Volume 671 Week 69 - Thursday 24 March 2011 
Volume 671 Week 69 - Thursday 24 March 2011 
[Volume:671;Page:17609] 
Thursday 24 March 2011 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Business Statement 
Hon JOHN CARTER (Minister of Civil Defence) 
 on behalf of the  
Acting Leader of the House 
: Next week the House will be adjourned for 1 week. When the House resumes on Tuesday 5 April it is the Government’s intention to make further progress on the Financial Markets (Regulators and KiwiSaver) Bill the Securities Trustees and Statutory Supervisors Bill and the Legal Services Bill. 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I ask the member whether the Government intends to pass any legislation under urgency in the next 2 sitting weeks. 
Hon JOHN CARTER (Minister of Civil Defence) 
 on behalf of the  
Acting Leader of the House 
: The Government intends to make progress on its legislation. 
Questions to Ministers 
Economy—Reports 
1. 
JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What reports has he received on the economy? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 Today the latest release of GDP data shows that the economy grew by 0.2 percent in the December quarter and by 1.5 percent in the last calendar year. This largely confirms what other indicators are telling us: that the economy was growing very moderately through the second half of last year as New Zealanders increased their savings and paid down debt. However it was the highest annual growth in the last 2 years and the economy has expanded in six of the past seven quarters. 
Jacqui Dean 
: How does this compare with growth in the recent past and expected future growth? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: In the 2008 calendar year the economy contracted by 0.2 percent and in 2009 it contracted by 2.1 percent. However most commentators and forecasters agree that growth is likely to accelerate over the next couple of years driven by a combination of lower interest rates than expected strong commodity prices continued Asian growth for our export markets quake rebuilding and the Rugby World Cup. They are forecasting growth reaching 4 percent or 5 percent over 2012 and 2013. 
Jacqui Dean 
: What implications does today’s data have for interest rates and inflation? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: It certainly does not signal any particular change. Both interest rates and inflation are likely to stay low for some time reflecting the fact that the economy has been pretty flat and there is plenty of spare capacity. 
Working for Families—Changes to Payments 
2. 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Will he rule out making cuts to Working for Families payments this year; if not why not? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister) 
 on behalf of the  
Prime Minister 
: Yes; if there were to be any changes to Working for Families they would take effect after the election probably from 1 April next year. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Did he say: “there will be no changes at all to Working for Families under an incoming National government and the reason for that is we want to ensure that there is certainty and there isn’t greater complexity in the system.”; and does he intend to break that promise? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Government has kept its word. We have maintained Working for Families and therefore security for families’ weekly incomes despite the fact that since the Prime Minister made that statement we have had a global financial crisis we have had finance company meltdowns in New Zealand and we have had two major earthquakes as well as flat economic growth. I think that is a major achievement of this National Government. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The question was very clear and asked whether he intends to break that promise. I did not hear the answer to that question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I heard the answer very clearly. He said that no the Government has not broken its promise. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not need any further time wasted on it. In his previous answer the Minister made it very clear—[ 
Interruption 
] If the Hon Pete Hodgson wants to remain in the House he will not interject while I am on my feet. I am not in a mood to be trifled with this afternoon. The Minister’s previous answer stated there would be no change until after the next election. The member should listen. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I did listen and I resent the reflection that I did not listen. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I apologise to the member. Please just ask your supplementary question. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Did the Prime Minister also say: “I’ve said earlier there will be no changes. People will not be worse off under Working for Families.” and will National continue to honour that promise? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: As I explained to the member National has honoured that promise. If there are any changes as I explained to him they would come into effect after the election. It seems to me that keeping that promise despite the fact of a global financial crisis finance company meltdowns and two major earthquakes is a remarkable achievement. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: When those promises were made were they qualified with the words “we will honour them for 3 years” or were those promises unequivocal? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The promise was made and has been kept. If there were to be any changes we would do what any respectable Government would do and that is go to the electorate with those changes. If they are endorsed we would implement them and if they are not endorsed we would not implement them. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Did the Prime Minister’s colleague the Minister of Finance say: “Whether it’s national super or student loans or Working for Families we’ve said we’d leave that stuff alone and we have despite the fact that we’re running a large deficit.” and does that assurance still stand? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I give the same answer I gave to questions about the Prime Minister’s statements: that is what has happened despite the fact we have had a global financial crisis a couple of large earthquakes and a finance company meltdown as well as dealing with the leaky homes problems. These things have incurred billions of dollars of extra costs for the Government. We have stuck to what we promised and any changes in any of it would be put in front of the electorate at the election. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: When the Prime Minister talked about cutting Working for Families for those whose joint household incomes are over $100000 is it correct that cutting Working for Families for those whose joint incomes are at that level would return only $1.7 million as the Parliamentary Library sets out? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I have not seen the Parliamentary Library calculations so I cannot comment on that. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: I seek leave of the House to table the workings of the Parliamentary Library which point out that the savings for joint incomes over $100000 would be $1.7 million. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: If the savings on cutting back Working for Families payments to those whose joint incomes are at that level are so insignificant can he give an assurance to this House that any cuts to Working for Families would actually dig down to people whose joint incomes reflected each income probably being less than the average wage? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The member will have to wait and see what decisions the Government makes in that area but he ought to keep these things in proportion. Those same families are currently paying about 6 percent on their mortgages whereas under his Government they were paying 10 percent. I think they are grateful for that. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: What integrity do the promises of the National Government have when it has already broken the promise not to increase GST and when he is now telling the House that National is going to break its promises on Working for Families and probably on KiwiSaver as well? Where is the integrity? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I am not sure today is the day for the Leader of the Opposition to make claims about integrity around public statements. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member should know that his own leader has raised a point of order. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Mr Speaker I think if you reflect on that answer you will see it went nowhere near addressing the question. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There will not be any comment when I am on my feet—I got to my feet to make sure there was no comment during a point of order. The member should reflect on the question he asked. He basically accused the Prime Minister of lacking integrity and surprise surprise he got an answer that questioned his own integrity. He should not ask the Speaker to intervene under those circumstances. He should reflect on the question asked. 
Child Abuse and Neglect—Changes to Family Start 
3. 
TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: What changes is the Government making to Family Start to ensure a greater focus on protecting children from abuse and neglect? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 I announced today changes to the governance design and delivery of Family Start. We know early intervention works. We know home visiting works. It is the right approach. But the research shows that Family Start’s focus has drifted over time and that effectiveness varies from provider to provider. We can do better. 
Tim Macindoe 
: Why is the Government making these changes to Family Start? 
DAVID BENNETT 
: Family Start currently delivers services to 6000 families at a cost to taxpayers of $30 million which is the largest Government spend on any early-intervention programme. We can do better by these children and their families. They need us and I am fully committed to ensuring that we will do better by them. 
Beneficiaries—Prime Minister’s Statements 
4. 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: Does she agree with the Prime Minister that “anyone on a benefit actually has a lifestyle choice … some make poor choices and they do not have money left”? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 Yes I agree with the Prime Minister but as per usual the member has taken the quote out of context. He was also right when he said: “this Government has through a number of policies tackled problems that under Labour simply removed hope and opportunities from the lives of those people.” 
Hon Annette King 
: Is she aware that her department is sending 25 people a day to just one budget adviser in South Auckland to have budget reports carried out for them because they cannot pay their bills and has she been advised whether the reason that they cannot pay their bills is poor lifestyle choices or the rising cost of living? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: The member should be aware that changes were made in September last year under Future Focus when we were sending more people for budgeting assistance. So it is hardly a surprise that we are sending more people for budgeting assistance. It is something that was introduced last year as part of policy changes as something that is being productive. 
Hon Annette King 
: Does she consider Major Campbell Roberts of the Salvation Army to be a reliable commentator on social issues in New Zealand; if so what does she say in response to his comments that he could not understand why Mr Key made the remark about beneficiaries and lifestyle choices and called it “a very foolish statement”? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: Actually it is a good opportunity to thank the Salvation Army particularly for the work it has done most recently in Christchurch. That has been really appreciated and has been a time when the Salvation Army has stood out. I think it certainly has a role to play for those people who need it most and its work quite recently has really shown an example of that. So this Government is very supportive of the Salvation Army. 
Hon Annette King 
: Does she agree with the statement 1 month ago by the Christchurch City Mission head Michael Gorman that it is not a matter of the poor making poor choices but of the poor having few options to choose from and could the rising cost of living—including increased costs for rent petrol and milk—account for the biggest rise in food parcels ever given out by the Salvation Army? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: We have seen under this Government an increase in the number of hardship grants that have been issued and also of special needs grants. Next week we will see benefits going up again under the CPI increase by more than 1.75 percent. That will help more than a million New Zealanders. As the Prime Minister has also said we have seen wages increase by more than 16 percent particularly for those on low incomes so I think we are seeing that help go exactly where it is needed. 
Hon Annette King 
: Does she still stand by her statement that a lot of women went off the benefit because of Working for Families and is she prepared to back her comment about National keeping Working for Families when she said “I’m kind of pleased they are” or will she be joining Mr Key and Mr English in their publicly stated determination to change it? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: I am sure that if I started to quote that member’s three-word sentences then I could come up with the same sort of displacement that she just did. But yes I certainly stand by the fact that we have seen women in particular those on the domestic purposes benefit get the balance adjusted between the benefit and the right sort of tax incentives so that work then becomes easier and better for them. Getting that balance right is a key part of this Government’s focus. 
Earthquake Christchurch—Minister’s Meeting with Business Leaders 
KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National) 
: 
 My question is to the Minister of Civil Defence—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I apologise to the member. I say to members on the National benches on this occasion that I have called one of their colleagues. 
5. 
KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Civil Defence 
: Did he meet with business leaders in Christchurch yesterday to discuss the civil defence state of national emergency operations; if so what was the outcome of that meeting? 
Hon JOHN CARTER (Minister of Civil Defence) 
: 
 Yes the national controller Steve Brazier and I met with representatives from the Central City Business Association the New Zealand Retailers Association the Canterbury Development Corporation the Canterbury Employers’ Chamber of Commerce and the Canterbury Business Recovery Group. The meeting was to address issues that business owners have raised with the national controller about access to businesses in the cordoned red zone and planning for business continuity in the wake of the 22 February earthquake. I am pleased to report that it was a very positive meeting and civil defence is working to meet business owners’ pressing needs to access their vital records property and stock. Helping to restore business activity in Christchurch is a key focus. 
Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi 
: How will the Ministry of Civil Defence and Emergency Management progress the outcome of the meeting? 
Hon JOHN CARTER 
: The national controller is carrying out a stocktake of buildings within the cordoned red zone to give clarity to business owners about the current state of their business premises and to reassess the situation after last weekend’s 5.1 magnitude aftershock. Where possible work will be undertaken to secure businesses and property or stock that owners cannot yet access—for example doors may be shut and locked. A team is now set up to do that. The ministry is working with business leaders to find out which businesses are in the affected buildings. After combining that information with a building stocktake they will be able to map out how and when businesses can retrieve what they need to get their businesses back up and running. This work will remain subject to the maintenance of people’s safety. The ministry fully appreciates the concern of business owners who want to retrieve the information property or stock that will enable them to continue their business operations. The national controller and his team are working with business leaders on this and are making good progress. They are talking to them every day and have been in contact with them since the day after the 22 February earthquake. 
GDP—Forecasts and Prime Minister’s Statements 
6. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Who was right: the Prime Minister who predicted that the New Zealand economy would grow “reasonably aggressively” in 2010-11 or the last four quarterly NZIER consensus forecast updates for GDP which have progressively declined from 3.2 percent to just 0.8 percent for the year to March 2011? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 The Prime Minister was certainly correct. His comments were made in March 2009 and he said that he believed that growth in 2010 would be positive. It turns out that for the 2010 calendar year growth was about 1.5 percent. At the time the trough was negative 2.8 percent so it was aggressive growth from a low trough. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Which of the following three quarters of growth in 2010 would he classify as aggressive: June’s 0.1 percent September’s minus 0.2 percent or December’s 0.2 percent? Is it more accurate to describe these figures as indicating that the economy has come to a standstill? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: A standstill would I think be zero growth. For the 2010 calendar year we had 1.5 percent growth. That was not as high as we would have liked or was expected actually 12 months ago but given the depth of the recession when the economy actually shrank by 2.8 percent it was not a bad effort. The reasons the economy has been growing more slowly have been rehearsed here many times: people are paying off debt they are restricting their spending and our exports are growing. That is the right direction for the New Zealand economy. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: When he criticised as conservative Treasury’s prediction of just 0.4 percent extra growth over 4 years as a result of his $14 billion tax cut was this quarter’s meagre 0.2 percent what he was hoping for? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Using the word “conservative” is not a criticism; it is actually in the current circumstances wise. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Was Treasury correct when it forecast that 66 percent of the GDP write-downs expected over the next 4 years are unrelated to either of the earthquakes and are in fact the result of a failing economy? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I think Treasury has been quite straightforward. The flatter growth it is expecting this year is roughly one-third because of the earthquake and two-thirds because people are saving more than expected being more careful with their spending than expected and doing less borrowing than expected. Those are sensible decisions by New Zealand households. It means that the economy is flatter in the short term but in the longer term it is a stronger platform for better economic performance. 
Hon Sir Roger Douglas 
: With real gross national disposable income per person effectively the same today as it was 6 years ago when will he move to ensure that the drivers of economic growth are given a higher priority in the Government policy settings than they are receiving? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The member is right to point out that the combination of bad policy from the previous Government an early start to the New Zealand recession and then the global financial crisis means that incomes are only now getting back to where they were 4 to 6 years ago. From the Government’s point of view attaining economic growth is our top priority as it will help us deal with issues like the Christchurch recovery but we are going about it in a reasonably considered and moderate way. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: In light of today’s flat GDP figures what exactly is his plan to create jobs to lift incomes and to give New Zealanders just a glimmer of hope for a better future? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: It could take some time to outline every detail of that plan but the member will be familiar with some aspects of it such as our extensive investment in infrastructure making the public sector more efficient the significant tax changes that were announced last year and a focus on education standards and skills as well as strong support for the business community through research and innovation. 
Hon Sir Roger Douglas 
: With economic progress and growth so dependent on private ownership competitive markets efficient capital markets and low taxes when will these policy aspects be given more prominence by the Government? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: We believe they are given prominence by the Government. The member and his party believe that the Government should be much more aggressive about those aspects. That is just one of the differences between National and ACT but it does not stop us from working constructively with the member’s party to move ahead in that direction. 
Earthquake Christchurch—Effect of Response on New Zealand Credit Rating 
7. 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Which response to the Christchurch earthquake carries a greater risk of a credit downgrade: increased Government borrowing or a temporary earthquake levy? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 The Government does not really have any choice about increased Government borrowing in respect of Christchurch. The Government has had to start borrowing more money almost immediately to pay for earthquake costs such as the $150 million welfare spend that is going on at the moment just to put cash in people’s pockets. The real issue is how the Government intends to deal with that increased debt. If we were not borrowing we would not be able to meet all of those immediate demands but the Government will outline in the Budget how it intends to deal with that increased level of debt. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It was a primary question and it was specifically about the risk of a credit downgrade. I do not believe the Minister addressed that part of the question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think the member raises a fair point. The question was on notice and it asked which would be the greater risk. I realise it is hypothetical to some extent but I think the Minister should address that issue as it is a primary question. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Well in our view we believe that a levy could be just as much of a risk to our credit rating as increased borrowing because on the one hand it would demonstrate that the Government was not willing to deal with its own spending quality and on the other hand a levy could make it more difficult for economic growth to pick up. In the long run economic growth will help to cut debt and rebuild Christchurch. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Is the real issue with regard to a credit downgrade not the level of Government debt and if a levy were struck to raise around say a billion dollars a year would that not have a significant impact on reducing the amount that the Government needed to borrow and hence reduce the risk of a credit downgrade? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Regardless of whether we had the earthquake that is the argument for increasing taxes when the Government owes money. We have argued that it is in our long-run best interests to have relatively low tax rates on incomes savings investment and exports because that will help the economy to grow. There is an argument that we could put those tax rates up right now to reduce debt but we believe that that would be detrimental in the long run. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: With regard to the short run and the specific circumstances in which we find ourselves a temporary earthquake levy at say 1.5 percent or 3 percent on incomes above $70000 a year rather than being a long-term increase in taxation would just be a short-term effect to deal with the costs we have now so it is not about the long-term argument; does he still believe we should not go down that path? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Yes I still do. In respect of the levy our calculations indicate that a levy of the size that the member refers to would probably have to last for about 8 to 10 years to meet say a $6 billion cost. We do not regard that as being short term. It does look as though it is fairly long term. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Does he agree with the advice from Treasury and others that a downgrade would cost an ordinary mortgagee—someone with a mortgage on a house—in the order of a 1 percent increase in interest rates and that that would be a much greater increase in payments for that household than a temporary earthquake levy? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I have not seen Treasury advice as specific as that but there is no doubt that a credit downgrade would generally lead to somewhat higher interest rates. New Zealand faces that risk not just because of Government debt. In fact the credit rating agencies would say it is the large private debt alongside the Government debt that gives them some concern about New Zealand. We are very conscious of the risks of a downgrade and believe that we are making the right considered choices to deal with those risks. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Does he agree that a 1 percent increase in interest rates on a person holding a $300000 mortgage could result in that family paying an extra $60 a week in interest payments which would be significantly more than the kind of levy we are talking about so in fact people would be better off by paying a temporary earthquake levy than facing higher interest rates? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The member’s calculations may well be right but I think that in the long run the issue for New Zealand is the amount of debt it owes to foreign lenders. At the moment what is driving up that debt is the growth in Government debt. Most of the advice I have seen has indicated that the best thing the Government can do to deal with that rise in debt is to reduce where it can its expenditure in a permanent way rather than relying on a temporary levy. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Is the Minister saying the Government’s response of spending cuts and increased debt effectively means that it will be a smaller group of New Zealanders who will bear the cost of the quake rebuild—those who will have their benefits cut through Working for Families or something else and the large bulk of New Zealanders who will face higher interest payments on their home mortgages—rather than having a temporary earthquake levy which could avoid both of those things? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: As I think I have indicated to the member a short-term levy that was large enough to raise enough money to meet the $6 billion or $7 billion cost would need to be either applied to a much wider range of income earners or applied at a higher rate than he says if we were to meet those costs in the short term. The method that the Government is pursuing will allow us to spread the costs of the Canterbury earthquake over more people over a longer period of time. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: If the fundamental choice is between our paying higher interest payments—which will go to overseas-owned banks so we would be sending money overseas to pay higher mortgage payments—and our paying a temporary earthquake levy to pay for the earthquake is the latter not a much more sensible approach than simply enriching our overseas lenders? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: If those were the trade-offs then the member might have an argument but that is not quite how we see it. We believe that we need to have the tax settings and the spending settings that will help to lift the performance of the economy. Increasing taxes probably will not help that and continuing with ineffective Government spending is not likely to help that. We have been trying to get the tax rates moderate and lower and to focus Government spending on areas where it can be effective. If we can achieve both of those things we can get a growing economy and deal with the debt that comes from the Christchurch earthquake. 
