River settlement on 22 August was a ground-breaking opportunity for the nation. Never before had co-governance or co-management been a concept so willingly accepted by the Crown. In that respect I pay tribute to Michael Cullen for his leadership because it took leadership to make something like that happen. 
Under the current Minister the Hon Chris Finlayson Waikato-Tainui were asked to participate in an independent review to look at some of the co-management provisions and to see whether they could be streamlined. If there are gains to be made from this example for other river iwi such as those who have spoken Waikato would be the first to offer its model as a potential way forward. However let it not be said that Waikato is imposing this model on any other river iwi. If any gains can be taken from it so be it but that is for river iwi themselves when they enter into their negotiations not only to be able to draw the gains potentially from this model but also to build on their own aspirations for how they want to see the future well-being and management of their own awa. We are not in a position of telling other iwi what to do because it is important that each iwi must find a solution that works for them. 
Some of the panel’s recommendations led to the establishment of a number of changes that a select committee considered which is where I want to focus my contribution: on the creation of the Waikato River Authority. There was a lot of debate at a political level about the five statutory boards and whether this was an onerous provision that would lead to a disconnection in relation to an integrated approach to decision making along the river. Time will tell whether the right decision was made but let us give it a shot. That is the message I want to give in the House today because it clearly was the message coming back from the tribe and from the many consultations it had. If this is going to be seen as an opportunity to move forward and make better decisions on the river let us give it a shot but when it comes time for the review let us look at it in a very serious manner. 
I say again that Waikato did not want to be in the position whereby we were saying to every other iwi along the river when they were making their decisions about the best interests of their parts of the river what they should be doing. I want that recorded in the House because when the review comes up we may need to relook at this decision at some point in the future. 
The other point to be made is the composition of the Waikato River Authority—five Crown members and five members from all the iwi along the river. Again there was a strong go-forward feel from the tribe on this issue but it should be recorded in the House that the concern was that Waikato did not want to see its interests diluted against the backdrop of the many other iwi certainly in the upper catchment. I raise that as a potential area that might be considered in a future review. 
The other change that resulted from the independent review panel was putting the vision and strategy directly into the regional policy statement rather than setting it at the national policy level. It has been proposed that there are a number of advantages for this being the case and that it is a more direct way of having an influence on the decisions as to what happens in regard to the setting of policy for the Waikato River. However I raise this point again because if at any time there is a concern from the territorial authorities about the implementation of the regional policy statement or any change in their commitment to reflect at a practical level what is happening within the development of policy or at an implementation level then the course of redress for Waikato must be directly with the Crown not with the territorial authorities. That is a very genuine concern that I raise and I want to ensure that it receives a full and robust debate during the Committee stage. 
Mention has been made of the clean-up fund which is a great opportunity for many people who are committed to participating in the cleaning up of the river and of the provision of the endowment fund to the Waikato-Tainui Endowed College. We want to see the intellectual wealth of our people focused and harnessed in this area of environmental management of stewardship and of having some practical cases being looked at as the best practice in the area of resource management. 
Then there are the joint-management agreements. I was absolutely delighted that albeit on a sad occasion the first joint-management agreement was signed on 23 March the day on which my mother passed. She would have liked nothing more than to be there. One thing she did say was “After me the work continues.” For the Waikato District Council to be able to sign the first joint-management agreement as a clear reflection of its intention to work with us in going forward on the Waikato River I think has been something that we back home have well recognised. 
I want to acknowledge the Maori Affairs Committee because of the efforts of the select committee. It goes without saying that the committee has to sit through a number of submissions some of which are very positive and some of which are very negative. Sadly some of those submissions have come to the fore now and I will spend time in the Committee stage debating that. The select committee should be commended for the work that it did in this area because it heard a number of submissions and went through all of the issues and presented its findings in what I think is a very good report for the House to consider. 
Last of all I acknowledge the negotiating team—both the Crown negotiators and Tainui negotiators. I think that every tribe that has participated in a negotiation process has realised that nothing worth having comes easy. It is as simple as that. Can I say with the leave of the House that the efforts of the co-negotiators for Tainui Tuku Morgan and my late mother have come with huge personal sacrifice struggle and a lot of personal criticism directed at them for having the courage to show leadership and say that this can be a better way forward for the future of our kids our grandkids and the generations after them. No reira ki a ratou katoa tatou katoa tenei te mihi atu ki a koutou. 
KEVIN HAGUE (Green) 
: 
 It is an honour to speak in the second reading debate on the Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Bill after Nanaia Mahuta. I acknowledge her contribution. 
I begin my contribution to this debate in the way that others have done by acknowledging the special role played by Lady Raiha Mahuta in bringing this matter to this point in the House. It is a proud moment. I also honour the contributions of others who have been involved in that process over many years: Sir Robert Mahuta; Tukoroirangi Morgan who is a former member of this House; and indeed the negotiators on the Government side from both Labour and National Governments. 
I am pleased to take the opportunity to make some comments on the bill and to signal that the Green Party will support its passage into law. We do this not only because supporting settlements is our default position but also because there are some particularly positive and sensible elements in the form of settlement proposed in the bill. The key word in the title of the bill and the word that provides a context for its provisions is “Raupatu”—confiscation. The Waikato settlement of 1995 and the Crown apology that formed part of it made clear beyond dispute that the military and legislative actions of the Crown in 1863 that cost Waikato their lives their land and their cultural and economic base were illegal and in gross breach of article 2 of the Treaty of Waitangi. A royal commission of inquiry as long ago as 1926 found that the raupatu the confiscation of Waikato land by the Crown had been wholly excessive and that a grave injustice had been done to tangata whenua. Iwi and Maori have been extraordinarily patient for generations in their wait for a fair deal and equally modest in their demands and expectations in regard to compensation. It is to be hoped that those who accuse Maori of venality as some farmers have done in the news media today of having a victim mentality or of demanding special privileges as we have heard in the House today will one day read and understand the real history of this and other settlements and realise how generous Maori have been and continue to be in these processes. 
With a few notable exceptions the co-management model that is found in this bill has not been readily accepted or adopted in many places around New Zealand. It is difficult to escape the conclusion that this is a symptom of the Crown and Crown agencies being unwilling to relinquish control over land water and other resources. This bill represents a genuine attempt to share power over the river and its present and future management. That is commendable and we hope it will be followed by a more open and accepting approach to co-management more generally. 
Concern has been expressed notably by Ngati Koroki Kahukura that their exclusion from the settlement and from representation on the Waikato River Authority will compromise their interest in the river. The reason given for this exclusion from the authority—that a number larger than 10 would be unworkable—is far from persuasive although I welcomed Nanaia Mahuta’s comments about this matter. The reassurances from the Maori Affairs Committee in respect of this iwi and in respect of similar concerns voiced by others including Ngati Te Ata o Waiohua Ngati Tuwharetoa Ngati Raukawa and Te Arawa must be honoured as any failure to recognise the interests and mana of these tribes would threaten the integrity and success of the whole settlement. Throughout the commentary from the Maori Affairs Committee there are reassurances that nothing in this bill can or will in any way disadvantage other river iwi who assert rights to some part of the river or of the resources within or around it. It would be appropriate for the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations to restate these assurances in the House. 
It was with some alarm that we noted that the select committee preferred that the direction-setting document for the authority and its work which is designated “Te Ture Whaimana” should not have the status of a national policy statement. But that concern was alleviated when we saw that rather than being downgraded the intention was for the document to take precedence over any national policy statement or other Resource Management Act planning document. 
We support the establishment of a single governing body with equal representation from iwi and Crown agencies as being in the spirit of the Treaty relationship and in the sense that a single entity ought to be better able to take an integrated and comprehensive strategic view of management needs and practices. 
The proposed clean-up trust with assured funding to support projects is a long-overdue initiative. The condition of the Waikato River as with so many of our rivers and waterways is nothing short of a national disgrace. The sacrifice of the river water to the combined demands of farming urban development excessive extraction and discharge of waste is a trend that must be stopped and indeed reversed if we are to protect our own future wellbeing socially culturally and economically and to assure future generations of a useful and usable freshwater resource. Our only concern would be that the funding put aside may not be sufficient for the task. We would also expect that the trustees take a broad view of what constitutes a project to restore the health and the mauri of the water including for example the provision of funds to take legal action against polluters and to disperse sums to research develop and implement and enable changes to land-use practices that over time have contributed to and will otherwise continue to contribute to the water’s degradation. 
The Green Party welcomes the bill back from the select committee and gives its undertaking to support it. 
Hon RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I rise to oppose the Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Bill. I oppose it as the Minister of Local Government I oppose it as the leader of the ACT Party and I oppose it as a New Zealander. This bill represents a radical departure in terms of the management of natural resources and in terms of local government in New Zealand. I do not think that members appreciate how big the departure is. Indeed the Government is on record as saying that this is a one-off and that it is unique but today we heard Minister Turia say when she began the second reading debate that it will be the model the benchmark. We heard the Labour Party say that that was the case too. 
The way we manage natural resources in New Zealand is through private property owners and the Department of Conservation managing the resources that they hold in freehold or as part of the Crown estate. Overlaying that we have regional councils—in this case the Waikato Regional Council—which are required under the Resource Management Act to take care and to provide the framework within which water air land and other resources are managed to protect the common interests that we have in these resources. 
The regional councils have enormous power. In the case of a farmer for example a regional council can allow or deny the ability to use a water right. It can set rules for how one can farm one’s land how much fertilizer one can have on one’s land and how many stock units one can have. So the power of the regional council over people’s way of life is enormous. That is why we have a process of electing locally in our regions representatives to represent us—because if they make decisions we disagree with we can vote them out. 
Someone might be a farmer who is being regulated in a way that that person considers to be unjust and his or her response to that is the democratic one of agitating politically to get that representative or that council dumped and to have one’s say. That means that regional councils have to have regard for the interests of the people in their community and in their catchment. That is why the Government had to think long and hard when it was confronted with the issue of Environment Canterbury—it had to think long and hard about its responsibilities to the people of Canterbury and about denying them the opportunity to have an election this time around while we sought to sort out the problems caused by the dysfunction of Environment Canterbury. 
I remember hearing at length form Labour members opposite about the loss of democracy. Well here is a question: what about the loss of democracy inherent in this bill? The loss of that democracy is huge. Let me explain. This bill introduces co-governance to New Zealand at the local government level across an entire catchment across everyone in it for the first time ever. We have not had that model before. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Isn’t it a great day? 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: Mr Tau Henare calls out that it is a great day. Well I have to say that it is a very very sad day for the people of Waikato and the people of New Zealand. Let me explain why. What we will now have is the Waikato River Authority and it will be made up of people who are not elected from that community. The authority will represent the tribes of the region and there will be Crown appointments. I know that Tau Henare likes this because his brother-in-law Tukoroirangi Morgan negotiated it. The Tainui people will be in the box seat for the use of the river and the catchment so why would they not be appreciative of this bill? But the bill is wrong. 
The Waikato River Authority—unelected appointed by the tribes and matched by the Crown—will set the vision and strategy for the river and the catchment and the Waikato Regional Council will have nothing to do but follow it. Picture this—it will go like this: in the future a dairy farmer will apply for a water-right consent or to roll over an existing consent and the Waikato Regional Council will deny the farmer that consent at the cost of his or her livelihood and way of life. The council will do that not because of the Waikato Regional Council’s decision but because of the decision of the Waikato River Authority which will decide on the basis that the activity does not fit with the authority’s vision and strategy. That is what makes this a sad day. It might be all right for Tau Henare and his mates who are in the driver’s seat but it is a bad bad day for the people of Waikato. 
David Bennett 
: Let us decide. 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: Well that is a very interesting comment. I would be happy with that but the Waikato Regional Council did not get a choice. This is Parliament I say to Mr Bennett and the Waikato Regional Council could have done this if it had chosen to but Parliament and the Government came along negotiated without their involvement and now through Parliament is forcing it upon them. 
Paul Quinn 
: Why did you sack Environment Canterbury? You’re the Minister. You talk about democracy and you sacked Environment Canterbury. 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: Now we have a backbench National MP not agreeing with the sacking of Environment Canterbury which I find very interesting. My point about Environment Canterbury I say to Mr Quinn—[ 
Interruption 
] The member is chirping away because my microphone is not working and I cannot sit in my seat. If he listened for a change rather than trying to be a smart dick in this Parliament we might get some sense. 
Paul Quinn 
: Anger management. 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: No I have no problems with anger. All I am saying is that if Mr Quinn would let me make my speech he might understand what the issue is. I will go on with my speech. I respect Maori values and spiritual views— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Oh rubbish! 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: —people can believe what they like—but it is very difficult when we put that into law. 
Keith Locke 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think that the noise is a bit too loud. As I understand it a member cannot move from his seat—and Mr Quinn’s seat is at the back—in order to interject on a speaker in the way that Mr Quinn is. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: Speakers’ rulings are quite clear that a member cannot move to take advantage of interjection. But in the House there is a general kind of acceptance that people move for other reasons. The member is correct that the noise level has got a bit higher. I caution members. 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: One of the difficulties is that people do shout down those with a dissenting view in this House. Let me read this passage from clause 8. This is what the Crown is legislating for: “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”—which is to say that the river is a living thing; it is an ancestor according to this legislation—“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.” 
So the whole lot the whole catchment is an indivisible living thing that is the ancestor of a people. The only people who can interpret whether that ancestor is upset or hurt or being annoyed disrupted or affected are the people who believe that. Now I do not happen to believe it. I think it is hocus-pocus. But what we are doing is legislating this hocus-pocus and the Waikato River Authority the Waikato Regional Council and the people of the Waikato will have to live by that. I say shame on the National Party which once used to stand against this and used to believe in one law for New Zealand. 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 I will not go into the platitudes of doing any mihis to anybody because they have been said by better people than me so far. 
Hon Shane Jones 
: That’s your political whanaunga. That’s your cuzzy politically speaking. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Mr Jones should do himself a favour and be quiet—in fact he should do the nation a favour and be quiet. 
On a day when New Zealand endorsed the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples we are here at the second reading of something that is great something that should unify this nation and something that has never been tried before as Rodney Hide so aptly put it. It is something that has never been put to the nation before: co-governance. I ask why not. I could pick holes through everything that Rodney Hide said. He talked about hocus-pocus even though this Parliament at 2 o’clock every afternoon assembles in this House and does its prayer. We do not call that hocus-pocus. We stand in respect and we stand with a bit of reverence. But I know that it is different for Rodney because when Maori do it it is hocus-pocus. When Scottish people revere the loch and the Loch Ness monster that is called greatness. It is called tourism but when Maori do it it is called hocus-pocus. 
Well I have news for the magician Mr Rodney Hide. If he is so ashamed of this Government for doing something like this bill for being able to see the future of this nation then he knows what he can do and that is to give up some of his goodies if he does not like it. But I know that will not happen. We heard a speech from the pulpit about democracy about elected officials and non-elected officials but this was the Minister who got rid of Environment Canterbury. I am not saying we did not agree with that because it had to happen but for him to get up in this House and pontificate about democracy while being the Minister who sacked some democratically elected people is a bit over the top. 
While I have the time because my whips have told me I have only a short time I will talk about the restoration and protection of the river. At the end of the day that is what this bill is all about. If we do not protect and preserve the river then we are doing ourselves and Tainui an injustice which is to not look after them. We do not protect and preserve Tainui. I have heard it said on many occasions that to Tainui the river is more than just a waterway. I think it is time for this country to believe in such things as the intrinsic link between a people and its waterway. Like I said earlier we acknowledge it overseas; it is about time we acknowledged it here. 
This bill does four things: it sets out a vision and strategy it establishes the Waikato River Authority it instigates for the first time in this country a co-management regime and lastly it establishes a contestable clean-up fund which I am over the moon about. It does not give to one group the responsibility of doing all the cleaning up. If people out in the community put an application in or put a project forward they can do that and there is a contestable fund to help them do it. 
I would be remiss not to say to Rodney Hide that I stand and support this bill not because of my relationship with my brother-in-law but because it is actually a good thing to do. Regardless of whether my brother-in-law was one of the co-negotiators I would still be standing here supporting the legislation. I think it is a bit far from the mark for the Hon Rodney Hide to say that the only reason I am standing here is because my brother-in-law told me to do so. 
I think that what we are doing today is a watershed moment in New Zealand’s history just as I think it was when the House passed Te Aho Matua in I think 1998 or 1999. That was a watershed in terms of a people’s belief system being passed into law and I consider this bill to be on the same par. I do not see this as a Treaty settlement per se; I see it as a far-reaching look into what this country could mean if we only work at it. There are opponents to this bill—and they are entitled to be opposed to it for whatever reasons they have—but my message to everybody is that if we really truly want to be a united and unified nation then it is time we started taking bits and pieces of each other rather than doing what Mr Hide would want us to do. 
