Volume 650 Week 86 - Tuesday 23 September 2008 
Volume 650 Week 86 - Tuesday 23 September 2008 
[Volume:650;Page:18863] 
Tuesday 23 September 2008 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Questions to Ministers 
Electoral Roll—Enrolment Rate 
1. Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: What specific strategies has the Government initiated to improve the voter enrolment rate given this morning’s reported comments by Kiwi Expat Association Chief Executive Ivan Moss who contends that there are about 750000 missing voters bringing the estimated enrolment rate down to 79 percent? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I am advised by the Electoral Enrolment Centre that the figures quoted by Mr Moss are purely speculative. However there has been an increase in the number of people enrolled overseas compared with the 2005 figures and a comprehensive enrolment strategy is in place. 
Dr Pita Sharples 
: What particular strategies will the Minister be undertaking to encourage the Maori population of Australia—estimated to be between 115000 and 125000—to vote in the November 2008 election? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: As I said from the announcement of the election date quite a lot of activity is undertaken by the Electoral Enrolment Centre including sending enrolment update packs to all overseas voters with postal addresses; sending voting information to all those enrolled with a postal address; providing advertising that targets New Zealanders overseas encouraging them to enrol or to update their enrolment details; and providing information and enrolment forms through overseas posts. We also rely on informal networks of people including people like the member who has asked the question and other members of this House to advise friends and relatives overseas to vote if they are eligible. 
Dr Pita Sharples 
: What does the Minister have to say about the findings of the Te Puni Kokiri report  
Nga Maori i Te Ao Moemoea 
 which found that just under half of the 1600 Maori living in Australia who were surveyed in that report wished to remain as citizens of New Zealand only and what action has the Government taken to ensure that Maori living in Australia can enjoy that citizenship right? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: All New Zealanders born in this country have a citizenship right. That is what most countries have—if one is born in a country one is allowed a citizenship right. One can have a citizenship right by descent as well. But if one has no connection with this country by birth it is a different situation. 
Dr Pita Sharples 
: What specific strategies will the Minister undertake to ensure that young Maori people aged between 18 and 25 years old close to 50000 of whom are estimated not to be enrolled exercise their democratic right to vote? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: We take the same approach to all young voters whether they are Maori or non-Maori: we use a variety of media to get to them. We know they are not keen to vote and we need to encourage them. There are a number of events aimed at reaching young voters the new electronic technologies are being used to provide information to them and so on. 
Taito Phillip Field 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I would like the Minister to clarify an earlier answer. She inaccurately referred to everybody born in New Zealand being a New Zealand citizen. I wonder whether she could consider how accurate that statement is. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I do not think that is a point of order. Does the member want to ask a supplementary question? Yes. 
Taito Phillip Field 
: Is the Minister’s statement in response to an earlier question—that every person born in New Zealand is in fact entitled to New Zealand citizenship—accurate? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Most people born in New Zealand are entitled to citizenship; there are some exceptions to that. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters—Ministerial Status 
2.  
JOHN KEY (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: What is the status of the Rt Hon Winston Peters in her ministry following yesterday’s tabling of the report of the Privileges Committee? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Mr Peters continues to stand aside from his portfolios. 
John Key 
: Does the Prime Minister stand by her statement in the House on Tuesday 26 August that she accepts Mr Peters’ word “unless something arises out of the Privileges Committee …” and does she not see that the Privileges Committee’s clear finding that Mr Peters committed a contempt of Parliament quite clearly comes within her definition of something arising from that committee? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I certainly will not listen to any lectures on truthfulness from that member after yesterday’s revelations. 
John Key 
: Can the Prime Minister confirm that the Privileges Committee has heard evidence from Labour’s biggest donor Owen Glenn from Mr Peters and from his lawyer and clearly accepted the evidence of Mr Glenn—the Privileges Committee accepted the word of Mr Glenn but not that of Mr Peters or of the lawyer—but that she has been happy to accept the word of Mr Peters over those people? Why is that? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: There is one person’s word I cannot accept—it is the word of that member to the public and the media. 
John Key 
: Is the reason the Prime Minister does not want to answer any of these questions that she is locked at the hip to Winston Peters and she has been covering up for him as well? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The only cover-up in this House is by Mr Key who in an 8-week period asked written and oral questions in Parliament launched an Official Information Act request bought and traded Tranz Rail shares profitably and claimed he never spoke on the subject while he did that. That was false I say to Mr Key. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Does the Prime Minister recall the statements by Mr Key just a few hours ago when he said he had forgotten about those extra shares but now he would fill out the form and correct that; does that not remind members of the word that begins with “h” and cannot be said in this House? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That was unnecessary so I ask the member to withdraw that word beginning with “h”. We all know what is meant. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Madam Speaker— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Please just do it! 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I withdraw “h”. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Thank you. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The question itself is out of order. The Minister asked whether Mr Key would fill out a form. There was no Register of Pecuniary Interests of Members of Parliament until his party put it in place. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is a matter of debate. 
Hon Paul Swain 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I thought that was a bit unfair; I thought the “h” word the member was referring to was “hollow” as in hollow men. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That was not a point of order either. 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: To reply to the original question I say there seem to be a lot of things Mr Key forgot: it was anywhere from 25000 to 50000 shares at any one time and oh maybe it was 100000 shares. I bet that the member as someone who thought about his shares every morning when he woke up—unlike any normal person—would know that he bought and sold shares profitably while he was raising questions publicly in this House and in committees and he did not tell the truth to the news media about it. 
John Key 
: Can the Prime Minister explain why her Ministers her staff and her research unit have so much time to go through line by line my share dealings from 5 years ago— 
Ron Mark 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I bring to your attention the obvious difference there. We were sitting in the cross benches trying to hear the Prime Minister’s answer and were totally unable to hear anything clearly— 
Hon David Carter 
: Ha! 
Ron Mark 
: It is a point of order David. Shut up! 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Please be seated. The member knows that that was inappropriate. Please withdraw that comment. 
Ron Mark 
: I withdraw. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The point of order should be made succinctly. 
Ron Mark 
: With the amount of noise we could not hear the answer. By contrast as soon as Mr Key got to his feet to ask his question the rest of the House was silent so that he could ask it. I ask that from here forth we are able to hear the Prime Minister’s answers as clearly as we are allowing Mr Key to have his questions heard. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I think the level of interventions was getting to the stage where it was impossible to hear. 
John Key 
: Can the Prime Minister explain why her Ministers her staff and her research unit have so much time to go through my 5-year-old share dealings line by line but she has absolutely no energy or interest to do the same thing when it comes to Winston Peters; or is the answer that she does not need to do that—2 years ago she knew he had accepted a donation because she had arranged it? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Of course when Mr Key makes public statements saying he tells the truth at all times we as a party opposing his party are going to see what the veracity of those statements is. We have proven that they have no veracity. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Can the Prime Minister comment on the previous question from the Leader of the Opposition in which he admitted the transactions were his when he told the media this morning that they belonged to a trust? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: That would be absolutely typical of the flip-flops of this member who cannot keep to one straight answer from one hour to the next. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Has the Prime Minister got any reports that suggest that Winston Peters made even 1c out of his involvement in this legal case in contrast—[ 
Interruption 
]—I know that members do not want to hear it but it will get worse shortly—to Mr Key who apparently made thousands which is a conflict of interest? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I have no evidence that Mr Peters made a cent as he said. On the other hand I do have evidence of parliamentary questions lodged by Mr Key in October 2002 April 2003 and again in April 2003 and an Official Information Act request in April 2003; then he purchases in his own name another 50000 shares; then he meets with people who want to buy Tranz Rail then he sells those shares bought in his own name doubles his money and carries on asking parliamentary questions all the time— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Mr Key was again allowed to ask his question in relative silence and then when the Prime Minister started the braying began right around the National Party benches. This is not acceptable and they should be told to either desist or leave the House. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: In fact if that level of intervention is heard again—I had warned members once—then members will be asked to leave the House. 
John Key 
: Can the Prime Minister confirm that it really does not matter what came out of the Privileges Committee it really does not matter what came out of the Serious Fraud Office in relation to the allegations against Winston Peters and it would not really matter what comes out of the police because the Prime Minister will not sack Winston Peters because if she did she would be sacking for the stupidity of getting caught—she arranged the loan through Mike Williams she is up to her neck in it and why does she not admit it; she is not an innocent bystander? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: All I can say is that that member can talk about getting caught because he has been caught red-handed claiming he never spoke in this House while he was an owner of Tranz Rail shares when he was peppering the Minister of Finance with questions and buying and selling shares at a profit through that time. He stands accused of not being clear and concise to the point and straightforward in this House. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Supplementary question Madam Speaker—[ 
Interruption 
]—well the member would have been busted long ago if that were true. Can the Prime Minister confirm that the Leader of the Opposition just said that Mike Williams arranged the donation from Mr Glenn but the entire case of the majority in the select committee is that Mr Peters asked Mr Glenn for the donation; and if Mr Key is correct then how come a majority arrived at its decision on contempt? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: That is just more evidence that the Leader of the Opposition makes it up just like he made up the idea that he was going to run a clean campaign when Dr Smith and Mr English are at meetings in Nelson telling smutty jokes about the Deputy Prime Minister as part of their dirty filthy unclean campaign. 
Rodney Hide 
: Is the Prime Minister telling the public of New Zealand that it is acceptable to her to have a Minister who is running a secret trust that is not known to his party— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. It has been made very clear to the select committee that that allegation is totally false. I should not have to have him corrected but that is the kind of thing he has been doing around this country for months now. The committee all know including his own member Heather Roy that that is false so would you ask him to desist from telling the House porkies. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the member who is asking the question please make his question succinct and get to the point of it. 
Rodney Hide 
: Is the Prime Minister telling the people of New Zealand that it is OK for a Minister in her Government to have money go into a trust but which was meant for New Zealand First; to have money come from secret donors to the tune of $40000 but not declared under the electoral laws and not declared in the register of pecuniary interests; and to pay that Minister’s legal bills as reported to the Privileges Committee by the Serious Fraud Office? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I have no reason to believe that Mr Peters knew any less about the Spencer Trust than Mr Key knew about the Waitemata Trust for which he personally raised money. But further I have been advised by the senior Labour representatives on the Privileges Committee that it is not reasonable to hold someone in contempt for a retrospective ruling on what is a gift. If that were to be the case I look forward to Nick Smith and Bob Clarkson now declaring their gifts on exactly the same basis which they have not done. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I did. 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I said that Mr Smith had not declared a gift. It is my understanding that his return does not show the declaration of a gift. He declared he was a beneficiary of a trust. He did not declare that he received a gift from that trust. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek leave to table the letter I received this morning on this very issue—where Dail Jones had laid a letter of complaint—where you have dismissed the complaint. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection. 
Hon Jim Anderton 
: Why should the Prime Minister take any account whatever of the accusations that Mr Key has made against her and others over this political donations issue when every single thing he has said about his own share transactions in Tranz Rail has proved to be false on almost every occasion? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The member raises a fair point because we now cannot believe anything Mr Key said in this House or to the news media who have him on tape on the issue of his Tranz Rail shares which I repeat he bought and sold a portion of at a profit while he was peppering the Minister of Finance with questions in this House and through the Official Information Act. Mr Key failed to declare his interest in Tranz Rail and that in my understanding is not acceptable behaviour for a member. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Has the Prime Minister received any reports of a present MP who failed when the president of a political party to disclose an interest in a trust called the Cargill Trust for $1.7 million—a matter that went all the way to the Privy Council which found against that party—and is that MP Mr Rodney Hide? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I am not personally aware of that allegation but I am all ears. 
Rodney Hide 
: Does she accept the Serious Fraud Office evidence that $40000 was given by one donor to the Spencer Trust which was then paid— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The Privileges Committee heard no such evidence at all and Heather Roy the member’s colleague can tell him that. So would you please tell him to stop telling the House what is plainly false. 
Rodney Hide 
: Does the Prime Minister accept that the Serious Fraud Office evidence was that $40000 was paid by one anonymous donor to the Spencer Trust— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. For the second time the select committee was told no such information by the Serious Fraud Office at all and Heather Roy who is sitting there behind Mr Hide knows that. 
Rodney Hide 
: Does she accept the Serious Fraud Office evidence that $40000 was paid by one anonymous donor to the Spencer Trust which was then used to pay Brian Henry to cover— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. For the third time Heather Roy the member’s colleague sat on the select committee and knows full well that that allegation like every other one he has made is false. I am prepared to ask the members of the committee who are here now for their word but they know full well that no such information came in that way to the select committee. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I would ask Rodney Hide when he asks his question—otherwise we will be going on here all afternoon—that his question would in fact reflect what was in the report and we might be able to make some progress. 
Rodney Hide 
: Has the Prime Minister seen the wiring diagram from the Serious Fraud Office that shows that $40000 was given from one donor to the Spencer Trust which then paid the legal debt— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The Privileges Committee was given no such evidence and every member on that Privileges Committee knows that including Heather Roy. In fact my memory is that the select committee was told that three donors made up the amount of $40000— 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: That’s right. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: —and Lianne Dalziel is confirming my memory of that at the select committee. So why is the member persisting and saying something that is plainly palpably demonstrably false? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: We will have another try. 
Rodney Hide 
: Has the Prime Minister seen the Serious Fraud Office wiring diagram presented to the Privileges Committee that showed yes separate legal entities controlled by the one donor gave $40000 from the one person—from the one person—to the Spencer Trust which was used to pay Brian Henry for Bob Clarkson’s legal costs; and does she think it is acceptable for a Minister in her ministry to be receiving $40000— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The select committee was told that the Serious Fraud Office got its wiring diagram wrong that it could not even analyse what they were reading that it went from a law firm’s account to Brian Henry’s account to the National Party’s lawyer’s account to the National Party which says that Mr Clarkson was on the same footing as Winston Peters; one rule for them a different one for me. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I do not think we are making much progress here so I will refer members to Speaker’s ruling 152/1. I shall read it; it is rather long: “Some supplementary questions are admitted which if one had the time to analyse them in the way that primary questions are analysed would be ruled out of order or would require further authentication. However members should not be permitted to ask a Minister to respond to outlandish assertions. Supplementary questions will be disallowed whenever a member raises a serious objection to their factual accuracy so as to require that a question of that nature be pursued—if it is to be pursued at all—through the normal question system with notice.” I so rule. 
Rodney Hide 
: Has the Prime Minister seen the wiring diagram presented by the Serious Fraud Office to the Privileges Committee with money routed through the Spencer Trust to cover Winston Peters’ legal costs to Bob Clarkson and does she find money moved in that way acceptable for one of her Ministers in her ministry? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The answer is no I have not seen the diagram. 
Rodney Hide 
: I seek leave for the Prime Minister’s benefit to table the wiring diagram. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that diagram. Is there any objection? Yes there is. 
Rail—Investment 
3.  
Hon MARK GOSCHE (Labour—Maungakiekie) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Has he received any recent reports relating to investment in rail? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 Yes. I have reports showing widespread public support for the Government’s decision to purchase the rail operator and to establish KiwiRail. I have also seen reports showing public concern about National’s refusal to give a firm commitment not to sell off KiwiRail at some point in the future. 
Hon Mark Gosche 
: What other reports has he seen relating to investment in rail? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I have seen various reports showing that in 2002 and 2003 as Minister of Finance I was asked both written and oral questions by and received Official Information Act requests from Mr John Key relating to the Government’s decision to invest in the rail network. Last night I saw a report showing that during that time contrary to his previous assurances to the House and the New Zealand public and despite making no disclosures of interest Mr Key was purchasing shares in Tranz Rail. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister tell Parliament why he paid for Toll Rail almost twice as much as the best official advice he could get on its valuation and does that mean that because it is other people’s money he is happy to be reckless with $350 million? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: As he sits next to a past money trader the member should not talk about being reckless with other people’s money. But coming to the point of the matter I say that half of the purchase price for the Toll operation was to buy it out of a contract that would have led to ever-growing subsidies being paid to an Australian operator that was repatriating profits back to Australia. 
Hon Jim Anderton 
: Has the Minister of Finance seen any reports that when New Zealand Rail was sold by the National Government it sold it for less than the price of the wooden sleepers on the tracks? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: That is certainly correct. The value of the business was vastly greater than was paid for it at the time but subsequent asset-stripping occurred by a succession of foreign-dominated owners. Only New Zealand ownership and Government ownership with a long-term programme of investment will realise the full potential of rail. 
Hon Mark Gosche 
: What reports has he received on investment in the rail network as opposed to that in the rail operator? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I have seen reports that show that just like it did with the purchase of the rail operator National initially opposed the purchase of the rail network. Of course it is now apparent that at the time that Mr Key was leading the opposition to that investment he had been trading in shares in Tranz Rail. 
Taxation—New Zealand - Australia 
4.  
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Does he stand by his statement that “If as some have suggested New Zealanders are fleeing as tax exiles to Australia one can only conclude that those individuals are functionally innumerate and we are probably better off without them”; if so why? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 That statement was made in July 2005 it related to tax rates at that time and it remains correct in that respect. But I welcome the opportunity to remind the House that on Wednesday of next week Labour’s $10.6 billion tax cut package starts rolling out and it will deliver between $12 and $28 per week to all workers. 
Hon Bill English 
: Does he still believe that the tens of thousands of New Zealanders who left for Australia in the last 12 months are so innumerate that they have not noticed Labour’s economic record of zero growth 4.5 percent inflation climbing unemployment and bankruptcy New Zealand slipping down the OECD rather than going up and an opening of the books that will reveal very significant cash deficits in the Government’s books? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The record of course is one of growth that has equalled that of Australia and outstripped that of the United States Britain and the European Union; of reductions in unemployment to levels that the member previously described as a hoax; and of strong growth in household incomes. On the matter of the Pre-election Fiscal Update yes it will show a significant deterioration in the level of cash deficits yet the member continues to promise billions of dollars of tax cuts. Apparently Jacqui Dean was right—the money will come from overseas. 
Sue Moroney 
: Has the Minister received any advice on the comparative financial position of individuals in New Zealand and Australia? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The most recent advice from Treasury shows that the real wage gap between Australia and New Zealand fell by 2.6 percent between 1999 and 2008. That compares with an increase of 50 percent during the 1990s when that member and many of his colleagues were in Government. Real wages in New Zealand have grown faster than those in Australia since 1999 reversing a long-term historical trend. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister confirm that the figures that Labour the Council of Trades Union and the Public Service Association are using were calculated by Trevor Mallard and they are wrong? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No I cannot confirm that at all. In fact I would be quite happy to table this particular piece of paper for the member’s instruction. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Is leave sought to table it? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Yes please. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon Bill English 
: Does the Labour Government think that the thousands of Kiwis who have left New Zealand in the last 12 months for Australia are so innumerate that they have not noticed the legacy of 9 years of mismanaged growth and lost opportunity including the Minister promising tax cuts in 2005 then changing his mind after the election? One reason they have left is that they simply do not believe him. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: What I can say is that this Government has nearly trebled spending on infrastructure from the parlous level of spending it inherited from the previous National Government; it has massively increased spending on industry training including such measures as Modern Apprenticeships; it has introduced major reforms into almost the entire education system; it has introduced KiwiSaver which 800000 Kiwis are now benefiting from; and it is working on further measures to improve the operation of New Zealand’s capital markets. Indeed the real issue with Australia is its higher wages not the level of the tax rate. During the 1990s under a National Government the out-movement to Australia grew every year peaking in a net figure of close to 30000 in 2000. 
Hon Bill English 
: Why did the Minister promise tax cuts before the 2005 election then break that promise; and why should any New Zealander believe he will implement another round of tax cuts in 18 months’ time if he is re-elected? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The story is changing; he is catching “Key syndrome” as it is called! On 1 October next week tax cuts come into force; tax cuts for Mr Key who can go and buy some shares in a foreign rail company on this occasion. Of course Mr English is trying to raise doubts about the 2010-11 tax cuts because he will pretend when National announces its tax policy that all its tax cuts are additional and are not in fact simply sucking back money from what has been legislated already handing out more at the upper end and taking it away from the bottom end which is what he is planning. 
Hon Bill English 
: Why is the Minister implementing tax cuts on 1 October when for 8 years he bitterly opposed personal tax cuts and said that any cuts in taxes would have to be financed by borrowing and now he is implementing tax cuts and is financing them by borrowing? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: If the member thinks about the logic of that he will see that any additional tax cuts will have to be totally financed from borrowing. 
Sue Moroney 
: Has the Minister received any other reports on tax obligations in New Zealand? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Yes. I am advised that when someone actively trades shares he or she may have obligations to disclose profits on the sale of those shares as income and to pay income tax on it. In other words if somebody buys shares with the intention of selling them quickly then in fact there is a question of intention of sale. I note that John Key said that when he bought the Tranz Rail shares in 2003 he bought them with the intention of sale. Let us see the tax returns I say to Mr Key. 
Free-trade Agreement—New Zealand - United States 
5.  
MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) 
 to the  
Minister of Trade 
: What progress is being made towards a free-trade agreement with the United States? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Acting Minister of Trade) 
: Excellent progress is being made. Today the United States announced its decision to enter into comprehensive free-trade agreement negotiations to become a full partner of the Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership Agreement or P4 group consisting of Chile Singapore Brunei and New Zealand. Today’s announcement is of huge significance and benefit for New Zealand. To have this commitment from the United States in the same year as we have also concluded free-trade agreements with China and the ASEAN economies is a great achievement and opens up the prospect of significant and sustained benefits to New Zealand businesses employment and the economy in general. 
Martin Gallagher 
: What would be the value of a free-trade agreement between the P4 group and the United States for New Zealand? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: It would be considerable. The United States is New Zealand’s second-largest individual trading partner and second-largest export market. New Zealand’s total trade with the United States in the year to June 2008 was worth $8.14 billion accounting for 9.6 percent of New Zealand’s total trade. With the involvement of the United States the P4 group is now poised to expand rapidly to encompass other countries in the Asia-Pacific region and to lead to greater economic integration in the region. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Will the Minister publicly guarantee that he will not sign any trade deal with the United States that undermines Pharmac’s role as a monopoly purchaser of pharmaceuticals on behalf of all New Zealanders—yes or no? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: As with all our free-trade agreements in order for New Zealand to be able to agree to any outcome the agreement overall must be able to pass the test of being in our national interest. Those issues will be discussed and we will look at our national interest. 
Martin Gallagher 
: What response to the announcement of these free-trade agreement negotiations has the Minister seen from industry and producer groups? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I have seen statements welcoming the significant benefits that will flow from the proposed free-trade agreement for many key sector groups including Export New Zealand Federated Farmers the Employers and Manufacturers Association (Northern) and Business New Zealand. I have seen comments such as “would deliver a fantastic boost to exporters’ confidence …” “the potential for New Zealand in this is immense.” “a Free Trade Agreement with the world’s largest economy is something to be savoured.” “The government is to be loudly congratulated for getting the US to the negotiating table on this issue. … it would be the most important trade development for New Zealand since the CER deal with Australia in 1983.” and “the trade policy hat-trick announced this year—the China ASEAN and now a potential US FTA—holds open the hope of significant growth in the future.” 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Given the Minister’s previous answer where she refused to publicly guarantee to protect Pharmac will the Minister publicly guarantee not to loosen the current rules around genetic engineering as part of a trade deal with the United States—yes or no? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I repeat: as with all our free-trade agreements in order for New Zealand to be able to agree to any outcome the agreement overall must be able to pass the test of being in our national interest. Those are issues that we will look at. 
Youth—Education and Training 
6.  
ANNE TOLLEY (National—East Coast) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: Does he stand by his statement that “Schools Plus articulates the goal of every young person being in education skills development or structured learning relevant to their needs and abilities until the age of 18.”; if so how many young people are currently not engaged in education skills development or structured learning? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Education) 
: 
 Yes; although New Zealand students are performing among the best in the world the 2006 census revealed that 9300 15 to 17-year-olds were not currently engaged in education training or employment. We estimate that another 20000 are in very low-skill jobs. It is exactly those sorts of students that Schools Plus aims to keep in education or training. 
Anne Tolley 
: Can the Minister confirm that in 2002 his Government promised that by the end of 2007 every 15 to 19-year-old would be in work education or training so the fact that we are talking about almost 30000 young people not being in work education or training as the Minister has just outlined means that Labour has failed to achieve the goal it announced in 2002? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: The member never listens to the answer. She asked me about students who were in training or education and she has now included employment. Actually 6000 young New Zealanders were unemployed in 2002; today only 250 are which is a 96 percent reduction as we promised the Mayors Task Force for Jobs. We are talking about students and young people who are in very low-skill jobs. We want to lift up their skills. We are proud of our employment record. We also want to make sure that every young New Zealander lifts up their skills. 
Hon Mark Burton 
: What recent announcements has the Government made to support the implementation of Schools Plus? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: Last week at Massey High School the Prime Minister and I announced $39.7 million for the initial roll-out in 2009 of Schools Plus 
.  
This will include about $11.5 million towards improved careers guidance for schools; another $21 million towards an expanded Secondary Tertiary Alignment Resource course which is an already successful programme; 100 new schools next year joining the Youth Apprenticeships scheme; more funding for pre-employment training; and a tertiary-secondary opportunity at the Manukau Institute of Technology. I contrast that with National’s plan—boot camps for bad kids. 
Anne Tolley 
: When the Government set itself a goal in 2002 and the Minister today has admitted that it failed to achieve that goal for at least 10000 17-year-olds why is Labour now reheating that same goal of having all young people in education and training and now asking the New Zealand public to wait until 2014 to get what Labour promised it would have done by 2007? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: The member criticises our Government for reducing the number of young unemployed people from 6000 to 250 a 96 percent reduction. Somehow she says that is not good enough. Well I say to Mrs Tolley that boot camps will not work. 
Anne Tolley 
: If he were a schoolteacher what would the Minister of Education say to a student who asked to have 5 years to achieve a task but failed miserably to do so and who then came back 6 years later to ask for a 6-year extension; and does the Minister think the New Zealand public are foolish enough to listen to a Government that broke its 2002 promise and is now shamelessly reheating that same promise and asking them to wait for another 6 years to get any results? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: For many years I was a schoolteacher and I would tell that student that I am very proud now to be the Minister of Education in a Government that has put an extra $5.5 billion into education and that has come up with a revolutionary scheme like Schools Plus brought in 20 hours’ free early childhood education built 1500 classrooms and 42 new schools and increased teachers’ salaries by 38 percent. That student would be very impressed with that real achievement. 
Judy Turner 
: Does the Minister agree that the Schools Plus policy will deliver very little to students if the New Zealand Qualifications Authority continues to refuse to receive achievement marks for students whose parents have failed to pay the New Zealand Qualifications Authority fee; and will he move to correct this so that students’ results are not lost due to the inability or unwillingness of parents to pay? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: One of the most important things about Schools Plus is that it is a collaborative approach involving schools the community trade unions business the New Zealand Qualifications Authority the New Zealand Teachers Council the teachers’ unions and so on so that we can get all of the ducks lined up to make sure it works properly. That is why it is being resourced by $40 million next year and why it has a very long period of consultation—we want it to work. Yes we will have to work closely with the New Zealand Qualifications Authority and with every other stakeholder in education. 