Auckland Governance—Minister’s Statement 
8. 
PHIL TWYFORD (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Local Government 
: When he said “Auckland’s fragmented governance has meant a lack [of] leadership and vision but soon its leaders will be able to think regionally plan strategically and act decisively” did he mean only if they agree with the Government’s plan for Auckland? 
Hon JOHN CARTER (Associate Minister of Local Government) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Local Government 
: No. 
Phil Twyford 
: Does he agree with the Prime Minister that “Aucklanders who go to London in my experience get on the Tube. That’s because it’s there it’s efficient and it’s cost effective.”; if so why is the Government not supporting the Auckland Council’s plan for a central city rail link? 
Hon JOHN CARTER 
: The Government is aware of the fact that a number of options are on the table. They have been put forward by the mayor and the Auckland Council. We are looking forward to working constructively with the Auckland Council. 
Phil Twyford 
: In that case why did he sign out as Minister of Local Government a Cabinet paper that pours cold water on the Auckland Council’s plans for a world-class transport system when the Government passed legislation last year that requires the Mayor of Auckland to develop a vision for Auckland? 
Hon JOHN CARTER 
: I say again that the Government is aware of the vision the Mayor of Auckland and the Auckland Council have and it is looking forward to working constructively with them. 
Phil Twyford 
: Why when he has said countless times that his reforms will allow Auckland to speak with one voice does he refuse to listen to what Auckland is saying with the new council saying that the “Holiday Highway” is not a priority but the central city rail link is? 
Hon JOHN CARTER 
: That is just one of the options that are on the table. We are looking forward to working constructively with the Auckland Council. 
Phil Twyford 
: Does he disagree with Rod Oram that the Government’s view “is that we should just ooze out over the landscape in very low density ways and therefore the only answer’s roads” simply to please his property developer and road building mates or is there another reason? 
Hon JOHN CARTER 
: I actually have not read the comments from Mr Oram but I suspect that like a lot of options that may not be one that we pursue. 
Schools—Accelerating Learning in Mathematics Pilot Study 
9. 
JO GOODHEW (National—Rangitata) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: What were the results of the Accelerating Learning in Mathematics Pilot Study? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 I am pleased to say that the pilot programme to accelerate maths learning has seen significant improvements for struggling students in a short space of time. Overall students achieved 80 percent of 1 year’s learning in maths after just 10 weeks of intensive teaching with some children making over 1 year’s improvement in 10 weeks. National standards are helping to identify the students who need extra help and programmes such as this will then be used to support and improve their learning as part of this Government’s ongoing commitment to literacy and numeracy. 
Jo Goodhew 
: What are the next steps for the pilot? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: We will use the findings from this study as we roll the programme out to a larger number of schools to see whether it will be as successful on a larger scale. That is why we will be extending the programme into 180 schools this year. It will be continually improved of course as the project continues. In this next phase there will be a particular focus on supporting Maori students because the previous pilot showed that they had not learnt at the same rate as some of the other students. 
Biosecurity—Border Controls 
10. 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Biosecurity 
: Does he agree with the statements made by John Lancashire and Stew Wadey President of Waikato Federated Farmers in the  
Dominion Post 
 yesterday that New Zealand is exposed to greater risk of incursions or exotic pests at our borders as a result of the “fast-tracking of tourists” the “attempts to abolish import restrictions” and his axing of 60 front-line border staff? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister for Biosecurity 
: No because all three claims are wrong. For example the Government’s SmartGate initiative enables travellers to move more quickly through our airports but improves biosecurity by freeing up staff to focus on high-risk passengers. Equally the Government’s new initiative to transfer X-ray images electronically from the port of departure rather than X-raying those same bags again on arrival improves efficiency but does not in any way compromise biosecurity. 
Hon Damien O’Connor 
: How can the Minister assure New Zealanders that the new visitor fast-tracking process will not expose New Zealanders to “incredible risks” in terms of pest incursions as stated by Mr Wadey in his article yesterday? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: New Zealand’s biosecurity systems are world class but that should not get in the way of using smart technology to try to support New Zealand’s very important visitor industry. With New Zealand hosting the Rugby World Cup using smart technology—such as the likes of SmartGate or alternatively the transfer of X-ray data that has been taken at the airport of departure—is a really good way for us to have a more efficient transfer of passengers through the airport while providing for New Zealand’s very important biosecurity. 
Hon Damien O’Connor 
: Is he willing to redraft the Government-industry agreement in the Biosecurity Law Reform Bill which is before the Primary Production Committee given the strong opposition from submitters including the submission today from the Meat Industry Association which stated that “industry will be required to write a blank cheque before any action will be taken” on incursions; if not why not? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The member’s claims are incorrect. The approach that the Government has with the industry agreement framework was actually proposed by the previous Government. In fact I have the Cabinet minute of 14 July 2008 in which the exact policy that the member is now objecting to was agreed to when he was in Cabinet. 
Hon Damien O’Connor 
: Why does the Minister think producers are still convinced that the axing of 60 front-line biosecurity staff in 2009 has contributed to the recent increase in incursions as stated by John Lancashire in his article yesterday? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Firstly the number of 60 is incorrect; the correct number is 19. I also clarify that the number of import staff in biosecurity increases and decreases with the amount of imports. A lot fewer imported cars are coming into New Zealand and biosecurity staff numbers have gone down accordingly. That is a natural consequence of this Government’s policies for rebalancing the New Zealand economy. Unlike the importing that occurred under the previous Government which was hugely unaffordable New Zealanders are now taking a more cautious approach and importing less. 
Electricity—Generation from Renewable Resources 
11. 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) 
 to the  
Acting Minister of Energy and Resources 
: What reports has she received on levels of renewable electricity generation? 
Hon HEKIA PARATA (Acting Minister of Energy and Resources) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Speaker. The  
New Zealand Energy Quarterly 
 released by the Ministry of Economic Development last week showed that the annual renewable electricity generation for 2010 was 74 percent of all electricity generated—the highest level since 1998. 
Michael Woodhouse 
: What benefits will the levels of renewable electricity generation have for the environment? 
Hon HEKIA PARATA 
: There are a number of benefits from raised levels of renewable electricity generation including a reduction in reliance on thermal electricity generation sources and a reduction in electricity generation emissions. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Does the Minister stand by her answers to written questions No. 1187 and No. 1095 this year which show that fully four-fifths of all renewable energy consented to by November 2010 was consented to under the last Labour Government? 
Hon HEKIA PARATA 
: Yes. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Kia ora tatou. What assurances can the Minister give to Te Uri o Hau that their wahi tapu will be protected from any consequences of the tidal power generation project in Kaipara Harbour? 
Hon HEKIA PARATA 
: I am advised that the Environment Court considered these matters thoroughly during a robust 4-year consent process and the matters are addressed by the conditions of the resource consents awarded to Crest Energy. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Did her answer to the primary question take into account the 100-megawatt gas-fired plant that is about to be developed in Taranaki whose owners have openly agreed that it would never have occurred if her Government had not repealed Labour’s renewable preference legislation in December 2008? 
Hon HEKIA PARATA 
: No. 
Earthquake Christchurch—Funding of Accident Compensation Claims 
12. 
CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) 
 to the  
Minister for ACC 
: Does he stand by his answer to question 4 on Thursday last week “that funding will be taken from either the earners account or the work account” and “that a higher proportion of claims than the overall average for ACC are actually in the work account”; if not why not? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for ACC) 
: 
 Yes. The Government moved quickly to assist people who had been seriously injured in the Christchurch earthquake by extending accident compensation coverage to the first week following the earthquake. The cost of that will be met from the work and the earners accounts but there may also be some exceptional circumstances where it will be funded from the motor vehicle account. I also stand by my answer that a higher proportion of income compensation claims will fall to the work account. Those claims usually make up about 20 percent of claims but in the case of the Christchurch earthquake they make up about 40 percent. 
Chris Hipkins 
: Has the Government made an in-principle decision to allow private insurers to provide cover under the work account rather than continue with the universal coverage that the accident compensation scheme currently provides; if so will a future Government be able to direct those private insurers to pay above scheme entitlements in the event of an unforeseen event or natural disaster? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The Government remains absolutely committed to a universal 24/7 no-fault scheme that will ensure just as per the tragedy of the Christchurch earthquake that people will be covered. Because the entitlements are determined by legislation exactly the same mechanism could be used for providers other than ACC. I am surprised that the member opposite would want to try to make politics out of the tragedy of the Christchurch earthquake. 
Chris Hipkins 
: Will he guarantee New Zealanders that if the ACC work account is privatised the level of cover in the event of a natural disaster will be no less than it has been for the victims of the Canterbury earthquake; if not why not? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Absolutely because the entitlements for those who are injured in an accident are and will be provided for in legislation. I also say to the member that he is incorrect with his rhetoric of privatisation. The Government has made plain that it has made a decision in principle to allow insurers to provide the option and choice of providing support alongside ACC. 
Chris Hipkins 
: Can he reassure New Zealanders that should an influx of accident compensation claims due to an unforeseen event such as an earthquake cause a private insurance provider providing cover under the accident compensation scheme to go broke New Zealanders covered by that insurer will not be left high and dry; if not why not? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: It is equally true under ACC. In fact when I first became Minister for ACC it had made losses of $2.4 billion in 2007-08 and $4.8 billion in 2008-09. This Government has borne the very difficult job of trying to secure the future of ACC by providing a far more robust system of managing ACC’s finances. 
Chris Hipkins 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think I can anticipate the point of order. Although the Minister’s answer was interesting it was not an answer to the question he was asked. I ask the Minister to ask the question he was asked. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The Government will be issuing a discussion document. The event of a potential insurer going broke is one of the detailed issues that rightly should have to be worked through. The member should wait for that discussion paper which will address those issues. 
Questions to Members 
Point of Order—Questions to Members Ruled Out of Order 
Hon JOHN BOSCAWEN (Whip—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I would like to draw to your attention a question to the chair of the Local Government and Environment Committee from Gareth Hughes on 27 April 2010 and a question to the chair of the Law and Order— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I fail to see what that has got to do with order in the House right now. I simply said the House is coming to questions to members and the member is talking about questions from a previous time. I fail to see how that has anything to do with order right now. It may become relevant but I do not see it being relevant right now. 
Hon JOHN BOSCAWEN (Whip—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The reason my point of order is relevant is that as you are aware early this morning my office submitted questions for oral answer and some of those questions were declined. The questions we submitted that were declined were based on questions that had been previously submitted by Gareth Hughes on 27 April 2010 and by Hon Clayton Cosgrove on 17 February 2010 which had been accepted. I am asking for a ruling from you Mr Speaker. If it was good enough to accept the questions from Gareth Hughes and Hon Clayton Cosgrove why was it not good enough to accept the questions submitted by my office which were based on the precedent established by those two questions? Why were those questions declined? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member’s point of order is indeed reasonable. The House may or may not be aware that members of the ACT Party today lodged some 700 questions to members. Standing Order 370 sets no limit for questions to members. However members in lodging so many questions run the risk of limits being placed on the number of such questions and in so doing adversely affecting other members with genuine issues they want to pursue. 
The questions have been scrutinised by the Clerk’s Office. Questions to a chairperson must relate to a matter before the committee and a process or procedure for which the chairperson has responsibility. The responsibilities of chairpersons relate to limited areas of process and procedure. They are limited. First in the absence of a committee making a decision about its next meeting the chairperson may set the date for that meeting but the chairperson does not control the agenda. This is a matter for members of the committee. I refer to Standing Order 186(2). Second the chairperson may on behalf of the committee request any person to attend and give evidence and request papers and records be produced. I refer to Standing Order 291. Third the chairperson may direct the examination of witnesses and question witnesses. I refer to Standing Order 220. Fourth the chairperson with the agreement of the committee may make a public statement to inform the public of the nature of a committee’s consideration of a matter. I refer to Standing Order 238(1). Finally the chairperson signs the committee reports and presents them. I refer to Standing Order 243. 
These are the extent of the chairperson’s powers and set the limits for questions to chairpersons. Questions that ask about committee decisions are not in order. Questions asking what the committee is currently considering for example or when it will consider a matter are not in order. The chairperson is no more responsible for such a decision than any other member of the committee is. Furthermore such decisions are more than likely to be confidential to the committee. Similarly the chairperson is no more responsible for progress on an item of business than any other member of the committee is. 
The fact that such questions may have been allowed in the past does not make them in order now. The Speaker must rule whenever a question arises on the interpretation or application of the Standing Orders. The Speaker is guided by established Speakers’ rulings. There is nothing in the rulings though that convinced me that the questions I ruled out today were in order. Given the number of questions to members lodged I believe my actions were appropriate. 
Questions Nos 1 to 20 to Member 
Questions postponed. 
Hon JOHN BOSCAWEN (Whip—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. As the chair of the Commerce Committee is not available I wonder whether those questions could be answered by the acting chair. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No I have ruled that the Standing Orders require that questions are addressed to the chair and if the chair is not present the questions are postponed. 
Questions Nos 21 to 40 to Member 
Questions postponed. 
Hon JOHN BOSCAWEN (Whip—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I would like to refer you to Speaker’s ruling 150/2. You have just ruled in respect of the questions to the chair of the Commerce Committee that the questions could not be put to the deputy chair and I accepted that ruling. However the issue of the deputy chair of the Finance and Expenditure Committee arises. Speakers’ ruling 150/2 states that a question can be put to the deputy chairperson if the chairperson is overseas. In the case of the Commerce Committee I know that Sam Lotu-Iiga is not overseas because I saw the Government whip escorting him from the House a short time ago. However I do not know that the chair— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am on my feet and the member will resume his seat. The Speakers’ ruling the member is referring to actually refers to the chair being overseas. The member has got it somewhat wrong. 
Hon JOHN BOSCAWEN (Whip—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Can I have an assurance that Mr Foss is not overseas. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am satisfied that the member is absent from the House. I do not believe he is overseas. That is the end of the matter. 
Questions Nos 41 to 44 to Member 
Questions postponed. 
Questions Nos 45 to 48 to Member 
Questions postponed. 
Questions Nos 49 to 60 to Member 
Questions postponed. 
Hon JOHN BOSCAWEN (Whip—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The members who have been called have been on notice for the last couple of hours that these questions have been lodged. I do not think it is acceptable that members who are select committee chairs choose to absent themselves from the House this afternoon because questions are set down for them to answer. I ask you to rule that the— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Speaker is not responsible for members. They could be attending to important parliamentary business and I am sure it is just as important as the 700 questions lodged. 
Questions Nos 61 to 64 to Member  
Hon JOHN BOSCAWEN (Whip—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am dealing with questions Nos 61 to 64 to member. Does the point of order relate to those questions? 