I look forward to the debate in the Committee stage and I certainly look forward to the brothers sisters aunties and uncles arriving here for the third reading. Without wanting to disrespect other Treaty settlements including the initial Treaty settlement in Tainui I actually think this is more of a watershed than most people think. 
Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour) 
: 
 Ki a koe Lady Raiha kia pai te haere. I add to those of speakers before me my tribute to Lady Raiha Mahuta and the inestimable contribution she has made to our arriving at the point we have reached today. With that recognition go my condolences not only to my loved colleague Nanaia Mahuta but to all her whanau to those related to Lady Raiha and those who love her. Tenei te mihi ki a koe Nanaia. 
The Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Bill is very significant legislation and I am pleased that we have got to its second reading. I will talk briefly about some of its history but I will also talk in response to some of the things that the previous two speakers have said to the consequences of this legislation and its implications for the future. The initial settlement with Waikato-Tainui was signed by Michael Cullen on behalf of the Crown in August 2008. The clean-up of the Waikato River instigated by the deed of settlement is one of the most important environmental undertakings in New Zealand history. The Waikato River is of immense importance to Waikato-Tainui and as our longest river running through a region of enormous economic significance the health and well-being of the Waikato River are an issue of national priority. 
I recognise the wairua the sense of connection that Tainui have with the river. I recognise the ontology and the world view that give rise to the connection that Waikato-Tainui have with the river. Saying that I recognise that ontology and that world view does not mean that I share that ontology or that world view. I am a Pakeha. I do not—as of right as of birth as of upbringing—share that ontology; I have my own. But I will not be offensive as Rodney Hide was and call those spiritual connections hocus-pocus. The fact that I do not share that religious tradition does not mean that I despise it that I will make fun of it that I will belittle it or that I will try to ignore it in legislation. If we are to live together in this country in a peaceful and productive way into the future then my responsibility as a citizen let alone as a member of Parliament is to recognise the values of others to recognise other world views to recognise other ontologies and to respect them. I cannot expect the same to be given to me if I do not give it out. 
Therefore I label that comment from Rodney Hide despicable. It is not the kind of comment that will advance progressive and peaceful aspirations of the people of Aotearoa New Zealand whatever ethnicity we derive from. It was an unworthy comment to be heard in this House and not fitting of somebody who not only sets himself up as a leader of a political party but also holds a ministerial warrant. I lay on the table and place on the record that the view that Rodney Hide articulated is not shared by other Pakeha in this House. It is not worthy of somebody holding his position to be so derogatory about others’ religious traditions and world views. 
Moving on from there I will make a comment that relates not only to what Rodney Hide said but also to what Tau Henare said and that is that I welcome this new co-management model. The deed of settlement allows for an unprecedented model for something that has never been tried before. Whether as Tau Henare said it becomes a benchmark or model for the future remains to be seen. Quite frankly it does not matter whether it becomes a model way of doing things for the future; it is unique and it is new. If it paves the way for repetition then that is fine; I am happy with that. But even if it does not it has allowed for innovative ways of settling Treaty claims. 
At this point I depart from what Tau Henare said. He said he did not see this matter as a Treaty settlement per se. Well I do. I see this as a settlement of an issue of extreme importance for the country—that is the cleaning up of the Waikato River—and I see this as an issue that comes out of Treaty partnerships and comes out of resolution of historical grievances that are contained in and can be resolved through Treaty matters. This is part of the Treaty partnership so it must be seen as being part of Treaty settlements per se. The fact that the settlement is innovative and has not been done before must be welcomed by this House because our approach to Treaty settlements and negotiations must constantly evolve. It must be an evolutionary process and a progressive process. We cannot pretend that the way we did things yesterday will be the way we do things tomorrow. We cannot pretend that the decision we made 140 or 160 years ago cannot be revisited cannot be expressed in a different way in the future. 
So I want to say that this piece of legislation is how we do things in New Zealand. This legislation I say to the Government is not aspirational or non-binding. It is not aspirational or non-binding; it is the way we do things. We do not sign up to declarations because we think they do not mean anything as this Government has just done on this very day. It has signed up to a declaration only because it is non-binding and aspirational. That is how this Government will try to wriggle off the hook when people from the Maori Party who are expecting more from that declaration come to the Government’s door and say that this Government signed up to that declaration. 
Hon Dr Wayne Mapp 
: More than you were prepared to do. 
Hon MARYAN STREET 
: We signed it— 
Paul Quinn 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have sat here now for about 40 seconds listening to the speaker going completely away from this bill and I think that is absolutely inappropriate. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: No the member is responding to some comments; I ask her to continue. 
Hon MARYAN STREET 
: When people who support the Maori Party come to this Government looking for some practical application of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples they will get nothing. There will be tears because that Government has signed up to that declaration only because it is non-binding. The previous Labour Government did not sign it because it was non-binding. We would sign something only if it were binding and real and apposite for New Zealand’s law legal institutions and constitutional practice. This legislation is the way we do it; we do it with legislation and that is the difference. This is what happens: there have to be words on the page and the agreement has to be binding. That is why we support this legislation. 
PAUL QUINN (National) 
: 
 I firstly join with other speakers who have extended their good wishes and recognitions to those who have been responsible for the Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Bill from the Waikato—particularly Lady Mahuta and Tuku Morgan but also the others who have been responsible for getting this major milestone before us. It is in fact a new and exciting way forward both for Waikato iwi and in my view for New Zealand. I will also add my support for most of the speeches that have been delivered today including that of the previous speaker up until the last 2 minutes of her speech when she seemed to be joining Rodney Hide’s level of debate—unfortunately. 
I will comment on a couple of minor aspects about this bill and the first is about the vision and the strategy. A number of comments and concerns have been expressed by some parties in relation to the vision and strategy and the implications of those for the planning process particularly in the Waikato; I believe that those fears are misplaced. In schedule 2 the bill sets out the vision and strategy to the extent that the vision statement sets out a goal for the restoration and protection of the health and well-being of the Waikato River. I think that that is laudable and I do not think that anyone should oppose it at all. To have a long-term goal of that sort of magnitude and to have the other sorts of things set out in the vision creates a sense of combined purpose for all involved to strive for. 
The strategy is the process by which one might go about implementing a vision. Again it does not actually lock in things for ever and a day which I think is very important to understand and comprehend because there seems to be a view that the strategy will be locked in once and for all and will drive absolutely everything. But that is not the case. It just sets out some guidelines for achieving the vision. Then over and above that in schedule 3 there is a process for review and revision. The process has to be agreed on before the strategy and vision can be moved forward should there be some concern about that review. So that is the first point about the strategy and the vision. 
The second aspect is about the change in this particular deed and the bill as opposed to the 2008 deed and bill in respect of representation. Under the previous arrangement or the previous deed five different statutory bodies were proposed to be set up. So if ever there was going to be a bureaucratic nightmare in my view it was that. Instead as part of the process of review that has occurred in terms of the new deed one of the big changes is that we will go from five different statutory bodies to the one statutory authority that will be responsible and the Waikato River Authority will be the body servicing the administration and delivering on the strategy. That is a significant and major step forward. 
The only other comment I will make is in respect of Mr Hide’s speech. I make no personal comment about my views in respect of democracy. I do not claim to be an expert but for someone to give me a lecture about local authority democracy and then behave in completely the opposite direction I think is galling—to be kind about it. With those few words I commend this bill to the House. 
Hon SHANE JONES (Labour) 
:  
Kia ora ano tatou. Ko te kupu tuatahi me tuku ki te whaea o tenei hoa o tatou katoa e noho nei i roto i to tatou Whare ara a Kahurangi Raiha Mahuta ko tana kohine tenei a Nanaia. He tika tonu me mihi tatou ki nga wahine pera rawa te ikeike i roto i te ao Maori ta te mea ka paupau haere tena reanga ki te matemate katahi tatou ka whakaaro mo nga tangata kua riro na ratou nga kaupapa penei i poipoi i to ratou wa na ratou i whakapau i to ratou kaha kia whakapumautia tetahi kaupapa e pai ai te ata noho o te Pakeha me te Maori i roto i te taiao i runga i te papa o te whenua. Na reira kia tau nga manaakitanga ki roto i tana whanau. Na reira e te tuahine tena koe. Tatou katoa i roto i tenei rangi i te wa i haere atu to tatou Minita mo nga Take Maori ki tawahi tamoko ai whakatairanga ai i tera o nga kirimana e ’hakapaohongia ana e ia ma te wa e titiro a tona wa nga kehua o tena kaupapa ka puta. Na reira ka nui tenei korero mo tenei wa ki to tatou reo Maori. Tena tatou katoa. 
[ 
Greetings once again to all of us. Firstly I acknowledge the mother of this colleague of all of us seated about our House: namely Lady Raiha Mahuta. This is her girl Nanaia. It is appropriate that we acknowledge women of that stature in Maoridom because it is not until that generation begin to die and diminish that we ponder the ones we have lost; the ones who nurtured matters like this one who expended their efforts and time on an enduring policy that will ensure that Pakeha and Maori co-exist harmoniously in the environment and on the land. Blessings upon her family and to you sister colleague. So to us all on the day when our Minister of Maori Affairs departed overseas to sign promote and proclaim the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples on the media time alone will tell what ghosts will emerge from that document. Enough for now in our Maori language and greetings to us all 
.] 
It is a pleasure to stand and speak on this bill. I have attended in our Maori language to some ceremonial words that carry the weight of affection that so many of us in this House have not only for Lady Raiha but for Sir Bob Mahuta who along with the Hon Matiu Rata Sir Graham Latimer and Sir Tipene O’Regan in the late 1980s took up the challenge and in very many important ways changed the course of our socio-political history. When someone of their ilk passes it brings lustre to us as parliamentarians to note their passing. It is not until decades have passed that we begin to study critically the contribution that different personalities make. Indeed on that side of the House was Mr Bolger and on this side of the House were Mr Lange and Mr Palmer so I think it is a fitting part of a parliamentary speech that we should acknowledge the contribution of those who are no longer with us. 
I cannot say the same about the leader of the ACT Party. The ACT Party today has disgraced itself in the very venal and ugly way that its leader in a fit of desperation sought to explain the reasons why his party do not like this bill. In a democratic House such as ours we are entitled to bring our differences forward but for him to demean the plume of Maoridom the Tainui people and describe their heritage their aspirations as hocus-pocus will come back to haunt that man when he stands for election in 2011. 
The fact that he has swept away the elected regional councillors in Canterbury is now a matter of history but he stands and continually lambastes this bill because it undermines accountability it undermines transparency whilst at the same time he has handed over 80 percent of $30 billion of assets to the shadowy stewardship of a group of people who will not be accountable to the public. They will be accountable to these largely unknown predominantly vague but vigorously profit-driven entities called council-controlled organisations. The gulf of credibility between what he says about this bill and what he is actually doing lays bare his approach to the most sensitive issues confronting us as society. 
This bill has legitimacy and the institution it is creating will be a creature of statute. The statute will enjoy legitimacy because it will command a majority of the support of this House the highest court in the land and the largest form of public domain institutional expression. To then go on and attack the structure as lacking legitimacy is not only shallow but a very destructive approach to take to these issues. But as I said Mr Hide has sown those seeds venal though they may be and they will come back to haunt him without a doubt. 
The farming community has raised an area of concern but the farming community is on shaky ground in relation to water quality. It has asked us as a society to buy into its approach that without regulation it is willing to mitigate or diminish the negative effects of farming on the water-based environment and by and large we have gone along with that. But the most recent report which caused embarrassment to Fonterra our largest single commercial entity in the country shows that any farmer attacking this model because of its focus and accent on cleaning up the Waikato River needs to go back and stick to the udder. The farmers have an enormously long way to go before they can regain credibility in my view as stewards of the water-based environment. 
It might be said that this bill could be an impost on the farming community. The farming community derived economic benefit from the use of the water—either the ability of the river and the water to absorb the waste that comes off farmland or the application of water on to their farmland. It is not really a free good because expenses and costs are associated with the interaction of the commercial activity called farming and the use of that water resource. I encourage those who have influence over the farming community to advise them that they should get in and support something like this because it is not designed to strip anyone’s rights. It is actually designed to future-proof the ability of the local community local firms and the broader Auckland and Waikato public to enjoy the benefits reflected in the Waikato River. 
The law as a consequence of this bill being passed will give status to concepts that we are familiar with on the marae and concepts that may very well test the analytical powers of the Environment Court or other consent agencies. But they are no different from concepts such as intrinsic value. They are no different from expressions such as inherent value. Environmentalism as reflected in the statute law of New Zealand today already gives standing to notions of aesthetic value intrinsic value and existence value. These are matters that already enjoy standing in the country’s jurisprudence. 
The fact that that jurisprudence might one day be augmented as a consequence of introducing notions of kaitiakitanga mauri mana awa and manu whenua ought to scare no one. All it shows is that the cultural mix that the law has to account for is alive and well. That cultural mix is not going to cause from our perspective of the House any detrimental impact on the daily lives of the people other than remind them that as we use resources future generations are calling on us not to destroy the carrying capacity of the resource to also meet their needs their interests and to enable them to live full and meaningful lives by having a rich interaction with the environment. 
That is what this bill does and it does it in such a way that it uplifts a group of New Zealanders the tangata whenua of Waikato-Tainui who have been marginalised for so long as a consequence of colonialism in the 1800s and 1900s and it gives them a place of status and standing. For it to be described as hocus-pocus or unbearable or as a burdensome attack on the economy is short-sighted and we look forward to supporting this bill. Kia ora tatou. 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 I rise in this House to congratulate most of the speakers who have spoken earlier on the words they have said about this legislation its impact and what they see as the future of the Waikato region. I pay tribute to Lady Mahuta and especially to Nanaia for the very strong advocacy that Lady Mahuta made towards getting a solution; to Tuku Morgan who was here earlier; to members of the negotiating team whom we have seen in the building today; and to Brian Roche who did a great job in negotiating this settlement. 
First of all I acknowledge the previous Labour Government for presenting the first stage of this settlement. We were fortunate to be on the Waikato River at the time when Dr Cullen did that settlement. Basically that settlement was the impetus for what we see in this legislation now. The goodwill of Tainui shone through in the way that they and other iwi were willing to renegotiate the settlement in order to find a more practical and enduring solution that would actually achieve the goals the settlement sought to achieve. The goodwill that Tainui showed through the last year or so in that negotiation is something that New Zealanders and Waikato people should take a lot of inspiration from because it shows the intent of the parties to work together for the best interests of the river and the region. 
We also need to take into account the fact that it is not just Tainui involved in this settlement. Other iwi—Maniapoto Tuwharetoa Te Arawa and Raukawa—will also have a very big interest in the solution proposed in this Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Bill as will the Waikato Regional Council—Environment Waikato—and all the other councils in the area that were also part of this process. 
This has the credibility of the Waikato people. It is a democratic process. Those councils have supported these negotiations and they support this result. I like to see this not as a settlement but as an agreement for how we go forward. This shows a new way in which we can deliver a solution for the issues that our region faces. I say that as a Waikato dairy farmer who understands that we need a new approach and that we can work in one body to achieve one result for one river. That is the future of our region. 
Going by the comments of some members in this House those members may not understand the development of the cultural aspect of the Waikato region the importance that Tainui plays as an economic power base for our region and the importance of people in that region being able to work together for common solutions. There has been a maturity in that region which this legislation sets some benchmarks for and the region through that maturity will be able to deliver the results. I think we need to give credit to the people of Tainui and the people of the Waikato region for coming together and being part of this enduring settlement. 
We look forward to the results this legislation will have for river quality. It will have some effects. Some step-up in attitudes and approaches will be needed to achieve those effects but that is life. That will happen anyway and this is the way to do it. I have full faith in this legislation and in the people involved. 
I would also like to congratulate the flexibility of the negotiators in coming to this arrangement. We have some challenges going forward in making that vision a reality and I think that setting up the first governance board so that we have the right people on it will be a crucial aspect of that. We then have to make sure that there is public awareness and acceptance of this settlement and agreement. It is up to all parties to be part of that process and to encourage people to take on board the opportunity that this legislation gives us to provide that enduring solution. 
In the end I believe that we have here a result where it is possible for all the people of the Waikato to achieve the very serious and strategic goal for our region of increasing the water quality and also the environmental aspects of our region. I thank all those political parties that have supported this legislation—especially Labour which started the negotiations—Minister Chris Finlayson and the Maori Affairs Committee who have taken it to the next level in order to provide that solution; and I would like to thank Tainui and all the other iwi for the way in which they have approached the negotiations in an inspirational way that I believe shows that we have a strong future and that we can work together as a region to achieve our goals. Thank you. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 117 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 5 
ACT New Zealand 5. 