Judy Turner 
: Does the Minister agree that it would be preferable for the New Zealand Qualifications Authority to at least collect and hold all student achievement data—even if it will not then provide written evidence to school leavers if fees are not paid—to avoid the risk that currently exists of students losing their marks altogether; if he does agree will he move to fix this so that Schools Plus qualification gains are not lost? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I like every other Minister in the Labour Government am determined to make Schools Plus work so that we can get the outcome we want which is better skills and better training for all young New Zealanders. So yes I will be working closely with the New Zealand Qualifications Authority to make sure we have the most robust and best possible systems in place to make Schools Plus work for our kids. 
Anne Tolley 
: Why is the Ministry of Education paying for 120 principals to fly to Wellington at short notice for a briefing on Schools Plus—that is why is his Government using tens of thousands of dollars of taxpayer money 7 weeks out from an election to fly in principals for a briefing to publicise Labour Party election policy; and is that not a breach of the Electoral Finance Act? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I am really delighted to hear as no doubt every principal in New Zealand will be that the Ministry of Education is assisting those schools. Usually I hear the opposite complaint—that we do not give schools enough support. I am glad the principals are coming to Wellington because we want Schools Plus to work. 
Anne Tolley 
: Can we sum up the situation in this way then: in 2002 the Labour Government promised to have all of our young people in education training or work by the end of 2007 and it failed; now a year later it is reheating that same goal giving itself another 6-year extension and to top it all off it is using tens of thousands of taxpayer dollars to fly principals in to brief them on Labour Party election campaign policy? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I can sum up for the member in just a few words: in 2006 6000 unemployed youngsters; today 250. Yes I tell Mrs Tolley that our programmes are working. 
Anne Tolley 
: I seek leave to table the letter from the Ministry of Education to principals inviting them at the ministry’s expense— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is. 
Government Initiatives—Implementation 
7.  
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: What Government initiatives come into force next week that will benefit New Zealanders? 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 From 1 October New Zealanders will experience the benefit of a new low tax rate of 12.5 percent the lifting of tax thresholds for workers on middle and high incomes and increases to the Working for Families tax credits. These are just a few of the initiatives of a responsible Labour-led Government planning for a strong and sustainable future for all New Zealanders. 
Lynne Pillay 
: Who will benefit from these initiatives? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: All workers will pay less tax after next Wednesday but in particular these initiatives will benefit those on low incomes families with children and superannuitants. Recent research shows that the gap between rich and poor in our country has reduced for the first time in over two decades. The 1 October changes continue our Government’s focus on delivering fairness. 
Justice—Government Policies 
8.  
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: Has she asked the Prime Minister why there were no new justice policies mentioned in the Prime Minister’s statement that “In the next few weeks I will be announcing significant new policies in critical areas such as health education and housing.”; if not why not? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 No. Unlike National which has an inner clique that decides policy and feeds its backbench manure only Labour has a proper policy process that involves all its members of Parliament. I point out to the member that the Prime Minister said “such as” in her statement; it was not restricted to just those three areas. 
Simon Power 
: Why has the Minister of Corrections proposed looking at banning gangs when the Minister of Justice has told this House three times that she did not believe it was feasible or possible to outlaw them and when Labour did nothing about gangs for 2 years then left a bill that increased the penalties for gang members in the drawer for a year after it had been approved by Cabinet because the then Minister was too busy with the Electoral Finance Act? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: The Minister of Police would be silly not to consider looking at legislation in another country if it works and what the Minister of Corrections has said is that we ought to look to see whether it works. I totally agree with him. But I do not agree with the member’s saying that this Government has done nothing about gangs; we have done a lot about organised crime. The member does not recognise what we have done because that would not suit his purposes. 
Simon Power 
: Can the Minister confirm that there are no new justice policies because the Government still has not passed laws it announced much earlier like the criminal proceeds bill promised at the last election the corrections amendment bill first announced in June last year and the Legal Services Amendment Bill which she told the Sensible Sentencing Trust conference would be introduced in May and passed soon after but has yet to receive its first reading? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I can assure the member that there will be a very strong justice policy from the Labour Party as there has been in every election. I wonder how many members of the National Party know anything about their justice policy; I am pretty sure that they will not have been told it yet. 
Simon Power 
: Can the Minister confirm that neither the new legislation to govern electronic bail which the Prime Minister announced in June nor the amendment to the Domestic Violence Act which the Minister said would be introduced by July has yet to appear before the House at all; and in light of the 43 percent increase in violence under her Government why have improvements to laws dealing with family violence been put on the back-burner? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I can assure the member they have certainly not been put on the back-burner. We undertook a major review of the Domestic Violence Act we consulted widely the legislation has recently gone through Cabinet and it will be in this House in due course. I look forward to the National Party voting for it. You see it is very easy to sit there shout and interject; when National was in Government its record on law and order was abysmal—whether it was organised crime or domestic violence. It really disappoints me that even today National does not recognise that family violence is a major issue. 
Simon Power 
: Does “in due course” mean that those bills I have referred to will be in the urgency motion this week? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: The member will have to wait and see. 
Simon Power 
: Can the Minister confirm that the Prime Minister’s announcement at the beginning of the year that Labour would investigate a victims compensation scheme rests on the advice of the Law Commission which is not due to produce a discussion document until this month; and why has the policy not firmed up in the 14 years since her leader last announced it in 1994? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: The member is not correct in his comments about the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister ensured the passage of the Victims’ Rights Act in 2002. The National Government had 9 years to put in place legislation for victims in New Zealand; there was no legislation from National. Not only did we put in place legislation but this week we announce the victims’ charter and we also announce an 0800 number so that victims can get information when they need it. We have put money and commitment behind victims; National has only ever talked about that. 
Ron Mark 
: Would it be helpful given that on 14 March 2006 the Government was dismissive of New Zealand First’s calls to pass legislation to outlaw gangs and given that on 21 November 2007 the Government dismissed New Zealand First’s request that it look at the South Australian Serious and Organised Crime (Control) Act which had been put through Parliament that day if New Zealand First tabled for its first reading the Anti Gang and Organised Crime Bill that it has drafted which blends the strengths of the South Australian Act with the Terrorism Suppression Act here in New Zealand and the US Congress’s Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act; would it be helpful if we tabled that bill now? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: The member has every right to table whatever he likes. I would have no objection to his tabling whatever he wanted. However we have said that we want to look at the South Australian legislation. The last thing we want to do is to put in place something that does not work but we have the opportunity because we work closely with South Australia to look at how its legislation works and then to see whether it can be applied to New Zealand. 
Ron Mark 
: I seek leave for the Anti Gang and Organised Crime Bill to be introduced and set down for first reading as a members’ order of the day despite Standing Orders 276(1) and 277(1). 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection. 
Principles of Justice—Application 
9.  
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: Does she agree that the principles of British justice which have evolved in New Zealand still apply in New Zealand? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 Yes. New Zealand has adopted through history and common law many of the justice principles first articulated in the British justice system. Over time many of these principles have been refined in New Zealand legislation and judicial decisions. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Is it one of those most basic fundamental principles that one cannot be convicted of an offence that is not in the law? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Yes. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Is it one of those basic fundamental principles that there cannot be in a case retrospective legislation or retrospective rules and then justice? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I believe that is correct. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Is it also fundamental to our laws and our system that an offence is only applicable when the law or rules have been in fact put in place? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Again the member is correct. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Does the Minister regard that as being game set and match? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: All the issues the member has raised I gave affirmative answers to. If that is game set and match then it must be. 
State Services—Delivery 
10.  
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
 to the  
Minister of State Services 
: Does he stand by his statement in June that “If State servants don’t deliver services efficiently and effectively people lose faith and trust in the State Services”? 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of State Services) 
: 
 Yes. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Does he stand by his statement in June—I am sorry Madam Speaker. My question is to the Minister— 
Hon Member 
: Big words Gerry—big words. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Yes they are big words—that is right. Are services being delivered efficiently and effectively when in the last 5 years the amount of floor space leased to house bureaucrats in central Wellington has increased from 313578 square metres to 445915 square metres; and how is that 42 percent increase in occupied floor space of benefit to the taxpayer? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I cannot verify the exact figures that the member used but I am happy to accept his word. Three areas of costs that I as Minister have been moving to control are building lease costs advertising costs and air travel costs. The Government is paying attention to these issues. 
Darien Fenton 
: What reports has the Minister seen on public servant numbers? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Of course the big cost centre is and always will be wage costs—wage and salary costs. I have seen reports that John Key Bill English and Gerry Brownlee all say that National will not cut the number of public servants yet we have National still talking about unaffordable tax cuts—tax cuts that would cost many billions of dollars on top of the amount that Labour is already committed to. If it is going to do that— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Reckless borrowing! 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: You have got it Mr Mallard—reckless borrowing and substantial increases in Government debt at a time of international turmoil. Some might expect that from a party of paper shufflers and speculators but I for one think it would be disastrous for New Zealand. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: How can people—[ 
Interruption 
] I am just waiting for the retiring member from Wanganui to finish. How can people have trust in Labour’s stewardship of the Public Service when it is overseeing an increase in the amount of floor space leased to bureaucrats in central Wellington over the last 5 years that equates to an additional 13.2 hectares of office space? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: No doubt the vast proportion of that increase relates to the increase in the number of public servants which is at a lower rate than the increase in the labour force. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: How can people have trust in Labour’s stewardship of the Public Service when in the last 5 years it has chosen to create a 17 point difference—[ 
Interruption 
] I am doing well! In the last 5 years—[ 
Interruption 
] I know how they feel Madam Speaker. It is their last day in those seats. It is like the end of a school year. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: If the member keeps on chipping backwards and forwards the question will go on forever so just ask the question please. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: How can people have trust in Labour’s stewardship of the Public Service when in the last 5 years it has chosen to create extra space for bureaucrats that is equal to the two new Auckland City hospitals 27 new Sunderland Schools or 1470 State houses; and what are they doing in all that office space? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: The country can be assured that if voters choose to return a Labour Government we will prudently look after their money. We will not recklessly borrow to increase Government debt. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Has the Minister seen a report by Bayleys Research that states that the Government sector now occupies almost 40 percent of the total commercial space in the Wellington central business district; and does he agree with its analysis that the surge in floor uptake over the last 5 years involves quite staggering numbers and serves only to illustrate how big the core bureaucracy in New Zealand has become? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: As I said before State servant numbers have decreased as a proportion of the labour force. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Can the Minister confirm that the cost of leased office space in central Wellington now amounts to at least $106 million a year; and is not the growing of the bureaucracy simply driving up costs for the taxpayer who has to pay for further space to contain them? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: What I can confirm is that it was the last National Government flogging off the Government-owned premises that has now increased the cost of the rent paid by the taxpayers. If National got on the Treasury benches it would flog off the remaining assets that are owned by the taxpayers. 
Food Labelling—Country of Origin 
11.  
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
 to the  
Minister for Food Safety 
: Does she stand by her statement that “country-of-origin labelling does not serve a food safety purpose”; if so why? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister for Food Safety) 
:  
Yes; because all food for sale in New Zealand is required to meet New Zealand standards no matter where it comes from. A label that advises the country of origin of the whole food or of each or some of the ingredients does not in itself provide information on the safety of the food but provides information only on the origin of the food. That being said I say the Government fully supports voluntary country-of-origin labelling as a service to consumers. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Is it therefore the Minister’s opinion that New Zealand and China have equivalent food safety standards? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I should say that high-risk foods that come to New Zealand from anywhere are in fact monitored by the New Zealand Food Safety Authority. So it is not actually a question of the levels of standards that apply in individual countries; it is whether the food is up to the New Zealand standard when it arrives here. In that respect it does not matter whether it comes from China or Timbuctoo. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Can the Minister tell us what routine tests New Zealand applies for detecting melamine in dairy products imported from China; if there are none how can she deny New Zealand consumers the right to know where their food comes from so they can make their own decisions? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: No country routinely checks dairy products for melamine. This has been a situation that has arisen in China in respect of the addition of melamine in the chain of supply and as I made the point the other day one of the products we found that might potentially have had dairy product from China in it had come via Australia. The product did not in fact have melamine in it so I hasten to reassure people about that. But the product had the country-of-origin labelling that is required in Australia and that labelling said: “Made from domestic and imported products.” and therefore it did not assist in identifying whether the product came from China. 
Electoral Finance Act—Freedom of Speech 
12.  
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: Does she stand by her statement in relation to the Electoral Finance Bill: “This bill does not restrict free speech.”; if so why? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 Yes; and we are already seeing examples of people freely expressing their views in this election campaign. A good example is the untrue jibes about Dr Cullen’s sexuality made at Dr Nick Smith’s campaign launch which the member asking the question had no hesitation in joining in. So much for the clean campaign promised by John Key! 
Hon Bill English 
: How can the Minister continue to defend the Electoral Finance Act when the New Zealand Law Society’s rule of law committee which includes as a member the Deputy Solicitor-General said recently that the Act is an “unwarranted intrusion on the right to freedom of political expression …” and it is “fundamentally flawed and misconceived and ought to be repealed …”; and why should we regard the Minister’s opinion on this issue as more valid than the opinion of the Law Society? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: The New Zealand Law Society is exercising its right to free speech. 
Hon Bill English 
: Well under the law it would have to register to do that! What does the Minister think of the comment made by her Cabinet colleague Jim Anderton who is now subject to two police investigations under the Electoral Finance Act when he said that complying with the law is an extraordinary waste of everyone’s time; and was Mr Anderton not at the Cabinet discussions about this law? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Jim Anderton is also entitled to exercise free speech and is allowed to make whatever comments he wishes. In the end it is up to the Electoral Commission. But I think that member has probably distorted what Jim Anderton said. 
Hon Bill English 
: Does the Minister stand by her rather obvious statement that she is not an expert on this law but that the Electoral Commission is; and what does she think about the expert opinion of the chief executive of the Electoral Commission when she said: “It is clear that having uncertainty remaining within the regulated period has had a chilling effect on the extent and type of participation in political and campaign activity.”; and also said: “The meanings of significant sections of this legislation are obscure.”? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Dr Catt is independent and she can hold her own views. However I point out to the member that free speech is available and able to be used in this campaign and that fact can be seen in these posters here which have been put up on hoardings around Wellington. There are quite a number of them. People are allowed to do that under the Electoral Finance Act. They are authorised. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Table them. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I will table them. This poster shows Maurice Williamson when he had a beard and was allowed to speak! These pamphlets are an example of free speech in an election campaign. No one stopped this because the organisation did it right; it followed the rules. The National Party does not want to follow the rules. It wants big business to be able to buy this election campaign. Well it has failed. 
Hon Bill English 
: Is the Minister not aware that it is a disgrace that the law that she passed has been described by the chief executive of the Electoral Commission 2 months out from the election as “having a chilling effect on the extent and type of participation in campaign activity.” and that 2 months out from an election New Zealand’s top electoral official has said: “The meanings of significant sections of the legislation are obscure.” which means that MPs campaigners and lobby groups who try to comply with this ridiculous law could easily find themselves in court and in jail after the election? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: If it is so difficult how did www.botheyesopen.org.nz manage to be able to work within the rules put out posters like these and not be caught by the Electoral Finance Act? They followed the rules. That is all anybody needs to do. But of course Bill English is on a mission to try to spread as much misinformation about this Act as possible because the National Party wanted to spend its millions of dollars and it was not allowed to. It is a bad case of sour grapes. 
Hon Bill English 
: Why is it that the Minister now professes to a detailed knowledge of the rules when all the parties that voted for the Electoral Finance Act have been found to have breached the rules—namely the Labour Party New Zealand First Progressive and the Greens? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: The point I was making to the member was that over and over again he has said that nobody could campaign; nobody could get out there and put up a hoarding or put out a pamphlet. He said that was not possible but I say that it is possible and that organisations are out there doing that right now and they could have been doing it from the beginning of the year. That member needs to get over his sour grapes get out there and campaign and do his best but at the end of the day people will remember that he was “Mr Pension-cutter” for the older people of New Zealand. 
Hon Bill English 
: Is the Minister aware that when canvassed on the doorstep many New Zealanders are keen to get rid of a Government that has passed a law where one has to register to have a political opinion where the rules are so complex that many people are too scared to have a go at campaigning and where the chief executive of the Electoral Commission has said that the law has a chilling effect and that meanings of the legislation are obscure; and has any Minister done a worse job than her on this law? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: There we go—“Mr Nasty” always makes it personal. I say to the member that I think he has lost the plot on this issue. It is his last shot on it; why does he not just get over it and get out and campaign? He has been whingeing and snivelling in this Parliament for most of the year when he could certainly have been out and campaigning. 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I think the Minister referred to me as personalising the issue and then went on to use some very unparliamentary and highly personalised language. I ask that she withdraw. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: She may well have but unfortunately members were shouting too much for me to hear. But if the member has asked for a withdrawal would the member please withdraw. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I withdraw—I think the words were “whingeing and snivelling” but I did not know they were unparliamentary. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: It is all right; the member has withdrawn. 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The Minister is a longstanding member who knows the conventions around statements of withdrawal and I ask that she be held to those conventions. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the Minister please withdraw and apologise and do nothing else. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Thank you. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I wonder whether the Minister would clarify for the House why those posters that were held up are in such perfect condition when they are supposed to have come off lamp posts and when the organisation that put them there is not connected to the Labour Party? [ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The member has asked for an explanation; the Minister is to give it. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: With very delicate hands one might be able to get them off a lamp post but I can assure the member that these posters are available anywhere around Wellington. He can just go into any place and he will find them; they will be available for him. He can collect the whole set. There is a whole set of them. There are in fact three in the set. If the member is really lucky they will give him the whole set. 
Privilege 
Consideration of Report of Privileges Committee 
Members’ Pecuniary Interests—Gifts and Donations 
PETER BROWN (Whip—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. At the conclusion of this debate we will take a vote and it is a very serious issue to my mind. As you are well aware I wrote to you and asked that it be a personal vote in the interests of justice. You declined that and I just wondered whether you could spare a few moments of the House’s time to explain why it was declined. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Is the member seeking leave to have a personal vote at the end of this debate? 
PETER BROWN 
: If that is the option I have then I seek leave for the vote to be taken on this debate to be a personal vote. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. Yes the member is quite right; he did write to me. I did consult with parties and the request was declined. But leave has been sought. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection. 
SIMON POWER (Chairperson of the Privileges Committee): 
 I move  
That this House take note of the report of the Privileges Committee on a question of privilege relating to compliance with a member’s obligations under the Standing Orders dealing with pecuniary interests; censure Rt Hon Winston Peters for knowingly providing false or misleading information on a return of pecuniary interests; order Rt Hon Winston Peters to file within 7 days of this order amended returns for the years ended 31 January 2006 2007 and 2008 covering any gifts debts or payments in kind that he has not previously registered; resolve that the Standing Orders Committee review the Standing Orders relating to pecuniary interests; and resolve that the Clerk of the House of Representatives enhance the support available to the Registrar of Pecuniary Interests in order to provide an authoritative source of advice for members making returns of pecuniary interests. 
 I stand today as the chairperson of Parliament’s Privileges Committee with this report having been tabled late yesterday afternoon or early evening. Madam Speaker I believe that it is appropriate you have remained in the Chair for the early part of this debate at least as this is a very serious matter. 
Before turning to the detail of the report I will make a few introductory remarks. First of all I thank the staff of the Privileges Committee for handling what at times have been complex and difficult issues. I also take this opportunity to thank all the members of the Privileges Committee who approached this particular referral in a way that I consider to be appropriate and thorough. It is worth noting that in the recommendations in the report the majority view in respect of the first and second recommendations includes representatives on that committee from National the Greens the Maori Party United Future and the ACT party. The minority report in respect of the first and second recommendations represents members of the Labour Party and New Zealand First. The third and fourth recommendations relating to referrals of this matter and the Standing Orders Committee are unanimous recommendations from all members of the Privileges Committee. 
Madam Speaker as I as chairperson have said on many occasions both during the course of hearings of evidence and in private discussions with committee members the terms of reference to the Privileges Committee from you were very narrow and specific. Despite the view some had that this inquiry may have been more wide ranging it was not. Evidence that did not relate to the questions before the committee are not reported on. 
Madam Speaker on 5 August 2005 you ruled that a question of privilege arose from complaints that the Rt Hon Winston Peters failed to disclose a gift and failed to disclose a debt and the name of the person who discharged it. That question stood referred to the Privileges Committee. I want to take a moment to outline the terms of reference the committee decided upon in respect of that referral. The terms of reference were as follows: the meaning of “debt” and “debtor” in the context of the register of pecuniary interests and the meaning of “gift” similarly within that context; whether a debt existed and should have been disclosed; whether if a debt did not exist a gift was received from a person whose name was known or would be reasonably discernible or a donation was made that covered expenses in an election campaign and further if a debt or gift existed whether Mr Peters knowingly provided a return that was inaccurate in a material way; whether the rules for disclosure of pecuniary interests required clarification or amendment; and any other matters. 
In broad terms the committee agreed to a process that saw it hearing evidence from Mr Peters and his counsel Mr Henry. We invited Mr Owen Glenn to appear before us to give evidence. Mr Peters and Mr Henry had a further opportunity to appear before us following Mr Glenn’s appearance. Significantly during the course of the committee’s deliberations we received a communication from the director of the Serious Fraud Office. On hearing further evidence from Mr Peters and receiving written evidence from Mr Henry the committee determined that these matters did not go to the heart of the matter referred by you Madam Speaker to the committee. However we note that if payments were made by a third party these would have constituted a gift. We made Mr Peters aware of the draft findings and provided him with an opportunity to comment. Mr Peters’ response is appended to this report as Appendix N. 
At the centre of the matter before the committee was a payment of approximately $100000 from Owen Glenn to the account of Brian Henry. The fact of this payment was not disputed. It is worth noting that the committee having heard evidence early on and having received specific advice on the issue determined that there was no legal debt. The issue then quickly moved to the issue of whether a gift had transpired between the parties I have already mentioned. 
Mr Glenn told the committee that after speaking with Mr Peters on or shortly after 5 December 2005 he sought Mr Williams’ view on whether helping Mr Peters would be helpful to the New Zealand Labour Party. Mr Glenn believed that this was discussed at a brunch meeting with Mr Williams on 14 December in Sydney. Mr Glenn told the committee he telephoned Mr Peters later that morning—11.16 a.m. Sydney time; 1.26 p.m. New Zealand time—to tell him he would contribute to the cost of the petition. Mr Glenn said that in the course of that conversation he offered to provide $100000. Mr Glenn told us that Mr Peters then said his lawyer would send account details and requested that the donation be kept confidential. That evidence was disputed. Mr Glenn supplied us with a copy of the email he then received on 14 December from Mr Henry which gave Mr Henry’s bank account details and referred to a conversation between Mr Glenn and Mr Henry’s client sent at 1.40 p.m. New Zealand time. It was at that point that the Privileges Committee was required to balance the evidence that was before it. On page 12 of the report from the committee it has set out how it went about the assessment of that evidence and in particular the standard it used in analysing and drawing inferences from the known facts. 
Essentially as I said earlier the matter then drew very quickly to the issue of whether a gift should have been declared on the register of pecuniary interests. The committee considered that the payment was of benefit to Mr Peters. It is clear that the intent of the donor in this case was not to benefit the barrister and the committee was of the view that it was the member’s legal expenses that were being contributed to not the barrister’s well-being. Together these elements show clearly that the payment did constitute a gift to Mr Peters. 
At that point the matter became somewhat more complicated. The committee then had to move to determine the knowledge of the payment and in the words of the deputy chair of the committee “at this time the committee was faced with two different narratives.” There were some points of agreement between the two narratives. Mr Peters and Mr Glenn agree that they met in Sydney on 13 August 2005. The parties all agree that on 14 December 2005 there was a telephone call from Mr Glenn to Mr Peters which was followed immediately by a telephone call from Mr Peters to Mr Henry after which Mr Henry emailed Mr Glenn with bank account details. Mr Peters and Mr Glenn agree they were both at the Karaka yearling sales on or about 31 January 2006. 
The majority of the committee believe that it is extremely unlikely that Mr Peters and Mr Glenn could have had a conversation on that date without the issue of a donation being raised. A minority of the committee could not dismiss the argument put forward by Mr Peters that the money was not mentioned. In the end the committee has delivered a majority report and a minority report. The majority of us consider that the sequence of telephone calls followed immediately by an email containing bank account details indicates that the topic must have arisen during one or both of those conversations. 
The committee then moved to its finding of contempt which is contained on page 19 of the report. We found that the payment as I said did constitute a gift and we found no evidence that Mr Peters made an honest attempt to ascertain whether any donations had been received before making his return in February 2006 despite his knowledge of the arrangement with Mr Henry and the likelihood of donations being received towards his costs. For those reasons the majority of the Privileges Committee determined that a contempt had occurred. 
Issues remaining for the Standing Orders Committee to consider are contained in the report. I emphasise that when you referred this matter to the committee Madam Speaker that was something you asked the committee to look at in some detail. I will finish where I started by thanking the staff of the committee and the advisers to the committee as well as all members of the committee for the way that the hearings the evidence and the deliberations were conducted. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) 
: 
 I begin by recognising that in chairing the select committee Mr Power ensured that due process was followed and that all those who gave evidence to the committee were allowed to do so in a reasonable fashion and with a degree of protection against any undue activity on the part of any members of the committee. 
It seems to me that there were three questions the committee needed to ask itself. The first question was whether Mr Peters knew about the Owen Glenn donation. The second question was if he did not should he in any case have found out about it—for reasons that I will explore a little later on. The third question was whether he should have declared that donation on the pecuniary interests register. In order for the finding in the majority to stand it seems to me that one has to answer “yes” to either questions one and three—in other words Mr Peters knew and should have declared it—or to questions two and three that he should have found out about it and declared it. If there is a “no” to either one and three or two and three then in fact the contempt finding cannot be made. There is a high standard to apply because the finding of contempt and a motion of censure is an extremely serious matter. I can find in Dave McGee’s book only three references to motions of censure in the last 35 years or so of this Parliament. 
In relation to the first question about whether Mr Peters knew about the Owen Glenn donation we were faced at the time as I said with two conflicting narratives. Narrative A Mr Glenn’s was that Mr Peters contacted him on 5 December leaving a message to phone Mr Peters. That conversation occurred on 14 December. During that conversation Mr Peters sought a donation. That donation was $100000. Mr Peters then contacted Mr Henry. Mr Henry transferred his bank details to Mr Glenn. That narrative has a high degree of credibility about it on the face of it. 
The alternative narrative is a different one; let us deal with the first narrative first. Much of it depends on the reliability of Mr Glenn as a witness. Mr Glenn was fine as long as he stuck to the carefully coached matters that he went through rehearsed by his lawyer Dr Harley. Interestingly enough Dr Harley was appearing pro bono publico—for no fees—despite being one of the most expensive lawyers in the country and despite being at the middle of the wine-box affair in which Mr Peters had a starring role on the other side of the script. Mr Glenn however unburdened himself the next day of a whole series of statements and indeed managed to contradict himself on many different occasions. He said the donation was to New Zealand First then he said it was to Mr Peters. He said he made the donation to Labour because of the Exclusive Brethren—an impossibility as the donation was made before the relationship between National and the Exclusive Brethren was known. Then this morning on  
Morning Report 
 he contradicted himself yet again by saying the donation to Labour had nothing to do with the Exclusive Brethren. He claimed that Mr Williams had arrived at his home in the south of France uninvited but Mr Williams produced the email from Mr Glenn that invited him. He claimed that Mr Williams asked for a job when in fact it was Mr Glenn who had offered Mr Williams a job. He claimed to have been invited to the Karaka sales by Mr Peters when in fact Mr Peters is not the person who invites people to tables at the Karaka sales; the person is one of the people who are involved directly in the racing industry. Mr Glenn claimed to have sat at the same table as Mr Peters when a series of affidavits have shown in fact that they did not lunch together at that particular function. In other words Mr Glenn was a not entirely reliable witness. 