Hon JOHN BOSCAWEN 
: It does to the extent that you have just made a snide remark about the questions we have raised. I think the questions should be dealt with with some decorum. I do not think the remarks you made were reasonable. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: A point of order is being heard. If I did not show suitable decorum I apologise to the member. 
Questions postponed. 
Hon JOHN BOSCAWEN (Whip—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Reflecting then on Speaker’s ruling 150/2 can we have an assurance that Katrina Shanks is not overseas. According to Speaker’s ruling 150/2 if she is overseas we would be entitled to have those questions answered by the deputy chair. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Members are not entitled to ask questions about why members are absent from the Chamber. That is not consistent with the Standing Orders. 
Hon JOHN BOSCAWEN (Whip—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You have to help me. Speaker’s ruling 150/2 states that it is acceptable for the question to be put down to the deputy chairperson if the chairperson is overseas. Clearly it is relevant where the chairperson is. If the chairperson is overseas I am entitled according to Speaker’s ruling— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am on my feet. If the member were serious about his questions being asked he would have ascertained whether a chair was overseas. That is not very difficult; he could have done it quite easily himself. If it helps solve the problem for the honourable member though I can check with the Government whip. Is Katrina Shanks overseas? 
Hon JOHN CARTER (Minister of Civil Defence) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I can assure the House that none of these people who are absent are overseas. 
Questions Nos 65 to 68 to Member 
Questions postponed. 
Questions Nos 69 and 70 to Member 
Questions postponed 
Questions Nos 71 and 72 to Member 
Questions postponed. 
Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill—Purpose 
73. 
Hon JOHN BOSCAWEN (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
 to the  
Member in charge of the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill 
: What is the purpose of the Education (Freedom of Association Amendment Bill? 
Hon HEATHER ROY (Member in charge of the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill) 
: 
 The purpose of the bill is to uphold students’ rights to freedom of association by removing any requirement for students to join students associations. 
Hon John Boscawen 
: Supplementary question Mr Speaker— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not intend to allow a supplementary question on that. The question was answered very clearly. 
Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill—Status 
74. 
Hon JOHN BOSCAWEN (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
 to the  
Member in charge of the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill 
: What is the current status of the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill? 
Hon HEATHER ROY (Member in charge of the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill) 
: 
 The bill is currently at the Committee of the whole House stage. 
Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill—Proposed Changes 
75. 
Hon JOHN BOSCAWEN (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
 to the  
Member in charge of the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill 
: Does she intend to propose any changes to the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill as reported back from select committee; if so what? 
Hon HEATHER ROY (Member in charge of the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill) 
: 
 No. 
Questions Nos 76 to 78 to Member 
Questions postponed. 
Questions Nos 79 to 81 to Member 
Questions postponed. 
Questions Nos 82 to 84 to Member 
Questions postponed. 
Questions Nos 85 and 86 to Member 
Questions postponed. 
Questions Nos 87 and 88 to Member 
Questions postponed. 
Smoke-free Environments (Removing Tobacco Displays) Amendment Bill—Purpose 
89. 
Hon JOHN BOSCAWEN (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
 to the  
Member in charge of the  
Smoke-free Environments (Removing Tobacco Displays) Amendment Bill 
: What is the purpose of the Smoke-free Environments (Removing Tobacco Displays) Amendment Bill? 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Member in charge of the Smoke-free Environments (Removing Tobacco Displays) Amendment Bill) 
: 
 The purpose of the bill is to amend the Smoke-free Environments Act 1990 to ban the display of tobacco products and smoking accessories at the point of sale. 
Smoke-free Environments (Removing Tobacco Displays) Amendment Bill—Status 
90. 
Hon JOHN BOSCAWEN (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
 to the  
Member in charge of the  
Smoke-free Environments (Removing Tobacco Displays) Amendment Bill 
: What is the current status of the Smoke-free Environments (Removing Tobacco Displays) Amendment Bill? 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Member in charge of the Smoke-free Environments (Removing Tobacco Displays) Amendment Bill) 
: 
 The bill is set down for first reading. 
Point of Order—Limit on Number of Questions to Members 
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP (Minister of Defence) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. One of the points you made was that there was no limit on the number of questions that could be raised by members and I wondered about the interpretation of that particular issue. Under the heading “Questions to Ministers and Members” in the  
Standing Orders of the House of Representatives 
 there are a number of Standing Orders—369 370 and going through to 379. I just wondered about Standing Order 372 which does relate to oral questions and whether the limitation to 12 questions applies to questions to members as well as to questions to Ministers. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am seeking advice on that issue. [ 
Interruption 
] The Speaker is considering a point of order. The Standing Order referred to is No. 372 which refers to the lodging of oral questions. It has always been interpreted as referring to questions to Ministers but with the situation that has arisen today with 700 questions to members being lodged clearly I think the Standing Orders Committee which is currently sitting will be able to consider that issue. The member may in fact wish to write to the Standing Orders Committee and ask it to look specifically at that issue. It would be a way to have it looked at quite carefully. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. There may be confusion on my part but my recollection is that you ruled out of order an attempt by the honourable member Mr Boscawen to ask a supplementary question. Members on this side of the House were unclear as to the rationale for ruling supplementary questions out of order given that it is the normal practice provided that a supplementary question is within the scope of a question to for example the chairperson— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I hear the member. The Standing Orders provide very clearly that supplementary questions are awarded at the sole discretion of the Speaker. These questions are very clear questions and when the answers are very clear no further supplementary question seems to be relevant as far as the Speaker is concerned. That is why I have not allowed supplementary questions today. That does not mean that I would not necessarily allow a supplementary question to a question to a member. But that is totally at the discretion of the Speaker. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am not questioning your ruling that that is absolutely within your discretion. Noting that you have been willing to extend the opportunity to members of the Labour Opposition to ask supplementary questions on questions to committee chairs would it be your intention Mr Speaker to offer a rationale in such cases as you exercise your unfettered discretion in favour of ruling out such supplementary questions and would it be your expectation that such a rationale would prevent an interpretation that you might be acting perhaps more in the interests of one party than another—which of course would never be your intention in this House? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Speaker is unlikely to give rulings that constrain where the Speaker has discretion. I am sure the Speaker will always have discretion in these matters. But the member will recollect that a number of his colleagues have asked supplementary questions that I have simply ruled out because with questions to members supplementary questions are quite difficult to bring within the Standing Orders. I try to allow them where it seems sensible to allow them. Today on these particular questions to members it has not seemed appropriate to me to allow supplementary questions so far. That does not means to say none will be allowed though. 
Questions Nos 91 and 92 to Member 
Questions postponed. 
Questions Nos 93 and 94 to Member 
Questions postponed. 
Depleted Uranium (Prohibition) Bill—Purpose 
95. 
Hon JOHN BOSCAWEN (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
 to the  
Member in charge of the  
Depleted Uranium (Prohibition) Bill 
: What is the purpose of the Depleted Uranium (Prohibition) Bill? 
PHIL TWYFORD (Member in charge of the Depleted Uranium (Prohibition) Bill) 
:  
The purpose of the Depleted Uranium (Prohibition) Bill is to ban the possession use sale manufacture testing and transit of uranium in all conventional munitions and armour within New Zealand and by agents of the New Zealand Government. 
Hon John Boscawen 
: Is the member satisfied that the current bill accurately reflects the stated purpose; if so why? 
PHIL TWYFORD 
: Yes. 
Depleted Uranium (Prohibition) Bill—Status 
96. 
Hon JOHN BOSCAWEN (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
 to the  
Member in charge of the  
Depleted Uranium (Prohibition) Bill 
: What is the current status of the Depleted Uranium (Prohibition) Bill? 
PHIL TWYFORD (Member in charge of the Depleted Uranium (Prohibition) Bill) 
:  
I am currently lobbying members of the House for support for this bill and I hope to get it beyond the first reading. The bill has been introduced to the House but it is currently languishing on the Order Paper awaiting the progress of a rather foolish bill put forward by that member’s party. 
Questions Nos 97 and 98 to Member 
Questions postponed. 
Points of Order 
Absence of Members—Effect on Voting 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. We have reached an interesting position here. I seek your assurance given that so many members are absent from the House today that the whips will be truly reflecting numbers when they vote on two significant bills later this afternoon. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member knows that it is the responsibility of all parties to make sure the numbers they are voting in the House are correct. 
Urgent Debates Declined 
Family Start—Future Funding 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from the Hon Sir Roger Douglas seeking to debate under Standing Order 380 future funding to the Ministry of Social Development Family Start programme. This is a particular case of recent occurrence that involves ministerial responsibility. However not every ministerial announcement will give sufficient grounds for an urgent debate. The big hurdle to get over in applications for urgent debates is whether the matter has reached the stage where the business of the House ought to be set aside. A new programme standards and guidelines are to be introduced over 2 years. In these circumstances I do not believe that setting aside the House’s business for an urgent debate today can be justified. The application is therefore declined. 
Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill 
Third Reading 
Hon TARIANA TURIA (Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector) 
 on behalf of the  
Attorney-General 
: I move  
That the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill be now read a third time 
. 
Tena koutou katoa nga iwi o te motu kua tae mai nei ki te w’akanui i tenei kaupapa o te ra. Ki a koe te matua ka nui te mihi aroha ki a koe hoki. Ki a tatou katoa tena koutou tena koutou tena koutou katoa. 
[ 
To all of you the tribes of the nation who came here to celebrate this matter of the day greetings. A huge and respectful tribute to you as well sir to us to you collectively and everyone 
.] 
From the opening sections of this bill an agenda for change is set. The connection between Te Tiriti o Waitangi and the principle that customary rights attach to w’anau hapu and iwi with traditional interests in the coastal marine area is at the heart of this legislation. There was more at stake in this bill than simply repealing the 2004 Act notwithstanding how fundamental that is. It is about honouring the Treaty in principle and in practice. 
Earlier this week as the people gathered with their banners flying their tears flowing and their flags held high I reflected on our journey to achieve meaningful representation as representing the Treaty partner. I want to say that there is very little difference between what we say as members of the Maori Party and what those on the hikoi say when it comes to the crucial issue of the foreshore and seabed Treaty relationships and Treaty issues. The difference is not about the “what”; the difference is about the “how”. 
There are those who are unable to accept the legitimacy of Parliament and it is their right to do so. But the path for the Maori Party is a different one. We have chosen the vehicle of Parliament to advance our aspirations in a modern context. We have chosen to participate in kawanatanga and to uphold the mana of our tupuna. We can do both. We came here to tackle issues head on to fight on every front and to prepare a place for others to come forward and to continue the work knowing full well that if we do not put forward the best case we can—who will? 
Although other political parties claim to represent Maori they do so in the belief that tangata w’enua can be treated as a homogenous group even though there are so many tribal differences and demographic variations that must be appreciated. What is worse is that one party seeks to wilfully denigrate tangata w’enua and their values and we deplore that behaviour. That party is the same party that deliberately lodged 700 questions today in an attempt to roadblock the passage of this bill while cheerfully abusing the expectation of citizens that all parties will be frugal with the taxpayer dollar. New Zealanders do not expect the critical business of the State to be delayed for questions that amount to little more than wasting Parliament’s time and taxpayers’ money. The people deserve better. 
The Maori Party came to Parliament because we want the very best for our people. We want their aspirations heard. We want tangata w’enua to be a strong voice and to be leading the future of Aotearoa. It is a mission that I know others have carried before us. Nevertheless it is the most critical reason for our existence as a political movement. It is after all about our struggle for survival; the reconciliation of kawanatanga with rangatiratanga; and the long-term plan 100 years from now and onwards. I have only to walk the corridors alongside Matangireia to glance into the faces of our tupuna and to recall the political actions that each took to advance the calling of their w’anau hapu and iwi. Their spirits are around us all in this Chamber and in this debate and we are all the richer for their legacy. 
One of the saddest aspects of this time has been the way in which some have chosen to use this legislation as a tool to create division both within Parliament and indeed within our own party. To act in such a way is anathema to me and it operates against all of our kaupapa. I have always been someone who has sought to foster unity and to celebrate diversity rather than to promote divisiveness. As members of w’anau hapu and iwi we are already divided along so many lines: by religion politics income and education. Those who have are separated from those who have not. What I genuinely hoped was that we could look as a nation at this issue with new eyes understand the differences and work together to make change as small as they may be. 
I want to share with us all a message from my son that epitomises the journey we in the Maori Party have taken up. He shared with me the words of the late Dr Martin Luther King: “Cowardice asks the question ‘Is it safe?’ Expediency asks the question ‘Is it politic?’ And Vanity comes along and asks the question ‘Is it popular?’ But Conscience asks the question ‘Is it right?’ And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe nor politic nor popular; but he must do it because Conscience tells him that it is right.” The Maori Party supports this bill knowing that it is right to want a better future for our mokopuna; that it is right to repeal law that is unjust and discriminatory; and that it is right to restore the access that tangata w’enua were always entitled to—to have their day in court. 
Our greatest task ahead of us as a political movement is to make the advances for our people based on our kaupapa. We must move forward and to do so we must have meaningful recognition of tangata w’enua political representation. We have come to Parliament to make change happen and to work with the Government whomever the Government is. We have chosen not to participate in the politics of attack but to invest in the politics of possibilities. 
When we were offered the opportunity of being in Government we returned to our people and we were given the mandate right across the motu to take up the wero and do all we could to make progress. A very clear call came from our membership to repeal the 2004 Foreshore and Seabed Act and to restore access to the courts. We have done that. We have honoured our word—we have removed the Foreshore and Seabed Act from the statue book of this House. 
The challenge now is to test this new law. The message we have been getting from some iwi leaders is that now that the right of access to the courts has been restored case law and customary rights may be politically achievable. W’anau hapu and iwi must grasp the opportunity on a case by case basis to go to the courts and begin to establish customary rights and title in our legal system on a progressive basis. But we are fooling no one if we think we have solved everything by restoring access to the courts and repealing the 2004 Act no matter how significant this is. Our journey is a lifelong one as it has been for our tupuna before us and will be for our mokopuna ahead of us. 
This bill is another step in our collective pursuit of Treaty justice. We have absolutely no doubt that there will come a day when this bill like every single piece of legislation debated in this House is reviewed and improvements are made and we will move on together. This bill was never just about the Maori Party; it started with the leadership of the eight iwi who took an application to the Maori Land Court at the top of the South Island. It has been shaped by innovative jurisprudence created by some of our finest legal minds. It has been critiqued by many many thousands of New Zealanders who have joined the hikoi; written petitions submissions and emails; and composed haka and waiata. They have walked the talk. 
The Maori Party has directly benefited from the expertise and wisdom of many people including all of our devoted supporters who are with us today as they have been ever since the very first hui of the Maori Party on 23 May 2004. We mihi to them all. We are indebted to the generosity of spirit the selfless commitment and the bold and courageous vision of iwi leaders who have walked with us on this journey to a brighter future. 
Finally we pay our utmost respect to the champion of the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill the Attorney-General Chris Finlayson. From the onset he has demonstrated remarkable resilience insight and personal integrity to do what is right. I will never forget the depths to which he has gone in order to treat this take with the respect it deserves. Na reira tena koutou katoa. I commend this bill to the House. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: If the member of the public does not stop talking I will ask for him to be removed. Permission has been given for a waiata at the end which is perfectly acceptable. This is a debating chamber for members. 
Hon SHANE JONES (Labour) 
: 
 This is the day the cup of sanctimony runs over. We have just been served up a speech riddled with sanctimony and selective memory and held up by the politics of betrayal. We have heard from the co-leader of the Maori Party Tariana Turia that the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill—the very reason for the Maori Party’s being—has actually been fulfilled. This is the day the Maori Party has delivered a bill that suits the purposes not of Maori but of corporate New Zealand with mainstream bigoted approaches and it weakens every hapu and every tangata whenua. The only people who will gorge at this cup of sanctimony with Tariana Turia are those from the legal profession. A very deep and unfortunately expensive road leads to the courts. It will yield precious little results. 
This bill is designed to fossilise Maori rights in the seabed and foreshore. It is not evolutionary. It is not dynamic. It insists that Maori rights have to be viewed through the prism of 1840. This bill is designed to leave Maori political aspirations in a legal crypt. That speaker has not advanced the cause of Maori in the seabed and foreshore; the bill has advanced the cause of what she sees as the right of the Maori Party to uplift and sustain the National Government. 
This bill firstly represents a great deal of activity and supposed benefits for Maori Party membership. Now that Tariana Turia has delivered the consent of betrayal to her own people to suit the purposes of National she has only one reason to remain and that is Whanau Ora. At a time when we are discussing the demise of the seabed and foreshore interests of Maoridom she is clinging tenaciously to the benefits and the rewards of Whanau Ora. 
