Volume 646 Week 73 - Tuesday 15 April 2008 
Volume 646 Week 73 - Tuesday 15 April 2008 
[Volume:646;Page:15619] 
Tuesday 15 April 2008 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Visitors 
Australia—Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs  Commonwealth Parliament 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing members that the Standing Committee on Community Affairs from the Senate of the Commonwealth of Australia led by Senator Claire Moore is present in the gallery. I am sure that members would wish that the delegation be welcomed. 
Obituaries 
Rt Hon Fraser MacDonald Colman QSO 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I regret to inform the House of the death on 11 April 2008 of the Rt Hon Fraser MacDonald Colman QSO who represented the electorate of Petone from 1967 to 1978 and that of Pencarrow from 1978 to 1987. He was the Minister of Immigration and Minister of Mines from 1972 to 1975 Associate Minister of Labour from 1972 to 1973 Associate Minister of Works and Development from 1972 to 1974 Postmaster-General from 1974 to 1975 Minister of Works and Development from 1984 to 1987 Minister in charge of the Earthquake and War Damage Commission from 1984 to 1986 and Associate Minister of Energy from 1984 to 1987. 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. 
Points of Order 
Inter-Parliamentary Union—Freedom of Speech 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I just want to bring to your attention a matter that concerns the free speech rights of members of this Parliament. Yesterday in open session at the Inter-Parliamentary Union congress in Cape Town a leading delegate from the Chinese National People’s Congress tried to expunge from the record of that conference the critical comments that were previously made about occurrences in Tibet by a member of the New Zealand delegation at that conference Nandor Tanczos. I think this is a matter that you might want to look into further because it is perhaps something that you could bring up with your counterpart the Chair of the National People’s Congress in China—that this is not acceptable parliamentary behaviour and that New Zealand MPs will not be intimidated from stating their critical views. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. 
Medal Ceremony—Notification 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. About and hour or so ago we received notification from I think the office of the Prime Minister notifying us that there was to be a medal ceremony this afternoon where the presentation of a general services medal would be made to people returning from Timor-Leste. This is exceptionally short notice for members of Parliament to be invited to what essentially is a parliamentary occasion. I point out that it was also a change of venue. Prior to the National Party hearing of this event and raising the issue the plan was for the Prime Minister to present these medals in the Labour caucus room. I wonder whether both the failure to invite other members of Parliament to this function and the decision to hold it in the Labour Party caucus room was an oversight or whether it was perhaps a severe lack of judgment by the Minister of Defence. 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 It came to my attention this morning that the ceremony had been arranged for that room and that representatives of other parties had not been invited. I immediately undertook to have the venue changed and to have representatives of other parties invited. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank members. Although that was not a point of order it did provide information for the House. 
Questions to Ministers 
State-owned Enterprises—Government Policy on Sale or Retention 
1. Hon PAUL SWAIN (Labour—Rimutaka) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What is the Government’s policy on the sale or retention of State-owned enterprises? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I am happy to put the member’s mind at rest. The Government is committed to retaining State-owned enterprises. We will not sell off State-owned enterprises; indeed we have bought back the rail-track and a great majority of Air New Zealand and the Government is seeking an agreement to purchase Toll NZ’s rail and ferry operations. 
Hon Paul Swain 
: What reports has he seen on alternative proposals relating to the sale or retention of State-owned enterprises? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I have seen a surprisingly large number of them. For example I have seen a report stating that there was no reason why the Government owned the electricity State-owned enterprises or Air New Zealand. I have seen reports indicating support for a partial sell-down of State-owned assets. I have seen a report stating there will be no asset sales in the first term of a hypothetical new Government but no guarantees. I have also seen a report of a commitment to delay asset sales to inoculate the issue so it could be sorted out in the second term. All of these statements were made by Mr John Key. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: Can the Minister confirm that the retention of Auckland International Airport in New Zealand shareholders’ hands will ensure the continued flow of revenue in the order of $101.9 million to the Manukau City Council the Auckland City Council and New Zealand individual shareholders rather than to the Canada Pension Plan? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The retention of Auckland International Airport in New Zealand ownership will assist in the flow of revenue to New Zealand rather than offshore. It is hard to see how that will be counterbalanced by the potential inflow of capital as that capital was not required for the expansion of Auckland International Airport. 
Hon Bill English 
: Has the Minister seen reports that State-owned enterprises have sold assets they owned in Australia that there is a range of sale and lease-back arrangements where State-owned asset property has been sold to others who have leased back the assets and spin-off companies sold by State-owned enterprises and does he agree with Laila Harré the political commentator who said that Labour should get its own house in order before it starts lecturing everybody else about asset sales? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I understand Mr English’s sensitivity because he does not agree with Mr Key’s latest version of policy in that regard. It is interesting that on this occasion National did not put the monkey up it put the organ-grinder up. But of course to take the first only Meridian Energy invested in Australian assets under the clear understanding it would sell those at some point and sold them at a whacking great profit of $800 million over and above valuation. 
Hon Paul Swain 
: Has he received any reports on how to dilute public ownership of State-owned enterprises without outright sale? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Indeed for example I saw a report of a call by Mr English for partial floats last year calls to allow State-owned enterprises to issue equity instruments to the private sector and calls to issue hybrid debt instruments with some of the features of equity. All of these would significantly weaken public control. Indeed the suspicion is that the Opposition is promising not to sell the family silver it is simply exploring the options of how it can melt it down instead. 
Heather Roy 
: What is the Government’s policy on private investors selling their shares in former State-owned enterprises like Auckland airport that were sold when the Rt Hon Winston Peters was Treasurer? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: From my memory Auckland airport was never a State-owned enterprise; central government held shares in Auckland airport. I am pleased to see that Mr Peters has seen the light on these matters and now opposes the sale of shares offshore. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Can the Minister of Finance remember the September speech made by Jim Bolger in 1997 when he referred to “springtime coming” and without consultation with the coalition partner announced the sale of four State assets being worked on including Auckland airport and that the National Party wanted to sell the airport to all and sundry internationally but at least I made sure that 80 percent—and it should have been 100 percent—went to New Zealanders and that when that 80 percent was sold— 
Hon Members 
: It’s too long! 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: —yeah but it will get better as it gets longer—it was oversubscribed by 2½ times as I told those members it would be but of course they have still not learnt even now? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I do indeed and I also remember the member creating the dissolution of that Government as a result of the proposed sale of Wellington airport shares. 
Heather Roy 
: How can the Minister justify the $40 million cost to the Government’s own superannuation fund as a result of his Government’s decision to block the sale of private shares in Auckland airport to a Canadian pension fund or has the Government just measured the impact in terms of votes won and votes lost? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: What a fascinating question. The notion that Ministers making decisions under the Overseas Investment Act would consider as a crucial part of that decision making whether the superannuation fund was going to make a short-term profit or loss on the transaction is a fairly horrendous suggestion. 
“Running the Race to the Top”—Government Policy 
2.  
JOHN KEY (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does she stand by her statement that “Our job in Government has been to stop New Zealand running the race to the bottom and to aim for the top.”? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes. 
John Key 
: When the Prime Minister referred to stopping “New Zealand running the race to the bottom” is she aware that the record under her Government is New Zealand falling further in OECD per capita incomes record low productivity growth rates the massive drop in housing affordability collapsing business consumer investor confidence and the list goes on and if she does think it is the role of her Government to stop these things why has she spent the last 9 years in office doing next to nothing about it? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: What I am aware of is that the IMF predicts that New Zealand will continue to grow faster than the United States economy and that of the whole European zone as it has over the past 8 years. I am fascinated that the member chose to talk about productivity because I am informed that last year labour productivity growth on an economy-wide output per hour worked basis rose to a 7-year high. 
John Key 
: When the Prime Minister referred to aiming “for the top” is she aware that the record under her Government is that interest rates have doubled fuel and food prices are now rising faster than inflation a record number of New Zealanders are leaving—79000 last year—our current account deficit has been rising and is extremely large household debt has nearly doubled to $168 billion under her watch and if she does think it is the role of her Government to stop these things why has she spent the last 9 years in Government doing next to nothing about it? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I am also aware that household wealth has risen considerably and that average household income has increased by 25 percent in real terms. When I talk about “running the race for the top” unlike that member I do not of course mean doubling the amount of money spent on private education. 
John Key 
: Is— 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: The MP for King’s College. 
John Key 
: Well the member is the one who went to a private school. I am just trying to help him out. We are here to help. Vote National and Government members will be able to sing karaoke any time they like I am sure! Is any Minister in her Government—any one of them—spending any time worrying about the economy and things that matter to New Zealanders or are they just a bit too busy engaging in low-grade personal attacks on me? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I think there is probably a one-word response to that question: diddums. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: With regard to the previous question where in the so-called race to the top does the Prime Minister rate the business tax cuts introduced from 1 April this year as a direct consequence of the confidence and supply agreement with United Future which were the first such business tax cuts in two decades? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I thank the member for his question because I think those business tax cuts are very significant. I am conscious they were made pursuant to a confidence and supply agreement with United Future when we undertook to work together on those issues. Those cuts have been made in the expectation— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: And who else? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: —that they will help the further growth and development of our economy and made also with support from New Zealand First. 
Hon Jim Anderton 
: Has the Prime Minister received any reports that the largest single investment in research and development in the New Zealand primary sector economy of up to $2000 million was named “a gimmick” by anybody in this House? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I am aware that the largest single investment in research and development in our country’s history has been opposed by the National Party as it opposed the business tax cuts Working for Families cheaper doctors’ fees 20 hours’ free early childhood education and many other measures that help both businesses and the ordinary hard-working Kiwi family. 
John Key 
: Has the Prime Minister seen the latest copy of  
North and South 
 which shows that middle-income households are now rationing milk to their children—for income reasons I might add rather than weight reasons—and does she think that if her Government had bothered to cut taxes for those families who were not eligible for Working for Families they would in fact now be able to give their children the milk they need; if she does think that that would have helped why have those families had to wait 9 years for a tax cut? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I cannot say that I have read that particular magazine but I know that those families have certainly benefited from our Government’s commitments to lower doctors’ fees. They have also benefited from a prudent approach to running the economy unlike that member’s policy of borrowing for tax cuts which most people think is just plain crazy because it would put up their mortgage interest rates. 
John Key 
: Is the Prime Minister telling New Zealanders that under her Government this is as good as it gets in which case does she need them to tell her that they are paying double the interest rates under Labour that they cannot afford to fill up their car or go to the supermarket checkout and that they are going without and why does the Prime Minister not do something about those people rather than creating songs on Saturday nights? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Nothing could be more evidence that that member is happy to dish it out but he cannot take it. What I know is that average household income is up 25 percent in real terms under a Labour Government but there are families who are squeezed and there is no way that this Labour Government will borrow for tax cuts like John Key would because that would put up people’s mortgages. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Has the Prime Minister seen any reports suggesting that the best way of dealing with families who cannot afford the price of milk which is set internationally is to double the assistance to private schools? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I have indeed heard that Mr Key has a policy of doubling funding for private schools. I give this commitment: the first priority of a Labour-led Government is our public and integrated schools. 
Violence Youth—Gangs 
3.  
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: Does she agree with the reported statement that gangs are becoming a part of the solution to youth violence; if so why? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I have seen a statement in the  
New Zealand Herald 
 today attributed to Pita Sharples of the Maori Party. Although I would like to believe that gang members have reformed and now wish to become part of the solution to youth violence I have seen no evidence to show that they are anything other than part of the problem. However there may be individual ex - gang members who undertake worthwhile work with young people. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Does she share the view of most of the population of this country which is that gangsters are helping to create the problem with violent criminal offending and are not providing the solution and that rather than having constant hand-wringing about gangs and an acceptance of their existence the time has come to outlaw gangs that have a serious criminal record? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I agree with the member that gangsters are helping to create the problem rather than the solution. However I do not believe the answer is just a straight outlawing of gangs. The members of any outlawed gang would just change its name or morph it into another form which is why I launched only this month the organised crime strategy which takes a whole-of-Government approach to the combating of organised crime. That is where we will find gang members—they are involved in organised crime—and we need the resources of many agencies to fight that at many levels. 
Ron Mark 
: Has the Minister heard about the marae-based hui between such gangs as the Mongrel Mob Highway 61 Black Power and Hell’s Angels that Dr Sharples promotes; if so whom does she believe those hui benefit the most: the young people whom the gangs have got hooked on the drugs they manufacture and distribute; or the wider community who have had a gutsful of the gangs’ drug-dealing and violence; and could it be that just as we have seen in the overseas situations with gangs internationally gangs are using those hui to put aside their traditional rivalries in order to work together to maximise their profits? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: As I have already said I have not seen any evidence that gang members involved in organised crime as they are are anything other than a problem. I would hate to think that they are able to use forums like meetings on marae as a method of recruitment or to have respectability to cover up their real activities. However I would leave it to the wise judgment of the people who are on those marae in terms of deciding whether the people they invite there have a good cause or otherwise. 
Ron Mark 
: Has she seen any evidence as a result of all these hui or of the assertions by Dr Sharples that gangs need to be part of the solution or that gangs are shutting down their dope-growing operations shutting down their tinny houses and handing over to the police gang members who supply dope and P to kids or that gangs are de-patching and disbanding or does she like me think that Dr Sharples and his cohorts are simply running a great public relations campaign? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: No I do not believe that Dr Pita Sharples would run a public relations campaign. I think that Dr Sharples genuinely believes what he says but I say to him that I have not seen evidence of gang members being reformed to the extent that they want to be part of the solution. In fact I have seen the opposite of that in terms of gang members moving to other parts of New Zealand setting up near prisons recruiting young people and using them to become the next wave of gang members. I would be happy if what Dr Sharples says was true but I have not seen evidence of it. 
Dr Pita Sharples 
: Can the Minister confirm that the Government is giving funding to gang leaders with whom I am working on these projects? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: No I cannot confirm that but I can confirm that the member is quite wrong in a statement he made today that the Government is just creating bureaucracies when it comes to tackling youth violence. The member is quite wrong about that. In fact if he looks at the approach that has been taken towards youth gangs in South Auckland west Auckland and central Auckland he will see it has been to work with many agencies including non-governmental organisations not to set up more bureaucracies but to take the resources personnel and funding and put them together to work in a way whereby they help to reduce the activity of those youth gangs. 
Dr Pita Sharples 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I am in a dilemma Madam Speaker as I know that the Government is funding gang members to work with some of us in the community yet the answer I have been given from the Minister who is the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Police is that she does not know that. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Speaking to the point of order Madam Speaker I said that no I could not confirm the first part of his question. I am happy to get information about that. No doubt there will be members of gangs who are part of non-governmental organisations but that is not what the member was reported as saying in the  
New Zealand Herald  
this morning. 
Ron Mark 
: I know that New Zealand First has been allocated its number of supplementary questions but I seek leave to ask one more supplementary question extra to our entitlement. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Election Advertising—Departmental Material 
4.  
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: Is it Government policy that political parties may electioneer with advertising material produced by Government departments; if so why? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 No. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister tell the House just what it was that Ministers said about the Electoral Finance Act and electioneering that led the Labour Party President Mike Williams to believe that the use of taxpayer-funded Government department material in the Labour Party’s election campaign is perfectly fine and how is anyone supposed to avoid the conclusion that Ministers and the president of the Labour Party have been looking to misuse the public purse to get themselves re-elected? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Nothing. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister give the House a reassurance that Mr Mike Williams who is also a member of the boards of Genesis ONTRACK which is the company that owns the railway tracks the Auckland Regional Transport Authority GNS Science and Transit New Zealand is not using those positions in order to help the Labour Party get re-elected? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Mike Williams is a member of a number of boards. He acts in an honourable way just as National Party members whom we have appointed to boards do. 
Hon Bill English 
: If Mike Williams the President of the Labour Party believes that it is just fine to use Government department pamphlets in Labour electioneering material why would we conclude that he does not think it is just fine to use his many very high-profile director positions to achieve exactly the same thing? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: If Mike Williams had thought it was OK I am pretty sure he knows now it is not OK. But I need to say to that member that sometimes members of branches of political parties including sometimes members of Parliament say things at Labour Party conferences and National Party conferences that they do not really mean. For example we can always remember what Maurice Williamson said: “If some people can’t lose weight no matter what how come there were no fat people in Nazi concentration camps?”. Of course John Key had to apologise for that comment. I am sure Maurice Williamson did not mean to say it but sometimes people say things they do not really mean. 
Hon Bill English 
: Why should anyone take seriously Helen Clark’s promise that material produced by Government departments will not be used by the Labour Party when she would have been discussing exactly these issues with Mike Williams the President of the Labour Party for the last 2 years; when she would have been directing staff in her own office who have been sending out emails about this material; and when Labour before the last election promised to count the pledge card as an electoral expense then 2 days after the election withdrew that promise? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Because everything the member has said is total rubbish. 
Hon Bill English 
: How can Parliament rely on the Labour Party to comply with the electoral law when earlier this year it said it had asked the Electoral Commission about pamphlets that it had put out when actually it had not; when Mike Williams the President of the Labour Party has said that Labour would use Government department pamphlets for electioneering; and when Mike Williams the President of the Labour Party tried to hide an interest-free loan from the public? And why is it that every time something goes wrong Mike Williams seems to be to blame? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I have no responsibility for the Labour Party in this Parliament. 
Hon Bill English 
: Was the Minister or any other Labour Minister present at the workshop session where the Labour Party discussed using Government department pamphlets; if any Ministers were there why did they not tell the Labour Party that it was not allowed to do it? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Because people were at the Labour Party conference as members of the Labour Party. Also what was said is not what was reported in the newspapers. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister confirm whether there were Ministers at the workshop session and why does the Labour Party continue— 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The Minister of Justice has no responsibility for the fact as to whether any other Ministers were present at any workshop—indeed anywhere at any time. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Yes. I let the previous question go because I thought it was marginal but that one was right outside ministerial responsibility. Would the member rephrase the question please. 
Hon Bill English 
: Has the Minister seen reports that she was present at the workshop but Labour continues to work to the standard where it will do anything that it can get away with and this issue is being resolved only because it was raised by the media—Labour was caught so it had to do something about it? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: No. I think most people in this Parliament wonder whether the National Party really has any interest in anything happening in New Zealand other than the Electoral Finance Act which it bangs on about day after day because the Act has hurt it. It is unable to do the cheating it did in the last election; it is unable to get in the pockets of big financers and spend as much as it likes. Here we have a whole lot of sour grapes from a member who would be king if he could. 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I wonder whether you could ask the Minister to repeat the answer so that without all the barrage we can hear what the content was. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No. I ask members to please respect the right of free speech in this House—which is frequently mentioned. The right of free speech means the right to be heard. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I wonder whether you would reflect on your ruling with regard to the supplementary question from Bill English. Although you did not rule you suggested that you were concerned about the nature of it. Mr English was simply trying to establish whether Ministers of the current Government were participating in a forum or a gathering of people who were attempting to rort the law in this country. That should not be an unreasonable question in this House. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: It may not be; it is a matter of debate. Question time relates to ministerial responsibility and questions that stray into party activities of whatever party is mentioned are not. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I appreciate that but I did not ask for an immediate response because I think the matter is worth considering. The reality is that this Minister who was being questioned about not only herself but her ministerial colleagues is responsible for the Act. It is not unreasonable for the Opposition to expect the Minister— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I agree with the member but the question was not related to the Act. I am happy to reflect on the matter but I cannot change the Standing Orders. Question time relates to ministerial responsibility but I am happy to reflect on the matter and give a ruling. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The question could not have arisen if it were not for the Act and given that the Act exists— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have said to the member that I will consider it. If he wishes to put his views further in writing to me then I am very happy to consider them but I do understand his point. 
Mokihinui Hydro Dam—Resource Consent 
5.  
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Conservation 
: Does the Department of Conservation plan to submit on the resource consent applications for Meridian Energy Ltd’s Mokihinui hydro proposal; if so will the department be advocating for the protection of the river? 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK (Minister of Conservation) 
: 
 Yes; and yes it will be because the Conservation Act provides a statutory role for the department to advocate for conservation heritage and historical values. 
Metiria Turei 
: Is the Minister concerned that Meridian has suppressed a report that it commissioned from Landcare Research entitled  
Calculating Biodiversity Offsets for the Mokihinui Hydro Proposal 
 which basically states that there is no way that Meridian can mitigate the destructive effects of the dam on the river the biodiversity loss and the elimination of native species? 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK 
: I am aware of the reports that Meridian commissioned and that it did commission that research. However I have not seen that research so it is inappropriate for me to comment at this stage. 
Hon Marian Hobbs 
: Have there been other hydro schemes where agreement was able to be reached to protect the important values of the rivers while allowing hydro generation to continue? 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK 
: Yes there have been. It is not always possible to reconcile conflicting generation and conservation values. Where feasible though the department works with energy companies to agree on the conditions for resource consents that protect the river values while allowing significant renewable energy generation. One example is the Dobson hydro scheme on the Arnold River. 
Metiria Turei 
: Now that the Minister is aware of Meridian’s secret report that it has refused to distribute despite being asked will she be urging the Minister for the Environment to use his powers under the Resource Management Act to call in the resource consent applications because this is a biodiversity issue of national interest—that all New Zealanders should be able to enjoy the unique wildness and intrinsic values of this river—and perhaps even be urging him to experience the river through rafting or other trips as I did last week? 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK 
: That is a matter that falls within the responsibility of the Minister for the Environment. 
Metiria Turei 
: Now that the Minister is aware of this secret report that shows there is no mitigation for the damage that this dam will do I ask again whether she will assure this House that she will use her powers to refuse Meridian Energy’s application for Department of Conservation concessions to fell large swathes of native podocarp forest and drown an area of 330 hectares of conservation land—one of the largest attacks on native forest on conservation land since her Government ended native forest logging with the Greens help in 1999? 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK 
: I believe at this stage—with only a concession lodged—it is far too early for me to give my opinion. 
Metiria Turei 
: Does the Minister agree that the protected wilderness rivers are not renewable that species in decline are not recoverable as her Government continues to destroy their habitat and that New Zealanders who appreciate the outdoors and our unique native species— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: That’s not right! 
Metiria Turei 
: —even ones like that member—will not accept large hydro dams like that proposed on the Mokihinui River? 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK 
: I agree that the Mokihinui is a river gorge ecosystem of regional and national importance. The department is preparing an assessment of the specific values and the impact of that river. 
Metiria Turei 
: I seek leave to table the report that Meridian Energy has actively suppressed and refused to distribute. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Electricity—Supply 
6.  
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
 to the  
Minister of Energy 
: How confident is he that New Zealand will get through the coming winter without electricity shortages? 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Energy) 
: 
 I am advised there is a low likelihood that we will have serious electricity shortages this winter—less than 5 percent probability. For that low probability to become a reality the current severe drought would have to extend beyond autumn or an unexpected major failure of large thermal plant would have to occur. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Has the Minister seen the Transpower statement yesterday that stated that the hydro lake levels are down to just 65 percent of average thus putting them in the minzone level set by the Electricity Commission and that the Electricity Commission itself has raised its risk meter to high which indicates that New Zealanders face a grave risk of cold showers no heat and browned out factories; if so what conservation plans does he think should be put in place now or will he continue with his own view that there is no problem? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I am aware of the steps that the Electricity Commission and Transpower have taken—in fact I go over those issues daily. But it is not correct to say that as a consequence of the minzone being breached there is a serious risk of brownouts and cold showers. 
Charles Chauvel 
: What improvements have been made under this Government to the management of winter electricity supplies? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Since the Labour-led Government established the Electricity Commission we have better and more transparent information about lake levels security margins and trigger points for more action. As a consequence of this system Transpower and the industry are already better managing the situation as evidenced today by comments made by the Major Electricity Users Group. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: What is the purpose of the minzone and the Electricity Commission risk meter if it is not to warn New Zealanders that there are likely to be electricity shortages this winter; and why does the Minister continue—against the opinions of so many others who have been in the industry for so many years—with his own particular view on this matter? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: The minzone is triggered when based on historic inflow records going back over 70 years there is 1 year out of those 70 years of records that if the position was to be replicated this year would result in an electricity shortage—1 year in 70. That is why the risk of that becoming a reality is less than 5 percent at the moment. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Does the Minister recall explaining to the House in February that the reason we had an impending electricity crisis was a unique combination of events—the Stratford station was out but is now back Pole 1 was out but is now partially back and the Waikato had warm temperatures that have now cooled—and if most of the unique combination of events have improved will he admit that the problem is due in no small part to Labour’s failure to see sufficient new generation being built to ensure security of supply? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: No because it is not so. 
Peter Brown 
: Noting those answers is the Minister aware that power prices are a significant concern to the general public and can he assure the House that should lake levels not improve to the degree hoped for he will take early precautions to ensure that power prices do not go through the roof? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Household consumers are not exposed to the spot market so whatever happens to spot market prices over winter will not affect them. Of course it is important that in a time of water shortage the price increases in order to encourage those large industrial users who do have a choice about whether they use more or less power— 
R Doug Woolerton 
: What about the oldies? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Well the oldies are actually residential consumers generally. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Is it the Minister’s position that there is no prospect or possibility of serious electricity shortages this winter—just a slim 5 percent chance? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: As I have said the probability of a serious shortage this winter is less than 5 percent. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: After 48 percent in residential price increases over the last 6 years and millions of dollars of consumer levies in payment to the Electricity Commission why can the Minister not give the simple assurance to the House that the lights will stay on the heating will stay on and industry will not be disrupted this winter? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: No Minister of Energy can give an absolute assurance of that because no Minister of Energy controls the weather. Were it otherwise that member would have to look out for lightning bolts! 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I seek leave to table the latest weather reports and also the winter energy storage graph which suggests that it has been raining and it has been pouring but old man Gerry— 
Document not tabled. 
Fish Stocks—Depletion 
7.  
Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
 to the  
Minister of Fisheries 
: What did he mean in the reported comments made on  
Waatea News 
 that chartered vessels hired by Maori plunder the fish until there are none left; and what penalties will be imposed on these people for plundering the fish stocks? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Minister of Fisheries) 
: 
 My reported comments on  
Waatea News 
 were taken from the Treaty Tribes Coalition conference on Maori fishing interests held in Napier last week. At the conference I was asked by the Maori owner of a fishing company why the Government allowed large chartered vessels to come into our waters and in his words “vacuum-clean up all the fish”. In my response to the fisher I pointed out that Maori quota owners were significant users of large chartered vessels to catch their quota. I further pointed out that my attempts to bring amendments before this House to ensure that we have a more precautionary approach to fisheries management have been blocked by commercial Maori fisheries interests whose position has been supported in this House by the Maori Party. 
Dr Pita Sharples 
: Which Maori can the Minister identify as the commercial plunderers of their resource; and what role does his ministry have in ensuring that plundering does not occur? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: Maori interests have 40 percent of the fisheries in New Zealand. The commercial fisheries interests in this country know that many of our stocks—hoki and orange roughy in particular—have been fished down so that quota has had to be reduced. I am now in the position of not being able to make decisions in a precautionary way because commercial interests including Maori and the Maori Party will not support precautionary principles being put into the legislation. 
Dr Pita Sharples 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I specifically asked which Maori the Minister could identify. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The Standing Orders do not require Ministers to answer in a specific way the questions that are put. The Minister I thought did address the question at some length but if he wishes to add anything else he is perfectly entitled to do so. 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: As an example for the member I advise him that last year I closed the orange roughy 7B fishery because the stock biomass was estimated to have dropped to 17 percent of its original state. That was in addition to earlier closures of the Challenger Area and Puysegur Bank orange roughy fisheries. The Maori fishing interests along with Pakeha interests have been fishing in those waters. They have been overfishing to the point where I have implemented precautionary principles in terms of the total allowable commercial catch and the Maori Party has opposed those measures in this House. 