Furthermore he showed extreme resentment at being questioned. He seemed to regard the New Zealand select committee as something that was rather like being in front of third-level flunkies in his organisation. If they were told what the facts were those were the facts that were to be accepted. Indeed he threatened to walk out even though he was not questioned very hard at all. I have seen much harder questioning by members on all sides of this House in the select committee process than what Mr Glenn was subjected to. In other words he was a person used to getting his own way and he did not like it when he appeared not to be getting his own way. That could colour his attitude on matters such as donations. 
The alternative narrative therefore is that in fact—as Mr Henry submitted and Mr Peters submitted—Mr Henry made the approach to Mr Glenn for the donation which is much more likely to have occurred in any case given the nature of those who approach people for substantial donations; that Mr Glenn indeed called Mr Peters because that is absolutely clear and during that conversation he mentioned that he wanted Mr Henry’s details; and that Mr Peters conveyed that fact to Mr Henry and Mr Henry contacted Mr Glenn. 
Those are two different narratives and one can choose between them. Only those who have totally prejudiced minds such as Dr Smith will conclude that only one of those narratives has credibility to it. Both those narratives have credibility to them and the majority found that the first narrative was correct. The minority has serious doubts about that narrative. But in fact it is the least important of the questions because of course even if it is true we have to proceed to question three. 
Let us deal with question two. Let us assume that narrative two is correct and that in fact Mr Glenn was approached by Mr Henry for the donation and the matters unfolded as I outlined previously. Then we have the argument that is based on the submission from the former Clerk of the House Dave McGee—who was invited at my suggestion to make a submission to the committee—that one should have to make an honest attempt. And that meant a much more serious delving back into the past about where donations might have come from based in this case upon the undisputed fact that Mr Henry indicated that he told Mr Peters that people had contributed to Mr Henry’s legal expenses—expenses that of themselves as Mr Power has just outlined did not create a debt and could not because Mr Henry practised as a barrister sole. What is more the committee was further told that if the money did not come forth and Mr Peters was unable to pay the money there was no obligation upon Mr Peters at all—other than a moral one perhaps—to pay that money. In other words any payment of Mr Henry’s legal expenses did not thereby reduce any kind of payment that Mr Peters might make to Mr Henry. 
The problem with the “honest attempt” test however is that it is basically a construction arrived at by the select committee on the advice of Mr McGee and is imported backwards to the affair in early 2006. I invite members to think very carefully. This exposes many people in this House to risk in terms of any wide range of donations and services or of undercharging for services such as legal services. I think there might be many members who may care to think carefully about whether the returns they made at the start of 2006 might be entirely accurate in all respects in the light of that changing interpretation of members’ obligations. 
But then there is still the highest hurdle to cross. Even if all those facts follow and Mr Peters should have found out about the donation or already knew about the donation the real issue that comes at that point is whether he should have made a return. The registrar told us that if members approached her for advice about whether a matter required a return she would advise them to ask their lawyer and seek legal advice which is why the committee has recommended that the registrar should make more rulings on these matters. But what if Mr Peters had done that and had approached his lawyer for advice on this matter? Mr Henry submitted that in fact a return was not required on two grounds: on the first ground that it was not a gift to Mr Peters because there was no obligation to pay on Mr Peters’ part; and on the second ground that it was an electoral expense related to the electoral petition and electoral expenses are specifically exempted from the requirement to make a return under the pecuniary interests register. The committee concluded that both those points were wrong but that is not the point. The point is that that is the advice that Mr Peters would have had had he followed what Dame Margaret Bazley said should be done. In other words how can one conclude on the basis of this—and engage in a motion of censure on a member—that he knowingly made a false return when in fact if he had followed what was recommended through this process he would have been advised that he did not need to make a return on these matters? 
That is why the Labour Party will not be voting for this motion. There is a conflict of evidence here. A high test should be applied in the end. A very serious motion has been moved and I think the House needs to think very clearly whether for political purposes on the eve of an election it should be engaging in this public hanging. No doubt Mr Brownlee as an ex-carpenter is the man keen to erect the scaffold. 
R DOUG WOOLERTON (NZ First) 
: 
 I would like to take a very short call to propose an amendment to the motion. I move  
That the words “censure Rt Hon Winston Peters for knowingly providing false or misleading information on a return of pecuniary interests” be deleted and the following words inserted: “note that several members of Parliament had legal fighting funds and did not disclose donations to these as it was unclear that this was required”.  
I have a further amendment to insert after “order Rt Hon Winston Peters” “Hon Dr Nick Smith and any other member with relevant interests”. Thank you. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 Madam Speaker the House would probably like some clarification about the process—whether we speak— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The normal process is that we would go around with each party but as the Green Party member did not rise I went to you. But the Green member has now risen— 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I am quite happy to concede. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: —to speak. 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 It gives me no joy to be standing here and speaking to this report. It gives me no joy as it is not something that I particularly wanted to get involved in and it is not something that anyone who has looked at the issue will be comfortable with. But as a member of Parliament who was on the Privileges Committee I had no choice but to consider the evidence that was in front of us and we had a duty to work our way through it. 
I would like to thank Simon Power. I think that the process the chair of the select committee ran was fair and he gave everyone a fair go. They had a fair go to put their point of view and I think that it was a fair process. I think that is essential to it. I think also that from my point of view the key to it was to approach the whole question with an open mind. I did not have a view as to the guilt or innocence of any of the people involved when I entered the process but my approach was that I had to look at the evidence and try to come to a conclusion. That is what we were required to do on that committee. So when we looked at the evidence we discovered there was a case to answer and as we went through the evidence we discovered even more and more of a case to answer. 
In terms of the tests we were to apply there were a couple of different tests. One was a test on the balance of probability. We had to decide on the balance of probabilities whether Mr Peters had knowledge. That was one of the key questions that all of us had to address. At the beginning I did not have a view as to whether Mr Peters had knowledge. I actually did not know. But as time went past there was more and more evidence around it. So there was the balance of probabilities test. I do not think that this was a 51:49 test because clearly this was an extremely serious issue and one could not simply say that the probability was 51 percent so he therefore had some knowledge. It had to be higher than that. It is hard to put a number on it but it had to be higher than 51:49. 
The second test of course is the “honest attempt” test. The “honest attempt” test has been brought up here and it has been claimed as a retrospective test. I guess in some senses perhaps that that is true. But I ask members to cast their minds as to what was actually said and I quote from the report: “It is appropriate to expect members to make an honest attempt to return all of the pecuniary interests that they hold. In order to make such an honest attempt members are obliged to turn their minds to the interests that they have. The onus is on members to recognise and declare relevant interests.” It seems to me that this is the test that applied from the beginning. Who would argue that members should not have followed this kind of test when filling out pecuniary interests? It seems to me that an “honest attempt” is exactly what is required. Surely that is what anyone requires of parliamentarians—that they make an honest attempt. So to say that somehow 3 years ago or however long ago it was parliamentarians were not required to make an honest attempt which seems to be the argument around retrospectivity is to my mind puzzling. Are people really saying that a few years ago no one had to make an honest attempt? I just cannot buy that. I think the “honest attempt” test is a fine test to have. 
There were two principles around this to my mind. One was the public’s right to know. The whole idea of pecuniary interest and what goes around it—and it is kind of paralleled with electoral law—is the public’s right to know who is giving money to politicians and who is giving money to political parties. On the other side we had the basic right of Mr Peters to have a fair go. He had to have a fair go to present his side of the story to the committee. So basically we had to try to meet both of those principles—that the public had a right to know that the pecuniary interest register was being applied properly and that we also had to give Mr Peters a fair go—and I believe we actually went through that. 
In terms of the evidence I can tell members that in my mind it was difficult to try to put the witnesses’ words one against the other. We heard numerous stories. It was very difficult to know which was the right story when one was sitting there listening to them all. So I think one of the key issues for me was the events around 14 December. That was one of the key bits of evidence because regardless of who rang whom before 14 December something very important happened on that day. There were two phone calls and an email. The first phone call was from the billionaire to the politician—if we want to take people’s names out of it—and they talked about something. We do not know what they talked about; there are different stories. The politician rang the politician’s lawyer immediately after and they talked about something. Then the lawyer sent an email back to the billionaire and said: “Further to your conversation with the politician here are my bank account details.” This series of phone calls and the email were compelling evidence—they were strong evidence. The thing about them is that nobody denied this evidence. Nobody said “Actually this didn’t happen.” Those three pieces of evidence and the way they are connected together are a central part of why I think the majority of the committee came to the conclusion it did. There is a lot else around this but we know that those three pieces of evidence were extremely strong and nobody denied those three pieces of evidence. 
The question we got to at the end was around what to do about it. Once we came to the point of view that there was some knowledge of the donation—and I believe that there was some knowledge and that it was a gift—the question was what we do about it. There were those who were calling for Mr Peters to be suspended from Parliament for all manner of things. I thought that that went too far. I thought that the report itself is sufficient penalty. It says basically that Mr Peters gave a false return. It says he is in contempt he is censured and he is required to give an accurate return. I think these are quite severe penalties and I think that it is a step too far and too much to suggest there should be some kind of suspension of privilege or anything beyond that. So the report to my mind was an appropriate response and an appropriate penalty for what we found out. 
Finally I think this shows once again why transparency around money and political parties is so important. The people out there want to know that the $50 billion - odd of taxpayers’ money that we are responsible for spending is not being spent in a way that is influenced by our campaign donations. That is what they want to know; that is what the whole transparency rules are about. We are responsible for $50 billion - plus of other people’s money. How do they know that the way we spend it is not being influenced by donations coming either to us personally or to our political parties? There needs to be transparency around this kind of stuff to reassure people so that there is both the appearance and the reality that that responsibility is not influenced by those kinds of donations. We actually went through a tremendously important process in investigating what happened in this situation but it is part of a much broader issue and I think we need to make more progress more broadly on cleaning up the rules around it. Thank you. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 Tena koe Madam Assistant Speaker. Kia ora tatou e te Whare. As my colleague Dr Russel Norman stated this matter has been a rather difficult one for us. The matter before the Privileges Committee to examine the question of compliance with the Standing Orders relating to pecuniary interest has been one that the Maori Party has taken seriously. I acknowledge the officials who provided support to the committee and gave clarity to me on some of the key issues. I also acknowledge Simon Power the chair who led the process in a thoroughly impartial way and also assisted me when asked. Ka nui te mihi ki a koe—thank you also. 
It was disappointing to learn of the Prime Minister’s comments about the process of the Privileges Committee alleging that it was totally unsatisfactory in terms of any natural justice and that the whole process had become politicised favouring one side. That is not an observation I share nor is it behaviour that we in the Maori Party have indulged in during the sitting of the Privileges Committee. I have appreciated the thorough way in which evidence was requested the expert assistance of the officials as I stated earlier and the willing cooperation of those who forwarded information to us for our perusal. I will leave that matter there. 
The allegation as to whether contempt of the House has occurred is one that challenges both the institution of Parliament and the constitution of our party as a whole. The issue is not about personalities; it is not about political agendas. For me and the Maori Party at the heart of the allegation is whether the member had knowingly provided false or misleading information or had knowingly failed to make a return of pecuniary interest by the due date—kaore i ko atu kaore i ko mai; that is it. Now those are substantial issues and I am clear that the committee gave them serious attention. I must say that a number of other matters were raised during the discussions but I am pleased to say we were all kept on track and focused on the specific matters by the chair. 
In considering the matters before the Privileges Committee the Maori Party has the benefit of kaupapa that instruct us on serious matters of State. Those kaupapa tuku iho are the foundation principles of the Maori world and guide us as to the way in which we operate. There are tikanga that we apply to every situation be they matters before the Privileges Committee or bills that come before the House. We are driven by the kaupapa enshrined in our constitution. Those kaupapa are indeed what distinguishes us as the strong and independent Maori voice of Parliament. It is not in anyone’s interest to burn bridges to diminish the mana of individuals and to conduct politics on the basis of personal attack yet we have seen members indulge in that behaviour in this House from time to time. 
Through our kaupapa we endeavour to express manaakitanga towards others be they political allies or opponents. We believe that it is important to treat each other with respect and to act with integrity at all times. We want to ensure that our relationships with all parties are elevating and enhancing. We are not into character assassination. It was good advice that our co-leader Tariana Turia gave to three of us new members when we arrived in this House. She said: “Throw a rock and expect to get a grenade back.” When we talk about rangatiratanga we want to ensure that the conduct and activities of the parliamentary team the leaders in the organisation as a whole are reflective of the attributes of rangatira. It is about walking the talk following through on commitments made and upholding due respect for honesty. We are dedicated in our pursuit of kaitiakitanga which requires an active exercise of responsibility in a manner that is beneficial to resources and the welfare of the people. Those are just three of the foundation principles that I have tried to follow in the deliberations of the matter before the committee. 
In looking at the whole matter some key questions needed to be asked. One thing amongst others is clear: money went from a donor and it reached its intended person a politician. The first question is: did the donation meet the standard of being a gift? As clause 7(1)(b) of Appendix B of the Standing Orders requires a member needs to return a description of each gift including hospitality and donations in cash or kind received by that member with a value of more than $500 together with the name of the donor of the gift. In considering whether the payment was a gift we must ask whether it would ultimately benefit the recipient. I was clear that it would. The intent of the donor was straightforward: to assist the member in being able to meet obligations. The second question is: did the recipient have knowledge of the payment before the deadline for making a return at the time? Although the evidence was conflicting what happened on 14 December as my colleague Dr Russel Norman talked about led me to believe that the recipient knew that some money was to change hands in order to benefit him. 
The third and fourth questions ask whether the gift met the threshold that would require it to be declared in the return of pecuniary interests and whether the member made an honest attempt to account for the payment in his or her return. Well as the Privileges Committee report states “if a member knew of an interest and decided not to declare it the member would have ‘knowingly’ failed to declare an interest if it were subsequently established definitively to be a pecuniary interest.” It seems to me that if someone received a koha that person would at least be required to investigate whether it met the threshold. If that member was receiving advice from others like lawyers about money then those people should have advised the member. That did not happen. According to the Standing Orders neither of the people involved did what was required in order to meet the conditions set. The exchange of money was known about. There was an expectation from Parliament that koha be declared. It was not. Therefore this case fits the definition of “contempt”. 
Although a lot of evidence was provided for the committee to consider for me those three or four questions were all that mattered—not the party not the politician and not the political agendas. There were gaps and inconsistencies of knowledge in all of the information but at the heart of the matter was the subsequent obligation to report the payment in the formal disclosure of pecuniary interests. The Standing Orders are very clear about the requirement upon all of us as parliamentarians to make an annual return of pecuniary interests each year as of 31 January. In the case of a donation received from Owen Glenn that process was not followed. Consequently the majority of the committee has found the member to be in contempt. Although there are recommendations to come out of the report with the election at hand we leave this matter in the court of public opinion. 
I say from the outset that no one in the Maori Party takes any pleasure from the whole series of events but honour is important to us and it was important to our tupuna that it must continue to guide us. As I believe Mark Twain once said honesty is the best policy when there is money in it and indeed the procedures around the register of pecuniary interest for members of Parliament have an important function in keeping us all honest and ensuring our transactions are transparent. This is a very grave matter for this Parliament and we have formed the view that the censuring of the member is of sufficient concern to cause us all to reflect. 
In referring this matter to the Privileges Committee on 5 August Madam Speaker specifically referred to the implications of this matter for the reputation of members and the institution of Parliament. She said: “The issues raised are not peculiar to Mr Peters; they have the potential to affect members generally.” The Maori Party listened carefully to her korero and we believe that it is timely yet again for all members to reflect on the value of having a code of conduct to assist us all in enhancing our public reputation. Perhaps it is timely for the parties that failed to sign up to the code of conduct—Labour National New Zealand First and the Progressive party—to reconsider and to take the opportunity to sign up to the code which will help MPs to carry out their duties and just as important help the public to have confidence in their parliamentary representatives. That could be a positive outcome of this sad situation. Tena koutou. 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I begin my contribution by acknowledging the role of the Privileges Committee chairperson Simon Power in steering a rather difficult course with a degree of aplomb as the committee members have deliberated over the last few weeks. I also acknowledge the role of the Clerk the committee secretariat Mr Kós—our Queen’s Counsel in attendance—and others who advised us along the way for carrying out their duties with a high degree of professionalism. 
I am not going to dwell on the lots of extraneous noise that there has been about this case. There has been a lot of drama and there has been a lot of claim and counterclaim most of which has been utterly irrelevant to the proceedings at hand. I simply want to concentrate in my time on the events of 14 December 2005. Those events go to the heart of the issues we were forced to deliberate upon. 
I want to pick up on the comments that Dr Cullen made about the double-track narrative. If we take those events and start to work through them we find that the areas of difference are very slight. It is acknowledged by all sides that a telephone conversation took place at the instigation of Mr Glenn between Mr Glenn and Mr Peters. It is acknowledged by all sides that within a minute of that call terminating Mr Peters contacted Mr Henry. It is acknowledged by all sides that within a very short period of that call terminating Mr Henry emailed account details to Mr Glenn. What is further acknowledged is that as recollections go a substantial part of the conversation between Mr Glenn and Mr Peters dealt with trade diplomacy and matters of that nature. I will come back in a moment to the question of whether a request was made for account details. It is acknowledged by all sides that the content of the call between Mr Peters and Mr Henry clearly referred to the fact that there had just been a conversation with Mr Glenn and certain details had been raised during that conversation. And it is acknowledged by all sides—because the record is there—what was contained in Mr Henry’s email. 
When we come back and say there are two versions of the narrative we find that the second version essentially hinges on what took place in the conversation between Mr Peters and Mr Glenn. The majority view to which I adhere is that during that conversation from the evidence we have there was a wide-ranging talk about trade possibilities and Mr Glenn’s views in that respect and at the end of that a request was made for Mr Henry’s contact details. That is what prompted the second phone call and the subsequent email. When the committee members tested that point in evidence with Mr Glenn he was adamant that that had been the case. When we tested it with Mr Peters his indication was that he could not recollect whether that had been the case. He did not deny that it had happened; he said he could not recollect that that had been the case. He further acknowledged in subsequent testimony that when the three events were put alongside each other it was reasonable to assume that there must have been a reference in the first conversation; otherwise why would he have contacted Mr Henry? 
The point I am making is that the actual area of difference between the majority view and the minority view is close to minute. It hinges on whether one believed the logic that during the course of this conversation about other things Mr Glenn must have said words to the effect of “Oh by the way I need Brian Henry’s contact details.” If he did not do that one has to ask oneself why Mr Peters on getting off the phone within a very short space of time thought: “I’ve got to ring Brian Henry to say I’ve just talked to Owen Glenn.” and why within a very short space of time of that conservation concluding Brian Henry would say: “I’ve got to send my account details to Owen Glenn.” Mr Henry’s version is that he saw the call from Mr Peters to him as being a memory prompt but it is a very convenient memory prompt within about a 15-minute window. 
The majority formed the view because of the evidence that was put before the committee and the lack of denial of this proposition that at the end of or during that first conversation with Mr Glenn there was a discussion about Mr Henry’s contact details. Mr Peters then rang Mr Henry to confirm that he had been talking to Mr Glenn who had asked him for the details which Mr Henry subsequently provided. On that basis the majority concluded that the test of knowledge had been achieved. One does not have a discussion that requires one to submit account details without others drawing the conclusion that it must have been about money. 
One of the things that I think is a slight red herring in this matter is the issue of the $100000. What we were required to establish was whether there was knowledge of the gift not knowledge of the particular amount. I think that knowledge of the gift was established. The question that then arose was whether it was a debt or a gift. The issue of a debt had been disposed of much earlier. The advice that we received from Mr McGee who was the author in many senses of the pecuniary interests register was quite categorical. He said that moneys advanced for the purposes of an electoral petition did not come within the definition in the Standing Orders of moneys advanced for electoral purposes and therefore could be concluded to have been a gift. Therefore the issue about disclosure of those in the return took effect. On that basis it was relatively easy to draw a conclusion about what had happened and what the consequences should have been. 
I say too that this process was difficult and complicated. It was not helped by some of the obfuscation we received in the evidence particularly that provided by Mr Henry. I do not think he did his client a great deal of good with some of the evidence and some of the obfuscatory answers that he provided when it was fairly clear what had actually been occurring. I think that is a matter he will have to deal with in due course. 
This issue is an important one. It goes to the heart of why we have a pecuniary interests register and it will have ignited some of the old debates about whether it was even necessary. We have one in place. It was noted—from memory by Mr McGee—that we have one in the Standing Orders not in legislation and because it is in the Standing Orders the standard of proof that is applicable is not of the same level as it would be if it were in legislation. That is important in the context of this case because this is Parliament making a determination on the basis of the application of its Standings Orders and the test that needs to be applied is the one that is appropriate in those circumstances. 
This is not an issue that I think anyone can take a great deal of pleasure from. It is a sad occasion when a select committee has to speak to one of its own in the way that the Privileges Committee has. I do not think that the other matters—the intervention of the Serious Fraud Office and other associated events—were in the event particularly helpful. I think if anything those events continued to cloud the occasion in a way that was not particularly positive or beneficial to those involved in them or to the conduct of this inquiry. 
It could be tempting in such circumstances to engage in a measure of triumphalism and some will do so. I am not going to do that because I do not think it is appropriate. This is a matter that the committee members sought to apply our best judgment to in the circumstances. I for one came to it completely open-mindedly. I did not think that the initial reference amounted to a great deal until such time as the evidence started to unfold. In that respect I note that when the issue of Mr Glenn’s appearance was resolved the story started to become much clearer. I do think Mr Glenn’s behaviour after he left the select committee did not do much for his reputation either but the select committee had to focus on what he said to the select committee not on what he said in every press conference he gave around New Zealand. 
On that basis United Future supports the recommendations. We do not support the amendments that are being proposed. We do so not with any great deal of alacrity but with a heavy heart and a wish that the lessons of this case will be learnt and not repeated in the future. 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I would like to move an amendment to the motion. I move  
That the following words be added: “that the member Mr Peters be requested to apologise to the  
New Zealand Herald 
’s editor Tim Murphy and political editor Audrey Young for calling them liars and demanding their resignations and that the member be suspended for the remainder of the day.” 
I do so because I believe that a gentleman would do so and because I think we in this Parliament and we in New Zealand want a press that is free and is not about to be bullied by Ministers and members of Parliament for simply telling the truth—as indeed the Privileges Committee has found. I also say that censuring a member of Parliament in this way is serious. I think it needs to be a bit more than just censure and that is why I suggest that suspending Mr Peters for the remainder of the day—which means right through the urgency procedures—is appropriate. 
I would also like to acknowledge and thank someone who as yet has not been acknowledged and thanked and that is Mr Owen Glenn. Mr Owen Glenn has been a very generous man to New Zealand. He has also been a very generous man to the Labour Party and indeed to Winston Peters. He took the trouble of coming to New Zealand to give evidence. I am sure that that was at considerable expense and considerable inconvenience to him. I was ashamed to be a Kiwi and to be a member of Parliament because whatever one might think of his evidence the idea that he should come under such abuse and attack for taking the trouble to appear before the Privileges Committee was I thought bullying and it showed a level of ingratitude by our country’s representatives that I found unacceptable. 
The majority of the committee found that Mr Peters should have declared the $100000 and indeed that Mr Peters in front of the committee or his lawyer did not tell the truth. I think we can be proud of the Privileges Committee for the way it went about its business. It is never easy taking one of one’s own through a process such as that. I am proud to be a member of a Parliament whose committee showed itself capable of going through the process in a fair and justifiable way. 
I have to say though that I am very very disappointed in the committee’s handling of the information provided by the Serious Fraud Office. I have some considerable knowledge of the operation of the Spencer Trust and I have put that information before the Serious Fraud Office. I think the Privileges Committee made a mistake on behalf of the people of New Zealand by ignoring it. I believe that at the very least the committee should have said that the matter would need to be considered again once the Serious Fraud Office investigation had concluded. I am not happy that we have a situation whereby the Serious Fraud Office has come under attack. It is an independent law enforcement agency doing a difficult job and I was disappointed to hear members of the committee say in this House that they wished that the Serious Fraud Office had not come forward. I am sure that the Serious Fraud Office would rather that I had not laid a complaint with it. I am sure that it would rather not have the information it had. It was in a very very difficult position and that an independent law enforcement agency is bullied in the way that it has been is I think a sad day for New Zealand. 
What the Serious Fraud Office showed is that Mr Peters and Mr Henry did not tell the truth to the committee. Mr Henry initially in answer to Mr Russel’s question said that he had paid the $40000 in costs out of his own pocket. After that— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Who’s Mr Russel? 
RODNEY HIDE 
: I am sorry: Russel Norman. I apologise to Mr Norman. Brian Henry told the committee initially that the $40000 had been paid by him and he was firm on that point. The committee was subsequently told by Mr Peters that he had gone back and checked his records and had discovered that no he had reimbursed Mr Henry. He was firm on that point. 
The Serious Fraud Office in its investigations came across information totally at variance with that testimony. It discovered that indeed the Spencer Trust had paid that money; that the Spencer Trust indeed had $15400 on account that the money had been given by donor A that the trust took a loan to make it up to $40000 that $40000 was paid across and that donor A then gave an additional four donations of $9999 through separate legal entities to the Spencer Trust making a total donation to the Spencer Trust from donor A of $55396. We know that something like over $200000 went through the Spencer Trust all of it undeclared all of it not declared under our electoral laws and all of it not declared on the pecuniary interests register. 
I can tell the House that New Zealand First and its MPs knew nothing of the Spencer Trust except for Doug Woolerton. He in fact knew about the Spencer Trust. He fully knew about the Spencer Trust. Mr Peters would sit in his office and tell his staff “Don’t worry; get Wayne Peters to pay for that.” 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. This matter was ruled out by the committee. It said so. Now a report is before this House and Mr Hide seeks to relitigate material that was debunked by the committee—not accepted by the committee. The committee said the matter was settled because there was no debt. So could you bring him back to the subject matter if you can. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Speaking to the point of order I say that the Serious Fraud Office information is contained within the Privileges Committee’s report. Surely I can refer to that. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: I am sorry the Rt Hon Winston Peters. If the material is in the report it is open for discussion. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. What is in the report is not $200000 or anything of the sort. It is the matter of $40000 that is in the report. It is in the wiring diagram. Mr Hide is now introducing new material that has nothing whatsoever to do with the report. That is my point. Look in the report. I have read it; it does not refer to that matter. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Thank you. I ask Rodney Hide to contain himself to referring to what is in the report and published before this House. Any other matters are extraneous and outside the debate. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Thank you. I certainly will do so. I will certainly talk about the process before the committee—as indeed is my right. 