Bill read a second time. 
Tariff (Malaysia Free Trade Agreement) Amendment Bill 
First Reading 
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP (Minister of Defence)  
on behalf of the Minister of Trade 
: 
 I move  
That the Tariff (Malaysia Free Trade Agreement) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
 At the appropriate time I intend to move that the Tariff (Malaysia Free Trade Agreement) Amendment Bill be considered by the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee that the committee report to the House on or before 15 June 2010 and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting except during questions for oral answer during an evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House despite Standing Orders 187 and 190(1)(b) and (c). 
A report presented by the committee on or before that date 15 June will enable New Zealand to remain on course to complete its domestic procedures for the purpose of the free-trade agreement’s entry into force on 1 August 2010—hence the shortness of time. For this to occur both Malaysia and New Zealand have to notify each other that they have completed their domestic procedures and in our case that involves passing this bill through all its stages. 
The business relationship between New Zealand and Malaysia is characterised by growth and potential. The relationship is underpinned by close and friendly relations between our respective Governments and populations. That stems from a multifarious selection of things including our Commonwealth ties the Colombo Plan and our shared defence concerns particularly through the Five Power Defence Arrangement. Malaysia is one of the countries in South-East Asia best known to all New Zealanders. We note that its rapid growth in recent years coupled with our understanding of Malaysian people developed through trade and commerce has enabled trade to grow very substantially. 
It is worth noting that Malaysia is already our 10th largest trading partner. Two-way trade between our nations is approaching $2 billion a year. New Zealand exports $750 million worth of goods to Malaysia and over the last 4 years our exports have grown by 50 percent. A proportion of that time was during the recession. Services are also flourishing in a range of sectors including private education engineering and information and computer technology services. Of course there has been a substantial increase in the number of Malaysian international students in New Zealand over the last decade. Investment links have also grown and total New Zealand investment into Malaysia has grown from $26 million to $450 million in the year ending March 2008 over a 5-year period. That was a growth rate of 77 percent per annum. In contrast overall investment growth collectively is 8.5 percent. Members can see the impact that Malaysia and indeed South-east Asia generally have had on New Zealand’s growth prospects. 
Entering into this agreement will do a great deal to enhance and expand that position. It is worth noting for instance that last year Parliament gave effect to the free-trade agreement negotiated by New Zealand and Australia with the 10 South-east Asian nations the ASEAN nations which include Malaysia. We are doing a bilateral free-trade agreement to secure further benefits with a Commonwealth country that go above and beyond the general ASEAN deal. As members would expect this is a high-quality and comprehensive agreement. It is a standpoint for all New Zealand free-trade agreements and it will deliver three benefits: first it will enhance access to the Malaysian market for New Zealand goods and service exporters by reducing direct and indirect trade barriers; second it will provide greater certainty for New Zealand businesses about future trading and the investment environment; and third it will provide potential long-term gains from enhanced regional integration and further outcomes within the ASEAN region generally. 
In practical terms on day 1 of the agreement entering into force 95 percent of our exports will become duty-free and within 7 years 99.5 percent of our exports to Malaysia will become duty-free. This time frame is an excellent and a very high-quality outcome and is 5 years shorter than that for the ASEAN deal or the China free-trade agreement. That speaks a great deal about the depth of the relationship between our two countries. New Zealanders in short will be the only ones in Malaysia who will be able to guarantee to their clients that New Zealand goods will clear Malaysian customs within 48 hours. In commercial terms that means that Malaysian importers will be able to have a legal assurance that New Zealand products will clear Malaysian customs within that period. No other competitor of ours will have that particular advantage. Of course advantages of that nature are reciprocal. 
New provisions in the agreement will make it easier for New Zealand companies to establish a business in Malaysia to work more closely with Malaysian partners and to deliver services across the Internet as one would expect in these modern times. Those commitments made by Malaysia are new and are concentrated in those sectors where New Zealand is most competitive such as in engineering education environmental services and software services. The free-trade agreement future-proofs New Zealand’s investment and service interests in key areas. We have a first-mover advantage we have an edge on our competitors and we stand to benefit automatically from concessions that Malaysia negotiates with future free-trade agreement partners. For instance Malaysia is negotiating agreements with the United States and Australia amongst others. We are ahead of those countries and we will have any protections that those two parties negotiate. 
It is worth noting to members of the House—and this will be of interest to the Green Party—that the free-trade agreement will be binding and given treaty status. Environment and labour agreements have also been concluded built on existing agreements. I say at this point deviating slightly from the provisions of this bill that the Green Party needs to take those aspects of the agreement on board when its members perhaps consider this treaty during the select committee process. Those outcomes build on existing instruments in those areas with other ASEAN parties so they enhance communication and cooperation on labour and environmental issues. 
The timing of this agreement is particularly important as global economies emerge from the financial crisis. In strategic terms the free-trade agreement with Malaysia strengthens key relationships that we have with a vibrant partner that many of us are very familiar with. It is a further building block towards the goal of securing a free-trade agreement for the entire region. That is a tremendously important goal for the APEC group of nations. It underlies our strategic positioning as a nation within the Asia-Pacific region and provides an incentive for other countries to follow suit. 
I conclude by saying the free-trade agreement is expected to contribute to New Zealand’s performance by promoting the volume and velocity of trade in goods services capital people and knowledge and is intended to be part of a wider framework in due course. It is the Government’s intention to see this bill enacted by 30 June 2010 in order to meet the target date which is very important of 1 August for entry into force of the free-trade agreement. I commend the bill to the House. 
Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour) 
: 
 It gives me great pleasure to rise and support the Tariff (Malaysia Free Trade Agreement) Amendment Bill. In fact if I thought I could help by taking a 5-minute call rather than a 10-minute call to get it passed sooner I would do that because there are people who would benefit from it immediately on its implementation. 
I am not a kiwifruit grower but if I were then I would be waiting in anticipation of this bill being passed because it will make an immediate difference to kiwifruit growers and exporters in New Zealand. They will receive a 15 percent tariff reduction on the implementation of this free-trade agreement. So I welcome it appearing today. But I want to take a few minutes to talk about some of the economic benefits that will accrue to New Zealand through the free-trade agreement. I will also talk about where it takes us from here because one must always have an eye on the future with these kinds of agreements. 
First of all of course the economic benefits are not inconsiderable. Malaysia is New Zealand’s eighth-largest export market totalling almost $1 billion in 2008. As communicated by Minister Wayne Mapp between 2004 and 2008 exports to Malaysia grew by nearly 80 percent which was more than double the rate of growth of exports to the rest of the world. I think the Minister may have made a slight mistake with the figures he was reading at one point; 95.1 percent of tariffs will go immediately on implementation but within 7 years it will be 99.5 percent—I think the Minister said 95.5 percent by mistake. I think that was simply an error; 99.5 percent of all tariffs will disappear by 2016. That is significant for two reasons: not only do we get the majority of the tariff reduction immediately on implementation but beyond that we get almost everything taken away almost every tariff reduced in a very speedy time frame. It will be in place by 2016 which is faster than the ASEAN free-trade agreement allows for in its terms. I think the Minister of Trade once referred to the New Zealand - Malaysia Free Trade Agreement as the “ASEAN free-trade agreement on steroids”—although I could be wrong. It is certainly faster and more comprehensive than the ASEAN free-trade agreement which was a significant development in itself. 
Of course these kinds of agreements do not come out of a vacuum; they come out of a history and after years of development. So it is pertinent to pay tribute to previous Ministers with the trade portfolio beginning with Jim Sutton but also including Phil Goff and the current Minister of Trade Tim Groser who has brought the agreement to its conclusion in good time. All the Ministers deserve recognition for the work they put in given that the negotiations around this began back in 2005. 
It was my great pleasure to accept an invitation from the Minister of Trade Tim Groser to attend the signing of the Malaysia free-trade agreement in October of last year. That is now a convention indicative of what is essentially in large measure a bipartisan approach to the trade portfolio. During the course of that trip Prime Minister John Key who was also present opened a new facility that Fonterra had developed out of Kuala Lumpur. It will be significant for our dairy exports because it is a manufacturing plant that allows our dairy exports to be turned into products that are palatable to the Malaysian diet and appetite. Fonterra is to be congratulated for its multi-million-dollar investment in that plant—and certainly the plant was very impressive. But if we did not have such an agreement as this then it would be so much harder for Fonterra to make the gains it seeks to make by advancement and investment in the Malaysian market. Kiwifruit dairy products meat and other food products services and education are the critical components of this Malaysia free-trade agreement. I welcome them. 
It is also important to draw two other things to the attention of the House. The first is that the now customary side agreements on labour and environment conditions are also attached to this because they are now conventional parts of the apparatus around free-trade agreements—and so they should be. But there are two exceptions that have been included in this agreement that I think are again apposite—funnily enough—today as we have just passed the second reading of the Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Bill and the Government has been emphatic about lauding the signing of a non-binding and aspirational declaration on the rights of indigenous people. 
Here is something that makes Maori aspirations concrete. In this agreement there is an exception in relation to the Treaty of Waitangi which is consistent with New Zealand’s previous free-trade agreements. The New Zealand - Malaysia Free Trade Agreement maintains New Zealand’s ability to take the measures it deems necessary to accord more favourable treatment to Maori including for the fulfilment of New Zealand’s obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi. That is meaningful. I say to the Maori Party that that is the way things are done. That is the way through words on the page that are binding across nations that the Treaty of Waitangi has international status has international recognition and means something in this country. 
There is also an exception around the creative arts. That again is something that Maori will have profound interest in. The words on the page state that the free-trade agreement does not preclude New Zealand from taking measures necessary to protect national treasures or taonga specific sites of historical or archaeological value or to support creative arts of national value. That absolutely relates to Maori creative arts and the things that are important to Maori. I say again to the Maori Party that that is the way that those aspirations are concretised. That is the way that those aspirations for Maori which we share and which we support are given life status and meaning. It is not in empty rhetoric around a declaration that the Prime Minister is very keen to stress is non-binding and aspirational. That is how a Parliament a Government and a country should make the recognition of things precious to Maori real protected and absolutely embedded not only in the law of this country but in the way in which this country deals internationally with its trading partners. I hope this legislation is a lesson for the Maori Party in how to do things in a real and meaningful way. Thank you. 
JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa) 
: 
 I was reflecting as my colleague Maryan Street was speaking about history. It is a word she used in her speech and it took me back to my days at university. Most people of my vintage will remember the Colombo Plan and Malaysian students studying in our classes. A fellow called Ong was in our class at Lincoln University when I was doing my degree there. Moving on from that my first-ever job was actually up in Alor Setar looking under our aid programme at the location of an abattoir. The fact that I had never been in one in my life did not seem to matter. 
After that I got a job with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and I remember very clearly the briefings we used to get in Singapore at our High Commission on the activities of the communists during the period of Konfrontasi which of course underpinned the reason why we kept a battalion in Singapore and why we did a lot of exercises in Malaysia as we are doing today in Afghanistan. Today is a far cry from those days when people lived in attap huts and Malaysia was generally regarded as an underdeveloped country. Today we meet as equal countries signing a trade agreement which leaves us in an equal relationship on both sides. 
Rather than traverse some of the territory that has been covered so far by previous speakers I will speak particularly to my constituents in the Wairarapa and outline to them the importance of this trade agreement to their day-to-day work. Specifically we are exporting about $350 million of dairy products into Malaysia. We are producing a couple of million litres of milk a day down in South Wairarapa—much of that will end up in Malaysia. We export something in the order of $50 million worth of meat a year—sheep meat and goat meat particularly. That is a product that we have a lot of in the Wairarapa and in Central Hawke’s Bay. 
We are exporting $30 million worth of fruit and nuts to Malaysia and we have particularly plenty of fruit in my electorate. We are exporting $20 million worth of machinery. People like Metalcraft Industries in Dannevirke are producing and exporting to the global market things like wheelchairs and we have just hit our 500th unit. Other significant products that Malaysia takes from New Zealand include about $20 million worth of paper and paperboard $16 million worth of wood pulp and $15 million worth of timber. All of those products come from my electorate so this bill will be hugely important to the day-to-day market opportunities for many people in that area which stretches from Ngawi to Waipawa. 
I think it is also important to keep in mind that the global economic crisis had very little impact on the growth of GDP in Malaysia and on the growth of our exports to Malaysia. Our exports have continued to grow really strongly. Food as I have said comprised roughly 50 percent of our exports annually to Malaysia over the last 5 years. The real additional growth is not so much in commodity products but in prepared foods. We are adding value to what we are able to put into that market and that is also because as incomes are rising in Malaysia people can pay more for our produce. 
I think the other thing that has not been mentioned today and is very significant is that particularly to eastern Malaysia much of our exports are actually transhipped in Singapore. We can probably guarantee that our exports to Malaysia are $60 million to $100 million a year more than the official statistics show because a lot of our product is actually getting caught through the Singapore net. 
Another area of great importance to us is tourism. Every hotel bed represents three jobs. Nearly 20000 Malaysians visit New Zealand each year. Both New Zealand and Malaysia will benefit from this agreement and from the ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Agreement which has entered into force. The profile with Malaysia will be really high amongst our export community and our tourist industry. I think that increasingly New Zealanders will be off to visit Malaysia as tourists as well. 
I think this bill is a very good bill. There is no point in my continuing on about it. I look forward to it coming to our select committee and we will be reporting back to the House in due course. Thank you. 
STUART NASH (Labour) 
: 
 I stand in support of the Tariff (Malaysia Free Trade Agreement) Amendment Bill in its first reading. This bill amends the Tariff Act 1988 in order to implement the New Zealand - Malaysia Free Trade Agreement which was signed in Kuala Lumpur in October last year. The bill’s amendments will allow transitional safeguard measures to be applied in appropriate circumstances to imports originating from Malaysia. Like all free-trade agreements ratified in this House during this Government’s term negotiations for this agreement were started by the previous Labour Government in this instance back in 2005 under the Hon Jim Sutton. They were carried out with diligence competence and leadership by the then Minister of Trade Phil Goff our next Prime Minister. It would be good if the National Government could give credit where it is due when it comes to these sorts of bipartisan matters concerning trade. 
This deal expands on the ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Agreement which was signed in February 2009. It cuts trade barriers between Malaysia and New Zealand more swiftly and to a greater extent than the ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Agreement does. This free-trade agreement underlines the close relationship that New Zealand has built with Malaysia over the decades. We hope it will provide a platform for even stronger ties. We have heard the statistics on the growth in trade between the two countries. We all know that if New Zealand is to develop sustainable economic growth then it must follow a policy of export-led growth it must work to foster an economic environment where key competencies around export strategy must be encouraged in any way shape or form and it must continue to foster develop and ratify key relationships with our major trading partners. 
Bill English has stated that his Government’s goal is to drive an export-led recovery. He said: “We’re looking for how to make sure we get a sustainable export-led recovery.” In my view three things are holding back companies in New Zealand from optimising their export growth and therefore New Zealand’s sustainable export growth and wealth creation. Bill English’s Government not only is doing nothing to address these but also is making them worse. Therefore this Government’s actions are increasingly suboptimising any chance New Zealand has of increasing economic growth through the further development of the export sector. The three things holding New Zealand companies back from optimising their export opportunities are a lack of affordable capital a lack of true export competency and an outdated monetary policy. Let me expand on these. 
First is the lack of affordable capital. Only around 10 percent of all business loans are unsecured. This means that around 90 percent of all business loans are secured against assets of the owner of the company—often the family house. This attitude to access to capital will never allow the country to address the issue that we overvalue capital and undervalue labour in this country. Basically this means that we prefer to employ cheap labour rather than spend money on capital in order to improve productivity. This issue has not been addressed by the current Government; rather it has worked against this principle in two ways. First research has shown that the higher the wage the more likely the company is to spend money on capital improvements. This does not— 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: What are we talking about here? 
STUART NASH 
: This is very relevant because what I am— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The member must relate it back to the free-trade agreement. I am happy that he use these issues but he must tie his first reading speech back to the substance of the bill. 
STUART NASH 
: This is a very good free-trade agreement as I have mentioned but one of the reasons it will not be optimised is that this Government has not addressed three issues. One issue that will ensure that this Government does not optimise it is the lack of access to affordable capital. As I will point out the higher the wages the more likely a company is to spend money on capital improvements. This does not lead to fewer jobs; rather it leads to greater efficiencies more jobs as companies grow and more important a greater propensity to scale up for export growth and in fact take advantage of this sort of free-trade agreement. 