We have heard the most powerful financial spokesman Bill English continue to mislead not only garden-variety Kiwis but also Tariana Turia. That member said she would have to review her future in politics in the event that the Whanau Ora interests were not served. She refuses to review her suitability in the face of failing on the seabed and foreshore pinching ideas that largely were provided by Dr Cullen and dressing them up with a different coloured korowai. There is nothing left in the bars of the Whanau Ora for the Maori Party. 
What makes the Maori Party remain in power tethered to National? Is it the perks of office? Is it the promises to its diminishing almost non-existent membership? No. It is a mistaken and foolhardy belief that its vision will take our country forward. Its vision has pitted Maori against Pakeha. We have had thousands of emails from a whole range of Pakeha organisations that express repugnance and disdain for this bill. Every single leader of the iwi community loathes this bill. They actually curse the day that they helped to raise money organise hui meet the costs of vehicles etc. to enable the Maori Party to come into being. Every expectation they loaded on the backs of the Maori Party is today dashed. 
This bill provides an opportunity for a hollow husk of a right. No rights are available here. No interests will be served other than the short-term superficial political agenda of a small diminishing number of Maori MPs who thankfully will not be here after 26 November. 
It comes to pass that Hone Harawira in the face of oppression and adversity in the midst of our own people has spoken something closer to the truth. It may be inversely related to the name Harawira but that is another matter. In this case he has had the courage to stand by those original interests and he has had the courage to challenge the leadership of his own party which as a consequence of this bill has become blind to the aspirations and goals of the Maori community and has become ignorant of the fears that blight the Maori community. 
This bill marks the day that the Maori Party will actually begin to meet the costs of its departure. It has no broad support. Firstly the legal advisers are clapping their hands up and down the country. We did not want a bill that would worsen the legal costs and the impost on Maoridom; we wanted a bill that took an expansive and pragmatic approach that brought all New Zealand forward so that this issue did not become as divisive as it is today. 
We took a progressive approach. Indeed the former Deputy Prime Minister Dr Cullen offered solutions. But in offering the opportunity to work in a win-win situation we suffered repudiation from the Maori Party and ignorance from the National Party. That is why only 11 percent of the population of te iwi Maori supports this remedy. When polled 89 percent of Maori said that this bill sucks and that it must go like its authors. 
Secondly at the Maori Affairs Committee thousands of submissions were completely wiped aside and people were treated in a grossly rude manner. They were not given more than a cursory opportunity to exercise their democratic rights and have their say. We have seen a destruction of process a betrayal of political aspiration and a sell-out. During this process we have a seen a massive sell-out. The very issue that brought the Maori Party into being is what it has sold out on today. 
The Maori Party may think as a consequence of the National Party’s polling that this level of deceit will not count in the minds of Maori voters. But without a doubt we will drive home this point at every single hui and in every single interview. At the end of the day very honest sincere and hard-working people supported that party. Every one of those people has been sold out today. 
I come back to talk about the Attorney-General. It was said that the Attorney-General went to great depths. Of course the member meant to say that he sunk to great depths. The Attorney-General is no stranger to the finer points of the English language but he knows that the moment he seized the pen of authorship and completely sold out the Maori Party he was marching to the drum of the real supporters of this legislation. The existing rights of corporate New Zealand the ambitions of the legal profession and the rights of private landholders have not been interfered with. None of those rights have been eroded or weakened. The only people who will be put in possession of Clayton’s rights are tangata whenua. The Attorney-General has come up a criterion that is so narrow whose threshold is so high and the politics of which are so divisive that he knows that no one of any substance will achieve anything approximating customary interests or indeed Treaty-based justice. 
All the flash and hollow words were from a speech written by the Attorney-General for Tariana Turia to deliver. They forget that at every single meeting Dr Cullen organised in the time that he had the seabed and foreshore legislation she sat there and never once opened her mouth—Dover Samuels has told me this. She never ever demurred. She never ever did anything other than defect. Somehow she has arrived on the back of this legislation as some form of Mother Teresa. This bill is a betrayal and Maori people have been sold out today by none other than Tariana Turia. Kia ora tatou. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister) 
: 
 If Labour regards Hone Harawira as someone it cannot do business with why do Labour members sound exactly like him when speaking on the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill? What a disappointment the previous speech from Shane Jones was. He used to be regarded as a person with the capability and vision to help New Zealand deal with issues of Maori and Pakeha learning how to live together and work together in New Zealand. 
Labour’s cup is running over with resentment and regret about how it handled the issue. From well before the Foreshore and Seabed Act and certainly since 2004 Labour has shown that it does not know how to handle aspirational Maori. It can handle Maori who traditionally may have done what Labour told them to do who thought what Labour said they should think and who kept quiet about it. But in 2004 Labour panicked over this issue and brought in legislation that was clearly resented and opposed by thousands of Maori. Labour did not solve the problem which is what this Government set out to do. This Government set out to solve the problem—the problem of different world views about property rights different world views about our history and different views about how that history should be expressed in 2011. It is not an easy problem to solve. 
I congratulate the Maori Party but not on agreeing with what National wanted because it did not. The bill is not what National wanted in every respect. It is the result of a tedious testing and tense process that has gone on over the last couple of years not just within the Government—and I do not mean just the tedious chairperson of the Maori Affairs Committee—but with the thousands of New Zealanders who take an interest in this issue; with the MPs who have sat and listened to and wrestled with these issues; and with the Attorney-General who has performed in exactly the way Tariana Turia said: with deep respect total thoroughness and I must say an evenness of temperament that is not what we have always associated with him but on which he must be complimented. His temperament is in total contrast to that of the Labour member Shane Jones in his previous speech and to the way Labour members have conducted themselves throughout this discussion. 
Labour members’ conduct has shown their utter lack of suitability for any responsibility for these issues in modern New Zealand. They might feel comfortable going back to Ratana every year but the Ratana deal was done with Michael Joseph Savage. He was a man of vision but the deal was done 80 years ago. The new kind of deal is much more respectful much more robust and more difficult. I can say that as a member of the Cabinet who spends probably a quarter to a third of my time even as Minister of Finance on issues related to Maori. The new deal is more difficult but it is real progress. That progress is what the bill represents. Other issues in New Zealand will be wrestled with as intensively as this one and are as polarising as this one not because we choose it to be that way but because that is the way this nation is with the different peoples who live here. 
I am so proud of the bill because at least three-quarters of the Parliament have demonstrated that they are willing and able to wrestle successfully with these issues. The alternative is unresolved resentment and an ongoing sense of injustice that prevents progress and a positive view of New Zealand. Even if we do not think the bill is perfect—and I do not think anyone does—it is progress. It is a step forward from where we were. The bill is not a perfect answer but I suspect that it will be a lasting answer because despite the brave words of Mr Shane Jones a future Labour Government will not undo the legislation in his time. 
A sign of the pettiness and internal damage within Labour is that its members had an opportunity to demonstrate some vision for New Zealand and they just spouted resentment of the Maori Party. National certainly does not always agree with the Maori Party but the Maori Party deserves credit for taking a historic opportunity to use the democratic process to take responsibility for a solution. That approach is in marked contrast to the way a lot of these issues have been dealt with in the past. The Maori Party took responsibility for a solution. National has had to as well. 
My email has been overloaded with people who say they will never vote for me again. I actually think they will. When it comes to polling even if 89 percent of New Zealanders do not like the bill that number is only marginally higher than the percentage of voters who do not like Labour. If I were in Labour I would keep the polling numbers to myself. 
I acknowledge the work of the Maori Affairs Committee its chairman— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: What’s my name? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: —the Hon Tau Henare—and members who without much public recognition did a great job of persisting through weeks and weeks of very polarised discussion in order to come up with solutions that would work. In particular I congratulate the Attorney-General. Only someone of his intellectual breadth and determination would be able to see the bill through what would be about the most intensive process I have ever seen legislation go through in 20 years in Parliament. 
Finally I acknowledge my Government colleagues who consist of National members and of course the Maori Party and the ACT Party in its own unique way who have seen the process through to a result. The result is one we should be proud of not because the legislation is a fantastic piece of art and political creation but because the result comes from a proper realistic forward-looking process for dealing with very difficult issues. 
We could have collectively allowed this issue to become as polarised as some wanted it to be. We could have let that happen but we did not. In that respect I pay tribute to the leadership of the Prime Minister who cannot be here today. At all times he was able to bring to this discussion his own particular mix of equanimity decisiveness and generosity of spirit which set the tone for the relationship between the Maori Party and National. Quite frankly this country will need the same kind of process again. 
I support the third reading of the bill. I am disappointed that on this occasion Mr Jones missed his opportunity which was a big opportunity to lift himself above the level of the rest of Labour. Labour has gone so low that it has dragged him down as well. That is a disappointment but this bill is not a disappointment; it is a success. 
KELVIN DAVIS (Labour) 
: 
 I along with the rest of the Labour Party oppose the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill. If the fact that over 4000 submitters to the Maori Affairs Committee opposed this bill—albeit for reasons that were polar opposites—was not enough reason to oppose it the poor process followed by the select committee certainly was. That process firstly blocked any legal advice from being obtained by the committee on the effect of the changes to the threshold test for establishment of customary marine title; secondly forced through hasty consideration of the 500-page departmental report on submissions; thirdly did not include any revision-tracked view of the bill in respect of the many amendments recommended by officials which made proper consideration and deliberation impossible; fourthly saw Government members block a resolution that a revision-tracked version of the bill be prepared prior to the committee’s deliberation on the bill; fifthly ignored the submissions of hundreds of people whose submissions have had no substantive analysis by the select committee as evidenced by the fact that the committee reported the bill back to the House without comment on most of the issues and without a single amendment be it technical or substantive; and sixthly left many important technical issues unresolved. Those matters are all reason enough to oppose the bill. 
I was embarrassed by the process that this bill went through. When I explain to schools and other groups the process used to develop legislation I tell them that if people want to participate then they need to make submissions on issues ask to be heard at the select committee and put their case forward. I say the various points of view will be heard and deliberated on and decisions will be made. I tell them that although they may not get their way they will be given a fair hearing. That is obviously not true of the process on this bill. During the select committee process a range of opinions were heard. Some I agreed with; many I did not. But I respected those submitters’ right to be heard and to voice their opinion. I am embarrassed that I was part of a process that dismissed their points of view without due consideration and I apologise to those people who have been misled as to the integrity of the legislative process. Democracy has been the loser. 
This bill could have settled the issue of the foreshore and seabed once and for all. New Zealand has been persuaded that the foreshore and seabed is the most important issue to Maori—it is not. Attention has been diverted from the issues that really affect Maori. While the Maori Party has been focused on wet sand our people are suffering. What has the Maori Party done as part of this Government about easing the cost of living? Why did it vote for the rise in GST? What has it done as part of this Government to create jobs for Maori? What has it done as part of this Government to enable our children to succeed at school? What has it done as part of this Government to prevent our teenagers from having babies? What has it done as part of this Government to reduce Maori incarceration in prisons? What has it done as part of this Government to support and develop Maori business and enterprise? What has it done as part of this Government to reduce Maori dependency on drugs and alcohol? What has it done as part of this Government to reduce the number of our women and children who are beaten at the hands of our menfolk? 
If the answer to those questions is Whanau Ora then I ask which of the specific issues that I have just raised will Whanau Ora alleviate? To what extent by when and how will we recognise the success? And will the pending Budget cuts to Whanau Ora condemn it to failure? 
We can focus again on the wet sand or we can develop policy that will support schools to see that teachers use research-based best-practice strategies and that will support schools to establish relationships with Maori students and whanau and to develop Maori-relevant curriculum pedagogy. We can focus on the symbolic or we can develop policy that will prevent Maori from developing diabetes renal failure and obesity or from seeking solace in drugs and alcohol. We can focus on the symbolic or we can develop policy that will create jobs for Maori ease the cost of living for Maori and help Maori to be even more successful contributors to our society. We can focus on the symbolic or we can develop policy that will see our people living in warm comfortable and secure homes. 
When I travel around Tai Tokerau I hear about and see directly evidence of the sense of hopelessness amongst many of our people. Too many are simply struggling to survive and they see Parliament arguing about wet sand. I wonder why we cannot put the same amount of energy and passion into helping them—the people. 
We will now have the spectre of the Maori Party relitigating this issue every 3 years post-election. But to have that opportunity the Maori Party will be happy. Grievance is what gives it strength. The Maori Party is happy to entrench Maori with a sense of injustice because it is always easier to criticise and condemn than to search for opportunities for growth development and prosperity. While the Maori Party relitigates this issue our people still will be underachieving at school and getting locked up knocked up beaten up drunk stoned and killed. This is a missed opportunity and it is time to move on and focus on the real issues that affect Maori. 
Anyone who knows me knows that I believe the path to Maori success lies in education. I have said before that we will achieve more in one generation of fully educated Maori than we will in another 171 years of grievance. Education can and will address underachievement. Success at school will mean Maori are better equipped to seek higher-paid employment which will assist them to meet the cost of living. Success at school will reduce Maori teenage pregnancy rates. Success at school will reduce Maori incarceration rates. Success at school will enable Maori to succeed in business and enterprise. Success at school will reduce Maori drug and alcohol dependency. Success at school will help to reduce the rates of child and spousal abuse. Through increasing the number of highly educated Maori we will be able to achieve in the highest positions in the land. We will be able to achieve in the worlds of business finance and politics and in the arts sciences and humanities. Through increasing the number of highly educated Maori we will be able to gain the respect influence and credibility that sadly many of us lack now. Through increasing the number of highly educated Maori we will regain the self-respect and dignity that many have lost. 
Maori need to be brave enough to venture on a new path that leads us away from grievance and on to a proactive and progressive path that enables us to achieve our dreams goals and aspirations—both in the 21st century and into the future. We owe it to our children and grandchildren to leave them a better Maori world than the one that we inhabit now and if we do not we will fail our people and fail our future. A Maori world of grievance simply condemns our people to the same reality that we are living in now and they deserve more than that from us. I stand here as a Maori member of Parliament and implore all other Maori members of Parliament to focus on that which will move us forward and not on that which will trap our children in the same cycle of discontent. 
The Labour Party opposes this bill because it focuses on the wet sand. It focuses on the symbolic issue and it does not focus on the issues that mean the most to Maori. Those are the cost of living and the issues of education Maori incarceration teenage pregnancy rates and all the other issues that really matter to the people. We can focus all our energies for as long as we want to on the wet sand and all those other things but at the end of the day what matters is our people and this bill does not address the issues that are pushing and suppressing our people. That is one of the major reasons why the Labour Party does not support the bill. I look over to the other side of the House at people like Tau Henare who are playing up for the crowds. The only reason Tau Henare is sitting there and yelling his head off is that there is an audience and he is more interested in playing up for the crowd than he is in addressing the issues that really put our people down. So I say to Tau Henare shame on him for sitting there and just mouthing off and not actually coming up with any—any—issues that will make a difference for Maori. Not only is that the case but also he was the guy who led the select committee astray—a terrible process. He needs to be ashamed of his part in perpetuating this whole horrible bill that is before the House. Kia ora tatou. 
METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 “Not in our name. No raupatu in our time. No raupatu in our name.” That was the call in 2004 when Maori and Pakeha struggled together to oppose the foreshore and seabed legislation passed by Labour. Although I am pleased Labour has changed its position on these issues it does not have any credibility in making claims against other Maori members in this House of selling out our people. But for Labour—and the Maori MPs in Labour—selling out our people in 2004 we would not be here today to witness the same thing happening again. The players have changed but the issue is the same and the injustice is the same. 
I am proud to be here on behalf of the Green Party of Aotearoa / New Zealand to join our voices with the thousands of New Zealanders—Maori and Pakeha alike—who object to this unjust confiscatory Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill. I acknowledge the hikoi that arrived on Parliament grounds on Tuesday. I acknowledge their dignity and their passion. Today we are witness to a terrible betrayal by the Maori Party. It is a betrayal of our tikanga. It is a betrayal of all the kuia and kaumatua who have struggled their whole lives to see justice for Maori. It is a betrayal of our young ones—our rangatahi—who will have to continue this fight after this day because of the cowardice we will see played out in this House. It is all because of a Maori Party obsession with power at any cost. The Maori Party is now utterly compromised by the acquisition of power. The Maori Party contributes to the divide and rule tactics we see being played out by National this time round. National is deeply hostile to the interests of Maori.  
When this legislation first came to the House in 2004—then named the Foreshore and Seabed Bill—we were fighting the same colonial Government that Maori had been fighting for generations. At that time I expressed my deep disappointment as a Maori member of Parliament that I was thrust back 150 years and returned to the same struggle against colonial power as that of my forebears. I said it was the same old struggle fighting the same arguments over the confiscation of land and objecting again to parliamentary sovereignty flexing its muscle against tangata whenua regardless of the justice of the issue. We were fighting the same manipulation and deception fighting the same arrogance and paternalism. By this legislation today as then Maori are being returned to the same indecent fight—the fight just to be Maori in our own land. As with the Foreshore and Seabed Bill the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill is a direct descendant of the racist legislation of our colonial forebears. 