Mr Winston Peters in his office would instruct his staff “Wayne Peters will pay for that.” We had the Spencer Trust— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. There is nothing whatsoever in this report to suggest that. Mr Hide is just making it up as he always does. I ask Mr Hide where in the report the matter he refers to is; I ask him to point to it. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Thank you Mr Peters. Any comment Mr Hide? If you are not referring to something that is in this report—and I have not read it right through—if you cannot show me that that discussion about Mr Wayne Peters is somewhere in this report then it is not to be included in this debate. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I am certainly entitled to discuss the operation of the Spencer Trust. I am certainly entitled as a member of Parliament to get up and express my dismay at the Privileges Committee not ruling on the information from the— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Thank you Mr Hide. Take your seat please. There is a quite clear distinction. I took advice before I took the Chair. Earlier today when the Speakers met the advice was that this debate was to be constrained to the material presented in this report. To talk—and it is in the Speakers’ rulings—about something that one thinks ought to have been in the report is not pertinent to the debate. Please contain yourself to comments on what is in the report. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Thank you. I refer to page 100 of the report. We see the wiring diagram provided by the Serious Fraud Office. The money goes into the Spencer Trust and is paid across actually to Bob Clarkson. What is not clear from this report is who donor A is. We know that it is one person who has paid across $55396— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Again hear what I said. I said that you cannot presume what is not in here; you can talk about only what is in here. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: It is in the report! If you have not read it— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Excuse me; sit down please. If I heard you correctly then you referred to donor A and then you said “What is not there …” and you took off again. You must stick with what is here. Thank you. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: The explanatory note says that the donations total $55396. The point I was making is that all we know is that it was from donor A; we do not know who the person is which I think I am still allowed to say in this Parliament. It is interesting that the Rt Hon Winston Peters is being asked by Parliament to fill out 3 years of pecuniary interests register. We know he will be required to detail the payments to the Spencer Trust and who provided them because they are a gift to the Rt Hon Winston Peters— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. There is an old English saying that the malady of the ignorant is to be ignorant without knowing it. The law on trusts changed last year. 
Nathan Guy 
: What’s the point? 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: My point is that no such disclosure is required because the law on trusts did not change until the Electoral Finance Act 2007. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Sorry that is a point of debate; it is not a point of order. Thank you. Please continue for your remaining minute Mr Hide. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Mr Peters will be required to provide those details because that $40000 is clearly a gift to him just like the $100000 from Owen Glenn has been ruled to be a gift to him. I say to Mr Peters that this House will be very interested to learn who donor A is and to discover the link between that money and the policies that the Clark-Peters Government has introduced in its Budget. Thank you. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I raise a procedural issue to do with the amendment in the name of Doug Woolerton and ask you to rule whether the amendment is out of order. I refer to the second amendment which states: “insert after ‘order Rt Hon Winston Peters’ ‘the Hon Dr Nick Smith and any other member with relevant interests’.” That is an amendment he is making to the censure motion so if the amendment were to be accepted it would read: “censure the Hon Dr Nick Smith and any other member with relevant interests for knowingly providing false or misleading information on a return of pecuniary interests;”. I put it to you Madam Assistant Speaker that Parliament has actually devised a process for dealing with matters like this—matters of privilege where a member may have to be censured for knowingly providing false information—and it is called the Privileges Committee. Parliament has instituted it precisely to stop this kind of motion before Parliament being a motion that could censure anybody for anything on a simple majority. 
Today we have seen the Speaker exercise her prerogative to take a complaint look at its merits and decide that it lacks the merit to go to the Privileges Committee. That is exactly what happened in respect of Dr Nick Smith. The letter from the Speaker to Dail Jones MP says: “I have considered your letter concerning a statement by the Hon Dr Nick Smith and have determined that no question of privilege is involved.” I do not believe it was ever the intent of the House that a motion such as this could be used to circumvent the Speaker’s decision—just given today—that there was no merit in the issue that was raised in respect of Dr Nick Smith. So Madam Assistant Speaker I am asking you to consider whether the amendment that censures not just Dr Nick Smith but any other member with relevant interests—whatever that means—amounts to an open-ended censure motion being put to the House. It is entirely inappropriate and should be ruled out of order. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Thank you. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 Madam Assistant Speaker you have just heard from Mr Hide on a matter raised now as a matter of relevancy in respect of that motion—or the amendment of it—by Bill English. What Mr Hide just said was that the same thing that has happened to Winston Peters happened to Bob Clarkson because the cheque on the diagram he cited ends up going to the National Party and not to Bob Clarkson. We cannot have one law for Winston Peters and one law for everybody else. Nick Smith’s letter today which was dealt with by the Speaker was on a complaint from Mr Dail Jones that he had misled the House some time ago not that he had failed to declare which is what Mr English is trying to construe it as being. Mr English has acknowledged—and I was at the ASEAN conference at the time but I have the  
Hansard 
—that he had a trust fund and that he had made declaration of that. Now if I am to be retrospectively required to do something so must—surely to be fair—Nick Smith. Or are we going to have a situation where there is one law for Winston Peters and one for everybody else? That is why the amendment should stand in the way it is. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Thank you Mr Peters. I actually took some consideration and some advice on this as soon we received the motion. The original motion relates to a question of privilege relating to the Rt Hon Winston Peters and his returns of pecuniary interests. Any amendment that is put here must be relevant to the motion it seeks to amend. The problem is as I think the Hon Bill English said that the Privileges Committee deals with one issue one person. If we were to suddenly extend this by adding as a second part of the motion “insert the words the Hon Dr Nick Smith” then we are extending out the motion without it going to the Privileges Committee and having the entire work done that was done with the member in the committee. The motion does not relate to any other member and therefore the second part of Mr Woolerton’s amendment is I declare out of order. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Point of order Winston Peters. I have made my ruling though. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Why would you do that if the House is the master of its own destiny? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Then you can ask leave. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: I am seeking leave because surely those who love the law as I am hearing from members on my right would want the law to be applied fairly. Nick Smith knows he had a trust account to meet his legal costs that was no different from mine. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Thank you. Leave has been sought to include the second part of Mr Woolerton’s amendment which refers to the Hon Dr Nick Smith. Is leave granted? No leave is not granted. 
GORDON COPELAND (Independent) 
: 
 When I submitted my letter to the Speaker of the House on 21 July raising the possibility of a breach of privilege around the gift of $100000 by Mr Owen Glenn to Mr Peters’ lawyer Brian Henry—and I would say to Mr Brian Henry as the agent for the Rt Hon Winston Peters—I really had no idea that it would lead to such an extensive inquiry by the Privileges Committee with all of the twists and turns that the inquiry has taken from then until now. 
I would like to begin by congratulating the Privileges Committee. I took the opportunity to sit in whilst most of the evidence was presented to the committee and I was also there for some of the discussions that occurred between committee members. I congratulate the chair of that committee Simon Power. He obviously went to great lengths to ensure that the evidence was heard in an objective fashion and I would say he bent over backwards to ensure that the principle of natural justice was extended to the Rt Hon Winston Peters. We really need to acknowledge that and I am very very saddened as others are that the Prime Minister has seen fit to actually criticise the entire select committee process in those circumstances because the criticism does not stand up to analysis—I was present in the room as an observer and she was not. 
Peter Dunne mentioned that the heart of this matter goes to various conversations on 14 December 2005 and I agree with that. A phone call was made from Owen Glenn to Winston Peters at 1.26 p.m. on that day and it lasted for about 6 minutes. We do not quite know what was discussed but we know that when the phone call finished at 1.32 p.m. within less than 40 seconds the Rt Hon Winston Peters picked up the phone and rang Brian Henry. Again we do not know quite what occurred in that conversation because neither Mr Peters nor Mr Henry as I will mention in a moment recalls the conversation. But we know that the conversation went for 6 minutes and 10 seconds in that particular case and that within 40 seconds of that telephone call finishing Mr Henry sent an email to Mr Glenn saying that further to Mr Glenn’s discussions with his client at 1.30 p.m. here were the details of his bank account. 
I agree with Rodney Hide that this House and our country owe a debt of gratitude to Mr Glenn. He came here well prepared. He brought with him concrete evidence about those phone calls; he brought with him a copy of the email. If Mr Glenn had not been here then I believe we would have had a very different outcome to this whole inquiry. So we are indebted to Mr Glenn for doing the decent thing and deciding to come here and lay his evidence before the committee. I believe that it was truthful evidence. 
After Mr Glenn submitted details of his call to Mr Peters of 14 December 2005 Mr Peters said he had no recollection of immediately after that call making a call to Mr Henry. However he did concede that he might have done so since there was no other way of accounting for the fact that Mr Henry had sent that email to Mr Glenn. Mr Henry in his subsequent evidence also said he had no recollection of having sent that email to Mr Glenn but then conceded that he must have done so because it had come from his personal computer. The credibility of both Mr Peters and Mr Henry is at stake here. The Privileges Committee had to make a judgment on the facts placed before it and in my view and in my judgment the majority got it right. 
I ask members to ask themselves this question: how likely is it that an experienced Minister of the Crown in the case of Mr Peters and an experienced barrister in the case of Mr Henry would forget about a communication firstly between themselves a 6-minute-long conversation that obviously prompted Mr Henry to send an email to Mr Glenn giving his bank account numbers—what for; to receive a donation—and secondly between Mr Henry and Mr Glenn when the subject matter was a gift of $100000? How many people in this House and how many people in New Zealand with reasonable education and with a reasonable memory would forget about the circumstances in which a gift of $100000 was given? I say it is most unlikely that any reasonable person would simply forget about all the details and have no recollection of the conversation. This issue all came to light only because Mr Glenn put that evidence before the committee. I think it is unlikely in the extreme that someone would forget such details and therefore I entirely concur with the majority opinion that the Rt Hon Winston Peters be censured for knowingly providing false or misleading information in a return of pecuniary interests. 
I now go on to the minority report expounded on today by Dr Cullen who argued that the Rt Hon Winston Peters should not have been censured in these circumstances. I suggest to members that the integrity of the whole pecuniary interests scheme itself would be seriously undermined if we were to refrain from censuring a member of Parliament in these particular circumstances and based on this particular evidence. Members need to ask themselves where Dr Cullen got to at the end of his very lucid analysis of the two different scenarios. He basically concluded that it was not necessary to censure the member. Let us suppose that we were not right now in the light of all of this evidence censuring the Rt Hon Winston Peters. I believe that that would be a most unsatisfactory precedent in terms of upholding the Standing Orders of this Parliament in relation to pecuniary interests. Really in those circumstances we would have set a new low benchmark. 
I want to elaborate on that Madam Speaker. In my original letter to you on 21 July I said surely the standard was that a member must know or reasonably ascertain whether a gift has been received. Would it be right to set that aside by simply having a member say to a third party—in this case his lawyer—“Oh by the way if you get any gifts for me just don’t tell me about them.”? That is what Brian Henry said at the original press conference. He said Winston Peters had told him not to tell him about those gifts so he did not tell him and therefore Winston Peters did not know about them. Now surely that in the absence of a censure would just open up a whole new can of worms. We would degrade the status of the pecuniary interests Standing Orders of this Parliament and that would be a very very unsatisfactory outcome. I have no doubt at all that the select committee has got this decision right. It has made the right decision; it has made the right judgment based on the evidence and therefore I will support the censure motion. 
I just add in conclusion that when I wrote my letter to you Madam Speaker raising this whole matter I was not out to get Winston Peters. I was out to get to the truth so that the integrity of the pecuniary interests provisions of the Standing Orders would be upheld. Under our Standing Orders I am obliged to bring a potential breach of privilege to your attention at the first possible opportunity. As soon as I heard that Winston Peters had received a gift of $100000 from Owen Glenn I had to ask myself whether it had been declared in the register of pecuniary interests. I therefore checked those returns for 2006 2007 and 2008 and discovered that no such gift had been declared. 
I want to say something also in relation to a point raised by Rodney Hide. He said it would also be necessary for Winston Peters to include in the register of pecuniary interests—and he now has to do a revised declaration for those 3 years in terms of the motion before this Parliament—the gift of $40000 received from the Spencer Trust. That may be the case but I also point out that in any event every member of Parliament is obliged also to list in the register of pecuniary interests any beneficial interest in a trust. Winston Peters certainly has a beneficial interest in the Spencer Trust in these circumstances. He also had a beneficial interest in Brian Henry’s trust account when it was receiving gifts that were intended to benefit him. So either way it seems to me that we now need to ask the Rt Hon Winston Peters to come clean about all of those things concerning pecuniary interests including his involvement in any trust of that kind. That is what the Standing Orders provide for and that is what we should insist on. That is what I expect will happen. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I was not on the Privileges Committee but I must compliment the committee on the way it went about its business. The fact that the committee came to a majority decision involving a range of parties shows that due consideration was given to all the evidence. I think it is timely though that we stand back and ask ourselves why there was a privileges complaint in the first place. In many respects this issue is a fairly straightforward one. A Parliament by its own will has passed the Standing Orders around pecuniary interests and I believe that when it did that it had an expectation about what the purpose of that register was. The purpose as articulated in the debate about that register was to make sure that there was full transparency about any interest in donations of politicians. Prior to that register being initiated there were no particular rules in Parliament although I think every MP was aware that New Zealand has among the highest standards in the world in respect of the relationship between politicians and money. In my view and it remains the case we did not need a pecuniary interests register to maintain that standard. It was always regarded as one that MPs would respect and the punishment for not respecting those standards was members’ exposure in the media. 
The Register of Pecuniary Interests of Members of Parliament has taken another formal step. We have every expectation that MPs would be open and transparent as required by the register about the payment of significant amounts of money. There is no denying that a basic fact at the core of this report is the payment or payments—however confusing—of significant amounts of money. 
I come to a couple of points that Dr Cullen made. He seemed to be positing some disagreement with the test that an MP should make an honest attempt to understand what has happened. I back up Russel Norman’s contentions on this. What else would Parliament expect? The register of pecuniary interests would have no meaning if politicians were not expected to make an honest attempt to find out their own circumstances. We are not being asked to inquire into anyone else’s circumstances—simply our own. It is no different from the way the law works in pretty much any other respect I can think of—tax law for instance. There has to be an assumption of an honest attempt otherwise the register is completely meaningless and it could be rendered meaningless by MPs saying: “Well because someone didn’t put in front of me in large bold black letters details of the transactions that involved me then I wasn’t obliged to declare it.” That situation would be ridiculous. I think the application of a common-sense standard is actually all that is required here. 
Significant payments were made. Parliament is a pretty understanding beast actually. If people genuinely did not know or had a misunderstanding of the law at the time I have no doubt that the conclusions of this report would be different. Parliament is eminently forgiving of human weakness actually in my experience if people are open about it. In this case it has not turned out that way. 
I will come back to some of those issues but in the light of the thrust of the Privileges Committee which was simply to establish whether the declaration should have been made I am very concerned about the way the Prime Minister has gone about denigrating the process. Through this whole process at various times when the procedures of this committee have appeared to not suit the political objectives of the Prime Minister she has had a crack at our public institutions. In one day she alleged that the Serious Fraud Office and the Crown Law Office were responsible for leaking details of fact to the Leader of the Opposition. I have to say I have not heard that type of allegation for a long time in politics—to have a Prime Minister attack a couple of our legal institutions. Of course they should not be immune from criticism whatsoever but to attack them out of political convenience is unacceptable. 
The Prime Minister adopted the same strategy with the Privileges Committee and I shall take members through a number of statements she made about the committee. On 27 August when the procedures of the committee had already started she said she was awaiting the outcome of the Privileges Committee: “There is clearly a conflict of evidence and I await the outcome of the committee.” And then on 28 August she said the report would be finalised and would be reported back to the House in time for that report to be debated. [ 
Interruption 
] I am just coming to the point. On 15 September she said: “Unless there’s some devastating development which suggests otherwise I would follow a process of procedural fairness.” On 17 September she said: “Well … the advice I’ve had from senior colleagues on the committee and their advice is let the process continue.” On 22 September she said: “I’m saying that the whole process has been tainted from the outset …”. 
How ridiculous is that from our Prime Minister? She spent a month endorsing the process. In fact her principal weapon against political criticism about her own close involvement in this Owen Glenn saga was to say: “No we have to rely on procedural fairness.”; yet day by day she had advice from Labour members. As she said publicly she was being briefed by Dr Cullen on the proceedings of the committee. Then right at the end when it became clear that even Labour’s support parties were going to have to deal with the evidence on its merits she turns round—after full knowledge of all the proceedings for the whole month—and says the whole process has been tainted. I just remind this House what an outrageous statement that is by a Prime Minister about a committee of this House. That simply underlines the strategy of denigration followed by Labour—dirty Labour. Whenever a public institution whether it is the Ombudsman or the Privileges Committee— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Can we come back to the report. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: —comes to a conclusion that the Government does not like the Government accuses that institution of lacking integrity— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Could you take your seat please. Can we concentrate on the report because the debate is really moving towards a general debate rather than a debate on the report. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Madam Assistant Speaker I am drawing attention to a simple fact: the Prime Minister of New Zealand has alleged to this House that the process of getting to this report was tainted and I say that that allegation is outrageous. She has no basis for making that statement. Her lack of integrity is condemned by a month of statements that supported the process of the Privileges Committee. Helen Clark it now appears has no respect for this institution; no respect for MPs in here being judged by their peers; and because this institution through this report has not served her direct personal political interests then it must be tainted in the same way that as soon as it became clear her friend Owen Glenn was going to give evidence that was inconvenient he turned into a drunken womaniser who had lost his marbles rather than a friend of the Labour Party. Well as it turns out the public will get to make their judgment about Helen Clark and what she thinks about the Privileges Committee. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. That last statement made in this House by Mr English which would be highly defamatory if it were made outside has to be rebutted. It was Mr Glenn himself on television who said precisely that. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: That is a debatable point I am sorry. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 Firstly I refute the comments made by Dr Cullen at the end of his speech. I found them to be objectionable I found them to be an affront and I found them to be quite unreasonable in the circumstances. It is not inappropriate when we have a process like this that there is—[ 
Interruption 
] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: There should not be a barrage please. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Now— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Who paid your legal fees? 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I will get to that Mr Peters. Now it is appropriate that when Parliament is considering the protection of its own Standing Orders— 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. A couple of things are happening here. The first is the barrage of interjections and the second is that although we have been told we have to constrain ourselves to the purview of the report now we are having a long heckle apparently about Gerry Brownlee throwing Winston Peters down some stairs. I am not aware of that incident being mentioned in the report and I think we should stick to the business at hand. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: It is very hard to constrain people in their heckling let alone to get them in their speeches to stay on the point. But I say the heckling is at the moment leading to disorder. 
Ron Mark 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I think Mr Hide’s point of order was quite fair and I would ask that in future if two people are interjecting and heckling from any party they be immediately brought to order because today we were subjected to barrages— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: That is enough. Take your seat please. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: It is appropriate that when the Privileges Committee is considering matters it should do so in a robust fashion. I remember when I was first elected to this House in 1996 some time after the formation of the coalition being in a social circumstance with a number of my new colleagues. We were in a discussion with a very senior member of this House who offered the advice that one’s knowledge of the Standing Orders made for a better member and that a member’s knowledge of them would give him or her greater latitude in participating in the business of the House. That member was Winston Peters. He is someone who has pitched himself shown himself to be a parliamentarian. So for him to be upset that the process he has just been through is too robust is in my view quite unacceptable and frankly somewhat sad. 
How many times did the committee hear that this matter could be all tidied up in 5 minutes that it could be all cleaned up in 5 minutes if we were only prepared to listen? We heard that not once not twice not three times but over and over again. Well I ask members to let me reaffirm the comments made by the Hon Bill English. We would not be in this situation if it were not for the Parliament itself deciding to change the Standing Orders in order to require these disclosures. So the three questions that Dr Cullen raised become most important: did Mr Peters know about the donation should he have known about it and should he have declared it? 
Other members today have talked about the way the committee went through the exercise of trying to hear from everybody in a reasonable fashion and I join others in saying Simon Power did a wonderful job in organising the way that the committee worked. He was a very very good model of how a chairperson should operate in such circumstances. It was not very easy going into a committee with the expectation that the issue might all be cleared up in 5 minutes to first be confronted by Mr Brian Henry a man whom I would describe as confused histrionic belligerent and evasive. I do not think that Brian Henry did Mr Peters’ cause one bit of good. Anyone who picks up this document and reads the transcripts from the start to the finish will be absolutely shocked at the way Mr Henry’s evidence shifted moved and ultimately changed to suit the facts that were coming out in all sorts of other directions. 
In that regard I would also have to mention that if it were not for the clear and authoritative guidance given to the committee by Stephen Kós QC the appearance of Mr Williams QC would have left the collective reputation of senior counsel in this country somewhat in tatters. It was an embarrassment to see someone with the public stature of Mr Williams struggling to understand which Standing Order he was required to work under. His comments directed very much at some members of the committee were to say the least vehement and bordered on the plain nasty. 
The essence of this case I think becomes decided when anyone reads from page 205 through to page 209 in the report. Those pages in essence are where the transcript deals with the fundamental questions about what happened on 14 December 2005. We were told in evidence that there was an email or a message I should say from someone who Mr Glenn thought was Winston Peters—but Mr Peters denied that it was him—around about 5 December 2005 and that following that Mr Glenn consulted Mr Williams about whether he should make a donation having previously turned down a request for a donation from New Zealand First. Mr Glenn’s evidence was that at a brunch in Sydney on 14 December 2005 he discussed the matter with Mike Williams and after that he made the phone call to Mr Peters. At that point although Dr Cullen talks about two narratives other speakers have already said there was so much similarity and agreement over what took place not only in the first phone call but also in the subsequent emails between Mr Henry and Mr Glenn that there had to be a good basis for making assumptions about what that discussion was about. 
It is interesting to look at the transcript as I said before. When Mr Peters in his second appearance before the committee was confronted with the evidence presented by Owen Glenn he stated: “I’ve got to say looking at it all—and I’ve tried over and over again to look at that and make sense of it—I’m happy to say to you look it’s quite possible that happened …”. Well what was it that jogged the memory over the couple of weeks if it was not the evidence of Owen Glenn himself the provision of the email traffic and the strong and unrelenting assertion by him that a donation was asked for and a donation was given? The answer to the question simply in the first case as to whether Winston Peters knew about it could reasonably be assumed I think. 
In relation to the second part which would require us to assume that Winston Peters did not know about the donation then the question would be whether he should have known. We then go to the question of Mr Henry’s evidence. Mr Henry constructed for us the arrangement between Mr Peters and himself whom he described as being like blood brothers. He stated further that he would go so far as to say he would go to considerable lengths to protect Mr Peters from the ravages of big business. That arrangement which had existed for a long time confirms in itself that Mr Peters must have known that costs were accruing somewhere that he might have to meet at some point and in his own evidence he said that periodically he made payments to the lawyer to cover those particular costs. He indicated that at one stage he made a payment of $148000 for some matter not related to this inquiry which apparently he lost. It indicated certainly that the pattern meant that he would have known. 
When it comes to the register itself what would have been the problem with simply writing down that the money was received from the Spencer Trust from Owen Glenn and from anyone else? 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Because I didn’t know. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Well that is the problem I say to Mr Peters. There is the problem. We conclude from the 14 December 2005 traffic that it would be most unlikely for Mr Peters not to have known. 
Stepping forward from that I simply say the committee reached its conclusions after considerable debate. It is not easy to see a motion like this being moved. I know there will be people in the public gallery and other commentators who will want to continue to refer to the Privileges Committee as the “Wet Bus Ticket Committee” etc. But for a member of Parliament for someone who values the right to speak freely in this House and for someone who sets himself up as being a parliamentarian above all else it is a huge penalty to have a censure motion moved against him by the House. No one does that with any degree of comfort or malice. It is simply a fact that if we are to have a Standing Order that requires pecuniary interests to be declared then we need to defend that pecuniary interests register with some clarity. 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour) 
: 
 I take up Mr Brownlee’s last point. He is dead correct on that point. We do need to defend the pecuniary interests register with some clarity but what the inquiry has revealed is a lack of clarity in the pecuniary interests register. 
We find that in Appendix B of the Standing Orders at page 126 clause 7(1)(b) speaks about what must be declared. I will read it because it is the substance of the inquiry made by the Privileges Committee. What must be declared is a description of a gift “received by the member that has an estimated market value in New Zealand of more than $500 and the name of the donor of each of those gifts (if known or reasonably ascertainable by the member)”. It is a simple statement but obtuse and unclear in practice as we can see by the terms of reference given by the Speaker. 
It is perhaps wise at this stage to reflect upon what the Speaker charged the committee to do. At page 5 of the report of the Privileges Committee the charge from the Speaker was reduced to a single line that read: “… Winston Peters failed to disclose a gift and failed to disclose a debt and the name of the person who discharged it.” However the referral made by the Speaker at page 23 of the report is more detailed. It stated: “It is not disputed that legal fees were incurred and defrayed. Firstly what is in question is whether a debtor-creditor relationship actually existed. If it did then it is not unreasonable to assume that the member knew or ought to have known and should have disclosed a debt and the name of any other person who may have discharged it.” The evidence that was accepted quite early in the piece by all members of the committee was that because of the relationship between Mr Peters and Mr Henry—that is Mr Henry is a barrister sole—there could not be a debtor-creditor relationship. That evidence was received from Mr Kós QC and it was not challenged. It was the basis on which the committee proceeded. 
So the committee had to move to the second part of the Speaker’s reference which states: “Secondly if a debtor-creditor relationship did not exist was a gift received and was the name of the donor known or reasonably discernible or was a donation made that covered expenses in an election campaign?”. This is where the committee had I suggest the most difficulty—when it came to determining that part of the charge the issue of a gift. I will deal with that issue in a few minutes. But the Speaker added: “These matters are technical but of vital importance to a proper understanding of the rules for the disclosure of pecuniary interests. They require investigation. It is not the Speaker’s role to investigate. That is the role of the Privileges Committee.” The Privileges Committee was charged with investigating whether the rules were clear particularly as demonstrated by the allegations made that the Rt Hon Winston Peters had failed to disclose a debt. 
The Speaker went on at page 24 to state: “The issues raised are not peculiar to Mr Peters. They have the potential to affect members generally. The rules need to be clarified to assist members in making judgments about what is required to be disclosed as a pecuniary interest and what is not. 
The House has an exclusive right to control its own proceedings. The Standing Orders are a matter for the House alone to determine. Members themselves must take responsibility for the rules for the disclosure of pecuniary interests.” 
What we heard at the committee as referred to by Dr Michael Cullen was the current registrar saying that she would not give advice to members inquiring as to what was covered by the need to disclose but would refer them back to a solicitor for advice. Of course the member would then be bound by that solicitor’s advice and no one would know what that advice was. This is where we got into the murky world of what Mr Peters may or may not have knowingly had in mind when he completed his declaration for the year 2005. 
But the warning was given by Madam Speaker that the issues raised are not peculiar to Mr Peters. They have the potential to affect members generally and we saw that in the evidence. We saw that from the intervention of the Serious Fraud Office and the chart that it forwarded to the committee. The notes attached thereto indicate that Bob Clarkson who had acted diligently by declaring a Koru Club membership in his first year and was told later on that he need not do that did not disclose that his legal expenses were in fact a debt to the National Party or a gift made by the National Party because on the Serious Fraud Office papers the payment of that debt and the refund of the money from the Rt Hon Winston Peters went to the solicitors who held a trust account in the name of the National Party. I make no criticism of Bob Clarkson but that demonstrates in a simple way that this area of pecuniary interest does need definition and it has been the role of the select committee to bring that to the attention of the House. The simple finding of this committee is that we must be more careful in what needs to be disclosed. 