Pita Paraone 
: Given the view of most New Zealanders including Maori on the importance of the need to ensure the sustainability of our country’s fish stocks would the concern he expressed on Radio New Zealand National pertaining to Maori commercial fishers and the plundering of fish by their chartered vessels be addressed if the same vessels and all other similar vessels were to be crewed by crews that were at least 75 percent comprised of New Zealanders? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: That is an interesting proposition and some people in the commercial industry in New Zealand would support that. In truth of course it would have severe practical implications for Maori fishers as well as for other commercial fishers. But if the member wants to pursue that and get support for it from the industry then my door is open for talks about it. 
Dr Pita Sharples 
: Does the Minister agree with the Te Runanga a Iwi o Ngapuhi chairperson Sonny Tau—that is the chairperson of the runanga of the largest tribe in New Zealand—that the Minister’s comments smack of election-year Maori bashing; if not why not? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: I do not think that anyone in this House thinks that I am seriously after the Maori seats or that I am seriously concerned about what anyone might think about the principles I have adopted in terms of the fisheries. What I am saying to the member very clearly is that the Maori interests in commercial fishing should emulate some of their people among the recreational and customary fishers who are just as concerned about Maori plundering the fishing stocks as they are about Pakeha plundering them. 
Election Spending—Departmental Material 
8.  
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: Is it Government policy that if a political party uses advertising material produced by Government departments it should count towards their spending cap under the Electoral Finance Act 2007; if not why not? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I refer the member to section 67 of the Electoral Finance Act and to the State Services Commission’s guidelines on department advertising and publicity campaigns. 
Hon Bill English 
: Has the Minister seen the statement made by the secretary of the Public Service Association (PSA) Brenda Pilott: “We would have a concern at any political party using public service material for political ends it’s really important actually that the political parties keep their politics out of the public service during election year.”; and if the secretary of the PSA knew that using Government department pamphlets for electioneering was wrong then why did the Ministers who were at the workshop not know that? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Yes I have seen those comments. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister confirm that if the Labour Party runs out of Government department pamphlets and it is looking to use the video of Ministers singing at its congress as a political ad then it will have to be authorised by the Labour Party if the public are to regard it as supporting the Labour Party? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I think that even Labour Party members are still allowed to communicate with their members. But after listening to Dr Lockwood Smith singing last night I wonder whether they might think that perhaps it should actually be censored rather than authorised. 
Hon Bill English 
: Has the Minister seen reports that video footage of Cabinet Ministers singing at the Labour congress is available on YouTube; and can she tell the House whether this is now a political advertisement supporting the Labour Party and therefore it requires authorisation or is it in fact an attack on the Labour Party and therefore it does not require authorisation? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: No I have not seen that on YouTube. But I have seen a video of John Key walking through a Pacific Island market in Porirua where he was asked why National did not support increasing the minimum wage and I think he said something like he could not remember whether he supported it. 
Hon Bill English 
: In light of the comments by the Labour Party president that it is fine to use Government department material for electioneering why should the public not believe that Labour always intended the material produced by Government departments to be available for electioneering and that that is why it has directed Government departments to carry out their publicity campaigns? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Because that is plain wrong it is a lie and it has been made up by that member. We have had a diet of this for weeks—made-up stories by Bill English that he peddles around New Zealand as the truth. 
I seek leave to table these documents from the National Party website which need to be on the record of the House because the National Party has now removed them from its website having had them on illegally for 3 months. 
Documents by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Science and Innovation—Government Support 
9.  
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Research Science and Technology 
: What action has the Government taken to support science and innovation in New Zealand? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Research Science and Technology) 
: 
 More than can be listed in answer to an oral answer. Perhaps the two biggest recent changes have been the 15 percent tax credit which began earlier this month and the New Zealand Fast Forward programme—a $700 million investment in the pastoral and food sector announced a month before. In addition just last night the Royal Society of New Zealand announced big changes in its role with the New Horizons programme and the new Rutherford Foundation of which the Government is a funding partner; the list goes on and on. 
Moana Mackey 
: Who else is supporting these efforts to build and promote the science sector? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Pretty much everyone: Business New Zealand Science New Zealand Export New Zealand the university sector Federated Farmers this sector that sector this corporate that corporate; but not the New Zealand National Party. Yesterday National said: “Helen Clark’s government has failed to recognise the true scale of the investment that this country must make and the need for these commitments to be long term.” That is a very curious statement. This is the very same National Party that voted against the research and development tax credit and the very same National Party leader who said that the $700 million endowment in the New Zealand Fast Forward programme was a gimmick. 
Junior Doctors’ Strike—Disruption to Services 
10.  
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: How many patients may have their specialist appointments or elective surgery disrupted if the junior doctors’ strike goes ahead next week? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Health) 
: 
 I am advised that the district health boards are making contingency plans and that the first priority is patient safety. Life-preserving services arrangements have been concluded with the Resident Doctors Association to ensure that acute and emergency services are covered. Further contingency planning does involve postponing some elective surgery. That contingency planning suggests that around 800 patients may have their elective surgery postponed and more than 5500 could have a specialist appointment postponed. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Now that the Minister has confirmed to the House that well over 6500 patients will have their care disrupted by the junior doctors’ strike which will make the waiting list even longer does the Government propose to take any action? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Last time I looked 5500 plus 800 was less than 6500. Be that as it may the district health boards and the Resident Doctors Association were today continuing their bargaining as they should do. 
Lesley Soper 
: Has the Minister received any updates on the positions of the two parties? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Yes. I am advised that the Resident Doctors Association has asked for a 40 percent increase over 3 years. I am further advised that the district health boards have offered a 4.08 percent increase over each of the next 2 years and have further offered to discuss a wide range of terms and conditions. I call on both sides to progress their discussions in good faith with a view to ensuring the long-term health benefits of all New Zealanders through a sustainable and well-functioning health system. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: What will be the likely cost of paying senior doctors to cover the rosters of junior doctors? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Considerably less than the cost of meeting the demand for a 40 percent pay increase. 
Barbara Stewart 
: Is the Minister concerned about the effect of the proposed junior doctors’ strike in the Hawke’s Bay especially in light of the fact that Mr Ryall has given up asking written questions on the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board with a mere three written questions having been asked in the past 9 months? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Obviously I am concerned that all New Zealanders should be able to maintain confidence in a high-quality and safe health system. That concern also underlay my recent decision in regard to the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board. It is of interest that Mr Ryall’s recent adventures in that regard appear to have been designed for the camera rather than the coalface; however I note that even those theatrics have tailed off now that he has had the opportunity to read the independent review report. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Is the Minister aware that yesterday the district health board chief executives discussed proposals that senior doctors be paid $500 an hour extra on top of their current pay rates for filling in for junior doctors which would mean that some doctors would be paid $650 an hour to cover junior doctor rosters during the 2-day strike; and is not this more evidence of the health workforce crisis after 9 years of neglect from the Labour Government? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: In the first place there is no crisis. There are more doctors and nurses in New Zealand’s health system than there were when this Government took office and a considerable resource injection has assisted workforce development. It is not appropriate for me to set the terms of discussions between senior doctors and the district health boards but I would like to express my appreciation of the senior medical specialists who are using good faith to cover a strike that will put considerable inconvenience on them and on other hospital workers. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: What reports has the Minister got or is getting prepared in respect of any likely strike in the Hawke’s Bay or is it the case that having learnt of Mr Ryall going around the press gallery and promising a neutron bomb that turned out to be a Tom Thumb he is now not too concerned about it? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: The length of the member’s fuse is no business of mine. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Is it not another sign of the health workforce crisis in New Zealand when this Government is going to pay up to $650 an hour to senior doctors who cover for junior doctors on strike—cancelling thousands of specialist appointments and many elective surgeries—and is spending $100 million a year on filling vacancies with locums? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: In the first place the member should get himself acquainted with the facts. I am advised that the true cost of locums is about $24 million a year not $100 million—or does that member believe every press release from the Resident Doctors Association? 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: How can the Minister account for his inconsistency in being involved in the senior doctors’ strike but not being involved in the junior doctors’ strike? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: There is absolutely no inconsistency. In the first place I facilitated a meeting. In the second place I did so only after the senior doctors’ negotiations had dragged on for nearly 2 years. The junior doctors’ talks have been substantively under way since just before Christmas. The member cannot have it both ways: either he stands for the delivery of elective services for New Zealanders or he stands for being a drama queen about strikes. 
Education System—Reports 
11.  
Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: What reports has he received on support for New Zealand’s public education system? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Education) 
: 
 I have seen reports advocating that funding should be almost doubled for private schools. This would remove funds from the 96 percent of pupils who participate in State education. In a recent television interview the National leader John Key called the current funding policy “elitist”. I assume this means that Mr Key does not agree with decile funding which provides extra resources for the most at risk pupils. No doubt his comments reflect that old Tory philosophy of “reward the rich punish the poor”. 
Dr Ashraf Choudhary 
: What other reports has the Minister seen about proposals to increase public funding for private schools? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I have seen universally negative comments. For example the president of the New Zealand Educational Institute Frances Nelson said that National’s policy did not make sense and that “The taxpayer and the children of New Zealand deserve better”. The New Zealand Secondary Principals Council chairman Arthur Graves a fine principal from the West Coast said that the policy is “a deliberate attempt to undermine and rob public schools and essentially provide a tax break for the rich”. Under Labour education funding is up 80 percent since 1999. That is $5 billion more each year towards ensuring that every child gets a quality education—not just those children whose parents can afford to pay private school fees 
Immigration Service—Confidence 
12.  
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
 to the  
Minister of Immigration 
: Does he have confidence in the New Zealand Immigration Service? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 Yes but there is always room for improvement. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: How can ordinary law-abiding Kiwis have confidence in the Immigration Service when since 1 January 2000 under Labour 282 people have been eligible for deportation from New Zealand yet only 76 people have actually been deported? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: They can have confidence in the Immigration Service because my advice is that between 1999 and this year there have been far more deportations than there were under that member’s Government prior to then. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: How can taxpayers have confidence that the Immigration Service is doing all it can to safeguard law-abiding Kiwis when under Labour even after factoring in the number of deportation notices issued and the decisions of the courts and appeal authorities only about one in three people still eligible for deportation actually get deported? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I am advised that in terms of the deportation cases considered and notices issued by the Minister for the calendar year 1999 nine cases were considered and seven notices were issued. That compares with 2007 when 42 cases were considered and 38 notices were issued. A number of factors lead to deportation. Under this Government the public can be very very confident that those cases will be actioned but they have to go through the proper legal processes. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Can the Minister confirm that under the Immigration Act 1987 people are eligible for deportation if they commit serious criminal offences within a period of up to 10 years after arriving in New Zealand? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Indeed and I also state that those deportations have to go through the proper processes and are subject to appeal before being signed out. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: How can people have confidence in the Immigration Service when under this Labour Government over 160 people who may have committed violent criminal acts and victimised ordinary law-abiding Kiwis have not been deported from New Zealand when they should have been? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I cannot confirm that at all. The member makes the assertion. He also makes the assertion that they should have been deported and they were not. They are also subject to appeal rights and proper legal process. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: How can ordinary law-abiding Kiwis have confidence that their safety is not being put at risk by the decision not to deport a man who has committed two counts of indecent assault—the most recent of which was while he was out on parole for the first indecent assault—who has committed aggravated robbery assault drug offences multiple counts of burglary robbery and theft and who in fact has a criminal record of at least 38 such convictions for which the police sought his deportation; why has the Government blocked that person’s deportation? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Again I say that the Government does not block deportations. The member makes an assertion. Deportations are subject to appeal. There are a number of factors involved. I will say that in terms of preventing risk to New Zealanders we have one of the most advanced passenger profiling systems in the world. When for instance someone rocks up at a particular airport and is flagged before checking in his or her bags— 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: You issue deportation notices and then don’t deport them. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: The member does not like the answer but I will try anyway. When someone checks in his or her bags at the airport if there is a flag that is checked with Immigration New Zealand then the person will be handed back his or her bags and will not get on the plane. Under this Government that is about expanding New Zealand’s border control right across the globe not just waiting until something happens in New Zealand and then dealing with it. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. My question was specifically about deportation. The Minister’s answer just talked about removal. As Minister of Immigration he should know the difference between deportation and removal. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am sorry; from what I could hear of the answer I think the Minister addressed the question. 
Peter Brown 
: Noting those answers will the Minister confirm that the new Immigration Bill that is currently before the select committee and which has emanated from the confidence and supply agreement between Labour and New Zealand First will improve the situation no end inasmuch as handling deportations removals and the various other problems that Immigration New Zealand is faced with is concerned? 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: It hasn’t worked Peter. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I will address an interjection from the Dr Lockwood Smith who said that it has not worked. I tell him that the bill has not actually been passed through the House. It cannot work because it has not been passed. That is a relatively simple legal tenet that a senior member of that man’s standing should know. But to answer the member’s question I say that yes I believe that the bill will improve the situation. The bill will streamline a series of processes. But of course deportations are exceptionally complex. They are still subject to appeal even under the Act because there are various considerations. So the bill will not be a panacea to expedite deportations in the way that that member wants. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. During the time Mr Brown was asking a question numerous comments came from the National Party suggesting that he go home. With the greatest of respect that is likely to lead to unruly behaviour in this House given that so many of the National members owe their presence here to the fact that some other people in Parliament allowed their parents to come to New Zealand. They all sit there now arrogantly thinking the country is theirs and does not belong to a worthy person like Mr Brown who has been a high-paying taxpayer and a very worthy citizen for decades in New Zealand. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member for his comment. Comments from time to time do lead to disorder. Unfortunately that is not unknown in the House. 
Urgent Debates Declined 
Auckland International Airport—Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Bid 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from the Rt Hon Winston Peters seeking to debate under Standing Order 380 the decision of Ministers to decline the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board’s bid to purchase a 40 percent stake in Auckland International Airport. 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—Speaker’s ruling 161/2. 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. [ 
Interruption 
] 
I am becoming sick and tired of members who sit right next to the Speaker’s Chair constantly interjecting when the Speaker is giving a ruling. If it happens one more time from either side I will be asking the member to leave the House for some considerable time. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Maybe I misheard but were you indicating to the House that the National Party did not submit a request for an urgent debate on Auckland International Airport? Because I am thoroughly surprised by that fact. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I received one application and I have ruled on that. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I am very much aware of what Judith Collins was saying and also the suggestion from Dr Cullen which leads me to seek leave so that the National Party can debate what its members say on this issue to have the motion that I have put before you debated now. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is objection. There is another point of order? [ 
Interruption 
] Jill Pettis you will be leaving the Chamber unless you keep quiet during points of order. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Noting your ruling and the subsequent seeking of leave by the Rt Hon Winston Peters can we assume that the  
Cabinet Manual 
 which is to be publicly released this afternoon—and there is some fanfare around that I understand—will make provision for Ministers of a Government to seek leave for urgent debates in the House about their own Government’s policy and allow them to step outside their collective responsibility to seek leave for the House to debate their Government’s own policy? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I understand the member’s point. The member has been here long enough to know that the Speaker makes rulings based on the Standing Orders not on the  
Cabinet Manual 
. 
Offices of Parliament 
Address to Governor-General 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That a respectful Address be presented to His Excellency the Governor-General commending to His Excellency the alterations to the appropriations for the 2007/08 financial year in respect of Vote Ombudsmen and Vote Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment and the appropriations and information for the 2008/09 financial year in respect of Vote Audit Vote Ombudsmen Vote Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment and Offices of Parliament 
. 
Speaking very briefly I note that this motion is moved every year by the Leader of the House because these people are of course Officers of Parliament. They are not members of executive departments and therefore it is inappropriate for the Minister of Finance to deal directly with these offices in terms of their budgetary requests. The parliamentary select committee that deals with the Offices of Parliament goes through the budget request from those offices and makes recommendations to the House and then those recommendations are fed into the Budget process. I thank the members of the Officers of Parliament Committee for the fact that they have always acted responsibly in that regard. Of course it would be somewhat awkward if somebody suddenly decided to spend a vastly increased amount of money on the Offices of Parliament. I thank the members of the committee for their work on this matter. Once this motion is passed the remainder of the process will get under way and the appropriations will appear in the Budget. 
NATHAN GUY (National) 
: 
 National supports the appropriations for Vote Ombudsmen and Vote Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment and for the Auditor-General. It is quite interesting when we look through this and see just how extensive these roles actually are and see in particular the good work that the Ombudsmen’s office is doing on the prisons which is a big capital investment that the Ombudsmen’s office is working on currently employing about 50 staff. We all know that New Zealanders now have the right to object to certain things that go on in the community and the Ombudsmen’s office is the place where those people choose to take their complaints. Over time we have seen a big increase in complaints going through the Ombudsmen’s office and it is of particular note that we mention what a good job those three are doing. There is I think currently a recruitment process going on in that office. 
I also want to comment on the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment and what that office is up to in this allocation as well and also on the Auditor-General. The important thing to realise is that the Offices of Parliament are made up of a collection from right across the Parliament and that these roles are not beholden to a political party but to Parliament as a whole. National is supporting these appropriations. 
Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 The Maori Party is pleased to support the motion in respect of Vote Audit Vote Ombudsmen Vote Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment and Offices of Parliament. Our comments are focused on the alterations to the 2007-08 appropriations for Vote Ombudsmen. 
We support the increases in the legislative authority of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment to accommodate new remuneration rates. We support also the changes made to respond to the commissioner’s proposal to create a more collegial culture through the desire for an open-plan office arrangement. I was interested in the proposal to develop an open-plan environment to use the space and resources more effectively and to improve staff management and communications. Although we understand the intentions we know that there are other factors that can emerge from an open-plan trend such as distraction and lack of privacy from other employees noise from office equipment furniture and cubicle design that is not appropriate to the job poor air quality uncontrollable temperatures and so on. We wonder given that it is the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment who is putting forward this proposal what thought has gone into the environmental advantages of an open-plan office. It would be interesting to know the scale of the costs and benefits attached to the open-plan arrangements particularly when it comes to the impacts of employees being sick dissatisfied or distracted. 
Another key set of recommendations from this motion is related to the budget report for audit and assurance services which again was related to office relocation salary and remuneration movements as well as costs attributable to international financial reporting and accounting standards conversion audits which we were told were larger than forecast. The explanation that these costs were unanticipated and that the office faced resource constraints is accepted. 
The key focus of our interest in this motion is however related to the Office of the Ombudsmen and in particular our support for its proposal to have an expanded role in prisons. The first item of importance in the budget report related to the review of the criminal justice sector which was tabled in the House on 5 December last year. I want to spend some time refreshing our institutional memory about this review as I believe it to be critically important in this election year as we consider the implications in the debate around law and order matters. 
The Ombudsman Mel Smith distinguished between two prevailing ideologies penal populism and soft liberalism. Smith suggested that penal populism is manipulated by political firebrands who will promote whatever hot issue is in the public arena to advance the cause of getting tough on crime. Gangs P child abuse and violence all become fodder to the champions of penal populism to bolster support for longer sentences—and more. Meanwhile on the other hand soft liberalism is supposedly favoured by criminal justice administrators and academics and it puts the needs of the criminal as being paramount. Smith draws out trends in both these approaches as having influenced criminal justice sector legislation and describes the changes in the sector over the past decade as being extraordinarily rapid. 
In the debating chamber which salivates over the way in which the numbers add up it bears remembering that the numbers in the penal population rose in the last decade from 4940 in December 1996 to 8056 in November 2007. Are we really proud as a nation that we have experienced such a massive increase in the prison muster? Mel Smith provides the answer in no uncertain terms: “The increase in the prison muster is undesirable both in view of the impact of prison on offenders and their families and in view of its demand for increased government expenditure on new prisons and their operations. Moreover it has been undesirable as there is little evidence that the changes have made us feel safer or increased our confidence in the criminal justice system.” 
These three factors—the impact on families the expenditure explosion and the failure to restore public confidence—demonstrate to me the absolute value of an independent Ombudsman function. The Ombudsman’s report last December reinforced the need to promote the view that imprisonment is a last resort and should be used as a place only for those engaged in the most serious acts of crime. A burgeoning imprisonment rate placates those who subscribe to the penal populist cause but it does little to increase and restore public confidence in the system. Probably the most extreme example of this is in the area of longstanding concern relating to the ridiculously high overrepresentation of Maori and Pasifika peoples in the criminal justice system. The Ombudsman recommended that more work needs to be done promptly to investigate the root causes of this as well as to work with the appropriate specialist organisations that are working in the area of support rehabilitation reintegration restorative justice and other such programmes. 
If we are looking for ways to restore public confidence in the justice system work programme we will note that Mel Smith’s report is again disturbing when it describes the way in which the agencies worked or did not with Te Puni Kokiri on addressing the overrepresentation of Maori. Mr Smith put it out there in black and white: “I have been advised of differences of view between the Ministry of Justice and Te Puni Kokiri. I accept that the approaches of these departments may differ but it grieves me that these differences have been allowed to impede the formulation of plans to deal with one of the more unsatisfactory aspects of our criminal justice system. Some resolution of these differences would be a major step forward.” 
The conclusions that the Ombudsman was able to present in his independent inquiry particularly his concerns regarding the massive increase in prison muster and the issues that impact on justice sector capability are issues we must respond to. Of course many other concerns were raised including the significant challenge that Greater Auckland poses in terms of the resource constraints and increasing demands placed upon quality justice services in my electorate. 
The Ombudsman was able to present his views in a frank and candid manner—exactly the quality of advice that we would expect of this role. We need more such advice in this Parliament and what is more we need to be doing something about the very serious concerns that are raised not just in respect of the December report but consistently and with particular value in terms of the Ombudsman’s role in prisons. The Maori Party will certainly support the motion. We believe it to be a thoroughly worthwhile investment. 
Motion agreed to and Address agreed to. 
Walking Access Bill 
First Reading 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Minister for Rural Affairs) 
: 
 I move  
That the Walking Access Bill be now read a first time. 
 At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be considered by the Local Government and Environment Committee and that the committee report finally to the House on or before 31 July 2008. 
The bill establishes a Walking Access Commission and defines its powers and functions. The need for such an organisation has been well established from the public concern that has been expressed about the availability of public walking access to the outdoors especially access around the coast around lakes and along rivers. The bill is one of the measures that this Government has initiated to reflect the importance of preserving in perpetuity access to and enjoyment of the great outdoors that is so important for our national identity. 
We have already secured the public right of access over our beaches through the Foreshore and Seabed Act and concerns about the impact of overseas purchases of rural land on outdoor recreational activities are dealt with in the new Overseas Investment Act. My colleague the Minister for Land Information has made significant changes in the implementation of the 10-year review process under the Crown Pastoral Land Act to ensure that the public interest in the iconic South Island high country is not compromised. This bill is part of that wider vision for the preservation of the heritage of all New Zealanders. 
There has been a popular conception that there is a public reservation along water margins—known as the Queen’s Chain. Although there are many public reservations of this kind they are by no means universal and frequently their precise location is not well known or easy to locate. It has been estimated that water margin reservations around the coast may amount to perhaps 70 percent of the available coastline and for rivers and lakes the reservations probably amount to about only 50 percent. In addition the practical availability of much of this reserved land has been affected by erosion. 
Of course access over our beaches has already been secured but access along the coast above the foreshore can still be an issue. In addition to concerns about public access along water margins there is also concern about public access to water margins and access to other public land such as national parks. One of the widely expressed concerns about access to the countryside has been the lack of clear and authoritative information about the location of existing access especially water margin reservations and unformed legal roads. Although most of this information is in the records held by Land Information New Zealand it is not readily available to the public in a form useful for walking access purposes. An important function of the commission will be to enable information useful for walking access to be made available to the public in a user-friendly form. 
The bill implements recommendations made by the Walking Access Consultation Panel in its report to me of February 2007. The panel was set up following the Government’s decision in 2005 that it would not proceed with legislation providing for deemed water margin access. That proposal was strongly opposed by farming and other landowning interests on the grounds that it interfered unjustifiably with property rights. The Government heard those concerns. In response the panel was charged with finding a consensus among stakeholder groups on walking access issues. It consulted widely with stakeholder groups and the public about walking access to rural New Zealand. I acknowledge the hard work and expertise of members on the panel who considered various stakeholder interests. I was especially grateful for the work of the chair of the panel John Acland. The panel was set a very difficult task—that is to find a way forward in a highly complex area. 
The one thing that can be learnt from any issue that polarises people is that there is usually wisdom on both sides. Walking access is one such issue. There is no easy answer. The public expects access to significant areas of the coast and to rivers lakes and other public land that is surrounded by private land and landowners naturally expect to be able to decide for themselves who comes on to their property. The issue brings into focus two fundamental values that underpin our New Zealand character and lifestyle: access to our many natural recreational resources and having our very own piece of dirt. We have to work to solve any incompatibility between these two important values. There is need for a degree of public education on both relevant objectives. Such education would include imparting information about the incomplete and inconsistent nature of the Queen’s Chain the lack of clarity about existing public access rights and the need for standards of conduct when members of the public have been granted access to private land. 
Among the issues identified by the panel which this bill seeks to remedy are the problems of access across country to and along water margins and other public land and the lack of authoritative and readily available information about the location of public access arrangements and voluntary access arrangements which lack endurance and certainty. 
The panel conducted a very open and lengthy consultation process. The key findings of the panel which this bill reflects were the need for an independent organisation to lead and coordinate walking access issues the need for the provision of information about access the need for the promotion of a code of responsible conduct and that need for new access over private land that should be achieved either by existing statutory mechanisms or by negotiation and agreement with the landholders. The panel also found that the functions of the New Zealand Walkways Act 1990 should transfer from the Department of Conservation to the new organisation. 
The Walking Access Bill reflects the recommendations of the panel and in summary it creates a new Crown entity the New Zealand Walking Access Commission. The bill defines the functions of the commission and transfers responsibility for the creation of walkways and the overall supervision of existing walkways to the commission by amending the New Zealand Walkways Act 1990. 
The bill does not go as far as some recreational interests propose. They wanted to confer on the commission a power to impose access across private land to public resources—such as for sporting and fishing—that do not have practical or convenient public access. The majority of the panel rejected this approach as it would have amounted to an unjustifiable interference with private property rights. I fully support the view of the majority of the panel on this point. On this particular issue I recall and commend the wonderful tradition in this country of rural landholders allowing and in many instances encouraging access to their land for recreational purposes on a purely voluntary basis. It is a tradition that should be encouraged preserved and of course respected. I also accept however that traditions and attitudes change and that this reality needs to be recognised and the consequences addressed. I believe that this bill will achieve a proper balance between the rights and aspirations of the public in terms of access to the countryside the property rights of landowners and the practical needs of farmers and other land users to carry out their business without undue hindrance. 
This bill is a fairly short and focused bill and apart from the provisions relating to the proposed new agency it largely re-enacts the New Zealand Walkways Act 1990. I reiterate that the bill does not undermine private property rights. Public access to private land including Maori land remains subject to negotiation and agreement with landholders. For this reason alone I expect that the bill will receive favourable consideration by the committee. I note that the panel’s report received widespread public comment and was welcomed by many stakeholders including parties in this House Federated Farmers and recreational groups. The New Zealand Walkways Act has had a long history having been first enacted in 1975 with support from the farming community local government and recreational groups. In one sense this bill seeks to rebuild and renew the close links relationships and respect between stakeholders that was the foundation of the original legislation. The Government has also agreed that the monitoring department for the commission will be the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. 
This bill reflects the Government’s goal of national identity. It further demonstrates this Government’s commitment to rebuilding the connections between urban and rural New Zealand. 