But there is one even more terrible difference between this legislation in 2011 and that in 2004. For the first time in New Zealand’s political history a Maori political force has the power to stop racist legislation. For the first time ever in our political history Maori wield enough political power to say no and to stop the Government from extinguishing Maori tikanga rights. For the first time Maori are genuinely the decision makers in whether this bill this confiscation will proceed. Today the four Maori MPs from the Maori Party are the decision makers for Maori aspirations over Maori land. We could be celebrating that fact which is a circumstance that has arisen out of decades of struggle in the courts struggle in education struggle in the economy and struggle in politics. Those four Maori MPs exercise this political power because of the hard work of many generations before them who had that struggle. In many ways this moment is an apex of Maori parliamentary political power. It is a moment that thousands of Maori and Pakeha have struggled for and fought to achieve together. So why are the four Maori decision makers today exercising that power to pass racist legislation? Why are the Maori decision makers today deciding that they will allow the confiscation of Maori land? 
Last time in 2004 we fought a well-known enemy a political force descended from its colonial forebears. It was a circumstance that Maori knew well and expected nothing less from. Then Maori rallied around a new political identity one that would fight for Maori every step of the way which was a genuine alternative—by Maori for Maori—for the first time in this Parliament. Last time we believed that if Maori had the power then we would have a just outcome but today we are betrayed. 
The Green Party opposes this legislation because we are committed to justice and we are prepared to stand up for that principle. We have been tireless in our advocacy for the protection of Maori customary rights. Under the bill Maori customary rights are extinguished and the foreshore and seabed remain under the threat of exploitation damage and sale. The Green Party has fought for the ecology of the foreshore and seabed—our precious coast its habitats the species that rely on its health the whanau who care for those places and the children who delight in its treasures. This bill puts all of that at risk. 
Last time my plea was to the Labour Government. “Just don’t do it.” I said. Today my plea is to the Maori Party—to Rahui Katene to Te Ururoa Flavell to Pita Sharples and to Tariana Turia. I ask them to please turn their faces to our people to face the thousands of young Maori who are slogging their guts out just to get by. I ask those members to turn their faces to them and tell them there is a reason for them to believe in us here and to tell them they have not been abandoned by those members. But they will not turn their faces; they will turn their backs. I say to whanau that the Green Party has not abandoned them. Together we will seek justice and peace in our country and together we will achieve it. Kia ora. 
Hon JOHN BOSCAWEN (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I begin this afternoon by responding to the comments of the Hon Tariana Turia on the Marine and Coastal (Takutai Moana) Bill. She said that the Maori Party was right to repeal the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004. The ACT Party agrees with her and has always agreed with her. Tariana Turia and the Maori Party members know that we strongly opposed that Act when it was passed through this Parliament in 2004. 
Tariana Turia said that the Maori Party was right to restore access to the courts. The ACT Party agrees with her and always has and the members of the Maori Party know that. Tariana Turia also said that the ACT Party used the lodging of questions to members this afternoon to try to delay this bill. Tariana was right; we did do that. The reason we did that is we oppose this bill and we think this bill is wrong. We think this bill is wrong for the reasons I will summarise very shortly. However Tariana Turia said that the ACT Party had used this legislation to denigrate tangata whenua. With respect that is where I disagree with her because we have not deliberately gone out of our way to do that. We have fought for the rights of all New Zealanders and Maori New Zealanders to have the right to their day in court and to have the right to access. But we have not gone out of our way to denigrate tangata whenua. 
Tariana Turia said that the ACT Party had used this bill to try to create divisions. I also totally reject that. We have not used this bill to try to create division. In actual fact we believe this bill will create division and that is one of the reasons we so strongly oppose it. Why do I say that? A number of rights created here will be of benefit only to those who gain customary title. I will come back to the test for customary title but I take this opportunity to say to National members who will be voting for this bill that rights are conferred on customary title holders that are over and above the rights that other freehold property owners get in New Zealand whether they be Maori or non-Maori. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Shocking! 
Hon JOHN BOSCAWEN 
: Well the ACT Party thinks that is shocking because we believe strongly in having one law for all. 
I will give one example of that: a planning right. If iwi or hapu gain customary title to an area of the common marine and coastal area—and Mr Finlayson has acknowledged that could be up to 10 percent of our coast but who knows as it could be a lot more than 10 percent; it could be a huge amount more and we will know only in time—they have a planning right and they can decide what happens on that piece of land or marine and coastal area. That benefit is not available to any other New Zealander. I will repeat that: it is not available to any other New Zealander. No New Zealanders who own a piece of freehold land can decide what will happen on that land. No New Zealanders can go along to the local council and say what they want to have happen on that land and have the council do as the landowner says. That is one of the benefits conferred on customary title holders. 
If we look to the genesis of the situation here today we know that the judges in the Ngati Apa decision in 2003 said that iwi and hapu should have the right to go to court to state their claim. That is a right that the ACT Party has stood for consistently throughout the entire time since. However what was the Labour Government’s response to that decision? The Labour Government’s response was to pass the Foreshore and Seabed Act. It announced within a matter of hours of that Court of Appeal decision that it would substantially reduce the rights of iwi and hapu to go to court. Yes iwi and hapu have the ability to go to court. There are rights there but they were substantially lessened and the benefits that they would derive from going to court were substantially reduced. The ACT Party opposed that. 
What has the National Government’s response been? It has been not just to repeal that Act to undo that injustice but also to impose another injustice. Why do I say that? I say that because this bill sets down a number of tests. It codifies the tests as the Attorney-General tells us and it does not leave the matter to the courts. There may well be some iwi and hapu who feel that they have had those rights taken away from them. The Hon Bill English talked this afternoon about ongoing resentment. Well the only way to avoid ongoing resentment and a sense of injustice is to allow iwi and hapu to go to court—to do what they asked to do—and let the judges rule on that matter. As Tariana Turia said earlier this afternoon there was far more at stake than simply repealing the 2004 Act. 
The National Government has responded exactly as the previous Labour Government did. It looked to put legislation in place and there may well be iwi and hapu who are denied the right to go to court because of the tests laid down in this document. Equally there is the real chance that customary title may be transferred over land and provide benefits to a small group of New Zealanders at the expense of all other New Zealanders. I do not necessarily mean there will be a difference between Maori and non-Maori; I mean that certain selected iwi may benefit at the expense of other iwi and other non-Maori. 
It always fascinates me to listen to Metiria Turei talk about the 12500 private titles. I have always found it fascinating that of those 12500 titles that Metiria Turei rails against 3000 are actually in the name of Maori. What are the benefits that go with the granting of customary titles? We have potentially billions and billions of dollars of mineral wealth. We know that off the Waikato and Taranaki coasts there are literally billions and billions of dollars worth of ironsands. Why are we concerned? It is because the National Government has been happy to tell its own MPs and the public that the test for customary title is a very very high test. The Government has said to the public of New Zealand that to be able to prove customary title they need to show continuous and exclusive use and occupation of an area since 1840. The Government has said to New Zealanders that that is a very high test. Well it is a high test but it is not actually the test. In 1840 the limits of our territorial waters were simply 3 miles. This bill enshrines in legislation the fact that it is assumed that iwi and hapu have customary titles over the foreshore and seabed out to 12 miles not 3 miles but 12 miles. That change to our territorial limits was legislated for only in 1977. 
When David Parker spoke in the Committee stage he said that a vote for National was a vote for the Maori Party and a vote for the Maori Party was a vote for National. I daresay that that was simply a pitch to the Maori voters who have previously supported the Maori Party to throw their political allegiance behind Labour. ACT has not sought to try to gain political support on this issue; we have sought to educate New Zealanders and to explain to them the provisions of the bill. I ask the members of the Maori Party whether they honestly believe that New Zealanders have been told the truth by the National Government. If they honestly put their hand on their hearts I do not think they can answer yes to that question. The reason I say that is a lot has been said about access to the common marine and coastal area. Boaties will get a surprise when they look at clause 28 because they will find that when they sail into a bay that has been granted customary title they will be able to anchor there only temporarily. What is “temporarily”? Can they anchor their boat for 5 hours or for 5 days? Who knows? Yet the Attorney-General will stand up and say that this provision provides certainty. 
There has been a racist element to this debate. We have received emails from members of the public and I have gone on record and the media have acknowledged this as saying that ACT’s position is different from the Coastal Coalition and it has always been different. ACT believes that iwi and hapu should have the right to go to court. I have stressed that point at every public meeting that I have held over the last 6 months—at every single public meeting. ACT will be voting against this bill. We think it is a tragedy for iwi and for hapu and we think it is a tragedy for all New Zealanders. The feelings of resentment that the Deputy Prime Minister spoke about this afternoon will not be resolved by this. Thank you. 
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 Tena koe e te Mana Whakahaere o to tatou Whare. Mihi au ki nga mema Paremata i koneki tae noa ki a koutou nga mana nga reo kua tae mai ki te whakanui i to tatou ra. Tena koutou nau mai whakapiri mai. E tika ana hoki kia mihi atu ki a ratou nga mate kua ngaro atu ratou i pupuri ai i te mana o nga whenua o nga takutai moana o nga roto o nga maunga i nga wa mai ra ano. I tipu ngatahi tatou me te whenua nei. He Maori tatou he iwi he hapu he whanau. Na reira nga mate kua pa ki a tatou ratou i kaha ki te pupuri i te mana i runga ake i nga whenua mai i te hainatanga o te Tiriti o Waitangi tae noa ki tenei ra. Na reira nga mate koutou haere okioki pai mai. 
Na kia hoki ki te kaupapa o te rangi nei. Tena tatou katoa. I te tau 2003 i te Kirihimete i hui matou o Ngati Kahungunu i ta matou hui whakamutunga mo te tau. I reira ka puta mai te korero a te mahi o te Kawanatanga ki te whakatu i tenei Ture Takutai Moana mo te 2004. I reira ka puta te korero a matou ka tau te taunaki kia hikoi ki te Paremata nei. Na matou i tono atu ki nga iwi katoa ki Te Tai Tokerau ki Te Arawa ki hea ranei kia hikoi tahi tatou ki konei i te tau 2004 ki te porotehi ki te tu pakari ki te korero e whakahe ana ki tenei ture e tango nei i te takutai moana. Na kua oti ke te mohio e 30000 tangata i hikoi mai mai i nga pito katoa—nga tamariki nga kaumatua. Mo etahi o ratou kua ngaro atu kua mate. Na reira i tae mai matou i korero matou ki te Paremata o taua wa ki te Kawanatanga kare matou e whakaae ana kua tangohia tenei ara ki te koti. 
I timata mai i Te Tauihu-o-te-Waka i a Ngati Apa ma. I haere ratou ki te koti ki te kimi i to ratou turanga i runga ake i te whenua i te takutai moana i roto i a ratou. Na i mahi tino tere te Kawanatanga kia aukatingia te haere o nga Maori ki te koti ki te kimi mana i runga ake o te takutai moana. Kahore tera Kawanatanga i korero ki te iwi Maori. Kahore ratou i korero ki nga mema o Reipa nga mema Maori. Kei te mohio au kare nga mema i taua wa e tino tautoko ana i tena ture engari koina te mahi o te Paremata nei. Ko te nuinga ka poti ka wikitoria etahi ka ngaro tetahi. Na reira kua pahi tena ture. 
Na reira ko te hikoi mai i tera tau he hikoi o te ngakau na reira tenei kua tae mai ki tenei wa te ra i whakatau i pahi ai tenei ture takutai moana mo tenei wa. Na ma tenei ture e mukua tera pire o te tau 2004 e whakawatea ana i te huarahi kia hoki nga iwi ki te koti atu ki tena ka ahei te korero kia haere tonu nga korero kia taea e nga hapu me nga iwi ki te tono atu ki te Kawanatanga me te koti a i runga i tenei kaupapa. Ki ahau nei ko tenei ture he utu mo tera kua whakaturetia i te tau e 2004. Na reira koina taku i tu nei i runga i te mana o oku tipuna matua ki te ki ki a tatou te iwi Maori ana kua tae ki tenei wa kia tu pakari tatou ahakoa pehea te taumahatanga i runga i o tatou pokohiwi. Na reira anei ra kua tae mai ki tenei rangi. 
Na reira maku i tenei wa e whakamarama atu ko wai matou te Pati Maori. Ko matou he ringaringa o te Paremata. Kahore matou e kawe te mana te rangatiratanga o nga iwi o nga hapu o tangata ma. Kai a ratou tena. Ko te Ao Maori tena te rangatiratanga. Ko tenei he Whare Paremata he kaupapa mai i Westminster kua whakatokia kei roto i tenei whenua ka haere katoa nga kaupapa i raro i tena kaupapa o te Whare Paremata. Ko te kaupapa i konei ka korero tena taha tenei taha ka mutu ka poti. Ma te nuinga o nga poti e wikitoria. Mehemea he torutoru nga poti ka hinga. He kaupapa Pakeha tenei ehara i te kaupapa Maori. Kia mohio mai. Kei konei matou kua uru atu ki roto i tenei kaupapa te kaupapa o te Whare Paremata. Na reira anei matou he ringaringa mo te iwi he ringaringa mo koutou nga iwi nga hapu. Tukua mai o koutou korero o koutou kaupapa. Mehemea ka whakamanatia i roto i tenei Whare Paremata anei ra matou ki te tautoko i o koutou tono. Kia mohio mai. Na reira tena koutou. 
Tino pirangi au ki te whakamarama atu i tena. Ki nga mema i tera taha e korero mai mo te koretake o tenei Pati Maori. E tino he koutou. Tino he koutou. Kua riro ki a matou etahi o nga hotaka nga kaupapa penei i te Whanau Ora; 
nga Whare Oranga Ake kia whakahokia nga mauhere Maori ki roto i te iwi e rua nga whare ka tu i tenei tau; te arotake i to tatou reo Maori ki mai te Wai 262 ngaro haere to tatou reo kaore ano kia whakapakaritia; ana na te Pati Maori e tu tetahi arotakenga i te mana o to tatou reo. 
Kei a au tetahi ropu ohanga whakapakari ai i te ohanga Maori; nga Maori e mahi ana nga manukura o nga iwi e mahitahi ana matou ki te whakapakari i te putea mo o tatou iwi a mo te mana o to tatou iwi. Ko tetahi ko te kawenata matua kia arotakengia tenei kawenata. Ka hia tau ka korero tatou mo te mana o te Tiriti o Waitangi. Ka hia tau i tae atu matou ki Waitangi ki te porotehi kua tango te mana o te Tiriti o Waitangi kei hea tena i roto i nga ture o te ao nei o tenei whenua? Na kua whakaae te Kawanatanga nei kia arotakengia tenei kaupapa nui. He wa tenei mo tatou ki te haramai ki nga hui korero ai kaua e noho wahangu. Mehemea kei te pirangi koutou kia whakamanahia to tatou Tiriti o Waitangi anei kua huakina mai te tatau. Na reira haramai koutou ki era momo hui ki te mahi i tena. 
A matou mahi i tenei korero au mo te mahi o te Pati Maori. Te panui pukapuka i nga kura na matou i tuku atu ki roto i nga kura kura Maori kura Pakeha katoa mo nga mea nohinohi kia ahei ai ratou ki te panui pukapuka. Era mahi katoa. Na matou i whakaiti te take i runga i te penehini me te hikohiko i raro i te kaupapa Government Electronic Tenders Service 
i tetahi wa na tenei; me te utu mo te tangata ia haora na matou i werohia to tatou Kawanatanga. 
Na reira koina ahau e tu nei ki te ki anei ra matou o koutou ringaringa. Anei ta matou mahi kei roto i te Whare Paremata nei ki te kawe mai i o koutou hiahia ki te mahi i nga mahi kia tuku atu i mua o nga pati e rua toru wha i konei; ki te kimi huarahi mo to tatou iwi. Kei te mahi penei ai etahi o nga mema Paremata i konei. Ko te katoa o nga Maori i konei e tino tautoko ana i te iwi Maori nga hapu nga iwi. Kaore he Maori i konei kare e tautoko ana i te iwi Maori. Engari na te kaupapa o tenei wahi ka noho tatou wero tatou i a tatou kei roto i tenei Whare. Engari i te mutunga ake anei te Pati Maori. Kaore he matua kei runga i a matou kaore he pati e ki nei ki a Maori me penei me pena. Ko matou te ropu motuhake mo koutou. Na reira kei te mihi au ki te Pirimia otira ki nga Minita tena koutou tena tatou katoa kei raro. 
[ 
Greetings to you Mr Deputy Speaker of our House. I acknowledge the members of Parliament present here today including you the authorities and languages who have arrived here to celebrate our day. Greetings welcome come closer. It is fitting as well that I acknowledge those who are no longer with us the ones who held in their hands the power over the lands foreshore lakes and mountains since time immemorial. We and this land evolved together. We are Maori—tribal subtribal and family. So the ones who died and affect us strove to maintain control over the lands in their time from the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi right down to this day. So I say to you the dead: depart farewell and rest there.  