I go back to the warning given by Madam Speaker at the outset that these issues are not peculiar to Mr Peters. They have the tendency to affect all members of the House. I refer to the advice from Dave McGee QC which we find at page 278 of the report. Bill English said in the House today that under tax law everyone has to make an honest endeavour to disclose his or her liability which of course is not correct. Under tax law it is very legalistic and if the question of honesty were to come into it then we would have many many more people before the court on charges. The point made by Dave McGee was that the pecuniary interest matter was not left to legislation but was put one notch down in the Standing Orders because it related to the moral climate of this House and members had to act according to the moral climate of this House rather than legalistically according to the law. So it was at that stage that Dave McGee—for the first time it appears—opined the test of honest endeavour. That was where we found some difficulty in assessing where we should go in finding any culpability by the Rt Hon Winston Peters. 
I want to make one or two comments on the select committee procedure. In moving to this area I first want to acknowledge the chairmanship of Simon Power. The work of the committee was considerable. We got through that work very quickly. The committee was chaired very very fairly by Simon Power who managed to rein in his natural impatience remarkably well. He chaired the committee with a degree of humour that often diffused situations that could have flared up. Every member before the committee was given a chance to express his or her view and every witness who came before the committee was given a fair hearing. 
But that does not mean we should not make some observations on the process. The process of select committee hearings in this House is quite adequate when we are talking about general subjects but when it comes to speaking about the integrity of individuals then a higher standard is required. That was the advice given to us by Mr Stephen Kós QC it is the advice that we sought to apply in the report and it is the advice that the minority in their report tried to apply with some rigour. So when one is making a finding of credibility one must apply a higher standard. 
Owen Glenn was offered the chance to give his evidence on oath. He declined to do so. When challenged he made reference to walking out of the committee to taking up residence in Australia and to other vagaries. For simple questions of fact he referred to his lawyer who was with him. As opposed to that we had Brian Henry who is a member of the Law Society and as such is answerable to the ethics of the Law Society and we had the Rt Hon Winston Peters who is a senior member of this House and as such is entitled to the respect that that brings. So we had three men give evidence of varying recollections. 
The evidence revolved around the email of 14 December. The evidence that was unchallenged by Brian Henry was that that email arose from a conversation he had had that did not relate to money but was a request that he contact Owen Glenn and that it was in the general rubric of endeavouring to keep intact the Labour Government coalition and working arrangements. He said it became a memory jog that took him back to an earlier conversation he had had with Owen Glenn and so he attached the reference. Interestingly the first email back from Owen Glenn is addressed “Dear Brian” and has a degree of familiarity which tended to add some veracity to the words of Brian Henry. 
In this House today it has been easy to run down the evidence and the credibility of both Owen Glenn and of course Brian Henry who is not here. The committee made no finding adverse to Brian Henry in its report and it does not behove any member of the House to do so today. The credibility of the Rt Hon Winston Peters has been challenged and the suggestion of his lying has been made. The process of the committee does not allow for exact and detailed examination of credibility in these issues. The committee lacked a prosecutor it lacked a clarification of charges and it was determined as we went along what evidence should be heard. So witnesses were recalled to rebut evidence that arose. Clearly in my submission the Standing Orders Committee should consider a process for establishing the inquisitorial role of the Privileges Committee in looking at issues as serious as these. 
But in conclusion I want to say simply that when one has an inference one can draw a conclusion to it. One cannot draw a conclusion if there is no evidence because one has no evidence. If the inferences lead to a conclusion that is the conclusion one follows; if they lead to two conclusions one can draw nothing from them. So the minority report stated that there was suspicion but not grounds to make a finding against the credibility of the Rt Hon Winston Peters. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 Mr Peters a member of 27 years standing—in fact the longest-serving member in this House—is judged as not telling the truth. That is not just National—and I make that point to New Zealand First—it is the members of the Green Party the Maori Party United Future and ACT. This whole issue has turned wholly on the evidence primarily of Mr Glenn but also of Mr Peters and Mr Henry. Up until then there might have been suspicions that there may have been knowledge but there was no evidence. It took the hearing of the Privileges Committee to establish the evidence. 
The issue here is actually quite straightforward. Did Mr Peters know or ought he to have known when he completed his pecuniary interests form that he was receiving donations? In truth the first evidence of this actually came from Mr Henry in his first appearance. He was specifically asked whether he would have told Mr Peters that donations were being received for his electoral petition. Mr Henry said he would have told Mr Peters and that would have been in early 2006. At that point Mr Peters would have known enough to disclose in the pecuniary interests. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: He didn’t say that. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: Mr Peters was saying he did not know that? 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: He didn’t say that. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: I suggest to Mr Peters that he read the transcript. That part of the report is entirely agreed by all members of the committee and in fact is highlighted in our principal report. At that point there was actually enough evidence to find contempt. But of course at that point the knowledge would have been only general and not related to any particular donor. 
That is why the evidence of Mr Glenn was so important. There was a lot of extraneous evidence. I do accept that recall is not perfect and that details do get confused and that is precisely why the conversations of 14 December were so important. The first call lasted 6 minutes. Interestingly both Mr Glenn and Mr Peters seemed to have some reasonable recall of that. In fact Mr Peters actually supplied a note dated 10 September setting out five issues that were discussed. Mr Peters did concede he must have been asked to supply the information to his lawyer. 
I can understand that the issue of the amount was not discussed but put it this way: Mr Glenn did not know the general proposition that one should not talk about money with politicians; that is why he was under no constraint. So he would have likely mentioned it. The issue here is not whether Mr Peters asked but whether Mr Peters knew and the majority did find that there was a probability that he would have known because immediately following that telephone call there was another call from Mr Peters to Mr Henry a call that lasted also 6 minutes. Interestingly enough of course there was no recollection of that call by either Mr Peters or Mr Henry yet there was an email. 
I would suggest to New Zealand First members that it was reasonable for the select committee majority to actually draw the inference that money was discussed and that is the only finding we make—just that money was discussed and that knowledge was possessed by Mr Peters adding to the statement by Mr Henry that donations had been disclosed to Mr Peters in any event. I suggest to Mr Fairbrother that juries up and down this country faced with the same sort of evidence would have drawn the conclusion that money would have been discussed in those circumstances. And in this circumstance so did the Privileges Committee and by majority of virtually every small party in the Parliament. 
So the finding is based on a reasonable interpretation of the evidence on the balance of probabilities which is the very test that was suggested. The way witnesses deal with issues generally helps one to decide this issue. For instance last week Mr Peters was specifically asked by Mr Brownlee whether he had reimbursed Mr Henry for $40000 court costs. After all he had told Grey Power in a written speech precisely that fact. What did he do? One would think the answer would be a simple yes or no. But he gave a long and elliptical answer and frankly I could not work out whether he had said yes or no. We were entitled to conclude at that point that in fact Mr Peters had not paid yet that was in direct contradiction to his own speech written out for Grey Power. It was not something said off the cuff—in fact it was also said in evidence before the select committee. When we are faced with that situation we have to ask ourselves whether Mr Peters checked his records. Did he ask his lawyer? Well apparently not or at least the discussion was nebulous. That would also had it been a gift have to be declared and it is specifically stated in the Privileges Committee report that should that be the case that there is a donation from the Spencer Trust then that would have to be declared in the subsequent declarations of interest. 
We were faced with this situation. Mr Glenn specifically said that money was discussed. Mr Peters did admit that information about the lawyer was required. But there was no recollection of any telephone call between Mr Peters and Mr Henry even though it took place literally seconds after. I suggest to this House and to the people listening that it was reasonable for the Privileges Committee to draw the inference that Mr Peters had been informed that money was at stake. 
Do members know the irony of this whole case? All Mr Peters had to do was simply to declare that he was receiving donations. That was all he had to do. In fact other members of the House have done precisely that. [ 
Interruption 
] The member was advised by Mr Henry because he said so that he was receiving donations. That is on the record. The member should read the report for heaven’s sake! Mr Peters’ unwillingness to admit that he may not be right is actually the source of his problem. He seems to be unable to accept that maybe he is mistaken on this that maybe he did not take enough notice of what his lawyer said that maybe he did not make the honest inquiry—and that I say to Dr Cullen is not a new test. Could we imagine any other sort of inquiry? Surely members have to make an honest inquiry. That is not a new test notwithstanding what the minority says. New Zealanders expect honesty from their members. They can expect an honest disclosure. 
I have to conclude that Mr Peters has let himself down by not living up to his own standards. He has let this Parliament down and his peers will be judging him accordingly. I suggest that the public will also make their own judgment. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 Over 29 finance houses have collapsed owing $3 billion to mainly older New Zealanders. Hundreds of thousands of people face home affordability problems— 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. We were pulled up vigorously by the Speaker even when discussing aspects of the Spencer Trust. If that is the rule then it is impossible for the Rt Hon Winston Peters to get up and talk about elderly people and finance houses. The rule that was applied to me by the person who was in the Chair was that I could not even discuss what I knew about the Spencer Trust. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you Mr Hide. I say that Mr Peters had only just stood up and he had been speaking for about 8 or 9 seconds. The Speaker ruled that the debate must stick to discussing the report. The member must discuss the report. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am just trying to start my speech and provide the environment for it and this is a deliberate attempt to interrupt a member’s speech. I have spoken for only 9 seconds. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: That is right. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Can I start again? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Yes you can. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Thank you. Over 29 finance houses have collapsed owing $3 billion to mainly older New Zealanders and hundreds of thousands of people face home affordability problems and the ship  
“New Zealand” 
 is sailing in troubled international waters. Against this backdrop there has been an attack on an MP and his party premeditated orchestrated and relentless in the hope of bringing him his party and the Government down. New Zealanders have become heartily sick of it. Every minute and every page that is wasted on that obsessive character assassination is another minute of another hour or day or another page of a newspaper that is diverted from the real issues that face all of us. 
This is a road seriously walked along before. Whether it be the Maori loans affair the BNZ bail-out the BNZ sale or the wine-box inquiry the constant hymn of hate has been consistent in the allegations made of my being a liar deceiver manipulator or populist demagogue or of cultism. The allegations have failed of course but what is common in those events is that there never was an admission of who was right and who deserved an apology. That is not important nor is personal vindication in the pursuit of worthy causes when one seeks to march to a different drum. 
The issue here is that if an MP did not know about a donation how could he declare it if a declaration was back then in law in fact required? My gratitude goes to those members of Parliament on the Privileges Committee who approached the inquiry with an open mind and resolved on “a high standard of proof”. That standard cannot descend to a judgment based on what most probably occurred. Those MPs left their politics at the door. They did not try the case through the media like my political foes. 
There are no clear guidelines in any of the Standing Orders and no precedent or reference to any past case. It has been fundamental to our law for centuries that one cannot be convicted of an offence that is not in the law. Further there cannot be a case retrospective legislation or retrospective rules and then justice. In our system an offence is applicable only when the law or rules have been put in place. What is contemplated here is a new standard being applied that did not exist in 2005 or 2006. Members are being asked to accept that under this new moral requirement a declaration should have been made to the Registrar of Pecuniary Interests of Members of Parliament. If there are new moral obligations it is clear that every MP should be very careful about that because for some MPs their lives will become dynamite and I promise members that will occur very soon. 
The committee had set out to prove pecuniary benefit to an MP on the basis of a second draft report. On page 13 it said “an election petition which if it had been successful would have been of benefit to Mr Peters in terms of both political capital and a higher level of funding available to an electorate MP.” The committee or some members of it persisted in that view of the law. I wrote at 4.30 yesterday afternoon to say that that advice was wrong. Again it was brought to the committee’s attention that overexpenditure means a disqualified MP which means a vacant seat which means a by-election. The committee was advised that the argument that Peters would have got political capital and extra resources at the return of him as the Tauranga MP was utterly fallacious. In the final report the committee on page 14 acknowledges that. It dropped out all those words and says it would have been of “political benefit to Mr Peters.” We can see how the committee predicated pecuniary interest. It was on the basis of a false belief in the law even though there are seven lawyers in the National Party. That in a nutshell is it—the receptacle one needs to contain specious argument. 
We have today a rule made retrospectively applied retrospectively and placed before a Parliament that has hitherto prided itself on its opposition to retrospective legislation. To single out an MP whilst ignoring that many other MPs face legal costs that others have contributed to in whole or in part is demonstrably and palpably unfair. One rule must apply to all MPs and not to just one MP. To do otherwise simply violates natural justice. It censures an MP when others in the same circumstances where others help with their legal costs receive no such censure. Why is there one rule for Winston Peters and another rule for Nick Smith MP? The registrar of pecuniary interests said there was no clarity on the matter and she would have advised an MP back then to seek legal advice. Had I done that back then no declaration would have been required. Mr Hide’s allegation of a debt failed. Mr Copeland’s allegation of a gift should have failed likewise. The inquiry was about politics. 
I give personal thanks to the thousands of people who contacted my office with their support for me and their concern about the conduct of the committee’s business by some committee members. Those people know the judgment is wrong and the democratic foundations upon which this country is built have been weakened in the name of political bias and interest. 
Here is a record of comments made by some members of the committee before and during the hearing. We heard Russel Norman from the Green Party time after time. Then Wayne Mapp on 21 August went on there before he had even heard the first day of the hearing—he is a law lecturer and thinks that that is respectable. We had Gerry Brownlee with page after page of his comments; and then the website of one Heather Roy from the ACT party had page after page of prejudgment and predetermination. Those members should have disqualified themselves. They failed in their duty. They tainted the hearings and rendered a serious matter into a banal useless charade a farce with some members being obsessed with acting as a kangaroo court. To use the words of Bernard Shaw: “We’ll hang him in the morning but first we’ll give him a trial.” 
I tabled 27 contradictory statements by the committee’s chief witness against me. There is a 28th one; it is that he gave $250000 to the Maori Party. The Maori Party members deny that. So now with 28 misrepresentations and falsehoods why does the Maori Party believe him and not Winston Peters? Why do its members believe him after 28 falsehoods and not Winston Peters? And why would they tell Maoridom on the marae and over the airwaves they supported me when at the committee they did the reverse of that? They tried to ride the waves of sentiment then lined up with John Key and Rodney Hide to sell me out and soon before their people they will find out the consequences of doing that. The Greens fronted to the committee with their least experienced MP one with absolutely no understanding of the law or the judicial process. Mr Norman commented in the media over and over again throughout the sittings of the committee. And as for those journalists who naively suggest that the Greens have no axe to grind with Winston Peters and New Zealand First I ask them who consigned the Greens to a position outside of Government for the past 3 years. How naive can they be? 
Mr Key condemned me before he had heard any evidence. I tell Mr Key that being ruled against in a majority decision by a body split down party lines on an issue where one has gained nothing personally—not a cent—is one thing but that being found to have misled the public and to have used one’s position to gain personally to the tune of tens of thousands of dollars is what we call in this business a knock-out. His explanation was that he did not release details of those shareholdings at that time but in hindsight he realises he should have done so and he is doing that now. So there is one rule for Mr Key and another one for Winston Peters. 
Sitting on that committee was a man called Murray McCully. He got $3.5 million in a taxpayer bail-out did not declare it hid all the details—and members will hear more about that later—and was then made a Cabinet Minister! That man who sat in judgment on me spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in the public interest and I have never enriched myself by one damn cent. Those members had the effrontery to line me up in their bias and they thought they would get away with it. I say this: the court that I will stand before is on Saturday 8 November and I will place my faith in the people of New Zealand to decide the outcome of this case. I rest my case in the judgment of the people of New Zealand and the only people who are owed an apology are the people of New Zealand who have sat through months of political posturing grandstanding bias and prejudice. 
I put on record also my gratitude to those members of the committee who tried to uphold the standards of a neutral independent body as a tribunal and as a court of law. Those who did not do so shamed themselves. They shamed their practice they shamed their profession and they shamed Parliament. I asked for fairness. I got a farce. There is no morality or ethics in this motion today. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the words “censure Rt Hon Winston Peters for knowingly providing false or misleading information on a return of pecuniary interests” be deleted and the following words inserted: “note that several members of Parliament had legal fighting funds and did not disclose donations to these as it was unclear that this was required”. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Progressive 1. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand National 47; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the following words be added: “That the member Mr Peters be requested to apologise to the New Zealand Herald’s editor Tim Murphy and political editor Audrey Young for calling them liars and demanding their resignations and that the member be suspended for the remainder of the day.” 
Ayes 2 
ACT New Zealand 2. 
Noes 117 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 47; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 62 
New Zealand National 47; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 2; United Future 2 Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7. 
Abstentions 1 
Progressive 1. 
Motion agreed to. 
Urgency 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That urgency be accorded the passing through their remaining stages of the Affiliate Te Arawa Iwi and Hapu Claims Settlement Bill the Central North Island Forests Land Collective Settlement Bill the Financial Advisers Bill the Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill and the Fisheries Act 1996 Amendment Bill (No 2); the first reading of the Education Amendment Bill (No 3); the third reading of the Te Roroa Claims Settlement Bill; the first reading of the Port Nicholson Block (Taranaki Whanui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika) Claims Settlement Bill; the first readings of the Government Superannuation Fund Amendment Bill and the Electricity (Continuance of Supply) Amendment Bill; the passing through their remaining stages of the Walking Access Bill and the Public Lending Right for New Zealand Authors Bill; the first readings of the Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill (No 2) the Whakarewarewa and Roto-a-Tamaheke Vesting Bill and the Settlement Systems Futures and Emissions Units Bill; the passing through their remaining stages of the Financial Service Providers (Registration and Dispute Resolution) Bill the Holidays (Transfer of Public Holidays) Amendment Bill and any bills into which those bills may be divided; the introduction and first reading of Government bills; Government notice of motion No. 11; and any valedictory statements to be made by retiring members at the times determined by the Business Committee. 
 This motion is moved to complete the Government’s intended legislative programme before the House rises for the general election. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That urgency be accorded. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 47; Independent: Copeland. 
Motion agreed to. 
Affiliate Te Arawa Iwi and Hapu Claims Settlement Bill 
Second Reading 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 I move  
That the Affiliate Te Arawa Iwi and Hapu Claims Settlement Bill be now read a second time 
. I am grateful to the Maori Affairs Committee for its work in considering the bill for its report on the bill and particularly for the speed with which it achieved that task. I would also like to thank the submitters for taking the time to participate. 
The settlement of the affiliate Te Arawa iwi and hapu claims has been the subject of an extraordinary level of external scrutiny right from the beginning of negotiations. No fewer than four Waitangi Tribunal inquiries considered issues of mandate who was included in the settlement and how the interests of overlapping claims are protected. These inquiries in turn considered the results of many hui among the iwi and hapu of Te Arawa. The select committee process is the final point at which members of the public can make submissions. This bill now of course belongs to the House completely. 
Throughout these negotiations the input of the tribunal and others has resulted in significant changes not just to the settlement package that was initially accepted by the affiliates but to the settlement landscape in the central North Island as a whole. Parliament is in the process of considering legislation that implements “on account” settlements of the interests of a number of central North Island iwi in Crown forest land and the affiliate Te Arawa iwi and hapu are party to that agreement. This settlement bill completes the resolution of their historical claims and provides redress that is outside the scope of the Central North Island Forests Land Collective Settlement Bill which the House will move on to upon the completion of this bill. 
The Maori Affairs Committee recommended that the bill be passed and noted that 18 of the 37 submissions were in support of the bill. It was almost inevitable of course that a number of submissions against the bill would be made. Most of the submissions in opposition raised issues that had been resolved or extensively covered in other forums. 
I want to address three broad aspects of the settlement that the committee raised in its report. Firstly I refer to the inclusion and naming of various iwi and hapu. Some submitters raised the concern that their iwi or hapu was inappropriately named or included within the claimant definition. These issues have been addressed at length by the tribunal Ministers and now the select committee. We are comfortable that Te Pumautanga o Te Arawa has the support of its people for entering into this settlement. Moreover it is inappropriate for the Crown to interfere with the internal workings and structures of an iwi organisation at the call of factions within that organisation. The best the Crown can do is ensure that the processes through which an organisation can make its own decisions are sound. 
The second key aspect is the settlement of Wai claims through a comprehensive settlement. Some submitters raised the concern that this settlement extinguishes a number of Wai claims without the direct involvement of the named claimants. The settlement provides redress to Te Pumautanga o Te Arawa that the submitters would seek to have returned to them under their own exclusive Treaty settlements. I can appreciate the sense of ownership that many named claimants feel over their Wai claim but since the inception of the Treaty settlement process it has been clear that if the Crown and iwi want to settle historical grievances within our lifetimes we cannot afford to settle claim by claim. As of a few months ago the tribunal had over 1400 registered claims. In the last month it reportedly received some 2000 more though it will be some time before we know how many of those will actually be registered. Without some kind of deadline these historical claims or more would have trickled in over an indefinite period. 
But even before the recent deluge the need to group claims together for either inquiry or settlement was apparent. The tribunal deals with a number of historical claims by grouping them into district inquiries and issuing a report that covers the entire district or set of issues. Most inquiries are focused on the generic effects of the Crown’s acts or omissions in respect of any group. The Crown deals with a number of historical claims by negotiating comprehensive settlements at an iwi level broadly speaking. These settlements where possible provide redress to recognised particular interests within the broader grouping. Although there is an air of justice to the idea of insisting that every single Wai claimant must approve a settlement that covers his or her claims there are insuperable practical complications not least of which is that it would incentivise the lodging of thousands more Wai claims by individuals seeking veto power over a settlement that they oppose. The mandate and ratification processes ensure that all members of a claimant group whether or not they have a Wai claim have the ability to have their say on settlement. 
The third key issue is that relating to Ruamata Marae. This issue was raised before the select committee and had not been not extensively explored before then through the negotiations process. Very late in the process the marae reservation trust contacted the Crown and sought to have its concerns about low-flying planes on their way to the airport flying directly over the marae addressed through the settlement. It was too late to change the terms of the settlement but there are genuine issues here about noise and disruption to the marae that need to be addressed. It is not clear at this stage whether that disruption constitutes a historical breach of the Treaty or whether the Treaty settlement process can deliver a solution to that problem. Not every matter discussed between Crown and Maori has its roots in a historical breach or its solution in a Treaty settlement. But the Crown is working through Te Pumautanga o Te Arawa with Ruamata Marae the relevant central government agencies and the Rotorua District Council to ensure that these issues are addressed outside of the settlement process. I will be moving an amendment to the bill in the Committee stage that will avoid any doubt that this bill will extinguish any specific Treaty of Waitangi claims relating to the airspace and the flight path. It will not of course remove the current Wai claim from the Treaty settlement which the Ruamata Marae trust does not want to see happen. 
At the Committee of the whole House stage the Government also intends to introduce a Supplementary Order Paper that will make the following changes to the bill: to provide for public access consistent with that in the Central North Island Forests Land Collective Settlement Bill; to provide for additional redress as a consequence of facilitative mediation with Ngati Rangiunuora and Ngati Tamakari two hapu of the affiliate Ngati Pikiao; to refine the definition of an affiliate group Tuhourangi Ngati Wahiao; and to clarify and ensure consistency with regard to the treatment of redress involving conservation land. 
This is the second reading of this settlement legislation. We will proceed to the Committee stage and the third reading and then we will go on to consider the Central North Island Forests Land Collective Settlement Bill. 
I thank once again the leadership of Te Pumautanga o Te Arawa for its patience and perseverance with the Crown in the long journey towards this settlement and particularly its generosity in holding back on holding the Crown to its previous commitments to enable the central North Island forests land collective settlement to proceed. At that time I undertook that the final shape of this settlement would be no less and preferably better than what it had already agreed with the Crown. I look forward to being able to congratulate Te Pumautanga o Te Arawa on the completion of this settlement process within the near future. It is my intention to try to manage the proceedings of the House—as best as a Leader of the House can—to arrive at the third readings of these bills and the first readings of other settlement bills on Thursday morning and early afternoon. Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker. I am pleased to stand during the second reading of the Affiliate Te Arawa Iwi and Hapu Claims Settlement Bill. I was pleased to hear the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations outline some of the changes that will be made by a Supplementary Order Paper. This is a very important settlement and that was very clear from the first reading speeches of the members of this House. I remind members that the bill settles the claims of a number of Te Arawa iwi in the Rotorua and Kaingaroa area representing 24000 people and addresses grievances that occurred quite some time ago. The Minister is correct in saying that this settlement has had a very lengthy gestation. Some mention should be made of the generosity in the end of Te Pumautanga in setting to one side temporarily the agreement it had negotiated with the Crown back in 2004. But I would say that neither Te Pumautanga nor the Crown had any choice given that the brakes were pulled on this settlement by a quite scathing report from the Waitangi Tribunal and also by court action by the Federation of Maori Authorities and Tuwharetoa—those who were concerned that this settlement would undermine other interests that traversed the central North Island as well. 
But here we are today at the second reading. The Maori Affairs Committee was very pleased to give this matter the urgency it deserved. I make reference to the hearings that we held one in Taupo and one in Rotorua and particularly to the iwi representatives who came to the committee and made very forceful in some cases and comprehensive in most cases submissions. All of that process laid the settlement open to public scrutiny which was good. In a settlement of this size and nature that is always desirable. I add my thanks to those of the Minister to those submitters who responded and appeared before the committee. 
I will address two or three issues which have already been addressed by the Minister. On the issue of the flight path over the Ruamata Marae the Minister would have heard some signs of agreement on the course that he is taking to address that so nothing further needs to be said on that. When there is a claim in front of the Waitangi Tribunal and we see that that claim might be of no purpose once this bill is passed then clearly it is an issue of great importance to those trustees that this matter is being addressed. 
The other matter of concern to us as Maori—but to others as well particularly those of us who are very proud of our own ancestral connections and very territorial about where we come from and who should represent us and who should not—is those submissions that were raised in relation to the definitions of collective groupings under schedule 1 and in particular the submissions presented by Ngati Wahiao in terms of its coupling—as it has been referred to—with Tuhourangi and those of Ngati Tahu and Ngati Whaoa. 
I certainly take on board the advice the officials brought to us in the select committee but I personally also have some anxiety about the way entities that might have thought they were in existence on their own account are now suddenly coupled with another grouping in legislation. Certainly there are whakapapa relationships that bind various tribes iwi and hapu together. However when sitting on the Maori Affairs Committee we heard heartfelt and passionate submissions particularly by a grouping of Ngati Wahiao. They take umbrage at being coupled with what is obviously seen by some as the senior—Tuhourangi—but none the less for themselves in matters of this nature it is pretty important because this has ramifications for the other bill coming down the line possibly over the next day or so which is to do with the Whakarewarewa geothermal valley. I have to say that my colleague Tau Henare and I were at pains to explore this issue along with Te Ururoa from the Maori Party because in the end we do not know what ramifications lie down the way in the future for couplings of this nature. I do not know whether there is a better word Parekura other than couplings— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Order! 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU 
: —I am sorry I am referring to Minister Horomia—but that is the way we have been describing it at the select committee. 
There is the issue of whether Wahiao some of whom see themselves as an independent iwi or hapu with their own mana their own standing would become subsumed further down the track because they are now coupled with Tuhourangi as simply one of the affiliates of the Te Arawa settlement. 