Hon DAVID CARTER (National) 
: 
 For well over 100 years the rural landowners of this country have willingly provided public access over their land. The farmers throughout the country have enjoyed having their land utilised by recreationalists but the Labour Government and Helen Clark particularly put all this cooperation at risk when 5 years ago they proposed to legislate over private property rights to deliver public access over private farmland. 
That has been the history of this legislation. 
The Walking Access Bill now comes back to the House in a very much watered-down fashion compared with the Labour Government’s original plans and therefore the National Party will cautiously support it going to the Local Government and Environment Committee. I say “cautiously” because immediately three things raise concern for me. The first is the creation of yet another level of bureaucracy to monitor something that I do not think needs to be fixed. I am staggered at the Minister’s announcement today that this legislation will not go to the Primary Production Committee. He concluded his speech by acknowledging that the legislation will be monitored by the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry yet he has quite deliberately avoided sending it to the Primary Production Committee where as most parliamentarians would agree there is the expertise to examine this issue quickly. 
Mark Blumsky 
: We’re very busy. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: I hear from my colleague Mark Blumsky that his select committee is very heavily worked and in fact the Primary Production Committee has quite a lot of spare capacity. So the Minister might like to explain. 
The second thing that concerns me is that the legislation sets out to fix a problem that has never existed. As I said earlier for hundreds of years public access has been provided willingly but 5 years ago Helen Clark with the help of Mr Bryce Johnson and certainly with the help of Gottlieb Braun-Elwert proposed to put into legislation the ability of the public to march unfettered over privately owned rural land. There was outrage immediately from the farming sector as one would expect but the Labour Government was caught by surprise that many urban people also knew it was wrong and joined in supporting farmers to the extent that prior to the last election Helen Clark backed down completely and set up a panel to examine the issue. After a long period of examination by a hard-working commission we now have this proposal before us today. So the Government backed down at the last election but this was not before the Minister who was then in charge of this legislation the Hon Jim Sutton lost his seat of Aoraki over the issue. I guarantee that at the next election soon to be held the Minister now in charge of this legislation the Hon Damien O’Connor will also lose his ever-safe seat of West Coast - Tasman because the farmers know that he has behaved appallingly over this issue. 
As I said it is ironic that the Walking Access Bill actually achieves what National members have said was always the solution to the public access debate and that is around using the large amount of public access that is already available to our rivers our lakes and our coastline. In the very very odd case where there is a difficulty around getting access to a coastline a lake shore or a river then people should enter into negotiation with the private landowner and find a solution. From the very start of this debate in 2003 the National Party said to the Government that this was the solution. Finally after years of commission hearings submissions from people throughout the country and expenditure in total of around half a million dollars the Labour Government has licked its wounds and introduced to the House legislation that contains the very solution that National said was always the solution. 
So we cautiously support the referral of this legislation to the select committee. We do want to see a serious investigation around issues such as whether this access negotiation is better handled with a national entity or whether we can use the conservation boards. I assure the Minister that the message that will be received at the select committee is that these problems tend to be very very localised. If the Minister had known his portfolio area he would also know that because such problems are localised they are better solved by local people having an input rather than a national body. 
We look forward to the progression of the legislation to the select committee. I will attempt to see whether I can get some space to be on that committee and offer my considerable knowledge in this area. Mr O’Connor could have saved all that difficulty if he had referred the legislation to the Primary Production Committee where he knows it would have received a very very fair hearing by the very good members on the committee. Those members know the issue intimately and certainly they do not have a heavy workload ahead of them. 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I am happy to stand and talk to the first reading of the Walking Access Bill and of course the bill will be coming to the Local Government and Environment Committee. Speaking for Labour members on that committee we are not afraid of a bit of hard work. Yes we are a busy committee because we have a group of people who have exceptional expertise. I see Mr Blumsky sitting across the Chamber and he joins us whenever we discuss local government issues. I am sure we would enjoy having Mr David Carter on the committee. He may not hold it in such high regard as he holds his own select committee—the Primary Production Committee—but I can assure him that we take this issue very seriously. The Local Government and Environment Committee is indeed an appropriate committee to be considering this issue. It is a busy committee but Labour members are often the only members to turn up to every single meeting for the entire time. Speaking for those Labour members I can say that we are very much looking forward to the select committee process and will be able to fit the bill into our work programme. We welcome any members from the Primary Production Committee who want to join us as we do acknowledge the expertise that exists on that committee too. As a former member of that committee I can vouch for that. 
This is a very important bill that had a very long gestation before being introduced into the House. I acknowledge the work of the former Minister of Agriculture the Hon Jim Sutton and the work that he did. It certainly was an issue that he held very dear to his heart and he spoke of it in his valedictory. I thought that he spoke very eloquently about needing to remember some of the values and some of the principles that we hold very dear in New Zealand and about how aligned those are with being able to access our waterways whether that be the ocean rivers lakes etc. 
I endorse the comments of Minister O’Connor that many New Zealanders do not really appreciate the reality out there when it comes to the legal status of many of these waterside tracks and the access of them across private land. At present there is no public agency that is responsible for the provision of this information whether it is to landowners or whether it is to members of the general public who want to access waterways. There is no one place that they can go to get this information. There may be some people out there who say that this is not an issue but maybe they are not talking to the people who think it is an issue. Maybe the people who think it is an issue just are not coming to see them. I have had people come to see me—more often from the general public—who want to get to waterways and who are concerned that more and more private land is blocking access to the foreshore for example. That is not deliberate; it is just the fact that the private land is there and it is privately owned. 
The general public are uncertain about what they need to do. They say that they go to see the private landowner but sometimes the landowners are absentee landlords so the person who is in charge of running the farm or the lifestyle block does not know whether they can give permission to someone to cross that land especially because they know that it may create a precedent. They know that that person may tell someone who tells all these other people and all of a sudden we have a quasi-public walkway across private land approved by someone who does not own that land. So one can understand the reticence of some of these station or farm managers to give that permission. 
I think this is becoming more and more of an issue. I welcome a body that would be set up primarily to deal with this. Some people have suggested that maybe Land Information New Zealand could already carry this out but it is primarily responsible for the maintenance of legal records about land ownership not so much about public access across it. Land Information New Zealand produces topographical maps that people can look at but again it focuses on the physical characteristics of the land; it does not focus on the legal status of where any public walkways might be. We know there is an issue with the unformed legal roads; people can see them on a map. A lot of local authorities do not know what they are meant to do with them when people come to them and say: “I want to get access through this unformed legal road to the beach but there is something blocking the way.” Often councils do not feel that they necessarily have the tools to be able to deal with those issues and this bill addresses that issue as well. 
As the Minister pointed out there is a popular belief in New Zealand that a Queen’s Chain exists around our coastline around our lakes and along our rivers. In reality that is not the case not because there has been any concerted effort to stop people getting there but because over time the Queen’s Chain has been eroded—sometimes that is literally the case sometimes erosion and accretion have meant that what was formerly the Queen’s Chain now is not really appropriate to be called so. Again I come back to the fact that we have no one agency board or whatever that someone can go to to get clarity on this. This is just as important for landowners as it is for the general public. I know that a lot of landowners have concerns about any liability they might come under if people are crossing their land—be it illegally or be it on the legal unformed roads—when they are not aware that those people are there and when there are things being carried out on that land that are potentially dangerous for anyone who is not aware of them. 
All those things require clarification and I congratulate the Minister on bringing this bill to the House because as the speaker before me acknowledged this has not been an easy issue. There has not been an easy pathway towards this legislation; it has been an exercise in finding a compromise and a way through. This Labour-led Government believed that this issue was important enough that we wanted to find a way through and we wanted to find a way to make it happen. Finally we got to a point where we acknowledged—and can I say the Labour-led Government acknowledged all along—that there is a lot of goodwill out there amongst landowners. There is an awful lot of goodwill amongst landowners to allow people access across their land. But we are kidding ourselves if we think that landownership in rural areas is not changing because it is changing. We need to make sure that we are ahead of that change and that we take this issue firmly by the horns to create some kind of legal environment where landowners and the general public can know where to get advice where the general public can know where they are entitled to cross land and where councils can know what their legal rights are when it comes to legal unformed roads and what kind of things they can put in place. 
I think that in terms of members of the general public in New Zealand who value our outdoors highly and want to be able to use it and enjoy it this bill going into the future will be seen to be an incredibly important bill for the national identity of this country. We value our waterways but increasingly New Zealanders are finding that they are having less and less access to them—as I said not for only one reason but for a number of reasons. 
I welcome National supporting the bill to the select committee. I am a bit confused by the fact that its members say it was their idea all along yet they are giving it only tentative support. I am not quite sure what that means. One would think that if it is what they wanted us to do all along they would be endorsing it wholeheartedly. But I guess they are not quite sure—maybe from day to day—what their position will be on this bill. I welcome the input from all members across this House particularly at the select committee. Obviously this is a bill that has been contentious in the past. I think we have made a very good compromise here. 
I too would like to acknowledge the work that has been done in producing this bill—particularly Mr John Acland and his team for getting us to this point. This bill shows what kind of good legislation can come from working through a process from working with all stakeholders from keeping cool heads and from not just picking a political advantage and going through and taking advantage of that in a cynical way. I look forward to the support of members in this House. As I said the Local Government and Environment Committee will consider this bill very carefully—as we do all bills that come before us—and I commend the bill to the House. 
ERIC ROY (National—Invercargill) 
: 
 I am quite pleased to have an opportunity to make a few comments on the Walking Access Bill. I do not really want to claim a pedigree in this regard but I am a property owner and I understand property rights. On my property I have both paper roads and marginal strips. I am also a hunter-gatherer and a large part of my recreation is involved in doing that. I also spent some time on the first access panel with John Acland about 5 years ago. So I think I can make some sort of a contribution on this bill. 
In my view the bill is a bit of a curate’s egg; it is both good and bad. I think there are issues that need to be dealt with and they have been becoming increasingly common in recent times as a number of issues have come up. I hope that members who have an interest in this topic will look at the history of New Zealand—it is unique in the world. We have enshrined in a whole lot of ways property rights and that is the basis upon which business operates and we have to understand all of that. Yet in New Zealand we also have a public right in terms of access for recreation that is quite different from the situation in most other countries. A whole lot of riparian strips are not laid down; there are not the sorts of regulations that there are in other places. So New Zealand is quite distinct in the world. 
The first attempt at providing for public access was made even prior to the Treaty of Waitangi. That fell over and it was in 1841 when it happened. Another effort was made in the 1850s and then Ballance in the 1890s again tidied the situation up. A range of things has occurred and I think the comment has already been made in this debate that it is virtually impossible to find out very easily where there is a marginal strip whether that marginal strip is actually in the right place. There is a whole lot of reasons why people have certain expectations both as property owners and as recreationalists. So there is a bit of interface about this situation and it needs to be tidied up. That is why National is supporting the bill; we recognised the issues that are there. 
I just say that my major concern about this bill which David Carter has already commented on is the question of where it might lead us to in terms of bureaucracy with the establishment of a Walkways Commission. Yes in this bill we are going to create a commission with a membership of five to eight members. But it certainly does not stop there. Brian Hayes in determining what actually existed on some properties on the Banks Peninsula found that per property it took up to 2 hours to determine that. The chairman of the access panel John Acland had lived for a number of years on the Rangitata River believing it was a marginal strip on his property. He found out subsequently there was no marginal strip because when each one of the provisions was put in if there was a fee simple freehold landholding before that happened that access provision was not recognised. We have an absolute mixture in terms of what is out there so it will be no simple thing to resolve. 
I want to make a couple of comments about setting up the commission. I see Part 4 of the bill talks about enforcement officers. They are not numbered we do not know what their role is—that is not specifically defined— 
Nathan Guy 
: Walking police! 
ERIC ROY 
: Ha ha! Nor are there penalty provisions laid down in relation to what they may or may not do. Then there will be a whole raft of people out there doing up to 2 hours research per property in order to find out where the access is all going to go. This is just terrifying in terms of what it might all cost. It is just a great shame that we cannot rely on the goodwill of both parties to get through this issue. I think the comment has been made that the nature of their relationship is changing. Certainly our exclusive fisheries our high country fisheries are under more pressure than they ever have been under so there is an opportunity to make money like never before by a bit of capture. That has occurred with a bit of pressure on those landholders to turn a dollar by just being a bit difficult about access. There is a whole range of issues out there. 
It also worries me a little about this bill that designated walkways may become the only form of access. We have to be very very careful that we do not destroy whatever fabric of goodwill is actually there. I also concur with David Carter when he said that when the word came out that the access panel was to look at “wander at will” it was a way just to slap property owners in the face by saying: “We don’t trust what you are doing. We might just want to assume some rights that no one ever really wanted.” That is what raised the hackles. So we are not starting from a good point in terms of the goodwill aspect. For example we are going to put down designated walkways which is a great opportunity. In my view there can be some trading between a paper road and what is an easement in a place where it is suitable to the landholder and to the recreationalist. There are those opportunities to make some good progress there but we need to protect the goodwill; that is an important point. 
I think that structures exist now that could actually do that without setting up another commission and the conservation boards would be one example of such a structure. I say that because it will be very important to have local knowledge in each area as to what the issues are. For example on the Southland plains the local authority—and I do not know which authority it was—in 1890 went out and physically surveyed every single river. The only place where the marginal strip is beside the rivers now is where there is a bridge and the river has been contained. In some places on the Oreti River the marginal strip is up to 1½ kilometres away from where the river actually is. So there will be a distinct set of problems there. In terms of actually giving access what would a commission—based somewhere in the country—know about the times and behaviour that are pertinent on farms? Lambing in Northland will be at a different time from lambing in Southland. So I think that the logical thing to do is to engage the great deal of knowledge that exists on the conservation boards that are already there. 
The other thing is that I am pleased this bill is basically about walkways because I think that the behaviour of motorcyclists and of some other four-wheel drive people has done a lot to damage the relationship that existed before when people just walked. Now every second person who is a recreationalist has a powerful cross-country machine in one form or another—a quad bike motorbike four-wheel drive from Japan or whatever—which has damaged the relationship. So that is important. But again there is no mention in this bill of provisions for dogs and guns; in fact it is mentioned that they are excluded. So by omission that might rule out any kind of negotiation with landholders and again that fabric of understanding between the participants is an important factor. 
I could say a number of things but I look forward to this bill going through the select committee process. I look forward to reading the submissions and I look forward to making a contribution at various times too. I think there are some common-sense answers we can adopt on this issue and let me repeat again we should look after those things that are enshrined and important in New Zealand: property rights and public rights in terms of where they match together. I will support the bill to go to the select committee. 
R DOUG WOOLERTON (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First will support the Walking Access Bill to go to the Local Government and Environment Committee and we will be pleased to hear about the discussion that takes place at the select committee. I think it is absolutely essential that we have a Walking Access Commission— 
Nathan Guy 
: Will foreigners be able to walk? 
R DOUG WOOLERTON 
: I am not sure what that intervention meant. We think that this legislation is very important for the workability of walking tracks and access throughout the country. We cannot see that it can be done by any of the other agencies because those agencies are not independent and it is the independence of this commission that is the important thing. I personally hope that in the future this commission will have some power will ensure that the decisions and the negotiations made on people’s behalf will have some ability to stick and will go forward to answer all of those questions that have been raised in the main by National Party speakers. 
In this country we have a changing environment as far as land ownership goes. My own brother my dearly beloved brother has a farm that encompassed 10 farms when I was young. It is all very well to talk about access and going to him the local cocky to ask “Can I go down to the lake at the back of your farm—or to the river or whatever?”. He is not at the farm most of the time; it is run by managers on various properties and so on and so forth. The National Party more than any other party in this Parliament will understand that. Those managers in many cases do not have authority to grant access for people to come over the property and in many cases they are unwilling to because why should they shoulder some responsibility if they do not have to? 
I will talk about a situation in Hamilton. In Hamilton we have a little peat lake called Lake Rotoroa. It was a lake of which only half of it could be accessed. There were parks around half of it and the other half to the lake itself was land owned by people. Well it was not actually owned right to the lake itself in most cases. In a few cases it was but in many cases owners owned land to the edge of the lake but not to the water. It was proposed I think by Margaret Evans the then Mayor of Hamilton that there should be a walking boardwalk right around the lake. And there was hell to pay. 
Martin Gallagher 
: And the deputy mayor. 
R DOUG WOOLERTON 
: And proposed by the deputy mayor indeed. Martin Gallagher was the deputy mayor a very forward-looking deputy mayor I must say who went through fire and brimstone for the people of Hamilton including myself for which I am everlastingly grateful to him. Anyhow there was hell to pay in Hamilton during those days and I hope Martin Gallagher will talk about that to us. There was infringement of property rights and barbed wire put up if I remember. All sorts of things were put in the way. And to this day there is still a little bit where the council could not negotiate with one owner—I ask Mr Gallagher whether I am right—and that little boardwalk had to go out on the water around that person’s property and then go on. 
Suffice to say that is one of the most popular walking places in Hamilton City. I do not know of landowners suffering any harm to their properties; I do not know of any trespass by people. There might have been some but by and large the boardwalk has worked very very well and to the advancement of Hamilton City and its environs. 
I think that that is where we are going with this bill into the future. We in New Zealand must preserve one thing above all else in this country and that thing is not even money. We have never been the highest-salaried country in the world we have never been the richest citizens in the world and we have never been able to keep all of the people in New Zealand. If someone wanted to be a rocket scientist it would not be much use that person trying to find work in Hamilton. But what we have and what we must retain for evermore is a lifestyle—a lifestyle that is the envy of the world. We must retain that at all costs and I believe that this bill goes some way towards ensuring that. 
It is no use saying that things are the same as they were 30 years ago or even 20 or 10 years ago. More and more people are concentrating in the cities and farms are becoming bigger and more remotely controlled if I can put it that way. But everybody knows the benefits of taking a walk. In many cases they are not even fishing or hunting; people just want to get out and exercise walk and enjoy their country. I believe they should be able to do that in the safety of knowing they are not doing it at the grace and favour of a landowner such as we have read about in the old country from where many of us came. 
Nobody in this country should be doing things at the grace and favour of another and I will fight to my dying day to ensure that that does not happen. So we need walkways. We need walkways that are marked on the map and we need walkways that are marked physically. We need walkways that have conditions and rules around them so that farmers are not under any obligation as to trespass liability or any of those things. We need those things set out clearly so that farmers know where people are supposed to be and where they are not. 
We also in my view need to pay farmers some sort of small recompense for the very fact that these paths may go across their land because one of the other things I believe in is that we should not be asking private individuals to pay for public good. We cannot have people out there wrecking fences and making nuisances of themselves and this is one way to ensure that the interests of those in the city who want to access our beautiful countryside are not impinged upon and that there are no arguments with those who hold property rights and in many cases have paid excessive prices to be able to farm the land. 
I know that this can be accomplished but it cannot be accomplished by having an add-on to some other department. I think some long-sighted people have been looking into this and I commend the Labour Government most highly for not going any further with this bill. It has set up a commission and it is now up to the commission to negotiate and to see how these things can be done. And they will be done district by district around the country. I think that in this way many of the things that have been pointed out as being weaknesses will be in fact the strengths of this bill. The process should evolve over time. It should go slowly at first. It should encourage landowners to participate and it will give them some sort of comfort if not a guarantee that they will not be put out by this move with regard to either their farming operations or their property right. 
All of these things can be done. I look forward to the wonderful day when we can roam across dedicated paths around this country keep ourselves in trim and enjoy the benefits that this beautiful country provides. We look forward to seeing this bill come out of the select committee and to voting for it in the future. 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party agrees with some aspects of this Walking Access Bill. It is good to have a code of conduct to have a focus on building relationships and to have financial support for signage. That is all good stuff. What we are most concerned about is that in this bill Labour has significantly weakened on its promise to restore what New Zealanders generally think of as the Queen’s Chain. This is a major backtrack by Labour on its election promises and it has been done with another strange little coalition between National and Labour. 
The Greens were very disappointed with the report the Minister referred to when it first came out. The purpose of that report was to address how New Zealanders might have walking access to the great outdoors—access that is free certain enduring and practical. We agree that negotiations are always best and always the thing one does first but the problem that the report was supposed to address and that this bill was supposed to address was that negotiations are not always effective. They do not always work and when that happens we need to have some way of making some progress. Unfortunately the majority of the report gave no direction for what to do where progress could not be made and negotiations had failed and classically this bill fails to provide any direction in that regard as well. Basically this is a Labour “Do Nothing Spend Lots Bill”. It creates a toothless bureaucracy. It can do nothing when the very real issue of unreasonable restrictions on access arise. This bill is classic Labour classic National. We already have an example of the miserable public outcomes from the high country tenure review. That process shows very clearly how easily Government agencies will trade off public and ecological benefits for quick yet useless solutions that benefit the landowner and tend to short-change the public. 
I was pretty disgusted to hear the Foreshore and Seabed Act being mentioned in the opening remarks on this legislation. The Foreshore and Seabed Act was where the legitimate customary rights held by hapu whanau and iwi were destroyed by this Government—destroyed over the fallacy of securing public access to the foreshore and seabed. In fact that legislation was specifically designed to strip Maori of their right to go to court to have their land rights identified and their right to their customary ownership because of the commercial interests of both the Government and private companies in the exploitation of the foreshore and seabed. We need only to see how many applications for exploration of the seabed and foreshore happened immediately after that legislation was passed to know that. So how grotesque it is then for us to have to sit here and listen to the Minister defending the property rights of a few—and only a few—intransigent unreasonable farmers who refuse to provide rational and reasonable public access to public land when the Minister’s Government just a few short years ago refused to protect the customary rights of hapu and whanau using the fallacy of public access as the excuse. It is a grotesque example to be made in these circumstances. 
The Greens continue to be shocked to see National and Labour colluding to keep New Zealanders from having the free and reasonable access to the conservation and public land that they are entitled to—to New Zealand’s public land. There is a significant waste of resources here. The money spent on this bureaucracy could well be spent—and better spent in our view—on purchasing areas for access where landowners become unreasonable. At least then the money would actually do something. It would achieve something because the commission will not be able to achieve anything. As I say we should negotiate first but there has to be a system for arbitration in order to enable public access. This is public land; the public have a right to access it. 
Even the offence provisions set up in the bill favour landowners and farmers over members of the public. Obstructing a walkway is what is called a mens rea offence. It requires someone to have knowledge intent or recklessness to do it in order for that person potentially to be convicted of it. But the public offences—where members of the public are on such land—are all strict liability offences and it does not matter whether a person intended to cause harm or made a mistake. If a person did it then he or she could be held liable for it. Essentially that means that the burden of the offence provisions of the criminal law if you like are placed on members of the public but not on the landowner. Again it comes down to the Government defending the rights of private property owners—and it is only a few private property owners—over the rights of the public. Why has Labour promoted a bill that places such a burden fully on members of the public? This bill is supposed to be about securing the public’s rights. This is not a compromise. The public bear the burden and get very little benefit. 
One of the other issues is around transferring the legislation and responsibilities if you like of the New Zealand Walkways Act to the commission from the Department of Conservation. We acknowledge that the department and the New Zealand Conservation Authority have done a somewhat mediocre job of looking after walkways and the department acknowledges this apparently by wanting to shed the responsibility for walkways to this new commission despite the provision of recreational tracks and huts being one of the department’s core mandates. There is little evidence of that situation improving but I must admit that this is possibly because of the department’s current funding crisis where despite having more and more land to manage it is faced with having to shave $8 million off its expenditure because this Government has continually underfunded our primary Government agency for protecting conservation land public land and the public rights to it. The transferral of the New Zealand Walkways Act provisions to a new Crown entity this new commission simply distracts from the core issue that arises here—that is finding solutions to local public access issues. 
The bill is classic Labour and National “greenwash”. By creating a commission with no teeth and no power to protect the public’s rights they are engaged in a ridiculous waste of money especially at a time when the Department of Conservation is shedding crucial staff because of a major funding shortage. In fact the department loses its responsibility around walkways and the whole issue of the commission comes under the responsibility of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. The ministry is an advocate for the farming community not for public access. It is not an advocate for the public interest. That is the role of the Department of Conservation. Yet the whole responsibility for the commission which is supposed to be protecting public rights is going to an organisation whose job is to advocate for the farming community. Labour and National have this fabulous grand coalition which is designed to lock out the public and protect some farmers so I guess that it must be election year. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 Tena koe. Kia ora tatou e te Whare i tenei po. It should be no surprise that the Maori Party takes an active interest in any legislative change proposed around the concept of safe unimpeded walking access to the outdoors—to our coasts our lakes and our rivers. We do so driven by the knowledge that the Crown as a Treaty partner has an obligation to actively protect the interests of Maori in land. This is a historic partnership relationship that is unique and involves the Crown and its agents giving full recognition to the Crown’s duty of active protection. We note that the Federation of Maori Authorities articulated that view clearly in its submission on the Government’s outdoor walking access consultation document: “Article two of the Treaty granted ‘te tino rangatiratanga … o ratou whenua o ratou kainga me o ratou taonga katoa’ or the ‘full and undisturbed possession of their lands and estates fisheries and other properties’. This article therefore guarantees Maori the right to determine access to their land.” 
So when the Hon Parekura Horomia the current Minister of Maori Affairs announced in March 2007 that: “Maori land was special and it was important to note that the proposals would not threaten the existing rights of owners of Maori land or individual Maori who hold land in general title.” we were pleased—if a little cautious. It seemed as though in direct contrast to the Foreshore and Seabed Act Maori landowners were to be afforded protections alongside private owners. Mr Horomia went on to say that public walking tracks across Maori land will be created only if Maori landowners agree and follow a process of negotiation. So that was pretty pleasing. 
Clause 30 of the bill deals specifically with Maori freehold land. It requires that the New Zealand Walking Access Commission negotiate with the appropriate landowners whether they are trustees a Maori corporation a sole owner joint tenants or owners in common. There are two key words here: “agree” and “negotiate”. Let us remember that Mr Horomia had said that public walking tracks across Maori land will be created only if Maori landowners agree. That was spelt out with unmistakable clarity again by the Federation of Maori Authorities when it said: “The Federation wishes to make it clear that we oppose land access across Maori land and general land owned by Maori including the extension of the Queens chain to the coastline and waterways on Maori land or general land owned by Maori without negotiation and agreement from the landowners concerned.” The federation concluded its submission by reinforcing the view that “access should be negotiated and agreed upon by owners or managers and that the access is only for recreational purposes.” 
The catch for us is that we do not see very much evidence of the word “agree” in the bill until we get to the references related to public access over private land. The bill proposes that “Public access should be enhanced where private land is involved through voluntary negotiation and agreement with landholders.” 
A key point raised in the consultation was the proposal that iwi or hapu should be empowered to authorise rights of access. The hapu or iwi will protect its own rights and hold those rights and they must be made clear in any guidance to the public. I return again to the Minister of Maori Affairs’ words: “public walking tracks across Maori land will be created only if Maori landowners agree.” In order that the House understands just how strongly tangata whenua the people of the land feel about this issue let me share two further comments from the submissions: “It is most important that this principle be carried over in relation to any public access to our waterways. Any legislative access without our consent would cause massive damage to our relationship and we cannot imagine that the Crown would contemplate such a course.” The following comment reminds us of some history. “I suspect and hope that the authoritarian socialist confiscatory approach is no longer acceptable to New Zealanders. When carried out against Maori land in the 19th century this caused grievances which still persist and show little signs of going away.” 
R Doug Woolerton 
: I do not think we are doing that now. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL 
: I hope not. 