The second thing that this Government has suggested it will do is sell Kiwibank. This is the Government-owned bank that was set up by the previous Labour-led Government— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The member is well off the track. I have mentioned that we are talking about a free-trade agreement and he must talk about that. It is about relevancy. If the member does not talk about it I will terminate his speech. He can mention some things but he must tie them back to the substance of the bill. 
STUART NASH 
: Can I address that point of order? 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: No. I have ruled and I am inviting you to continue. 
STUART NASH 
: OK. As we know we are a nation of small to medium sized enterprises. This means that 97 percent of New Zealand’s businesses consist of 19 members or fewer. When we are talking about a free-trade agreement we are talking about an ability for companies to scale up and meet export markets—to grow to a point where they can export. Very few of those 97 percent of companies can afford to employ a full-time international marketing or market development manager in Malaysia which is what this free-trade agreement is about let alone open an office in a foreign country like Malaysia where the language is different the legal system is different and the business culture is different which is what we are talking about in this free-trade agreement. We need an agency that is our ears and eyes in global markets. 
When we are talking about this free-trade agreement we come back to the very important point that the Minister who is responsible for New Zealand Trade and Enterprise cut $10 million from its operational budget in 2009. My question to the Government and to the Hon Gerry Brownlee is how they see New Zealand companies optimising their growth with this sort of free-trade agreement in place. I hate to think what Mr Brownlee will cut from this year’s budget. I asked the retiring chief executive officer of New Zealand Trade and Enterprise whether his organisation was New Zealand’s international marketing and market development organisation in places like Malaysia and his response was “If only.” 
The third point holding New Zealand’s economic development back in terms of our taking advantage of a free-trade agreement like the one between New Zealand and Malaysia is our current monetary policy. I would like to elaborate on this a little bit because it cuts right to the heart of what a free-trade agreement is about. The vast majority of trade between New Zealand and Malaysia is in US dollars. What tends to happen is we buy and sell in US dollars; therefore the cross rate is most important to companies that are doing this trade and are expected to take advantage of this free-trade agreement. I would like to again ask whether anyone in this House can tell me how a company can effectively forecast and business plan on the international market like the Malaysian market— 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) 
: 
 The New Zealand - Malaysia Free Trade Agreement is not the first of its kind to come before this House. It follows the China and ASEAN free-trade agreements and will be followed by the Gulf States some Pacific countries and India. The fundamentals of these agreements are all the same so the debates in the House have a certain quality of déjà vu. The debate over trade is simply part of the debate over the global economy. The difference between National and Labour orthodoxy on the one hand and the Green alternative on the other is in the most fundamental way a difference in economic philosophy. We have to revisit first principles as it were. Essentially National and Labour embrace traditional neoclassical economics. The Greens adopt ecological economics. The difference is qualitative. 
The Government’s case for free trade rests on two arguments: short-term morality and efficiency. The Green’s case for sustainable trade rests on two arguments: long-term morality and scale. The moral argument as propounded by the Minister of Trade Tim Groser is the following: the global population is set to grow from 6 billion to 8 billion by 2030 and food demand will increase by 50 percent. New Zealand has an obligation to feed that expanding and urbanising population. That moral obligation is accompanied by a financial interest in increasing our export income. So morality sanctions us to engage in production and trade and to do so at optimal efficiency. The global economy is to grow through productivity specialisation reflecting the theory of comparative trade advantage. The combined economic output is increased and all countries stand to gain to some extent even if some gain more than others. 
So we are all better off and New Zealand in particular combines economic wealth with moral satisfaction. With a population of 4 million we feed some 18 million people around the world already. With improved productivity we could feed more. However specialisation means that our land financial capital and labour force will be required to realign from the less to the more productive sectors. But this can be done through time-bound phased-out regimes. 
That world view was most recently expressed in Mr Groser’s foreword to the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development’s 2010 trade and environment review. Mr Groser wrote: “All countries have a common interest in food security removing impediments to trade and reducing global emissions of greenhouse gases. … Increased economic wealth would also improve the ability of countries over time to contribute to global action on climate change.” I note the phrase “over time”. The Minister believes that the world with New Zealand punching above its weight as a fast follower has the luxury of time as it slopes off into the 21st century; that it is not our problem to determine the pace of change. 
The Green world view is different. It has to do with sustainability and it has a different conception of both the magnitude of the problem and the urgency of its resolution. The carrying capacity of the planet based on current technology is less than 8 billion. In fact it is less than today’s 6 billion. Precisely what figure the optimal population is depends on the level of material consumption for humanity as a whole. If we all live Western lifestyles we need six planets. Even at the average global level of consumption today we have an ecological overshoot of some 30 percent. So with our current technology and our current lifestyle we are simply overpopulated on the planet. If we cannot bring ourselves to accept this unpalatable fact then alternatively we have to acknowledge that the global economy is breaching the planet’s ecological limits. 
In light of this New Zealand’s moral obligation is not so straightforward. The National-Labour position is not to query the greater human numbers but to simply feed them and make a dollar. The Green position is to search for optimality of scale. That is a long-term moral imperative rather than a short-term moral choice. Mr Key and Mr Goff toss the phrase “sustainable development” around through a vague intuition that it is a modern political good but they do not understand its true meaning and they do not comprehend its implications for macroeconomic management or trade policy. 
British scientist James Lovelock contends that the planet’s carrying capacity is closer to 1 billion that we may not reach 8 billion and that the population will probably decline towards that much lower figure. Whether or not he is accurate with the figure he is correct within an order of magnitude; National and Labour are not. Does the moral obligation for New Zealand exports hold for a global population of 20 billion? British governmental adviser John Beddington warns of a perfect storm around 2030 when resource depletion climate stress population numbers lifestyle aspirations and energy constraints roil the global economy and inflame the body politic. Whether or not he is accurate in his time prediction he is correct about the prognostication. 
So where does this leave global trade policy? Globalised free trade is the manifestation of the problem of the globalised economy. The case for free trade rests on the assumption that trade is voluntary. Both parties must be better off than before the voluntary act. When trade is based on the absolute advantage enjoyed by the countries for the commodities in question this is self-evident but the Ricardian theory of comparative advantage still justifies trade even when a country may have absolute advantage in all goods. The theory is that the combined production of all countries trading is greater than if they produced separately and that each country stands to gain individually even if not to the same extent. 
Only last week the World Trade Organization chief Pascal Lamy dismissed any challenge to the notion that open trade brings overall societal benefit. He said that contested policy provides a fertile field for the growth of urban legend and falsely premised ideas with popular appeal. He identified what he saw as six fallacies or economic myths and sought to refute them. Time does not permit me to examine each one here. Mr Lamy contended that the benefits of trade which he identified as economic well-being and political harmony will be realised only if the overall policy context is right. How right he was. Mr Lamy called for a public debate so the response of the Greens is to identify the mistakes in his thinking. 
There are six fallacies in the Ricardo-Lamy-Groser theory of free trade and they are as follows. First the extra combined production from free trade cannot in fact be achieved without extra resources. There is the increase in the rate of depletion in the natural resource base from which the product is made. What trade economists mean when they say “no extra resources” is simply no additional labour or financial capital because neoclassical economics omits natural capital in its theory. Second the extra transport costs associated with free trade are not included. International transport is energy intensive often subsidised and its external costs are omitted from its pricing. Sea trade emits 0.8 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide—3 percent of all anthropogenic emissions—and this is expected to triple by 2050. The same is expected of aviation and surface freight. 
Third free trade assumes the economic cost of specialisation to be negligible but it ignores the social cost it requires retraining and perhaps physical relocation. That is a loss in human welfare. The invisible hand has narrowed the freedom to choose. Fourth free-trade agreements have a withdrawal clause and if a trade becomes too disadvantageous New Zealand can theoretically opt out. But that assumes that specialisation is reversible. Is a furniture-maker to return to the Wairarapa after a brief stint as a sharemilker in Canterbury simply because things did not work out? 
Fifth the specialisation results in a narrow range of sectoral products country by country. That makes each country vulnerable to the vagaries of the global economy. When cute varieties of ice cream and salted crackers pass in the night across the Tasman in the name of choice and carbon emissions that is simply daft. Sixth Ricardo’s free-trade theory was confined to trade in goods alone. The two productive factors labour and capital remain confined within national boundaries. Only commodities crossed national frontiers. Today’s globalisation bequeaths far greater mobility in financial capital than in goods. The Minister glorifies our export growth to China since the free-trade agreement came into force but he ignores the land and other assets going to Chinese ownership as we speak. Far from freeing up a country to benefit from free trade New Zealand becomes a 21st century colony imprisoned through global free investment. 
This Malaysian free-trade agreement is simply more of the same. As such it spells disaster not because of nefarious intent; Mr Lamy and Mr Groser are honourable men but their economic thought needs reform. When this bill comes to the House for a second reading I shall explore the philosophical differences between the National and previous Labour Governments and Green alternatives and how they play out in the case of the Malaysia trade agreement. 
JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) 
: 
 In the first reading of the Tariff (Malaysia Free Trade Agreement) Amendment Bill I will touch first on the purpose of the bill which amends the Tariff Act 1988 and implements the New Zealand - Malaysia Free Trade Agreement signed in Kuala Lumpur on 26 October last year. The bill speeds up tariff reduction between our two countries. It will take nearly half the time agreed in the agreement that established the ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Area. 
The comments that I will make in the first reading of this bill I will make largely in the context of the drought conditions that have been declared in much of the eastern area of New Zealand and particularly in North Otago and Central Otago in my electorate. Anything that the National-led Government can do to enhance favourable trading conditions particularly for New Zealand farmers can only be applauded. This agreement with Malaysia is a very important part of National’s focus on free trade and improving access for our exporters to world markets. In the context of my electorate those exporters are in the agricultural sector. This priority was included in the Prime Minister’s statement to Parliament in February so I am very proud to stand and speak in the first reading of this bill. 
I will give a little background. Over the past 4 years New Zealand goods exported to Malaysia grew by more than 50 percent making Malaysia New Zealand’s 10th largest trading partner. To me that is exciting and significant. Malaysia provides New Zealand exporters with a wealth of opportunity. In the field of education—which is also important to us—between 2003 and 2008 the number of fee-paying Malaysian students in New Zealand increased by more than 70 percent. That is a significant increase. It makes Malaysian students New Zealand’s third-largest source of fee-paying university students and the second-largest source of PhD students. It is worth noting that international full fee paying students are worth over $2 billion a year to the New Zealand economy. 
I will speak on some of the detail of this Malaysian free-trade agreement. It eliminates Malaysian tariffs on 99.5 percent of New Zealand’s exports within 7 years of its entry into force. That is quite significant. That rate—99.5 percent of New Zealand’s exports to Malaysia being duty-free within 7 years—is much faster than the agreed rate of 99.4 percent over 12 years under the ASEAN agreement. On full implementation of the Malaysian agreement the duty savings will amount to over $10 million a year for New Zealand exporters. Ninety-five percent of New Zealand’s exports to Malaysia will be duty-free on day one of the agreement coming into force. 
The bill also provides 48-hour customs clearance and self-declaration of origin for our exports. Anything that can be done to smooth the way for exporters and to cut some of the red tape under which they operate must be applauded. 
I will talk about a couple of specific components of this free-trade agreement. Although the provisions with regard to kiwifruit are exciting I will leave those to my colleagues who live in the North Island to talk about because we do not tend to grow kiwifruit commercially down south; we have much more exciting things to grow like meat products wool dairy—excluding liquid milk—fish and particularly forestry. Those meat wool dairy fish and forestry sectors retain their duty-free access. That duty-free access is bound in so Malaysia cannot reapply tariffs on New Zealand’s agricultural exports. In my introductory comments to this brief contribution I referred to the droughts declared today; in that context I think that that component is exciting and should be encouraging. In terms of liquid milk there is significant improvement. In-quota duties will be eliminated and in-quota volumes will increase by up to 5 percent a year. 
The New Zealand - Malaysia Free Trade Agreement is boosting innovation. I am quite sure that those in the exporting agricultural sector will be excited about the improvement in the access of exports to world markets. This is one of National’s six policy drivers for a step-change in New Zealand’s economic performance and it is one that will be welcomed by farmers and by the agricultural sector particularly in the dry areas of the South Island. I commend this bill to the House. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Labour—Te Atatu) 
: 
 The Labour Party supports this free-trade proposal which is a proposal that happened when Labour was previously in Government. With all due respect to our Green colleagues the Labour Party knows that without trade our country could not exist. We could not import goods and we could not pay for the lifestyle that we have. Trade is the lifeblood of New Zealand being a developed country. 
As I am sure all members of this House are aware New Zealand faces severe geographic barriers to prosperity. We are the most distant country from the European market. We are far from the North American market. We are relatively speaking close to the emerging Asian markets but remember that we are as far from Singapore as London is. So geographically even for South-east Asia and for a country like Malaysia New Zealand is still a distant market. Malaysia is currently our eighth-largest export market. We export goods of about $1 billion worth to Malaysia. Hopefully this free-trade agreement signed so recently and soon to be ratified by this Parliament will increase that trade. 
I think back to 2008 when as Minister of Education I accompanied the then Prime Minister Helen Clark and the then Minister of Trade Phil Goff to Beijing for the signing of the Free Trade Agreement between the Government of New Zealand and the Government of the People’s Republic of China. I tell members to look at what the results of that free-trade agreement have been: an increase in trade of $1 billion in the last 2 years. That is an increase of 34 percent in our trade with China—that huge emerging market. One of the critical things to see the development that the China free-trade agreement personifies is a Government taking a very proactive role in promoting and encouraging the opportunities that the free-trade agreement provides. For example when I went to China with the then Prime Minister for the signing of the China free-trade agreement I had meetings with the Minister of Education Zhou Ji. I signed a memorandum of understanding for the mutual recognition of high school qualifications so that students coming to study in New Zealand at high school level would not be penalised in China for having New Zealand diplomas and similarly for New Zealand students going to study in China. I visited schools and tertiary institutions. I really worked hard as we would expect any Minister of Education to do to try to utilise those opportunities. Mr Goff and I went to Hangzhou. He spoke with exporters and I dealt with educationalists in Zhejiang province in that very rich middle part of China. It is really important that a Government seizes those opportunities and takes a leadership role. 
After that free-trade agreement the Labour-led Government set up a road show. It travelled all around New Zealand giving exporters business people and agriculturalists the chance to see what was available through the free-trade agreement. We set up web-based information services so that people could access ready and quick answers to the opportunities provided by the free-trade agreement. Between 2005 and 2008 when Labour was in Government it increased New Zealand Trade and Enterprise funding from $6 million to $54 million. We knew that it was critical to invest to maximise these opportunities. I am really pleased that the present Government has signed the free-trade agreement with Malaysia but I ask myself what it has done to encourage New Zealand exporters businesses education providers and primary producers to take advantage of this situation. New Zealand Trade and Enterprise’s funding over 4 years will be reduced by $101 million. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: How much? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: It is a reduction of $101 million in New Zealand Trade and Enterprise funding. Remember that this is the funding I just spoke about that in 3 years under Labour went up from $6 million to $54 million. That was an increase. In fact we set up a national development fund and that has already had cuts for this financial year and it will disappear entirely in 2011. Yes the new Government has set up a Growth Services Fund but only a very small amount of money from the New Zealand Trade and Enterprise cuts is going into that fund. 
So we have provided an opportunity but we have not provided the oil if you like to facilitate New Zealand businesses education providers and so on to grasp those opportunities. I ask the present Government to take a lesson from what Labour did. We knew that we had to invest and to show leadership. We had to encourage fund and explore the opportunities that free-trade agreements create. This is especially important because I guess we have seen with the current air problems in Europe created by the volcano in Iceland that air travel is critical to successful exporting. One of the obstacles that New Zealand already faces is the talk in an environmentally and globally conscious world that air miles—carbon that is generated by air transport—could be a penalising weapon used against us by some of our competitors in Europe and North America. They say that New Zealand primary production as efficient and top quality as it is is very competitive in those European and North American markets. Our competitors and we cannot blame them for it will use every opportunity they can to get a market advantage. 
I am really concerned about the threat to one of the things that we have been very successful at in New Zealand both Labour Governments and National Governments before that which is helping to build this image of “100% Pure New Zealand”: a country that is very environmentally conscious that cares about the environment and that would not be open to criticism about not being environmentally sustainable. Three events come to mind to question that brand which we have been so hard put to invest in which has been cultivated over so long and which has been so successful. Those three things begin with of course first and foremost the proposal to mine schedule 4 lands protected by the Crown Minerals Act in our national parks in the Coromandel Forest Park in some of our offshore islands in the Hauraki Gulf and so on. 