Of course the other issue is Ngati Tahu and Ngati Whaoa. Ngati Tahu in particular in terms of physical proximity are close to Tuwharetoa my own tribe and I have to say that over the years in which I have been involved in some of these matters it seems unusual to me that Ngati Tahu and Ngati Whaoa would be coupled. Again the submitters who came to the select committee questioned the mandate of Te Pumautanga to represent their interests in tandem with Ngati Tahu and now with Ngati Whaoa. Those views are passionately held; but it is not only that—for some it goes to the heart of who they are. Their whakapapa clearly says who they are and if they are being lumped into a basket with someone else who they did not necessarily think should be there—and now they feel they ought not to be there—then this is a real issue. As I say I for one regret that the Minister has not been able to find some way of addressing that issue. I accept what the officials say but I say to the Minister that in the end everything is possible. None the less we support the second reading. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU 
: I will just mention a couple of other things before I take my seat. One of them is the issue around Tukiterangi the ancestor of Wahiao. That was one of the other issues brought to us at the hearing. Wahiao were somewhat aggrieved over the fact that they were being lumped under the one ancestor Tuhourangi. I understand that the Hon Mita Ririnui went and did some work in this area as I understand he did on the flight path issue as well. The Government has acceded to including and recognising the ancestor of Wahiao and having that inserted into the bill—putting Tukiterangi into the legislation. I hope that that may go some way to appeasing Wahiao on the fact that at this point nothing has changed in relation to the coupling of Tuhourangi Ngati Wahiao. Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. 
Hon MITA RIRINUI (Associate Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 Kia ora Mr Assistant Speaker and thank you. I was interrupted by my whanaunga mai i te rohe o te Waiariki. But kei te pai tena—kei te pai tena. As I said he whanaunga. 
Once again I say that naturally I stand in support of the Affiliate Te Arawa Iwi and Hapu Claims Settlement Bill which today is having its second reading. But in doing so I think it is important to mention the Central North Island Forests Land Collective Settlement Bill as well because these two bills are closely linked in terms of the assets involved in terms of the iwi and hapu involved and in terms of the business relationships that will develop in the future. I believe that at some time over the next couple of days we will have the opportunity to debate the second reading of the Central North Island Forests Land Collective Settlement Bill. 
It is important to acknowledge the difficulties that the affiliate Te Arawa iwi and hapu have endured over a number of years to bring this settlement bill to this stage. It has been a combination of a lot of hard work huge commitments and most important compromise. Many will say that Te Arawa never compromise. Well this bill states something else. It states very clearly that when it comes to the benefits of the whanau and hapu of Te Arawa Te Arawa put their interests first and are prepared to compromise where it is in their best interests. Te Arawa has done that. 
On a more historical basis I say that as we know in 2002 dialogue was entered into between the Crown and the central North Island claimants—with the assistance of a person we know very well the Hon David Caygill—on how Treaty claims in the region could move forward. In early discussions that dialogue reached a stage where mandating and negotiations could begin with the affiliate Te Arawa groups in mid-2003. After many months of intensive discussion and hui the Kaihautu Executive Council submitted a deed of mandate to the Crown in December 2003. The Crown and the Kaihautu Executive Council signed the terms of negotiations which set out the objectives of the negotiations on November 2004. The Crown and the affiliate Te Arawa groups also agreed to sign the deed of settlement on 30 September 2007. 
Since then much has happened. As members know the central North Island settlement also known as the “Treelords” deal was signed only a couple of months ago and we were graced with the presence of some 700 central North Island iwi members here in this House to witness the historical occasion and to support this Labour-led Government in our first reading of the bill. Much of that momentum and the opportunity was born from the affiliate Te Arawa iwi and hapu which having agreed to join the central North Island collective also chose to make a significant compromise by passing the final decision about most of their forestry redress over to the largest forestry company in the country for their benefit and for the benefit of other North Island iwi. Through their agreement to allow their forestry assets to be held over for the central North Island collective settlement they also agreed to hold their own affiliate Te Arawa iwi and hapu settlement over until the central North Island collective claim had been put to rest. With the progress of the central North Island collective claim we can now turn our attention to Te Pumautanga o Te Arawa to finally resolve their grievances and in doing so provide them with the cultural financial and commercial redress package that they well deserve. 
It is true that as with other Treaty settlements of the past we are unable to provide iwi with or return to them the equivalent of what has been lost from them. However I believe that this settlement will provide the affiliate Te Arawa iwi and hapu with enough to put them on the path of reaffirming and maintaining their status and development. The redress package includes the transfer of 19 areas of Crown-owned land of special significance to the affiliate Te Arawa iwi and hapu—redress that will enable increased input into management of Crown-owned land and protocols with certain Government agencies. In addition to reflect the compromise made by the affiliate Te Arawa groups additional redress has been negotiated. This includes the gifting of land under five Rotorua schools with lease-back arrangements to the Crown; the gifting of Ngatamariki geothermal assets based on a value of $5 million; a statement acknowledging the affiliate Te Arawa groups’ interest in the upper reaches of the Waikato River; and the forgiveness of the current Whakarewarewa Village debt. 
I pay tribute to Te Pumautanga o Te Arawa’s head negotiator Rawiri Te Whare—now in Italy—and its chairman Eru George for their commitment to reaching a settlement. It is also important that I acknowledge Henare Colbert Ruka Hughes Kere Cookson-Ua and Brian Barge—also part of the negotiating team. Their work and dedication in reaching a resolution despite what may have often felt like impossible odds have been unwavering and I commend them all. It is also important that I acknowledge the efforts of my esteemed colleagues the Hon Dr Michael Cullen and the Minister of Maori Affairs the Hon Parekura Horomia. 
I cannot stress how important this settlement is to Te Arawa the Crown and the whole of the central North Island. We have been experiencing a wave of Treaty settlements and it is primarily due to this Government’s strong desire to settle historical grievances and to move forward with all Maori as Treaty partners into the future. Also providing a positive platform for Te Arawa to regain some of the economic status that was taken from them through the acts of the Crown is a way of bridging the historical rift and creating a future of economic growth and development. Therefore support by the House for this settlement is unanimous because of the efforts of particularly the negotiators for Te Arawa. 
I want to comment on the process that was undertaken over the last few years. In particular I want to comment on the submissions we heard in Rotorua. Some people had longstanding issues with the claim. Some felt that the Crown should listen very carefully to what they had to say and make genuine attempts to resolve those issues. 
I want to speak to one matter in particular and that is the reference to Ngati Wahiao - Tuhourangi. It was a very small amendment that was required—a very small addition. There is a history behind this reference. It goes back to the time of the eruption of Tarawera when Tuhourangi Ngati Wahiao became united as iwi and occupied generally a similar area. In their speeches their whaikorero and in a lot of their whakatauki they are referred to as Ngati Wahiao - Tuhourangi. There is a group within Te Arawa who wish them to be referred to as Ngati Wahiao and Tuhourangi. They say the Crown should listen very carefully to this plea and include the word “and”. But my view is that this reference was a historical decision brought about by the displacement of one particular tribe and the compassion of another tribe in bringing them into the area where they lived so that they shared a common area. If any changes are to be made in terms of the reference to these two iwi then it is they that must do it because it was their tupuna who as a result of the eruption of Tarawera made the decision that from that time they would be referred to as Ngati Wahiao - Tuhourangi. No one—no one at all—should insist that the Crown be the adjudicator in this case and that the Crown insert words to separate those two iwi; that is something they have to work on themselves. I am sure there are many in this House who think the Crown should do that; well I am one who disagrees. 
Once again I thank all my colleagues including those on the Maori Affairs Committee for the contribution they have made to bring this important bill to the House today. Kia ora. 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 Kia ora Mr Assistant Speaker. I must digress just for a little bit and say how lovely it is to come into the House when you are in the Chair and hear those dulcet tones. Tena koe e te Whare. I am glad the member who has resumed his seat Mita Ririnui broached the issue of Ngati Wahiao and Tuhourangi because at the Maori Affairs Committee that was one of the more interesting avenues of discussion that we went down. It is all well and good for Maori to say they want to come to an agreement with the Government and want that agreement to be put into legislation but then on the other hand they are saying it should not be up to the House to be the adjudicator. But I actually think that our job is to be the adjudicator—a sort of benevolent referee—when there is an issue such as this one. 
I do not profess to tell Te Arawa what to do how to do it and when to do it. I do not think anyone would be brave enough to do that considering that we all have the same weapons these days. But I think that Tuhourangi and Ngati Wahiao should be uncoupled. I certainly think that there should be a reference in the bill to Tuhourangi and Ngati Wahiao but just because of an eruption some 100-odd years ago and the move to somebody else’s area that does not mean that they should be coupled. They have their own identities and their own ancestral identities. I suppose I can more easily explain the issue if I look at my own whakapapa—my own genealogy in terms of Ngapuhi and Ngati Hine. I would not like it if I or our people were to be referred to as “Ngapuhi-Ngati Hine”. Referring to them as Ngapuhi and Ngati Hine is not a problem and— 
Pita Paraone 
: Ngati Hine and Ngapuhi. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: —or Ngati Hine and Ngapuhi as our chairman of the Ngati Hine runanga has said— 
Pita Paraone 
: Former chairman! 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Absolutely. The former chairman reaffirmed Ngati Hine’s status as an iwi. But anyway I digress. Also it could be said that “Ngati Hine-Te Rarawa” or “Ngati Hine-Te Orewai” should be for example Ngati Hine and Te Rarawa and Ngati Hine and Te Orewai. I think it is wrong to use the process of the House to give effect to a new group. I have always known Ngati Wahiao and I have always known Tuhourangi; I have never known both to be put together. 
The interesting thing is that when we asked a submitter at the select committee—and I will not mention his name—what he thought about the inclusion of the word “and” in between Tuhourangi Ngati Wahiao he said it would not be a problem. A week later because of pressure I believe that was brought to bear on that person he recanted his acquiescence to the inclusion of the word “and” and I thought to myself that that was wrong. I will not dwell too much on that issue but I think it is an important issue of principle. 
Another interesting fact that we came to hear about in the Maori Affairs Committee is that approximately 24000 people are affected by the settlement but that is not how many people there are on the beneficiary roll and that is certainly not how many people took part in the decisions. I always wonder how we are going to get around the issue of the mandate. Who holds the mandate: is it an organisation that the Crown is working with or is it the number of people who turn up on any given Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday or Friday? I am not trying to cast any aspersions on the mandate process here but we always have to ask how the decisions were arrived at. 
I also raise a concern that I was not aware of even as a former Minister of Maori Affairs and if the subject of that concern happened in my time I now want to publicly apologise for not keeping my eye on the ball. The concern is that in the settlement process the schedule of the settlement bill has all those other Wai numbers attached to it; basically it is the extinguishment of all those Treaty claims. I have a big worry that in the process we go through although we are all above board in terms of trying to sort out the bigger claim—the wider claim—there are always the little ones or maybe not so little ones that are lost in the negotiating and in the clamour to make an agreement. I specifically want to mention Ruamata. For the Ruamata people at the marae the airport is an issue and I am glad to hear through the grapevine that the Minister is going to move a Supplementary Order Paper that addresses that. But I think we should be very very mindful of extinguishing claims to the tribunal without going through a process of negotiation talking or getting the bigger claimant to speak with the other claimants whose claims have merit. I do not think we should extinguish those claims willy-nilly. 
I commend the select committee and its chair Mr Dave Hereora for a sterling job in getting this bill before it asking for submissions and listening to some quite detailed and intense submissions both in Rotorua and in Taupo. So I commend my colleagues who acted on the select committee. 
All in all we can say that the outcome of this bill will be good for Te Arawa. It will be good for the majority of Te Arawa but there will be some unfortunate claims that are lost in the clamour and in the backslapping as well. That is unfortunate and it is something that maybe the next administration—whoever is in it—needs to look at. Thank you. 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker tena tatou o te Whare nei. Engari i mua i te haere tonu o enei o aku korero hiahia ana au kia mihi ki a koutou nga iwi nga hapu o Te Arawa. Koutou tena pea e matakitaki mai e are taringa mai hoki ki enei korero i puta mai i te Whare i te po nei. Na reira tena koutou. 
[ 
Greetings to you Mr Assistant Speaker and to us of this House. But before I continue with my address I want to acknowledge the people and subtribes of Te Arawa as well those of you who might be listening in or watching these proceedings in the House tonight. So greetings to you. 
] 
I acknowledge the Te Arawa iwi and hapu who may be watching or listening to this debate on their bill the Affiliate Te Arawa Iwi and Hapu Claims Settlement Bill. I am pleased to stand in this debate on behalf of New Zealand First to support much of the sentiment that has been expressed already. 
Of course we all know that this bill follows many years of groundwork and several months of intensive negotiations between the negotiators Te Pumautanga o Te Arawa and its team and representatives of the Crown. To that extent I acknowledge the team that made up Te Pumautanga o Te Arawa. It was led by Rawiri Te Whare of Ngati Tahu and Ngati Whaoa and included Henry Colbert of Ngati Ngararanui Ruka Hughes of Ngati Rongomai and Brian Barge of Ngati Kearoa Ngati Tuara. I think it is to their credit that having taken up the cudgels from the group known as Nga Kaihautu o Te Arawa under the chairmanship of Eru George they have got to the stage where we are now debating the second reading of this bill. 
The bill has returned to the House after the Maori Affairs Committee of which I was a member received and heard submissions on it. I was very proud to be part of the committee that considered the bill. It affects approximately 24000 members of the affiliate. It follows the process of combining several claims so that they can be dealt with as one group. I ought to say that there has been a long gestation period for this bill but we are now in what we might consider to be the last lap of the race. 
I want to quote something that is attributed to Mr Te Whare of Te Pumautanga o Te Arawa: “There is nothing just about a settlement. It is just a settlement.” I think that quote aptly describes not only this settlement but all the settlements that have preceded it. As much as we want to compensate the affected parties to the maximum extent there will always be some concern about how fair and how just the final settlement is. Bearing that in mind Te Pumautanga o Te Arawa with the authority given it by its beneficiaries approved the settlement that is now being considered by this House. 
I want to make reference to two things. The first is the issue regarding Tuhourangi Ngati Wahiao. The committee received some submissions stating that they would like to see the separation of Tuhourangi Ngati Wahiao into two entities and they merely asked that the word “and” should be included. I suppose it is not very often that I agree with my relative who spoke just before me the Hon Tau Henare but I think in this regard he was quite right: this is not a matter for the Crown. This issue is based on tikanga it is based on history and therefore it should be left to tikanga and the future to decide whether those two tribes should be identified separately. I know that even today outside of this whole process in the kapahaka competitions that Te Arawa ran recently to identify which kapahaka group would represent their region at the forthcoming Te Matatini kapahaka competitions one of the teams that participated was known as Tuhourangi Ngati Wahiao. 
I took the opportunity during the hearing process to raise this issue with one of the elders from Tuhourangi and he was quite clear in his response to my question. He said that Tuhourangi Ngati Wahiao were essentially one group. He was actually saying that by virtue of whakapapa they are quite closely intertwined. I do not believe that it is for this House or for anyone outside of Tuhourangi Ngati Wahiao to determine whether they should be separated into two separate entities. I can understand the concerns that those submitters raised about this issue but as much as I might sympathise with their concerns I do not believe that it is an issue for this House or for the Crown to determine. I am also mindful of the fact that when the House dealt with the Ngati Awa settlement bill New Zealand First opposed the stand taken by this House in giving due recognition to what we referred to as a new iwi grouping. New Zealand First continues to maintain that stance. 
The other point I want to make is regarding Ruamata Marae and its claim to the tribunal with regard to airspace. I ought to say that I mistakenly took its claim that is identified in the bill to be a claim about airspace. I was informed by representatives of the marae that that was not the case. I am glad to see that the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations has proposed an amendment that will reassure the marae that it can make a claim in regard to airspace. 
In conclusion I reaffirm New Zealand First’s support for the second reading of this bill. Kia ora. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party will be supporting the Affiliate Te Arawa Iwi and Hapu Claims Settlement Bill. I am a stand-in today for our fine upstanding member on the Maori Affairs Committee Metiria Turei who did all the hard work on the bill for the Green Party. 
We acknowledge that the Crown and its representatives have breached and continue to breach Te Tiriti o Waitangi. We support the resolution of and restitution for all outstanding historical and contemporary breaches. There needs to be ongoing dialogue on the application of te Tiriti to the settlement process. 
We understand that on one side there are still many hapu and iwi who are unhappy about this bill just as on the other side there are many people who worked very hard to negotiate a settlement through a policy minefield to deliver to their people. Although the bill will deliver to many of the hapu and iwi it will also extinguish some claims and without the consent of the people concerned. The Green Party and Metiria Turei in particular have campaigned on an ongoing basis against that practice because one cannot resolve—particularly in any final form—a matter without the consent of the subgroup that took the claim. 
The Greens have been somewhat critical of the overall Government Treaty settlement process because it is not an optimal or truly just process to restore what Maori lost during the colonisation period. Like the previous speaker Pita Paraone we support the Government’s Supplementary Order Paper relating to Rotorua airport. It is good that it excludes from this bill any idea that local people cannot continue their historical claim concerning airspace issues around Rotorua airport. Metiria fought very hard on this issue at the select committee and was disappointed when she did not appear to be succeeding. It is good that people gained a greater understanding and that—as Pita Paraone has just explained—the Government has come round to her position and will table a Supplementary Order Paper. 
The select committee heard submitters from Ruamata Marae talk about the impacts of the airport on them including cultural degradation and hazardous health and safety issues stemming from the emission of noise fuel residue acoustic vibrations and backdraught from aircraft. Some of the aircraft are quite low-flying. The Ruamata Marae sits at the end of the Rotorua airport runway and the effects on it are serious. In the period before 1992 the ancestral meeting house and associated buildings were relocated only metres away on lower ground as a result of the flight path being designated. The meeting house was deemed by the airport authority to be an obstruction to the flight path. The bodies and bones of the dead were violated as a result of the airport authority ordering earthworks to be done to lower the hill on which the urupa was located. The marae committee went into debt as a result of the Crown taking more than 10 years to reimburse the marae for relocating costs. So it was a rather sorry story that was told to the select committee. 
The marae was particularly concerned about the effects of incoming aircraft which often come in to the runway at no more than 50 feet in the air. People are getting whipped by the backdraught. Even in very important situations where people are burying their dead the backdraught of descending aircraft is hitting them. Having the flight path very close to the marae affects a whole lot of its traditional ceremonies. Karanga whaikorero waiata and wananga are all disrupted by aircraft noise emissions. Because of those things people are deterred from booking the marae for important occasions—birthdays weddings etc.—and that makes it harder for the marae committee to generate an adequate income. There is even talk that the acoustic vibrations tend to loosen the nails on the roof; the people have to knock the nails back in every now and again. The effect is quite significant. Fuel residues from the aircraft are spread on the marae and on the kura grounds; kids use the swimming pool and the kura. The hangi pits at the marae are also affected. 
The situation could become worse if international flights start coming into the airport. The sound levels could go up to 60 decibels. That would be very disruptive to the domestic activities of the marae. If the situation became impossible and the marae were forced out—hopefully it will not be if it pursues its claim—there is apparently no legal obligation on the Crown the airlines or the airport authority to contribute to the cost of relocation. 
It is a rather sad situation. The Supplementary Order Paper is very much warranted and the Greens will strongly support it. Although Metiria Turei is quite proud that after all her pushing the change is being made and a Supplementary Order Paper will be brought in she is somewhat saddened that more could not have been done to improve the bill. Thank you. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker kia ora tatou e noho nei i roto i te Whare i tenei po. 
[ 
Greetings to you Mr Assistant Speaker and to us seated here in the House tonight. 
] 
In the first reading debate I took the opportunity to outline the experience of my own iwi in amongst and at the side of this bill. I recall that Mr Shane Jones raised the issues that I was raising for the marae. Me penei rawa te korero i korerohia era take i runga i te marae a i te kainga i mua noa atu o te taenga mai ki konei a ka mutu koina te take ko pupu ake te taupatupatu o te noho o etahi o nga hapu tetahi ki tetahi nga iwi tetahi ki tetahi. Hoi ano he whakamarama noa ake tena ki a koe e te mema o te Nota i nga uauatanga e pa ana ki a tatou. 
[ 
Let me put it this way: those matters were debated on the marae and in the home long before they came here and as a consequence conflict welled up that caused friction between subtribes and people. However that is a mere explanation to you the Northland member in regard to the difficulties that relate to us 
.] 
I was saying to Mr Jones that the issues he raised in respect of the discussion on the marae did take place prior to the arrival of the first reading of the bill and probably continued to take place. Those issues have been a sore point in the past on various marae and although I did not like the comment at the time I appreciate the sentiment about those issues. I wanted to make it clear to him that putting that korero on the record as I have done is something I needed to do to make sure that it is on the record and to that end I leave the matter; it goes no further. It is time to focus on the future. 
The essence of this bill as with any other settlement bill comes in the text of the apology. In this case it goes something like this: “The Crown profoundly regrets and unreservedly apologies for the cumulative effect of its actions over the generations which have undermined tribal structures and had a damaging impact on the landholdings and development of the Affiliate.” That one sentence I would suggest has enormous relevance for the iwi and hapu of Te Arawa affiliated to Te Pumautanga o Te Arawa Trust and indeed almost every iwi throughout the motu. 
Within that one sentence is a history dating back as other members have said to the first pre-colonial contact in the 1830s a history in which contemporary title was converted into title derived from the Crown and a history in which the Crown acquired Maori land to facilitate Pakeha settlement—land compulsorily acquired for public works purposes and land taken for roading railways internal communications electricity generation scenic reserves forest plantation and an aerodrome. Land was taken and with it went the subsequent loss of control and responsibility for our ancestral lands our taonga our wahi tapu. E ki ana te korero there is a saying: “Toitu te whenua whatungarongaro te tangata.”—land is permanent but people pass on. 
The apology for the theft of land and the compensation for the illegal acquisition of it is important. For some of the Te Arawa people this bill has been an opportunity for celebration and joy that at last grievances have been heard and the story told. It is also time to reflect on the long frustrating and emotional journey to this point that will come to an end—I think—this week with many of the original Te Arawa koeke claimants now having passed on. Many of those I mentioned at the first reading. E moe koutou whakangaro atu. [ 
Sleep on and away from view 
.] Farewell. 
I will signal one or two matters that came up and other members of the select committee have moved into this area ahead of me. I wanted to focus a little more on these issues at the Committee stage but I will start by heading to the issue raised with regard to Ngati Whaoa. There was a call from some submitters for a full Waitangi Tribunal inquiry into Ngati Whaoa claims even though there are at least two or three Waitangi Tribunal reports instructing the Crown to deal with the uncoupling of Ngati Tahu and Ngati Whaoa. The focus from submitters was that such a move would reflect the separate status of each group more accurately. The argument came back to us from officials that such a change should be resisted because the coupling of iwi and hapu was the way it had always been at least in instances dating back to 1990. 
At the heart of the matter was the conflict of definition between Te Pumautanga and some members of Ngati Tahu and Ngati Whaoa and we could not say that it was resolved in this bill. But this is a significant matter because the definition is relevant in the central North Island discussions and indeed in any future directions from Ngati Whaoa. To that end I have been asked to present an amendment to this bill and I intend to do so at the Committee stage. In essence it is a request from Te Runanga o Ngati Whaoa. 
The second matter is with regard to Tuhourangi Ngati Wahiao a matter that other members have raised. A coupling concern that some submitters talked about was to do with requesting that the designation Tuhourangi Ngati Wahiao be changed to Tuhourangi and Ngati Wahiao but there was also a recommendation that the tupuna Ngati Tukitirangi be added to the definition and hopefully we will hear about that when we get to the Committee stage. 
Again I have to say that the advice from officials did not inspire too much confidence. The comment provided by the Office of Treaty Settlements was that this was a relatively new issue and that the coupling of Tuhourangi Ngati Wahiao was well established and accepted by the Crown. Neither of these responses was compelling in our view so we look forward to at least placing this matter in front of the Committee by way of a Supplementary Order Paper at the request of the representatives of Te Maru o Ngati Wahiao which will at least address their concerns and interests. 
The Hon Tau Henare raised the issues of Waitangi Tribunal claims. The Maori Party was extremely concerned to learn that during the settlement process the Crown had extinguished a number of Waitangi Tribunal claims without either the claimants’ knowledge or the claimants’ consent. The explanation put forward was that this was a result of the Crown’s policy of dealing with large natural groupings. How can it be that the Crown can extinguish Waitangi Tribunal claims through the settlement process without the express knowledge and permission of the specific claimants? That just seems so unjust to me. Surely the people who placed the claim in front of the Waitangi Tribunal have the right to be formally advised that their claim is being settled and to seek their buy-in as they have been the ones who have given the time the energy and even possibly the money in pursuit of the settlement of the grievance. Our comment in the select committee report expresses our concerns. 
Other members who spoke before me have talked about Ruamata Marae. We need to talk about the story of Ruamata Marae although other members have already broached some of the issues. Since the 1960s this marae has been continually hammered by way of the Crown allowing the use of the flight path over the top of the Ngati Uenukukopako people. I have used the word “hammered” quite deliberately. In the 1960s Ruamata’s ancestral meeting house was hammered down to lower ground after it was declared by the authorities to be an obstruction in the way of the flight path. At the same time the hill on which the marae burial ground the urupa was located was hammered down by machinery as it too was declared to be an obstruction to the flight path. All of this was despite the marae being in the area long before any airport was contemplated in Rotorua. 
However it is not just the marae tupuna whare the hill and the urupa—the cemetery—that have taken a hammering. So too has the ability to develop homes on the ancestral land due to height restrictions imposed because of the flight path. Today the people of the marae continue to face many other impacts and these were mentioned by Mr Keith Locke this evening when he talked about the aircraft noise the deposits of aviation fuel and so on. This is a real concern. However one thing the authorities do not seem to want to hammer down are the nails that Mr Locke talked about that are popping out of the marae buildings. This is possibly caused by the acoustic vibrations from the low-flying aircraft—and I have been at a hui when those aeroplanes were going over the top. 
Given all of this it would be no surprise for members to hear that just over a month ago a historical claim was lodged with the Waitangi Tribunal on behalf of the people of the marae. Their claim is that they have been prejudiced by the creation of this flight path. Having said that I was pleased to hear from the Minister earlier today that this issue has been looked at and considered. I appreciate it very much that that has been taken care of. 
At this second reading I will just acknowledge that considerable progress has been made in seeking to improve the processes that govern the way in which mana whenua entitlement and determination is arrived at and I acknowledge the work that Dr Cullen has done in respect of moving these settlements along. I also recognise the importance of the meetings held between the Crown Forestry Rental Trust the Office of Treaty Settlements and the Waitangi Tribunal to better coordinate resources and improve the models used. The perfect science is still a long way off and although we commend the new approach—the emphasis on rangatira ki te rangatira chief to chief—it is an approach that must continue to ensure that the success of settlements continues to move forward. We must do better and we can do better and hopefully in the next 7 or 8 weeks or so we will have the opportunity to add to the process that has been developed up to this point in time. 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Minister of Maori Affairs) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker. I stand in support of the Affiliate Te Arawa Iwi and Hapu Claims Settlement Bill. The bill gives effect to the settlement reached between the affiliate Te Arawa iwi and hapu represented by Te Pumautanga o Te Arawa and the Crown. 
I would certainly like to acknowledge at the outset the far-sighted decision of Rawiri Te Whare and other Te Pumautanga o Te Arawa negotiators to bring the affiliate Te Arawa settlement into the central North Island collective settlement. Alongside them was the Crown side ably led by Dr Cullen and supported by the Associate Minister Mita Ririnui. The decision was subsequently ratified by Te Pumautanga o Te Arawa beneficiaries and it has paved the way for the finalisation of the affiliate Te Arawa settlement. The decision to come into the central North Island collective will allow Te Arawa and other central North Island iwi to determine amongst themselves the allocation of commercial and mana whenua interests within Crown-licensed forests. This bill shows the advantages of allowing Maori to resolve their own issues amongst themselves and of not trying to impose solutions from the outside. The fact that iwi leaders have been allowed to take control of the process is the reason we have made so much progress towards settling the claims of Te Arawa and the other central North Island iwi. 