The word “consent” of course implies that which is freely given and not coerced. But the bill’s purpose to open up all lands for public access raises the very real and serious concern that once again a Government’s plan will be pursued in such a way as to obliterate any opposition. We have been there before as my bill to amend the Public Works Act reminds us. We are also extremely concerned about any proposal to amend the Resource Management Act to establish esplanade strips over Maori land or general land held by Maori. Unmanaged strips and esplanades may increase pests and diseases and may consequently create additional costs and concerns for Maori landowners. 
Maori landowners have never denied access to the public without good cause. I say that again because as was raised by Metiria Turei this was a cause of great concern in the past. Maori landowners have never denied access to the public without good concern. That was at the hub of the issue around the foreshore and seabed legislation. The hysteria that was whipped up around access to the foreshore and seabed presupposed the existence of a mythical time in which Maori were denying Pakeha access to the beaches. The reality of course was quite different from that. 
If there have been prohibitions on access to areas for any New Zealanders it has actually been because mana whenua will have had good cause or good reason to prohibit access. That good reason may be the result of access having been abused in the past or of concerns over safety or the protection of the environment. There may well have been cultural reasons for the protection of taonga wahi tapu wahi tupuna urupa pa marae and papakainga sites. Those sites are of cultural significance for Maori as part of our heritage nga taonga tuku iho. The sites are associated with important events that give meaning to our status as whanau hapu and iwi and they are literally windows to the past. Access may have been prohibited in keeping with the kaitiaki roles of tangata whenua to be custodians protectors and guardians of the taonga associated with our area. The practice of rahui to conserve or replenish a resource will be relevant here. When a rahui is placed upon an area it means that people are effectively banned from taking or using any resource in that area. Those are the things that tangata whenua take into consideration when considering the issues of access. 
One of the concepts we support in this bill is the development of a code of responsible conduct for users and landholders. Most of the submitters to the outdoor walking access panel agreed that a code of responsible conduct should apply to both public and private land. The code of conduct should address issues specific to Maori land including provisions relating to respect for sacred land and compliance with local rahui. It should give a standard to provide guidance to people and also to return to as a basis for clarification if the code is breached in any access situation. 
The key to the successful implementation of the bill will be the way in which communication opportunities are taken up. There is inevitably and this has already been mentioned the concern that the proposed commission will compel Maori landowners to negotiate access despite any opposition that may be raised to that. The Maori Party also has concerns about the negotiation of walking access over land subject to Treaty claims. What say will mana whenua have over those lands and what provisions will be made for that communication to take place? 
The bill establishes the commission as a Crown entity with the status of a Crown agent. The commission will be responsible for declaring and administering walkways and for encouraging and coordinating the improvement of walking access. The bill recommends that at least one of the five to eight board members of the commission is to have knowledge of tikanga Maori. On the current walking advisory board Peter Brown is affiliated with Turanganui a Kiwa Ngati Porou Te Arawa and Tuwharetoa. The difficulty of course with having one Maori member on the commission is that enormous expectations are always placed upon his or her shoulders in terms of being able to carry the aspirations of whanau hapu and iwi into all decision-making matters. It is also very easy to be marginalised. It is obviously helpful therefore that the views expressed in the submissions such as the one from the Federation of Maori Authorities are able to be accessed in order to gauge views widely held in the Maori community as well as by a majority of the Maori landowners within the federation’s membership. 
In order to assist the process for Maori to be heard we will allow this bill to go to the select committee so that we receive feedback on some of the outstanding and persistent concerns about Maori land. Those concerns are about issues such as what is to happen in the case of the 16000 unmanaged titles—Maori land with no legal management structure in place—or how Maori economic development such as tourism ventures will be affected by public access. There is one word that we say that might sum up our reaction to this bill and that is “caution”. We look forward to the debate on the bill. Kia ora tatou. 
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
: 
 United Future is pleased to support the Walking Access Bill to select committee and we are very grateful to the walking access panel for the work its members have done in preparing the report that has led to this bill. United Future can take some satisfaction out of the process as we lobbied very hard for Mr Bryce Johnson from the New Zealand Fish and Game Council to be included on the panel as a representative of the recreational community. We support many of the comments that he made in his minority report. 
There are some very positive aspects to this bill. We are pleased to see the issue of public access finally addressed. A lot of misinformation and antagonism exists surrounding the rights of the public to access public resources versus the property rights of landowners. An important feature of the bill is that the New Zealand Walking Access Commission is established. This will be a Crown entity with the status of a Crown agent under the Crown Entities Act 2004. This will allow it to report directly to Parliament as well as being subject to the Official Information Act. 
We are pleased to see a provision included for the development of a code of responsible conduct. United Future proposed the development of the code in its submission to the panel and also proposed the establishment of the Walking Access Commission. We are glad that this code will focus on standards of behaviours for both users of walking access areas and for landowners. Throughout this whole process it has become clear to us that many disputes between landowners and those who wish to walk over private land to access public resources or public land arise because of a lack of information and guidelines. We believe a code of responsible conduct will go some way to mitigating this. 
It is also positive that stated in the purpose of the bill is that it is to provide access to public resources. However there seems to be no definition of what public resources are. One assumes that the definition is the same as is found in chapter 6 of the panel’s report where public land and public resources are both defined. The bill’s purpose does not mention access to public land and in our view public resources and public land are two very different things; both demand inclusion but a clear distinction needs to be made between them. 
There are some things in the bill that concern us. We are concerned that the New Zealand Walking Access Commission to be established by the legislation is as the Green member previously mentioned basically toothless. Although it can negotiate with landowners to acquire an easement or lease over the land for use as a walkway it has no formal power to actually resolve any disputes over access which is particularly important when negotiating over private land in order to gain access to a public resource such as a lake or river. We envisage that for 90 percent of cases this will not be a problem. The commission will effectively be able to negotiate access across private land with the least bit of hassle to landowners. However in the few cases where access is difficult to negotiate the commission has no formal power to resolve the dispute and provide public access to a public resource by way of a walkway or through enforcing access by way of an unformed legal road. 
The regulatory impact statement within the explanatory note for the bill states that “Changes in land ownership and accompanying changes in landowner attitude have meant that there has been a trend away from the tradition of landowners permitting or tolerating public access across their land. There is a concern that this trend will continue and result in long-term deterioration in recreational access opportunities.” It is difficult to understand this aspect of the bill because the intention is there to resolve the issue surrounding the public’s right of access. However the commission that this bill sets up has no powers to actually do this. The whole bill is built around new access being implemented by negotiation and agreement rather than access actually being resolved. 
Another disappointing aspect to this bill is the lack of urgency given to securing better more accessible mapping information to the public and to landowners about the location and scope of public walking access. United Future sees this as a fundamental flaw in the present system. It is very difficult for people to get geographical information linking legal information land ownership and unformed legal roads with topographical maps and aerial photography. In our opinion this should be the first and most important step in the whole process. Providing people with better information is crucial to resolving disputes over access and it may also prevent many misunderstandings over certain access issues especially across private land. 
It is very curious that included in this legislation is such a large section on the establishment of walkways across public land which is a topic barely touched on by the walking access panel. We ask whether the establishment of such walkways downgrades the public’s right to use unformed legal roads. Presently public land has few restrictions. However walkways administered by local government under the Walkways Act are much more restrictive. For example there are no vehicles guns or dogs permitted along those walkways—all of which are the equipment of fishermen hunters and trampers at some time. The fact that there is an inflexible provision with the Walkways Act is of concern to us. We understand the worries that that can provide if it is allowed in a free and unfettered way but we are concerned that that is a very tight provision. The establishment of walkways over public land administered by regional and local councils could serve to displace unformed legal roads as a legal entity. Under the Walkways Act a regional council can apply to stop a legal road by selling it and de-gazetting it which means that this legislation may well succeed in stymying public access rather than enhancing it. 
Finally the bill sets out that after 10 years the Minister will consult with the Walking Access Commission and review the legislation. This will cover whether it is still needed what amendments might be necessary and also a review of its effectiveness and the operation of the commission. United Future supports the reason for a review but we are concerned that 10 years is too long to wait. Surely any problems in the implementation of this legislation will be clear after a much shorter time—perhaps 5 years. We are worried that a 10-year wait will possibly allow a flawed process ample time to become entrenched and thus very hard to accurately review and amend. This is a point that is crucial for the select committee to consider. 
United Future will support this bill to select committee but we believe the committee will have its work cut out to amend the bill sufficiently to protect and indeed enhance the public’s right to access. We are happy to support this first reading. 
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to have the opportunity to talk to the Walking Access Bill. I take the opportunity in this short call to address the second Labour speaker’s comment about why National is supporting this bill but supporting it with caution. One only has to go back to 2002 and see the absolute reckless shambles that Labour made of the first attempt to force right-to-roam legislation through this Parliament. It would be naive of us to forget the animosity that was whipped up by trying to impose that. 
I just point out to the Labour members on the other side of the House that the general public does not trust them. It was very interesting to see that. When we got to a situation where there was an issue over it I could drive the full length of my electorate and see every gate tied with an orange ribbon. That was because of the Government’s mentality that one size fitted all and it was going to impose a right to roam over the freehold property rights of New Zealand people. It was also very interesting that at the time there was quite a reaction amongst average Kiwis that it was not the way to go. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: So we’re selling assets are we? 
COLIN KING 
: The member for Waimakariri should remember that that was not the way to go. In actual fact those people who lived along the waterway called the Avon River were likewise wound up got very angry and sent a very clear signal through to the Government. We had the gates tied in 2004 and 2005. We have subsequently had a back-down by the Labour Government because it could not make a way forward in that direction. What we will find and what we must be very aware of when we get to the select committee with this bill is that the public will be very very sceptical indeed. I feel that it is my responsibility to alert my constituents to the risks that could potentially exist in this bill. 
One of the things that has happened since pastoral farming has become very very difficult to make pay is that a number of farmers have actually developed their own walkways and businesses. One of those people is Kevin Loe out at Ward who has developed a wonderful 3-day walkway out along the coast there. It is helping to keep him and his family on the land. I just hope as we go through this process that when this potential Trojan Horse bill is sent to the select committee it is examined thoroughly and that the Local Government and Environment Committee actually gives it the due consideration it deserves. 
This is a very very serious matter. We have had the Labour Party here trying to say that it has sorted its way through this matter in a very very amicable way. We have United Future there saying that access will be greater. We have the Greens thinking that they will have the right to roam and to go everywhere. It will not be as simple as that. We have to separate out the rhetoric and get down to the substance because after 10 years when we have the Minister reporting back to Parliament about what needs to be done we can just imagine the massive bureaucracy that will be involved. This bill will be just another one. 
We should always remember that whilst it may be difficult it is still the Kiwi way to seek permission. We should also remember the original issues when Labour tried to bring to the House its bill for a right to roam. We have hunting fire potential lambing calving forestry and a whole lot of rural activities going on. More often than not—I say to my learned friend over there Doug Woolerton—it is not about wandering over dairy farms where they have electric fences; it is about wandering over pastoral land where there are some beautiful vistas. We appreciate that those areas are very very significant and important. 
I just want to leave the House with a final thought: we should not forget about the bad blood that the Government created around its intention of a right to roam. The Local Government and Environment Committee should be very aware that it will have to do its work thoroughly. It is an affront to the committee to where this bill rightfully should have gone: the Primary Production Committee. I invite everybody who is interested and who is going to be involved to put forward their submissions. Let us get this bill right. It is only a shell and a framework and it is a long long way from what is doable. 
MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) 
: 
 It is with immense pleasure that I rise to speak with regard to the first reading of the Walking Access Bill. Unlike the Opposition speakers who as the saying goes look in their glasses and find them half empty like my good friend Doug Woolerton and other speakers also from this side of the House I see this bill as a glass that is not just full but is brimming over with potential. I do not think we should underestimate the historic significance of the bill we are debating in the Chamber today. I do not think we should do that at all. When we reflect back on history we will reflect back on an Opposition that was mischievous opportunist and very slippery. We know that there is a huge difference between the notion of a right to roam anywhere versus a right of negotiated access for future generations of our country. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Rome wasn’t built in a day. 
MARTIN GALLAGHER 
: Indeed as my good colleague Charles Chauvel said Rome was certainly not built in a day. The previous speaker said “10 years this” or “10 years that”. Well obviously the immediate question is what National’s record was when it was in Government in the 1990s. Having said that I will not waste any more time on the negative glass-half-empty aspects of the contributions of some members of the Opposition. Some of the contributions were OK. In that regard I have had very interesting and good debates and discussions with people like Eric Roy who I acknowledge has in the whole process made some constructive contributions. 
I will focus on some of the really positive aspects of the bill. Indeed it is part of a wonderful plan for the future for our children grandchildren and great-grandchildren to ensure that the thing that is special and precious about New Zealand—our great outdoors—can be enjoyed. It is part of the Government’s plan—and should be part of our plan as a country—to reflect the importance of preserving in perpetuity access to and enjoyment of the great outdoors which is so important to our national identity. This bill is about preserving our national heritage. 
Doug Woolerton gave a very very good address. I thank him for the very nice comments he made about me when I was deputy mayor of Hamilton. I praise Doug Woolerton too. He gave a very good example. Even in the urban area—albeit it was a Hamilton City Council matter—there were two issues. One was in regard to the Awatere Avenue section of the Waikato River walkway and the other was in regard to the Lake Rotoroa section of the walkway which completed it. In both cases those walkways met with strong opposition from property owners. I remember with great affection and fondness—and Doug will know him—our councillor Ted Armstrong. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: Aye! 
MARTIN GALLAGHER 
: Does the member remember when someone had illegally put up a fence right down to the river edge? Good old Ted as a councillor took the old snippers and cut. Dare I say it he cut the fence. I think frankly he made a very valid point. We talk about the protection of private property rights but this situation was where a private property owner was taking over usurping public access rights and going on to public land. Ted made a stand. From that we now have the completed section of the Awatere Avenue section of the river walkway which was negotiated in the end by a bit of give and take between property owners. We also have the completion of the Lake Rotoroa section of the walkway. These are urban examples. Did those walkways have a dramatic negative impact on the property values of those surrounding properties? Absolutely not; it was quite the opposite. That was an issue when a council by negotiation avoided landing in the courts if you like and preserved and enhanced land. Again it is for future generations to enjoy. 
What is really good about this bill—and I have listened very closely to some of the comments by Metiria Turei in terms of her contributions; I do not quite agree with her perspectives I have to say—is that it achieves a proper balance between the rights and aspirations of the public in terms of access to the countryside the property rights of landowners and the practical needs of farmers and other land users to carry out their businesses without undue hindrance. 
I also pay a huge tribute—certainly on behalf of my Waikato Labour colleagues—to our rural community and to people like Bill Garland. We have had some very positive input also from members of Federated Farmers. Certainly there have been some reservations previously but we have some wonderful examples of farmers who allow reasonable access and want to see a process of negotiation. I also pay a big tribute to John Acland of the Land Access Ministerial Reference Group who went around the country and came to Hamilton. I went to the meeting in Hamilton the other year and I was very impressed with the measured and mannered way in which he conducted that particular exercise and very depressed at certain forces affiliated with the National Party who tried to hijack the issue and use it for blatantly political opportunist ends and blatantly to sow fear and misinformation. 
In the end this issue is about the right of our children grandchildren and great-grandchildren to enjoy their heritage but it is also about the way New Zealand does it and that is by negotiations amongst fellow Kiwis to get a fair and reasonable outcome. Representing as I do the Waikato region I want to ensure that landowners are protected and that there is proper indemnity etc. 
There is one thing I want to focus on in the time I have left. I think that the select committee process will be a real opportunity to get into the detail of the bill and to improve it by amending it where need be. One of the things I am very enthusiastic about in terms of a Walking Access Commission is that it will have a strategic and policy focus that will look at if you like the patchwork quilt of the many walkways around our country and at walking access issues and hopefully it will take a strategic future view because for example north of Lake Taupo there are significant population pressures. Within 50 years there will be significant population increases in the Auckland Waikato and Bay of Plenty regions. There will be more and more pressure to have reasonable access to countryside waterways and lakes etc. Rather than wait for that pressure to build up and up in the years to come the Walking Access Commission will work with local government the Department of Conservation and the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry etc and look at some sort of “greenprint” for the future to ensure that we can get a win-win situation. 
I believe that the roles of the proposed agency will be very important. It will coordinate and involve the key stakeholders including local and central government agencies help local groups with access issues and indeed be responsible for the mediation—I stress “mediation”—of disputes over access issues. A code of conduct will be introduced and it will build up a mapping database and develop a broad national access strategy. Those are very important tasks for this new agency. Also there is the contestable fund in terms of funding and that is also very important. 
Finally we have had the debate here today and I have to say I was a bit disappointed with some of the negative contributions I have heard in the House with the exception of the honourable Doug Woolerton and other members on this side such as Judy Turner. I acknowledge her contribution. I envy the Local Government and Environment Committee because its members will roll up their sleeves hear submissions on the bill and get into the minute detail of the bill. Believe you me when the history books are written this legislation will be of profound importance and significance to our great country. 
HEATHER ROY (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I stand on behalf of ACT New Zealand to speak in the first reading debate on the Walking Access Bill. I intend to take a fairly short call because the issues around this bill are very simple. There has been some talk of complexity but I think the matter is very simple. It can be summed up in two words: property rights. ACT will be opposing this bill for that very reason. We heard from the National Party speaker Colin King that it is the Kiwi way to seek permission and that is absolutely correct. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: No it’s not. 
HEATHER ROY 
: Mr Woolerton has been very vocal in this debate chipping in here and there and sitting beside his new-found friend in the Labour Party whose only chance of sitting in a front-bench seat is today. Neither of them is standing up and having his say. But anyway we are here to talk about property rights which are much more important than the opinions of Mr Clayton Cosgrove. 
It is the Kiwi way to seek permission. This society is founded on the basis of property rights. People own property and they have the ability to do what they like with that property and by and large people take very good care of their own property—better care in fact than they take of anybody else’s. 
I grew up in a small rural community in Otago the township of Palmerston where my parents still live. They have a small 10-acre block that sits at the base of the hill that people see as they come into Palmerston both from north and south. It is called Puketapu Hill. On top is a monument to Sir John McKenzie who was responsible for the divvying up of large property rights so that locals were all able to afford a much smaller landholding but become owners of property themselves. Every day during the war the local constable Constable Kelly used to run up to the top of Puketapu Hill and look out from the monument to see whether any warships were coming. Fortunately they never did but that was a daily routine. Now once a year at Labour weekend there is a race up Puketapu Hill. People can get up and down within 20 minutes. 
My parents have a small 10-acre block that sits at the base of that hill. Running to the top and down is a popular thing to do not just at Labour weekend. People frequently climb to the top of Puketapu to get a very good view of the local area. I used to do that all the time as a child and I now enjoy taking my children up when we visit my parents. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: God bless them. 
HEATHER ROY 
: God bless them indeed. I thank Mr Woolerton very much for his kind words. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: That’s what I just said. 
HEATHER ROY 
: I know; I was saying thank you very much. People frequently knock on my parents’ door at home and ask whether they can wander through their property so that they can climb that hill. We always say yes as most farmers do when they are asked and my colleague from the Maori Party said that Maori very rarely refuse people access to Maori land when permission is sought. We always said yes when people came and knocked on the door. We would ask them of course to be wary of any stock that happened to be in the paddocks they would be going through and we would ask them to leave open the gates that were open and close behind them gates that were already closed. We would also give them directions as to the best way up to the top. There was a very steep route and a much more gentle one and we would point those out to people. That is the Kiwi way. We were property owners. We welcomed people on to our property as did the owner of Puketapu and people were given very good instructions about the best way to go and I would contend that there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. 
Mr Martin Gallagher said in his speech that this issue is about the financial value of property and the fact that people worry that if they have walking tracks through their properties they lose value. He has completely missed the point. The whole point of this bill is property rights. Those members on the other side of the House have a different view. They include Mr Woolerton who now sits with his Labour Party colleagues who had a very different view of these issues when he was in the National Party. He would be standing on this side of the House and vigorously opposing this legislation if he were still a member of the National Party. 
This issue is about property rights. It is about the fact that people have the ability to own property and they have the say over what happens on that property and who goes on to it. The people on the other side of the House think that private property belongs to everybody and that everybody should have access no matter what they want to do with it. They think that everybody should have to share. I have news for those members. People are very genuine and very good-natured about the fact that they will allow people to go across their land as long as due respect is paid to that land and to the stock or the crops that are on it. That is the Kiwi way. 
I am pleased to see that ACT members are not alone. All too often we are alone in this Parliament when we oppose bills but we are not alone this time. The Green Party is also opposing this bill. We have heard very little about that from the other side of the House. Green members made some very pertinent points as well about this legislation. It sees the development of a commission which they pointed out will be a complete waste of money and I could not agree more. If we had the Regulatory Responsibility Bill in place now—ACT’s bill—then certain questions would have to be asked about this bill. What will it achieve? How much will it cost? What will the cost of this commission be? Have we heard any talk at all today apart from the Green Party’s about the cost of this commission that will be put in place? No. 
What will the commission achieve? The Green Party said that it will be a bureaucratic monster with absolutely no teeth. I have to agree with that and actually thank goodness for that. There is no need for this bill which is why the ACT party is opposing it. If ACT’s bill the Regulatory Responsibility Bill had been passed those questions would have to be asked and answered. If it could not be proven that it achieved anything or that it was value for money the bill would not be able to proceed and that would be right and proper in this House today. But only two parties in this Parliament are prepared to say so in this election year. The other parties think that this bill is a good idea—that everybody who wants to should have the right to roam through land and that people should not have to seek permission from anybody to do so. 
I am proud to stand here today beside my Green Party colleagues because they are doing the right thing for the right reasons. ACT is opposing this bill because as I said at the outset this issue is a very simple one—it is about property rights. People have significant property rights and they should be adhered to. People should have to ask permission of the landowner before they wander across land and in most instances the landowner will give it as long as people treat that land with respect. That is the Kiwi way. 
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
: 
 It is my pleasure to speak on the first reading of the Walking Access Bill. It is good to see this bill come before this House. This legislation backs up the public debate that has occurred for quite a number of years now over this issue which is closely felt by a range of people. It relates to the ability of all of us to have access to the very wonderful parts of our precious country. 
I found it very interesting to listen to the contribution made by Heather Roy on this legislation. She was clearly bothered about which members from particular parties should sit on front benches and in front seats. Perhaps it was a bid to see herself on the front bench of a potential National Government. However there is a bit of a problem there. There is just a wee democratic thing called an election in the way that will mean there is no possibility or opportunity for that to happen. However another problem for the member is that Sir Roger Douglas thinks that he would like to be in a potential National Government Cabinet and I think the member will have a battle on her hands to convince him otherwise. Of course we know what Sir Roger Douglas would feel about this bill. I note that currently the National Party is supporting this bill at its first reading. However were National to fall under the spell and influence of the likes of Sir Roger Douglas then we know that it would not be able to go forward and support such a good and honest bill as this one. 
When looking to the future for New Zealand it is easy to see by looking at this bill which party truly understands how to have a future for New Zealand that is full of peace and harmony and negotiates win-win situations. I think that this legislation demonstrates Labour’s ability in this field. It is disappointing to hear the Green Party’s opposition to this bill because I think it demonstrates again that it does not understand the ability of this country to work together in peace and harmony to ensure that parties can negotiate and work through issues. All too often for the Green Party it is about having winners and losers that only one side can win and therefore the rest have to lose. However the purpose of this bill is to make sure that we can all have a say over walking access and that it is done in a negotiated way. 
The bill establishes a Walking Access Commission and defines its powers and functions. The commission will be a Crown entity with the status of a Crown agent under the Crown Entities Act 2004. The bill implements recommendations made by the walking access consultation panel in its report in February 2007. So this bill has not just been plucked out of the air. There has been a full and thorough consultation process that involved every part of New Zealand. My colleague Martin Gallagher talked before about the panel’s visit to Hamilton and how thorough and well-managed that process was. That process was repeated up and down all parts of this country. The panel was set up following the Government’s decision in 2005 not to proceed with legislation that provided for deemed water-margin access. It arises from public concern about the availability of public walking access to the outdoors especially around our fabulous coastline. 
It is appropriate that this legislation will shortly be referred by the Minister to the Local Government and Environment Committee. I know there has been some comment on that from Opposition members who for some reason think that this legislation ought to go to a select committee that concerns itself with primary production. However this legislation bears very little resemblance to producing in the primary sector. It is actually about land access and walking access rights for the public of New Zealand. Therefore the Local Government and Environment Committee is absolutely the right committee to consider this bill. I wish the select committee well in its deliberations. I know that it will receive many submissions on this bill and I feel that its members will be well informed because I believe that many of the submitters will have participated in the consultation undertaken by the walking access consultation panel. I join my fellow members of Parliament in congratulating Mr Acland on his fine management of that process. 
This bill is part of Labour’s plan for the future to ensure the enjoyment of the great outdoors for all Kiwis. It is part of our plan to reflect the importance of preserving in perpetuity access to and enjoyment of the great outdoors which is so important to our national identity. Labour has a wide vision for the preservation of the heritage of all Kiwi families young and old. It also reflects two fundamental values that underpin our New Zealand character and lifestyle—access to our many natural recreational resources and having our very own piece of dirt. It encompasses both of those fundamental visions of New Zealand. We have to work together to solve any incompatibility between these two important values. It is not about one side winning and the other side losing. This is something we have to walk through together—if members will excuse the pun. 
This bill will achieve a proper balance between the rights and aspirations of the public in terms of access to the countryside the property rights of landowners and the practical needs of farmers and other land users to carry out their business without undue hindrance. The bill does not undermine private property rights. Public access to private land including Maori land remains subject to negotiation and agreement with landholders. 
I am pleased to stand in support of this type of vision for New Zealand that Labour has. It is one that involves everyone. It is a process of working through difficult and important issues together; it is not about the winner takes all. We must continue to have a balance in the equation on issues as important as walking access. I commend the bill to the House. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Walking Access Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 112 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Copeland. 
Noes 8 
Green Party 6; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Bill read a first time. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Minister of Immigration) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister for Rural Affairs 
: I move  
That the Walking Access Bill be considered by the Local Government and Environment Committee 
 and that the committee report finally to the House on or before 31 July 2008. 
Motion agreed to. 
Debate on Crown Entities Public Organisations and State Enterprises 
In Committee 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: The House is in Committee for the debate on the performance in 2006-07 and current operations of Crown entities public organisations and State enterprises. The debate on the performance of Crown entities public organisations and State enterprises is a series of debates on individual financial reviews of Crown entities public organisations and State enterprises as reported by select committees. The debates on the individual financial reviews should be relevant to their performance in the 2006-07 financial year and their current operations. A member may have no more than two calls on each financial review. A total of 1 hour has been allocated for this debate. At the conclusion of this hour the Chairperson will report progress. This is because a total of 3 hours is allowed for the debate. The remainder of the debate will take place at a later time. At the conclusion of that debate the Chairperson will report to the House. Only the financial reviews that have been reported are available for debate. A list of these is appended to the Order Paper. 
I understand that members have indicated the Crown entities public organisations and State enterprises they wish to debate. The first entity that I understand members wish to debate is the Electoral Commission. 
Electoral Commission  
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 This is an opportunity for Parliament to reflect today on the incredibly difficult job that the Electoral Commission has been given. The Electoral Commission is an entity that a lot of the public probably had not heard of until the 2005 election. It now finds itself thrust into the middle of political debate in election year. Whereas the Ministry for the Environment was discussed at great length last year this year it is the Electoral Commission. Why is that? The Electoral Commission is so busy and has such a high profile because of the Draconian anti-democratic complex and ridiculous Electoral Finance Act. 