Let me come back to the matter relating to this day. Greetings to you all. In the year 2003 at Christmas we of Ngati Kahungunu were at a meeting—our final meeting of the year in fact. It was there that word came that the Government was planning to draft the Foreshore and Seabed Act for the year 2004. And it was there that the recommendation was made to march upon this Parliament. We asked all tribes from the far north Te Arawa and wherever to march here together with us in 2004 to protest to stand strong and to voice our opposition to the law that would take our foreshore and seabed away from us. Now it is well known that 30000 people young and old marched from all over the country. Some of them have died. So we came engaged with Parliament and the Government of the day and said we did not agree to access to the courts being denied.  
It began among the tribes of the northern South Island with Ngati Apa and others at Te Tauihu-o-te-Waka —the Bow of the Canoe. They went to court to have their rights over the foreshore and seabed determined amongst them. The Government then moved quickly to deny access to the courts by Maori tribes to determine ownership over the foreshore. That Government did not consult the Maori people. It did not consult Labour members and the Maori members of that party. I know for a fact that members at that time did not really support that law but that is how this Parliament works. It is a majority vote—you win some and you lose some. So that legislation was passed into law.  
The march at that time was one of the heart. We have arrived here now at this moment the day this Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill is settled and passed for the moment. This bill will repeal that legislation of the year 2004. It clears the way and enables tribes to go back to the courts again. Beyond that it enables discussions to continue so that subtribes and tribes can apply to the Government and the courts about this matter. To me personally this legislation is payment for the legislation enacted in 2004. So that is why I stand before you on the power of my ancestors to say to us the Maori people that the time has come for us to stand staunch regardless of the hardships upon our shoulders. So here we are; we have arrived at this day.  
At this point I shall outline who we of the Maori Party are. We are servants of Parliament. We do not carry the authority and right of authority of the tribes subtribes and the people at all. They have that —Maoridom has it. This is a House of Parliament that originates from Westminster. Its procedures are well and truly embedded in this country. All matters here are conducted under that parliamentary procedure. Each party here speaks and at the end a vote is cast. The majority vote cast determines an outcome. If there are fewer votes cast the matter is deemed lost. This is a Pakeha system not a Maori one. You the Maori people have got to understand this. We are here we have entered into this procedure of Parliament. Therefore we are your servants in this House servants for you the tribes and subtribes. Send us your talk and policies. If you want them enacted here in this House that is what we are here for—to support your demands. Make a note of it. So thank you collectively.  
I really wanted to explain that about us and to make it clear. To those members on that side of the House who are telling us that this Maori Party is useless you collectively are so wrong—absolutely incorrect. We have secured programmes and initiatives like Whanau Ora; and nga Whare Oranga Ake units to be established to house Maori prisoners so they can be reintegrated into the tribe—two have been built this year. There is a review of our Maori language. Wai 262 states that our language is disappearing—it has not been rejuvenated. Well as a consequence a review of the status of our language has been implemented by the Maori Party.  
I have an economic taskforce that is tasked to strengthen the economic situation of our tribes. There is another one that relates to the constitution—a major one. How many years have we talked about the status of the Treaty of Waitangi? How many years have we arrived at Waitangi to protest that the status of the Treaty has been removed; where is it in world laws and in our own? The Government has now agreed to review this important issue. It is an opportunity now for us to come to the forums—but do not sit back in silence. If you collectively want our Treaty of Waitangi enshrined in legislation the door has been opened up. So come to those sorts of forums to work at that.  
In relation to how we deal with this I will talk about what the Maori Party has done. Reading books in schools: we promoted that in the schools including Maori schools and all mainstream schools—for preschoolers as well to enable them to read—all those kinds of initiatives. We have reduced the tax on petrol and in time electronics under the Government Electronic Tenders Service scheme; we also challenged the Government about the personal hourly rate.  
So that is why I stand here and say to you the collective here we are your servants. Our responsibility in this House is to bring your needs here to do what has to be done to them before putting them before the parties here be it two three or four to find ways for our people. Some members work like this here. All Maori members here really support the Maori people subtribes and tribes. There is not one who does not. But because of what this place is about we are forced to poke and prod each other in this House. But at the end of it all here is the Maori Party—there is no one in charge above us no party telling Maori that you should do it this or that way. We are the independent party for you. So I acknowledge the Prime Minister and indeed the Ministers; greetings to you collectively and to us all. I end here 
.] 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 Te mea tuatahi aku mihi ki a koutou e te papa Pita e te whaea Tari kei a koutou aku rangatira aku tuakana i roto i te Pati Maori; tenei te mihi tenei te aroha ki a koutou katoa. Nga rangatira o te motu nei anei te mihi ki a koutou e aku rangatira e aku tuakana i runga i taku komiti te komiti whiriwhiri take Maori o te Whare nei. 
[ 
The first thing is to thank you all—Pita the fatherly figure; Tariana the motherly figure; and my esteemed and elder colleagues in the Maori Party. I acknowledge and empathise with you all. To the leaders of this nation I salute you the esteemed and respected members on my committee the Maori Affairs Committee of this House 
.] 
First of all I congratulate the members of the Maori Party basically on being here and doing what they said they would do which was to repeal the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004. So I give big ups to that party. Secondly it was not National members who stood in this House and accused Maoridom of being haters and wreckers and who accused people of all sorts of things. When the Prime Minister of this nation Helen Clark felt that it was a better look to visit a sheep named Shrek instead of going outside and greeting 50000 people I thanked God I was never a voter for that party. Then having come to this stage of my political career I hear— 
Kelvin Davis 
: Tell us about when you were a union rep. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: What about then? I will tell the House what I was doing then. I was talking about the right of people to go to court the right of people to seek justice in the courts. But within 2 hours of the Court of Appeal decision both Helen Clark the Prime Minister and Margaret Wilson had said that all bets were off. They said: “We’re not going to court and you Maoris are not going to court to find out whether you own something or don’t.” The Court of Appeal judges said that it would be very hard to prove a case but people could still come to court and find out whether they could. But that was all Maori asked for. Yes I know that some of my whanau up north were jumping up and down left and right saying that the beaches were ours and asking how the Government dared to confiscate the beaches. Well the Government did not do that but it did confiscate our human right our civil right to be able to go to court and seek justice. That is what it was all about. So when the question is asked of me about what was I doing then I tell the House that I was on the radio on Newstalk ZB talking about that stuff. I marched over the harbour bridge in support of the Maori Party in support of the repeal of the 2004 Act and in support of the right to seek justice. 
I will talk briefly about our Maori Affairs Committee. I congratulate every member on our committee especially the Maori members who have had to put up with some of the worst vitriol that I have ever heard inside or outside this place. I say to every party—Labour National and the Greens—who had a Maori on that committee that I commend the actions of their members on the committee. I enjoyed myself immensely; it is the committee that I have always wanted to chair and I finally got my wish. 
I turn now to John Boscawen the “prince of parliamentary procedure” the prince of—no not darkness but he may be one day. I note the sort of vitriol and the twisting and turning of the issues we had from our coalition partner. In my mind I suppose this is why Mr Key is the Prime Minister and I am not: if I was the Prime Minister there would be no warrant for that member who is sitting over there. There would be no warrant for that member sitting over there. I said last week that I accepted the apology—not on behalf of all Maori but on my own behalf—that the Hon Maryan Street made in this House. It is time for us to move on so that we can deal with the issues that Kelvin Davis raises. It is time for us to say that— 
Su’a William Sio 
: Pakeha and Maori are now at each other over this bill. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: That is the acolyte from Labour sitting in the cheap seats. Look it is time for us to move to a better place—a better place where we can actually have our barbecues and do whatever we want on our beaches. But regardless of any law whether it be the 2004 Act or the 2011 Act there will always be somebody who jumps up and says: “Get off my beach! This is not your beach; it is mine.” No law in the land will stop that so people should not go around using that as an excuse to vote against legislation that I consider to be a wee bit better than the 2004 Act. Will we ever get legislation any better than this? I doubt it—I doubt it. Do members know why? It is because the Greens will never be in Government. They can say what they say because they will never be in Government and because they will never have to front up to the whole of New Zealand and say: “This is what we have to deliver.” They have to front up to only 5 percent of the nation and they can say what they want on whatever planet they are on. But they will say it just for that little 5 percent—or these days even 6 or 7 percent. Oh it is 7 percent. But they do not have to say it to the majority of this country. The majority of this country wants just to get on. They just want to be able to put a roof over their heads they just want to be able to go to the beach and pick a few kai moana for themselves so that they can put it on the table. That is all they want. 
Hon John Carter 
: Or having a rest even. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: As John Carter says even just for a rest. It has nothing to do with anything else and if people think there is some sort of subliminal takeover of this country by some radical Maoris my goodness I would like to see it. I would like to see it because some of my whanau up north have been waiting for a hell of a long time. 
To talk about colonialism and imperialism as a sister did over there is all well and good for 1880-1890. But this is 2011 and it is time to move on. It is time to pick up our tools pick up our toys play together in that big sandpit and not be divided. If we cannot do that then we are seriously seriously in trouble. 
I want to turn briefly to my whanaunga Hone Harawira. I believe that a democracy works because we have dissent. It does not work when we do not have dissent. So to all the whanau who turned up the other day—and there were only 200 or 300— 
Paul Quinn 
: Mostly your relations. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Yes they were mostly my relations and I am from the cradle of colonisation so at least I know what I am talking about. I congratulate them on the manner and the way they came to Parliament and the way they brought their message. I congratulate them. I cannot congratulate these three groups: the Coastal Coalition the One New Zealand Foundation and that party over there. That party has done nothing but cause trouble on racial grounds. 
Hon David Parker 
: You said “that party”. You meant ACT. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: That ACT Party—I am sorry it is the ACT Party. I thought Winston was good at it but boy he has got nothing on these fellas. I commend the bill to the House and I thank every member of the Maori Affairs Committee who had to go through what they went through—not a lot of committee members have to go through that abuse and vitriol. Congratulations to the Maori Party and congratulations to National. This is about moving on. This is about the first step of our playing in the big sandpit together. 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 I begin by saying it is a great sadness that the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill does not settle the issue. As I and other members on behalf of Labour have said previously it means that the objective that National and the Maori Party set for themselves has not been met. We were very close to being able to achieve a settlement that all sides could live with. If there had been an acknowledgment on the part of the Maori Party that this legislation when passed settled the framework for determination of foreshore and seabed in a fair way then I think that the rest of Parliament would have rallied round. We would have tried to deal with the detail of the threshold test we would have tried to take some of the ambiguity out of it and we would have tried to ensure that it was fair. But of course the Maori Party did not take that stance. It actually said that it did not accept it was fair. The co-leaders the Hon Tariana Turia and the Hon Pita Sharples and their chief whip Te Ururoa Flavell said the same thing. As a consequence this Parliament has been left with an assertion that this settles issues when we know both from the attitude of parliamentary parties including the Maori Party including the ACT Party and from Hone Harawira and others that it is but a fiction because they do not accept that this is a fair settlement. That is where for me there is a certain sadness because the issues have narrowed. 
I agree with the Hon Tau Henare that this legislation has never been about access to beaches and that people who use that language are being divisive and are endangering race relations. That is something Labour did not do during the first foreshore and seabed debate nor in this foreshore and seabed debate. I have to put on record in response to some of the criticisms that Tau Henare just made of us some of the comments made in respect of the last foreshore and seabed bill. Some of the worst of them came from current Ministers of the Government. Dr Mapp said: “What the Government is doing here is clearly preferring Maori above all other members of the community … So it is very very clear that we have two classes of citizenship. Maori are in the preferred position.” That was wrong. It is absolutely clear that if there are two classes of citizenship in New Zealand those at the bottom of the economic tree more often than not are Maori not non-Maori. 
Nick Smith said: “This bill is racist. This bill is flawed.” He said that 10 percent of the coastline was going to be vested in new foreshore and seabed reserves. He was replying to what Dover Samuels on behalf of Labour had said about how it would not make any difference to families wanting to go down to the beach and have a barbecue. Dover Samuels said that in this House because National members as senior as Don Brash Bill English and Gerry Brownlee had all been saying access was at risk. Dover Samuels was making the point that that was not the case with the legislation and indeed there was an explicit clause in that legislation that preserved public rights of access. What did Nick Smith say at the time? He said: “Well yes it does and I will tell members why. In relation to the 10 percent that his Maori caucus claims will now be foreshore and seabed reserves it will be for the management committee to decide who will be able to have a barbecue and where.” That is what  
Hansard 
 shows was being said at the time. It was irresponsible and it caused a real divisive hatred around this legislation which this country has yet to get over totally. There are still misunderstandings in respect of both ends of the spectrum of opinion as to what was the effect of the Ngati Apa decision what was the effect of the Foreshore and Seabed Act that we passed and what is the effect of this bill. 
I come back to the issue of whether there has been political leadership. I have quoted previously a column by John Armstrong which I thought summed this up. I know that I have referred to it a couple of times previously but it is worth repeating because I thought he hit it on the head. He said that at the start of this debate we had the Maori Party and their forerunners saying that the existing legislation the Foreshore and Seabed Act was far too rigid and did not fairly recognise Maori unextinguished customary interests in the foreshore and seabed. That was at one end of the spectrum. National at the other end of the spectrum was saying that yes it did far too much. In the middle we had Labour which was actually closer to the Maori Party end of the spectrum than it was to the National end of the spectrum. National moved past where we were on the Foreshore and Seabed Act and it did what we had recommended in our submission to the review tribunal which was to restore the right to get a remedy from the court. One always had the right to go to court to show that but for the Foreshore and Seabed Act one had an unextinguished interest. One did not have a right to get a remedy from the court and one had to go back and rely upon negotiation with the Crown—effectively the grace and favour of a future Government—and a future Government could do an injustice by refusing a remedy and that was wrong. We said that was wrong; we actually agreed with the Maori Party on that. That could have been achieved by way of an amendment to the legislation. The Government has chosen a repeal; we could have gone along with that too. 
Anyway we moved there and National moved there. We could have even been pushed a little bit further on some of those things if we had actually had certainty. But we could not because the Maori Party would not make that little movement from where they sat to actually being leaders and saying that the matter was settled for the sake of our country. We then put up another remedy and said that if we could not reach agreement about what the appropriate threshold tests are we could do what the Greens and the ACT Party suggested which was to put the whole thing back to the court including the threshold tests to let the court determine the threshold tests. In that way Maori rights would be fully recognised. There would no longer be any misapprehension at least in this House that access is at risk. That would have been a good solution. It would also have ensured that Maori customary interests were no more than fully recognised. Well that cannot cause an injustice because this is all about the common law right in the first place too. 
We represent the broad spectrum of opinion within the country. We have a very strong Maori caucus which is keen to protect the legitimate interests of Maori and to protect their unextinguished customary rights. We have representatives of other parts of society as well and we all agree that our Maori members are right. We should fully but no more than fully recognise unextinguished interests in the foreshore and seabed. We proposed that the whole thing be referred back to the court. There was general agreement that there needed to be legislation for the sake of settled race relations and that access was not a threat. There was general agreement that we had to make sure that customary interests could not be alienated because there was a theoretical risk under Te Ture Whenua Maori Act following the Ngati Apa decision that recognised that customary interests could be converted to freehold title and then sold. It was always necessary to have some legislation to close off that possibility and there is now agreement that it was appropriate to legislate re access. 
We are here not because of a failure on the part of the Opposition parties to show willingness to compromise and to get this issue settled. We are actually here because the Maori Party was not willing to make that little bit of movement. We are also here because the Prime Minister was not willing to pick up the phone and say to the Maori Party: “This is the deal guys. We said we were going to settle this and unless we settle it we’re not going to go through with this charade.” If he had done that—well we might have had a settlement also because the Maori Party might have backed down to that. Alternatively National could then have accepted that the issue could not be settled as the fresh codification of the threshold tests was not going to work. National could have accepted that that will not work to the satisfaction of the range of interests that showed up to the Maori Affairs Committee. Then it could have moved to our position and referred the whole thing to the court and that would have settled it too. It is sad that this is not settled. 
I turn to some of the problems we are left with in the process. We still do not know what the legal effect of the changes to the thresholds test is because Parliament has not had any legal— 
Simon Bridges 
: I do. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: We have heard Simon Bridges say he knows. It would have been helpful if he had told us at the select committee. We were blocked from obtaining legal advice. The Foreshore and Seabed Act had the benefit of advice from a professor who happened to be visiting New Zealand from Cambridge University who was an expert in matters of international common law rights relating to unextinguished customary interests. We had no such advice at the select committee. The Government blocked us from getting the advice it already had; it refused to let that advice come to the select committee. It was entitled to do that. It can claim privilege but if it claims privilege it shows that the select committee really should be getting its own legal advice. We are now left with both Maori submitters and some of the submitters such as the Coastal Coalition having completely different views about what the effect is of the test because it remains uncertain. Labour opposes the passage of this legislation. 