I note that several submitters to the Maori Affairs Committee have raised the issues of the coupling of Ngati Whaoa - Ngati Tahu and of Tuhourangi Ngati Wahiao together as affiliates of Te Pumautanga o Te Arawa. It is important that iwi and hapu be allowed to define themselves for the purposes of Treaty settlements. Following exhaustive mandate processes—and they were exhaustive—the Crown was convinced that Ngati Whaoa - Ngati Tahu and Tuhourangi Ngati Wahiao wanted to be coupled together as affiliates and be party to the affiliate Te Arawa settlement. The couplings reflect the historic geographic and whakapapa ties of the groups. Nobody should undo those accountable and representative entities. This measure will ensure that the whole Te Arawa waka benefits from the settlement. 
The Affiliate Te Arawa Iwi and Hapu Claims Settlement Bill also provides for significant cultural redress. Twenty-four culturally significant sites including ones at Whakarewarewa Te Ariki Lake Rotokawa and Lake Rotomahana will transfer under this bill. Some of these proposed cultural redress transfers have generated debate within other iwi but again iwi leaders have taken the lead in finding ways to resolve these differences and by and large they have been resolved. 
I again acknowledge the Te Arawa leadership. It was bold enough and generous enough to step back twice so that other people could come to the fore. That is something rarely seen in this country but it most certainly is recognised. To Rawiri Te Whare and the other leadership group I say it was indeed an honour a privilege and a pleasure to work with them. 
I commend the Affiliate Te Arawa Iwi and Hapu Claims Settlement Bill to the House for its second reading. 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
: 
 As previous National speakers have said we will support the second reading of this bill. We will also support the Government’s proposed Supplementary Order Paper 250 and its amendment to clause 12. I am particularly pleased that the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations has tabled an amendment to clause 5 which we can deal with when the Committee discusses Part 1. 
I would like to begin this speech by congratulating the Government on the accelerated pace of Treaty settlements in recent times. The last few months stand in stark contrast to the previous 8 years of abject failure and mismanagement. Indeed this bill when passed later this week will double the number of Treaty settlements that Labour has taken from start to finish in 9 years. The central North Island iwi forests settlement which the National Party enthusiastically supports and which hopefully will be passed later this week will triple that number. That in 1 year the Minister can match and exceed the total accomplishments of Mr Burton and Margaret Wilson in 8 years goes some way to showing how poor Labour’s record is in this area. It is only when Labour members are facing defeat at the polls—staring at complete defeat in the Maori seats at the hands of a capable hard-working Maori Party—that they are bothered to put much energy at all into an area that is so important to Maori and so important to the country. 
Let me turn to the bill currently before the House. I was most interested in the contribution of the Associate Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations Mita Ririnui shortly after the dinner break because one could be forgiven for thinking that in his speech he attempted to pass over the history of this settlement. That is probably not surprising given the shameful attempts by both the Prime Minister and him to rewrite history. Both have claimed this year—only by coincidence an election year I am sure—that National has not supported a single Treaty settlement negotiated by this Government. That is an especially glaring lapse by the Associate Minister who seems to have forgotten his own membership of the Maori Affairs Committee when National supported many settlements including those of Tuwharetoa in the Bay of Plenty Ngati Tama Ngati Ruanui Ngati Awa Ngati Mutunga and others. It is hard to avoid the conclusion that either the Associate Minister’s memory is so faulty that he is not up to the job or he has deliberately misled the public. Such representations and selective memory are all too common these days amongst Labour members. They are desperate and indeed they will say anything—including on Willie Jackson’s television programme—in a vain effort to cling to power. 
Let us look briefly at the history of this settlement which is not contained in the text of the apologies—and I see the Minister of Maori Affairs looking guilty and he should look guilty. I have to congratulate Te Arawa on the patience they have shown towards the Crown and on their commitment to the settlement process which I truly believe to be commendable. Few claimant groups have had to suffer the poor standard of behaviour that this group has had to suffer under this Government. The Minister attempted to gloss over earlier tribunal reports rewriting history so as to deflect attention from the shameful failings of his Government. We are supposed to forget that the tribunal said it could not support the settlement progressing in its earlier form due to the lamentable behaviour of this Government. Not content with such a finding the tribunal also found that Labour had usurped the rangatiratanga of iwi and hapu had failed to act fairly and impartially towards all the claimants had acted in a manner inconsistent with the principles of the Treaty had committed grave breaches of the Treaty had failed to act as an honest broker in the negotiations had failed to discharge its Treaty and fiduciary duties to all Maori and did not act honourably and with the utmost good faith. What an appalling performance! 
Anyway the select committee received 37 submissions. Eighteen of them supported the bill in its entirety and 26 were heard in Rotorua. I join with Mr Henare in commending the chair for the way he dealt with the bill and also the committee for the way it dealt with the submissions. 
As the select committee report states a number of issues emerged. The first set of issues concerned clause 11 which covers the meaning of “affiliate” and “affiliate ancestor”. Submissions were directed toward subparagraphs (vii) and (viii) of clause 11(1)(a). I must say that Mr Henare dealt with those issues very well in his second reading speech and I will not attempt to repeat those comments here. 
Secondly a number of mandate concerns were raised although the officials told us that it was the wrong time to be raising mandate questions and the committee could not take up that issue during the hearing of submissions. 
The third issue—and it has been referred to on a number of occasions tonight—related to the deletion of a number of Wai claims without the claimants’ knowledge or as a result of the Crown’s policy of dealing with large natural groupings. The committee was told by officials that although individual redress elements may relate closely to particular Wai claims the redress need not be specific to individual Wai claims and this approach has apparently been recognised by the tribunal. I must say I share Mr Henare’s concerns about the extinguishment of Wai claims and I think there is an argument that they should be formally dismissed on notice by the tribunal. 
Finally a question was raised about Ruamata Marae which has also been dealt with by a number of members tonight. The marae trust told the committee that the Crown breached the Treaty by designating a flight path immediately over the marae which is near Rotorua airport in the 1960s. It was said that this allegation had been made in a claim to the tribunal—Wai 918. The committee was advised however that the Wai 918 claim itself does not relate to that issue; it relates to the taking of land for the airport. The report of the select committee records an understanding by the Maori Party that a Government Supplementary Order Paper could include specific reference to the exclusion of an historical claim concerning airspace over the marae. That is dealt with in the amendment that was tabled this afternoon that adds to clause 12 a new subclause (5) which puts that issue beyond doubt and that is a good thing. 
Finally I want to touch briefly on Part 4 which concerns commercial redress and is the subject of Supplementary Order Paper 250 of 23 September. Subpart 2 of Part 4 deals with licensed land and Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry forest land. I will deal with this issue more closely in the Committee stage. Suffice it to say at this stage that clause 130 deals with the effect of transferred land. The Supplementary Order Paper proposes to add in two new clauses immediately after it: the first clause 130A provides that public access is to continue and clause 130B provides that public right of way easements may be granted. As I said National members will support that Supplementary Order Paper in its entirety. 
So this bill apart from the minor changes set out on the Supplementary Order Paper comes back to the House for its second reading. We support the second reading of the bill. 
Bill read a second time. 
In Committee 
Preamble 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 Basically the whole purpose of Part 1 is—if I might read out clause 3—“(a) to record the acknowledgements and the apology given by the Crown to the Affiliate in the deed of settlement …”. The interesting thing is that the purpose of this bill is to settle a grievance but what it does not do as we said in the second reading debate is take cognisance of the Ngati Whaoa Tuhourangi and Ngati Wahiao issues. The major issue that came up in the select committee process was the coupling of iwi and hapu under their own steam. The purpose clause should read that this bill is about Te Arawa and its affiliates and it should include those issues that were brought up at the select committee. I think that is where we— 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I apologise for interrupting the member but I think he is debating the first part of Part 1. We are on the preamble which outlines the historical background. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: OK we will skip that and get to Part 1. 
Preamble agreed to. 
Part 1 Purpose of Act acknowledgements and apology interpretation provisions settlement of claims and miscellaneous matters 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 Let me start again. My humble thanks to the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations; the whip put me wrong but I will not say which one. 
It is quite important that this issue is sorted out. I would like to hear the Minister give his dissertation on why we cannot do it. I have heard other speeches made by other members in the House as to why the uncoupling cannot happen. I think Part 1 would be the most appropriate part in which to insert some acknowledgment that there is an issue in terms of why Tuhourangi and Ngati Wahiao should not be uncoupled. Part 1 is headed “Purpose of Act acknowledgements and apology interpretation provisions settlement of claims and miscellaneous matters”. There should be some recognition at least in Part 1 of the issue because if there is not then the issue will keep on going and going and whoever is in Government in say even 10 years’ time people from Ngati Wahiao from Ngati Whaoa and from Tuhourangi will be back here to try to sort out that issue. I can put a ring round it. 
I think it is important to acknowledge that there is an issue. I think it is important to see whether there is a way that we could get through the issue. I would have thought that a Supplementary Order Paper along the lines of the uncoupling of Tuhourangi—[ 
Interruption 
] I know that the Minister says no and I know the reasons why. The Minister does not want to create another affiliate and therefore upset the quantum. But if we uncoupled the groups and said that it did not mean that there would be an extra affiliate and that it would have no effect on the quantum then we might be able to get round it. 
I am interested in what the Minister has to say and whether we could do it through Part 1 considering that it includes the purpose of the Act. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 I am advised that there is actually no practical way of achieving what Mr Henare wants. I think it is very dangerous to legislate on the floor of the House to change negotiated agreements because it reopens the whole process of negotiation of Treaty settlements. It would be an endless process and quite a dangerous process. I was quite concerned about what happened in the case of Te Roroa. Although there were some issues there it seemed to mean that we were getting ourselves into potentially dangerous territory in revisiting details of a grievance by means of the parliamentary process. 
This settlement is the clear expression of the process that occurred. Obviously if at some future point there is a determination by those involved that they wish to separate that could be relatively easily done within the confines of this legislation. They could separate into two groups within the affiliate structure. The structure is essentially the total settlement; the component parts can be revisited in that regard. 
While I am on my feet I will mention again my amendment to clause 12 in relation to Rotorua airport. The amendment is specifically drafted in terms of “To avoid doubt”. All the legal advice I have is that any claims in relation to the airport are not affected by the bill as originally drafted anyway and indeed the people from Raumata Marae themselves are quite satisfied about that. But I am aware that at least two parties in this House do not entirely share that view. Again I have some reluctance to intervene by way of an amendment on the floor of the House that runs against where the negotiators themselves have got to. The amendment expresses avoidance of doubt to make it clear in case anybody has any concerns about this matter that claims in relation to the approach to and airspace over the airport are not included in this settlement. But I would emphasise again that the bill in its current form before that amendment is passed does not affect that claim because the Wai 918 claim does not cover the issue of airspace over and a flight path to Rotorua airport. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) 
: 
 I guess we can be grateful to the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations for that explanation. I just hope his not having done something about that issue during the negotiations will not result in problems further down the line. But I certainly appreciate the situation that a deed having been negotiated legislators can get themselves into a bit of a pickle trying to do something about it on the floor of the House. I guess that is why the purpose of this bill is so important and is clearly set out. Clause 3 states that the bill gives effect to a deed of settlement that has been negotiated by the Crown and certain representatives of the Te Arawa affiliates. Clause 4 states that the Act binds the Crown. That is a small provision but very important. 
Part 1 also sets out the acknowledgments and the apology. Those too are extremely important. I have always thought it is important that a claimant iwi that is settling can see in legislation the things that are part of the settlement—the things that the Crown acknowledges date back to when breaches first occurred. Someone mentioned in an earlier speech that these breaches had occurred a long time ago. Yes they did but let us not forget that some breaches occurred recently as well—in the 1960s and the 1970s. In this case some quite significant breaches occurred in respect of Maori Land Court title rearrangement and so on. 
Then we come to the apology which is hugely important. I am sure all members of the House understand by now after the many apologies given by the Crown in this place how important an apology is to the claimant group—the iwi or hapu in question. One can never underestimate the power of the Crown apologising to iwi. It is the Crown’s chance on behalf of New Zealanders to say sorry and also to restore to itself some of the honour that it lost when it breached the Treaty—in this case in relation to the affiliates of Te Arawa. 
Then we come to clause 11 which is what my colleague was talking about earlier—the designation of the affiliates and the affiliate ancestors. Given that we had submissions from Ngati Wahiao in respect of their designation alongside Tuhourangi as Tuhourangi Ngati Wahiao and also from Ngati Tahu and Ngati Whaoa about their designation I wonder whether the Minister might explain why clause 11(1)(a)(vii) reads quite simply and directly “Tuhourangi Ngati Wahiao” and clause 11(1)(a)(viii) states “Ngati Tahu-Ngati Whaoa”. I wonder why that difference is there. Does it mean something? Perhaps Ngati Tahu - Ngati Whaoa—[ 
Interruption 
] I see that Te Ururoa Flavell is giving me some advice on it but I think I will get the Minister to enlighten me. The difference seems odd given that those two designations sit one above the other in the text of the bill. The issue for the iwi involved seems to be the same yet in the bill they are not described in quite the same way. It is amazing how that little hyphen has really excited my brain as to why that might be. 
Lastly I go to clause 12 which excludes all claims connected with the claims that are being settled here. I guess that in a sense although the iwi concerned often find that to be a very hard provision to accept on the other hand I guess the Crown has to give some certainty to the public at large about what is being settled here. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 I will briefly respond to the last part of Georgina te Heuheu’s speech. Of course full and final settlements can scarcely be full or final if the claims remain active subsequent to the legislation. It is important that the extinguishment occurs at that point. Of course it is part of the actual deed of settlement that it is accepted that that is going to take place. 
On the other matter I might say as someone who has been around here for a while that I am so pleased when in the Committee stage we get back to being able to discuss a hyphen instead of our simply having a great long second reading speech all over again which has become the practice. I am advised that in that particular case that is how the groups choose to describe themselves. The bill is simply following their self-description in that regard. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Chair. Ki te Minita tena koe. I will just say a couple of things by way of introduction. I have put a paper on the Table with some amendments that basically deal with some of the issues that have been spoken about today. 
I will just concentrate in the first part on the issue around Tuhourangi Ngati Wahiao. Mr Pita Paraone explained that at the Maori Affairs Committee hearing we heard that yes there is an association obviously between Tuhourangi and Ngati Wahiao and during the select committee process we heard that Ngati Wahiao has mana whenua over the particular area of land around the tupuna whare that the Minister has been to. I tell the Minister that I think the issue here is that shortly in the next day or two we will be discussing the Whakarewarewa and Roto-a-Tamaheke Vesting Bill and that the definition that is being sought here—and I have a letter on behalf of Te Maru o Ngati Wahiao—may well I suppose diminish or in fact take away what Te Maru o Ngati Wahiao believes are mana whenua rights in the Whakarewarewa Village. It was keen at the select committee to try to clarify the issue of the coupling or at least the uncoupling so that when we get to the Whakarewarewa legislation its mana whenua rights within the Whakarewarewa legislation will be protected and that is why the issue has come almost backwards if one likes to this particular bill. 
So at the hearing as Pita Paraone and Tau Henare mentioned the question was asked of one Rangipuawhe Maika as to whether as a senior koeke of Tuhourangi he would be amicable to the notion of the word “and” being inserted between the two tupuna Tuhourangi and Ngati Wahiao. At that hearing as Mr Henare said there was agreement to that and he was quite happy with that. Then Rangipuawhe Maika went off and after a week or so he came back and said that Te Pumautanga o Te Arawa was not agreeable to that. At the heart of the issue is how it is possible for everybody else to make a decision in respect of the mana whenua that Ngati Wahiao believes that it may have. How is it possible that Ngati Wahiao has mana whenua for the particular lands that it has yet a bigger group that does not have interests in those lands—except for Tuhourangi which may well cross over those boundaries—makes a decision on the outcome? 
The real fear from the submitters during the select committee process was basically about the loss of Ngati Wahiao as a tupuna and of course Wahiao is a tupuna. So I have put an amendment on the Table in respect of the addition of the word “and” between the two. Obviously we would have to vote on it but it sets the scene for the Whakarewarewa and Roto-a-Tamaheke Vesting Bill which is coming up because mana whenua is a clear issue in that particular bill. There was a real desire on the part of Ngati Wahiao to protect its interest. We heard the story and clearly yes Ngati Wahiao and Tuhourangi have for all intents and purposes come together over time but there was no debate certainly from those who presented to the select committee over the fact that Ngati Wahiao is in fact an iwi in its own right and it wanted to maintain that view. 
The second point that I raise is in respect of the issue around Ngati Whaoa. I do not think it is too much news that Ngati Whaoa has attempted over a number of years to try to find its distinct place separate from Ngati Tahu. Now I speak specifically around Te Runanga o Ngati Whaoa which is an entity in its own right and has attempted to find its space. It has been through two or three Waitangi Tribunal hearings and ended up in front of Judge Carrie Wainwright to try to facilitate the process. I say to the Minister that we heard at the select committee that from the perspective of Te Runanga o Ngati Whaoa it did not quite complete the facilitation process needed to allow it to move off in its own way. The fact of the matter is that one of the members of Te Pumautanga o Te Arawa advised that he or she would wait until after the bill passed and then decide to separate out. 
In representing the interests of the constituents—at least the group called Te Runanga o Ngati Whaoa—I was asked to place in front of the Committee an amendment to take out from the bill any reference to Ngati Whaoa. In doing so I am representing at least that runanga and of course the Committee will make a decision on that amendment. I say to the Minister that I accept there are some complications regarding this matter but I can say that the issue of Ngati Wahiao - Tuhourangi was definitely placed on the agenda at the select committee process and we hoped that it would be dealt with. Unfortunately of course it came back from Te Pumautanga o Te Arawa and it did not quite pan out so I am obviously following a duty to place this issue in front of the Committee. 
The other issue I raise is in respect of Ngati Tukiterangi. Again I thought this issue had been dealt with relatively easily because there was a select committee process and an agreement by those concerned and those at the hui that Ngati Tukiterangi is a part of Ngati Wahiao - Tuhourangi—it is a hapu. There was an agreement to that effect and we thought Ngati Tukiterangi would take that away. I thought there was a clear agreement—and the Hon Tau Henare is nodding too—that that could be added to the bill with not too much hassle. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: It has been. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL 
: I am sorry I did not hear that. I am sorry about that. If that has been dealt with I am pleased. I heard from the Associate Minister and I thought that matter had not been dealt with so that is why I raised it. I am happy with that if it has been dealt with. 
Those are three of the issues I wanted to raise in Part 1. As I say I have some amendments. I know they will go through the process but at least I can say I raised those issues in the Committee. A real concern as I say particularly in respect of Ngati Wahiao is its belief in wanting to maintain and set the scene for the Whakarewarewa bill with a mandate from its organisation. Similarly the concern of Te Runanga o Ngati Whaoa is that the iwi be taken out of the bill. I have the minutes of meetings that Te Puni Kokiri officials have been at where there was a desire on the part of Te Runanga o Ngati Whaoa to be pulled right out of this agreement for better or for worse. The runanga made that decision and I place that in front of the Committee for consideration. I think at this point in time that those are the two or three issues that I wanted to raise. I will leave it there maybe for a response from the Minister. Kia ora tatou. 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
: 
 I will take just a brief call on Part 1. It contains the usual clauses one expects to find in Part 1 of a settlement bill. It sets out the purpose makes certain acknowledgments contains the apology and then has various interpretation and jurisdictional provisions. It may be thought that these are really boilerplate provisions but those who think that would be wrong because clauses 7 and 8 are at the heart of the bill. As Mrs te Heuheu mentioned those clauses are very very significant. Clause 7 sets out the text of the acknowledgments. I am intrigued that the New Zealand First Party which earlier this year introduced legislation complaining about principles of the Treaty— 
Pita Paraone 
: It’s coming. 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: —oh I see it is coming is it—is quite happy to support the legislation. I was going to praise New Zealand First for its sensible attitude. To say that one could remove all references in this legislation to the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles would be absurd because that is at the very heart of it. But I had better withhold my praise until the member has made his contribution. I will be interested to hear what he says about clauses 7 8 and 12. 
The acknowledgments are there for all members to read and they should be read very carefully because they outline a litany of woe on the part of the Crown a litany of failings which as clause 7(5) records results in a sense of grievance that exists even today. Clause 8 is an extremely important clause and it should never be regarded as nothing more than a boilerplate clause because it sets out the apology. It is all very well for the Crown to recognise the efforts and struggles of the ancestors of the affiliate in pursuing their claims for redress and it is all very well for the Crown to profoundly regret and apologise for breaches of the Treaty in its principles but importantly the Crown goes further than that. I refer to clause 8(4) which states that “the Crown seeks to atone for these wrongs and assist the process of healing with this settlement and looks forward to building a relationship of mutual trust and co-operation with the Affiliate.” 
So often in these settlements the Crown has apologised has said it is going to atone and then moves on to something else and promptly forgets that once the bill is enacted the relationship between the Crown and the affiliate has undergone a fundamental change. The Crown has obligations under this legislation that it must not ignore or forget. So often in my experience the Crown gets into trouble as it has no institutional memory and therefore moves on to the next issue of the day and forgets that the relationship has indeed changed. It behoves this place to make sure that that never happens. 
Next I refer to clause 12 which deals with the meaning of affiliate historical claims. The Minister’s amendment which was tabled today proposes an amendment by adding a new subclause (5). I must say I think that amendment is sensible even though I share the view of the Minister that it is probably legally or strictly unnecessary and is there as he says to avoid doubt. 
Subpart 3 deals with the mechanics of settlement—settlement of affiliate historical claims is final—and there is the consequential amendment to the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975. In particular schedule 3 is amended by including this legislation once it is enacted. Subpart 4 deals with miscellaneous matters such as perpetuities access to the deed of settlement and the date on which actions or matters must occur. There is no real magic in that and I need not detain the Committee by dwelling on Subpart 4. National will support the passage of Part 1. 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Chairperson. On behalf of New Zealand First I say that it would be very remiss of New Zealand First not to once again make a comment in respect of treaty settlements about the inclusion of references to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi which are articulated in Part 1 and in particular in clause 7 “Text of acknowledgements” and in clause 8(2). I can understand why those references are put there; without reference to the Treaty the whole settlement process could not proceed. But that does not diminish the concern of New Zealand First that those same principles which are often referred to in legislation do not have a clear definition set by this House. I know that other members of my caucus have often asked for those principles to be articulated by this House and we have never received any response. 
Christopher Finlayson 
: That’s not right. 
PITA PARAONE 
: Oh so that member will articulate— 
Christopher Finlayson 
: No I’ve already done so. 
PITA PARAONE 
: Oh OK. The other point I want to make about Part 1 is that I am glad that it actually identifies by name the parties to this settlement. When this settlement becomes history the people who have expressed concerns particularly concerns about the identity of their hapu—and there was discussion about whether groups should be identified separately—can point to the very people who signed up to the settlement. I refer specifically to those who expressed some concern during the select committee process regarding Tuhourangi Ngati Wahiao and who also made references to Ngati Tahu - Ngati Whaoa. I totally support the response that the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations made in regard to Ngati Tahu - Ngati Whaoa. If that is what those iwi want to be described as who are we to change that? I think any departure from that would almost see this whole process go back to the drawing board. 
I just wanted to make those comments and also to say that the descriptions of the affiliates are very important for the future of this particular settlement. Thank you Mr Chairman. 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 I want to make it clear to the Minister in the chair the Hon Dr Michael Cullen that National members will not be supporting any amendments or Supplementary Order Papers to uncouple Tuhourangi Ngati Wahiao. I understand perfectly well the constraints on the Minister. The Affiliate Te Arawa Iwi and Hapu Claims Settlement Bill involves a negotiated settlement between the Crown the Government and those people so any change would have to have the acquiescence of both parties. I thought I would make that quite plain. I wanted to raise the specific issue of the coupling of Tuhourangi and Ngati Wahiao. As for the coupling of Ngati Tahu and Ngati Whaoa I absolutely agree that if that is their decision it is their ball game. However I believe there is enough talk around the traps to show that Tuhourangi Ngati Wahiao will become a problem later on—but that is for the future to decide. I just wanted to make it clear to the Minister that we will not be supporting any amendments about uncoupling. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) 
: 
 Every time the honourable member Pita Paraone feels he has to raise the issue of the principles of the Treaty I feel bound to take a call to say my piece about them. Although I have said it before I think it is worth repeating that reference to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi first appeared in our legislation in the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1974 I think— 
Pita Paraone 
: 1975. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU 
: —1975! Of course that was a bill in the name of Matiu Rata who might even be the member’s whanaunga. There is a good reason why that reference was put into the legislation and not “the terms” of the Treaty. Part of the reason is that Maori mostly signed the Maori version of the Treaty but also some signed the English version so we have a Maori version and an English version in the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975. If we were to say “the terms” or “the provisions” of the Treaty we would have to ask which Treaty because there are in essence two Treaties if we take the Maori and English versions side by side. Over the last 20 years the task undertaken by the Waitangi Tribunal which was given the job of measuring the Crown’s conduct against the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi has been to discern from the two versions the underlying essence the underlying principles of those versions. In a way it is very apt. I think the process we have followed to settle historic injustice has been served very well by that statement. One day I am sure our friend Pita Paraone will discover those principles for himself. They are easily found in various judgments and reports. 
Pita Paraone 
: But the laws are made here. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU 
: The laws are certainly made here and they are made in the courts as well I say to my friend Pita Paraone. Although we say Parliament is the highest court in the land laws are being made daily in our courts as well. So there you go. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: The amendments in the name of Te Ururoa Flavell to subparagraphs (vii) and (viii) of clause 11(1)(a) and to paragraphs (g) and (h) of clause 11(2) are out of order because they are inconsistent with the deed of settlement. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 250 in the name of the Hon Dr Michael Cullen to clause 5 and the following amendment in his name to clause 12 be agreed to: 
to add the following subclause: 
(5) To avoid doubt  
Affiliate historical claims 
 does not include any claim submitted to the Waitangi Tribunal in accordance with the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 in respect of the airspace over or the flight paths to Rotorua airport.  
Amendments agreed to. 
Part 1 as amended agreed to. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I do not want to take up too much time Mr Chairperson but could you give me some clarification in respect of my amendments to clause 11 being out of order. Is there some rule or explanation in respect of the amendments I placed before the Committee being automatically ruled out of order? Was it solely because they relate to a settlement that has been negotiated? I am seeking some clarification. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Yes. These issues are pretty clear especially when we are dealing with a deed of settlement that has already been signed. It is rare to accept amendments to it. I do not think I can be much clearer than that. It is a deed of settlement; it is different from normal legislation. It is a matter that has been agreed to. On that basis the amendments were inconsistent with the deed itself. Thank you. 
Part 2 Cultural redress 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: The debate on Part 2 includes clauses 21 to 87 and schedules 4 and 5. 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 I will take a brief call and it is about clause 21 “Authority to issue amend or cancel protocols”. Clause 21(1) states: “Each responsible Minister may—(a) issue a protocol to the trustees in the form set out in Part 1 of Schedule 1 of the deed of settlement;”. My issue is that if we want to find out a wee bit more about the form of a protocol we have to try to find a copy of the deed of settlement. There is no explanation in the bill of the form of a protocol. I wonder whether Part 2 should have a form—it could even be a schedule to the bill—that sets outs the hows the whys and the why-nots of a protocol. My main concern about the protocols is that if somebody picks up the bill looks at it and says “OK what is this protocol business?” that person then has to try to get a copy of the deed of settlement. I wonder why we cannot have a form as a schedule to the bill. 