Labour has tried to make out in this House that the Electoral Finance Act is a product of much parliamentary consideration. It is not. It is a product of Labour’s deeply held instinct that to survive the 2008 election it needs to learn the lessons of 2005. The lesson of 2005 was that when any of Labour’s critics get much of a run Labour’s political support suffers. So Labour passed the Electoral Finance Act to try to shut its critics down. It has succeeded. 
I want to ask the Minister in the chair Clayton Cosgrove a question about what is probably the most difficult aspect of the Electoral Finance Act that the Electoral Commission has to deal with and that is the length of the regulated period. Traditionally in New Zealand electoral finance has been regulated for 3 months a period that reflects the common-sense understanding among the public that the run-up to an election is the time when all the activities of politicians are focused on electoral gain. Officials have given the Government advice about this over the last couple of years. The officials’ papers as released under the Official Information Act show that there was no advice given to the Government to extend the regulated period from 3 months to 12 months. In fact the official advice made it pretty clear that there was no reason to change the period from 3 months. All the pressure that has come on the Electoral Commission now has arisen from the fact that the regulated period was extended to the whole of election year. This has the effect that for almost a third of the term of any Government the Electoral Commission has become the regulator of political speech—and is it not finding that difficult? 
The Minister needs to tell us why the Labour Government ignored all the official advice and out of the blue decided to extend the regulated period. That is the single decision that has created the most problems for the political parties and for the Electoral Commission. The Electoral Commission has had to deal of course with a lot of complicated issues arising from that. The first one has been about authorisation. At least the Electoral Commission has done its job. It has found that the Labour Party breached the law. After Labour spent all of the 2005 2006 and 2007 years lecturing everybody else about electoral rorts it turns out that the Electoral Commission found that Labour breached the law. What excuse would Labour have for breaching the law? It would have no excuse; it wrote the law. The Minister can explain to us why when the Labour Cabinet considered this legislation at great length and when there was much debate in Parliament through question time and parliamentary debate about the law the Labour Party hierarchy did not know what was in it. That is a frightening aspect of this law. New Zealand First did not really know what was in it. The Greens did not know what was in it. Even now the smaller parties are asking us what is in it and a number of them supported the legislation. 
The breach of the requirements for authorisation was just the first problem with the legislation. Then of course we come to the total debacle overseen by the incompetent Minister of Justice—represented in the chair today by Clayton Cosgrove—which is the debacle over the definition of “parliamentary business”. Here we have a core issue from the 2005 election. The Auditor-General did a report on it. There was an $800000 overspend by Labour. It actually breached the electoral expense cap by some $600000 or $700000 in the 2005 election. Labour spent 2 years rewriting the law about how MPs spend public money and 3½ months after the new law came into practice no one knows what it means. 
The National Party has had to take policy making into its own hands. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: Oh what? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Because the Minister does not know what the Act means we have had to go off to court. New Zealand First does not know. It put up billboards in Tauranga that were illegal. It is just a question of whether the billboards were taken down before the Electoral Commission had enough evidence to see they were there. We know how bad it is because the Labour Party has had to clean its electoral offices of all pamphlets in the last couple of weeks like National did 2 months ago because no one knows what the definition of “parliamentary business” is. 
This is not a matter of partisan comment; this is a matter of total incompetence in putting together the law. Labour members were so enamoured of their own moral righteousness that they did not read the law they were passing and National has had to go off to the courts to find out what parliamentary business is. If we do not do so we will end up with a ridiculous situation such as Labour has had with material it has published already where it is using public money for parliamentary purposes with the authorisation of some partisan political individual like the secretary of the Labour Party. How ridiculous is that? 
Did the public know when the Electoral Finance Act was being passed that parliamentary money could be used for an election advertisement that was authorised by party officials? What have party officials got to do with parliamentary business? The answer should be nothing but in this new world of the Electoral Finance Act those officials have everything to do with it when we are talking about the Labour Party. Who sends out the emails telling Labour MPs what to do with electoral advertisement material? The ninth floor—the Prime Minister’s office—sends out the emails. That shows exactly the situation that was confirmed in 2005—that is when it comes to spending public money on election advertising there is no difference between the Labour Party and the Prime Minister’s office. They are one and the same—one strategy. 
That fact has been confirmed in the last couple of days. What is the Electoral Commission to make of the opinion of the president of the Labour Party that it is fine for Labour MPs and activists to hand out pamphlets on KiwiSaver from the Inland Revenue Department as part of electioneering? In our view if a Labour activist hands out an Inland Revenue Department pamphlet then that would be an election advertisement. What that shows and this is something the Electoral Commission has to deal with is a deep sense of entitlement amongst Labour members that every aspect of public life can be appropriated by the Labour Party and that public resources produced for the information of the public can be appropriated by the Labour Party for its own electoral ends. 
This of course raises the larger issue that Labour Ministers are directing Government departments to produce information for the public so that the Labour Party can use the information for political purposes. That was exemplified last year in the attempted political takeover of the Ministry for the Environment. The partisan Labour Party in the form of Heather Simpson in the Prime Minister’s office tried to take over that ministry because it was going to be the front end of Labour’s political push in election year. 
So that is what the Electoral Commission has to deal with: a Labour Party that is insanely focused on using every dollar of public money it can to get itself re-elected. That is why the Electoral Commission is under pressure. It will find that its decisions are judicially reviewed and contested in public not because the Electoral Commission lacks competence but because the legislation with which it has to work is complex confusing and chaotic. The Government has made the mistake of putting Annette King up to defend the legislation. Well the Minister of Justice has shown consistent incompetence in understanding the law and in defending it. 
Report noted. 
Foundation for Research Science and Technology 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The next entity that I understand members wish to debate is the Foundation for Research Science and Technology. The question before the Committee is that the report of the Education and Science Committee on the 2006-07 financial review of the Foundation for Research Science and Technology be noted. No speakers?  
CHRIS TREMAIN (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I seek a point of clarification. There was a request to debate this particular topic. The National Party is set down as wanting to debate Industrial Research Ltd. I want to be clear that no other party whose members are within the Chamber requested the topic that is before you right now. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: A party may well have done but the reality is that if no one takes the call we move on to the next vote. 
Report noted. 
Meridian Energy Ltd 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The next entity that I understand members wish to debate is Meridian Energy Ltd. Therefore the question before the Committee is that the report of the Commerce Committee on the 2006-07 financial review of Meridian Energy Ltd be noted. 
CHRIS TREMAIN (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. There seems to have been a slight mistake on my behalf. Our understanding is that the honourable member Mr Hutchison was to debate Industrial Research Ltd now. Can we seek an opportunity to debate that topic now within the debate? 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Industrial Research Ltd is available for debate although not now. It is available; it is on the Order Paper. If you want to debate it you can. 
CHRIS TREMAIN (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 May we seek a call for that? 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I have already put the question on Meridian Energy Ltd so we had better put it to the vote while the Clerk checks the situation. 
Report noted. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member should have indicated beforehand that he wanted to speak to Industrial Research Ltd. However he is perfectly free to seek leave of the Committee to have a 5-minute speech on it. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 I seek leave to debate the review of the Crown research institute Industrial Research Ltd. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection to that course of action? There is none. 
Industrial Research Ltd 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 Thank you Mr Chairperson for the opportunity to speak on the performance and current operations of Industrial Research Ltd. There is no question that the nine Crown research institutes are a very important part of New Zealand’s science platform and innovation platform. 
Indeed an indication of how they have performed over the last 9 years was given by the National Science Panel—the most esteemed group of scientists in the country—at a meeting of the Royal Society of New Zealand last night. The panel said: “Between the vision of the science system and the reality there is a serious disconnect and that indeed is a great worry to New Zealand and of course in terms of the Labour Party’s performance.” It went on to say: “In our view science policy over the past decade in New Zealand has resulted in a gradual disempowerment of science and scientists. As a result science has ceased to play a leading role in shaping the nation’s future.” Once again that is an incredibly serious indictment on the performance of the system and the management of it by the Labour Government over the last 9 years. 
The panel even went on to say: “New Zealand does produce some outstanding science and has a rich heritage derived from its past great scientists but with high transaction and compliance costs and low intake of quality students from our secondary schools means that our capacity to continue to do so is diminishing.” In fact the president of the Royal Society told a meeting of MPs not so long ago that the science dollar that was handed out by the Foundation for Research Science and Technology ended up being worth at the laboratory bench approximately 50c. In other words transaction and compliance costs and the entangled bureaucracy set up by this Labour Government have absolutely diminished the value of those very important dollars. 
Let us look specifically at the Crown research institutes. Between 1992 and 2001 there was an increase in the equity of the Crown research institutes in the order of 106 percent. Over the last 6 years the equity has pretty well remained static. That again must be a damning indictment on the management of this Labour Government. 
If one looks at Industrial Research Ltd which was one of the jewels in the Crown research institutes’ crown up until about 2000 one sees that in 2002-03 its return on equity was minus 2.1 percent the next year it was minus 14.8 percent the next year it was minus 20.2 percent the next year it was minus 6.4 percent and the next year—that is 2006-07—it was a very concerning minus 25.8 percent. Equity itself went down from $27.7 million in 2002 to $19.3 million in 2006-07. What is worrying is the Crown Company Monitoring Advisory Unit commentary which is extremely understated in saying that Industrial Research Ltd’s financial performance was below expectation with a full-year loss of $5.7 million. Over these last 5 years Industrial Research Ltd has been seriously eroded in terms of its return on equity its equity and its ability to support the other very important scientific platforms. 
That has been the sort of management we have had under a Labour Government. I note in the OECD review of New Zealand’s innovation policy a comment made on governance. The appraisal noted concerns about finding suitable directors for Crown research institutes and concerns about turnover of directors. It said that although some steps have been taken to address these problems the Crown research institute boards continue to have a relatively high level of turnover and a relatively high proportion of inexperienced directors. As we stand here today 23 directorships of Crown research institutes are vacant. 
Chris Tremain 
: How many? 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: Twenty-three directorships are vacant as we stand. Surely any Government worth its salt should have ensured that those directorships were filled in an orderly and timely manner. 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Research Science and Technology) 
: 
 I would like to respond to some of the remarks from Dr Hutchison. It is unfortunate that the Opposition spokesperson should be so mistaken in his assessment of for example Crown research institute directorships. I will tell members how many directorships are vacant at the moment—there is one. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: You must have filled them very fast. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: No we did not fill them very fast. We have not filled any in the past few days. You see the member has probably gone to the Act and decided that it states there can be between five and nine directors in a Crown research institute and he has probably decided therefore that he would have nine. We do not operate like that; we use as many directors as we need—usually seven occasionally eight sometimes six. We have a vacancy in Landcare Research at the moment and we certainly have 23 vacancies coming up on 1 July 2008. As usual I would say about half of those will be rolled over; they will be given a second term. On the other hand we will probably replace somewhere like the other half—I am not sure yet but Cabinet will make its decision and we will take the advice off to the Governor-General. 
The question really is how the Opposition spokesperson on Crown research institutes can get stuff that simple that wrong. Why does that guy continue to draw his salary when he gets up in this Chamber and makes a serious— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: He’s substandard. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: He is substandard all right. Let us go back to last night’s report—the manifesto. The member has failed to acknowledge one thing about that report. That panel was set up in 2006. It finished its report in 2007 and decided—for reasons best known to itself—that it would tell the world about it in 2008. It said that it was very keen for there to be less bureaucracy in the application process failing to acknowledge that between writing the report and releasing it this Government has moved to a stable funding system for a fair chunk of science and research. It said that it needed bigger investment—unaware of the New Zealand Fast Forward programme that was announced a month before last which the leader of the National Party called a gimmick even though every other commentator in the country said it was great. You see the National Party is out of touch on science. The report that was released last night has to be described as a little jaded and a little out of time. I think frankly those adjectives apply rather well to the National Party. So I just enjoy the opportunity to take part in this call to debate science again with Dr Paul Hutchison and to say to him: “Dr Paul Hutchison you have a clear interest in science—I acknowledge it and I admire it. But I invite you to keep up with the facts keep up with the details and if you can keep up with this Government.” 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 I seek leave to debate the financial review of Landcare Research New Zealand Ltd which is also a review of the Education and Science Committee. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member can do that. I was just going to put the question. The member seeks leave to do that. Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is none. 
Report noted. 
Landcare Research New Zealand Ltd 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Chairperson. Tena koutou katoa. I would just like to comment on Landcare Research New Zealand Ltd. It produced a very useful report at the end of last year sometime around December called  
Calculating Biodiversity Offsets for the Mokihinui Hydro Proposal 
. This report was prepared for Meridian Energy which was looking for information about the impacts of its plan to build an 85 metre - high dam on the Mokihinui River. This river is a very beautiful wilderness river just north of Westport—between Westport and Karamea—on the West Coast of the South Island. Landcare was contracted by Meridian Energy to apply a biodiversity offset framework to the development and to provide information about whether the impacts of the development on this river could be offset. It is a very useful and interesting report about how such offsets could occur and the criteria on which offsets could happen. 
Some of the issues around the report include the offset principles that the offsets have to be biodiversity offsets—conservation actions that are designed to compensate for the residual and unavoidable harm to biodiversity caused by development—that the biodiversity offsets are part of the calculations for assessing project viability; that offsets are not possible nor appropriate everywhere; that offsets should be in kind; and that they should apply to the full hierarchy of biodiversity from high-level functioning systems such as the native podocarp forest down to very individual components. I guess there the report is talking about the particular habitat of the whio the blue duck which resides on this river. The offsets must be enduring—that is they must have a long-term impact and reflect the long-term nature or the age of the habitat that is to be destroyed. And the offsets must be additive: they must add to the net biodiversity value of the country as a whole. 
I had the fantastic opportunity to raft down that river—the Mokihinui River—last week. The river is set back into the mountains of the West Coast. It winds down from the mountains through the path of the 1929 earthquake area. In the first part that I rafted down from just seaward of the fork the damage from the 1929 earthquake can be seen as can the very slowly regenerating bush on the scars of the slips on the side of those mountains. In these areas of forest and regenerating forest live some of New Zealand’s rarest birds and other animals. There is the long-tailed bat which is very rarely seen in this country the South Island kaka the kea and as I say the whio the blue duck. Those species have made this wilderness area their home because it is so protected from the actions of humans. It is an unmodified landscape. 
There are no noxious weeds in the Mokihinui River and even the native fish species that live in it live a very safe life because the river is quite difficult to fish in. It is not a regularly fished river so species— 
Hon Member 
: It’s not polluted. 
METIRIA TUREI 
: It is not polluted. My colleague makes a very good point; it is not polluted at all. As I say it has no weeds. It is very much still a wilderness experience. Fish species find that it is a safe place for them to breed and fish species are present that are very rare in New Zealand—for example there is the long-finned eel whose numbers are declining even according to Landcare’s own research in this report by 7 percent a year in this country. The Minister of Fisheries has even had to reduce the total allowable commercial catch for long-finned eels because of the significant damage done to the population through overfishing. The giant kokopu the short-jawed kokopu and the lamprey are all living in this river freely. 
Many of the fish species migrate very far up the Mokihinui River to live and one of the major problems with the proposed dam of course is that it will prevent those species from being able to migrate upriver so that they can mature and prepare themselves for breeding. One of the amazing things about some of our New Zealand species like the eel and some other fish species is that they migrate very far upriver where they live for many years—eels can live for 80 years up there—before they are mature enough to breed. When they decide to breed they breed only once. They leave the river and swim to the ocean and it is reported that they make their way to the seas of Tonga where they then breed and die. The glass eels if you like—the small immature eels—find their way back to New Zealand using ocean currents and ocean temperatures and find their way back up our rivers taking the long journey upriver where they themselves mature until they are ready to breed. 
This report from Landcare Research shows that there is no way—no way—that the damage to those species whether to the long-finned eel the kokopu or to the blue duck the whio will be remedied or mitigated in any way. There is no way that that damage will be mitigated; there are no mechanisms to offset that damage. We need to look only at this report which talks for example about one of the offsetting requirements for the emergent impacts on the river requiring us to go to another similar kind of river to the Mokihinui and dismantle a barrier of a similar size and structure to the proposed dam on it. What is being said there is that the damage caused by building this dam can be remedied only by destroying one exactly the same elsewhere in the country. The report goes on to say there are no other rivers where that could be done. It is impossible to do—impossible to remedy the damage that would be done by the dam. 
What is of real concern here is that despite the good work of one of the Crown entities Landcare Research another Government entity the State-owned enterprise Meridian Energy still intends to pursue such an enormously destructive action on one of New Zealand’s most pristine and wild rivers. The Mokihinui River has been described by the Department of Conservation itself as the seventh most significant river in the country. We have few remaining rivers in New Zealand that are fully free from development of any kind and frankly from poisoning of any kind. I was able to drink from this river while I was on that raft. I could just push my hand into the water scoop it out and put it in my mouth. It was sustaining and yummy. It was clean and not poisonous. It is a clean river but we are about to destroy one of the very few rivers still left in this country where it is possible simply to reach down and drink from it. That is one of the major concerns about the nature of these constructions on rivers such as this one. The biodiversity values are extremely high. The Department of Conservation has recognised that and Landcare Research has recognised that. Even the information that Meridian Energy has proposed and put into its assessment of environmental effects for the purposes of its resource consent application recognises that significant numbers of seriously threatened endangered species will lose their habitat as a result of a dam being built. 
One of the places we visited on this river was a creek called the Rough and Tumble which was a great little creek that flows down into the river. The Rough and Tumble Creek is noted as a blue duck a whio habitat and a number of whio have been sighted there. I think that one of the other major energy companies—it might be Contact Energy but I am not sure—has just decided to invest something like a million dollars into the restoration of habitats and the protection of the blue duck the whio species. The Government invests vast sums of money hundreds of thousands of dollars into the protection of the blue duck and the restoration of its habitat yet other parts of the Government such as Meridian Energy are going out and actively intending to destroy the very natural habitats those animals live in as a matter of course and they expect that somehow that will be remedied by—I do not know; investing more money in something else? But it will not happen like that. Landcare Research has shown that that simply will not work. That damage simply cannot be remedied by paying for it elsewhere. 
This is where the difficulty for the Government is in its so-called sustainability programme with its so-called environmentally aware Prime Minister a Prime Minister who has a newly discovered environmental awareness. That is all great but in practice we see significant destruction of the very wilderness areas that make this country what it is. When New Zealanders go overseas and think about home they do not think about motorways. They think about the beautiful wilderness pristine areas and the clean rivers that we still have—the very few clean rivers that we still have—and that is what brings them home. That is what being a New Zealander is all about yet this Government—and I do not doubt for a minute that National would not do the same given half a chance—is prepared to actively destroy those very pristine places that make this country what it is. 
I applaud Landcare Research for its work in preparing this report. I am dismayed that Meridian Energy has actively kept the report a secret from the public from the decision makers who are looking at Meridian Energy’s resource consent applications and from the various environmental and community organisations that have asked for a copy of it and been told it does not exist. That is a disgraceful act on Meridian Energy’s part. 
Report noted. 
Pharmaceutical Management Agency 
BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) 
: 
 On behalf of New Zealand First I rise to take a call on the Pharmaceutical Management Agency. This Crown entity has a hugely important task ahead in managing the optimal purchase and use of medicine for all New Zealanders. 
This organisation has a huge challenge ahead and I do not think that any one of us can underestimate that challenge. It needs to balance its budget yet ensure that New Zealanders have the best possible access to the best medicines to manage the various conditions they have. It also has to manage the funding of expensive developing pharmaceuticals for various conditions that small groups of people have against the funding that will provide the greatest health gains for many people. It is not an easy balance. 
There are many challenges ahead. How can Pharmac ensure there is timely and affordable access to high-cost specialised medicines that is comparable with access in other countries? We often compare ourselves with Australia in this respect. 
We have seen one of these conflicts recently with the drug Herceptin where the High Court firmly put the ball back into Pharmac’s court with the advice that it had to consult over its decision not to fund patients for a longer time. How many other conflicts like this will we see? This type of court case is extremely stressful for everybody involved and we cannot afford to drag out the recommended review any longer than is absolutely necessary. 
When we look at Pharmac we see that consultation with stakeholders must be one of the priorities that is carried through. We acknowledge the recent Pharmac forum and the positive feedback that Pharmac received from the forum. This type of forum needs to be held on a very regular basis so that explanations decisions and feedback can all be communicated. The Pharmac updates that we receive as MPs always make interesting reading; they focus on recent decisions and information. We will continue to be interested in the Pharmac decision-making process particularly in response to the  
Medicines New Zealand  
strategy. We in New Zealand First believe that this should result in some review of the pharmaceutical budget. The funding framework has to allow for appropriate growth because new innovative medicines become available all the time. This of course raises the age-old issue which we have heard about many many times of the need for greater transparency in the processes associated with funding decisions. 
When people travel to Australia for holidays—as many do—one of the many queries that we all tend to get when they return is why their family member there has access to a particular drug that is not accessible to people here in New Zealand. They find it very difficult to understand. We believe that we need to be assured that the process followed by Pharmac is fair and just and the recommended consultation process will be very valuable in this respect. 
In New Zealand First we often hear too from frustrated companies that the registration of new medicines is an extremely slow process. We need to evaluate alternatives to a stand-alone Medsafe. One option that could be considered is a system based on recognition of the decisions of other respected international regulatory bodies yet at the same time allowing us to maintain the ability to carry out the evaluations where it is considered to be necessary. Why we do not already recognise these decisions remains a mystery and hopefully it can be explained by Pharmac in some future communications. Why should we duplicate the efforts of the US Food and Drug Administration or the trans-Tasman agency over in Australia? It makes one wonder what the value of particular registrations overseas is when we do not recognise them here in New Zealand. It seems to me that it is a real mystery. Recognising them would enable new medicines to go through the registration process a lot more quickly than they do now. We in New Zealand First believe that there is a very interesting year ahead for Pharmac. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Health) 
: 
 I thank the member who has just resumed her seat Barbara Stewart for a very helpful contribution. I will take a short call to make several points. 
The first is that I think most members of this Committee would agree that the Pharmac single purchasing model is fundamentally sound and that it delivers considerable benefits to New Zealanders by stretching our health dollar much further than it would otherwise stretch to the tune of probably $1 billion to $1.5 billion a year. We should reflect upon the fact that according to almost all of the conventional measures that have been shown in this Health Committee report Pharmac is a well-managed and well-run organisation that is doing its job. Pharmac’s 2007 annual review showed that during 2006-07 close to 32 million prescriptions were subsidised—a rise of nearly 12 percent on the previous year. That means an extra 3.3 million were subsidised during the past year and at least 2.7 million people had their medicines subsidised. The scale of this and the scale of the savings that it renders to New Zealanders are such that in any discussion of Pharmac—although any organisation no doubt is capable of improvement—we must be very very careful not to throw the baby out with the proverbial bathwater. 
The second point is that there is always a debate at the margin around the fundamentally utilitarian model of funding allocation in Pharmac’s drug provision which boils down to the greatest medicinal benefit for the greatest number given a relatively fixed level of resource. At the margin there are discussions of how we fund new and innovative drugs that are hellishly expensive but may at the margin deliver extra benefits to a small number of people. That is a very very difficult debate at any level—economics or ethics for example; the philosophy of the utilitarian model versus the innovation model is difficult to get one’s head around. However the system we have which is based on clinical decision-making through the advisory committee the Pharmacology and Therapeutics Advisory Committee process and the use—although no doubt no measure is perfect—of an objective framework through the quality adjusted life years measure is a sound approach because it is a heck of a lot better than the squeaky wheel getting the grease. 
One thing is certain. It is that in the pharmaceutical industry there is an enormous premium attached to lobbying an enormous amount of money washing around in defence of not only intellectual property rights but also monopoly rents by producers and fairly good evidence that in many cases the price of medicines bears no relationship to the cost of production or research but bears every relationship to what it is perceived that the market will stand. In that regard if we did not have something like Pharmac then frankly we would have to invent one because the public of New Zealand needs a defence against those deeply vested and powerful interests nearly all of which are overseas-owned. That is why we have Pharmac. 
Is a model like Pharmac capable of improvement? The Government’s view is that it is fundamentally sound and that once again it has turned in a very good performance—managing its funding to within 0.1 percent of budget adding 11 new medicines and widening access to 28 others. That is a pretty good record of achievement but I note that the  
Medicines New Zealand 
 strategy and  
Actioning Medicines New Zealand 
—the second document for which my colleague Peter Dunne has the primary responsibility for overseeing—suggest several forms of improvement. The first is around the consultation processes. It is not sufficient for any organisation to use the fundamental validity of its business model as a reason not to have good stakeholder relationships. I am confident that Pharmac understands that there is much value to it in improving the transparency and communication levels in those stakeholder relationships. I am comfortable that it is well on that pathway and that that should continue. 
Finally let me say in respect of the point about Medsafe raised by the member speaking previously that I expect that Medsafe’s actions particularly in the area of complementary medicines will be proportionate appropriate and well understood by the sector and that there is more dialogue to be had in that regard. Thank you Mr Chairman. 
Report noted. 
Police Complaints Authority 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
HONE HARAWIRA (Maori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) 
: 
 Tena koe. Kia ora tatou katoa. Being the first Maori woman to be appointed Justice of the High Court and the first Maori woman to be appointed as Queen’s Counsel was a huge honour for Justice Lowell Goddard and a credit to her distinguished legal career—and the fact that she is from up north—but taking over the Police Complaints Authority last year was always going to be a whole new ball game. In stepping up to that task Justice Goddard said that two of her main goals were to ensure the integrity of the New Zealand Police and restore public confidence in the police. That is a helluva job given the Bazley report last year damning the culture of police arrogance the Louise Nicholas case the recent high visibility trials of police rape and abuse and the fact that Maori generally do not bother complaining to the Police Complaints Authority because they know that cops lie for one another and always get off. 
The Law and Order Committee though tells us that Justice Goddard is out there trying to do an extreme make over of the authority from being just a club to jack up excuses for bad cops to being a more proactive and investigative unit. The authority is doing a big clean-up of old files and trying to put in place systems to deal with inefficiencies and unnecessary work. We are glad about moves to monitor the life of a complaint particularly given the many complaints we have had from Maori that the process of laying a complaint is tough enough without it being dragged on forever giving the impression that the police have no intention of actually dealing with the complaint at all. 
We are also encouraged by the authority wanting to focus on matters of high public interest like serious harm deaths in custody corruption serious neglect and misconduct. But we are concerned about suggestions that the authority refers complaints of bad attitude back to the police to handle when clearly there are a lot of complaints of that nature and people are not likely to be convinced that the police are the best people to deal with them. 
It was also interesting to note the fact that the select committee met with Justice Goddard just before she met with Tuhoe to discuss their complaints about the police terror raids last year yet they barely mentioned it in their report which is strange considering that apart from the police rape trials the police terror raids were the most high profile of all complaints in 2007. It is worth noting too that although 40 people have already been interviewed and 10 more are due to come up the Police Complaints Authority is still keen to talk to anyone else who was arrested stopped photographed held at gun-point or has any other complaints concerning police misconduct during those terror raids on Tuhoe in 2007 which suggests that the matter is far from over. So although the select committee has chosen to ignore this investigation the Maori Party will be following it closely to ensure that the deplorable offensive and totally unacceptable treatment of the people of Tuhoe is not swept under the carpet in the way past police complaints have been. 
Following on from the Tuhoe situation interestingly it was also worth noting Justice Goddard’s comments about the success of the Police Ombudsman’s role in Northern Ireland which is particularly relevant given the hatred of the Catholic population towards what has traditionally been a Protestant-run police force the Royal Ulster Constabulary. A recent independent survey stated that 80 percent of both Protestants and Catholics felt that complaints against the police would be treated fairly as well as surprisingly did 85 percent of those police officers investigated by the office—quite an amazing statistic given the historic enmity between the different sectors of the Northern Ireland community and clearly a model worth looking at for us here. 