PAUL QUINN (National) 
: 
 I will focus on three aspects of the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill in my contribution to this debate. Firstly I take the opportunity to thank the advisers whom I see in the gallery and whom I acknowledge and also the select committee staff. I wonder whether anyone knows how much I at least appreciated their very hard work by paying them the compliment—unlike the members on the opposite side of the House—of actually reading the material they put in front of us. I acknowledge and thank them for that. 
I will also talk a little bit about the process. It is fortunate that the previous speaker spoke a wee bit about the process because what he just said was a load of bollocks. It is as simple as that. Labour declared its position on 9 December. Labour members said: “It is this or nothing.” I have here the press release. On 9 December Labour declared its position and that was it. The Green Party member on the Maori Affairs Committee sat in the committee and said nothing. Notwithstanding the fact that the leader of that party said that we did not discuss the report the member who was present when we did discuss it is sitting in the House right now. When we were deliberating he was asked for a contribution. The chairman asked him whether he had something to say and what did the Green Party member say? He said that no he had nothing to contribute and that his party was writing an independent report. 
The point is that those people had already declared their positions. Therefore what was the chairman left to do? The chairman was left to say that if that were the case the best form of sunlight— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I refer the member to the Speakers’ rulings on page 117. There are a number of them there. It is a third reading speech. We need to concentrate on the content of the bill. The member may mention what has happened in the Committee of the whole House but may not speak at length on the select committee process. 
PAUL QUINN 
: The chairman—wisely I think—made the decision to bring the bill back to the Committee of the whole House and in fact to have all 86 recommendations that were recommended by the departmental report talked about in the Committee of the whole House. I ask what greater acknowledgment of democracy there is than to actually get it out of the secrecy of the select committee and have the debate here and thrash it out so that the people could see the positions of each party. What did we do? We took notice of all of those submissions and as a consequence we had thousands of amendments. That puts to bed the issue of process. 
The last matter I want to focus on in my short contribution to the debate is the main difference between the major Opposition party and ourselves and that is the issue of codification. This is where the Opposition has said that it wants to leave it to the courts full stop. The problem with leaving it to the courts—and history has shown this as I have referred to in an earlier debate—is that since 1877 we have had three principal cases on which the Ngati Apa case was based and they are all different. Each decision has taken the debate in a new direction. In fact this Government under the guidance of the Attorney-General said that yes we need to have the capability to go to court but we need to ring-fence it and that is what codification does. It says we make the judgments but it is within these boundaries. 
It has been a great privilege for me to be part of this process and as a parting shot I offer a loan of my tikanga book to the ACT Party so that it might get to know it better and be more fully informed when it wants to debate the issue going forward. 
SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) 
: 
 The Maori Affairs Committee received nearly 5800 submissions and heard several hundred submissions orally. There was a lot of disagreement. There was not much consensus. But the process was as the departmental report made clear robust and we listened. The process was not a waste of time; it was valuable. We made changes that the constituency that John Boscawen is trying to appeal to as well as others will appreciate and be reassured by. Firstly we made it explicit in clause 27 that the public cannot be charged for access to the common marine and coastal area. Arguably we did not need to do that but we did. Clause 94 was amended so that negotiated agreements can now come into effect only following the scrutiny of this House and legislation. A large raft of technical amendments was also asked for by the courts etc. to ensure that this law works as it is intended. As I have said there was disagreement. People disagreed for completely different reasons. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I cautioned the previous speaker that in a third reading members can talk only about the contents of the bill as reported back from the select committee. This is a third reading speech. It is not a discussion about what happened at the select committee. 
SIMON BRIDGES 
: I am well aware of the submissions we received. But the question I would like to pose in relation to this bill—and the substance of the bill as it was reported back to the House—is what is a responsible Government to do in the instance where there is complete discord where consensus is not to be found? How should the Government deal with these hard issues? We could throw our hands up in the air and do nothing. Let us call that the ostrich option where we bury our head in the sand. But that option just leaves the problem as a problem. Another bolder Government that is more equal to the task would still have to find a solution. We should not just defer problems and that is not the kind of Government that I ever want to be a part of. Instead we have dealt with this problem. We have balanced the various competing views in the interests of all Kiwis. This means of course that there are a number of grumpy people—Steve Chadwick not the least of them. But that is better than the ostrich strategy where ignorance is bliss until the ostrich is finally road kill. 
Frankly with a complex issue like the foreshore and seabed there is no perfect answer. There is no quick fix. There are no simple truths that everyone can sign up to. Rather there are different perspectives where the best we can hope for is the least bad or least wrong solution. I believe that we have the best solution possible even if it may not be “the right one”. 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: Oh! 
SIMON BRIDGES 
: Labour’s solution—and Steve Chadwick makes some faint moan—which is its sixth solution to date is to repeal the 2004 law and leave this hard issue to some unelected judges to sort out. That response is a cop-out. I agree with Paul Quinn that one of the problems is that we do not know what we will get but it is also an abrogation of our responsibility in this House to another less well-equipped branch of Government to solve the problem. When I say “less well-equipped” I do not mean any slight on the judges. It is just that they would have to try to do what we have just done which is effectively hold a select committee and listen to the various voices on this then attempt to balance the competing issues. The problem is that they cannot. Lon Fuller has noted that as jurists they are not set up for that. Courts are geared up to hear a couple of parties and to decide between their competing contentions. They have no process to hear from thousands as we did. We do. As a Government we will not cop out on this difficult issue. 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Labour—Ikaroa-Rawhiti) 
:  
E tu atu tenei ki te mihi ki a koutou i tae kaha ake ki konei ki te whakarongo ki te otinga o te pire nei. E mihi kau ana ki nga kanohi Maori katoa i roto i te Whare nei mo tenei tino take. Tena tatou. 
[ 
I rise to acknowledge you for being resolute to get here to listen to the completion of this bill. I particularly pay a tribute to all the Maori in this House in respect of this great matter. Greetings to us 
.] 
I stood in front of the 2004 hikoi and it was unnerving because a lot of young whanau members were there. It has been a telling time from then until now. The Maori Party came to Parliament and said that it would repeal the Foreshore and Seabed Act. I recognise the chair of the Maori Affairs Committee the Hon Tau Henare especially for the very important statement he made in which he said he believed that the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill is a wee bit better. I think that puts the bill into a clear framework. Whether the bill is a wee bit better or a whole lot worse is something that only time will tell. I certainly recognise the Attorney-General for his sterling effort but I will also go back and recognise my colleague and friend Michael Cullen for his effort. 
I will raise a couple of salient points. There is insufficient legal analysis on the threshold test for the establishment of customary title which has been criticised as being both too high and too low. It was very interesting to hear the Deputy Prime Minister state that we need to modernise and that we should not stay back in 1840. The right given to Maori here is in relation to the kawenata—that document—that forged the relationship between Pakeha and Maori; it is nothing more nothing less. I am not too sure if this is a forewarning for why of all the things to attack the Government starts attacking Maori programmes and activities. I could get into a bunfight with the present Minister of Maori Affairs by telling him what Labour did and what he has not done but I will leave that for another time. I do not have the time now and there are more important things to say but I would tell the Minister and convince him that when I was Minister I did a whole lot better than the Government is doing at the moment. I also have a question about the veto rights conferred upon iwi in respect of developments within customary title areas. I believe they undermine the full and final nature of the commercial aquaculture settlement—these are points to watch as we go along—and that the hapu and iwi planning documents are rated second in relation to what is already there. 
There are some really interesting things that have come out during this great debate since 2004 in the sense of this being the supposed end-all and be-all. We can wax lyrical about Don Brash’s red-neckery and Tau standing with him near the board sometimes—I will never forgive him for that—and supporting it but some of the worst vitriol I have heard from useless Pakeha in this Parliament has been from the people in the ACT Party. It is outrageous disgusting and gutless that we should go to those extremes. There is nothing worse than extreme Pakehas; they are no better than extreme Maoris. That is one of them down there. I took umbrage at my sister Metiria saying that we were sell-outs or whatever and that we need to have further discussions because what I have learnt that this place is that it is about numbers. Sure maybe in 2004 we could have done better and there were different numbers in our own organisation. I have no shame in standing here and saying that. If it has hurt some of my whanau I apologise but that is exactly what has happened. 
Matua Pita said that no organisation is sitting over him. The irony is that the Maori Party members are caught in the same catch-22 situation we were in. They are four of the defining numbers that would make a difference in the vote for this bill. Even at this late stage I humbly ask them to reverse their decision. They have four of the defining votes. I tell members that I have never known any Maori to cut off access to the beach. Where I come from we control the land along the beach and irrespective of the legislation and the courts we will define and determine what happens there. But it is good that we are at this stage. It is good that we can bring finality. I could go on and on about the highest level of Maori unemployment in this country since the Second World War. I could go on and on about people not being able to feed their kids fill their cars up to go to the hospital and all of that “rubbish”—as people think it is. That is what the Deputy Prime Minister was suggesting: that we should modernise everything and drop the culture. I say to Bill English tell the Scots to stop playing the bagpipes. 
HONE HARAWIRA (Independent—Te Tai Tokerau) 
: 
 Tena tatou katoa e te Whare. “Te tino rangatiratanga ka ngaro i te ture nei. Te mana o nga tangata whenua ka ngaro i te ture nei.” Our sovereignty is lost under this law. Our authority as people of the land is lost under this law. Those words were spoken by a strong supporter of the Maori Party Dr Huirangi Waikerepuru when the hikoi arrived to oppose the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill. They represent the feelings of Maori throughout Aotearoa who are opposed to this racist bill which will become law when the Maori Party votes for it. 
This is a sad moment for Maoridom. It is the end of a long and hopeful but ultimately tragic journey that began when 50000 people marched to oppose Labour’s confiscation of our rights to the foreshore and seabed in 2004 and blossomed when the Maori Party was elected to win back those rights in 2005. Hopes were lifted by the review in 2009 but sadly will be betrayed in 2011 when the Maori Party votes against the people who put them in power and in support of the continued confiscation of Maori rights to the foreshore and seabed. 
Eighty-nine percent of Maoridom does not want this racist bill but still the Maori Party tells everyone that it is a Maori Party bill. Those members are pleased to stand in support of it even though Tariana Turia has said that if they were negotiating on what is fair just and moral then there would have been a very different outcome; even though when Te Ururoa Flavell was asked: “Who is running the timetable?” he said it was National when asked: “Who wrote the bill?” he said it was National and when asked: “Whose bill is this?” he said it was National’s; and even though Rahui Katene said they knew that the test the Court of Appeal put in place was far too high and that few would be able to meet it. 
So confused and contradictory are the comments of the Maori Party MPs whose votes will turn this racist bill into law that I struggle to understand why they would do it. But a friend explained it like this: “Isn’t it amazing how you can become so embroiled in a fight that you don’t even notice who you are fighting anymore? You become so defensive you stop hearing the other person’s argument even if it is reasonable. You switch off; you only hear the voices that agree with you. You know deep in your heart that you are wrong and in those moments when you have only yourself to answer to you even acknowledge that you might be wrong but you blindly carry on in your course of destruction because you are stubborn. It takes a huge amount of humility to back down when you have invested so much energy in the fight but unless you do find a way to gracefully acknowledge that you are wrong you continue to reap angst and disharmony and you alienate people that you care about. I think that is where the Maori Party is at. I hope they find the mana they need to step back refocus and see who the real enemy is.” 
I support the repeal of the 2004 Foreshore and Seabed Act. I support Moana Jackson’s proposal that we take that repeal and simply add to it a 2-year moratorium to give Maori the opportunity to come back with a better deal than this. 
In closing I take this opportunity to thank the Maori Party for raising this issue albeit it gave it up without winning tupuna title; the ministerial review panel for the excellent and insightful report; the Attorney-General for fronting hui although his viewpoint was never accepted; the Greens for their consistent support for the Maori view on this; the 50000 people who marched with us against injustice in 2004; and the 500 people who marched for us against injustice in 2011. 
But most of all I thank our Maori people for their courage in the face of the continued denial of their rights for the compassion that they display for others and for the deep and abiding love they have for this land we call Aotearoa—a love they share with other New Zealanders whom I know also care passionately about this land. But there is a special love that comes to Maori by being born of this land. They are descendants of a people for whom the takutai moana is and always will be a part of their very existence. Although others might say that they have given up on this fight I pledge to Maoridom that for me at least this fight will not end until Maori finally have tupuna title to the takutai moana that they truly deserve. 
Tu te Ao Maori tu te rangatiratanga tu motuhake tena tatou katoa. 
[ 
Long live Maoridom sovereignty and independence; greetings to us all. 
] 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) 
: 
 The third reading of the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill marks the end of more than 2 years of consultation and policy development on a matter that has troubled this nation for many years. Today this House will repeal the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004 and replace it with new legislation that recognises and protects the interests and rights of all New Zealanders to the common marine and coastal area. It will confirm the right of public access without charge to that area. It will protect the rights of coastal navigation port activities other infrastructure and access to minerals. And it develops a way in which Maori can seek to have their interests and rights protected on an equal basis. That recognition and protection will include recognition of mana tuku iho status for iwi and hapu to acknowledge ancestral connections with specific parts of the common marine and coastal area. It allows for the recognition of customary rights associated with the exercise of longstanding activities and it gives iwi hapu and whanau the right to seek customary title to specific parts of the common marine and coastal area to which they have had longstanding and continuing connections subject to the continuing right of access. 
It has been said at various times during the debate that the Government was rushing things or was not taking enough time. Indeed just a few minutes ago Hone Harawira was asking again for the bill to be delayed in favour of a long conversation. Well we have already had a long conversation. The ministerial review panel which recommended repeal of the 2004 Act was set up 2 years ago and reported in June 2009. The bill we debate today has been before the House for 6 months. One thing that has become very clear over those 6 months is that noise does not always equal principled opposition. But for all the noise what emerged during the debate of the Committee of the whole House was that there is consensus among nearly everyone in this House on the most important points—in particular the repeal of the 2004 Act; in particular the restoration of the right of iwi to seek customary title. 
There have been points of difference between the parties but I think those differences have narrowed as the debate has gone on. As I said we agreed that the right to seek recognition of customary title must be restored. Then there was the narrow issue of how we provide for that access to justice. The bill provides guidance for the courts based on the remarks of the Court of Appeal in the Ngati Apa case the experience of Commonwealth jurisdictions such as Canada and our shared understanding as New Zealanders of the importance of beach culture and manaakitanga. The alternative proposal would be to repeal the existing law and leave the courts to piece together the tests and awards of customary title from scratch. But that would probably take years to achieve and lead to uncertainty. 
We believe certainty is important. That is why codification of the tests and awards is necessary. Indeed that was the view of many submitters to the Maori Affairs Committee considering the bill. It was also the view of former Attorney-General Michael Cullen. In Labour’s extremely good submission to the review panel in 2009 he wrote that the goals of certainty and equity demanded that tests and awards should be codified in the legislation and I agree with Dr Cullen. On a number of occasions I have acknowledged Dr Cullen’s submission and thanked him for his very positive contribution to the debate. Today I record my thanks to him for his help. 
In all my consultation I never once met one iwi leader who wanted to stop the public from going on to any customary title area. This set of values about the marine and coastal area is shared by all of us and is expressed in the fact that Labour and the Greens would also legislate for free public access and the inalienability of customary title. 
Parliament created this problem in 2003-04 following the court ruling on the Ngati Apa case. It is incumbent on Parliament now to provide a solution and to put things right. We cannot sit by and shrug our shoulders because it may be a difficult task. It is very easy to sit on the sidelines and snipe as the Green Party did. The Green Party has not made one positive contribution to the debate. Third-rate sloganeering is not a contribution. I have some very friendly advice for the ACT Party members who have been schizophrenic on this issue not knowing whether to be tea partiers or classical liberals—Sarah Palin or Margaret Thatcher. Choose Margaret Thatcher! Choose classical liberalism! It is a much classier brand. 
In the end I think we have struck the right balance. I note that in the report last year of the UN special rapporteur James Anaya he wrote that the bill represents a notable effort to reverse some of the principal areas of concern of the 2004 Act. 
Today I pay tribute to the Maori Party for always holding firm to its principles. Working with my colleagues in the Maori Party on this issue has been the highlight of my time in Parliament. They have achieved repeal of the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004 and no one can take that away from them. I particularly mention the Hon Tariana Turia. She has shown quiet dignity and courage in support of her convictions. She does not seek the headlines. She does not need to rant to get her views across; rather she approaches issues fairly and with the gravity they demand. She is a great New Zealander and a class act. 