That is all—a very quick speech. 
Part 2 agreed to. 
Part 3 Cultural redress properties and other properties 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) 
: 
 Part 3 deals with “Cultural redress properties and other properties” and that is of course a very important part of a settlement. As all members of the House will understand as we have been on this Treaty settlement process for a number of years now iwi like many others have close associations with various landscapes in the area and Te Arawa no less. I see some very important sites in the bill and I guess those have all been worked out—obviously they have to be. The Minister might like to take a call and let the listeners know how they were worked out. 
For instance Te Koutu Pa is very ancient in Te Arawa history. Clause 90 states: “(1) The reservation of Te Koutu Pa under the Reserves Act 1977 is revoked. (2) The fee simple estate in Te Koutu Pa vests in the trustees.” who become the trustees of the settlement itself. Others are listed as I look down clause 88: “(h) site adjacent to Orakei Korako:” “(j) Te Wairoa:”. They are all important sites and it is clearly important to have them returned as part of this settlement. Clause 96 states: “The site on Horohoro Bluff ceases to be a conservation area under the Conservation Act 1987.” and “(2) The fee simple estate in the site on Horohoro Bluff”—once the law goes through—“vests in the trustees.” as well. 
As I say it is a very important part of the settlement and it is very important that Te Arawa is recognised for its ancient history and for its history in the areas that are deemed to be theirs and that in the modern day there are sites that can be returned to them—properly returned. My colleague in referring to Part 2 of the bill also previewed some of the deeds of recognition that give voice to Te Arawa’s association with their land their landscapes and their important places. It is quite in order that this settlement follows the way of other settlements and recognises their history their traditions and their associations. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 250 in the name of the Hon Dr Michael Cullen to Part 3 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to. 
Part 3 as amended agreed to. 
Part 4 Commercial redress 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: The debate on Part 4 includes schedule 7. 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
: 
 I will take a brief call on Part 4. I do not intend to say much about Subpart 1 which deals with the “Transfer of commercial redress properties”. These properties are defined by clause 10 as meaning “the licensed land” and “a deferred selection property”. That is all in order and can be supported. 
Subpart 2 deals with “Licensed land and MAF forest land” and a couple of amendments are proposed by Supplementary Order Paper 250. I referred to these in my second reading speech. The first of these which the National Party supports is the proposal to include a new clause 130A so that where land has been transferred public access will continue. This issue arose a couple of times both in relation to this bill and the bill we will shortly debate. It simply states that “Clause 6.2 of the Crown forestry licence (which relates to public entry for recreational purposes) continues to apply even though the Crown is no longer the licensor under the licence …”. Clause 130B will be inserted by the same Supplementary Order Paper to ensure that public right of way easements may be granted. There is a reference to various provisions of the Crown Forest Assets Act and there is nothing in there that I need detain the Committee on. We are happy with Subpart 2. 
Subpart 3 deals with the “Right of access to protected sites” which are also defined and that is all as it should be. The National Party supports those provisions as well. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 250 in the name of the Hon Dr Michael Cullen to Part 4 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to. 
Part 4 as amended agreed to. 
Schedule 1 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: The amendments in the name of Te Ururoa Flavell to Parts 1 and 2 of schedule 1 are out of order as they are inconsistent with a deed of settlement. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 250 in the name of the Hon Dr Michael Cullen to schedule 1 be agreed to. 
Amendment agreed to. 
Schedule 1 as amended agreed to. 
Schedule 2 agreed to.  
Schedule 3 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 250 in the name of the Hon Dr Michael Cullen to schedule 3 be agreed to. 
Amendment agreed to. 
Schedule 3 as amended agreed to. 
Schedule 4 agreed to.  
Schedule 5 agreed to.  
Schedule 6 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 250 in the name of the Hon Dr Michael Cullen to schedule 6 be agreed to. 
Amendment agreed to. 
Schedule 6 as amended agreed to. 
Schedule 7 agreed to.  
Clauses 1 and 2 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 “The Parliament of New Zealand therefore enacts as follows: … This Act is the Affiliate Te Arawa Iwi and Hapu Claims Settlement Act 2008.” I again impress on people that I have huge difficulty with the coupling of what I think are two different entities—Tuhourangi and Ngati Wahaio. Either one is Te Arawa iwi or both are Te Arawa iwi or both are hapu. As far as I am concerned they are separate entities. Their whakapapa is separate they live in separate areas and just because an act of God led to one group moving to live somewhere else does not mean they are one and the same. Although National members did not support the amendments and I understand clearly the reasons that the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations moved them I think that what we are doing here is an injustice to Ngati Wahiao—and I say that with all due respect to Te Arawa. 
I must declare a bit of a conflict of interest in terms of my children. Their mother is of Te Arawa descent. I had better declare that conflict quick smart. 
This is the first time that I have seen two different entities specifically put together in settlement legislation. We have done the Tuwharetoa ki Kawerau settlement; that group is specific to one area and does not include the whole of Tuwharetoa. I have never seen a coupling of what I consider to be two different pods of— 
Hon Member 
: Wakas. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: No not two different wakas because they came off the same one. But members get my gist. 
I think it is quite telling that the title is “Affiliate Te Arawa Iwi and Hapu Claims Settlement Bill”. The way I see it through my urban Maori eyes if Tuhourangi is an iwi under the Te Arawa affiliate and Ngati Wahiao is a hapu then they have to be separate—they have to be. They cannot be together. They have never been together. If Ngati Wahiao is an iwi then surely they must be separate from Tuhourangi. To my way of thinking the title gives the game away. I have been known to refer to it before as mana-munching and some not-so-kind terms but I really do think that somebody is being hard done by through this process. I do not for 1 minute think it is the Government’s fault or that the Government set out to do it. 
I stand to air my concerns arising from the select committee hearings in Rotorua. I have some major concerns. Maybe we will be lucky and this matter will not come back to bite us on the proverbial; maybe my concerns are just a figment of my imagination. Let us hope so. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 This is just a short call to follow on from Mr Tau Henare and to say that I agree in this instance with his korero which is the reason why we put up the amendment in the first place. I reflect back firstly on the note that I have received from Te Maru o Ngati Wahiao. Here we have a legal entity that has been established. It has a track record and there is a desire on its part to ensure that the issue of mana whenua for Ngati Wahiao not only around this issue but as I said earlier around the Whakarewarewa Village issue is maintained. 
No one denies that at home at home base there is reference to Tuhourangi Ngati Wahiao. Other members talked about that before—the kapahaka and so on. I have no issue with that. But the real fear that was presented on the part of the submitters to the Maori Affairs Committee was that by coupling them up the distinct entity called Ngati Wahiao would be basically wiped off the earth. That is how Te Maru o Ngati Wahiao viewed the situation. Whether that is true is not for me to say but in representing the interests of the constituents that I represent I say it was very clear that Te Maru o Ngati Wahiao felt that this legislation set up the fact that in time the iwi would basically be subsumed by Tuhourangi. The question would be whether it could live with that. I think the best perspective I got on that was that a number of the people who came to the select committee hearing said that their whakapapa is Ngati Wahiao tuturu. They said their mother was Ngati Wahiao and to all intents and purposes the other side of the bridge the southern side of the bridge was Ngati Wahiao land. 
Mr Henare talked about the eruption of Tarawera and said Ngati Wahiao out of aroha gave some land interests to Tuhourangi to come and live on. Naturally in living close to one another they formed relationships and intermarried and over time—and I have asked questions about intermarriage of a number of people—yes there has been intermarriage almost to the point that some say it is the natural korero that Tuhourangi Ngati Wahiao are as one. But clearly when a legal entity tells us straight up and down that it wants to ensure that its interests are protected in light of mana whenua issues then we have to sit up and take some notice of that. More to the point that was endorsed by a kaumatua a senior kaumatua of Tuhourangi who said he had no problem with the notion of separating them out yet lo and behold as Tau Henare reflected the pressure has come on regarding the issue of uncoupling. 
I also respect the issues the Minister has to face around this issue but I think it is important to note in  
Hansard 
 for the record that at the heart of this is a serious issue for those associated with Ngati Wahiao and it is not to diminish the relationship with Tuhourangi—not at all. There is however a concern to protect Ngati Wahiao’s mana whenua interests particularly—this is what I got—in respect of the Whakerewarewa Village. Why? Because Ngati Wahiao has huge mana whenua interests there; it is mana whenua. It is set out in the Maori Land Court records that Ngati Wahiao holds mana whenua interests and because it has been coupled with Tuhourangi in this bill it fears that when we get to the next bill—and we have had the signing and a number of statements in respect of that one and no doubt we will debate this issue again when that bill comes to its first reading in the House—it wants to make its issues really well known and clear. 
I just ask the Minister where he goes and what we do as members of Parliament when a legal entity that represents those people in this case Te Maru o Ngati Wahiao makes a statement and basically because of the time limits—Te Pumautanga o Te Arawa has been carrying this particular settlement for some 5 or 7 years or so now—it has been caught up in the cogs and left to the side. I hope that we can look at some mechanism that will be able to address this particular issue. I recognise that that will probably not happen but it is still important to at least look at doing that when the Whakarewarewa Village bill comes up. In fact there is a desire on the part of those of Te Maru o Ngati Wahiao to meet with politicians and put their issues to them—at least to have the opportunity to do that. We cannot do much more than that. I stand to support—in some ways very much—the sentiments expressed by the Hon Tau Henare. I hope that in the future some way may be found of looking at this issue in particular if there is a legal entity that is willing to put the issues on the floor. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) 
: 
 I want to make a very brief call on clauses 1 and 2 of the Affiliate Te Arawa Iwi and Hapu Claims Settlement Bill. Because there is a lot of interest in seeing this bill pass into law before Parliament rises perhaps the Minister in the chair the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations might indicate when the bill would be endorsed by the Governor-General. 
The discussion still centres on the inclusion in the affiliate of tribes that are coupled. Some representatives of those tribes or hapu do not want to be coupled in the way that they are. We have to remember of course that although some stand in this Chamber and say that Ngati Wahiao do not want to be coupled with Tuhourangi in reality some of Wahiao—presumably a greater number—are already part of the affiliate. Yes the Maori Affairs Committee heard some very passionate pleas for that uncoupling to take place. Again those pleas were from only some of the Wahiao tribe. That does not make the issue any less important but as my colleague has said and as has been obvious we have not supported that uncoupling in this place. 
It is interesting that with the long gestation of the Affiliate Te Arawa Iwi and Hapu Claims Settlement Bill it is a big big achievement that this settlement has been reached. Hopefully those in the ascendancy have heard sincerely and genuinely the plea of those who worry that they might be subsumed. I hope they at least try to have some appreciation and understanding of the anxiety of the fears that some have that their mana their standing might become subsumed. That should not happen. Yes in the end it is an internal issue for those groups. 
Hopefully this affiliate of Te Arawa iwi and hapu once the bill passes its third reading and goes into law will use the settlement in the way that one would expect such an affiliate to use it: as a springboard for moving forward a springboard for embracing all of those who become part of the settlement—every single person every hapu every tribe. The settlement should become a springboard for moving forward for development for their tamariki for their mokopuna. I suppose that if we all keep that in mind then the promise of the settlement as signified in the title will become a reality and something that not only those groups are proud of but indeed all New Zealanders embrace because it is a good thing for our country. 
I want to go through the groups listed in the meaning of “Affiliate” in clause 11; it is the embodiment of the bill. They include Ngati Ngararanui including Ngati Tamahika and Ngati Tuteaiti; Ngati Kearoa Ngati Tuara; Ngati Tura - Ngati Te Ngakau; Ngati Te Roro o Te Rangi; Ngati Tuteniu; Ngati Uenukukopako; Tuhourangi Ngati Wahiao; Ngati Tahu - Ngati Whaoa; Ngati Pikiao excluding Ngati Makino; Ngati Rongomai; and Ngati Tarawhai. This settlement is a big achievement for those affiliate groups. It is a pleasure for me to stand here tonight at the end of the Committee stage which is the stage before the third reading. I understand that the third reading will proceed on Thursday. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 I will respond briefly to the point raised by the member. It is expected that the bulk of this bill—that is the parts relating to the great part of the settlement—comes into force on 2 July 2009. It may seem a long way away. The reason is that the Central North Island Forests Land Collective Settlement Act has to comes into force first on 1 July. The reason for that time-gap is to allow time for the necessary survey work to be done in relation to the Crown forest lands. 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
: 
 I am taking just a brief call in regard to the title and the commencement. I believe that the title is an apt one because it gives due regard to all those hapu and iwi who affiliate to this settlement irrespective of some of the concerns that some of us have expressed in regard to the names of the respective iwi and hapu who are part of this affiliate and some concerns expressed by submitters that the names should be separated to give separate identities to those respective iwi. As I have mentioned before in this debate I do not think it is the responsibility of this House to address an issue that clearly should rightly remain with the people who are affiliates of Te Arawa whether they be hapu or iwi. I feel very strongly about that notwithstanding that I do appreciate the concerns that submitters raised. 
But I think as we have addressed all the settlements and in particular this one we have given due recognition to and acknowledged the leadership that has been exercised by those who have led this process with the Crown. I believe that the issues we have been talking about in regard to separate identities of the separation or uncoupling—which is the word that is commonly used—of particular iwi are for the leadership of those respective iwi and hapu to deal with. 
To that end I would like to say on behalf of New Zealand First that we certainly support the title. It is an apt title. It recognises all those iwi and hapu who wish to affiliate to this settlement. Kia ora. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 The Hon Georgina te Heuheu has reminded me of one other thing and I place it before the Minister. As I understand it Ngati Wahiao is not registered with Te Pumautanga o Te Arawa; Tuhourangi has been registered with Te Pumautanga o Te Arawa; thus the importance I suppose of raising this issue. I just raise this because I understood that Ngati Wahiao has been separated out; it has not become an affiliate in its own right because of its desire to stand aside. That was a part of the court cases a couple of years ago. The information that I have received is that up until recently for all intents and purposes there was a desire to make sure that Ngati Wahiao’s interests were set aside and they have not been brought into the collective. 
That position was emphasised in terms of the vote around the participation in the Whakarewarewa thermal village vesting bill where there were two votes: the first was for Tuhourangi which was affiliated and had a register and the second was for Ngati Wahiao which did it by attendance at the marae. That is my understanding of the issue but I seek clarification from the Minister. It certainly places this issue before the Committee together with the significance of the Supplementary Order Papers that I have tabled. It is easy enough to say that Ngati Wahiao can deal with it at some point in time but if on the face of it they are not a part of Te Pumautanga collective if you like except by coupling up in this particular way then for all intents and purposes I understood they had shall we say fought it all the way. I am hoping that the advice given by the officials might give me some clarity around that issue. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 I am advised that Te Rununga o Ngati Whaoa has affiliated as a single trust to Te Pumautanga o Te Arawa. In fact there may be another body. That is not unusual in these matters as I am sure the member recognises. 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I have a question about the ruling out of the amendments and I thought I would bring it up now. I have looked through the  
Speakers’ Rulings 
 and the Standing Orders and if you can point me in the direction of either a Speaker’s ruling or Standing Order that deals with that then that would help me a lot. I know there is ruling about a financial veto and that is fine—I know where to find that. But I cannot seem to find the Standing Order or Speaker’s ruling that rules out an amendment in a Treaty bill. If the Chairperson could help us out I would be much obliged. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 I think if one looks at clause 3(b) of the Affiliate Te Arawa Iwi and Hapu Claims Settlement Bill one to some extent finds the answer in there in that it states the purpose of the legislation is to give effect to certain provisions of the deed of settlement. Of course the Crown and the Te Arawa affiliate are the parties to that deed. The Crown certainly does not support the amendments. If the amendments are moved that would then render the bill inconsistent with the purpose clause which in fact has already been passed at this point since it was included in Part 1. So it seems to me that at this point apart from anything else the amendments would be ruled out as being inconsistent with the provisions the Committee has already agreed to. 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 So by virtue of that does that mean we have a new ruling which will end up in  
Speakers’ Rulings  
somewhere so that in future people can refer to that ruling? That is just a question; I am not trying to hold things up. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: That is fine. I think what the Minister said was quite clear and there is also Speaker’s ruling 110/2: “An amendment that purports to amend an agreement reached between the Crown and other parties is out of order in a bill to give effect to that agreement.” This is a bill to give effect to an agreement. One of the parties—the Crown—does not agree with the amendments and that is about as far as we can take it. The Committee is constrained when dealing with settlement bills as I have explained before. Amendments that affect the terms of the deed have to be ruled out of order and I have done that. Thank you Mr Henare. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
Clause 2 agreed to. 
Bill reported with amendment. 
Report adopted. 
Central North Island Forests Land Collective  Settlement Bill 
Second Reading 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 I move  
That the Central North Island Forests Land Collective Settlement Bill be now read a second time 
. The Maori Affairs Committee has considered the bill and submitted its report to the House and I thank the committee for its speedy consideration of this extremely important settlement bill. Both the report of the committee and the submissions expressed the widespread and strong support that exists for the bill and the settlement it embodies. Indeed 133 out of 167 of the submissions were in support of this bill and the strong voice of support echoes the support that was shown so strongly for the settlement throughout its endorsement process. It also acknowledges a very real and wide-reaching potential this settlement has to better not only the more than 100000 people who constitute the collective iwi but also the central North Island and indeed the nation as a whole. 
This settlement represents a significant step in healing the wounds of longstanding grievances of the collective iwi as was evidenced in the Waitangi Tribunal hearings and findings of discussions the Crown has had with iwi to date. The transfer of 176000 hectares of Crown forest land valued at over $200 million to the trust holding company will have widespread economic benefit for the collective iwi and more widely for the people of New Zealand. This will in turn empower each of the collective iwi to forge a new path ahead providing opportunities for economic cultural and social growth. 
We should reflect I think on three important aspects of the settlement that the submissions to the bill raised. The first aspect is the mandate of the Central North Island Iwi Collective to agree to the settlement of the claims included in the bill. The tribunal the Maori Affairs Committee and I have considered the specific mandate issues and we are comfortable that the collective and constituent iwi representatives do indeed have the support of their people for entering into this settlement. The collective iwi provided evidence of broad support for their settlement process. The iwi held some 66 information or endorsement hui with each iwi in the collective determining its own endorsement process. Some used postal votes; others used hui votes. 
The results from this endorsement process showed that the collective iwi overwhelmingly endorsed the settlement except Ngati Rangitihi. Ngati Rangitihi did not endorse the settlement and are consequently not included in the bill. But in recognition of the iwi leadership’s contribution to the collective’s proposal the Crown and the collective are holding open a window for Ngati Rangitihi to agree to this settlement by 25 December this year should they choose to do so. I very much hope they will. The various Ngati Rangitihi groups are working hard to find a way through their differences and Te Runanga o Ngati Rangitihi is coordinating a further endorsement process that will culminate in a postal ballot to close on 10 October. Whether to endorse the settlement of course is a matter for Ngati Rangitihi to make a decision on and we will respectfully accept any decision the iwi makes. If they decide not to endorse the collective settlement they will still be able to claim against the Crown’s proportion of the central North Island forest lands that remain. The Government intends to introduce a Supplementary Order Paper to provide a mechanism for adding Ngati Rangitihi to the settlement should they demonstrate broad support for doing this. 
Key aspect No. 2 is the allocation model for the distribution of the commercial benefits of the settlement and the proposed tikanga-based mana whenua resolution process. The settlement has created an allocation mechanism unique to the Treaty claims settlement process. Although the Crown assessed the outcome of the commercial benefit allocation for fairness and relativity the percentages themselves were agreed amongst the collective iwi. The separation of the commercial benefits—the accumulated rentals—from the ownership of land itself was an innovation developed by the collective. As set out in the bill mana whenua will be the basis upon which the land itself is allocated. This land allocation process will be iwi led and it recognises the fluid overlapping and complex layering of interests over the Kaingaroa and wider central North Island forest lands. 
The collective iwi made compromises amongst themselves to make this settlement happen. In doing so they enabled more forest land and rentals to pass to iwi than would have been possible under the direct bilateral negotiations between individual iwi and the Crown because the Crown would always have to be keeping back sufficient for any other iwi that might be coming along. This coupled with the iwi-led development of the settlement proposal the mana whenua process will enhance the durability of the settlement. 
The third key issue is the preservation of existing public access to the central North Island forest lands—a matter close to the Prime Minister’s heart. The Crown and the Central North Island Iwi Collective have also been mindful of preserving this existing public access and the collective has generously agreed to preserve existing rights of public access to the central North Island forest lands. I need to note here that the existing 1989 Crown Forest Assets Act provides for all such access rights to cease upon the land transferring into Maori ownership so it was an important part of the settlement that this deed of settlement and the legislation remove that removal of those access rights and therefore preserve the rights of the general public in the future in that regard. So the settlement bill preserves the existing public access. When these lands cease to be licensed clause 11 enables new public access easements to be created that mirror the existing public access provided in the current licences. 
There will be a Supplementary Order Paper as I have said to provide for the possibility of having Ngati Rangitihi join this settlement if they choose to do so. For example that will correct the percentages set out in schedule 3 to match those contained in the deed of settlement as well. 
On an occasion such as this it is appropriate once again to express my deep appreciation for all those who have been involved in getting us to this point today—my colleague the Hon Mark Burton under whom this process began but particularly the ongoing leadership of Dr Tumu te Heuheu Te Ariki o Ngati Tuwharetoa. Without Dr te Heuheu’s leadership this settlement would not have been possible at all. It was a risky venture in fact to try to lead a group of very disparate iwi with some very differing histories and indeed some histories of long antagonisms between some of the iwi involved in this settlement to bring them together into a single collective process. 
I also want to thank Wira Gardiner who provided inestimable support to me as the Crown facilitator in this settlement and to place on record once again my gratitude to my wife for defeating Wira in the 1987 East Cape election thereby ensuring that Wira was available for other and higher duties in the service of Governments of different hues both now and I am sure into the future. Without the contribution of people such as Tumu and Wira this kind of historic settlement this kind of journey that we are entering upon now would not be possible. 
I look forward to the Committee stage and the third reading and I thank all colleagues in the House who have been so generous in facilitating this bill reaching this point at this stage. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Send him up north. 
Hon Georgina te Heuheu 
: Send them both up north. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: We will have news for the members on up north fairly soon I am quite hopeful. 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
: 
 National enthusiastically supports the second reading of this bill which as the report of the Maori Affairs Committee states gives effect to the deed of settlement between the Crown and the Central North Island Iwi Collective which was signed on 25 June 2008. The committee’s report—and the Minister has referred to this—records that there were 167 submissions and the committee heard 42 of those submissions in Taupo on 6 August 2008. The committee’s report also notes the genesis of this settlement. The Central North Island Iwi Collective emerged out of a recommendation of the Waitangi Tribunal in 2007 that the Crown give time for central North Island iwi to develop a proposal for Crown forest lands. 
As I have said before the tribunal report does not make pleasant reading. It was highly critical of the Labour Government’s conduct of the Te Arawa negotiation. It said among other things that aspects of the Crown’s processes of dealing with overlapping groups were inconsistent with the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. It said the Crown failed to act fairly and impartially towards all claimants. It said: “Future settlements cannot proceed like this. The Crown cannot continue to ‘pick favourites’ and make decisions on tribal interests in isolation based on inadequate information.” The tribunal said that the Crown’s failures in respect of consultation over commercial redress constituted a breach by the Crown of its Treaty duties to act honourably and with the utmost good faith and failed actively to protect the interests of all Maori. The tribunal described the Crown’s failure to adapt its policy to the unique situation of overlapping cultural and commercial interests as inflexible inappropriate and inadequate. 
On page 67 of its report the tribunal said this: “We see Treaty settlements as critical to the future of our country. For this reason we consider that any recommendation that a proposed settlement not proceed should be made only as an absolute last resort. However on balance we cannot endorse the KEC settlement in this form. We have not made this decision lightly but we have grave concerns about the impact of this settlement on overlapping iwi and on the durability of future CNI settlements.” So this damning report made it clear that the Labour Government had suspended the laws of averages. It got everything wrong. After 8 years of this Government where little or no progress had been made on finalising Treaty settlements 2007 certainly was a watershed year; doing nothing was replaced by a policy of messing up everything Labour touched. 
The Minister generously referred to the leadership of Mr te Heuheu and I endorse what he said. As a result of that leadership ably assisted by Wira Gardiner central North Island iwi came together and presented a proposal to the Crown. It was this proposal that ultimately led to the central North Island deed of settlement being signed on 25 June. In my first reading speech I praised the proposal which as the committee report said was best summarised as being iwi-driven and regional. Stung by its litany of failures in 2007 the Crown this year at least did not get in the way and considered the proposal. The deed having been signed the legislation came to the House and as the Minister observed has now come back from the select committee very quickly indeed. 
In the course of his speech the Minister addressed some of the issues raised by the select committee report. I endorse everything the Minister said about the hopes for a settlement involving Ngati Rangitihi. I endorse what he said about the novel resolution process and finally what he said about public access. 
In my first reading speech I indicated I had a real interest in the allocation model and I want now to focus on this aspect of the bill. Several submitters opposed the commercial allocation model or the tikanga-based mana whenua resolution process. They said the allocation of commercial benefits set out in schedule 3 was disproportionate because it ignored the extensive and legitimate claims of smaller iwi thus depriving them of their rights over customary lands. When we come to deal with Part 2 particularly Subpart 2 on allocation principles I will say something about clauses 14 and 15. The submitters also said that the commercial allocation model should be based on mana whenua rather than on population and that it was important to determine who held mana whenua before commercial benefits were allocated. In response the committee was told that the proportions derived from the commercial allocation model and included as schedule 3 to the bill were the result of unanimous agreement and full consensus. They also said it was appropriate that iwi rather than the Crown determine title to the land through a tikanga-based mana whenua resolution process which is set out in schedule 2. It was noted also that all the collective iwi had to compromise. Compromise was made possible by the separation of commercial benefits flowing from the land itself. 
The committee also heard submissions on schedule 2 and when we come to the Committee stage I will certainly be looking very closely at that schedule which sets out the steps required for a tikanga-based resolution process for Crown central North Island forests land. It is a very interesting process indeed. One of the issues will be whether it will oust in its entirety the prospect of judicial review proceedings because I am well aware of what happened after the fisheries settlement in 1992. From 1993 onwards there were debates in the courts about the allocation of quota or the leasing of quota and of course there was the great allocation debate that went to the Privy Council on three occasions I think. It is extremely important for the timely resolution of all these matters that schedule 2 works and that it prevents unnecessary court proceedings but I will be saying something about whether it effectively does so when we look at schedule 2. 
The committee was advised that the collective decided to separate the allocation of commercial benefits of the settlement from ownership of the land so land is to be allocated according to the mana that iwi traditionally held and exercised over the land determined according to tikanga. This resolution process means that iwi rather than the Crown are primarily responsible for determining the allocation of the title to the forest land. Officials consider that this is appropriate and will enhance the durability of the settlement and I certainly hope they are right. The collective does not expect mana whenua allocation to be in proportion to financial allocation. Those with greater mana whenua will receive greater land allocation and after the agreed period of 35 years the rental streams associated with the land. 
Debate interrupted. 
Sitting suspended from 10 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Wednesday).