We also note the Law and Order Committee’s decision not to mention the new statement guiding the Police Complaints Authority—whaia te pono kia puawai ko te tika: seek out justice and let the truth prevail. We mention it here and we wish Justice Goddard and her team strength courage and fortitude in the pursuit of their philosophy and in the challenges that lie ahead of them. Tena koe. 
Hon RICK BARKER (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I welcome the comments made by the previous speaker Hone Harawira and I welcome his observations. It is true that Justice Goddard has an ambitious plan to improve and strengthen the Independent Police Conduct Authority and it is true that a good deal of progress has been made. I am very pleased to be able to report to the Committee that the number of outstanding files has been greatly reduced—620-odd aged files that could have been classified as a backlog have been closed during the period of February 2007 to February 2008 and this is in addition to the ongoing processing of all current files. The number of complaints that have been referred to the Independent Police Conduct Authority has continued to fall in the last quarter—a drop of about 98. 
Mr Harawira also made the point that the commission under Justice Goddard intends to be proactive and independent. It is also true as he pointed out that the Independent Police Conduct Authority wants to ensure that the New Zealand public has a strong and justified perception of the integrity and the culture of our police force. The authority wants to take big issues very seriously and investigate them very thoroughly. 
I am pleased to be able to report to the Committee that the Independent Police Conduct Authority has had strengthening in terms of resources. It has more investigators a media liaison person and a chief executive and in addition to all of this it is the Government’s intention to strengthen the authority even further. The Government intends to introduce a bill that will enable the authority to conduct its own motion inquiries. That means it will not have to wait and rely upon someone to make a complaint. If the authority feels that something is wrong then it will be able to do something about it itself. Further the results of an authority investigation will be able to be used in subsequent proceedings in certain circumstances and importantly the authority investigators will have all the powers necessary to fulfil the authority’s enhanced functions. 
The final point which I think will be the most interesting and most telling is that in the future the authority will have the responsibility and authority to make prosecution decisions in authority-led investigations. All of this sets out to strengthen the independence and the confidence that the public can have in the Independent Police Conduct Authority. 
I reaffirm what Mr Harawira said: that Justice Goddard and a number of the authority did go and speak with Tuhoe directly as part of the authority’s investigation of the complaint laid by the people of Tuhoe. I think that is a very important step. It shows that Justice Goddard is a person who will have a hands-on approach will lead from the front and will be very directive about this. By being on the marae and hearing people voice their concerns with all the passion the feeling and the anger that they felt she could hear at first hand what the people felt rather than read it in a report. I commend her for doing that and I think it is a very very positive move. 
However with all these things the proof will be in the pudding. I am fully aware that the Independent Police Conduct Authority recognises that people will judge it on the quality of its reports and the quality of its actions. No one thinks that the New Zealand Police are above criticism. Of course people are right to have those criticisms but the criticisms should be constructive and they should be justified. There will be no placing of confidence in the police if we are to have unconstructive irresponsible criticism of the police. 
We want to have a police force that we can look to with pride and with confidence and to know that it is independent and will do an outstanding job for our country. This has in fact been the case with almost every facet of the activities of the New Zealand Police. The Independent Police Conduct Authority is there to ensure that we have the independence and oversight of the New Zealand Police force we need to ensure public confidence in the integrity and the strength of the New Zealand Police. I think that we can look forward to seeing good reports in the future that will give justice and substance to those beliefs. 
Report noted. 
Progress reported. 
Report adopted. 
Maori Purposes Bill (No 2) 
Second Reading 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Minister of Maori Affairs) 
: 
 I move  
That the Maori Purposes Bill (No 2) be now read a second time 
. Maori Purposes bills are convenient vehicles to provide for the ongoing maintenance of a wide range of legislation that affects Maori. The Maori Purposes Bill (No 2) carries on this tradition by bringing together amendments to a number of Acts related to Maori affairs namely the Maniapoto Maori Trust Board Act 1988 the Maori Trust Boards Act 1955 the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 and Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993. The changes proposed in the bill are on the whole housekeeping in nature. They either update legislative provisions currently out of date or improve existing provisions. 
Part 1 of the bill amends the Maniapoto Maori Trust Board Act 1988 to update provisions in that Act including a name change for the Maniapoto kaumatua council and a formalisation of the establishment of a seventh regional management committee for Kawhia Harbour. Part 2 amends the Maniapoto Maori Trust Board Act 1955 to specify a minimum voting age for trust board elections and validates voting irregularities that may have occurred in the past. Part 2 also updates section 10 of the Act to reflect the new annual payment to be made by the Crown to the Tuwharetoa Maori Trust Board under a new agreement relating to Lake Taupo. Part 3 amends the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 to increase the maximum membership of the Waitangi Tribunal from 16 to 20 members and it also makes technical drafting changes to section 6 of that Act. Finally Part 4 corrects two minor drafting errors in Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993. The Maori Affairs Committee has recognised the mechanical nature of these amendments and has recommended that the bill be passed without change. 
I take this opportunity to thank the Maori Affairs Committee members for their careful consideration of the bill. I also thank those who submitted on the bill and acknowledge their contributions to this important process. 
Although I have emphasised the technical nature of these amendments I note that their passage into law will be significant to a number of Maori groups. A case in point is the amendments to the Maniapoto Maori Trust Board Act 1988. Some years ago five marae from Kawhia Harbour came together to establish a regional management committee. The purpose of this committee is to provide a means for these marae to facilitate participation in decision making relating to their area. The Maniapoto Maori Trust Board fully supports the committee’s operation but cannot be provided with the necessary funding until the committee is properly formalised in legislation. This formal recognition will be achieved with the passage of the bill and these marae will be fully funded to continue their good work. 
I note that some submitters opposed the establishment of a regional management committee that represented two of these marae Te Mahoe Pa and Mokai Kainga. The Maori Affairs Committee asked my officials to consult with the Maniapoto Maori Trust Board on the issues raised by submitters and to clarify whether submitters had the mandate to speak on behalf of these marae. To these ends my officials consulted with the trust board and representatives from Te Mahoe Pa and Mokai Kainga marae. The trust board of Te Mahoe Pa and Mokai Kainga confirmed that they continued to fully support the establishment of the committee and did not support the korero of the submitters. The select committee acknowledges this further consultation in its report and agrees that submitters were not supported. I am glad that the committee was assisted by this additional information and I thank the trust board and marae representatives for their quick and clear response to this issue. I note that there is still a point of clarity to resolve in relation to how the consultation is described in the committee’s report. I requested that the committee consider correcting its report to accurately describe who was consulted on this issue. 
I move to the amendment to section 10 of the Maori Trust Boards Act 1955. This is a significant amendment for Ngati Tuwharetoa. It is on the passage of this bill that a key condition of the agreement between the Crown and Ngati Tuwharetoa relating to Lake Taupo will be triggered. In late 2007 the Crown and Ngati Tuwharetoa came to a comprehensive agreement relating to Lake Taupo under which the Crown agreed to pay the Tuwharetoa Maori Trust Board a new annual payment. Before the trust board can start to receive the new payment on behalf of Ngati Tuwharetoa section 10 of the Maori Trust Boards Act needs to be updated to record the new amounts. Ngati Tuwharetoa has been waiting for this amendment to take effect so it can get on with business and realise the potential of its settlement. This will become a reality on the passage of the bill. On 1 July this year Ngati Tuwharetoa will start receiving its annual payment. 
We will also see the membership of the Waitangi Tribunal increase by four. Currently up to 16 people can be appointed to the Waitangi Tribunal. This will increase to 20 on the enactment of the bill. This expansion of the tribunal’s membership comes at an important time as the deadline for submitting historical treaty claims approaches. The tribunal is committed to reporting back by 2015 on all historical claims it receives. It has requested extra people power to meet this goal. With the potential to appoint four extra members the tribunal will be able to request additional expertise as and when it needs it over the forthcoming years to assist it to inquire into and report on all historical treaty claims. I take this opportunity today to thank current members of the Waitangi Tribunal for all their work. I hope that the provision of four extra members will help ease the pressure on current members particularly kaumatua members who work tirelessly to assist the tribunal in its important endeavour. 
With the passage of this bill we will also see the minimum voting age for Maori trust board elections lowered from 20 to 18 years. This will be a welcome change for those Maori trust boards that are also fishery settlement entities. These trust boards must comply with both the Maori Trust Boards Act and the Maori Fisheries Act. However both Acts have different voting ages which create problems with trust boards come election time. They have to ask whether they should let their older rangatahi vote as allowed by the Maori Fisheries Act or instead comply with the Maori Trust Boards Act and exclude them. Opting either way trust boards breach their statutory obligations under one or the other Act. 
Trust boards will no longer be in this bind once the Maori Trust Boards Act is amended. The lowering of the minimum voting age to 18 years will bring much needed clarity to the election processes of Maori trust boards. It will also mean that 18 and 19-year-old trust board beneficiaries can be legitimately involved in deciding who will manage their governance entity and fishery assets. As acknowledged by the New Zealand Maori Council in its submission on the bill the lowering of the voting age will also allow rangatahi to engage in a process that one day they will drive. The bill will also remedy any adverse effects that may have resulted from two different minimum voting ages being on the statute book. 
As I have mentioned some trust boards have complied with the Maori Fisheries Act and let 18 and 19-year-olds vote. Doing so technically breaches the Maori Trust Boards Act so it is necessary to validate the instances where this has occurred. I therefore wholeheartedly support the committee’s recommendation that the bill proceed as it is with no amendment. I hope that it progresses through its remaining parliamentary stages at a healthy pace and that these important legislative changes are realised in the very near future. I commend this bill to the House. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) 
: 
 I am very happy to rise and take a call on the Maori Purposes Bill (No 2) and to say hello to various people affected by the bill who are in the gallery tonight. The Minister has run through in some detail the nature of the changes outlined in the bill. I guess in a sense he is correct to say that they are generally housekeeping in nature. Politicians are very fond of describing changes in this Maori Purposes Bill in that manner yet to those on whom the changes impact they are clearly much more than housekeeping otherwise they would not make the effort to come to Wellington to hear the various stages of this bill as it passes through the House. 
In respect of the changes to the Maniapoto Maori Trust Board Act as the Minister rightly pointed out one of those proposed changes is to formalise a new regional management committee for Kawhia Harbour. The committee received some comments and submissions on this matter but following some consultation it appears that all who are affected by it are happy with the proposed change. When one thinks of what it will do—it will enable the new regional management committee for Kawhia Harbour to properly represent its constituency so that it becomes eligible for funding and enables voting rights in trust board matters—one sees that clearly it is an important change.  
There are two other changes to the Maniapoto Maori Trust Board but the only other one I will mention is the change of name for the Maniapoto council of elders. Currently the name is Te Mauri o Maniapoto and the elders felt that that was inappropriate as the use of the word “Mauri” applies better to marae than to a council of elders. So they have suggested—and it will be the case—that after this bill passes into law the council will be known as Te Kaumatua Kaunihera o Maniapoto. Those are just two changes. They are small in nature but they are very important to the Maniapoto Maori Trust Board. 
I will also mention changes to the Maori Trust Boards Act specifically in respect of the Tuwharetoa Maori Trust Board. The changes are to the annual payment to be paid by the Crown under a new agreement that was forged between the Crown and the trust board in September last year. Again that will bring to a point of conclusion something that was actually started back in 1992 when the bed of Lake Taupo was vested in the Tuwharetoa Maori Trust Board and certain other property rights were basically left to be dealt with at a later stage. This is that stage. I know that for those at home this provision that comes before us tonight is a very important provision. It relates to certain other property rights in respect of Lake Taupo.  
Once the law passes it will enable the trust board with its new format to develop an enhanced relationship with the Crown which I think is always an important thing when iwi or iwi bodies are engaging with the Crown. So this will enhance that relationship as I guess do the other changes I have mentioned. The Maniapoto Maori Trust Board’s relationship with the Crown will be enhanced as well. 
Ultimately the relationship that was forged when the Treaty was signed even though some did not sign it was what the Treaty was about. A lot of the legislation we see coming before the House tries to enhance the relationship between Maori and the Crown although I must say that legislation under the current Minister has been a little bit of a long time coming. I guess in election year he feels he needs to get on and make changes that will enhance his tenure. I hope it does but I am not sure that it will. However that is another matter. I think that any legislation that comes to this House that enhances the relationship between Maori and the Crown is good—not just for the parties but for New Zealand as a whole—because ultimately these trust boards these Maori entities are operating in the wider picture in New Zealand society and in the New Zealand economy. It is a good thing when we can see these types of enhancements. 
The only other comment I will make is in relation to the Treaty of Waitangi. My colleague Chris Finlayson will comment in more detail. I have already mentioned the relationship under the Treaty. There are some changes to the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 the main one being the increase in the statutory limit on the membership of the Waitangi Tribunal whereby the membership can increase to 20. I think I made some comments in my first reading speech that it is all very well for Parliament to make these kinds of provisions but we have to have a Government that recognises the absolute importance of the role the Waitangi Tribunal plays in the Treaty of Waitangi settlement process. 
I do not know that this Government has a really keen sense of the importance of that role. The reality is that over the 9 years that the Labour Government has been in power the tribunal has struggled year after year. It has had to scale back its forecasts in terms of the number of sittings it might hold and in terms of the reports that it might write. Now however we have the ability to increase the membership to 20 but that is worthwhile or of value only if the rest of the tribunal infrastructure is properly supported to enable 20 members if it is deemed necessary to sit at a more regular rate than the members now do. 
As a key to the whole settlement process the tribunal needs to be able to get on with its part in the process and enable iwi to again move on with settlements to get grievance out of the way and to ultimately enhance that relationship between Maori and the Crown. The amendments here are housekeeping but National recognises that they are very very important to the entities concerned and ultimately to the ongoing relationship between Maori iwi Maori and the Crown. 
Hon MITA RIRINUI (Minister of State) 
: 
 Kia ora Mr Assistant Speaker. I speak today in support of the Maori Purposes Bill (No 2). The bill includes an important amendment to the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 that will increase the upper limit of the membership of the Waitangi Tribunal from 16 to 20. As an Associate Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations I find this a very very important amendment to the bill. 
In 2006 the Government responded to calls from New Zealanders to streamline the Treaty settlement process and set a closing date of 1 December 2008 for the submission of historical Treaty claims. The closing date represented the first step in a wider Government policy that aims to settle all historical Treaty claims by 2020. This policy recognises the importance of the Treaty settlement process for New Zealanders while ensuring that historical Treaty settlements are attained in a fair manner and within a reasonable time frame. 
A key part of this Treaty settlement process is the role of the Waitangi Tribunal. Established in 1975 the tribunal’s jurisdiction was originally limited to making findings and recommendations relating to events dating from 1975. Its original membership consisted of a chairperson plus two other persons. However in 1985 the tribunal’s jurisdiction was extended allowing it to investigate events dating back to 1840. To meet this increased jurisdiction the membership of the tribunal was also increased to a maximum of 16 members. One of them Mrs Georgina te Heuheu is sitting over there on the Opposition benches. 
Few of us who have observed or who have been direct participants in the journey our nation has been taking since 1985 could dispute the huge impact that the tribunal and its inquiries have had on our development—who we are where we come from and how we do things. The work the tribunal achieves is wide varied and intensive. Claimant communities go to considerable efforts to put their stories before the tribunal and few people could deny the efforts of the tribunal members themselves to ensure that these stories are respectfully heard and recorded. In particular the workload of historians and kaumatua members will intensify over the next few years as the number of historical claims needing inquiry increases and the tribunal reports back on these inquiries over a more concentrated time frame. The efforts and expertise of all tribunal members are invaluable to the work of the tribunal and provide immense support for both claimants and the Crown alike. 
The support of up to four additional members over this time period will greatly assist with the responsibility the tribunal now faces. It is this need for extra support that brings the amendment before the House today. By providing the tribunal with additional members to respond to its increased workload we are ensuring that the tribunal has the necessary expertise and human resource to provide claimants with a timely yet comprehensive claims process. Furthermore the amendment is likely to come into effect before the closing date of 1 September 2008. This means that the tribunal will be resourced to hit the ground running once the closing date passes. 
As I said at the beginning of this speech the setting of a closing date for the submission of historical Treaty claims represented a first step in the Government’s commitment to settling all historical claims by 2020; both the closing date and the 2020 policy are important developments in our nation’s progress towards the final settlement of historical Treaty claims. I am pleased to support the next step—an important step—of providing the Waitangi Tribunal with the additional resources it needs to contribute to the goal of settling all historical claims by 2020. Thank you. 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
: 
 I intend to take only a relatively short call in the second reading debate on this legislation which the National Party supports. The members of the Maori Affairs Committee enjoyed the relatively brief submissions which focused on Part 2 and Part 4. But I will acknowledge in passing the Maniapoto Maori Trust Board. My friend Mrs te Heuheu and I had a very pleasant visit at Te Kuiti a few weeks ago with that board. It does good work and we are delighted to be able to make those minor changes and to acknowledge the great work it does. 
Of course Ngati Maniapoto have not had their Treaty settlement yet and I certainly hope that they do manage to achieve it in the next few years. I recall going to their trust board. It has had some outstanding New Zealanders as members on the board and in people from Ngati Maniapoto. I noticed the photo of the Hon Koro Wetere for example on the wall. This iwi has made a huge contribution to New Zealand over the years. 
I will not dwell on Part 2 although like my friend Mrs te Heuheu I acknowledge the presence in the Chamber of representatives of the Ngati Tuwharetoa Maori Trust Board. They too were very generous in welcoming representatives of the National Party to Taupo a few months ago. We enjoyed our visit with them and we are delighted at the huge progress they are making in terms of their various Treaty settlement claims. 
I want to say something about Part 3 because it raises two important issues. The first relates to the constitution of the tribunal. As the previous speaker and other speakers have said the numbers on the tribunal will be increased from 16 members to 20. As I said in my first reading speech I certainly hope that the Government will properly resource the tribunal particularly by appointing increased numbers of historian members. In my experience of appearing before the tribunal I think that that is the area where there is a real need and with the retirement of various distinguished historian members of the tribunal over the years I believe that they need to be replaced and replaced very soon. It is all very well to increase the numbers on the tribunal but the tribunal needs to be properly resourced so that it can deal regularly with the various applications before it rather than undertake the stop-start approach it is forced to because it is starved of funds. 
The second point I wish to dwell on in terms of Part 3 is a drafting matter but it is a sensible measure and relates to section 6 of the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975. Because of drafting practice section 6 over the years has become larger and larger due to repetitive amendment. It is proposed that when one has a Treaty settlement instead of amending section 6 of the Treaty of Waitangi Act the enactments to which the jurisdiction of the tribunal is subject will be referred to in a new schedule 3 to the 1975 Act and I think that that is a very sensible move. It is hardly a matter of great contention. It will mean that when an incoming National Government gets on with the business of settling these very important claims instead of constantly coming back to Parliament to amend the Treaty of Waitangi Act the settlements and the enactments to which the jurisdiction of the tribunal is subject can simply be set out in schedule 3 of that Act. 
It is very sad though when one looks at the proposed new schedule 3 to note just how poor the performance of this Government has been in the last 9 years. It has had every opportunity to build on the huge contribution to this incredibly important process that was initiated by Doug Graham and Jim Bolger but members should look at the record over the last 9 years. When one looks at the proposed new schedule 3 of the bill one sees the failure of this Government writ large. It is very disappointing that all the statutes referred to in schedule 3 relate to settlements that were begun under a National Government. This Government has failed in many areas but nowhere more starkly and more sadly than in the area of Treaty settlements. It is all very well to deal with the machinery of the 1975 Act but it is quite another thing to embark on the settlement process with enthusiasm optimism and faith in the future of our country. That approach has been singularly lacking under the various useless Ministers in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations in this Government. 
So there we have it. This bill is largely an uncontroversial piece of legislation but I felt I should make a brief statement about the changes to the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 because that will be an area where the John Key - National Government will be working very hard for Maori and for all New Zealanders. 
HONE HARAWIRA (Maori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) 
:  
Tena koe. Tena tatou e te Whare. Hoi no hei timata i taku korero i te po nei me mihi atu ki nga tokorua kua mate atu i te ra nei. Tera ko to tatou matua a Alec Phillips te kaiarahi o te Manu Ariki me to tatou tuahine ano hoki a Mahinarangi Tocker tetahi o nga tino pu waiata o te ao Maori. No reira haere kourua. E nga mate haere hoki atu ki te okioki a tona wa ka tutaki ano tatou i a tatou. 
[ 
Greetings to you and to us the House. So to begin my address this evening I want to acknowledge the two who passed away today. That fatherly figure of ours Alec Phillips leader of Manu Ariki and our sister Mahinarangi Tocker renowned singer of the Maori world. Farewell therefore to you two. Depart the dead return to the resting place. Farewell the dead we will meet again in time. 
] 
I want first of all to pay my respects and say my farewells on behalf of all the Maori members of Parliament to those two people who have passed on today: Alec Phillips from Manu Ariki and Mahinarangi Tocker one of the great singers from the Maori world. Their loss is felt by all of us. 
Me te mihi ano hoki ki te whanau o Tuwharetoa kua tae mai i te po nei kia rongo ki nga korero nei. I welcome the whanau from Tuwharetoa who are here this evening. 
The Maori Purposes Bill (No 2) has a number of points that are easy for us to support. The Maori Party is happy to support the proposal to allow 18-year-olds to vote under the terms of the Maori Trust Boards Act given that 65 percent of those who do not bother to vote in general elections are those aged between 18 and 24. For Maori those figures are even more important because nearly 50 percent of our population is under 19. 
Our experience as a new party tells us that young Maori are interested in politics that they have a good understanding of how voting works and that overwhelmingly they are coming to the Maori Party as New Zealand’s party of hope and genuine change. We also know that in the past they have not bothered voting because they did not think anyone was listening. We know that the emergence of the Maori Party has changed their thinking at a national level and maybe changing the Maori Trust Boards Act to encourage them to participate in tribal affairs will show them how keen we are for them to be part of Maori development at a tribal level as well. 
The Maori Party is also happy to support the proposal to increase the numbers on the Waitangi Tribunal from 16 to 20. We have always supported increased resourcing for the tribunal and we support an increase in the tribunal’s membership if that will make its job easier to do. 
Thirdly the Maori Party is very keen to support the proposal enabling Tuwharetoa to finally repeal the revenue-sharing arrangements with the Crown—and might we add it is not before time. It is 81 years since the Crown passed legislation to give itself ownership over Lake Taupo. It is 16 years since the Crown agreed to return the title to the trust board for the benefit of its beneficiaries and only now has it agreed to allow full revenues to be assumed by Tuwharetoa. 
We congratulate Tuwharetoa on this day. We wish Tuwharetoa well in their dealings over the outstanding issue of ownership of water. We send a clear warning to the Crown that if indeed it is proper—and it is proper—that Tuwharetoa be granted title to their lakes then so too will we continue the fight to have title to the foreshore and seabed eventually returned to Maori. 
However the part of the bill dealing with the proposed changes to the Maniapoto Maori Trust Board Act to enable Kawhia marae to have representation on the trust board is not so clear. It seems that a difference of opinion has arisen between sections within the Maniapoto Maori Trust Board and Te Runanganui o Ngati Hikairo in respect of tribal boundaries marae affiliation and even iwi representation. 
The Maori Party recognises the right of all marae to declare their links to more than one iwi and to honour the whakapapa they may share with more than one tupuna. But we recognise also that a dispute of this nature needs to be resolved before legislation can comfortably progress through this House. Given the outstanding differences involved we would normally ask that the Minister take a call to advise how any likely differences might be resolved but we are happy to hear that the various parties have themselves agreed to meet to work out how best to deal with this matter. On that basis the Maori Party is happy to support this bill at its second reading. Kia ora tatou. 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker. Engari i mua i te haere tonu o tenei kaupapa e tika ana ki te tautoko i nga mihi i mihia e taku tuakana mai i Te Tai Tokerau ki nga hunga tokorua i pa mai Te Ringa Kaha o Aitua i te ra nei. Na reira e te rangatira e Alec te tuahine kourua hoki na kourua i te ra nei i para te huarahi i kawe atu i a korua ki te kainga e ki nei te kainga tuturu mo tatou mo te tangata. Na reira ka nui nga mihi ki a korua ka ea ka ea ka ea. 
Ka huri ki a tatou te hunga ora na reira tena koutou tena koutou tena koutou. Tena hoki koutou te mangai mai i te iwi o Tuwharetoa e noho nei i roto i te Whare i te po nei. E tika ana kua tae mai koutou ki te hakarongo ki nga korero e pa ana ki to iwi i hakahua nei i roto i tenei pire. 
[ 
Greetings to you Mr Assistant Speaker. Before I continue to address this bill it is appropriate that I endorse the tributes by my elder relative of the north to the two who were struck down today by the great hand of misfortune. And so to you Alec the leader and to the sister both of you who lie wasted as though in battle upon the pathway that will take you two home the home referred to as that eternal one for mankind. So huge greetings to you. It is satisfied fulfilled and done.  
I turn now to the living: greetings greetings greetings. Greetings as well to you representatives of the people of Tuwharetoa who are seated here in the House tonight. How fitting it is for you to be present to listen to the speeches about your people who are mentioned in this bill. 
] 
I prefaced my contribution to this discussion tonight by acknowledging the passing of two important people within Maoridom—Miss Mahinarangi Tocker a renowned singer in her own right and Mr Alec Phillips a spiritual leader from Manu Ariki. It is only correct that I acknowledge them. I have also acknowledged the presence of representatives of the Tuwharetoa tribe. I acknowledged that given that this bill we are debating at this time makes reference to the Tuwharetoa Maori Trust Board and an annuity payment they should be here. 
I want to say from the outset that New Zealand First supports the Maori Purposes Bill (No 2). It is an omnibus bill that has four particular issues. One is the Maniapoto Maori Trust Board. During the hearings by the Maori Affairs Committee we heard the reasons for the change of name from “Te Mauri o Maniapoto” to “Te Kaumatua Kaunihera o Maniapoto”. The name certainly reflects the task of that group. It is a council of elders and therefore holds a significant place in the tribe of Maniapoto. An earlier speaker made reference to the important contribution that that particular tribe has made to New Zealand. In relation to the King movement and the history surrounding Kingitanga I have no hesitation in supporting those sentiments. 
The bill also proposes amendments to formalise the establishment of a seventh regional management committee for Kawhia Harbour region. As we progress as a nation the importance of consultation and the representation of the total community not just some members of the community is a very important issue. In this regard the people of Maniapoto recognise that this is a vehicle by which they can be represented in regard to their harbour region. 
The bill also makes some amendments to the Maori Trust Boards Act. When this matter was raised at the select committee some concern was expressed by some members in terms of the retrospective effect that this particular legislation had and whether it affected any decisions that may have impacted on particular trust boards. We were assured by officials from Te Puni Kokiri that this was not the case. I think the defining point for me as a member of that committee in terms of supporting this particular section of the bill is that clearly there was a conflict between the Maori Trust Boards Act and the Maori Fisheries Act. It is important that there is some cohesion and we certainly support the new voting age of 18. 
People talk about them being rangatahi—being young people. They may be young in terms of some members of this House but the fact that they have been given the suffrage—the opportunity to vote at that age—certainly suggests that they are more than just rangatahi. 