I know that the present Government will say that it is just a proposal and that it is just looking at it but the very fact that it is being considered is a detriment to this “100% Pure New Zealand” image that our country has spent so long and so much money on investing in and promoting. So the first issue is that we have to be really careful that this free-trade agreement with Malaysia and the tourism and brand opportunities that we have spent so long cultivating are not compromised. 
Then we have the whaling issue. We heard Mr Key’s announcement in January that he would have a bold new initiative to stop Japanese whaling in the Southern Ocean on which I would totally agree with him. We do not want whaling to happen. I was conservation Minister for 5 years and I battled against Japanese whaling that entire time. I went to every International Whaling Commission meeting over those 5 years to try to stop it. We now have a proposal from Mr McCully and Mr Key to have limited commercial whaling with an end point where Japan will hopefully stop whaling. The Japanese have already announced that they will continue whaling indefinitely because they have said it is part of their cultural identity. Curiously enough this is a country that started whaling only after the Second World War. 
So we have had mining in national parks and we have had New Zealand instead of being the staunchest conservation country and reinforcing our brand as “100% Pure New Zealand” now being the leading country promoting the idea of lifting the international moratorium on whaling. Then we had the fishing debacle a few weeks ago. At the conference in Libya the New Zealand delegates took the opportunity to increase their quota for bluefin tuna—a species that is at grave risk of becoming extinct. Many other countries voluntarily reduced their fishing quota but New Zealand went from 4 to 6 percent. That did not receive very much attention in New Zealand but it had a huge impact globally and a huge potential impact on our image of “100% Pure New Zealand.” 
Mining in national parks commercial whaling again with New Zealand leading the charge and now New Zealand becoming the only country in the world to increase its catch of bluefin tuna an endangered species are just three examples that have led to the  
Guardian  
and  
The Economist 
 in London and the 
 New York Times  
starting to question our clean green image. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think the Opposition speaker has been going far too wide off the mark and he should come back to the bill. This is the Malaysian free-trade amendment bill and I think he should confine his remarks to that. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: Speaking to the point of order— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: I do not need any advice. If the member is making comparisons he needs to draw them back to the bill. But that opportunity has gone because his time has expired. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua) 
: 
 I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on the Tariff (Malaysia Free Trade Agreement) Amendment Bill. I must say that this bill signifies another great achievement under this excellent National Government. It was good to hear the Hon Maryan Street saying how important she thought this bill was and that she would be prepared to sacrifice some of her speaking time if that meant the bill would be passed earlier. However despite her saying she would take just a 5-minute call she could not help herself and went on for the full 10 minutes in talking about the merits of this excellent bill under the National Government. 
It is appropriate to acknowledge trade Ministers both past and present. I think of the Hon Dr Lockwood Smith—who was not acknowledged by Maryan Street—Jim Sutton Phil Goff and of course the extremely hard-working and productive Hon Tim Groser. All of those members have worked extraordinarily hard for New Zealand often under hugely difficult time constraints day and night. 
There is no doubt that this bill signifies the gathering pace of many free-trade agreements that have gone on in recent times. Those include on 1 January the agreement establishing the ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Area. On 29 March the Minister of Trade Tim Groser signed the New Zealand - Hong Kong China Closer Economic Partnership agreement and of course the New Zealand - Gulf Co-operation Council free-trade agreement negotiations have been concluded. More recently John Key has just returned from a very successful visit to the United States further consolidating the Trans-Pacific Economic Partnership Agreement for which talks began in Melbourne last month. The Government has secured approvals for free-trade agreement negotiations to start with India and that again is another very significant achievement. I note that if all the free-trade agreements come to fruition it will mean that we have direct and indirect agreements with the four most populous nations on earth: China India the United States and Indonesia. That represents almost half of the planet’s population and much of the world’s economic activity. 
I thought the contribution from the Greens was a somewhat gloomy one. It cited Dr Lovelock the British scientist who has suggested an optimal world population of a billion when we have 6 billion already and when almost inevitably the world’s population will go up another 2 or 3 billion in the next 20 to 30 years. It is vital for New Zealand that we have greater opportunities for our food supply to go to these heavily populated countries. Undoubtedly with time there will be natural adjustments to population but I think it is absurd to hear the Greens suggest that the world population of 6 billion would optimally be only 1 billion. How are they possibly suggesting that we reduce the population in this short period of time from 6 billion to that much lower level? Talking about the perfect storm and 2030 of course I tell the House that countries throughout the world through such mechanisms as emissions trading systems are taking the global warming issue very seriously. 
This bill certainly signifies a great leap forward for New Zealand and a practical opportunity to increase our per capita income. That is absolutely central and vital for New Zealanders in order to have the opportunity to get better health welfare social services and education services which people such as the Greens and most New Zealanders so badly wish to have. 
I will comment on three last things—firstly the environment part of this bill. The Malaysia - New Zealand Environmental Cooperation Agreement negotiated in the context of the Malaysia free-trade agreement establishes a set of shared trade and environmental principles to promote sound environmental practices and sustainable development. The agreement is Malaysia’s first bilateral treaty on environmental cooperation negotiated in the context of a free-trade agreement. I have been to Malaysia and have seen personally the spectre of fires going on continuously in the area around Kuala Lumpur so I think it is extremely good and a step forward that the environmental aspect of the free-trade agreement has been embedded. Then of course the labour cooperation agreement negotiated in the context of the Malaysia free-trade agreement reaffirms commitment to the principles of the ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work and is the follow-up to the declaration. 
Finally I think it is important to point out that there will be a review. The review will take place within 5 years of the agreement’s entry into force and at least every 3 years following that. So this bill is another excellent initiative under this forward-looking National Government. 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North) 
: 
 We are largely agreed in this House on the benefits of this free-trade agreement. I am sorry to say that I was not here to listen to the contribution of the Greens. I dare say that I would have listened to it with some measure of agreement and some measure of disagreement—and I hope a lot of respect—but as I did not hear it I cannot comment further. Beyond that generally speaking the parties in this House seem to think that our progress on free-trade agreements is satisfactory. I add my remarks about past trade Ministers and also past and present officials who of course do the yards. Yes we are gathering pace. Doha appears to be making very slow progress so our ability to make bilateral progress in the stead of Doha matters. However that is where my agreement with National rests at the moment. 
I have become increasingly disturbed over the past 15 or 18 months about the ability of this Government to follow up on free-trade agreements. I have been concerned about the ability of our exporters to follow up on the ASEAN agreement. I am concerned about the ability of our exporters to follow up on the Malaysian free-trade agreement. I think that our ability to follow up on the Chinese free-trade agreement was better and that is the distinction I would draw. People can call it partisan if they wish; I think it matters. I think it matters that when we got ourselves a free-trade agreement in China we took a number of steps. There were and still are a number of trade missions going to different parts of China. The signing ceremony was a significant public event and was carried significantly in all of the major dailies in New Zealand and China. Admittedly that was because it was China’s first free-trade agreement and they were thinking that having one was a pretty good start but that has not been the case with this free-trade agreement in Malaysia and it has not been the case with the ASEAN free-trade agreement. 
I think that we are dropping the ball in terms of the Government’s role in promoting follow-up to the establishment of a free-trade agreement. It is as if the Government is saying that it has negotiated an agreement and now the exporters of this land of New Zealand can go and make good but it will not be able to help them any more than it helped them before. That is simply wrong. It is simply wrong for there not to be some Government involvement. Of course most of the job rests with the exporters. Of course the private sector is the key player in export development. That is obvious. 
The Export Credit Office was begun under a Labour Government and is getting stretched I imagine by the drying-up of credit in the last 18 months. I wonder whether the budget for that office will be extended next month in the Budget. I do not think so. 
I wonder whether the Beachheads programme which was started under a Labour Government and has been retained by this Government will be expanded by this Government. After all when we got ourselves into China a Beachheads programme went with the free-trade agreement. As far as I am aware there is no way that a Beachheads programme is going with the free-trade agreement in Malaysia; I would like a Government Minister to get up and tell me that I am wrong. I wonder whether we can make as big inroads with our agricultural exports into Malaysia when we have ditched Fast Forward and whether our exporters feel as supported as they might have had we not done so. 
I wonder what has happened to Market Development Assistance which was again begun by Labour and continued for a number of years. It was in transition under the previous Government so I am not suggesting that it would have remained unchanged had there not been a change of Government; it was being migrated across to the Growth Services Fund which is a new label with a new purpose and a slightly different set of policies. But I know that in the meantime the money has gone missing. 
Just at a time when we need say a Growth Services Fund for our biggest exporters we find that that is not available any more and that is troubling me. I think that perhaps not our biggest exporters but some of our medium-sized exporters that are growing quickly will have significant cash-flow problems and will have significant problems breaking into new markets and setting up new relationships quickly yet that is exactly where a good Government can make a difference. I assert—with I think some knowledge in the matter—that when it comes to more recent free-trade agreements the Government has pretty much said to the export sector that it is on its own. Of course the export sector does not have to have a Government to make progress. Indeed I recall that in Malaysia before a free-trade agreement the volume—I think it is a volume figure—of trade doubled between 2004 and 2008. It is already a rapidly growing export market but it is a big country. 
I ask whether we are satisfied with that level of growth. Why can we not aspire to greater levels of growth? Is it not a fact that we have a persistent current account deficit? Is it not a fact that if we continue to have a current account deficit then we will continue to own less and less of our own country? Is it not clear that investment flowing into New Zealand to buy dairy farms or whatever is created by the fact that we have an external account deficit? Is it not the case that if we can sell more then we can own more of our own land? That has not reached the desperate stage yet but some people are getting worried—I am starting to. 
I think that when we have a free-trade agreement coming along we should nail it. We should not just negotiate it; we should go ahead and nail it subsequently with good export assistance. In the case of Malaysia it is made all the easier by 30 or 40 years of Malaysian students training in New Zealand. Our knowledge of each other’s countries is already quite good. The amount of interpersonal relationship between New Zealand and Malaysia is already quite good. 
I have the pleasure of representing Otago University. Even today if one looks at the numbers of foreign students at Otago University one sees that after the US Malaysia comes second. It is ahead of China ahead of Germany and well ahead of Australia the UK or any of those nations. Malaysia comes in second. 
Even today long after the demise of the Colombo Plan 40 years ago we have through export education very very strong links with Malaysia. This is a country where we can do seriously good business because we have seriously good relationships and seriously good history. But if there is no Beachheads programme if there is no Market Development Assistance fund if there is no intention on the part of the Government to support those companies that need an Export Credit Office to get themselves a bond lodged in order to go and build a travelator at Kuala Lumpur Airport or whatever it is to be and if there is no support or insufficient support for our exporters then we have done only half a job. Half a job when there is a current account deficit the size of ours is not good enough and it is not good enough for National members to bang on at length about how we need to have more exports but at the same time we need to reduce the amount of programme support that is going to our exporters. It was modest enough under the previous Labour Government one might argue but it is getting even more modest indeed. 
That is not to say that New Zealand Trade and Enterprise does not do a good job and it is not to say that that agency is somehow absent in Malaysia. Neither of those things is true. The question is: what is enough? If we have a country with which we have a volume of trade that has doubled in 4 years and with which we have extraordinary historical links then surely we should be going hard after further trade development with that country. I bet they are going hard with our little economy. I bet they are! But that is not the case when we look from New Zealand towards Malaysia. 
I congratulate the Government on concluding the free-trade agreement. I hope this legislation passes quickly and I ask the Government to please start paying attention to ensuring that we can put some runs on the board now that we have the ink dry on the paper. 
HONE HARAWIRA (Maori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker. Kia ora tatou katoa e te Whare. A few years ago a group of Malaysian organisations came here to Aotearoa to learn how the Maori people of New Zealand had brought their culture back from the brink of extinction. The delegation included tribal leaders from the Bajau people one of the more well-known indigenous populations in Malaysia who were keen to visit kohanga reo kura kaupapa wharekura and wananga to witness the resurgence and revitalisation of te reo Maori in everyday use in schools and the community and to learn how we have been able to defend and protect our customary heritage and culture including our language. 
I raise this experience here because I would have thought that positive exchanges like that might be what we want to foster in an international relationship with Malaysia. Yet in this deal there is nothing nada horekau. There is no mention whatsoever of first-nation peoples’ involvement in decision making on international trade agreements which is a bit of an irony considering that on this day Tuesday 20 April 2010 the Maori Party co-leader and Minister of Maori Affairs announced New Zealand’s support for the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples at the opening session of the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues in New York where he acknowledged the special status held by Maori as tangata whenua with an interest in all policy and legislative matters and affirmed this country’s commitment to the common objectives of the declaration and the Treaty of Waitangi. In doing so he set right New Zealand’s grave injustice when in 2007 143 countries voted in favour of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples but the New Zealand Labour Government refused to support it sending a clear and unequivocal message to the rest of the world that as long as Labour was in power New Zealand would oppose the fundamental rights and aspirations of Maori people. 
Thankfully for the indigenous people of the world and for the Maori people of Aotearoa in particular Labour was not to have much more than another 12 months in office before it was booted to the Opposition benches clearing the way for the Maori Party to open negotiations with the National Government which has led to today’s historic announcement to support the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples a document that had the support of such luminaries within the Maori world as Sir James Henare Dame Whina Cooper Dame Mira Szaszy Te Atairangikaahu Sir Robert Mahuta Whakahuihui Vercoe Sir Paul Reeves Sir Hepi te Heuheu the Maori Women’s Welfare League and the New Zealand Maori Council but that has been opposed vociferously by the New Zealand Labour Party Parekura Horomia Nanaia Mahuta Mahara Okeroa Mita Ririnui Dover Samuels— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I appreciate that there is a lot of theatre and words around today’s announcement by the Government and reaching for exactly what this declaration means is a difficult task. But I would have thought that it was a hard task even for Mr Harawira to draw a bow between a Malaysian free-trade deal and the kind of political theatre we have seen in respect of a declaration signed by 143 countries including Burma on the rights of indigenous people. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: Let me respond to that. Firstly I tell Mr Hughes that the standard for a broader debate might have been set by a member from the Opposition side of the House a little earlier which I did caution about. I suggested that first readings tend to be a bit broader but members if they are making speeches for comparative purposes should relate them to the bill. This is the first reading and I ask the member to continue with that in mind. 
HONE HARAWIRA 
: In respect of this bill we are discussing here tonight I note that today we right that wrong and announce proudly that Maori do hold a distinct and special status as the indigenous people of Aotearoa and that indigenous rights— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I know there has been an extension of indigenous rights today but I do not think that it goes quite to the point of defying you in the way that is occurring at the moment. The member was given an instruction by you Mr Assistant Speaker. He waved at it then went back to reading the speech you had just hauled him away from. 
HONE HARAWIRA 
: Speaking to the point of order I began my speech by speaking about the special relationship between the indigenous people of Malaysia and the indigenous people of this country and I wanted to continue along that vein before returning to the specific details of tonight’s bill. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: The point may be relatively obvious—listing indigenous members of the New Zealand Parliament is hardly a way of denoting a relationship with Malaysia. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: Well the member did begin his presentation by talking about a relationship between Malaysia and Maoridom. In that context he was on firm ground. But he has shifted somewhat and he needs to make his points relevant to the bill. 
HONE HARAWIRA 
: The importance of that relationship between the indigenous peoples of Malaysia and the indigenous peoples of Aotearoa is critical to the Maori Party’s support for legislation of this nature. We see that there is a need for this country to ensure that the rights of its indigenous peoples now that it has adopted the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples are respected in the same way that we respect the rights of other indigenous peoples under that declaration. Therefore we announce proudly that Maori do hold a distinct and special status as the indigenous people of Aotearoa just as the Bajau people of Malaysia hold the same status there and that indigenous rights and indigenous culture are of profound importance to both countries and fundamental to the identity of both nations. 
We therefore also express our respect for and our commitment to international documents as well as to local documents such as the Whakaputanga o Niu Tireni and Te Tiriti o Waitangi as the unique constitutional foundations of this country. On this day of the declaration we challenge this House once again to recognise the Treaty as the foundation of partnership respect cooperation and good faith between Maori and the Crown as we also renew our commitment as a party to continue to work across the international stage to promote the rights of all indigenous peoples. Today is a day that Maori people will remember forever so it is ironic that on such an important day we are presented with a free-trade agreement that ignores the importance of indigenous peoples and is silent on the importance of the declaration. The Maori Party holds to the view that the economic benefits of international trade agreements need to be balanced with consideration of the rights of indigenous participants that we should be supporting fair-trade agreements that recognise and implement international standards such as those outlined in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ILO Convention 169 and the Mataatua declaration and that we should also be supporting trade relationships between first-nation peoples as part of any wider trade agreements. This bill fails to achieve any of these goals so the Maori Party will not be supporting it tonight. Kia ora. 
TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua) 
: 
 It gives me pleasure to rise to speak on the Tariff (Malaysia Free Trade Agreement) Amendment Bill. This bill amends the Tariff Act of 1988 and implements the New Zealand - Malaysia Free Trade Agreement which was signed in Kuala Lumpur Malaysia on 26 October 2009. It speeds up tariff reductions between our two countries in nearly half the time agreed in the agreement established by the ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Agreement. 
Over the last 4 years the amount of New Zealand goods exported to Malaysia grew by more than 50 percent. That means Malaysia is New Zealand’s 10th largest trading partner. This bill and the agreement when it enters into force will mean that 99.5 percent of New Zealand exports to Malaysia will be exported duty-free within 7 years. That will be a saving in duty of some $10 million to New Zealand and that saving will be of direct benefit to New Zealand producers. 
I will speak about some of the products that will be covered by the bill and in my electorate in particular there will be great advantage to producers. The first product is kiwifruit. At present the kiwifruit industry faces a 15 percent tariff barrier when it enters the Malaysian market. By 2012 under this agreement that duty rate will be reduced to zero. That is very good news for kiwifruit farmers all over New Zealand but it is of particular benefit to my electorate. Exports of kiwifruit to Malaysia grew by a staggering 173 percent over the last 3 years. I will repeat that figure—a staggering 173 percent over the last 3 years. Last year we exported one million trays of kiwifruit to Malaysia. That is of great significance. 
The Minister of Agriculture the Hon David Carter was in my electorate not so long ago and we had an opportunity to meet with Zespri and talk with a number of other producers. I have visited a number of kiwifruit farms and have talked to those exporters. They raised a concern and an issue that kiwifruit exports to Korea face an extremely high tariff barrier. In fact that barrier makes our kiwifruit less competitive when it is exported to Korea. In some cases other countries that export kiwifruit already have trade agreements with Korea and some of the rates of tariffs that are imposed against those other countries particularly Chile are close to reaching zero. That means that our kiwifruit producers—the best kiwifruit producers in the world—are at a disadvantage. The great news is that this free-trade agreement with Malaysia which is a market of growing importance to New Zealand producers means that by 2012—which I think from memory will be only 1 year after our Government has been returned to power for a second term—the 15 percent tariff will be reduced. That will mean extra money in the pockets of kiwifruit producers in my electorate and in other electorates. 
A lot of meat wool and dairy products are also produced in my electorate and forestry is very important to us. Those commodities already have duty-free access to the Malaysian market but this agreement will bind those rates. There will be a binding commitment on the part of Malaysia which means that in the future when this free-trade agreement can be renegotiated those preferential rates of duty-free access cannot be changed. That has to be good news for our producers. It gives them a certain amount of certainty. Indeed it means that they can build those markets and export more products to the Malaysian market and there can be no fear that duty will be placed upon them. That is a very important issue. 
I want to touch on just two additional parts of the bill and the first is education. Between 2003 and 2008 the number of fee-paying Malaysian students coming into New Zealand increased by more than 70 percent and that made Malaysian students New Zealand’s third-largest source of fee-paying university students. Indeed it was worth $2 billion to our economy last year. In Rotorua and in Tauranga we have two technical institutes—the Bay of Plenty Polytechnic and the Waiariki Institute of Technology in Rotorua. This agreement will be very good news to them. The reason for that is both technical institutes have a number of foreign fee-paying students who have come to New Zealand and love to live in the Bay of Plenty. This agreement means that those two very fine institutions in the Bay of Plenty will be able to go out and promote their services more to the Malaysian market. I can see a direct impact upon our local economy—certainly as far as employment is concerned—when more students come here. 
The final point I will make is about goods from Malaysia that will be imported into New Zealand. New Zealand provides duty-free access for about 72 percent of imports from Malaysia at this time. Under this free-trade agreement that will move to 90 percent this year and graduate to 100 percent by 2016. There will be a number of sensitive products imported from Malaysia and some producers in New Zealand will have concern about a great influx of products coming in and how they might compete. There will be a longer transition period of up to 7 years for the import of sensitive products. Examples are clothing footwear carpets and some manufactured products including wooden furniture. That transition period will give industries in New Zealand time to adjust to the change and to become more competitive. I believe that they have a very very good opportunity to compete in our own markets but also to take up the challenge of furthering their production and exporting to Malaysia. 
In conclusion I recognise the importance of the environment and say that Malaysia and New Zealand signed an environment cooperation agreement negotiated in the context of our free-trade agreement and that establishes a set of shared trade and environment principles to promote sound environmental practices and sustainable development. This agreement is Malaysia’s first bilateral treaty on environment cooperation negotiated under the free-trade agreement and is something New Zealand should be very proud of. I believe it will be something that other countries will look to include in their agreements particularly in any negotiations with Malaysia or any other Asian country. 
It is a pleasure to support this bill. I look forward to receiving it in the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee so that we can talk more about the very positive impact it will have. It is worth repeating the last figure of a 15 percent tariff rate against kiwifruit farmers in my electorate will be reduced over the next 2 years. That can be nothing but good news. It will make them more competitive it will add to their productivity and it means there will be more money in their pockets in the Rotorua electorate. That is a good thing and I support this bill. Thank you. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Tariff (Malaysia Free Trade Agreement) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 108 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 14 
Green Party 9; Maori Party 5. 
Bill read a first time. 
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP (Minister of Defence) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Trade 
: 
 I move  
That the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee consider the Tariff (Malaysia Free Trade Agreement) Amendment Bill 
 that the committee report finally to the House on or before 15 June 2010 and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during questions for oral answer) and during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House despite Standing Orders 187 and 190(1)(b) and (c). 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 58 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Motion agreed to. 
Education Amendment Bill 
In Committee 
Debate resumed from 24 March. 
Part 1 Amendments to principal Act ( 
continued 
)  
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I will speak to amendments in Grant Robertson’s name. They are extensive amendments that have some very important points in them. 
The first focus which some of my colleagues will also look at is his amendment to insert into Part 1 a new clause 20A “Guidance and counselling” which would amend section 77(a) of the Education Act by inserting “ including guidance and counselling on career choices and career pathways” after “counselling”. The member has taken this approach because of the widespread concern and rumour currently circulating in the education community as to the Minister of Education’s plans for guidance counselling and in particular for career counselling. 
It is the very strong view of members on this side of the house that high-quality career counselling is a fundamental part of our secondary education system in particular. Students need to work hard to identify the pathway that they want to take to take the options that they think are important to assist them along that pathway and not to cut off particular options as they work their way through the system so that they keep their options open. I think that all of us could tell stories—and some of us might even have stories about our families or even ourselves—of people not doing particular subjects late in their secondary school career and as a result being considerably disadvantaged when it came to making choices at university or having to study for a longer period in order to get to that point. 
I think it is fair to say that career counselling career education career guidance has sometimes in some schools been a bit of a Cinderella. It is a subject that has not had quite the attention that it should. It is also fair to say that in some schools—and I think it is less common now—career counselling used to be the place to put teachers who were not confident in the classroom or had spent too long in the classroom. Now there is a new generation of career councillors a new understanding of the subject and there are organisations that give councillors a lot of support in order to make sure that their important work is properly supported even if it is not well understood in schools. 
All of us are aware that some schools are better than others at career counselling at facilitating students’ choices. There are certainly some schools in rural areas that do a very good job as far as rural options are concerned but it is also fair to say that some other schools in rural areas do not provide options and also do not provide students with a steer in a way that is appropriate. 
I know that the Minister of Education has had a flurry of emails on this particular topic from people around the country who have a good understanding of the importance of career guidance. Those people would see a decision not to include in the Act the amendment 
proposed by Grant Robertson—and it was included in Labour’s bill—as an indication that they were not as well thought of as some of their colleagues who teach more regular academic subjects. As I have indicated there is considerable rumour and fear at the moment that the funding made available to schools for guidance and for career guidance is likely to be taken away or somehow reallocated. A very very important area of work which I think just about all members of the House support could very well be lost as a result. 
The second area that I will focus on in my contribution—and I will take a couple of calls now then one of my colleagues will have a go and I will come back on the later points—is the functions of school boards. The bill introduced by the Labour Government Minister of Education Chris Carter was much more explicit with regard to the functions of boards and the things that they should do and the things that were important than this bill as it has emerged from the Education and Science Committee is—in fact as the current Minister of Education introduced it. I am not sure that one could argue with any of the things on Mr Robertson’s list in new section 60AA(1) in his new clause 16A. Section 60AA(1) states that the board must perform the following function: “(a) ensuring the enrolment at the school of all persons who are entitled to be enrolled at the school and apply to be enrolled at it:”. Frankly some boards do not do a very good job at that. Some boards allow systems within their schools that actively discourage students from enrolling at the school. I would be interested to hear the view of Hone Harawira on the schools that occasionally discourage Maori pupils especially those who are not academic from— 
Hone Harawira 
: Not my one—94 percent NCEA. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I have been to that member’s school and it is a good school. I am not saying that the board’s governorship of it was always perfect. I am not saying that its financial controls were perfect. In fact it was pretty good at controlling the spending of the cash but not necessarily at always keeping it in the right pockets. The member probably does not want me to go too far down that track. But the point that I am making to Mr Harawira is that he knows as well as I do that a lot of schools around the country actively discourage some Maori students especially the less academic those from the poorer suburbs and those whose families are associated with gangs. They discourage those kids. Grant Robertson’s section 60AA(1)(a) states that a board must ensure the enrolment of those students. I want to know whether Mr Harawira will vote for that amendment; whether he will vote for boards to take kids from poor homes or whether he will say that they do not have to take them. That will be interesting to see. 
Section 60AA(1)(b) states that the board must ensure that “education is provided to each student enrolled at the school:”. Well that means that the board has to take a much more active interest in the quality of education and whether it is appropriate for each student at the school than some boards have been taking to date. Again I congratulate Mr Harawira because the school whose board he chaired did a very good job for its students in identifying and working on their needs having programmes and recruiting staff. I think it is fair to say that the member concerned was intimately connected with the recruitment of some of the staff or at least one member of the staff of that particular school. The school board appointed good teachers and staff who worked to make sure that education was provided to each student enrolled at the school and they made some real progress. I think it is fair to say that over the years I have had some discussions with the member about his school and about what was and was not appropriate but there was never an argument that the school did not have the kids’ interests at heart that the board was not looking carefully at the school or that it had programmes that did not work for the kids in that school. 
Section 60AA(1)(c) states that the board must promote “a school environment that supports the highest standards of achievement for all students:”. I want to know why National members would vote against an amendment that promotes a school environment that supports the highest standard of achievement for all students. Why would they not support that? What has got into their water? What has made them think that that amendment is not good? Why is the Minister in the chair the Minister of Education saying that she does not want an amendment that is much more likely to lead higher standards than the approach she is taking at the moment? There is much to debate. 
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to rise and speak to Part 1 of the Education Amendment Bill and to offer Labour’s support. Labour did not support the bill at its first reading because we were concerned about the proposals in Part 1 to lower the police-vetting requirements for contractors who work at schools or early childhood education services. That could put our children’s safety at risk. However I am pleased to report that during the select committee process amendments were proposed that appeased some of our concerns in that area. We now find ourselves able to support the bill. 
This bill is about doing practical things that support standards in our schools and in our early childhood education sector. Unlike other proposals this Government has for education where it purports to be looking to improve standards but will in fact do the opposite this bill will actually do something practical to lift standards. This bill ensures that our children are well protected in their schools and in their early childhood education environments. 
During my call I will focus on one of the key changes that Labour was able to force at the select committee and that is the part relating to the ability of a school board to be taken over by a commissioner. The bill originally when it went through its first reading proposed a policy to allow a corporate takeover of school board functions. We were very concerned about that. I think that if we look back on what has transpired over the last couple of weeks we will see that we were right to be concerned about that issue. 
We know that this Government has a tendency to replace democratically elected organisations with commissioners at will and to leave them in place for quite some lengthy period of time. So getting it right in this bill was incredibly important. We did not believe it was correct for a faceless corporate entity to be able to take over in the role of a commissioner for something as important as our schools. 
Labour’s view which happened to be shared by others on the select committee was that it was important to have an individual responsible when democracy was overtaken by the appointment of a commissioner in the case of our local schools. So we fought for that measure and were able to convince the Green Party and the ACT Party to support that position. I congratulate both those parties on coming on board in making that very important change during the select committee process. This Government was committed to going forward and allowing corporate takeovers of board functions by bringing in commissioners that were not named individuals but could be corporate entities. I think that could have been a very frightening prospect. 
We know that local government is not the only area in which this Government has a tendency to replace democratically elected people—such as school boards of trustees—with commissioners for lengthy periods of time. In the part of the country I come from in Hamilton we currently have two secondary schools that have commissioners appointed to them. One of them Fairfield College has had a commissioner in place for 18 months or more. That is a very very lengthy period of time for a school not to have community representation via a school board of trustees. The other school in the area is Fraser High School which has had a commissioner for a shorter period of time. 
The point I am making is that when we determine by legislative means the process by which a Government any Government can replace a democratically elected school board of trustees with an appointed commissioner we need to be very very careful about the powers that are bestowed upon that person—or as the Government was arguing a corporate entity. 
Labour members believe that it was not right to allow corporate entities to take over that function because corporate entities do not have the same culpability as individuals do in that situation. We were very pleased to be able to make that particular change at the select committee and because of that change we can support the bill at its Committee stage. 
KELVIN DAVIS (Labour) 
: 
 In talking to Part 1 of the Education Amendment Bill I too would like to talk about the police-vetting measure. We have to ask why we have a police vet and the intent of the legislation is to ensure that learners are not exposed to an unacceptable risk from persons with whom the school or early childhood service causes them to come into contact. Information provided by the New Zealand Teachers Council says about schools that “Before appointing a person who is not a registered teacher or holder of a Limited Authority to Teach to a position at a school the Board of the school or management of school in certain cases must obtain a police vet of the person from the NZ Teachers Council.” This is going to change so that schools can apply directly to the police which I think is a sensible move in that it eliminates the middle man and will speed up the whole process. 
When I was the principal of Kaitaia Intermediate School I was lucky enough to have an executive officer who would do that work for me. I would sign the form and she would send it off. I would basically forget about it for a couple of months until the police vet form would return saying whether the person had any convictions. It is really good that this intermediary step is being taken out and schools can apply directly to the police. 
I would like members to understand some of the difficulties that some schools have especially some schools in the outlying areas of Te Tai Tokerau such as Te Hapua Matihetihe Panguru and Whangaruru. Those sorts of schools have to vet contractors. New Section 78CA in clause 21 talks about the police vetting of contractors and employees who work at the schools. It states “The board of a State school or the management of a school … must obtain a Police Vet of every contractor or the employee of a contractor who has or is likely to have unsupervised access to students at the school during normal school hours.” The problem arises when principals and boards of those outlying areas have difficulty getting a contractor. Te Hapua School is a drive of an hour and a half to 2 hours from Kaitaia which is probably where the closest contractors are if the school needs help with plumbing or a contractor to come in and do painting or electricity work. Quite often it has to get the first person who is available. The school might not know who these contractors are. It is really difficult to get contractors to come up to do a job that might take a couple of hours or a day or two and to make sure the contractors or the employees of those contractors are police vetted. 
I have spoken before about my concerns about police vetting and I have spoken before about a social worker in a town who wanted to set up a mentoring programme. She selected a hundred males whom she felt would be excellent mentors and role models for a hundred boys at risk in schools. As an afterthought she thought she had better do a police vet on those people. She found that 78 of those 100 people had convictions. 
I am concerned that people seem to believe that schools start at 9 a.m. and end at 3 p.m. and that the kids are there only between those hours. Quite often kids stay behind after school for any number of reasons maybe sports maybe extra tutoring maybe just waiting for buses and people such as cleaners who are contracted after hours may have contact with those kids inadvertently. They may be inside a classroom vacuuming cleaning or dusting and the kids are in there doing homework or whatever. So I have concerns that these contracted cleaners may not have had police vetting. 
We cannot tell by the appearance of people whom we employ as to whether they have a criminal conviction. It may be that people who have been contracted into schools as cleaners and who we think are fine and have not had the police vet are not appropriate to be working after hours in the school where they may inadvertently have unsupervised contact with kids. It is an issue I want to raise because I have a dilemma about it. On one hand I want the safety of the kids to be paramount but on the other hand I do not like overburdening principals and office staff with paperwork. Police vetting is another one of those things that at present have to be done. If we can work out a way so that the kids are safe and there is a minimum of paperwork that would make everybody a lot happier. 