I acknowledge the leader of the United Future party Peter Dunne. He has taken a principled approach on this debate from 2003 onwards. He has been of great assistance to me as we worked to find a just solution. I thank David Parker Parekura Horomia Mita Ririnui Kelvin Davis and Shane Jones for their contributions during the Committee stage of the bill. I have great respect for those parliamentarians. We disagreed on a few key issues but I agree with David Parker that the debate on their part was devoid of hyperbole and rancour. It was a very positive contribution. That is why I am mildly disappointed with Shanes Jones’ somewhat resentful and waspish contribution this afternoon. Having said that however I congratulate Mr Jones on his outstanding amendment. It was so good that it was unanimously accepted by the Committee. Finally I acknowledge the hard work of the officials in the Ministry of Justice and the Parliamentary Counsel Office. I thank them for their outstanding efforts. 
Today we move to settle an issue that has troubled our nation for a long time but I am confident and I genuinely believe that this legislation recognises the interests of all New Zealanders in the common marine and coastal area. It rights a wrong that occurred in 2004. It represents a just solution to a difficult problem. I commend the bill to the House. 
A party vote was called for on the question that the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill be now read a third time. 
HONE HARAWIRA (Independent—Te Tai Tokerau) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Can you explain why you gave the Maori Party the opportunity to vote differently but not me? 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: According to the interpretation the member did not cast a vote. No vote was cast but a view was expressed. 
HONE HARAWIRA (Independent—Te Tai Tokerau) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. A vote was cast. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: This matter led to the recall of the Speaker during the Committee stage of the bill. He ruled very clearly that unless the interpretation was clear that a vote had been cast it would not be counted. I have ruled accordingly. 
Hon Members 
: Point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: That is the end of the matter. 
Hon JOHN CARTER (Minister of Civil Defence) 
: 
 I seek leave of the House to allow the member to recast his vote. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for the member to cast his vote. Is there any objection? There is no objection. I will ask Hone Harawira to cast his vote. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand National 58; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand Labour 39; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Bill read a third time. 
Waiata 
Financial Markets (Regulators and KiwiSaver) Bill 
Securities Trustees and Statutory Supervisors Bill 
Second Readings 
Debate resumed from 22 March. 
KATRINA SHANKS (National) 
: 
 It is my pleasure to take a call on the Financial Markets (Regulators and KiwiSaver) Bill and the Securities Trustees and Statutory Supervisors Bill. I am continuing my speech from Tuesday night when I was unfortunately the last speaker before the bell so I am the first one up this afternoon. 
I have to say it has been an honour to be in the House today to witness the passing of the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill. We have seen history happen today. 
Just to recap on what we are doing with this legislation it is about focusing on improving the integrity of our financial systems. The Government’s overriding focus in the commerce portfolio is to restore the confidence of mum and dad investors in our capital markets especially after the global financial crisis and the collapse of finance companies. 
This Government is focused on boosting growth and creating jobs. In fact these bills are just two in a series of bills that will try to boost confidence in our markets. We are serious about growing this economy. The issue is about getting some capital into New Zealand and allowing businesses to grow. It is much better to get New Zealanders to invest in New Zealand than invest overseas. It has been a slow gradual process because there is a lot of change. Change has come over the time of both Governments I have to say. Lianne Dalziel who now chairs the Commerce Committee was previously the Minister of Commerce. She started the process of reform. Under the current Minister of Commerce Simon Power that reform is continuing. This Government is now leaps and bounds ahead in getting that investor confidence back. 
I am taking just a short call to finish off my speech from Tuesday night. Thank you. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 I will follow my friend and colleague Katrina Shanks by repeating her acknowledgment of the work that a number of people have done on this legislation. The Minister of Commerce Simon Power has carried on the reform agenda in this area that was begun by Lianne Dalziel when Labour was in office. That there has been widespread support across the House for this level of reform is a matter the House can take some pleasure in and I think it is appropriate to acknowledge both Ms Dalziel and Mr Power in my opening remarks. 
I hope given the announcement that Mr Power will be departing from this place that we will not see a slackening off in this agenda because there is a lot more work to be done. A lot of reforms in the financial markets area need to be completed. I have tried to bring one of those necessary reforms to the House with the bill to regulate the activities of loan sharks the Credit Reforms (Responsible Lending) Bill. 
I will say just a few words about that bill at the outset because if we are to take the previous speaker at her word which we must do then everybody in the House should be serious about comprehensive financial markets reform. What we have achieved so far is to get some way along reforming if you like the middle band of the market—the finance companies. I see that Mr Boscawen is in the House. When he was on the Commerce Committee he said some fine words about the need for reform in this area and I hope that he will follow those words through now that he holds the warrant as Minister of Consumer Affairs. 
One of the areas that still badly needs reform particularly in these straitened economic times is the position of those at the lowest end of the market who have to go to fringe or holiday lenders in order to get credit from week to week because they just cannot make ends meet. This House had an opportunity last year to try to complete the suite of reforms at the lower end of the market but it did not do so. Members of the ACT Party and National chose not to regulate loan sharks fringe lenders and holiday lenders. 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: Shame. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL 
: That matter brings some shame on this House. If we are to see comprehensive reform in this area and look after all New Zealanders not just the so-called mum and dad investors—the middle-class investors who have not been well treated by the market and need to see proper protections—but also those at the lower end of the market then we urgently need to revisit the issue of fringe lenders. Both my colleagues and friends Carol Beaumont and Carmel Sepuloni will be bringing up measures by submitting them to the members’ bills ballot on a regular basis in order to ensure that this House does not forget the urgent need to also deal with that end of the market. If we are to legislate for all New Zealanders then we must do that. 
Previous speakers have said that the Labour Party supports both of these bills. I will make a couple of comments about the Securities Trustees and Statutory Supervisors Bill. I acknowledge the work that the Commerce Committee has done and also compliment the officials on their work. I know from my time on the Commerce Committee that the committee is advised by very competent officials and it is appropriate to acknowledge the assistance they have given. 
The Securities Trustees and Statutory Supervisors Bill tries to address a number of weaknesses that have been identified in our supervision regime for trustees and statutory supervisors. A licensing regime will be brought into place for those who supervise the issue of securities and for the statutory supervisors of those who are in charge of another vulnerable sector in our community: people who live in retirement villages. There will be amendments to a number of Acts such as the Retirement Villages Act the Securities Act and the Unit Trusts Act. This new regime will be administered by the Securities Commission. I see that under the provisions of the bill there is an intention that this supervisory role be taken over by the Financial Markets Authority once it is established. 
The bill follows on from the conclusions of both the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank which reported in 2004 on this general area and consultations that were subsequently undertaken by the Ministry of Economic Development in the Review of Financial Products and Providers in 2006. The fundamental finding at that time was that New Zealand places too much reliance on private supervision—basically the corporate trustees—and that there is no great accountability regime in our law for those people. 
The bill would remove the automatic right for the six appointed and approved trustees under statute to supervise debt issuers and some investment schemes and introduce a licensing regime for trustees as well. It will make it an offence to act as a trustee or a statutory supervisor without a licence so that a person who commits an offence will be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding $300000. It is a serious penalty regime. A number of provisions are designed to ensure that trustees statutory supervisors and unit trustees comply with their obligations and the enforcement mechanism be it the commission or the Financial Markets Authority can seek penalties and compensatory orders against anyone who fails to comply. Clearly a better accountability regime will be brought into place by this legislation. 
I refer to a speech that was given by Lianne Dalziel in August last year. She spoke about the improvements that we hoped to see across the market both by the enactment of this legislation and by bringing into being this comprehensive new regulator of the sector the Financial Markets Authority. This authority is to absorb the functions currently performed by the Securities Commission the Ministry of Economic Development’s national enforcement unit the Government Actuary and even the New Zealand Exchange as far as its market discipline functions are concerned. 
Lianne Dalziel said: “The Minister has said it”—the authority—“will have ‘grunt’ and I welcome that. We need a single-minded approach that says that the risk of getting caught is high and the consequences of conviction are severe.” She went on to say: “I am constantly affronted at the discount our criminal justice system appears to afford the white collar criminal over all other criminals even though the wealth they have destroyed makes the proceeds of house burglaries pale into insignificance by comparison. I think we should allow our courts to impose what I now call the Madoff sentence for the most egregious cases. And there are some people who should never be allowed to fundraise from the public ever again or to claim the protection of limited liability against creditors—and those are the people against whom fraud has been proven. There should be no second chances under these circumstances.” 
The select committee as I said did comprehensive work on this bill. It received and considered 18 submissions and heard eight oral submissions. It dealt with the issue of the inclusion of retirement village statutory supervisors. Obviously that recommendation met with some approval because the House is dealing with the two pieces of legislation in tandem. 
To conclude my short contribution I say that this is necessary regulation of a sector. That is why it is receiving support from across the House. It is not comprehensive regulation. There is still much work to do as I said particularly at the bottom end of the market where our most vulnerable people still are not properly protected. The previous speaker claimed that this legislation was part of some comprehensive economic plan. Frankly that is a risible claim. There is no such plan. This is sensible regulation that goes some of the way towards what is needed in our markets. For that reason and that reason alone it is supported by the Labour Party. 
Hon JOHN BOSCAWEN (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I intend to take only a very brief call to say two things. First of all the ACT Party will be supporting the Financial Markets (Regulators and KiwiSaver) Bill and the Securities Trustees and Statutory Supervisors Bill. As Mr Chauvel said this legislation has support across the House so the ACT Party will be voting for it. 
The second point I would like to make is to respond to the comments Mr Chauvel made. He referred to the fact that I had been a member of the Commerce Committee prior to being appointed Minister of Consumer Affairs and I would like to say to Mr Chauvel and others that as Minister of Consumer Affairs I have recently announced a major review of consumer law. Once my officials have that under their belt I will carry on and review the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act. I can assure Mr Chauvel that the intention is to commence the review he referred to. The focus has been on the review of consumer law over the last 9 months and that review will bring a lot of benefits to the House. I look forward to explaining to members of Parliament what those benefits are. 
I say to Mr Chauvel that I am very conscious of the damage that some loan sharks do in the community and I can assure him personally that that is the second thing I will be focusing on after the consumer law reform. 
STUART NASH (Labour) 
: 
 As my colleagues have alluded to all parties are supporting this legislation through the House for a number of reasons but the main one is that it is common-sense legislation. This is very good work undertaken by the Minister of Justice Simon Power which is simply a continuation of the work that Lianne Dalziel started. I am slightly concerned because as Simon Power mentioned a couple of weeks ago Simon Power has been the hardest-working National Cabinet Minister—in fact he is responsible for over 40 percent of the bills before the House—and he has decided to leave. I am not sure why; I can only speculate. I suspect that the reason he has decided to leave is that he is the only one doing any work on that side of the House. He is the only one with a little bit of a plan. Mind you Simon Power’s plan was to sell State assets. But when one takes away the man who brings 40 percent of the legislation to the House one is left with a bit of a vacuum in the National Government. One is certainly not left with any sort of plan to drive economic growth. 
I was interested to hear Katrina Shanks stand up and say that this bill is a part of an economic plan. I am sorry but this is not part of an economic plan. This is good common-sense legislation that we worked together on to help New Zealanders regain trust in the financial markets but it is not a plan for economic growth. 
We heard that the other reason why Mr Power is leaving is that Mr Joyce and Mr Power had an argument and Mr Joyce came out on top. It was about the leadership and I understand that Mr Key is going to leave soon. I see Mr Joyce in the front row. It is only one more step to the leader’s chair and he is there. When Simon Power leaves Mr Joyce comes in—but I digress. 
We are debating two bills together. We are talking about the Financial Markets (Regulators and KiwiSaver) Bill and we are also talking about the Securities Trustees and Statutory Supervisors Bill. Initially they were considered as single bills but they were brought to the House together. I think we all agree with that because the objective of these bills is similar. I will talk very briefly about each bill. 
The Financial Markets (Regulators and KiwiSaver) Bill establishes a Financial Markets Authority—or the FMA—and sets out wider enforcement and surveillance powers than are currently available to regulators. It boosts their power basically. It also makes changes to the regulation of registered exchanges and improves the regulation of KiwiSaver schemes. This is good for all New Zealanders. Well over a million New Zealanders are enrolled in KiwiSaver and it is up to us to ensure that they are well protected. KiwiSaver of course was an exceptionally good Labour-led Government scheme that was put in place and taken up by the vast majority of New Zealanders. As I mentioned Labour started the financial markets reform process and we are pleased that the Government has decided to continue with Labour’s good work. As I mentioned Lianne Dalziel set up the Capital Market Development Taskforce in 2008 and she did that so she could develop a blueprint and an action plan to develop New Zealand’s financial system. She saw what was going on and she knew something had to happen so that is what she did. 
As I mentioned we are very pleased that Simon Power has decided to act on the recommendations of the task force’s report one of which was to have a single market regulator. The Labour-led Government took a number of measures aimed at strengthening our financial markets and this process was accelerated of course by the global financial crisis and a spate of finance company collapses. 
I would not mind outlining some measures that the Labour-led Government took that led to this bill or were the genesis of this bill. Let me give members a couple of examples. One example is regulations giving trustee companies robust powers to supervise finance companies on behalf of investors. That does not really need much explanation. As we know about 40 finance companies collapsed and that took about $4 billion out of the pockets of good hard-working New Zealanders and set a hell of a lot of them backwards. In fact I have talked in the House about four or five times already about the numerous cases where that situation cut to the core to the extent that people committed suicide. This was an insidious process where men and women who were in charge of monitoring the governance of finance companies did not carry out their roles and the result was catastrophic. 
In other measures we allowed criminal prosecutions against finance companies that had misled investors to be funded from the Security Commission’s litigation fund and we are beginning to see this at the moment. Directors are in front of the courts now. Some of them have been tried and some of them have gone down. We cannot comment on that but I do not think anything can make up for or replace the losses suffered by Kiwis who have worked incredibly hard. But we put in place processes to ensure that New Zealanders can have a degree of confidence in the financial markets. 
We regulated financial advisers and financial service providers. Another point that is important is that before that legislation was brought in anyone could call themselves a financial adviser. A person could have done anything but still tout himself or herself as a financial adviser and if consumers did not know any better then they were open to abuse. As we know many were rorted and it was incredibly sad. 
A review of financial products and providers and financial intermediaries commenced in 2004-05 and this was done to improve the regulation of non-bank financial institutions financial products and financial advisers. We amended the Securities Act to strengthen rules around insider trading and market manipulation and we passed securities markets legislation that introduced a co-regulatory framework for supervising registered exchanges. Some of this stuff can get quite complicated—of that there is no doubt—and I will try not to get too complicated. But I think it is important that New Zealanders know that all members of this House understand that work needed to be done. People also need to know that when this happened—and we wish it had not happened of course—we all wished the regulations had been in place but they were not. What we need to do now is say to New Zealanders that they can have confidence in the financial markets because we have introduced legislation and we are working really hard to rebuild that trust. 
I will speak very briefly about the Securities Trustees and Statutory Supervisors Bill. The main aim of this bill is again to protect the interests of investors and enhance confidence in financial markets by requiring persons who wish to be appointed as trustees statutory supervisors and unit trustees to be capable of effectively performing the functions of trustees statutory supervisors and unit trustees. The aims of the bill are also to require trustees statutory supervisors and unit trustees to perform their functions effectively and to enable trustees statutory supervisors and unit trustees to be held accountable for any failure to perform their functions effectively. 
As members can see there is a lot of crossover between the two bills which is why the Minister suggested they be read together and it is why Labour agreed with that. But it is important because people need to know that we will ensure that anyone who acts outside the law or in an unscrupulous manner will be held to account. There is great concern still around the country that many who perpetrated the ills that resulted in finance company collapses have not been held to account—and I hope they will be. This bill also requires that the Securities Commission be notified by trustees or statutory supervisors when any issuer or supervisor gets into difficulty and it gives the Securities Commission enhanced power to intervene in those circumstances. 
So this is not the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff; hopefully this is a safeguard so that when someone does get into trouble they can hold up their hands and say there is an issue there. The experts can be brought in and they can save it. Again that is just another step to ensure that good hard-working New Zealanders who have saved for their retirement do not get rorted. This is all very important. The role of trustees and statutory supervisors is very important in ensuring that the interests of investors are properly protected from the unscrupulous the incompetent and the inept. The trustee’s role is basically to monitor the issuers of certain types of securities to ensure that the issuer is complying with the terms of its offer to investors as stated in the issue document or prospectus. 
I will make a couple of further points. Although this is very good legislation—as already mentioned it had its genesis in Labour policy and Labour actions—it is not a plan for economic growth. There is no plan for economic growth there yet that is what the people of New Zealand really want to see. They want to know when the Government is going to present something that they can grab hold of and say is a vision for the future. There is no vision. I commend this bill to the House. Thank you very much. 
Financial Markets (Regulators and KiwiSaver) Bill read a second time. 
Securities Trustees and Statutory Supervisors Bill read a second time. 
Sittings of the House 
JO GOODHEW (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 Given the progress that the House has made at this end of the week I seek leave for the House to now rise. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: Leave is sought for an early rising. Is there anyone opposed to that course of action? There appears not to be. Leave is granted. 
The House adjourned at 5.41 p.m.