The other part of the bill that I want to refer to is the amendments to the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975. This bill proposes an increase in the membership of the tribunal from 16 to 20. Of course this amendment is made in anticipation of the increased workload that the tribunal will have to deal with given the closing date for the lodging of historical claims. However I suggest to the House that the demand for extra members of the tribunal will be relevant only if the claims themselves are ready to proceed by which I mean that the required research has been done and those groups responsible for carrying out that research have the resources to do so. 
This House may recall that a few weeks ago we debated the bill about conflicts of interest. On behalf of New Zealand First I argued that there was no need for the Chief Judge of the Maori Land Court to hold consecutively the position of chairman of the tribunal. Given that we are now suggesting that we increase the number of members of the tribunal to 20 perhaps the need to have one person fill two positions may not be as strong as the original reason for appointing the one person to the two positions. 
The other point I make is in respect of the Tuwharetoa Maori Trust Board. Here the amendments are made to accommodate the paying of annuity. During the select committee stage we in the Maori Affairs Committee heard that the Tuwharetoa Maori Trust Board certainly supported the amendment so as a select committee we had no reservations about supporting them also. 
So all in all this Maori Purposes Bill (No 2) is an omnibus bill and the changes that have been recommended certainly reflect that. I say once again on behalf of New Zealand First that we support the passing of this bill. Kia ora. 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 Kia ora Mr Assistant Speaker. Nga mea tuatahi. Ki a koutou aku rangatira tena koutou tena koutou. E te tuakana e Hone mihi au ki a koe me o korero mo nga totara nui i roto i te wao nui a Tane. No reira e korua Alec me Mahinarangi haere atu ra haere atu ra haere atu ra. 
[ 
Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. First things first: to you my leaders greetings greetings. To you Hone the elder relative I acknowledge your reference to the great totara trees of the vast forest of Tane. So to you two Alec and Mahinarangi depart depart farewell 
.] 
I too want to pay my respects and pass on my condolences to the families of Alec Phillips and Mahinarangi Tocker. I also take this opportunity to pay my respects to our retired judge Dame Augusta Wallace. 
This is basically a very small minor amendment bill that fixes up a number of issues with the Maori Trust Boards Act 1955 the Maniapoto Maori Trust Board Act 1988 the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 and Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993 and its amendment Act of 2002. But let us cut to the chase. Let us get down and dirty. Let us get to where we should really be speaking tonight. 
When the Minister of Maori Affairs tried to introduce this bill the first time there were five parts to it. The diligent National members on this side of the House pointed out to the Minister—and he has been the Minister for only 8 years—that he should in no way use the structure of a Maori Purposes Bill to force through very very controversial legislation namely the Maori Trustee Act 1953 and its pilfering plundering and filching of $35 million from the general purposes fund. That is what was on the Order Paper. Here is the briefing paper. The Minister set about trying to get the support of this House— 
Hon Georgina te Heuheu 
: Our support. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: —and National’s support for that. I am grateful to my colleagues Georgina te Heuheu and Christopher Finlayson for helping us point out to the Minister that he was on very shaky ground indeed—very very shaky ground indeed. 
Hon Shane Jones 
: Ngai Tahu liked this bill. Ngai Tahu liked it. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Oh absolutely. I think that now the bill has gone through the process of being vetted by the incoming Government now that it has been through the excellent Maori Affairs Committee it is a more— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: You were asleep. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: That member wants to talk about going to sleep. Well my name is not “Parakuihi”. I will leave that for the Minister of Maori Affairs to talk about. Surely to goodness after 8 years the Minister would have learnt a valuable lesson that the structure of a Maori Purposes Bill should be used to run through some minor amendments that the whole House can agree on. But he did not do that. What he tried to do—and it was only by some pushing and shoving— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: You’d know about that. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Absolutely I know about pushing and shoving because I have been in the horrible union environment that that member comes from. 
Like I said now we have a very very non-controversial bill. It has gone through the select committee process and I am pleased to say that there was not too much hassle in that process. National is totally in support of the moves to tidy up a number of pieces of legislation. We are especially in support of the change to the Treaty of Waitangi Act to increase to 20 the number of members of the Waitangi Tribunal. 
But getting back to the fight that is to come part of the original idea of the bill was the purloining filching and stealing of $35 million out of the general purposes fund. That is where this election will be fought. This election will be fought on issues just like this where in the dead of night the Minister of Maori Affairs can purloin filch— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: You’re asleep in the dead of morning. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Oh no that is not me. That is the Minister of Foreign Affairs mate. That is not me. The member has us mixed up. I know that can be an easy mistake to make but the member has it wrong again. That $35 million—[ 
Interruption 
] Well actually let us talk about that. No we will not. The $35 million would have been taken out of Maori money—that is what it is. It is not Government money. It is money derived from interest from the beneficiary money. 
Hon Shane Jones 
: Back to the bill! 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Mr Jones says I should go back to the bill. I have a piece of paper here printed in that lovely green that the Minister of Maori Affairs is fond of using and it says in respect of the Maori Purposes Bill 2007 that there are four—oh no five—issues that we need to talk about in this briefing paper. 
If Mr Jones had been listening and not sitting there trying to get a few pointers from poor old Clayton Cosgrove he would have found out that if it were not for National this House could have been signing away $35 million—the $35 million this Government attempted to pinch for no other reason than to set up a slush fund on the East Coast for the Minister’s mates—the few he has left. 
Craig Foss 
: Fox-hunting. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: It is for the “Fox-fighting Fund” as it is now known. National is totally in support of the bill. We do not see too much wrong with it. I congratulate the Maori Affairs Committee and I must say we had a bit of a heart flutter over the Maniapoto Maori Trust Board. A couple of submissioners told us that what we were doing was wrong but we managed to get the Te Puni Kokiri officials up there to see what was going on and they allayed any fears we had. 
All in all this bill is a good attempt by the Minister of Maori Affairs—after 8 years—to introduce his maiden piece of legislation. Kia ora. 
Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Building and Construction) 
: 
 Kia ora ano tatou. First in our Maori language: me tautoko ahau i te poroporoaki puakina ai e Hone Harawira i tenei po mo te kaumatua mai Manu Ariki me te kaipuoro a Mahinarangi Toka a ka ngaro. Me mihi noki ahau ki tera tangata i roto i toku rohe i mate i te hikohiko i runga i tana hoiho hoki i takuira i te ahiahi nei. Engari kati enei korero ki to tatou reo Maori. Tena koutou tena tatou katoa. 
[ 
Greetings once again to us. I must endorse the opening farewell tribute by Hone Harawira tonight in respect of the elder from Manu Ariki and singer Mahinarangi Tocker now lost from us. I pay a tribute to that gentleman from my area as well who died when he was struck down by lightning on his horse this afternoon. But enough in this Maori language of ours. Greetings to you and to us all. 
] 
As I have said in Maori I too acknowledge the passing of Alec Phillips mainly associated with the Manu Ariki and also of Mahinarangi Tocker the great singer whose ability was embraced and whose sounds were enjoyed not only by te iwi Maori but by all of Aotearoa. Of course she sported that great name Mahinarangi which is also the name of the famous whare at Turangawaewae. 
But having dispensed with those important ceremonial acknowledgments I now turn to remind Aotearoa that it has just heard from Tau Henare the former Minister of Maori Affairs the former member for Te Tai Tokerau who now belongs to a party that is busily preparing to disestablish the Maori seats. I have no doubt that a Maori Purposes bill of the future will include a significant provision that we will regard as a poroporoaki—a haere ra a “Now is the Hour”—a goodbye to the Maori seats. So it is important that all Hone Harawira’s relations remind him when he and his colleagues gabble and contemplate a dalliance with the other side of the House that they are courting a fatal outcome. 
I turn to schedule 2 because in a number of these settlements credit has to be given to Mr Bolger and the leaders of the National Party before it fell into disrepair. A number of those settlements are referred to in the schedule not the least of which is that of Kai Tahu or Ngai Tahu Whanui—the Waikato Raupatu claims. Schedule 2 lists them with the purpose of ensuring that the Waitangi Tribunal is unable to enjoy any jurisdiction inquiring into the fate of Crown forest lands or any other Crown lands that lie within that rohe because those claims have been full and finally settled. Those claims are soon to be joined by a wide range of other land claims throughout Aotearoa not the least of which concerns that area we know as the volcanic plateau which has been busily cultivated by Dr Cullen and his able associates. There will be a great deal of joy and choruses of great excitement and happiness and the relevance of the Maori Party will be reduced as there will be very few grievances of a historical nature left for that party to trade off. Of course we have Te Whanau-a-Apanui and we have Ngati Porou with a successful takutai moana settlement. Unfortunately Tariana Turia in a flight of fancy insulted the leadership of that proud tribe under the shadow of Hikurangi mountain and is quietly going up there in the dead of night to apologise to Koro Dewes and Apirana Mahuika—but more about that on Radio Waatea. 
I shall now turn to that other proud iwi Maniapoto and although they live in a rather far-flung place of Aotearoa in the Kawhia Raglan and Aotea areas they are a proud iwi and their support is solidly with us reflected by their undying commitment to return Nanaia Mahuta at the end of this year and to endorse her ongoing good work. In relation to all trust boards from time to time constant refinement is the order of the day as the former Minister Tau Henare knows on the odd occasion when he is not fishing and has time to direct his attention towards the state of our trust boards. I congratulate Parekura Horomia on ensuring that in Te Hauauru—Te Hau-a-uru—he was able to find such a high level of specificity that was not accurately recorded—for example how to spell “Hauauru” accurately. That reflects the scholarly nature of the man’s contribution—coming all the way from Te Tai Rawhiti and able to solve some problems over there in Maniapoto. Of course Maniapoto have corrected through this bill a reference to Te Mauri o Maniapoto which quite frankly was an affectation. Te Kaumatua Kaunihera o Maniapoto the oldest council is a far better reflection of what their real role is and the mauri and other such customary concepts can be left for the marae. 
Maniapoto have also corrected other things not the least of which concerns Kakepuku. I am glad to see our people from Tuwharetoa here tonight because Tuwharetoa actually know that the name “Kakepuku” was used by Puhiwahine in her famous waiata “Ka Eke ki Wairaka”: kia rere aorangi te tihi ki Pirongia ki Kakepuku. 
[ 
Soaring heavenwards to the peak of Pirongia to Kakepuku. 
] 
That is a highly noteworthy place and also a source of great Labour Party support. There are a few lost souls I must confess who from time to time are reduced to listening to Hone Harawira when he moves out of the north and wanders around unwanted in Tainui. But they are few in number and they are generally pursued by the RSPCA because their pets have been locked up. 
However it is important that we reflect the fact that this bill also tidies up the concept of a franchise. We encourage our rangatahi to participate in rununga elections. We do not encourage them to listen to a single word from Dr Pita Sharples. Today that member stood up and had to give an account as to why he is indulging endorsing tolerating and acquiescing with the constant wrongdoing of gangs. He stood up and tried to— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I know this debate could be seen to be wide ranging but nothing that the Minister has said in the last 2 or 3 minutes has anything to do with the Maori Purposes Bill (No 2) and to use a speech specifically on a Maori Purposes bill to attack another member about something that member said in the House earlier today is outrageous. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you Mr Henare. I have been listening to the debate and that has happened on both sides. But I ask the member to come back to the bill. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Point of order— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I have dealt with the issue Mr Cosgrove. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I just want to draw to your attention that what Mr Henare says is true. This is a wide-ranging debate and he spent at least 5 minutes of his speech ranging wide of the mark—all over the show. My colleague Shane Jones was referring to Dr Pita Sharples who I am advised is the deputy chair of the said select committee. So I think Mr Henare is wide of the mark. I think Mr Jones is being exceptionally relevant but Mr Henare in his speech sort of roved around the paddock quite widely. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Points of order should be terse and to the point. I ask Mr Jones to continue. 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: Kia ora Mr Assistant Speaker. I too would acknowledge that if Mr Henare was not roving he was a rogue. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: No— 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: Coming back to the necessary changes that the bill reflects I say that obviously the Tuwharetoa settlement of its lake is further improved. That was a historic settlement because it has a proud heritage going back to that illustrious time when te Heuheu with great vision and possibly under some duress parted with the title of those famous mountains in the centre of the Ika a Maui. However in the 1990s Sir Hepi te Heuheu was able to shepherd forward a settlement related to the bed of the lake etc. It is a pleasure to be able to support this bill—partisanship aside—in that it makes a further refinement and contribution to the affairs and the administrative capacity of that iwi because iwi Maori—Maori tribes—should keep out of partisan politics. They should be able to rely upon the members predominantly Maori or Pakeha from either side of the House. When a wrongdoing or a historical grievance is recognised tribes should be able to rely upon us as parliamentarians to progress their issues. That is why it is very sad that our friends from the Maori Party have opposed every Treaty settlement that Parekura Horomia Dr Cullen Mr Burton and Margaret Wilson have advised. However more will be said about that at the ballot box in November and there will be a thunderous response at that point. 
In relation to the age corrections I would remind the House— 
Hone Harawira 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Just as a matter of clarification the Maori Party has not opposed any of the Treaty settlements. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: No that is a frivolous interjection and the member knows it. 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: Thank you very much Mr Assistant Speaker; your wisdom is in inverse proportion to your youthful disposition. 
Let me round up here. I have pointed out that the jurisdiction of the Waitangi Tribunal will be curbed so that we do not awaken unnecessary problems in those areas where there have been settlements. I have identified the very useful contribution the Minister has made to the affairs of both Maniapoto and Tuwharetoa—two very proud tribes of Te Ao Maori—and also pointed out that from time to time there are problems in terms of overlapping legislation. The fisheries legislation contained an anomaly—the difference between 18 and 20 years. I think it is very important that our 18-year-olds have the opportunity to vote in their runanga and not wait until they are 20-year-olds because 18-year-olds need practice before they send Hone and his team home crying. Kia ora tatou katoa. 
DAVE HEREORA (Labour) 
: 
 A ko te mea tuatahi ka huri noa ki nga mate a Alec Phillips raua ko Mahinarangi Toka. Haere atu haere atu haere atu. 
[ 
So the first thing is to turn and acknowledge the deaths of Alec Phillips and Mahinarangi Tocker. Depart go forth farewell. 
] 
I take the opportunity as chair of the Maori Affairs Committee to stand in support of the Maori Purposes Bill (No 2) in its second reading. The bill came before the committee for consideration last year. Public submissions closed in mid-February and we have given the bill careful consideration over the past month. Although it is not a large bill considering it is an omnibus bill it brings together a number of amendments to four different Acts. The issues it deals with are varied and are relevant to Maori. This is reflected in the eight submissions we received on the bill which included some passionate and some thoughtful points of view. The committee carefully considered all the submissions and subsequently was satisfied that the bill should proceed unchanged. In doing so we recommended that the bill be passed with no amendments for the establishment of a regional management committee for Kawhia Harbour the lowering of the minimum voting age for Maori trust board elections to 18 the provision for the new annual payment to be paid by the Crown to the Tuwharetoa Maori Trust Board an increase in the membership of the Waitangi Tribunal the restructuring of section 6 of the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 and the general tidy-up of Maori affairs legislation as promoted in the bill. 
The committee’s support for the bill was buoyed by the fact that many of these amendments are sought by Maori groups affected by current provisions. Once implemented these amendments will provide certainty for these groups. Some submitters opposed the bill’s proposal to establish a new regional management committee for Kawhia Harbour that represents Te Mahoe Pa and Mokai Kainga marae. On hearing from these submitters the committee asked officials to seek the views of the Maniapoto Maori Trust Board which requested this amendment and representatives of the two Maori marae at issue. It was clear to the committee on hearing from the trust board and representatives of Te Mahoe Pa and Mokai Kainga marae that these marae want to be represented by the new regional management committee and that the submissions we received were not supported. To that end I acknowledge the request of the Minister of Maori Affairs that the committee consider correcting its report to accurately describe who was consulted on this issue. It is my intention therefore to take this request to the committee for its consideration at our next meeting. However most important I note that the committee has recommended that the amendment to establish a regional management committee for Kawhia Harbour proceed as originally introduced. 
We also support the inclusion of the under-age voting validation in the bill. During our discussions we queried whether this provision was necessary but in the end we are happy for it to progress. We agree that the validation will provide clarity to what has been a confusing situation for the trust boards. These trust boards can now move into the future and manage their affairs with confidence and certainty. 
Last year the Maori Affairs Committee considered the amendment proposing a closing date of 1 September 2008. The setting of this closing date represented a first step in the Government’s commitment to settle all historical Treaty claims by 2020; both the closing date and the 2020 policy are important developments in our nation’s progress towards a final settlement of historical Treaty claims. The closing date gives Maori the Crown and the Waitangi Tribunal the certainty of knowing that the historical inquiry process will be completed in a timely fashion. This bill will help ensure that the completion of the historical inquiry process is done not only in a timely fashion but in a comprehensive and expert manner by providing the capacity for four extra members to be appointed to the tribunal. This is done by amending section 4 of the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 to raise the maximum number of appointments from 16 to 20. 
As chair of the Maori Affairs Committee I thank submitters for their contributions in what is an important process. I also thank the members of the committee for their thoughtful contributions and their input into the consideration of this bill. In doing so I assure Christopher Finlayson that it is the Government’s intention to ensure that we adequately resource the tribunal. That is the basis behind the amendment to the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975. Finally I also acknowledge our Minister of Maori Affairs the Hon Parekura Horomia for sponsoring the bill. On that basis I am pleased therefore to support the second reading of the bill and its quick passage. 
Hon MARK BURTON (Labour—Taupo) 
: 
 I will take a brief call on this Maori Purposes Bill (No 2) in part to add my acknowledgments of two people who have their roots in the area in which we are engaged in this legislation. Firstly I acknowledge Mr Alec Phillips a highly respected member of our community from the Taumarunui area a man from Manu Ariki whom many have visited and spent time with and a man whose company I enjoyed on a number of occasions. We shared our discussions about matters philosophical and also martial and physical. He was a boxer of many years past and we shared discussion on matters of spirituality and politics but also of the martial arts in which we shared an interest. His passing is a momentous thing. 
I also acknowledge Mahinarangi Tocker a young woman whose musical brilliance is a tragedy to lose in such youthful years. A number of members will recall that we enjoyed her voice in these precincts following an election not many years past. She graced us with her presence and her music and I think a number of members like me enjoyed her company and sharing music with her on many occasions. So I acknowledge these two people old and young—I regard Mahinarangi Tocker as young with a talent that I as a musician lament the passing of. They will both be sorely missed. E nga mate haere atu ra haere atu ra haere atu ra. 
Briefly the words have been spoken on this legislation. It amends the Maniapoto Maori Trust Board Act. This legislation moves us forward; I endorse the words of my good colleagues who have spoken before me and I commend it to the House. 
Bill read a second time. 
Family Courts Matters Bill 
In Committee 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 I note there are 12 parts to this bill—all inextricably linked—and I seek leave to see whether they can be taken as one part. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member is perfectly entitled to do that. The member is seeking leave that all parts be taken as one question—with a wide-ranging debate as well? 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: Absolutely. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Yes. Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is. 
Part 1 Adoption Act 1955 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 Thanks for the opportunity to speak on the Family Courts Matters Bill. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Argh! Argh! 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: There are some very strange eructations coming from the Minister sitting in his seat there. Would he like some help? 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: No no. 
Hon Shane Jones 
: Certainly not from a witch doctor. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: Ha ha—OK. This is a very important bill and it seeks to make Family Court proceedings more open and improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the Family Courts. 
Speaking to Part 1 I note that it amends the Adoption Act 1955. A variety of matters relating to attendance at hearings are spelt out. One of the obvious aims of this bill is to ensure there is more openness. New section 22(1) states that officers of the court are permitted to attend hearings along with all parties to the proceedings and “(d) a social worker who furnished a report under section 10: (e) accredited news media reporters: (f) persons whom the Judge permits to be present as support persons for a party on the request of that party: (g) any other persons whom the Judge permits to be present.” So the provision certainly is fairly wide and much wider than it used to be. 
There was considerable debate as to just how far this provision should go but I guess the new section 22(3) makes the judge the absolute decider of who should remain in the court. New section 22(5) states: “If during a hearing the Judge requests a person of any of the following kinds to leave the courtroom the person must do so:”. That includes “(a) an accredited news media reporter: (b) a support person whom the Judge permitted to be present under subsection (1)(f).” New subsection (6) states: “Nothing in this section limits any other power of the Court—(a) to hear proceedings in private; or (ab) to permit a McKenzie friend to be present; or (b) to exclude any person from the Court.” Clearly this relies very much on the judge’s judgment as to who should be removed and when. I think that is absolutely right and appropriate. I asked some of my legal colleagues about this because one might question why a judge should not for example explain why someone has been asked to leave. But I think that a judge is a very astute technician. I remember very well as a surgeon carrying out caesarean sections that in recent years all sorts of people would come into the operating theatre—sometimes as many as six or seven family members—and one of the things I always insisted on was that if there was any indication that I felt it was appropriate for them to leave they would do so. Similarly here we must rely on the judiciary to decide when it is appropriate for someone to go. 
Another point that needs to be made in relation to subsection (6) is that there was considerable discussion during the hearing of submissions regarding the right of a McKenzie friend to be present and there was absolute concurrence with the view that the right to have a McKenzie friend there was incredibly important—as is the right to have a support person which has not always been the case. Just the other day I had in my constituency clinic a lady who said that in the past she had not been permitted to have a support person in the court with her. In a vulnerable situation where there might be on the other side a disgruntled partner who can use emotive and tough words it can be extremely difficult for someone who is very vulnerable. So I think the ability in Part 1 to assure parties that a support person may be present is particularly constructive. 
Part 1 agreed to. 
Part 2 Care of Children Act 2004 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 I am just looking at new clause 42A— 
Hon Shane Jones 
: Have you read it? 
DAIL JONES 
: Yes I have read it and I very much thank the Minister and the officials for coming to see me to discuss it. I am looking at the amendment to insert new clause 42A. I just wanted to make sure that it is in this part. No; I think it is in Part 6. I ask the Minister in the chair the Hon Rick Barker whether it is in Part 6. 
Hon Rick Barker 
: Part 6. 
DAIL JONES 
: Yes. I thank the Minister. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Papers 199 and 200 in the name of the Hon Rick Barker to Part 2 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to. 
Part 2 as amended agreed to. 
Part 3 agreed to.  
Part 4 agreed to.  
Part 5 Domestic Violence Act 1995 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 199 in the name of the Hon Rick Barker to Part 5 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to. 
Part 5 as amended agreed to. 
Part 6 Family Courts Act 1980 
KATRINA SHANKS (National) 
: 
 It is my pleasure to stand tonight and address Part 6 of the Family Courts Matters Bill. Part 6 amends the Family Courts Act 1980. While this bill was going through the Social Services Committee which I was lucky enough to be on I do not think we actually realised that it was such a technical bill. We had some fantastic help from our officials who are here today. I acknowledge them and thank them for all the work they have put in. The bill went backwards and forwards between the committee and the officials many many times. We had many redrafts because of the way this bill was put together. It consists of 12 parts. Each part affects a different bit of legislation and it all refers back to one or two parts of the legislation which are basically in Part 6 and Part 7—the big parts. 
Part 6 deals with the publication of reports of court proceedings and with who could make that publication. There was great concern and debate in the select committee and amongst submitters coming before the committee about what type of person could be reported on in those proceedings. It was decided that people could report on proceedings that happened within the hearings but that people could not report them if they involved a person who was under the age of 18 or who was considered to be a vulnerable person without getting the leave of the court to report on the proceedings and publish them. 
It was really the publishing of proceedings that submitters were concerned about. They were concerned that vulnerable persons or young persons under the age of 18 would not understand the consequences of the reporting and they were concerned about what would happen later on when those people matured a little bit and understood that that information was out there for everybody to see. Submitters thought that maybe that would not be what those persons wanted after all because they did not have the maturity at the time or they were too vulnerable at the time to understand the consequences. We had a big discussion on that matter and a lot of submitters came and talked to us about it. 
I want to talk about one submission in particular which was from the family law section of the New Zealand Law Society. Its representatives put forward some strong submissions in relation to this bill which we took on board. We listened to their views about publication. We made no recommendation on the back of them but we took their views on board. The Union of Fathers had a lot to say on the area of publication as well as did the Family Court judges. The judges had quite a bit to say on publication and on how vulnerable people are when that sort of information is published because in this day and age when everything goes on the Internet quite instantly it is hard to retract something after it has gone out. 
I am taking just a short call to say that National is supporting Part 6. 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister for Courts) 
: 
 I thank that member Katrina Shanks for her contribution and for highlighting the difficulties we have in the area of publication of proceedings in the Family Court. I have always started discussion on this issue by saying that family matters are essentially private matters and private matters are not necessarily for publication. That is what makes the Family Court different from a number of other courts. 
A lot of family matters were historically held in open court and I think that members here who are a bit older than me would recall those days—Russell Fairbrother does—when divorce matters were reported on in great detail in the papers because there were salacious details that we could pick over and so on. What was happening was that the open public scrutiny of divorce proceedings was putting a tremendous amount of pressure on the family and the people concerned. There was a lot of distress and trauma and the publicity around these cases made the hurt and cuts much deeper for people who did not deserve it. The public gaze made things much more difficult. 
We have had a long history in New Zealand now of having the workings of the Family Court essentially stay private. There has been a lot of discussion about this matter because some elements have continued to argue that the private nature of the Family Court means secrecy and therefore secrecy means wrongdoing. They argue that the Family Court is not subject to public scrutiny and that public scrutiny would somehow improve the workings of the Family Court. Well I do not subscribe to that view. Personally I think that if it is a family matter then it is a private matter and that the Family Courts should be closed. 
But there are matters that need to be reported. The member Katrina Shanks has highlighted the difficulty in finding the line between what should and should not be reported. Of course we want to have material from the Family Court published so that people can understand what the case law is can understand the precedents being set by the Family Court and can therefore make judgments about how to handle their own cases. 
There are issues about publishing information about people who are under the age of 18. We have made changes in the Family Courts Matters Bill. We have made changes for people who are subject to other orders in care to make sure that their position is not exploited by other people. The concern of this legislation is to ensure that those who have their affairs managed by the Family Court are not brutalised by the unnecessary and often unwanted publicity that could follow if the court were to be open. 
This particular part of the bill has a number of other amendments being made to it in Supplementary Order Paper 201. The Supplementary Order Paper seeks to make changes to the Family Court by allowing the Family Court to appoint a senior Family Court registrar. This is a new position that has been sought by the judges in the Family Court because quite a large amount of their time is taken up in dealing with purely administrative matters. The Family Court judges want to be relieved or to have the potential to be relieved of these administrative matters so that they can concentrate their considerable powers energies and abilities on dealing with the important matters to be heard by the court. 
The matter has been raised with the Ministry of Justice it has been forwarded to the Law Commission for comment and the Supplementary Order Paper that we have in front of us has been drafted by the Law Commission. The Supplementary Order Paper sets out in new section 7B(1) to be inserted into the Family Courts Act by new clause 42A the matters with quite a degree of particularity that the senior Family Court registrars can undertake. It sets out the regulations that can be made by Order in Council. The qualifications the registrar will have to have in order to exercise these powers are also set out by Order in Council. 
I have spoken to a number of parties in the House on this matter. I recognise that the Supplementary Order Paper came late and I would have liked to have done it somewhat differently but the opportunity to amend legislation around the Family Court comes very rarely and it seems that this is an ideal opportunity to take this matter forward. As I have expressed to the Committee the Supplementary Order Paper has the blessing of the Law Commission and of the judges in the Family Court and it also has the support of the Ministry of Justice. 