In Part 1 new section 78CC states that further police vets need to be obtained every 3 years which I think is sensible. As a principal I had staff members who in between police vets went and got convictions—one was for drink-driving unfortunately. So peoples’ circumstances change and they fall foul of the law. It is really important that schools have that mechanism every 3 years checking that their staff members have the police vet. I also believe that the safety of the kids is paramount. Although police vetting does add a little bit of extra paperwork to the role of the principal or the office staff we have to realise that the safety of the kids is paramount. 
I want to touch on another issue that my colleague Trevor Mallard raised about the function of the board of trustees. There are half a dozen or so National Administration Guidelines such as for finance property and health and safety. The most important one I believe is the first one which is about the curriculum. If we are talking about the functions of the board of trustees then the curriculum is the most important function that a board of trustees can oversee. I was fortunate enough at Kaitaia Intermediate School to have a board of trustees whose primary interest and the item that took up most time in our board meetings was the curriculum. In fact of even more interest than the curriculum was the achievement of the kids at school. That was the focus of our board of trustees meetings every time. That then had a flow-on effect to me as the school leader which had a flow-on effect to the school teachers and that in effect was part of what was instrumental in our school raising achievement—this unrelenting focus on achievement on the curriculum. 
The board would call in heads of curriculum areas to board meetings to discuss what was going on in their curriculum area what their achievement results were how the board could support them and what resources they needed. If we are talking about a quality education system we need to encourage all schools to have the board of trustees’ core function as an unapologetic and unrelenting focus on improving the curriculum and raising achievement. That comes down to the quality of teaching. A number of teachers still do not realise unfortunately that teaching and learning are related but separate things. Even if a teacher has taught a student something that does not mean to say that the person has learnt it. When there is a board of trustees that focuses unapologetically on raising achievement that is when we will see massive improvements in schools. I wanted to touch on that point that Trevor Mallard raised earlier. 
Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour) 
: 
 There are a couple of points I would like to make. I think it is really important that although Labour is supporting this bill at the Committee stage we register on the record one of our disappointments about the bill—though we are happy that a number of other amendments we sought in the course of the Education and Science Committee’s deliberation on this bill were adopted. We are disappointed about the dropping of Labour’s proposed amendment to make it explicit for principals to ensure that schools provide guidance and counselling on career choices and career pathways. I will take a moment of the Committee’s time to talk about this matter as it relates to this bill. 
Right now we are hearing a lot about tertiary education opportunities and about completion rates and failure rates at tertiary institutions. We are hearing a lot about the need to peg some part of tertiary institutions’ funding to the success rates and completion rates of their students. One of the things that happens repeatedly when one discusses this with chief executive officers of polytechs and vice-chancellors of universities—and to some extent with chief executive officers of private training establishments—is that a lament goes out about the degree to which students exiting secondary schools are prepared to make appropriate career choices and appropriate further education choices. 
One of the things that has taken on a new dimension of concern for us in the Labour Party—and this is why we lament the dropping of our proposed amendment that career counselling be mandatory in schools—is that there is now some sort of disjunction between where this bill is going the things that it could say but will not say and the kinds of requirements that are emerging at the end of the compulsory sector of education and the movement into tertiary education opportunities. 
Frequently vice-chancellors say that students have made inappropriate choices. How are they meant to avoid making inappropriate choices if they are not supported by career counselling and career guidance at the end of their compulsory schooling? Let us take Mr Joyce’s example. At the end of secondary schooling if a student wants to go into veterinary science and is accepted and if at the end of year 1 that student does not make it into year 2 then clearly an inappropriate study choice has been made. That lends new weight given the kinds of policy directions that the Government is proceeding with under the tertiary education portfolio to the idea that the dots are not being joined in respect of this legislation. If it were possible for this even through a Supplementary Order Paper in the Minister’s name to be reinstated as a part of this legislation I would urge the Minister to do that. 
It is a matter of joining the dots. Here is legislation that could have something in it to equip students to make sensible and appropriate choices not simply to go into medicine because their mother was a doctor or their father was a scientist but to choose a course where they can stay the distance succeed and not be one of those figures that the Government is keen on avoiding—that is those who do not complete courses or who fail more than half of their papers. That is something that we on this side of the House continue to lament. It should have been something that could have provided a more seamless framework for education between the compulsory and the post-compulsory sector. However that is now on the record as one of our objections although we have decided to support this bill because of some of the further changes that were made in the course of the select committee’s deliberation. 
The second area I will talk about is that relating to the new section 128A which is inserted by clause 36 of the bill. It is about the matching of register information and information about the payment of teacher salaries at payrolled schools. On the face of it this appears to be simply a matter of sharing information between one Government agency and another and so it should be. One of the things that is particularly important—and this is stated as the purpose of the bill—is to introduce information matching between the New Zealand Teachers Council and the Ministry of Education to identify individuals teaching in schools without registration. This is something that the Labour Party absolutely supports. As I understand it this has been worked through to the satisfaction of the Privacy Commissioner. This kind of exchange of information is beneficial to teachers because to all intents and purposes the ultimate purpose of this is to ensure that they receive every payroll entitlement that they should. However the more important consideration is that it is useful for principals and those who are appointing teachers to have the confidence to know who is still registered and who is not. 
I know that my own experience in this area is somewhat out of date now and I readily concede that. In the time when I was a secondary school teacher there was a huge shortage of teachers. The human resources policy that was adopted at the time—we did not even have human resources in those days as there was no such thing; it tended to come later as an academic discipline and as a practice—could best be characterised as the “warm body” recruitment strategy. It did not matter who was in front of the class as long as it was a warm body. There was a shortage of teachers and being able to put any poor unprepared person in front of a class of children was better than having nobody at all. This measure goes further than that and it becomes useful when teachers are deregistered and move away from that town or that city. They may have been deregistered for nefarious reasons. They may have been deregistered for all sorts of serious misconduct. Those people should not be allowed to move around the country from school to school or city to city and pick out another teaching job. They should not be allowed to be in front of children in classrooms. 
This measure allows that to be policed. The sharing of the information even for payroll purposes ensures that principals in employing teachers know for sure that the people they are employing are registered and therefore have met all the requirements of registration and are fit to teach children. With this kind of matching of information the possibility of deregistered teachers moving about the country and under the cloak of anonymity being able to take up another teaching job somewhere else far away—particularly in a situation where a teacher shortage might compel a principal to employ anybody—is hopefully avoided. 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 As the member Maryan Street resumes her seat I would like to take a quick call on the Education Amendment Bill. She is obviously unaware that in fact one of her colleagues has a set of amendments that include an amendment in the area of guidance and career counselling. I will go through those amendments from her colleague Grant Robertson and say that the Government will be voting against them for a variety of reasons. If we look at his amendment to Part 1 to insert new clause 5A we see that it is quite unnecessary because it is already provided for by section 41 of the State Sector Act 1988. That is a piece of bureaucracy we do not need as is amending Part 1 by inserting a new clause 5B. The Correspondence School enrolment criteria are already published in the  
Gazette 
. Again that is a bit of bureaucracy that is not needed. We have tried very hard to get rid of a whole lot of bureaucratic requirements in education that duplicate things that are done elsewhere. Interestingly amending Part 1 by inserting new clause 20A and new clause 16A was picked up directly out of the previous Labour Government’s bill that Labour speakers have fondly referred to right through the debate. Well I say to them that this is new legislation that was introduced by a new Government. 
Despite the talk about guidance and career counselling there is no foundation for Labour’s scaremongering that National is going to do away with that. That is just a figment of Labour’s imagination. We do not see that if we put something into legislation it necessarily makes it happen or makes it better. It was interesting to hear Mr Mallard ask of the functions of a board of trustees why anyone would not support it. In actual fact there has been no consultation on putting into legislation those descriptions of the functions of a board either with the New Zealand School Trustees Association or with the many parents who are putting their names forward— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: That’s not true. They’re in a bill that was introduced. 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: It is true. There was no consultation with the School Trustees Association. The first time the association saw it was when it appeared in legislation under the previous Government. Certainly there has been no consultation through this process. There has been no opportunity for any of the parents who might have put their names forward for the board of trustee elections that are happening in a couple of weeks to have any opportunity to discuss the sorts of tight restrictions that these amendments would put on them. 
In fact I ask the Committee what the problem actually is. There is no evidence that the majority of boards of trustees are not focused on the sort of things that we read about in these amendments. In the year to March there were 98 interventions in schools out of over 2500 schools so our schools are working very well. The amendment to Part 1 to insert new clause 60A would just change the names of terms that are still valid. It was a good try by Grant Robertson but we do not see any need to support any of those amendments. 
GARETH HUGHES (Green) 
: 
 Kia ora Mr Chairperson. Nga mihi nui ki a koutou kia ora. The Greens are the only party opposing this bill and we do so because we believe that this bill is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. The asserted aims of this bill are to introduce information matching between the ministry and the New Zealand Teachers Council to spot uncertified teachers to toughen suspension procedures for teachers under investigation and to reduce compliance costs relating to police vetting. However there are unspoken aims in this bill that are not written about in the bill’s description. These aims are to create the conditions required for direct corporate management of public schools to strip the Education Review Office of oversight of integrated schools and to introduce National Certificate of Educational Achievement testing into special schools. 
The bill has all the hallmarks of a wolf in sheep’s clothing. There are some good points contained in the bill like the changes to the vetting of tradespeople in schools or the teacher registration clauses which we think are quite reasonable and we would support. But on the balance of evidence we will not be supporting this bill. 
Over the course of this debate enough people have talked about the positive sides of the bill so I will cover the points in the bill we are opposed to. Firstly we do not support and did not support the introduction of the term “body corporate” when appointing statutory managers in schools needing help nor did we support entrenchment and corporatisation which are not in the interests of the public education system. The bill would allow the Secretary for Education to appoint a corporate sole or body corporate as a limited statutory manager or as a commissioner for the board of a school as well as giving the Minister discretion to establish a combined board for two or more schools. This would allow the private running of multiple public schools by a single corporate entity effectively privatising our public schools—good for some but not for the high-quality public education Kiwis demand. 
Yes the Labour Party got some good amendments in the Education and Science Committee such as changing the bill to allow a natural person being named as part of the body corporate but for the Greens the substantive issue is still there. We are concerned at the changes to school governance. I do not believe the arguments in favour of the changes proposed have yet been convincingly put by anyone in this Chamber. We are opposed to the combining of boards of trustees when this could lead to external control of unique school communities. As a former board of trustees member myself I am proud that the Green Party is standing up for public ownership and local governance of the public school system. 
Likewise the Green Party stands with the submitters from the Quality Public Education Coalition who are concerned that the legislation was potentially legitimising corporate control in public schools as opposed to local autonomy and local control. Our concerns have only been intensified by the proposals for school buildings to be owned in public-private partnerships. Our children’s schools are not a worthwhile experiment as the Minister of Finance Bill English has said. They are a core public service. 
The long-term effect of this ownership model is to undermine State responsibility for schools and to take a further step towards the privatisation of our treasured public resources. The profit motive has no role in our public schools. The question that has to be asked is where this profit is going to come from. What will be the cut to pay the shareholders and who is paying the bottom line? Obviously it has a role in the private sector but not in the public school system where equity is essential. We would support a complete review of Tomorrow’s Schools rather than these piecemeal changes. It is a lonely vote for the Greens tonight but we are showing the value of an independent party in this Chamber that is prepared to look at both the good and the bad of legislation coming before us. I am proud to be voting No on this bill tonight.  
CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) 
: 
 I just want to pick up one of the comments that— 
Hon Simon Power 
: Speaking of rising stars! 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: I thank Mr Power very much. I appreciate the endorsement. 
Hon Simon Power 
: Believe me it won’t help. It didn’t help me; it won’t help you. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: That member has got his future behind him! 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: That is right—his best years. 
I want to pick up the comments made by the Minister of Education regarding the amendments put forward by members of the Labour Party and the bill as drafted by the previous Labour Government. I think it is a terrible shame that the Government has decided to vote against some of the provisions put forward by Labour that would have clarified the responsibilities of a school board of trustees. It is something that I think new board members who will be elected at this year’s elections would appreciate—a clear articulation of exactly what it is they will be responsible for. National is voting against what I think is a very common-sense and practical amendment put forward by Labour. Why is National opposed to articulating in the legislation that a school board of trustees’ responsibility is ensuring the enrolment at a school of all persons who are entitled to be enrolled at the school? Surely nobody could object to articulating clearly that one of the responsibilities of a board of trustees is ensuring that education is provided to each student enrolled at a school. That is what a school is all about. Why can we not articulate that in legislation so that school boards of trustees are very clear and can be held to account against those responsibilities as set down in legislation? 
There is the responsibility to promote a school environment that supports the highest standards of achievement for all students. The National Government keeps talking about raising standards and setting standards in education yet it wants to vote down the idea that schools should be held accountable for that that a school board of trustees should have that responsibility defined in legislation. National is going to vote against that. 
Actively managing and monitoring the performance of the principal and ensuring that the performance of the school’s other staff is actively managed and monitored are things that I think are really important to articulate as being a responsibility of a school board of trustees. Having spoken to a number of members of school boards of trustees I know that a different approach is taken in some schools. Some boards see their job as being the employer of the principal and therefore any other responsibility for staff employed within the school is no responsibility of theirs; all the responsibility is then on the principal. This amendment would clearly set down for boards of trustees that one of the board’s responsibilities is ensuring that the performance of the school’s other staff is actively managed and monitored and board members cannot simply say that it is a matter that only a school principal needs to deal with. Yes boards of trustees have the primary management responsibility for the principal but they do have a role in making sure that other staff are actively managed and monitored as well. 
Another responsibility set down for a school board of trustees is the active management of and reporting on a school’s performance against the aims and objectives set out in the school charter. This is a Government that says that it wants parents to have more information about how schools are doing and how kids are doing yet it is opposed to the idea that one of the fundamental responsibilities of a school board of trustees should be active management of and reporting on a school’s performance. That is one of the things put forward by the previous Labour Government. It is a very common-sense thing but the National Government is opposed to it. 
Ensuring that a school including its assets finances and property is managed in a financially responsible manner has to be one of the central functions of a school’s governance. A school cannot be effectively governed if the board of trustees is not ensuring that its assets finances and property are managed in a financially responsible manner. That has to be something that is clearly set down as a responsibility of a school board of trustees. I do not understand at all why the Government seems opposed to articulating very clearly and concisely what the responsibility is of a school board of trustees. A new school board of trustees member—and there will be new members after the elections this year—should be able to know that. 
I will also turn to some of the recommendations put forward by the select committee. The select committee has recommended that only natural persons and not bodies corporate may be appointed as limited statutory managers or commissioners of a school but a natural person may be appointed “as being of a named body corporate”. I think that is really important. I speak to schools in my own electorate who have been the subject of limited statutory management. They tell me that relationships are vital; having a good relationship with the limited statutory manager is really important. Limited statutory managers effectively take away some of the responsibility from a school’s board of trustees. In doing so they are handed a great amount of trust and responsibility. It is important that they have a good relationship a relationship of trust with the community that they are there to serve. That relationship would be hindered if there was not an actual person with whom a school could identify and say “This is our person; this is the person we are dealing with.” I think that that amendment put forward by the select committee is very sensible. 
The committee also recommends inserting new clauses to allow the Minister of Education to split one or more schools from a combined establishment board. That will allow for the situation where one of a group of new schools is ready to be opened before the others and it will allow the Minister to split off a new board to govern the school that is opened while retaining a combined establishment board for the remaining schools. I think that that is a very sensible practical amendment put forward by the select committee. It is one that I think should be supported. 
In conclusion I have to say that I am at a loss to explain why the National Government seems so opposed to clearly articulating a school board of trustees’ responsibilities. I think that is really important in the case of limited statutory managers and I have spoken to some schools in my own electorate that have said that relationships are really important and having a person they can deal with is really important. I think that is something that the select committee has recommended and something that I think the House should support. Overall many of the amendments put forward in this bill are positive; they are constructive amendments. It is a shame that the Government has put on blinkers and has said that only the amendments it is putting forward itself are those it will support; it will not look wider and it will not pick up many of the other practical sensible things put forward by the previous Labour Government or by members on the Labour side at the present time. 
CHRIS TREMAIN (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 In my previous call I focused on the amendments in the name of Mr Grant Robertson. On this call I will focus on the bill the Education Amendment Bill most of which we are quite supportive of. There are a few specific points. I think there will be amusement amongst senior members on this side of the Chamber at clause 8 of the bill where there is a change from “which” to “that”. The thing that most members will not understand is that former Prime Minister Helen Clark would have seen that as a bit of a direct attack. I think it is fair to say that Helen Clark had a view. I do numeracy I do the numbers. I do not pretend to be an English language expert but it is fair to say that Helen had a view of “which” and “that” that was not shared by the parliamentary drafters at all times. I think that this might be a case of them getting their revenge and doing a reversal. 
I have a question for the Minister of Education on clause 15 with regard to the Education Review Office reports for private schools. I ask why they are to be given to the chief executive and managers. I think there might be a mistake because the chief executive is the manager of a school. 
Through the Minister I would ask the officials to look very carefully and tell me whether she means the trustees or the governors of the school rather than the managers. By stating “the school’s principal (or other chief executive) and managers.” we have stated the same class of person twice when obviously if an adverse Education Review Office report reflects on the principal it is very important that the report goes to the trustees. My understanding is that reports go to trustees of State schools. Therefore I ask why there is a difference. 
I will plead guilty now: I would have looked at this clause eight or 10 times over the consideration of the bill at the Education and Science Committee as I was looking at the submissions going through and I did not pick this up before. I take some responsibility as a select committee member for that. But I think that if the Minister can get some advice on it it would not be a big thing if I am right that we did get it wrong coming out of the select committee and we could put forward a quick amendment in order to correct the position. 
I may be wrong; managers may be a class of people in private schools that we do not have in other schools. I met quite recently with the Independent Schools Association. Although I do not know well the three I think schools in Auckland that are for-profit schools generally speaking private schools have fairly traditional boards. Sometimes they have a proprietors’ board as well as a trustees’ board in the way that integrated schools do but they always have an equivalent of a board of trustees whose role is to appoint the principal and to run the school and so forth. 
I am slightly stretching this in order for the advice to come to the Minister. I will move on and if necessary I will come back to that point. 
There is a degree of unanimity on the vetting question. Although my colleague Mr Robertson has brought in a number of amendments to the Minister’s bill that look back to the legislation of the previous Labour Government I want to make it clear that I prefer this Minister’s bill in the area of vetting especially at the point we have got to on the legislation as amended by the select committee. We have come to the point of compromise where there is a degree of unanimity on it. This bill is now better than both the bill that Labour introduced and this bill as it was introduced. We have worked together to get this right. 
On the question of limited statutory managers again this is a very interesting case of a select committee working under MMP. I ask members to remember that I have not been a member of a select committee for a decade and I think that MMP has evolved. It was very interesting to see members of the select committee develop alliances on particular issues sometimes coming from quite different perspectives in order to get to a particular position. On clauses 22 and 23 the committee got to the point where the alliance that formed between the Green Party ACT and the Labour Party outvoted the National members on the select committee. I understand that the National Government has now adopted the position that it had opposed in the select committee. 
It is fair to say that even within the Labour Party the reasons for getting to the position that we did varied. My view as someone who has had some experience as a Minister dealing with these matters is that it is very important—not on a frequent basis but where necessary—to pick up the phone and talk to the person who is responsible for what is effectively the statutory management whether it is a commissioner or the limited statutory manager of a school. With the way that provision was introduced one would have been ringing Ernst and Young or PricewaterhouseCoopers. Well that is all very well but as we know—even as the Minister of Commerce who has responsibility for matters to do with the statutory management of companies knows—liquidators and receivers are always named even if they are effectively a front-person for an accounting company. That is the practice. I think it is important firstly to have the contact and secondly in order to have someone who is held responsible. That is the position that Roger Douglas came to and that is the reason he was supportive of this provision. 
It is fair to say that the Green Party saw the ability to have statutory managers as privatisation. I might say that one or two of my colleagues were slightly suspicious in that area. I have been around long enough to know that if we really want to privatise that is probably not the route that we would take. Having said that the Greens were supportive of the Labour Party position—and we now have the then spokesperson for the Greens and member of the select committee Metiria Turei in the Chamber. For a wide range of reasons we got the balance of opinion of the select committee to the point where it supported this particular clause and that is useful. 
The select committee also did well on the question of splitting the establishment boards. It is my view that this area can be fraught especially where an establishment board is developing a number of schools—as is happening at the moment in the Botany area for example where there is a lot of new development. It is fair to say that both the Minister and I have had more experience of closing schools than of opening them but we know that when we are opening a school it will last for a long time and it is important to get it right at the beginning. It is important to leave the Minister with flexibility on how we split the schools off and flexibility as to whether we even do that. Where we generally have quite innovative schools in those new areas that are testing different shapes models and approaches to education we need to keep on thinking about the governance models a bit more than we have done. For example both in the Albany and the Botany situation I probably would have preferred to keep one board for those schools and see whether that worked. 
I think we might have an answer to the question that I have been delaying for. 
JO GOODHEW (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairman. I know it is very irregular. Without there being any further debate from our side I seek leave for the Minister to say yes or no on that very minor technical question. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The member is seeking leave? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I seek leave for the Minister to— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Sorry we have moved beyond that. We still have Part 2 to debate. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 53 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Grant Robertson to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to add the following new subclause: 
(3)Section 2 is amended by inserting the following new subsection after subsection (2): 
“(2A)In this Part and Parts 2 and 3 unless the context otherwise requires any term that is undefined has the same meaning as that term has in the Education Act 1964.” 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 53 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Noes 69 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Grant Robertson to Part 1 be agreed to: 
to insert the following new clause: 
5APower of Chief Executive of Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade to delegate 
Section 4(5) is amended by inserting the words “or any person employed by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade acting with the delegated authority of and on behalf of the Chief Executive”.  
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 53 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Noes 69 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Grant Robertson to Part 1 be agreed to: 
to insert the following new clause: 
5BRequirement for Minister to advise House of Representatives of changes to criteria for enrolment in Correspondence School 
Section 7(1) is amended by adding the following new paragraph after paragraph (c): 
“(d)upon making such notice the Minister must as soon as reasonably possible present such notice to the House of Representatives.” 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 53 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Noes 69 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Grant Robertson to Part 1 be agreed to: 
to insert the following new clause: 
16ANew sections 60AA and 60AAB inserted 
The following sections are inserted after section 60: 
“60AAFunctions of board 
“(1) A board must perform the following functions: 
“(a)ensuring the enrolment at the school of all persons who are entitled to be enrolled at the school and apply to be enrolled at it: 
“(b)ensuring that education is provided to each student enrolled at the school: 
“(c)promoting a school environment that supports the highest standards of achievement for all students: 
“(d)actively managing and monitoring the performance of the principal: 
“(e)ensuring that the performance of the school’s other staff is actively managed and monitored: 
“(f)actively managing and reporting on the school’s performance against the aims and objectives set out in the school charter: 
“(g)ensuring that the school including its assets finances and property is managed in a financially responsible manner: 
“(h)ensuring the maintenance of proper standards— 
“(i) of integrity and conduct appropriate to the board’s status as a Crown entity; and 
“(ii)for the safety and wellbeing of all students enrolled at the school: 
“(i)any other function imposed on it by or under this Act or any other enactment. 
“(2)A board may perform the following functions: 
“(a) allowing the school to engage in activities that are incidental and related to or consequential upon the board’s functions other than those functions that are authorised under section 60AAB: 
“(b) any function authorised under section 60AAB: 
“(c) any other function it is authorised to perform by or under this Act or any other enactment. 
“(3)Nothing in this section overrides any provision in this Act or in any other enactment that relates to a particular function of a board. 
“60AABMinister may authorise board functions 
“(1)By notice in the  
Gazette 
 the Minister may authorise all boards or classes of boards to perform any function or class of functions— 
“(a)not otherwise specified in this Act; and 
“(b)with any condition on the performance of the function or class of functions that the Minister considers is necessary or desirable. 
“(2)By written notice to a board the Minister may authorise it to perform any function— 
“(a)that is not otherwise specified in this Act; and 
“(b)with any condition on the performance of the function that the Minister considers is necessary or desirable. 
“(3)Before issuing a notice under subsection (1) or giving notice to a board under subsection (2) the Minister must consider whether or not the proposed function— 
“(a)is associated with educational outcomes that will bring educational benefit to the school or its community or to any other school; and 
“(b)has a community purpose that presents no educational disadvantage to the school; and 
“(c)will use or displace resources allocated by the Crown for educational purposes; and 
“(d)may involve significant fiscal risk for the Government or significant financial risk for the board or boards as the case may be; and 
“(e)may involve a high level of reputational risk for the Crown or the board; and 
“(f)may place unwarranted compliance costs on the board or boards as the case may be. 
“(4)The Minister may from time to time after reconsidering the matters set out in paragraphs (a) to (f) of subsection (3) amend or revoke— 
“(a)by notice in the  
Gazette 
 an authorisation notified under subsection (1); or 
“(b)by written notice to a board an authorisation notified to it under subsection (2). 
“(5)A board’s functions authorised under this section must be performed in accordance with the requirements of this Act and any other relevant enactments.” 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 53 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Noes 69 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Grant Robertson to Part 1 be agreed to: 
to insert the following new clause:  
20AGuidance and counselling 
Section 77(a) is amended by inserting “ including guidance and counselling on career choices and career pathways” after “counselling”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 53 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Noes 69 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Grant Robertson to Part 1 be agreed to: 
to insert the following new clause: 
60AExercise of certain powers of Authority 
Section 260(7) is amended by omitting “laid before” and substituting “presented to”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 53 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Noes 69 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 113 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Part 1 agreed to. 
Part 2 Transitional provision validations and consequential amendments 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I will focus particularly on Supplementary Order Paper 99 today. It is in my name and it inserts new clause 78A in the Education Amendment Bill to validate borrowing by King’s High School in Dunedin. 
This matter has a long history and it is one that I think neither the ministry nor two three or even four Ministers of Education have very much to be proud about. The short story is that a number of years ago King’s High School entered into an agreement to build a joint facility with Queen’s High School. It received some additional Government money in order to build a performing arts centre. Unfortunately the school’s board—we think probably through the former principal—was under the impression that it could effectively draw down on its 5-year property plan money: that it could get a bank loan in that year and a year or two later when it became eligible for more 5-year property money it could use that to repay the loan. The advice to the board was wrong and as a result the school has been paying about $4800 a month since that time to service the loan. At the same time that the school has this loan which it would like to get rid of it has a large amount in credit in terms of the 5-year property plan money that it would have been able to draw on from 2008 onwards. 
I make it very clear that the board was not correctly advised. It took out a bank loan for a building and it has a large credit with the Ministry of Education for building purposes. It wants to use that credit—about $400000 of it—in order to repay the loan so that it stops paying the $4800 a month to service the loan from the school’s operations grant funding. That money would otherwise be used for the direct educational benefit of kids and the school has indicated to me that its top priority if it could for spending the money in credit would be to apply it to the repayment of the loan. 
I will put all the cards on the table. At least one former Labour Minister of Education received a letter from the school and turned it down. It might have been two Ministers but I know that one Minister did. That Minister was wrong to do so. 
I have now had two meetings with the current Minister of Education about this issue. It is fair to say that at the earlier meeting she understood the problem and asked the ministry for advice on a solution to it. I make it clear that this is not the only solution to the problem. There could be a policy change in relation to 5-year property funding to sort it out; there are a number of routes that the Minister could take in order to solve it. But the trouble is that if the Minister makes a policy change she probably opens up the door for other schools which I think is probably not a wise thing to do without going through a longer process. 
But in relation to this particular school the facts are well known. We have a school that has now been committed to using its resources and it is not a rich school. Despite the names “King’s” and “Queen’s”—and when we hear “King’s” a lot of people think of Auckland and of a school that is in a much better financial position than this school—Dunedin South is a medium to low decile area and King’s High School is not a wealthy school. It is not in an area of growth and it is not in an area where there are major benefactors. It is fair to say the school is in quite good condition. One of the interesting things that we learn while serving as the Minister of Education is that boys wreck their schools but that girls do not. The sad thing that occurred there in relation to the two schools—which are of the same vintage—is that the boys received their new school buildings before the time provided for under the 5-year property plan but the girls did not get their new school. So the boys’ school King’s High School is in a much better position than Queen’s High School. I actually like the style of the buildings at the girls’ school a bit more than those at King’s High School but there is no doubt that King’s High School has more up-to-date modern facilities and more room than the girls’ school has. 
My question is really about whether it is appropriate or right for the interest on that loan to keep on flowing to Westpac ad infinitum instead of that money being used by the school. It could be used for the special-needs pupils at the school for extension work at the school for the maintenance of the school—and it does not need a lot of maintenance—or to buy computers. Over $50000 a year could be used to employ another teacher. I think that the Minister although she and I might have debates about the adequacy of schools’ operations grants—I think that schools need more of that funding—would agree that the grants are not particularly generous. Nor are they set up in order for a mid-sized medium-decile secondary school to use that money in that way. 
I want at this stage—and it is interesting to note that I am doing this in two debates in a row—to acknowledge the work that Sir Roger Douglas has done on this issue. He has taken the time to investigate the issue and look at the fairness of the situation. Notwithstanding the fact that the suggested amendment has come from the Labour Party he has agreed to support it. I say to my colleagues from the Maori Party that I think it is sad that to date they have not made any contact with the school. There is an issue there and there is an offer for them to be briefed on that issue. There is an offer for the Maori Party to understand the priorities of the school but that offer has not been taken up either by its education spokesperson or by its local member of Parliament. I think that is sad. 
At this stage it is important to acknowledge Clare Curran the Dunedin South member of Parliament who took me to the school where I was briefed on the situation. I think it is fair to say both of us are a little embarrassed that we are in this situation. It is something that could have been fixed by a former Labour Minister of Education. There is no glory in this situation and it is something that I think could have and should have been sorted out. 
The Minister says the approach set out on Supplementary Order Paper 99 is inappropriate under the Public Finance Act. I have invited her to look at legislation of a very similar nature that has been passed in the last year. Every year Parliament passes dozens of validating clauses to sort out wee mistakes that have been made. That is what Parliament is for. Parliament is there to make sure that when mistakes that are against the law—that breach the law—are made that are technical not deliberate people should not suffer because of it. We are here as parliamentarians to try to sort out these things for the sake of the kids and there is a solution here. It will make no difference to anyone who is not at the school. It does not involve any extra money. Nothing extra has to be voted as a result of this exercise; the money is sitting there for that school to use as it wants. All that this amendment does is to say to King’s High School that it has the ability to use its money from its 5-year property plan which it thought it could use to pay off the debt to pay off the debt. I think that it is not an unreasonable request. We have thought a lot about this and I cannot think of a better way of doing it without opening the gate to other schools. 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 I think it is outrageous that this issue has come to the Committee in this manner. I am really disappointed on behalf of the school that Mr Mallard has chosen to do this in this manner in the Chamber. But let us put out some information. 
I am advised that in 2005 contrary to ministry advice King’s High School in Dunedin built a performing arts centre. It was encouraged to do so as I understand it by Mr Mallard himself. The school built a performing arts centre that was 60 percent larger than was required for the size of the school and it paid a square metre rate that was 168 percent higher than the industry benchmark for that type of facility. King’s High School paid almost $4.5 million for its performing arts centre which compares with the Ministry of Education’s current valuation for it of $1.275 million. This was a conscious decision made by a board of trustees and we entrust boards of trustees to make these sorts of decisions. Mr Mallard himself when discussing this with me has admitted to the part that he played in getting the board into this situation. But it was a conscious decision that the board made and the board knew that it would have to borrow money in order to complete the centre. 
I am not sure where the idea came from that the board had received wrong advice from the ministry about the idea that the 5-yearly agreement funding could be used but it was incorrect information. If the board had listened to the ministry it would have known that it could not use the 5-yearly agreement funding to repay a loan. That 5-yearly agreement funding is provided to refurbish existing property; that is what it is appropriated for. Under the Public Finance Act it cannot then be used for another purpose—in this case to repay a loan. We have been down that track and I have explained that to Mr Mallard. In fact in fairness I tell the Committee that Mr Mallard asked his colleagues the former Ministers of Education—both Minister Maharey and Minister Carter—to do a similar thing to what he is asking this Committee to condone tonight and they declined to do so. They declined because other schools have also made similar decisions around borrowing to build property that is outside what is provided by the ministry. If we allow one school to come back later and say: “Oh hang on a minute. We didn’t do this properly and now we would like to remedy this because we are paying for a loan from our operations grant.” we will open the floodgates and destroy our policy. 
But I say in mitigation because we do have some sympathy for a school— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I am sorry to interrupt the honourable Minister but the time has come for me to report progress. 
Progress reported. 
Report adopted. 
The House adjourned at 9.55 p.m.