I put forward this Supplementary Order Paper genuinely believing that it will lead to a considerable enhancement to the Family Court. This does not mean that we will have a senior Family Court registrar appointed in every Family Court; it means circumstances warranting and funding allowing that we have the capacity to appoint Family Court registrars who will be able to deal with interlocutory matters applications that are made without notice pre-hearing conferences uncontested applications applications for leave matters that are consented to by all the parties confirmation of orders that are made overseas—these are orders that come in from foreign jurisdictions which will outline what the circumstances are; the senior Family Court registrar will be able to deal with those—the holding of inquiries and the enforcement of orders and other directions.  
It is quite an extensive amount of powers and responsibility. Taking these matters off the Family Court judges will leave them free then to deal with cases that they need to determine and hopefully will leave the judges in a better position to deal with judge-led mediation where they will be talking directly to the parties and helping them resolve their issues. 
What is not widely understood is that about 94 percent of all the applications to the Family Court are resolved by the parties themselves. Only about 6 percent of the applications to the Family Court are actually decided by the Family Court judge. The whole emphasis of the Family Court in recent times has been to encourage the parties themselves to make their own decisions. The belief is that if the parties themselves—the mother and father and the parties to this disagreement—work through a process of mediation whether it be with non - judge-led mediation or judge-led mediation and resolve the issues themselves those decisions will then be much stronger and much more binding on the people involved because they will be their decisions. They will have made their own decisions about how they are going to lead their lives. It is important for us to give our most potent capacity in the Family Court the judges themselves the maximum opportunity to work with the parties who apply to the court. 
I would dearly love to see that 94 percent of parties resolving their issues themselves increase to 95 percent 96 percent or even 99 percent. If that were the case then we would have a Family Court that is working at its absolute capacity. I am sure that it would be lovely to see everybody making their own decisions about their future but that is unrealistic. There are cases that come before the Family Court where the parties are so intractably opposed and so entrenched in their views that it is impossible to negotiate a solution. The Family Court does all it can to solve that problem but it is not always within the capability of the Family Court to do it. 
The last point I will make while I am speaking about the Family Court is to note that a lot of emphasis has been placed lately on bringing the children into this process. A lot of material is supplied to the parties by the Family Court about the children how they are involved in the process and how it is affecting them. In the Family Courts Matters Bill members will see other changes where we are providing counselling for children in Family Court disputes. This is strengthening the Family Court’s capacity to engage with the children in these difficult circumstances. The belief is that by engaging the children in counselling while at the same time dealing with the parents we will actually bring about better decisions that will involve all the parties—the parents and the children—and with everyone being involved and agreeing on these decisions they will be more binding and more valuable to the family. 
That is the role the Family Court wants to play. It is not to be directive if it can possibly be avoided; it is to bring the parties together so that they themselves can make their own decisions about how they will lead and organise their lives. 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 I rise to speak on this Family Courts Matters Bill about the matter that I raised earlier and I thank the Minister for getting a briefing earlier on this particular provision. I think that the type of embarrassing court case he was thinking of involved what used to be a ground for divorce known as a restitution of conjugal rights. As it happened the case of that kind in 1963 that I heard about involved a former Deputy Prime Minister of New Zealand. With Mr Leary QC on one side and Mick Robinson on the other it was a very interesting case. The marriage had obviously broken down and I do not want to say any more about it than that. But those types of court cases were all got rid of when we introduced the Family Courts Act in 1980 and I happened to be in Parliament at that time. 
I want to raise with the Minister new clause 42A on Supplementary Order Paper 201 which inserts new sections 7A and 7B into the Family Courts Act. It seems clear that the person who could be appointed as a senior Family Court registrar may or may not be a lawyer. I would ask whether that is the Minister’s understanding of the matter. He may wish to comment on that because on the face of it that person does not have to be a lawyer. 
New section 7A states that a person to be appointed to this role is “by reason of training experience and personality”—I have never seen that in an Act of Parliament—“a suitable person to hold office as a Senior Family Court Registrar.” I ask whether that means that the person has to be able to tell jokes all the time sing or be on  
Dancing with the Stars 
 or something like that. Why do we have the reference to personality? It is a very new one and I will be interested to see how it goes. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Rodney wouldn’t get there! 
DAIL JONES 
: No? All right. I would ask the Minister to explain whether that person has to be a lawyer or whether on the face of it it could be anyone. 
The other thought that occurs is whether the Minister has any idea as to how well these people will be paid. This is quite a practical consideration and it is often not set out in legislation. Will they be paid on some known State scale be paid on a legal aid rate—in which case we will never get anyone to do the job—or be paid on some other basis? I think that the public could find that quite interesting. 
New section 7B(4) provides: “Any party to any proceedings who is affected by any order made or direction given by a Senior Family Court Registrar may apply to a Family Court Judge to review that order …”. One can see that happening quite often on the part of the recalcitrant types of litigant one can often get in the Family Court. They believe that they could never possibly be wrong and believe that the other party is in the wrong and that they are always right. I ask whether the Minister has given any consideration to the question of orders for costs and suchlike and to making it a little more punitive for people who waste the time of the senior Family Court registrar and the court—those who just appeal for the sake of appealing or seek a review for the sake of getting a review. 
I see that new paragraph (g) which is to be added to section 16B(1) of the Family Courts Act in an amendment to clause 47 on Supplementary Order Paper 201 states: “prescribing the qualifications required to be held by persons appointed as Senior Family Court Registrars.” There is a bit of a conflict between new section 7A(2) and this provision and perhaps the matter could be clarified by the Minister or his officials as the case might be. 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour) 
: 
 I turn to clause 44 and I do so having been one of the few people—I guess my friend Mr Dail Jones and perhaps Dr Richard Worth are the others and perhaps Chris Finlayson—who have worn a wig and a gown in their time in the court. I have to say that when clause 44 first came before the Social Services Committee I looked askance at the provision that we would be returning to the wearing of gowns by judges in the Family Court. But as has been said by the Minister the Family Court has moved a long way since the days of open court. When I first started appearing in court we would don our wig and gowns to go down to do decree nisi and decree absolute and it would be a great turn-out for the lawyers. It was always followed by a trip to the local chambers where hot liquids were served and we celebrated generally our success of undefended proceedings. Then we sent out substantial bills to the parties who had long since started living apart some 4 years previously and we reminded them that only then had they become divorced. 
The days have moved on since then and it has all gone under cover. When it went under cover the Family Court rooms were built they were built small the judges sat at the same level as the parties and informality was the order of the day. Of course some Family Court judges could not adapt to informality. They had spent their lives being lawyers with their noses in the air and they tried to become informal judges and Family Courts often became a bit of a charade. But time has moved on. These days the Family Court judges have come from a Bar that has known only a closed Family Court so I was somewhat surprised to see this provision that enables a judge sitting in a Family Court to wear a gown but not to wear a wig. Now by that I take it that if a judge has a hairpiece it is not covered by this provision. When I look at the definition in the clause the term “wig” is not actually defined. I presume it means a wig in the common law sense which is the horsehair wig that we all wear and that some of us keep propped up in our rooms in this building just to remind us what real life was about. 
Hon Rick Barker 
: I hope you dust it legally! 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER 
: It is powdered not dusted. One never washes a wig nor does one have it dry-cleaned. One just adds talcum powder to it to refresh it and if it gets too stuffy one puts one’s finger through the top to let some air in through the horsehair. So I presume this provision means that a judge may wear a toupee or a hairpiece but not the classical wig which is made from horsehair and may wear the gown. 
I wonder why that is because the whole idea of judges is that they assert their authority by the sense they make. This is a request that came from the bench of the Family Court through the Principal Family Court Judge Peter Boshier a man who went to law school with me. At that time he was very much a left-wing longhaired radical who took to wearing a suit when he was admitted to the Bar and went on to higher things. Wearing a gown in court must therefore be important to some Family Court judges to assert their authority although in my time of appearing in the Family Court over perhaps 10 or 15 years I never thought the clothing of the judge made much difference. But if the judge wants to wear a gown then I say let him or her wear a gown. We have to draw the line at wearing a wig although that takes me to a school of thought in the Family Court that it is not really part of the District Court. It regards itself at a slightly higher level than the District Court and would like to see itself elevated to the level of the High Court. 
There has been some talk that there should be a separate Family Court jurisdiction rather than it being a division of the District Court. We see that from time to time the Family Court insisted on its reports being headed as in the Family Court rather than the District Court and it asserted a degree of tino rangatiratanga that many of our Maori people would desire. The judges got their own way; the Family Court is identified as that but it still remains an adjunct of the District Court. It aligns itself more with the District Court because judges in formal proceedings there wear a gown and the Family Court judges clearly want that same status. I guess it does not matter to me whether a Family Court judge wears a gown but if he or she wants to relieve the boredom and stick a gown on to go into court then so be it. 
I note as a reminder that lawyers appearing in the Family Court must not wear a gown or a wig and I guess the wig qualification again applies. By this we are referring to the traditional horsehair wig which no one wears anywhere now not even in the Supreme Court. Wigs are worn only on ceremonial occasions such as the admission of a High Court judge to the bench and if someone is one of the few counsel from New Zealand still appearing in the Privy Council then he or she gets to wear the wig and gown. 
I was somewhat surprised at this provision but having discussed it with the judge who appeared before the select committee I am satisfied that it was a decision that judges felt was important in some cases when they need to impress parties with the severity of the orders they are making. I have to say that the orders made in the Family Court are serious orders. When the judge hands down the order it requires the parties to listen carefully and to take cognisance of them. I did a case once of a chap who fought long and hard to keep custody of his daughter from the mother whom he described as being a most undesirable woman. His case was somewhat helped by her appearance in the  
Listener 
; it was an anonymous two-page article about her night-life profession. He fought long and hard to keep his daughter but eventually lost. After an access visit he refused to return his daughter. He would not tell the bailiffs where his daughter was when they came to pick him up and he was charged with obstruction. It was argued by us right through to the High Court that doing nothing could not be an obstruction but the law has its way of bending to meet a situation to do what the judge thinks is right. That set the precedent that a parent who had been before the Family Court and who was ordered by a judge to do something and did not do anything was guilty of the summary offence of obstruction. I guess the need to wear a gown in the Family Court is a way a judge can emphasise the grandeur and the importance of the occasion. 
I turn now to clause 45 “Attendance at hearings”. This broadens the area of parties and people who can attend Family Court hearings. When the Family Court went under cover in about 1979 the privacy of the proceedings were jealously kept and as I have said the Family Court rooms were built small; the parties were the only parties therein plus the registrar. Certainly no family or friends and no witnesses were allowed to remain. There has been an easing of that and the Family Court rooms are now being built to large proportions because it has been found that some of the old style of advocacy even in the inquisitorial Family Court still requires a degree of space and support. 
Hereafter clause 45 amends the Family Courts Act by the insertion of new section 11A to include those who may attend at hearings such as officers of the court; parties to the proceedings—of course that has always been the case—lawyers representing parties to the proceedings which has always been the case; witnesses which is somewhat of a departure from the old practice; and accredited news media reporters. I think this first came in under the Care of Children Act that we passed a couple of years ago. This provision updates all the Family Court proceedings to that level. It also includes persons whom the Family Court judge permits to be present as support persons for a party on a request by that party and any other persons whom the Family Court judge permits to be present. 
This leaves a high degree of discretion in the hands of the Family Court. The Family Court judge is obliged to allow news media in unless the Family Court judge considers under subsection (4) that it would be desirable to keep the news media out. There is a presumption in this bill for the news media to attend all Family Court hearings. I have to say that the news media would be disinclined to attend most Family Court hearings because when they are not tragic there is very little comedy and most often they are terribly sad but boring events. When what is played out in the court is a part of what is often in the court papers before the parties and the judge anyone listening would not have the whole picture because a stack of affidavits and other reports and documents that the parties in the court proceedings speak about are needed. Unless the media are also allowed by the judge to peruse the documents in the court there will be a bit of a battle to get an accurate report by the news media. The judge of course would have the power to enable a representative of the news media to peruse an affidavit if he or she thought it was necessary to get an accurate and objective view of the reports. Having said that I note there has not been any rush to report family cases since that provision was changed under the Care of Children Act and I do not imagine that very much will change here unless there is a matter of some great importance. 
What critics of the Family Court often fail to realise is that the Family Court does not operate on the system of precedents. Perhaps it does in the area of matrimonial property but in most other areas such as custody care of the children and guardianship issues all Family Court judges’ decisions are essentially fact-based. Because of that the law of precedent which is the golden thread of our common law does not apply very often at all in the Family Court. The need to have detailed reports of Family Court proceedings to guide lawyers is not as desperate and urgent. 
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
: 
 Part 6 of the Family Courts Matters Bill is largely about the openness of the court. It covers hearings the reporting of proceedings and the sort of identifying information that can be used. One of our submitters who I think would describe himself as a victim of the Family Court—he had not had a happy experience—made the very good point that nobody actually wants openness for itself; they just want people to know what is going on. This issue is not about returning to the days when one’s private matters were splashed across a special page of the  
Truth 
 newspaper in the weekend. It is about ensuring that the judgments and processes that go on in the Family Court are transparent enough. Certainly to date this court has a history of men in particular feeling aggrieved by the processes and feeling that there is bias in the court. That of course is strongly denied by those who work in the court and act in the interests of the court. Is the issue that where there is smoke there is fire? We have to accept that there has been a high level of dissatisfaction in this area. The belief is that if we could make the courts more open that would bring them into line with the concerns that a certain sector has. 
Another submitter made the point that she believes that judges should be required to give an explanation if they choose for instance to exclude somebody from a court hearing so that again it is clear what they were thinking at the time and what brought them to the point of excluding somebody. 
There has been a new openness for the media in the Family Court. I think a previous speaker has spoken about the fact that although some fears arose during the debate on previous bills before Parliament that this situation would become like that in the old days that has not actually happened. The media has not shown a high interest in the ongoing concerns of the Family Court. Because of that there is also a belief that these new provisions possibly may not offer children in particular any additional protection. 
One of the interesting issues is that currently if the proceedings of a case in the Family Court are published identifying information must not be used. That is clearly articulated in the bill. One of the things we learnt from submitters—Professor Bill Atkin was one submitter who I remember talked about this—was that that created a problem for law journals and for documentation that is particular to the legal fraternity and court staff. When identifying information is written in a coded or concealed way that makes reading court cases extremely complicated because alphabetic letters are used to refer to people—“A” said something to “B” and that affected “C” who was then related to “D” and so on. It becomes extremely difficult to try to make sense of a court case minus the identifying information. 
The Family Court covers cases that arise under the provisions of several Acts of Parliament each of which has its own differing publication rules. The Children Young Persons and Their Families Act and Care of Children Act were two Acts that were pointed out to us. Professor Atkin suggested that the Family Court would possibly be the better if there was a more generic set of rules covering all cases regardless of which Act was being enforced or which Act the case was being heard under. 
Part 6 also talks about avoiding unnecessary formality. Yet we must balance that against the fact that judges have requested the ability to reintroduce gowns. My understanding when I made some inquiries as to why this was being considered was that it was because there was some concern on the judges’ part that although the court had become more informal in order to reflect the types of cases it deals with and particularly because family matters are always sensitive and do not necessarily require the same level of formality as other matters what had happened in some cases was that a sort of complacency had developed and a bit of a disregard had set in for the authority of the court. There was a feeling that it may at times be helpful as a visual reminder of the authority of the court for a judge to wear a gown in order to remind the people involved in cases of the status of the court and of the judge’s role. I can understand that but I think we have to be careful that proceedings do not become too formal. Certainly the trend in the Family Court has been to move towards greater informality. 
When we spoke to Judge Boshier he welcomed the provision of the bill that improves the openness of the court. He also suggested some generic publication provisions instead of one provision in each statute. He felt that the easiest way to fix the problems that professional documents have with the publication restrictions would be for that matter to be addressed by regulation. He did not feel that we necessarily needed to change the legislation but that we could look at some simple regulations that would mean that for certain publications that were not available to the general public but were used by the legal fraternity the restrictions could be waived and the problem could be fixed in that way. 
A concern was raised—and it is probably one of the most interesting concerns about the area of openness—that the bill would allow children themselves to publish court details and judgments. The concern was that we had not defined the word “child” sufficiently which meant—although this sounds like an extremely unlikely scenario—that a 5-year-old could act on his or her volition and choose to have the details of a case published. Of course particularly when one is talking about young children the fear is that children could be manipulated by the adults in their life to publish details of a court case in order to meet the interests of the adults often for vexatious reasons. The fear is that children could be used as puppets. There was some discussion at the Social Services Committee—and certainly a number of submitters talked about this issue—as to whether a child himself or herself could initiate the publishing of the details of a case and the judgment on it. 
The Family Court website apparently already puts up judgments for viewing but they are difficult and complex to get the hang of because the lack of identifying information makes the reading of judgments quite difficult. So this is actually quite an important part of the bill. 
One of the other issues concerned the definition of a vulnerable person. A vulnerable person is not necessarily only a child. A person is vulnerable if he or she is able to be identified. A vulnerable person may also not necessarily be a child now but for instance if a court case is published at a much later date may have been a child at the time when he or she and the family were embroiled in that case. Ten 15 or 20 years later someone can still be quite vulnerable to the publication of those details. We had to shift our thinking away from just the immediate impact on young children to a much wider consideration of what it means to be vulnerable as a result of the publication of identifying information and of what openness could mean if it were provided in a way that would put people at risk. 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour) 
: 
 Mr Chairman—[ 
Interruption 
] I accede to the request from the members on the opposite side; yes I will speak again. I want to talk about clause 45. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: Tell us more about horsehair. 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER 
: Horsehair! The member probably wears a horsehair singlet for all we know—the way he conducts his life. Clause 45 adds section 11A to the Family Courts Act 1980. Subsection (1)(f) refers to “support persons for a party on a request by that party:” and subsection (5)(ab) states that nothing in that section limits in any way the right of a person to have a McKenzie friend present. 
There is often a lot of misunderstanding about what a McKenzie friend may be and what a support person does. A support person is someone who is there for emotional support and comfort. The mere presence of that person in the court is sufficient. They do not take any part in the proceedings. They do not give advice to the person they are supporting. They are there merely as a form of comfort and security. That provision was introduced into our courts probably in 1975 in the Crimes Act in the sexual violation legislation where a support person was allowed to remain in court to support a witness but was never allowed to talk to the witness or touch the witness unless the judge allowed because there needed to be a moment for the witness to compose him or herself. That essentially is the role of the support person and in the Family Court there is no reason why it should be any different. 
That contrasts considerably however with a McKenzie friend. The term “McKenzie friend” floats around like the term “the Queen’s Chain”. People talk about it but very few people understand what it is. It is like the term “paper roads”. Everyone hears of paper roads but not many people know what they are. A McKenzie friend is a relatively new concept. We imported it from Britain as we did with most of our law both good and bad and a McKenzie friend is truly a product of the common law. The advisers point me to it first being cited in 1970 in the  
All England Law Reports 
 in the case of  
McKenzie v McKenzie 
 where I daresay the term arises from either McKenzie the plaintiff or McKenzie the defendant. It is not identified in the documents I have. 
A McKenzie friend is someone who sits in court and assists the litigant. One does not have a McKenzie friend if one is represented by a lawyer but if one is a lay litigant and is conducting the case by oneself without legal advice then one can have a McKenzie friend in the courtroom. That McKenzie friend can take notes fetch documents draw one’s attention to documents and whisper advice on what one should perhaps say or do or the questions to ask. But the McKenzie friend has no right of appearance. A lawyer has the right of appearance at the Bar and stands in place of the litigant but a McKenzie friend is never elevated to that position. The McKenzie friend has no right of audience. That means he or she cannot speak to the judge and the judge will not hear that person if he or she chooses to speak because the role of the McKenzie friend is a substitute for legal advice and is a method of advising the litigant party when he or she is on their feet of matters that should be drawn to the judge’s attention. That has to be done explicitly in a quiet way by way of whisper or the passing of notes. 
There is not much need for McKenzie friends in our Family Court system I have to say. This provision was put into the bill I think at select committee level because of the emphasis on allowing support persons to be present. It was therefore felt that to keep clear the role of support persons there should be mention of McKenzie friends. That is why subsection (5) of section 11A in clause 45 is amended to include a McKenzie friend. But when we think about the way Family Court proceedings are conducted there can be very few occasions when we can imagine that a McKenzie friend would be relevant. I guess in matrimonial property proceedings a struck-off lawyer could appear as a McKenzie friend and pass notes to a person acting for him or herself on what the law may be and the submissions they should make to the judge or the line of cross-examination. But in issues of care of children guardianship and the like the court operates an inquisitorial method. Accordingly the judge sets the tenor of the hearings and determines what evidence he or she wants to hear. Most of those issues are resolved at pre-hearing conferences and what is going to be led viva voce and what will be taken from the papers is predetermined before the court starts. 
A Family Court proceeding where a McKenzie friend may appear would be very limited because of the inquisitorial nature of the Family Court in the areas affecting the welfare of children and the well-being of family units that are suffering some dysfunction that brings the attention of the judge. Inserting a provision for a McKenzie friend in section 11A of the Family Courts Act is not in any way meant as an encouragement for litigants to appear unrepresented in the Family Court and to take with them instead a friend who claims to know the law or to know advocacy well enough to advantage the litigant who wants to represent him or herself. The matter is included there really to clarify what is meant by “support person” rather than to give carte blanche to those who want to be backyard lawyers or who think they can reform the world without a law degree. When one gets a law degree one realises how difficult it is to reform the world and one in fact withdraws from that impetus that took one to law school in the first place. 
So the McKenzie friend is a very very specialist role. It is a relatively new role. It is one whose parameters are clearly defined by the common law and this amendment in the Family Courts Matters Bill is in no way intended to change that definition or to give more power to backyard lawyers who want to help litigants who want to appear unrepresented in court. Of course there is an old saying Mr Chairman as you would well know that he who acts for himself has a fool for a client. 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister for Courts) 
: 
 I rise in response to the questions raised by the honourable member Dail Jones in respect of Supplementary Order Paper 201. Mr Jones asked a number of questions and I will deal with them in no particular order. Firstly he spoke about the qualifications for the position of senior Family Court registrar. The original proposal from the Law Commission had in it that a person would have held a practising certificate as a barrister and solicitor for at least 5 years and this was to be the qualification. I felt that by putting that qualification in the statute we would fix that provision for almost all time as we do not come back to this sort of legislation very often and if in the future we felt that the qualification was either too high or inappropriate and needed to be changed then we would be locked into that particular qualification. 
The qualifications are now set in the Supplementary Order Paper to be dealt with by regulation. That gives us a flexible way to approach this. I think it is a sensible approach because of all the powers that we want to give to senior Family Court registrars. We might in the future require someone to exercise only one of those powers not the lot and in that particular circumstance we might set a different range of qualifications for that person. Being a regulation it will obviously be subject to consultation and part of the consultation round will involve the bench of the Family Court. It will come before Parliament and go before the Regulations Review Committee and if Parliament feels that the regulations are inappropriate it can say so. So there are lots of checks and balances in this matter. 
The second aspect is that if we set it in terms of a legal qualification as a trained barrister and solicitor with so many years’ qualifications we would then be ignoring the growing trend in the court system—a trend I have encouraged and I wholeheartedly endorse—of the courts training up their own staff over a period of time. It is fair to say that through the past decade a lot of training in the court system has been overlooked and this is to be regretted. The courts are now rebuilding their training capacity and I would like to think that in the future the New Zealand courts will have a training capacity for all aspects of registry work. If in the future we felt that there was someone who had had many years of experience in the registry—it could be 20 or 30 years—and had suitable in-house qualifications we might look to that person and say that he or she was a suitable person to hold the role of senior Family Court registrar. 
The eagle eye of Mr Jones has identified that one of the qualifications mentioned is personality and he highlighted that. I think we would all agree that this is a very sensitive job and we would want to make sure that the person who held it had the appropriate personality. The registrar will have to deal with complicated situations in complicated circumstances and very often with difficult personalities. I should have thought that an appropriate demeanour and personality would be critical to any consideration one would give for a person to hold this job and therefore I do not have a problem with that. 
The last issue raised by Mr Jones related to pay and rations. We have not made any particular specification in the Supplementary Order Paper and it is unnecessary to do so because this person will come under the State Sector Act. The registrar will be a State sector employee; he or she will not be part of the judiciary. He or she will come under the framework of State Sector Act and there will be an appropriate wage and salary-setting mechanism. I am quite sure that I can put Mr Jones’ unease at rest and say that it will be commensurate with the job and its requirements. I have every confidence that the Secretary for Justice will make sure that the person is appropriately paid and is well supported as well. 
Russell Fairbrother as always gave a very illuminating address on the role of wigs and gowns in the Family Court. I found his address very instructive. It was a great trip down memory lane and it brought back a lot of images of the past. I assure Mr Fairbrother that unlike other people in other circumstances we are not racing back to the past. I just emphasise the point of why this provision is here. There has been a high degree of informality in the Family Court. This is to be supported and encouraged and it will continue but the Principal Family Court Judge made the point that on occasion he felt it was necessary to indicate to parties that the court was now at the serious stage of making a decision. With this new change of legislation we can see that the Family Court judges will have a lot of opportunity to engage with parties in judge-led mediation. So a judge may undertake the role of a mediator then sometime later because the parties cannot come to agreement by themselves he or she may want to be able to signal clearly to the parties—and we should give the judges the opportunity to do so—that there is a change of circumstances they are now at the serious end and the judge is about to make a decision and adjudicate. One of the symbols judges can use if they wish to—it is not compulsory or mandatory—is to wear the gown to indicate they are about to make a decision and that this is crunch time. I felt there was no harm in this if it is what the bench wants. I think this is entirely appropriate. That is the simple point of it. Mr Fairbrother has made a very good presentation on the history of the issue and I welcome that. I feel really refreshed. 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 I would just like to make the point that in fact the Minister in the chair Rick Barker is going slightly down memory lane. When I was a clerk in the Magistrate’s Court in Auckland—my first-ever job—we were very proud of the Department of Justice and the standard of the Civil Service that was available to New Zealand through the Department of Justice. In fact the Department of Justice used to be considered as second only to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs for the quality of its staff and the service it gave to the community. If we can move back to a justice department where long-serving members are rewarded and appreciated I for one would be greatly pleased to see that happen because one of the problems of our court system today is that one can go into a court and find that people do not know what they are doing because they have been there barely 5 minutes and they have no history to rely on. 
The second point I make is to support Judge Boshier. It is not just a question of wearing a gown. Judge Boshier has also introduced a system whereby instead of sitting down all the time in what is called an informal manner but which sometimes can become too relaxed a manner counsel often—and I think more often than not—stand now in a Family Court. I can see Judge Boshier’s point entirely. I was in the Family Court towards the end of last year. Regrettably the Family Court must have the highest level of perjury in New Zealand. We want to try to bring some sense to the people who appear as parties in the Family Court and to make them realise that what they are saying is actually serious. If the suggestions made by Judge Boshier go some way towards drawing to the attention of litigants that they must not in their various domestic violence custody and day-to-day cases just slander each other wildly with no basis of fact and that the Family Court is a serious place to be then Judge Boshier will have performed a great service for the country. 
CHRIS TREMAIN (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour) 
: 
 Mr Chair. 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Mr Fairbrother has had four calls. Is that not the maximum at this stage? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: That is right. 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour) 
: 
 Mr Chair. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: No no. You may seek leave if you wish to have another call. 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour) 
: 
 All right. I seek leave to have another call. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Leave has been sought for that course to be followed. Is there any objection? There seems to be objection. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 201 in the name of the Hon Rick Barker to Part 6 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to. 
Part 6 as amended agreed to. 
Progress reported. 
Report adopted. 
The House adjourned at 9.56 p.m.